Whimsical idea...but

[Gazmog]

...which effects company, in your opinion, would have done a better job with the Star Wars prequels?

WETA or ILM?

I know what you're thinking: "why another lame thread?" But given the success WETA Workshop/Digital has enjoyed in recent years...I thought it would make for a interesting and refreshing thread.

You're free to voice your eye-rolling frustration by not posting.

 

[The Josh]

It would have been cool to see what Weta could do with the SW universe but ILM did a pretty good job.

 

[Gazmog]

I can only imagine what lengths Richard Taylor and his crew at WETA Workshop would have gone to with all those Bigatures and the props!!! My God, it would have given the Star Wars universe a more 'real, tangible, OT feel' to it for sure.

 

[Mini-Rock]

Not even close. WETA has done a great job on what they've done so far, but they haven't even come close to the level of ILM. On small screens, it is harder to tell a difference, but on my 55", and my buddies 100", you can really see how much better ILM effects are over WETA. One things for sure, though, WETA will only get better.

 

[The Josh]

Well, that's why I think Weta would have made an interesting replacement for ILM. They wouldn't have done so much blue/green screen stuff and maybe we would have less of the actors trying to visualize things which you can see. I think that would have improved how the acting felt a lot.

 

[EVILFACE]

ILM by a long ways. The bossman always gets exactly what he wants with his own company. Yea you can pick some things here and there, but the same can be said on Weta as well. Lots of weird fake lookings scenes in LOTR and KK.

 

[LOTRFan]

Not even close. WETA has done a great job on what they've done so far, but they haven't even come close to the level of ILM. On small screens, it is harder to tell a difference, but on my 55", and my buddies 100", you can really see how much better ILM effects are over WETA. One things for sure, though, WETA will only get better.

Really? Hmm, that isn't something I could imagine anyone saying esp after some really noticeable flaws in their work. Notably the Clones without their helmets, that would certainly stick out on the larger screens, and the overall "haze" that seems to plague many of the shots, and to me at least almost gives the films a video game like appearance.

That said the CG work in Kong was not at all flawless, notably the Bronto chase.

I prefer the theory behind Weta's work however, and think that for overall realism a miniature ought to be preferred over complete blue/green screen.

 

[Gazmog]

The bossman always gets exactly what he wants with his own company.

Which bossman? Lucas or Jackson?

 

[Gunner73]

Not even close. WETA has done a great job on what they've done so far, but they haven't even come close to the level of ILM.

Weta done a pretty good job on Gollum dont you think? I'd say Gollum was the best piece of CG I've ever seen. I think ILM and Weta are both amazing and each has its strengths and weaknesses.

I think ILM like to say "look what we can do" and the effects take centre stage but with WETA there are things in LOTR that look so real you dont even know they are there which is the hallmark of a great special effect.

ILM is where modern special effects was born and there would be no WETA if it wasn't for them but I think WETA are now on a par with them. Both companys are at the cutting edge.

 

[bcm77]

ILM may be top dogs in their industry but one of the contributing factors to my huge dislike of the PT was the overuse of CGI. Scenes from the OT like Jabba's Palace and the Cantina have a much more realistic feel to them as all the sets were fully built and all the background creatures were on set with the main actors,not added in later by some ILM computer geek. Too many scenes and characters seemed to be added to the PT for the sole purpose of showing off some new CGI effect and the storyline definitely suffered. As much of the PT resembled a videogame cutscene and not a live action movie it's no suprise that many failed to connect with the characters in the same way as they did with the OT.

 

[Protozaius]

Not a fair comparison.

Lucas had only his ILM artists to create the Star Wars Universe while Jackson had WETA and the whole New Zealand country side to render Middle Earth.

 

[Gazmog]

Not a fair comparison.

Lucas had only his ILM artists to create the Star Wars Universe while Jackson had WETA and the whole New Zealand country side to render Middle Earth.

That was the problem, I feel: that there was too much reliance on CGI...no matter how other worldly it may be.

I like Jackson's approach to filmmaking in that he uses what's 'real', and attempts to replicate that which is real through the exhaustive use of miniatures. The CG element serves then to complement everything else: you don't get the feeling you're 'drowning' in CG trickery. That's my view.

When was the last time Lucas and ILM bagged an Oscar, and for what category? How many does WETA Digital/Workshop have on its mantlepiece now?

 

[LOTRFan]

ILM may be top dogs in their industry but one of the contributing factors to my huge dislike of the PT was the overuse of CGI. Scenes from the OT like Jabba's Palace and the Cantina have a much more realistic feel to them as all the sets were fully built and all the background creatures were on set with the main actors,not added in later by some ILM computer geek. Too many scenes and characters seemed to be added to the PT for the sole purpose of showing off some new CGI effect and the storyline definitely suffered. As much of the PT resembled a videogame cutscene and not a live action movie it's no suprise that many failed to connect with the characters in the same way as they did with the OT.

Indeed, very well put!

Anyone that says that the little fella in Jabba's Palace, with the CG booger looks anywhere near as realistic as the others just is dreaming. I think the puppets and costumes just came out better in that regard.

ILM however are the pioneers, and they are certainly worthy of praise.

 

[Protozaius]

When was the last time Lucas and ILM bagged an Oscar, and for what category? How many does WETA Digital/Workshop have on its mantlepiece now?

How many Oscars did Stanley Kubrick earn? Orson Welles? Martin Scorsese? Kurosawa? Robert Altman? Some of the GREATEST of our time or ANY time have not "WON" an Oscar.

But, yet Opie has. What a hack director!

