You don’t need “scientific fact” to prove that a real tree looks more real than a cartoon one.
Similarly, you don’t need “scientific fact” to tell that the speeder chase in ROTJ looked crap when it came out and looks crap to this day. Just because something has a nostalgic value to you it doesn’t make it better.Ok honestly. How do you say something that is created entirely digital looks more ‘real’ compared to something with actual props and real people?? Plus the nostalgia argument is a bit invalid as well. If most of us were arguing this for the sake of nostalgia, we’d all agree that the matte lines in the original films are better than without them, a big fat lie if I ever heard one. Im huge supporter of the OUT but I can compromise and say dome things in the SE’s are better (Luke’s speeder, matte line removal, some CGI battle shots). So no the nostalgia factor doesnt work here. A big reason why a lot of fans prefer practical effects over digital effects is because theyre physical objects that in many cases sell the realism of the object more than digital. For instance, I will take puppet Yoda over CG Yoda ANYDAY! Yes the CG Yoda had more interactiveness and movement but we know which version looked ‘real’.
Because it is possible for CG objects and environments to more accurately replicate the real world than physical props.
I’m not saying all the prequels always accomplished this, but there are a few instances here and there where the CGI effects were more convincing than some practical ones from the OT.
I’ll be the first to say most of the PT effects are extremely dated, but that doesn’t mean every single one of them is bad now.