You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Weta vs. ILM

Who is better?

Weta Digital53%[ 35 ]
Industrial Light & Magic47%[ 31 ]

Total Votes : 66

Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 12:05am

Post 1 of 100

JoelM

Force: 560 | Joined: 7th Jun 2004 | Posts: 349

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Weta Digital
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
I, Robot
King Kong

Industrial Light & Magic
Star Wars Episode I-VI
Minority Report
Pirates of the Caribbean

Only a few of the films the Weta and ILM have worked on are listed.

Last edited Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 12:40am; edited 2 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 12:07am

Post 2 of 100

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

ILM has done allot more than that, but I think Gollum is the best thing I have ever seen concerning special effects. word
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 12:18am

Post 3 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I agree that Gollum is possibly the best CGI in a movie so far but ILM is the original SFX company, WETA probably wouldn't evenbe around if it wasn't for ILM.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 12:30am

Post 4 of 100

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I must admit that I think the Effects for LOTR were far better than the ones in The Star Wars prequels. and gollum is the best cg creation ever.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 12:43am

Post 5 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Pfff, forget Star Wars:


*This* is the reason ILM is better than WETA
I don't need to say any more but 1993 damnit!
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 12:45am

Post 6 of 100

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

two words - dark and rain
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 12:47am

Post 7 of 100

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Rawree wrote:


I don't need to say any more but 1993 damnit!

No, no you DON'T.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 12:48am

Post 8 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

evman101 wrote:

two words - dark and rain
How does that make it any worse/easier to composite?
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 1:02am

Post 9 of 100

Deepcoiler

Force: 435 | Joined: 18th Jun 2004 | Posts: 541

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Who did the CGI in the Day After Tomorrow? That was nice too.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 1:07am

Post 10 of 100

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

if you can't see it too clearly, you are less prone to find faults in it. Rain and darkness make it hard to see clearly.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 1:22am

Post 11 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

On the contrary, rain makes that sequence all the more impressive. However, darkness does help with this stuff.

I don't really see the point of this 'vs' competition, they're both amazing companies, technicians and artists.

If you really want to break it down, then ILM probably have the edge simply because they've been around for much, much longer and have pioneered...well, just about everything.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 1:36am

Post 12 of 100

JoelM

Force: 560 | Joined: 7th Jun 2004 | Posts: 349

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

I don't really see the point of this 'vs' competition, they're both amazing companies, technicians and artists.
Yea, I meant vs. as in a comparison of the two, not a competition. smile
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 2:07am

Post 13 of 100

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ILM was the first, and the best, although you do have to give Weta props for Lotr.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 2:26am

Post 14 of 100

jstow222

Force: 970 | Joined: 28th Oct 2002 | Posts: 1146

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Im gonna have to say Weta because gollum was so sweet and yoda was awful.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 2:33am

Post 15 of 100

NickF

Force: 2726 | Joined: 4th Jun 2004 | Posts: 933

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

evman101 wrote:

two words - dark and rain
wow...an independant australian filmmaker made a movie called 'reign in darkness' for $50,000AUD and the DVD of it can be bought from amazon.com i think.

have you seen it evman? or is it just a coincidence? smile


¡!ILM all tha way!¡
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 3:01am

Post 16 of 100

xbreaka

Force: 490 | Joined: 8th Jul 2004 | Posts: 525

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

starship troopers must i say more?
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 3:04am

Post 17 of 100

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

yeah you probably should
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 3:13am

Post 18 of 100

jstow222

Force: 970 | Joined: 28th Oct 2002 | Posts: 1146

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

yes, please do say more.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 3:39am

Post 19 of 100

Ryan

Force: 1190 | Joined: 14th Feb 2004 | Posts: 407

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ILM also did Terminator 2 which was one of the first movies to have CG effects.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 5:15am

Post 20 of 100

averagejoe

Force: 3592 | Joined: 31st Mar 2001 | Posts: 710

VisionLab User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXpreset Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Dont forget the Abyss suedo-pod(is that what it was?), ILM was the only place that could do it.

WETA would not exist. It is argueable that the LOTR films as they stand would not exist were it not for ILMs intial inovations.

Let us not forget that the technology end of ILM developed one of the first NLEs it was called Film Droid I think. They also were the FIRST to composite a completely digital effect into a film.

