Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Ok I saw that part 5 of the Don Murphy interview, and the question was raised about the company doing the bot designs and special effects...

So I thought this would be a good....HEALTHY...Discussion..(NO Bay Bashing, Please)about who would have been better at doing the spfx? ILM.. or Weta??

On that note, I think that judging from past movies I have seen, Weta does a good job of tight CGI..and modelling..On the other hand ILM does have the whole Star Wars Experience licked.. and thats pretty amazing..


My only reason I'm pushed more twards WETA doing this movie better is because ILM did Star Wars, and most of those guys who are there have that mindset with designing aspects.. and it shows in these movie bots and their looks..The bug-like faces, the bodies, and mass part shifing during transformations...ummmm tooo much Genosha..and General Grevious...too much droid decas..and ect..


I think Weta may have, given the opportunity, would have given the movie bots a more traditional feel, or could have done the bodies similar, yet would have stuck with a more human face...


Still i like ILM.. But I've become more fond of Weta's style over the years.. I just think they are more open minded in their design processes..they bring in outside experts in the field or genre they are working on for technical and artistic advice.. see Lord of the Rings production DVD Extras..

skywarp-2 wrote:My only reason I'm pushed more twards WETA doing this movie better is because ILM did Star Wars, and most of those guys who are there have that mindset with designing aspects.. and it shows in these movie bots and their looks..The bug-like faces...ummmm tooo much Genosha..and General Grevious...

I thought it was Hasbro/Bay & co. that came up with the designs? Or did they just approve them?

I don't really think hasbro and Bay could design all those movie bots, they probably had a room full of ILM staff artists, and thy brought out old pics of transformers and said, here is what we want...now go and make me believe that these bots are real, but most importantly.. that they are "alien"..

So those same artists from ILM, went and drafted images of what they thought was alien, pulling ideas from all the transformers cartoons, toys and what have you that they liked.. or could play around with and create a new look for a character.."Star Scream"... Ape+jet+bug = alien.. cool new look!!! (I'm being sarcastic)


So micheal Bay,Steven and Hasbro..all looked at the designs.. and probably voted on what they liked best.. then said make it in CGI so I can see what it would be like on the big screen.. and Bam!! we have what we have today..


BUT that's just my speculation..it could have been different..

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

I like Weta better (lame rhyme )
Just like their style more than ILM's. ie concept work on films like EVA LAM and their work on LOTR.
But that's just personal preference.

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.

as far as i know, there are separate studios for concept design and another one for CGI.

Id vote for ILM because it has more "realism". Weta most of the time have this special atmosphere in the scenes (sumthin like filterd, afternoon orange atmosphere or a bit foggy in) in order to blend. While ILM sorta like blends with the ussual movie camera thing. Sorry cant elaborate since i am no film techie. Its like comparing jurrasic park dinosaurs to kingkong's dino scenes. Both of which are cool but i would prefer ILM since i like the realtime experience. another recent example would be the Tripod(war of the worlds) that crashed to a building in boston. Lets not focus on starwars when it comes to ILM.
..this is just me

btw, aside from good in blending with actors, ILM is also good in blending with realtime surroundings. But we/I have yet to see a WETA work done on a real surrounding... LOTR and kong's used simulated ones.

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.

Bingo Bongo Bango

weta really aren't that great. their CGI on lord of the rings was pretty sub-par - however what LOTR did fantastically well was mix up the effects, so for example the hobbits would be computer-composited one shot, then kids the next, then shot from a forced-perspective angle the next, etc etc, so you never got too used to seeing one thing, which is a pretty effective way to hide the holes

Let's see, ILM, which did Star Wars, which had consistenly kick ass CGI for the past thirty years, or King Kong, which did not.

ILM FTW!