>Hollywood is coming to agree with you. The new SW film was made more
>like the original: lots of models and practical effects rather than
>CGI.

What I'm talking about above doesn't necessarily preclude CG, though; it's mostly about the design rather than the actual realization. A starship realized primarily digitally can have a similar underlying design philosophy, and indeed nowadays many are coming to do so. And by "there are real-life things under them," I didn't mean real as opposed to digital, I meant real as in "the prop is based on something that was originally made with the intent that it be used for something, not just designed and fabricated from scratch." Again, it's theoretically possible that there could be digital "props" designed along similar lines, with an underlying structuret that is a digital representation of some real object. Less likely than with the details on starships, admittedly, and I do see what you're getting at, but it's not quite directly connected to what I was talking about.

That said, it's kind of darkly amusing to me that what used to be a hallmark of low-budget expediency is now a high-priced, somewhat self-righteous Craft Movement. It's a little like how in the 19th century, only rich people could afford to be fat, and in the 21st, only rich people can afford to be thin. :)

--G.
-><-
Benjamin D. Hutchins, Co-Founder, Editor-in-Chief, & Forum Mod
Eyrie Productions, Unlimited http://www.eyrie-productions.com/
zgryphon at that email service Google has
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.