Also do not forget that the R&D guys that worked with ILM INVENTED the Pixar computer. Then Lucas sold the rights and hardware off to what later became Pixar Studios. I mean the list goes on and on. The whole idea of MASSIVE probably would not have happened with out ILM pushing the digital envelope since the 70's.

What I am getting at is there is no comparison really. Maybe WETA has pushed things to the next level but they are building on a firm, tried and true foundation that ILM started.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 5:52am

Post 21 of 100

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

according to ryan T2 was one of the first movies to use CG...

Cantaclaro shakes his head and walks away.

Just because one helped "found" the other doesn't mean that the "founder" is better. Maybe I'm wrong but ROTK was the greatest CG excursion of all time, and until ILM puts out something that tops that WETA is the current leader. I would say that the student has snatched the pebble from the masters hand, and is commencing with a ceremonious ass kicking.

If this debate is based on shear volume of amazing works ILM wins hands down. But if it is based on the best CG currently in a motion picture WETA makes ILM eat its own pebble.

But everyone must remember that Jackson and Lucas are great friends, so much so that Jackson appeared on the Lucas tribute documentary in the Starwars Trilogy Collection DVD. I think they both better watch their backs because there are some companies gaining a lot of steam and getting ready to make that final competitive push. I would say that this is an amazing time to be a CG Artist.

Canta unsure
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 6:02am

Post 22 of 100

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

couldn't have put it better/agreed more canta
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 9:37am

Post 23 of 100

Redhawksrymmer

Force: 18442 | Joined: 19th Aug 2002 | Posts: 2620

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 3 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

Gollum is the best CG creature so far, but ILM is just as good as Weta considering they have done a lot more movies with different genres.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 10:39am

Post 24 of 100

Mantra

Force: 1888 | Joined: 25th Nov 2002 | Posts: 551

EffectsLab Lite User MacOS User

Gold Member

ILM has ruled the waves, quality wise, for a long time but I believe that Weta has the current edge in this area. In my opinion Weta seems to have a better quality control in their work, maybe because they don't (or haven't yet) spread themselves as thin as ILM by doing alot of projects at one time.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 10:50am

Post 25 of 100

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Weta are amazingly good at CG but I don't think they are quite up to the best that ILM can do. Also ILM have the best design/concepts team in the world.

Where Weta do score in my book is quality control (just like Mantra said). In Star Wars EP2 some of the effects were only pretty good (yoda at the start of the film and some of the backgrounds) and others were fantastic (the digital double of Obi Wan when fighting Jago was amazing) - this seemed to make the entire film harder to believe in as you start looking for the good and bad effects (I'm sure the nasty script didn't help either).

Weta seem to be able to keep their effects at a constantly high level where you can really get in to the film without thinking about the effects anymore.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 1:27pm

Post 26 of 100

TommyB

Force: 190 | Joined: 25th Nov 2004 | Posts: 666

Member

Many films contain effects from both companies.
I, Robot used both of them for different scenes throughout the film.

I really don't think you can say either one is 'better'
I'm sure if ILM had done LOTR, they would have made a Gollum just as good too.
Posted: Tue, 4th Jan 2005, 1:50pm

Post 27 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I think one of the reasons Lord of the Rings looked better than some ILM projects is because PJ and Richard Taylor were good friends before the project meaning there would be good communtication and they'd want to to well. Even in Star Wars though when the director owns the FX studio, shooting was going on, for some of the time, in Australia whilst the draft FX were being done in America so communication seems harder. Also if you think about it, this was WETAs first (hopefully of many) projects - they had to make it look as good as they possibly sould or else they would just be another FX company (The same kind of scenario could be applied to JP, the FX look good still today because they really had to push themselves to prove CGI can work in movies).
Also from what I can tell, WETA have so far mainly followed what others have done (Comnpositing fully CG characters: Gollum - Trex
(An important character as CG: Gollum - Yoda)
whilst ILM always seems to try and push CGI as far as it'll go (The droid factory chase). It seems that they prefer to show that these things can be done rather than making the old techniques look better.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 3:55am

Post 28 of 100

CX3

Force: 3137 | Joined: 1st Apr 2003 | Posts: 2527

EffectsLab Lite User VideoWrap User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I thoguth Tron was the 1st film with intergrated computer animation (1982). But theres also this movie called Looker which had a model of a full human in '81 but from what I heard it was just layers of effects or something, im not too sure on that.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 4:41am

