What would you guys think if WETA Digital did the special effects and CGI for all of the films instead of ILM?

 

words couldn't describe

 

I'm an ILM nut... don't say anything against ILM....

 

it would look the same

 

I think it would go great either way since both companies are about as top notch as you can get in the effects business these days.

 

Honestly, my dream Transformers film involves Peter Jackson, Neil Blomkamp and WETA Digital. I see magic.

 

I'm not going against ILM

I'm just asking a question.
I enjoy work from both ILM and WETA.

 

The quality of work would probably be about the same. AKA, top notch, but with a certain "Weta style" to them. The VFX of LOTR, King Kong and Avatar all look like they're cut from the same cloth (for obvious reasons).

This also provides an interesting seg-way into what the designs of the characters would be like with say, Peter Jackson as the director. Weta Workshop and Weta Digital are crazy good at their jobs, and I believe that with the proper direction would freakin' go to town on a variety of designs and looks for Transformers, even moreso that Bay, in my opinion.

 

I don't know because I don't know of any non-organic and/ or mechanical characters that Weta has animated. Also, in regards to the characters that Weta has created, I've never thought any of them looked believably real unless they were depicted in extreme close-ups.

 

>The car/highway chase in I, Robot.
>The mothership in District 9.
>GORT in The Day the Earth Stood Still.
>The final Cuba missile battle in X-Men: First Class.

I do agree. Weta does better in close-ups than wide-shots, in my opinion. With some exceptions.  

 

• Don't remember the car/ highway chase in I, Robot. However, I do remember the quality of the CGI for the robots in that film and it was very poor (IMO). Assuming that the car/ highway chase was comparable to the quality of the robots, then I wouldn't think much of it (especially compared to ILM's work).
• The mothership in District 9 looked very good.
• GORT looked horribly fake in The Day the Earth Stood Still. I saw it in theaters.
• The final Cuba missile sequence was very impressive, especially the part where Magneto raises the submarine from the water.

 

well obviously it wouldn't look the same. Different artists, different animators, different crew.

Which would be better is very debatable. If Michael Bay is calling the shots regardless, you're still going to get his taste shining through for better or worse.

Under the right direction, ILM can do mindblowing work. I'd be interested to see how they might've turned out if Phil Tippett had been involved. That guy's a genius. ILM can produce timeless work under Spielberg. But it's a different story altogether when they have to deal with someone like Stephen Sommers.

Weta have been very lucky to work on some groundbreaking movies driven by top calibre talent like Cameron, Peter Jackson, Blomkamp etc. ILM do as well, but but some of their biggest shows have been directed by shlocky Hollywood hacks.

 

I cant agree with you more. ILM is better IMO. WETA is still really good but like you said only at close ups. And GORT did look like shit.

 

I think ILM far surpassed what any other company would have been able to do.

 

THIS.

 

I honestly don't think it would be that different.

 

I think it'd have been interesting, certainly. But I think ILM would produce better results in comparison. WETA's strength is physical models, and using CG only where necessary to fill in details. ILM's strength is photorealistic CG, and that's honestly in large part BECAUSE of Transformers. Before TF1, ILM was great, but photorealistic was still a bit of a challenge. In Dark of the Moon, they showed REPEATEDLY that they've got the photorealistic aspects of rendering down.

 

I believe that ILM > WETA.

I did not like the praise Gollum got. He didn't blend in a s well with his surroundings, and the highlights in his eyes looked plastic IMO. King Kong was better, but still couldn't hold a candle to TF1.

 

Finally someone who I can agree with concerning Gollum's realism (or lack of thereof). Something about the luminosity of his skin makes him look very fake.

 

Keep in mind Gollum was rendered in 2002 and 2003, he was a real breakthrough (without him we wouldn't have Kong, Davy Jones, the Na'vi or Caesar), and half the praise was due to Andy Serkis's performance, which would've earned an Oscar nomination if the Academy actually considered voiceover artists, puppeteers or animators actors. (6 Awards That Would Actually Make The Oscars Worth Watching | Cracked.com)

Anyway, ILM's work has made leaps and bounds due to Weta's competition, since their plasticy work on the Star Wars prequels, Hulk and Van Helsing. I'm glad when Transformers came they put so much effort into making the robots photoreal.