Anyway, pointless distractions aside (sorry! ), it saddens me to see CGI get a bad rap these days.
Yes, in the past it has been misused and it was probably pushed through the entertainment biz a good 5 years before technology was properly ready for it (but then there's the old circular argument of...would it get better unless it was used more...etc etc) but at the end of the day the Sky is the limit with CGI and these days it can do everything model shots can do and then so much more.
I know people have attachments to the model shots of the past but that's mainly for nostalgic reasons rather than technical.
It should never completely smash up the canvas and replace the painting but using it to bring us an episode more in line with the writers original intentions before budgets and technology limitations compromised it.
I'm just beyond tired now of the CGI bad/models good blinkered arguments, sometimes it comes off like Statler and Waldorf complaining that the local shopping centre used to be fields in their day.
Both are just tools for the artists involved, both can be used effectively and both can be misused, so enough with the entrenched "it's CGI so I must hate it" positioning (or vice versa) and lets try to be a bit more open minded please?
If TNG-R (or TOS-R for that matter) had an effects budget equivalent to Avatar
, then I might see a case being made for replacing the existing model work with CGI. But after watching TOS-R it seems unlikely they can do convincing work on a shoestring budget.
I'd rather have the original model work instead of cheap CGI.