Post 29 of 100

xbreaka

Force: 490 | Joined: 8th Jul 2004 | Posts: 525

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

yep tron was the first but the first movie to use alot of cgi was t2, the movie ppl consider to be the cgi launching pad even tho its not would be jurassic park.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 9:04am

Post 30 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

There were lots of movies to use CGI before T2. Last Starfighter, Young Sherlock Holmes, Star Trek, The Abyss etc. The Abyss made people really start to pay attention, then T2 sealed the deal. And then came Jurassic Park.

One of the appendices in the AlamDV3 manual will cover some of this history. smile
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 1:49pm

Post 31 of 100

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

Tarn wrote:



One of the appendices in the AlamDV3 manual will cover some of this history. smile
I hope you have an in-depth analysis of The Last Starfighter because that movie RULED
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 7:27pm

Post 32 of 100

Vampiricyouthv

Force: 0 | Joined: 19th Dec 2004 | Posts: 72

Member

Actually, The Black Hole (1979) was the very, very first... It used some very basic CG Grids and Text effects.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 9:39pm

Post 33 of 100

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

AHERM!

Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 10:31pm

Post 34 of 100

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ILM was amazing when they didn't really have cg. NOw they haven't done anything THAT special. WETA's work on LOTR was awesome and they didn't use CG for everything, which I like.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 10:33pm

Post 35 of 100

xbreaka

Force: 490 | Joined: 8th Jul 2004 | Posts: 525

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ILM wins simply because of there track record, WETA has done one big sfx film and ppl are comparing them to ILM which has done so many more.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 10:33pm

Post 36 of 100

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Quantity isn't everything.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 10:42pm

Post 37 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

But it does mean that they've made a much more significant contribution to the Industry.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 10:42pm

Post 38 of 100

xbreaka

Force: 490 | Joined: 8th Jul 2004 | Posts: 525

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

you cant become the "shit" if youve only done one big film, theoretically WETA may never work on a good film again but ilm has about 100 under its belt
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 10:47pm

Post 39 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

All I can say is, wasit and see what SW III looks like, then we can judge.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 10:52pm

Post 40 of 100

xbreaka

Force: 490 | Joined: 8th Jul 2004 | Posts: 525

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

WETA hasnt proven to be a consistant company whereas ILM always does a good job on the films they do you cant call WETA great cus they did good work on one film. I can name a ton of films that did great on a film but sucked thereafter.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 10:58pm

Post 41 of 100

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

WETA is working on Chronicles of Narnia. Probably a huge FX film. And for voting on best, even if they have done one, it was the best I have seen. Nothing yet has topped it.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 11:02pm

Post 42 of 100

NoClue

Force: 828 | Joined: 31st Aug 2003 | Posts: 279

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Waser wrote:

I hope you have an in-depth analysis of The Last Starfighter because that movie RULED
Movie was cool. I remember reading the book (which is better) as a kid (yes, that was a LONG time ago) and thinking "this would make a great film". It was years before I found out they'd actually made it into a film.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 11:03pm

Post 43 of 100

xbreaka

Force: 490 | Joined: 8th Jul 2004 | Posts: 525

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

WETA is working on Chronicles of Narnia. Probably a huge FX film. And for voting on best, even if they have done one, it was the best I have seen. Nothing yet has topped it.
thats debateable
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 11:06pm

Post 44 of 100

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

What is debatable?

They ARE working on Chronicles. FACT

LOTR is the best visually? I guess that's an opinion, but give me one scene that tops the best scene in LOTR. And you can't, CAN'T say that they have only worked on one big fx project. I would say more like 6, the LOTR films, Extended editions, are twice as long as most films ILM worked on, and they did 3 of them.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 11:16pm

Post 45 of 100

Joshua Davies

Force: 25400 | Joined: 21st Mar 2001 | Posts: 3029

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

FXhome Team Member

Erm, Weta have worked on loads of films... Not just Lord Of The Rings.

I, Robot. Van Helsing. Contact. The Frighteners.

