Looks are purely subjective, there’s no objectivity about it.
Well… No.
Yes I get the whole “personal taste” argument and while I agree that what you personally like is subjective, there is objective quality.This is obviously a drastic example/hypothetical, but let’s say two movies come out and they both have a scene of a teacher at their desk, an apple at the foreground and clearly the main focus.
One film has a real, nice, shiny looking apple, and the second film literally just has a red splotch that looks like it was put in there using Microsoft Paint, with the intent of it resembling an apple.One apple looks well on film, the other is a piece of shit.
You may think the second apple looks good personally, but that doesn’t mean it looks like a good apple in general.You’re comparing apples (haha get it) and oranges here. IMO good quality modeling shot on 35mm looks way better than crappy 1080p unimaginative CGI.
Well that’s, just like, your opinion, man.
I won’t touch the ship argument due to all the SE modifications that have improved them, but instead offer up a less “apples and oranges” comparison.
You cannot tell me that this:
http://dorksideoftheforce.com/files/2015/08/return-of-the-jedi-speeder-bike-race.jpg
Looks better than this:
http://www.angelfire.com/scifi/banthapodoo/Podrace.jpg
Both use film stock, both use a blend of green/bluescreen and practical effects.
And yeah I know, crappy links, but I’m on my phone.