lordjedi said:
Who says they can't? The problem with realistic physics is that it's realistic. A lot of times, what looks real doesn't look cool at all. Leave the realism for real life. If you want realistic physics, go watch 2001.
boba feta said:
How come they still can't get the 'physics' right?
How come they still can't get the 'physics' right?
Who says they can't? The problem with realistic physics is that it's realistic. A lot of times, what looks real doesn't look cool at all. Leave the realism for real life. If you want realistic physics, go watch 2001.
The thing is that they've advertised CGI to look real since it started. "Look how real we got this CGI thing!" "Look how real this CGI thing looks!" When they realized that people were opening thier eyes and, seeing how bad lots of CGI looked they changed thier tune and, said "Look how stylistic this CGI looks!" "This new CGI is so cool look at this!" Therefore, it's thier fault that were all argueing about wanting realistic CGI since, that's what they advertised in the first place!
Johnboy3434 said:
Considering how much he must be hurting for work, I don't doubt that. However, wouldn't the movies be stored in a raw, uncompressed form without any encryption? Wouldn't that be easy for computers to read, even far down the line?
Sluggo said:
It would be cheaper to buy Mark Hamill and have him act out scenes whenever you wanted to watch.
It would be cheaper to buy Mark Hamill and have him act out scenes whenever you wanted to watch.
Considering how much he must be hurting for work, I don't doubt that. However, wouldn't the movies be stored in a raw, uncompressed form without any encryption? Wouldn't that be easy for computers to read, even far down the line?
Depends on how computers advance down the line. If computers start reading data crystals(like in B5) or, something like that exclusively good luck watching something off your HDD.