They are also working on King Kong which I expect will be amazing.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 11:19pm

Post 46 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Even with "Narnia" under their belt, WETA will have only shown (fantastic or not) skill in one Genre. ILM have covered all kinds of different effects: Dinosaurs, Spaceships, CG doubles, Robots etc etc.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 11:36pm

Post 47 of 100

Z28Jerry

Force: 700 | Joined: 15th Jun 2004 | Posts: 141

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Yup. ILM has been involved with certain movies that some people don't even think of as "effects" movies. The movies that ILM has done that suck (visually speaking) are not really ILM's fault, but the directing force trying to put 10 pounds of turds in a 5 pund back is to blame.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 11:37pm

Post 48 of 100

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm saying when xbreaka said "1 major FX project" or what ever. I know they worked on more films, who here wouldn't as it is listed in the first post of the topic.
Posted: Thu, 6th Jan 2005, 11:57pm

Post 49 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Lots of incorrect comments here.

As schwar has pointed out, WETA has worked on loads of stuff. As well as what he listed, they also worked on Master & Commander, which has superb effects.

serpent wrote:

ILM was amazing when they didn't really have cg. NOw they haven't done anything THAT special. WETA's work on LOTR was awesome and they didn't use CG for everything, which I like
Don't believe the hype.

ILM still use all sorts of techniques, just like WETA. You do realise that a fair few miniatures were used in episode 2, yes? The gladiatorial arena on the insect planet, for example, was a miniature.

This kneejerk reaction against CG is absurd, especially when it's not even accurate.

Last edited Fri, 7th Jan 2005, 1:35am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2005, 1:27am

Post 50 of 100

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Actually, I didn't know that, about Episode 2. I thought most of it ws CG, based on the special features. I love the use of miniatures and what not, I love what ILM does, and I loved what they did back during the original STar Wars Trilogy. And Rawree, I say I, Robot shows off a great deal more of FX than just Fantasy. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE ILM, they are amazing, and they started it all, but the work on the LOTR trilogy astounds me beyond belief. When I saw the first trailer I thought there was no way they could possibly accomplish it. (I wasn't into movie making back then.)
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2005, 1:37am

Post 51 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Another tidbit that has intrigued me recently (but I don't know how true it is, so take with a pinch of salt for now) is that ILM are using extensive miniatures for spaceship stuff in ep3, to bring the look back into line with ep4.

People moan about how clean eps 1 & 2 look, compared to the 'lived in' universe of Star Wars, but I think they're somewhat missing the point. It's about the fall from a high society, so you have to start clean in order to end up dirty...
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2005, 1:51am

Post 52 of 100

AndrewtheActorMan

Force: 1859 | Joined: 31st May 2003 | Posts: 1477

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

YES!

I love the models in the original series better than those CG ships.

Andrew biggrin
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2005, 1:59am

Post 53 of 100

Sollthar

Force: 13360 | Joined: 30th Oct 2001 | Posts: 6094

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User MacOS User

SuperUser

I don't really care who is "better". Both have their stronger and their weaker days. But at the end of the day, they both rule. wink
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2005, 2:07am

Post 54 of 100

cantaclaro

Force: 2036 | Joined: 24th Oct 2001 | Posts: 875

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

People moan about how clean eps 1 & 2 look, compared to the 'lived in' universe of Star Wars, but I think they're somewhat missing the point. It's about the fall from a high society, so you have to start clean in order to end up dirty...
Yeah man I completely agree, the "used future" was one of the things that separated the originals from all other sci-fi. I'm sure that when you have so much chaos going on, like in Episodes 4-6, cleanliness isn't a super high priority. For a great example something that brings more flaw to the arguments of EP1,2 being too clean, just look at the Corellian Corvette (the opening vessel in EP 4) it was as clean as a whistle. I just think that the light side has a higher standard for hygiene than the darks.
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2005, 3:02am

Post 55 of 100

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Most of the time people think they can do everything with CG and it comes out to be a bad, fake looking render. Thats why i was mad when i heard Georgie fixed some things on the original Star Wars. He completley replaced the puppet Jabba the Hut with a fake looking CG one! I am not happy with the bad CG taking over Star Wars. unsure
Posted: Fri, 7th Jan 2005, 7:50am

Post 56 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

timmyd wrote:

Most of the time people think they can do everything with CG and it comes out to be a bad, fake looking render. Thats why i was mad when i heard Georgie fixed some things on the original Star Wars. He completley replaced the puppet Jabba the Hut with a fake looking CG one! I am not happy with the bad CG taking over Star Wars. unsure
When did he do that?

