Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

kjeevah wrote:

AbsumZer0 wrote:it's only fair to take into account that ILM did Van Helsing, The Mummy Returns, Eragon, and Lady in the Water among others.

I think it ultimately depends upon the budget, time constraints, and the director's ability to film scenes that can successfully incorporate cgi/puppetry/etc.

all that matters is budget. ILM is a ery large company with a range of teams of differing ability. while revenge of hte sith was being made, there was also (scorpion king / the mummy returns, cant remember which) being made at the same time. star wars had a huge budget therefore got the top class team, wheras the mummy film didnt, so got the **** team, theres no comparison in the standard of effects between the two, totally different leagues

Don't forget that ILM is a Lucasfilm company to begin with. Regardless of budget I expect the Star Wars films would have gotten the best of the best anyway simply because Lucas is the boss.

AbsumZer0 wrote:

kjeevah wrote:

AbsumZer0 wrote:it's only fair to take into account that ILM did Van Helsing, The Mummy Returns, Eragon, and Lady in the Water among others.

I think it ultimately depends upon the budget, time constraints, and the director's ability to film scenes that can successfully incorporate cgi/puppetry/etc.

all that matters is budget. ILM is a ery large company with a range of teams of differing ability. while revenge of hte sith was being made, there was also (scorpion king / the mummy returns, cant remember which) being made at the same time. star wars had a huge budget therefore got the top class team, wheras the mummy film didnt, so got the **** team, theres no comparison in the standard of effects between the two, totally different leagues

Don't forget that ILM is a Lucasfilm company to begin with. Regardless of budget I expect the Star Wars films would have gotten the best of the best anyway simply because Lucas is the boss.

I think they spread themselves too thin on the SW movies. Better to focus on less, but better effects - like Jurassic Park did.

Ironhidensh wrote:ILM. No other effects studio is within light years of them.

I take it you have seen these 3 li'l movies known as the Lord of the Rings trilogy huh. just messin' with you, but I'm sorry my friend, but Gollum gave Yoda, from Attack of the CLones, a hellified RUN FOR HIS MONEY!:-x

trence5 wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:ILM. No other effects studio is within light years of them.

I take it you have seen these 3 li'l movies known as the Lord of the Rings trilogy huh. just messin' with you, but I'm sorry my friend, but Gollum gave Yoda, from Attack of the CLones, a hellified RUN FOR HIS MONEY!:-x

No. As amazing as Gollum was, he still was sliced and diced by the little green lightsaber

Zuko wrote:After how horrible King Kong looked I will never ever pick Weta over ILM. ILM has this uncanny ability to make CG actually blend with real actors. Yoda in Episode III for example. I honestly forgot he wasn't actually there when he would be talking to Obi-Wan while hunkered over his cane. Golem on the other hand I could never connect with because he never really seemed to "fit" for lack of a better word.

I agree with everything you've said besides Golem. He's the best piece of CGI work that I've ever seen. He didn't seem like he was computer generated at all. He looked alot realer then Jar Jar Binks.

trence5 wrote:

Ironhidensh wrote:ILM. No other effects studio is within light years of them.

:shock: :shock: :-? :-? I take it you have seen these 3 li'l movies known as the Lord of the Rings trilogy huh. :lol: :lol: just messin' with you, but I'm sorry my friend, but Gollum gave Yoda, from Attack of the CLones, a hellified RUN FOR HIS MONEY!:-x

It's one thing to have a CGI mutant bite a dude's finger off. But having a better, but similar being have an epic lightsaber battle with a real person is a completely different ball game.

ILM > Weta

ganymede2010 wrote:I agree with everything you've said besides Golem. He's the best piece of CGI work that I've ever seen. He didn't seem like he was computer generated at all. He looked alot realer then Jar Jar Binks.

to you and the other person before you who said similar...

the reason that gollum looks more 'real' is because his animation, both facial and body, was motion-captured from a real person. yoda was animated by hand. in terms of actual coolours and lighting and physics and mesh detail and materials and all the rest of it, yoda is vastly better even though hes several years older.

AbsumZer0 wrote:Nitpicking of special effects is fair game and it fuels progress. The whole purpose of special effects is to aid in suspension of disbelief and when it does the opposite it only makes sense that people would nitpick. I don't mean Gollum, he seemed believable enough, but certain things like the bit in Return of the King where Legolas is climbing about and doing flips on the elephant creatures, that was bad.