You are fooling yourself if you think that an Oscar is ANY gauge of excellence!

I guess I'm in the minority... I MUCH prefer the world of CGI to the pitiful Muppet Show that the Jabba's palace scene was. That Rancor will always look pathetic when compared to the Reek, Acklay or Nexu.

Just my two cents.

 

[Gazmog]

I'm not judging those greats of the movies who missed out on winning an Oscar solely by their acquisition of an award or not...I was merely illustrating the point about the 2 directors, with a reference to their achievement (in the eyes of their peers) in respect of their memorable contributions to film, and the advancement of SFX.

You are fooling yourself if you think that an Oscar is ANY gauge of excellence!

So what is it, in your opinion, an indicator of if not a gauge of excellence?

I MUCH prefer the world of CGI to the pitiful Muppet Show that the Jabba's palace scene was. That Rancor will always look pathetic when compared to the Reek, Acklay or Nexu.

I respect your point of view, but I happen to disagree.

 

[Protozaius]

Do we really need "awards" to quantify excellence? We should like what we like without looking to some faulty institution like the Oscars for vindication of one's point of view... or to criticize another.

I can watch the Battle of Geonosis from AOTC all day. All those Jedi... all those Battle Droids!!! I find the art direction of those scenes... the dawning of the Clone Wars... to be beautifully rendered and edited. Those scenes ignite my imagination in a way no other film can. I don't need an Oscar panel to tell me so.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder... it always has been.

 

[DarkArtist81]

I would say WETA.. as much of a fanboy of ILM as I am... I just really like the more traditional take on effects. The more "real" imagery you use, and the more tangible it seems... the audience will believe it. I can say that while ILM did a great job with the prequels, it would have been nice to see some model work.

LOTR was perfect in that sense that it rarely made you question the imagery. You just knew it was Middle Earth, and that the characters were really a part of the scenery that WETA produced. And a lot of that credit goes to Rich Taylor and his crew of talented artists.

This is probably why the OT just seems to feel more "real" than the PT. Back then they relied on those models and traditional FX. CGI has taken a little bit of the reality away, even if it is mind blowing to see. You can still tell it's CGI and not really there. With the "Bigatures" it was hard to tell whether it was CGI or model... you just saw Orthanc and thought... that could have been real and not look much better...

Again, this is only my opinion though... I still loved ILM's work... especially the opening battle of ROTS.

 

[darthviper107]

Well, here is my review coming from someone who knows this stuff and is going into this field.

You all keep mentioning that WETA is real because of the miniatures, but I can tell you that each SW movie probably has as much miniatures as King Kong or LOTR. Not everything is CG. Another thing is the actual subject matter. Everything in LOTR or King Kong is actual real world things that are either changed a little bit or made bigger, which means that you have something to relate it to. But in Star Wars, most of the stuff is not possible to exist at all, so you automatically know it's fake, even if it's actually done in an exactly realistic manner. One thing I have to say for WETA though is that they can do stuff pretty fast, seriously, they had what, 2 years to do the effects for King Kong? King Kong had over 3,000 effects shots (shots involving some sort of CG element) and they completed really fast, that's equal to like 2 hours nonstop of CG effects. One big thing for ILM that it has going for them is their digital matte painting department. Digital Matte paintings are where an artist draws a painting over the video to extend a set or to cover up something, they are actually drawing what is supposed to be there, and it has to look realistic. Nowadays with CG, they can do it in 3D though, they make a 3D model of what they have to paint, render (rendering is where the computer calculates everything to make the final image, shadows, lines, highlights, all that) out a big image of it with shadows calculated where everything is just one color without textures, then they draw over that image to the final look, and then project their image back onto the 3D geometry so that they can do camera moves with it.

Another thing, is that a lot of people from WETA are actually people who used to work for ILM, so the talent has kind of spread. Also, currently, a lot of the new 3D advancements (Like Sub-Surface-Scattering to make realistic skin for characters) were developed by ILM. Besides that, there is a lot of stuff that is done in Star Wars that you don't even notice, but they do it so well it looks natural.

 

[Gruson]

ILM was top dog in the 80s and early 90s but their work has been lacking IMO over the last 10 years.

Whoever is in charge of their CGI department needs to be fired. Many companies put out better computer work, like WETA.

 

[elwood49]

ILM was top dog in the 80s and early 90s but their work has been lacking IMO over the last 10 years.

Whoever is in charge of their CGI department needs to be fired. Many companies put out better computer work, like WETA.

Agreed, imagine that.

Seriously, most of the top talent left ILM long ago for companies like Pixar and Weta.

I actually bet that Pixar could do Star Wars better than either Weta or ILM. Pixar itself was originally a division of ILM that Lucas sold to Steve Jobs.

Some random thoughts about the matter:

1. ILM in the late 70's/early to mid 80's was the best effects company- EVER. It's amazing that Rick Baker, Stan Winston, Stuart Freeborn, Phil Tippett, John Lasseter, David Fincher, Dennis Muren, Joe Johnston, and TONS of others all worked for ILM during that period. Basically all the heavyweights of today got their start there.

2. Weta Gollum was infinitely better than AOTC Yoda.

3. For those who hate computers, each SW prequel used more miniatures than all the OT movies combined.

4. Even with #3 in mind, I didn't like much of ILM's CG work on the prequels.

There really isn't a real answer anymore. Most of the great talent is dispersed equally among the great effects houses (ILM, Weta, Pixar). I think ILM's work on Star Wars and Weta's work on LOTR had a great deal to do with their respective directors' differing philosophies.