Oh, and you did notice that the puppet Jabba in Jedi looks really fake as well, yes? The puppet might be definately there, but the performance from it is pretty rubbish. The CG version might not look 100% real, but the performance is so much better. Same goes for digital Yoda. When it comes to these fantastical creatures, they're never going to look totally real due to their very nature, so the next most important thing is performance.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 12:24am

Post 57 of 100

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

He did that for the Trilogy DVDs.

Last edited Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 8:38pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 12:30am

Post 58 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Which scene?
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 2:00am

Post 59 of 100

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

timmyd wrote:

Most of the time people think they can do everything with CG and it comes out to be a bad, fake looking render. Thats why i was mad when i heard Georgie fixed some things on the original Star Wars. He completley replaced the puppet Jabba the Hut with a fake looking CG one! I am not happy with the bad CG taking over Star Wars. unsure
He didn't really replace a puppet Jabba with a CG one in the Original Trilogy - he put back in a deleted scene (where he replaced the stand-in with the CG one) and he left the puppet in Return of the Jedi. And Tarn is right - the performance of the CG Jabba is better than that of the puppet, especially on the DVD release....
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 2:29am

Post 60 of 100

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Which scene?
The scene where Han Solo is in the docking bay talking with Jabba. They are talking about the deal with Boba Fett.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 2:42am

Post 61 of 100

pzgamer825

Force: 140 | Joined: 2nd Jan 2005 | Posts: 194

Windows User

Member

It's scene 24, "Jabba the Hut".

I voted ILM. Weta is good and all, but I haven't seen enough yet to give them a good comparison to ILM. I do think though, in the future they could surpass ILM.

pzgamer825
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 4:11am

Post 62 of 100

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

anyone who doubts WETA should watch the special features on the ROTK extended edition DVD... They were down to about a month left and had about as many shots to finish as were in the first and second movie combined. One guy said "We were 3 weeks away, and someone asked me when we were going to start working on the eagles... I went... what eagles?" lol. They worked so hard for so long, like, some of them didn't even sleep. They were this rushed, and the effects still looked spectacular.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 12:16pm

Post 63 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

timmyd wrote:

Tarn wrote:

Which scene?
The scene where Han Solo is in the docking bay talking with Jabba. They are talking about the deal with Boba Fett.
That scene has never had the puppet Jabba, because doing so would have been impossible. The puppet Jabba can't move. That scene only ever saw the light of day because CG made it possible. It wasn't done for the DVD, it was done for the 1997 rereleases, then vastly improved for the DVDs.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 6:43pm

Post 64 of 100

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

That could be it, seeing as the 1997 version is the only version I've ever seen aside from the new DVDs.

Last edited Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 8:39pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 6:48pm

Post 65 of 100

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't know what you're smoking... wink

The one in the 97 release sucked. It was possibly the worst CG i've ever seen. The one in the DVDs is far better.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 6:49pm

Post 66 of 100

Steeb

Force: 1650 | Joined: 14th Nov 2004 | Posts: 217

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

timmyd wrote:

Alright Tarn, i get what youre saying. But the original CG model looked better than the current one.
If you have both a VHS version and the DVD version, go back and compare it. Along with noticing that the conversation between Jabba and Han was actually about Greedo, not Boba Fett, you will also notice that the textures and overall look of Jabba were vastly improved over the theatrical/VHS release.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 7:02pm

Post 67 of 100

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

ALRIGHT!

YOU ALL WIN!

But the Jabba on the DVD version was slightly greenish.
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 7:18pm

Post 68 of 100

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Hey WETA digital people: Check this out:

http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/the_chronicles_of_narnia.html
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 7:31pm

Post 69 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

timmyd wrote:

ALRIGHT!
But the Jabba on the DVD version was slightly greenish.
And...
Posted: Sat, 8th Jan 2005, 7:35pm

Post 70 of 100

Waser

Force: 4731 | Joined: 7th Sep 2003 | Posts: 3111

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

SuperUser

I pretty much crapped my pants when that minataur costume (COSTUME) roared. Costumes and animatronics> CG monsters and Characters
Posted: Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 2:36pm

Post 71 of 100

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Comparing ILM and WETA is very, very tuff but I think I'm gonna have to go with ILM. King Kong was amazing and I don't think in that film there was much more that could have been achieved or done better but I also think ILM may have done some bigger things. This picture is entirely CG and by ILM.
I think that when it comes to CG characters there about the same. Yoda, Kong and Gollum where all amazing. they where also able to achieve extreme close-ups on all of them.

