DVD Talk
ILM vs Weta [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : ILM vs Weta


Blu Man
07-09-09, 10:26 PM
Which one do you think does better CGI?

Weta Films
Lord of the Rings
King Kong
Fantastic Four 2
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Avatar
etc.........

ILM Films
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Jurassic Park
DragonHeart
Terminator
The Abyss
Star Trek
etc..........

Boba Fett
07-09-09, 10:40 PM
Currently? WETA.

ILM had a good run and WETA wouldn't be around if it wasn't for them, but the effects on stuff like Lord of the Rings is in a whole other league, compared to the Star Wars prequels, the one series ILM should do top notch work on.

covenant
07-09-09, 10:40 PM
No Pole?

devilshalo
07-09-09, 10:41 PM
WETA 4 Oscars
ILM 16 Oscars

bwvanh114
07-09-09, 10:42 PM
Which one do you think does better CGI?

Weta Films: Lord of the Rings and King Kong

ILM Films: Transformers and Star TrekI think WETA does a better job of making things seamless. But I only saw LOTR and King Kong from WETA.

The ILM films are all old and dated except for Transformers and Star Trek... which I think anybody can do the textures/lighting for metal and spaceships.

RocShemp
07-09-09, 10:43 PM
I prefer ILM's CGI efforts. The folk at Weta are creative and talented but ILM's stuff is usually better.

That said, ILM has had some real stinkers (The Mummy Returns and Van Helsing, for example).

bwvanh114
07-09-09, 10:43 PM
No Pole?I prefer real strippers, not CGI.

Kal-El
07-09-09, 10:49 PM
You're forgetting the Pirates Trilogy for ILM. Davey Jones was crazy good. I think their best work was Starship Troopers though.

Labor
07-09-09, 10:52 PM
ILM is still at the top in my opinion

LOTR has a lot of dodgy CGI, as does King Kong, though Kong himself is an absolute marvel

Still, nothing Weta has done tops Davy Jones or the best material in Transformers

bwvanh114
07-09-09, 10:58 PM
Forgot about Davy Jones.

RocShemp
07-09-09, 11:01 PM
Starship Troopers has definitely stood the test of time.

LOTR:FOTR has some really piss poor CGI. LOTR:TTT was better but it's most prized CGI creation (Gollum) was vastly over-rated. Sometimes he looks fantastic but others he's not too good. LOTR:ROTK was another improvement but it still had really crappy effects work (Smeagol being dragged by the fish) amidst some great effects work (Shelob).

I didn't really care for anything in King Kong. It all seemed too artificial.

If I recall correctly, Weta shared a hand in some of the fine CGI on display in Master and Commander.

Blu Man
07-09-09, 11:16 PM
Pole added. -smile-

Davy Jones from ILM was incredible and so are all the Transformers. Plus ILM kinda started the wholw thing with The Abyss and then Jurassic Park. King Kong looked great but not as good as a lot of stuff ILM has done. I haven't seen Lord of the Rings in a very long time so I can comment on that. From what i've heard Avatar is going to blow us away. My vote goes to.....................................ILM.

Anubis2005X
07-09-09, 11:17 PM
Who does the effects for Harry Potter? I was shocked when I found out that they CGed parts of Voldemort's face, very nicely done...

Blu Man
07-09-09, 11:30 PM
who does the effects for harry potter? I was shocked when i found out that they cged parts of voldemort's face, very nicely done...

ILM does the Harry Potter films.

TomOpus
07-09-09, 11:57 PM
ILM

Weta is great but King Kong was so uneven. There was some amazing CGI... yet we also got the craptastic Dino stampede. That scene alone made me cringe.

Solid Snake
07-10-09, 12:19 AM
T2 anyone? ILM, all the way. Weta is still a bit young compared to what ILM has done.

fumanstan
07-10-09, 12:45 AM
ILM easily. I think the work on LOTR was a bit overrated.

Groucho
07-10-09, 12:52 AM
ILM -- Avatar was crap!

My Other Self
07-10-09, 01:56 AM
ILM, if not for T2 alone which even after almost 20 years still holds up.

Who worked on the Matrix sequels? Reloaded looks like shit today.

outcastja
07-10-09, 02:52 AM
I think Imageworks vs Weta would be a better matchup. Both are pretty new compared to ILM.

Supermallet
07-10-09, 05:35 AM
ILM has been the industry leader for so long we seem to forget just how many amazing strides they made, from Sherlock Jr. to T2 to Jurassic Park and Pirates. WETA has done a surprisingly good job of carving out a space for themselves, and I would say they're second currently. Avatar could be a game changer, but we don't know anything about how the final product looks yet.

Imageworks has never done anything that rivals ILM or WETA, imo, and Watchmen did nothing to change my mind.

