I find it interesting that people see Money For Nothing as evidence of technical limitations of the era. It’s not. That blocky appearance and limited lighting

I find it interesting that people see Money For Nothing as evidence of technical limitations of the era. It’s not. That blocky appearance and limited lighting was deliberate comic aesthetic choice as a response to budget, not a result of technical limitations. CGI in 1985 was enormously more capable than that — take a look at the stained glass knight in Young Sherlock Holmes, or The Last Starfighter from 1984. Things certainly could have been rounded, sculpted etc.