I'd say ILM is ahead...but just by a little.



P.S. I dunno how long this thread has been around, but I just had to comment on it. wink
Posted: Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 2:39pm

Post 72 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

The problem with this debate from the start is that to compare ILM and WETA you really need to compare like for like, otherwise too many random factors come in. You can compare Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, but the filmmaking styles involved are so different that it makes comparing the effects somewhat tricky.

What we really want is for them both to work on the same thing and see who can do it best. Get ILM to remake Kong's effects and WETA to redo Revenge of the Sith. wink
Posted: Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 2:45pm

Post 73 of 100

NickF

Force: 2726 | Joined: 4th Jun 2004 | Posts: 933

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

The last post was by Waser on the 8th January 2005.
Congrats on bringing up a 2 year old thread! razz
Posted: Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 2:48pm

Post 74 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Odd, I'm sure I remember taking part in this thread more recently. smile I get the feeling there was something very, very similar late in 2006 as well.

I thought Narnia came out far later than early 2005, yet Waser mentions it......conspiracy!
Posted: Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 4:30pm

Post 75 of 100

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

What we really want is for them both to work on the same thing and see who can do it best. Get ILM to remake Kong's effects and WETA to redo Revenge of the Sith. wink
That would be really cool. smile
Posted: Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 8:37pm

Post 76 of 100

TimmyD

Force: 2646 | Joined: 18th Feb 2004 | Posts: 2507

EffectsLab Lite User FXpreset Maker Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Two years ago? I remember this being more recent...

Jesus, by looking at my posts, this is DEFINATELY two years old.
Posted: Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 8:52pm

Post 77 of 100

NickF

Force: 2726 | Joined: 4th Jun 2004 | Posts: 933

EffectsLab Pro User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Time flies when you're having fun...

And with FXhome by our sides its always a party!
Posted: Fri, 16th Feb 2007, 8:55pm

Post 78 of 100

jmax

Force: 260 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 671

MacOS User

Member

Yeah, if this were made today Digital Domain has caught up on the two so it would probably be considered in the same category. Especially after Transformers is released. Is it unanimous that ILM's Davy Jones has passed the advancedness of Weta's Golemn? Or does King Kong keep Weta in the mix.....
Posted: Sat, 17th Feb 2007, 5:43am

Post 79 of 100

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

^ not quite, but its getting there.
Posted: Sat, 17th Feb 2007, 7:03am

Post 80 of 100

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ILM all the way.
Posted: Wed, 28th Mar 2007, 12:17am

Post 81 of 100

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I'm starting to go back on my vote; ILM and WETA are almost on exactly the same level. When comparing them it (in some ways) comes down to Yoda vs. Kong. Here's some comparison shots where you can really take a good look at them:








Both of these charecters are amazing but I'm especially impressed with Kong in shots like this:

Gnome326 wrote:

^ not quite, but its getting there.
I say, absolutely.
Posted: Wed, 28th Mar 2007, 12:53am

Post 82 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

In all honesty the only real difference you're likely to see (especially now-a-days) is between different movies, not between different companies. Both use near identical gear (obviously apart from the customisations and any in-house stuff but there's likely to be an equivalent) and are both able to get staff of a similar caliber - pre-LOTR ILM was the more well known by far and would unoubtedly had their pick of the staff.

However I still maintain that the T-rex in terms of realism surpasses a hell of a lot of stuff churned out by both the companies today; I was pretty disappointed with a fair few shots from both Ep3 and Kong.
Posted: Wed, 28th Mar 2007, 1:15am

Post 83 of 100

DavidLittlefield

Force: 1905 | Joined: 10th Oct 2006 | Posts: 469

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

jmax wrote:

Is it unanimous that ILM's Davy Jones has passed the advancedness
The Monkees have gotten involved in special effects? They must be going through a rough patch... I noticed they hadn't come out with a good album since, hmm, early 70's? smile
Posted: Wed, 28th Mar 2007, 3:20am

