Submit News Contact Us Translate Sign in Join

ILM Versus Weta, who do you think does it better?

Discuss anything and everything related to the Transformers Live Action Films franchise, which are directed by Michael Bay. Transformers 3 is scheduled to be released on July 1st, 2011. Check out our Live Action Film section here.

ILM Versus Weta, who do you think does it better?

Postby skywarp-2 » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:00 pm

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..
Last edited by skywarp-2 on Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image
"You Waste More energy with your mouth."
Check out My Deviant Art Page:
http://skywarp-2.deviantart.com/
Check out my new Custom Transformers G-1 CCG! Updated! 07/21/2009!!!!
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=56030
In the interests of keeping it clean, I will now only curse at you in Morse code: ..-. ..- -.-. -.- -.-- --- ..- that means "F-you!"
User avatar
skywarp-2
Faction Commander
Posts: 4198
News Credits: 5
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:57 am

Re: ILM Versus Weta, who do you think does it better?

Postby Rorigon » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:05 pm

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?
Rorigon
Micromaster
Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2006 4:28 pm

Postby skywarp-2 » Fri Feb 02, 2007 6:12 pm

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..
Image
"You Waste More energy with your mouth."
Check out My Deviant Art Page:
http://skywarp-2.deviantart.com/
Check out my new Custom Transformers G-1 CCG! Updated! 07/21/2009!!!!
viewtopic.php?f=27&t=56030
In the interests of keeping it clean, I will now only curse at you in Morse code: ..-. ..- -.-. -.- -.-- --- ..- that means "F-you!"
User avatar
skywarp-2
Faction Commander
Posts: 4198
News Credits: 5
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 11:57 am

Postby Ironhidensh » Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:14 pm

ILM. No other effects studio is within light years of them.
Image
Ironhidensh
Guardian Of Seibertron
Posts: 6731
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:14 pm

Postby the purifyer » Fri Feb 02, 2007 7:38 pm

I like Weta better (lame rhyme :P)
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.
the purifyer
Headmaster
Posts: 1017
News Credits: 5
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:33 pm

Postby TheMuffin » Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:27 am

Motto: "I still function!"
Weapon: Plasma Beam Rifle
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.
Image
User avatar
TheMuffin
Site Moderator
Posts: 11047
News Credits: 6
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 9:12 am
Location: Ohiooooooo
Strength: 4
Intelligence: 8
Speed: 3
Endurance: 7
Rank: 7
Courage: 6
Firepower: 8
Skill: 7

Postby derob » Sat Feb 03, 2007 1:28 am

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.
derob
Micromaster
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:06 am

Postby Milanion » Sat Feb 03, 2007 12:11 pm

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
Milanion
Brainmaster
Posts: 1477
News Credits: 4
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:35 am

Postby kjeevah » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:01 pm

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 :)
kjeevah
Minibot
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:08 pm

Postby Shadowman » Sun Feb 04, 2007 1:34 pm

Motto: "May God have mercy on my enemies, because I sure as hell won't."
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!
Sidekick= Saiya_Maximal
Steam Nickname: Big Chief Devil Hawk Fireball
Image
Shadowman's awesome site for cool people.
Shadowman's awesome comic for cool people.
"Falling is really just flying downward and out of control."
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
User avatar
Shadowman
God Of Transformers
Posts: 28981
News Credits: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 4:54 pm
Location: Look! A distraction!

Postby AbsumZer0 » Sun Feb 04, 2007 2:09 pm

Shadowman wrote: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!


I'm torn over King Kong. The creatures in that film were great but some of the effects were so blatantly obvious blue-screen I can't help but wonder if that was the intent. As if, perhaps, it was meant as an homage to the original but with cgi in place of stop-motion. If that was the case I can't really see faulting them for it any more than I could ILM for Sky Captain having the same 'obviousness'. If you're going to knock WETA for its less than impressive films I think 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.
AbsumZer0
Pretender
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:13 pm

Postby Matrix. » Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:42 pm

I'd actually be far more inclined to say that Yoda's CGI is far less believable than Gollums!

A lot of ILM's CGI can be very poorly rushed. Take the scene where they land on Curscant after the initial crash in Episode III, and Obi-Wan gets out of attending some meeting. That's terrible.
Image
Matrix.
Gestalt Team Leader
Posts: 969
News Credits: 1
Joined: Fri Sep 12, 2003 9:53 am

Postby Shadowman » Sun Feb 04, 2007 5:48 pm

Motto: "May God have mercy on my enemies, because I sure as hell won't."
AbsumZer0 wrote:
Shadowman wrote: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!


I'm torn over King Kong. The creatures in that film were great but some of the effects were so blatantly obvious blue-screen I can't help but wonder if that was the intent. As if, perhaps, it was meant as an homage to the original but with cgi in place of stop-motion. If that was the case I can't really see faulting them for it any more than I could ILM for Sky Captain having the same 'obviousness'. If you're going to knock WETA for its less than impressive films I think 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.


Van Helsing and The Mummy Returns rocked. I haven't seen Eragon or Lady in the Water, though.

Here I am, the only guy who likes 99% of the movies he sees. (:|
Sidekick= Saiya_Maximal
Steam Nickname: Big Chief Devil Hawk Fireball
Image
Shadowman's awesome site for cool people.
Shadowman's awesome comic for cool people.
"Falling is really just flying downward and out of control."
Wigglez wrote:Just remember. The sword is an extension of your arm. Use it as if you're going to karate chop someone with your really long sharp ass hand.
User avatar
Shadowman
God Of Transformers
Posts: 28981
News Credits: 2
Joined: Mon Nov 18, 2002 4:54 pm
Location: Look! A distraction!

