>>86482011>As for the acting, they still need direction. They need to know what they're reacting to and where. The more the director can inform the actors imagination the better the performance will be, the better the movie will be. Film making is first and foremost a collaborative process.Yeah I get that but it's not any different to stage acting where you're clearly working with four props, an unconvincing backdrop and standing under a dozen lights staring out at an audience while pretending to be the king of Denmark talking to a ghost and your costars are standing just outside the stage door having a timed smoke before they're needed again.
It's acting. You can either do it or you can't. If you can and you choose not to and the director chooses not to make you, that's still on you as much as him - as you say, collaborative process.
>Did they have displacement or normal maps back then? Yes.
My recollection is that there's a fair amount of finished CGI on the deleted scenes (that is, the ones that were deleted from the theatrical cut, which may have been restored to the home video cut you're watching). When they went back for "reshoots" on this, they got another $50m - taking the budget up to $200m - but it was very late on, when it would have been extremely expensive just to buy a priority spot at the render farm. The technology existed - they just managed it poorly.
>>86482069>No elaborate space station with cool infrastructure.Compare the ISS to literally any other station we've ever put up as a species, past or present. It's fucking mind-blowing that it's the size it is with the limitations we face. And they managed to put a Star Wars window on it.