The Harryhausen stop-motion scenes are still widely respected because at the time they were the pinnacle of the technique's capabilities. They were innovative. But progress has been made in the field to the extent that if it were used in an effects-heavy big-budget film today and were all jerky, people would complain. The same is true of CGI. The reason there are so many complaints about CGI is because advancement in the field is being made just as fast as newer, faster, computer processors are being made so when a big-budget major motion picture is released with CGI looking worse than 14 year-old Jurassic Park, people are going to gripe.

Okay, that's very true.

But I'm sure you've been around those exhausting people that insist that everything "done with computers" is automatically bad?

I swear I've had people groan out loud when I've said the new TF movie will make use of CG effects. People have actually suggested that people in costumes would be much more realistic.

CG is a four letter word these days. That's what I'm sick of.

3DBLASPHEMY wrote:Honestly Pirates is the best GFX piece ever. I am talking of both first and second one. It is completlly well finished and it is impossible to "catch" a failure.

Actually you can catch a really obvious failure.

At the end of Dead Man's Chest, when the Kraken is rising out of the water behind Jack, it looks all faded and washed out like old blue screen stuff used to. Inexcusable.

Dark Zarak wrote:But I'm sure you've been around those exhausting people that insist that everything "done with computers" is automatically bad?

I swear I've had people groan out loud when I've said the new TF movie will make use of CG effects. People have actually suggested that people in costumes would be much more realistic.

ARE YOU F()CK!NG KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!? You're jokin'.................. right ?

Dark Zarak wrote:CG is a four letter word these days. That's what I'm sick of.

AGREED. Everytime you hear some one say that you should show or remind them of effects look like (with the exception of Dragon Slayer ) before

Dark Zarak wrote:

3DBLASPHEMY wrote:Honestly Pirates is the best GFX piece ever. I am talking of both first and second one. It is completlly well finished and it is impossible to "catch" a failure.

Actually you can catch a really obvious failure.

At the end of Dead Man's Chest, when the Kraken is rising out of the water behind Jack, it looks all faded and washed out like old blue screen stuff used to. Inexcusable.

I never noticed that. But even so, Jones makes up for it.

My mother didn't believe it was CGI, she thought it was a guy in a suit. And I can't blame her.

Shadowman wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:

3DBLASPHEMY wrote:Honestly Pirates is the best GFX piece ever. I am talking of both first and second one. It is completlly well finished and it is impossible to "catch" a failure.

Actually you can catch a really obvious failure.

At the end of Dead Man's Chest, when the Kraken is rising out of the water behind Jack, it looks all faded and washed out like old blue screen stuff used to. Inexcusable.

I never noticed that. But even so, Jones makes up for it.

My mother didn't believe it was CGI, she thought it was a guy in a suit. And I can't blame her.

I was having the same problem to be honest. I still think they had the voice actor in a greenscreen suit with his face uncovered to allow for the expressions.

Zuko wrote:
I was having the same problem to be honest. I still think they had the voice actor in a greenscreen suit with his face uncovered to allow for the expressions.

http://www.billnighy.info/2006/07/19/fr ... ree-steps/

AbsumZer0 wrote:

Zuko wrote:
I was having the same problem to be honest. I still think they had the voice actor in a greenscreen suit with his face uncovered to allow for the expressions.

http://www.billnighy.info/2006/07/19/fr ... ree-steps/

Wow goes to show I sometimes get things right.

trence5 wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:I swear I've had people groan out loud when I've said the new TF movie will make use of CG effects. People have actually suggested that people in costumes would be much more realistic.

ARE YOU F()CK!NG KIDDING ME?!?!?!?!? You're jokin'.................. right ?

No I'm not kidding. This is the depth of pop-culture hatred in universities and my age group in general. This is the depth of groupthink and low IQ of the masses that can happen when a group of normally intelligent people get together.

These people think that anything made for monetary gain is less artistic and therefore less interesting. Everything has to be deep and profound and challenging, and anything made for the masses is not worth their time.

