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...
Leonardo wrote:Take your lips off my pipe!
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
Psychout wrote:Im not scared of a gender confused minibot!
Merc With A Mouth wrote:Who is Glyph and why is he so awesome?
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.
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
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 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!:-xIronhidensh wrote:ILM. No other effects studio is within light years of them.
trence5 wrote: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!:-xIronhidensh wrote:ILM. No other effects studio is within light years of them.
Leonardo wrote:Take your lips off my pipe!
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.
Return to Transformers Live Action Film Forum
Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], Ham-Man, Majestic-12 [Bot], MSN [Bot], Sabrblade, Transbot, triKlops, Yahoo [Bot]