"#this obsession with Accuracy is fun and all but when it comes to the appearance of characters who were played by real actors#it's just creepy and weird" i've wondered about that and maybe they intend their audience to suspend disbelief and pretend that these new shows were made at the same time as the original series? thinking about how janky and puppet-like they made the grogu cgi, like something from the 1980s workshop
They're definitely trying to do that - create a seamless continuity with the OT and completely immerse the viewer into the illusion. But while the old school / analog vibe of the special effects works wonderfully with Grogu (and creatures / set design in general), they're doing the opposite with Luke, and no matter how state-of-the-art the CGI is, the result is uncanny (other than vaguely morbid and unethical, because it's not an inanimate prop that they're trying to replicate accurately, it's the younger self of a real, still living and breathing person. That might be tolerable if Old!Luke were the main character, and Young!Luke just existed in flashbacks with a valid purpose or something. But Mark Hamill as he looks now is useless to them, yet they're going to any lengths trying to replicate every pore and hair of his 30-something self, because that's the Luke that sells, huh?)
the irony is that in doing so they've written themselves in a corner because this technique can be sustainable for short scenes but certainly not for an entire movie or 10-episodes show, and now that the fans got a taste of accurate-looking OT-era Luke Skywalker, it's even more unlikely that they will be okay with a recast. Yet recasting is the only viable option to create a new story organically developed around Luke and with Luke as protagonist. You need a spontaneous, nuanced, real performance by a real actor who can move and act freely, not an agonizing CGI process for every single frame Luke is in, that still looks goofy and uncanny when you look a little closer.