Post 84 of 100

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

ILM without a doubt.
Posted: Wed, 28th Mar 2007, 4:20am

Post 85 of 100

Plainly

Force: 1537 | Joined: 27th Dec 2006 | Posts: 767

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Hmm... This is hard. One one hand, LotR's Gollum was very good, and King Kong was great. However, I think I'd have to go with PotC, for there is absolutely no competition with Davy Jones.
Posted: Thu, 29th Mar 2007, 12:39am

Post 86 of 100

jmax

Force: 260 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 671

MacOS User

Member

David Littlefeild wrote:

I noticed they hadn't come out with a good album since, hmm, early 70's?
Even then they did a lot of covers. "Day Dream Believer" was one of the better pop songs of the era though.
Posted: Thu, 29th Mar 2007, 4:31am

Post 87 of 100

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

compare...



Posted: Thu, 29th Mar 2007, 8:11am

Post 88 of 100

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Those both look pretty good to me, but it seems a little unfair to compare Gollum, who was last worked on in 2003, with Squidman, who was created in 2006.

The various fishmen in Dead Man's Chest were fairly astounding, particularly in stills. I was convinced that they were mostly prosthetics, until I read some behind-the-scenes stuff.

Oddly, some of the other effect in that movie didn't seem quite as good - like the kraken, for example.
Posted: Thu, 29th Mar 2007, 11:13am

Post 89 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Apart from Davey Jones himself, who looked fantasic pretty much all the time) a lot of the mutant crew seemed a little fake in a few of shots (surprisingly in the night shots which is where Gollum always seemed most realistic). Having said that on the whole they look extremely convincing and it may just be an issue of suspension of disbelief rather than quality of the work.
Posted: Thu, 29th Mar 2007, 12:06pm

Post 90 of 100

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I think on of the resons Davy Jones seems
more impressive than Gollum is because Gollum was designed to have human skin but Davy Jones's skin actually has more texture than real human skin because he's not human. I think the water on him also adds to the effect.

Tarn wrote:

Oddly, some of the other effect in that movie didn't seem quite as good - like the kraken, for example.
I thought the Kraken looked 100% real myself.
Posted: Thu, 29th Mar 2007, 1:52pm

Post 91 of 100

Christofer Matthias

Force: 20 | Joined: 13th Jun 2005 | Posts: 154

Member

I think ILM is good, don't get me wrong...but I'm definitely siding with Wetta on this one. Partially because Wetta did LotR witch makes me immediately bias smile and mostly because I think that ILM was getting...well...lazy before LotR came out and Wetta forced them to up their game if they wanted to stay in.

But like I said. . .I'm bias wink
Posted: Thu, 29th Mar 2007, 10:56pm

Post 92 of 100

Evman

Force: 4382 | Joined: 25th Jan 2004 | Posts: 3609

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Tarn wrote:

Those both look pretty good to me, but it seems a little unfair to compare Gollum, who was last worked on in 2003, with Squidman, who was created in 2006.
I think the fact that that image of Gollum (which looks like a TT shot, which would make it 2002 shot) holds up to the 2006 squiddude is a testament to how awesome a creation Gollum really is. I personally think Gollum looks better in that comparison, but in all fairness I am biased heavily towards LOTR and biased heavily away from POTC.
Posted: Sat, 31st Mar 2007, 1:49am

Post 93 of 100

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I don't see why everyone is assuming Gollum is the main charecter to respreset WETA because I think Kong is better.
Posted: Sat, 31st Mar 2007, 6:27am

Post 94 of 100

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Gollum is a made-up creature, with nothing to really directly model him from (well, perhaps a human, but still), whereas creatures like Dinosaurs or, your example, Kong, have references right from scratch they can model him after. Like, I dunno....a gorilla. It's movement and shaping is already known, it doesn't have to be thought-up.

