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 shit team, theres no comparison in the standard of effects between the two, totally different leagues

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 shit 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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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