Since CGI can accomplish so much more than a model or puppet, they feel it cheapens the production by lowering the artistic standards. The thrill is gone because it was just "whipped up on a computer" whereas a model or a puppet is actually the result of physical labor and effort, which is more meaningful than looking real.

But these people don't realize the amount of brain-numbing effort that goes into the construction of these things. Staring at Maya 8.0 for the first time is like staring at God.

Yes you can ruin a production by overdoing the CGI. It is much easier to create BIG things with it, and there are a lot of movies out there that are just fat and nothing else. Yes you can rush something and have it look dumb.

Some people just need something to hate.

...including me.

to be fair though, maya is a hideous disaster of a train-wreck when it comes to usability and interface design!

Dark Zarak wrote:These people think that anything made for monetary gain is less artistic and therefore less interesting. Everything has to be deep and profound and challenging, and anything made for the masses is not worth their time.

Well, those people are stupid, moronic, and utterly irrelevant to the rest of humanity.

kjeevah wrote:to be fair though, maya is a hideous disaster of a train-wreck when it comes to usability and interface design!

Only if you're new to using it. The same can be said for any 3D modeling program though.

Ironhidensh wrote:

Dark Zarak wrote:These people think that anything made for monetary gain is less artistic and therefore less interesting. Everything has to be deep and profound and challenging, and anything made for the masses is not worth their time.

Well, those people are stupid, moronic, and utterly irrelevant to the rest of humanity.

That's what I always say about the masses, hench why I am here to look and laugh at them.
Ironhidensh, you are my favorite laughing stock








Kiddin' kiddin', don't kill me!

Zuko wrote:

AbsumZer0 wrote:

Zuko wrote:
I was having the same problem to be honest. I still think they had the voice actor in a greenscreen suit with his face uncovered to allow for the expressions.

http://www.billnighy.info/2006/07/19/fr ... ree-steps/

Wow goes to show I sometimes get things right.

Technically we were both right. It was Bill Nighy in a CGI suit.

Zuko wrote:

kjeevah wrote:to be fair though, maya is a hideous disaster of a train-wreck when it comes to usability and interface design!

Only if you're new to using it. The same can be said for any 3D modeling program though.

no, i'm a professional user-experience designer so i know all about interfaces and usability, and also i've used a variety of 3d programs, just trust me on this one

kjeevah wrote:

Zuko wrote:

kjeevah wrote:to be fair though, maya is a hideous disaster of a train-wreck when it comes to usability and interface design!

Only if you're new to using it. The same can be said for any 3D modeling program though.

no, i'm a professional user-experience designer so i know all about interfaces and usability, and also i've used a variety of 3d programs, just trust me on this one

Huh. Me as well. Solidworks, AutoCAD, Inventor, Rhino3D, 3DSMax, Blender, Lightwave, Maya, SoftImage. etc etc etc. Granted I'm not insanely experience with many of those but I found Maya to at least be easier than 3DSMax. Granted it's interface still sucks compared to the first three or four I put on that list.

Dark Zarak wrote:No I'm not kidding. This is the depth of pop-culture hatred in universities and my age group in general. This is the depth of groupthink and low IQ of the masses that can happen when a group of normally intelligent people get together.

These people think that anything made for monetary gain is less artistic and therefore less interesting. Everything has to be deep and profound and challenging, and anything made for the masses is not worth their time.

Since CGI can accomplish so much more than a model or puppet, they feel it cheapens the production by lowering the artistic standards. The thrill is gone because it was just "whipped up on a computer" whereas a model or a puppet is actually the result of physical labor and effort, which is more meaningful than looking real.

But these people don't realize the amount of brain-numbing effort that goes into the construction of these things. Staring at Maya 8.0 for the first time is like staring at God.

Yes you can ruin a production by overdoing the CGI. It is much easier to create BIG things with it, and there are a lot of movies out there that are just fat and nothing else. Yes you can rush something and have it look dumb.

Some people just need something to hate.

...including me.

While I don't share the sentiment, I think the anti-CGI backlash is to be expected considering the drift towards full greenscreen films and the way some directors have been sticking CGI everywhere like a blind man in an orgy. There are benefits and drawbacks to all special-effects techniques including CGI. CGI may look more real in some aspects than puppetry, animatronics, or suits, but in others it doesn't. When you need your human characters to make direct physical contact with it, for example.