Superboy
07-10-09, 06:31 AM
You can't always put it on the effects house - how good the CGI is depends just as much on directing, storyboarding, and cinematography as technology.

caligulathegod
07-10-09, 06:32 AM
In all fairness, some of the early successes that ILM is getting praised for, such as T2 and Jurassic Park, have less CGI in them than meets the eye. When those two films came out, the hype was for the CGI but most of the special effects is model work and live-action animatronics. The liquid metal Terminator special effects were mostly live-action models and the CGI merely morphed between the extremes. The shot where he pours into the Helicopter was about 3 or 4 different models and the cgi just blended the dissolves between them. Same with the scenes where he gets heavy shotgun fire and has holes blasted into him or has his head blasted nearly off. Jurassic Park mostly had animatronic dinos except for quick shots of them running (usually in the dark lit scenes). The few CGI shots in broad daylight look as phony as any early CGI ever done (such as the Bronto/Apats). Counting up screen time, both of those films had barely a couple minutes of actual CGI compared to today's films where the special effects are almost entirely CGI.


Another point to make is rarely does one effects house do all the work in a film. They farm out a lot to outside companies so they can meet release dates. So anytime you ever watch a film and notice some really good CGI and some really mediocre or even bad CGI, then chances are you are seeing outside vendor's work interspersed with the actual company's work. They put their name on the work, so they deserve the praise or blame, but as a practical matter unless the hired work is atrocious, they really don't have the time or budgets to bring absolutely every shot up to the company standards so it's kind of unfair to damn a company's work because 100% of the CGI wasn't up to snuff.

Michael Corvin
07-10-09, 08:29 AM
ILM is still at the top in my opinion

LOTR has a lot of dodgy CGI, as does King Kong, though Kong himself is an absolute marvel


:up:

Michael Ballack
07-10-09, 09:00 AM
Also, ILM has different teams for different movies. Just like video game producers, sometimes they are rushed to meet a release date.

PopcornTreeCt
07-10-09, 11:05 AM
Without a doubt, WETA.

Look at the new Star Wars movies, look at Lord of the Rings.

Solid Snake
07-10-09, 11:22 AM
SW films and LoTR films are one thing..but overrall? ILM still has it topped.

lopper
07-10-09, 01:49 PM
My vote goes to ILM.

WETA's work, imo, doesn't hold up over time as well as I think ILM's work has. I'm still impressed by the Jurassic Park dinosaurs even when held up against today's work.

islandclaws
07-10-09, 02:24 PM
I agree that WETA is currently churning out some of the most consistently impressive work, but ILM had a great run with lots of solid output. Jurrasic Park alone is a milestone achievement.

Michael Corvin
07-10-09, 02:32 PM
Without a doubt, WETA.

Look at the new Star Wars movies, look at Lord of the Rings.

Both of which whose last film was about 5+ years ago.

Fanboy
07-10-09, 02:51 PM
No love for Digital Domain. :(

Voted for ILM, as I think their A-team is still the best in the industry. However, WETA is running a close second. Not sure if they get a corresponding amount of work (and, hence, have to spread their talent as thin).

Blu Man
07-10-09, 03:11 PM
In all fairness, some of the early successes that ILM is getting praised for, such as T2 and Jurassic Park, have less CGI in them than meets the eye. When those two films came out, the hype was for the CGI but most of the special effects is model work and live-action animatronics. The liquid metal Terminator special effects were mostly live-action models and the CGI merely morphed between the extremes. The shot where he pours into the Helicopter was about 3 or 4 different models and the cgi just blended the dissolves between them. Same with the scenes where he gets heavy shotgun fire and has holes blasted into him or has his head blasted nearly off. Jurassic Park mostly had animatronic dinos except for quick shots of them running (usually in the dark lit scenes). The few CGI shots in broad daylight look as phony as any early CGI ever done (such as the Bronto/Apats). Counting up screen time, both of those films had barely a couple minutes of actual CGI compared to today's films where the special effects are almost entirely CGI.


Another point to make is rarely does one effects house do all the work in a film. They farm out a lot to outside companies so they can meet release dates. So anytime you ever watch a film and notice some really good CGI and some really mediocre or even bad CGI, then chances are you are seeing outside vendor's work interspersed with the actual company's work. They put their name on the work, so they deserve the praise or blame, but as a practical matter unless the hired work is atrocious, they really don't have the time or budgets to bring absolutely every shot up to the company standards so it's kind of unfair to damn a company's work because 100% of the CGI wasn't up to snuff.

ok................... So which do you prefer?

Hokeyboy
07-10-09, 07:31 PM
I love taking a romantic sunset cruise with my ILM scrapbook. It's so illuminating. Sometimes, when nobody is around, I start to rub my finger up and down the smooth cover, taking in every little bump and crevice on my fingertips, purring in contentment at the thought of the numerous clippings from Starlog magazine that lie in store for me. Then I take it home and slip it firmly onto the coffee table, sometimes I turn the lights off, strip off my shirt and trousers, and

Gaff
07-10-09, 07:38 PM
I really can't tell the difference between the two. The Star Wars prequel's CG was not convincing but Star Trek was some of the best I've seen yet. Maybe there's been some recent leaps in technology I'm unaware of?

Hokeyboy
07-10-09, 07:41 PM
I really can't tell the difference between the two. The Star Wars prequel's CG was not convincing but Star Trek was some of the best I've seen yet. Maybe there's been some recent leaps in technology I'm unaware of?

http://radarti.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/applelisa4_3.jpg

NitroJMS
07-10-09, 11:04 PM
I voted ILM. I love their work on A.I. and Minority, and the Pirates effects are pretty amazing too.