Postby AbsumZer0 » Sun Feb 04, 2007 6:14 pm

Shadowman wrote:
AbsumZer0 wrote:
Shadowman wrote: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!


I'm torn over King Kong. The creatures in that film were great but some of the effects were so blatantly obvious blue-screen I can't help but wonder if that was the intent. As if, perhaps, it was meant as an homage to the original but with cgi in place of stop-motion. If that was the case I can't really see faulting them for it any more than I could ILM for Sky Captain having the same 'obviousness'. If you're going to knock WETA for its less than impressive films I think 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.


Van Helsing and The Mummy Returns rocked. I haven't seen Eragon or Lady in the Water, though.

Here I am, the only guy who likes 99% of the movies he sees. (:|


While I can't honestly say I enjoyed either of those movies I was referring to the quality of the special effects, not the film as a whole. Take the opening sequence in Vel Helsing with Hyde, for example. It just looked off. It wasn't Sci-fi Channel Special or the Nasonex bee bad, but it was far from their best work. Chunks of The Mummy Returns were the same way, and I'm not just referring to the lousy Scorpion King cgi they were forced to throw together at the last minute.

If I were talking about the films as a whole I'd have to admit that I still haven't managed to sit through the entirety of Peter Jackson's King Kong. It just seems to drag on forever and Jack Black feels so horribly miscast I get the urge to throat-punch him every time he comes on-screen.
AbsumZer0
Pretender
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:13 pm

Postby Nightracer GT » Sun Feb 04, 2007 8:19 pm

Motto: "If it feels so good, it can't be wrong."
Weapon: Whiplash Cutlass
I loved the CG in King Kong. WETA is awesome in that department. Too bad the only really good movie they've worked on that I know of is the Lord of the Rings trilogy. King Kong and I Robot both looked great, I Robot less so, but they were both disappointing otherwise.

Star Wars was always awesome, until an organic alien was on screen. The cook at the diner in episode 2 looked particularly bad, but the droid factory and the ships were so bad ass.

Yeah, you can tell Gollum is CG, but so what? He was so good.

I'm tired off people nitpicking CG. Like models and puppets didn't have little subtleties either. Matte lines and jerky movement were a staple of all those Harrihousen monsters, and they were awesome.

Who cares if it doesn't look perfect? People never complained before.
Buy my RiD toys! They're awesome, I promise!!!!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/180910929578?ss ... 1555.l2649
User avatar
Nightracer GT
Faction Commander
Posts: 4156
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2002 6:48 am
Strength: 7
Intelligence: 9
Speed: 6
Endurance: 8
Rank: 5
Courage: 9
Firepower: 9
Skill: 8

Postby AbsumZer0 » Sun Feb 04, 2007 9:21 pm

Dark Zarak wrote:
Star Wars was always awesome, until an organic alien was on screen. The cook at the diner in episode 2 looked particularly bad, but the droid factory and the ships were so bad ass.

Yeah, you can tell Gollum is CG, but so what? He was so good.

I'm tired off people nitpicking CG. Like models and puppets didn't have little subtleties either. Matte lines and jerky movement were a staple of all those Harrihousen monsters, and they were awesome.

Who cares if it doesn't look perfect? People never complained before.


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.
AbsumZer0
Pretender
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:13 pm

Postby derob » Mon Feb 05, 2007 4:17 am

realworld vehicles in cgi's = ILM ( i have yet to see WETA's work on this matter)
derob
Micromaster
Posts: 61
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 9:06 am

Postby Glyph » Mon Feb 05, 2007 5:35 am

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.
Psychout wrote:Im not scared of a gender confused minibot! :P
Merc With A Mouth wrote:Who is Glyph and why is he so awesome?
User avatar
Glyph
Posts: 4595
News Credits: 4
Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 1:15 pm

Postby 3DBLASPHEMY » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:01 am

I think it is like a rece.

First time we saw Golum everybody said Weta had won the race. Right now, with Jones from Pirates, I think ILM has the adventage. 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.

I love LOTR but I have to say that this films are not so well finished as the movies done by ILM.

That´s just my opinion guys!


JJ
3DBLASPHEMY
Mini-Con
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:50 am

Postby kjeevah » Mon Feb 05, 2007 11:59 am

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
kjeevah
Minibot
Posts: 159
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2006 12:08 pm

Postby AbsumZer0 » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:13 pm

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
Pretender
Posts: 780
Joined: Sun Jun 11, 2006 9:13 pm

Postby Milanion » Mon Feb 05, 2007 7:27 pm

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.
Milanion
Brainmaster
Posts: 1477
News Credits: 4
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:35 am

Postby trence5 » Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:02 pm

Motto: "I GOT BETTER THINGS TO DO TONIGHT THAN DIE!"
Weapon: Photon Eliminator Rifle
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
User avatar
trence5
Targetmaster
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 7:31 pm
Location: San Antonio
Strength: 7
Intelligence: 8
Speed: 4
Endurance: 7
Rank: 3
Courage: 6
Firepower: 7
Skill: 5

Postby Ironhidensh » Tue Feb 06, 2007 2:52 pm

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


No. As amazing as Gollum was, he still was sliced and diced by the little green lightsaber
Image
Ironhidensh
Guardian Of Seibertron
Posts: 6731
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 9:14 pm

Postby ganymede2010 » Sun Feb 11, 2007 10:46 am

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.
ganymede2010
Mini-Con
Posts: 37
Joined: Tue Aug 29, 2006 12:39 pm

Next

Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum

Transformers Podcast: Twincast / Podcast #104 - Wrath of Con
Twincast / Podcast #104:
"Wrath of Con"
MP3 · iTunes · RSS · View · Discuss · Ask
Posted: Sunday, November 2nd, 2014