I've seen Star Wars episodes 1-3 3 or 4 times each and, while admittedly impressive, they still look like Who Framed Roger Rabbit to me but in reverse, with humans in a high-tech ToonTown. There's this pop-out effect that never seems to go away. I think, if Lucas had integrated actual set pieces, models, animatronics, and costumes into the films they would have made the film more believable by helping to bridge the gap between the subtly unrealistic, over-polished green-screen effects. The first Jurassic Park used a mix of animatronics and puppetry along with CGI and even Pirates of the Caribbean uses real set pieces with CGI overlays for the Flying Dutchman.

AbsumZer0 wrote:I think the anti-CGI backlash is to be expected considering the drift towards full greenscreen films and the way some directors have been sticking CGI everywhere like a blind man in an orgy. There are benefits and drawbacks to all special-effects techniques including CGI. CGI may look more real in some aspects than puppetry, animatronics, or suits, but in others it doesn't. When you need your human characters to make direct physical contact with it, for example.

I've seen Star Wars episodes 1-3 3 or 4 times each and, while admittedly impressive, they still look like Who Framed Roger Rabbit to me but in reverse, with humans in a high-tech ToonTown. There's this pop-out effect that never seems to go away. I think, if Lucas had integrated actual set pieces, models, animatronics, and costumes into the films they would have made the film more believable by helping to bridge the gap between the subtly unrealistic, over-polished green-screen effects. The first Jurassic Park used a mix of animatronics and puppetry along with CGI and even Pirates of the Caribbean uses real set pieces with CGI overlays for the Flying Dutchman.

The best stuff uses everything at its disposal, whatever works the best for what it's doing. Everyone loves the Mos Eisley Cantina scene. But nobody loves the aliens in the newer films.

The Spiderman movies spring readily to mind as excellent use of CG. At least the second one, but the first had it's moments.

Whenever it's an all green screen flick, I just sit back and soak in the artistic visuals they managed to create. Is there a better way of doing it? Maybe. Sin City needed them. Will 300 need them? Or could everything in that movie be accomplished just by editing real photo plates? At least it will look cool. It's a stylistic choice.

kjeevah wrote:

Zuko wrote:

kjeevah wrote:to be fair though, maya is a hideous disaster of a train-wreck when it comes to usability and interface design!

Only if you're new to using it. The same can be said for any 3D modeling program though.

no, i'm a professional user-experience designer so i know all about interfaces and usability, and also i've used a variety of 3d programs, just trust me on this one

And I'm about to spend 70 grand to get a degree in it.

But it can do soooo much.

Glyph wrote:Overall, if we're talking about the entire package, I'd pick WETA. Why? Because their people really work to get inside the things they're designing and making. ILM have a tendency to spin out very similar-looking stuff over and again, presumably because they wrote the book on vehicle and robot FX and seem to rest on their laurels somewhat unless they have a project which really tests them. The recent final renders from the TF stuff, along with Blackout's pulse attack and general digital FX in the trailer, just *scream* ILM.

In pure FX terms, ILM obviously have far more experience with non-organic objects / creatures, while WETA built their reputation on scenery and creature effects. However, when making LotR, WETA had to make the kind of progress and break the kind of boundaries that ILM did when they first started out with Star Wars. Given the opportunity, I would trust WETA to push their capabilities and improve their effects work in order to tackle a huge sci-fi project, more than I would trust ILM to do the same.

Amen!!

Dark Zarak wrote:
And I'm about to spend 70 grand to get a degree in it.

But it can do soooo much.

yes you are right its an amazing piece of software, they just need to hire some interface designers to work on it thats all.

also..

70 grand!??!?!!? are you **** kidding me?!?!?! oh my god you need to move out of that rubbish country. in england it costs £1.5k (ie about $2.5k) a year fixed fee, no matter what university you go to, and unless you are rich your local education authority pays that for you! so my interactive media degree (which included some maya) cost me a grand total of...

£0

like i said too that is a fixed fee no matter what university you are at

seriously come over here as a foreign student, even foreign students who get no government funding at all only have to pay £10k/term, whether you are at a poopy 70s block place or oxford or cambridge! so you can do your degree a the best place in the country for $50k and get to take trips all around europe while you are doing it, for $50 for a return flight each time!