thecolorsblend wrote:
...I think I can forgo all the CG creatures.
Bandersnatch wrote:
...I have never understood why "Dex" in AOTC had to be a cross between a rooster and Ernest Borgnine. Why not just get Ernest Borgnine?...
Because he's DEAD, you insensitive, lowlife, prick! I kidd, I kidd...

Yeah, that was the very first thought that went through my head when I read this BS "so, why fuck around with a CG character if that one item it will cut 30% of your ENTIRE PRODUCTION BUDGET?!".
I get it, they wanted to push the limits of what CG performance could do with Jar-Jar. Great, mission accomplished, technically he's a success and ILM knows it can do digital actors and stuntmen - move on.
He didn't narrative need to be digital, neither did Dex, or Gollum, or all the clones. Grievous probably did need to be, but how many Grievous' do you need? If they're talking about needing to find ways to get the budget down by half, that's the lion's share right there.
thecolorsblend wrote:
why did Chewie have to be a dude in a suit? Why not just find a really tall, strong-looking son of a bitch and just cast him as a human character?
He didn't, but he's more interesting to look at. Your argument doesn't really hold up here though because, let's say a Chewie costs you $100k to produce as a costume.
That's the production cost for that character for the run of the show - it's not like you need to pay an animator to key Chewie, then have effects run hair simulation and eat up render cycles, then get your comp department to integrate him in the frame every time you need Chewie to appear in a shot. It's exotic, and cost-effective.