Since Squiddy and Gollum both seemed like original and astounding creations (as in, not normally modeled by most people), it's only right to compare similar likes such as them. Kong looked great, no doubt about that. The scaling on him seemed to change, ever so gradually though, and that bugged me to death.
Posted: Sat, 31st Mar 2007, 12:04pm

Post 95 of 100

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I suppose your right about Gollum and 'Squiddy' being comparable, I just don't think when people of WETA I don’t think Gollum should be the first thing to com into their minds.
As for Kong’s size changed, well, I didn’t notice it. Maybe he looks smaller when he gets to New York because of the scale of everything there. In the original King Kong, they made a larger version of Kong when he was in NY so he'd still look menacing.
Posted: Sat, 31st Mar 2007, 2:36pm

Post 96 of 100

jmax

Force: 260 | Joined: 17th May 2006 | Posts: 671

MacOS User

Member

I always thought of it as a subtle way to show Kong getting smaller. Wierd parallell here, but in the movie Sandlot, "the Beast" gets increasingly smaller as people realize its weaknesses and humaness. It loses some of its power in the eyes of men, and is eventually defeated by men. Assuming you saw Kong steadily decreasing in size throughout Jackson's film (as I did save a few anomalies); then I thought that was what the scaling was supposed to subtly imply.
Posted: Sun, 1st Apr 2007, 5:34am

Post 97 of 100

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

jmax wrote:

I always thought of it as a subtle way to show Kong getting smaller. Wierd parallell here, but in the movie Sandlot, "the Beast" gets increasingly smaller as people realize its weaknesses and humaness. It loses some of its power in the eyes of men, and is eventually defeated by men. Assuming you saw Kong steadily decreasing in size throughout Jackson's film (as I did save a few anomalies); then I thought that was what the scaling was supposed to subtly imply.
But, and I guess this works for Kong too a little, the Beast in 'The Sandlot' was mythologically described and shown at first, and slowly became more realistic until it was the real thing, whereas Kong is considered real, not myth, almost the entire time. I can't take frames out of my mind right now, but definitely the running through NY streets seemed ill-proportioned, very different and much smaller than in the Jungle. Also, when they chloroform his proportions in-general and scaling seem to change from shot to shot. I'm not saying it's easy to size something fake into a shot for each shot in each scene, but with pros it shouldn't look like they guessed "about what size he would be" in some shots.
Posted: Sun, 1st Apr 2007, 3:16pm

Post 98 of 100

Rawree

Force: 3250 | Joined: 27th Jun 2002 | Posts: 1925

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:



Since Squiddy and Gollum both seemed like original and astounding creations (as in, not normally modeled by most people), it's only right to compare similar likes such as them. Kong looked great, no doubt about that. The scaling on him seemed to change, ever so gradually though, and that bugged me to death.
People model fantasy creatures far more than everyday creatures. Why bother trying to create a photoreal sheep when you could take a photo of one? There's no challenge in fooling someone's mind into thinking they really are looking at a picture of a real sheep but there is when fooling their mind into believing they're seeing a real dragon. Plus it's much more stimulating for the imagination to create wierd and wonderful things. Anyhow, Kong, Gollum and Jones would have all been modelled as if they were real creatures with the same quality of references, the only difference with Gollum and Jones is that they would use models and pictures rather than models and photos.

I imagine the scale issue is because he goes from his natural environment to an huge city of massive buildings (it would either have been an actual result of the buildings being so much bigger than him and so appearing to make him smaller or an artistic decision to make him appear smaller to show that he's the 'king' on skull island and much less than that in NY)

Coming up next which is better an apple or a walrus (the answer is ILM).
Posted: Sun, 1st Apr 2007, 3:37pm

Post 99 of 100

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Kong does look surisingly small by the end, but i'd say its just an optical illusion because of all the tall buildings. If you look at how big his hands (paws?) are compared to Anne, they are the same size when he is carrying her in the jungle as when he carries her in nyc.

About comparing Davy Jones to Gollem, remember that they actually had an actor on set for each shot with davy jones, and they added the squidy stuff over the actors face. While an actor was on set acting as Gollem while rehearsing the Gollem shots, when actually filming he was not there; the actors were immagining him. I'd say thats a much bigger acomplishment than just adding the squid effects over an actor who is already there. The whole fish crew were actually rather dissapointing. They didn't seem to move naturally, it had the "3D animation look". Compare those to the dozens of CG orcs, whose movement was completely convinsing and who looked completely real.
Posted: Mon, 2nd Apr 2007, 3:34pm

Post 100 of 100

Jabooza

Force: 2743 | Joined: 21st Jul 2006 | Posts: 1446

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I think they motion captured the actor on-set for Davy Jones but then added a complete 3D character over him, not just squid effects.