The Stig said:
While that may have been true in the past, CGI has advanced enough that it has almost entirely eclipsed model work.
To paraphrase Valeris, It has succeeded model work, not replaced it. That's more a matter of economics than anything else, except in the case of creatures, where I guess they figure cg is an easier sell than high quality Henson-style work.
I'm not dismissing its use; I'm just saying use it for what it does best (flexibility in angles, to-infinity shots, enhancing physical models), and don't pretend that a close flyby of the CG ENT in INS or NEM looks anywhere near as convincing in scale and texture as the majority of shots in TMP, done decades (and in just as much a rush or morseo) earlier.
Just for the sake of comparison, look at a shot of the E-E from the rear, just before the bad guys blow a hole in the windshield in NEM; the windows behind and under the bridge area look like fuzzy mailing label blobs. By way of comparison, if you look at the close rear shot of the E kicking into impulse after leaving dock in TMP, you can see something in there that looks like it belongs (same thing is true at end of credits on TNG, where they tracked some 2d animation inside the lounge, showing how a variety of conventional techniques can be mixed convincingly.)
You may be able to make comparisons that serve a different point of view, and that's fine; but when I THINK about these shows or watch them again, I find myself leaning forward in anticipation some times, and flinching in anticipation other times. More often than not, the flinching comes from a MIS-use of CG (or, to be fair, simple stupidity, like blue uniforms in front of a bluescreen in TMP.)
), I'd have thought "backwards designing" a new Enterprise from the STMP refit Enterprise would've been a good idea.