Matthew Chmiel
07-11-09, 01:28 AM
ILM. When their A-team is at work (i.e. Spielberg films), they can't be beat. However, their output over the past few years has not been consistent as more films are utilizing their B and C squads mostly due to money and scheduling.

I wouldn't credit Starship Troopers to ILM as it was one of the first films that was branched to a lot of special effects companies. Tippett and Sony Imageworks did more work on the final product than ILM; but the creature visual effects are still hard to beat even if the film is close to being fifteen years old.

Troy Stiffler
07-11-09, 07:14 PM
I don't care who's better right now.

As long as they continue to outdo each other, we'll have better and better looking effects.

Sanjuro37
07-12-09, 09:10 AM
I think it's too hard to really pick one. LOTR sported seamless integration, but some figures didn't look fully formed, and King Kong was the best CG character yet made. But they have a much lighter workload than ILM, which is still the chief animator. When ILM really has the time to work on effects (the Pirates films for example, which look so marvelous I find myself willing to sit through those awful sequels more than once) they can at least rival the very best of Weta if not surpass it. But I agree about the prequels. You'd think having years to do each one would have resulted in a more fluid look.

arminius
07-12-09, 10:50 AM
http://radarti.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/applelisa4_3.jpg
Sweet:up:

Travis McClain
07-12-09, 09:51 PM
I wasn't about to go through and look at the resume of both companies to decide how to vote. I didn't need to do that. The OP informed me that Weta was responsible for Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and, by default, ILM wins my vote. That's right, Galactus alone dictated this one for me.

JumpCutz
07-12-09, 10:19 PM
Yes Davey Jones set the bar.

I voted for WETA though based on some their breathtaking work on the LOTR films and the realization of King Kong himself. Yes some of their stuff is iffy, the same with ILM.

ILM's work on Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds' was also stellar. Especially considering the time constraints.

Matthew Chmiel
07-13-09, 02:54 AM
ILM's work on Spielberg's 'War of the Worlds' was also stellar. Especially considering the time constraints.
Spielberg will always be given ILM's A-team. A.I. and Minority Report were done with huge time constraints, but War of the Worlds is one of those few films that goes from pre-production to release within less than a year.

Solid Snake
07-13-09, 12:39 PM
Yeah, I can't separate ILM and Spielberg. They have a very good working relationship from the beginning.

fumanstan
07-13-09, 12:52 PM
I wasn't about to go through and look at the resume of both companies to decide how to vote. I didn't need to do that. The OP informed me that Weta was responsible for Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and, by default, ILM wins my vote. That's right, Galactus alone dictated this one for me.

I thought the cloud effects looked pretty good!

devilshalo
07-13-09, 01:24 PM
WETA hasn't shown me the diversity in effects work that ILM has.

Boba Fett
07-13-09, 02:06 PM
WETA only worked primarily on the Silver Surfer in that movie. I think they may have done some of the "cloud," but the rest of the digital effects was done by another outfit.

Blaming WETA for the terrible Super Skrull/Doctor Doom fight is like blaming ILM for Twilight's 70s era Spider-Man effects; the only did the diamond skin in that movie.

RocShemp
07-13-09, 02:31 PM
^ And the Silver Surfer himself looked great. Who did the Galactus cloud? That was actually well done.

lamphorn
07-13-09, 08:27 PM
My pick is ILM, but even if it wasn't, I'd vote for it anyway. So much film work is leaving the country for cheaper labor overseas.. any chance I get to support my colleagues here who are the best in the business, I take.

Blu Man
07-27-09, 09:53 PM
I just finished watching The Lord of the Rings trilogy and Weta did a incredible job. The Gullom character was amazing and all of the creatures were just amazing. My vote still goes to ILM, but it could change quickly depending upon how Avatar looks.

Solid Snake
07-27-09, 09:55 PM
Yeah, the extended DVDs have amazing features. You could pretty much make your own film with great knowledge based off those special features...

devilshalo
07-28-09, 02:42 AM
My pick is ILM, but even if it wasn't, I'd vote for it anyway. So much film work is leaving the country for cheaper labor overseas.. any chance I get to support my colleagues here who are the best in the business, I take.
Funny, I knew a lot of American colleagues working at Weta.

Blu Man
08-05-09, 07:53 PM
I've decided to give this thread new life with a timeline. It will show you which FX house is currently on top.

1989: ILM creates the pseudopod in the Abyss.

1991: ILM creates the T-1000 in Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

1993: ILM outdoes themself again with the first living, breathing CGI creatures in Jurassic Park.

1995: ILM uses photorealistic hair and fur in Jamanji.

1996: ILM creates the first complety CGI character Draco in DragonHeart.

Ok, WETA hasn't done shit yet and ILM has been kicking ass for seven years.

2002) WETA Digital establishes itself as a major player with Gollum in The Two Towers.

2003) WETA creates Gollum for a second time, creating the most realistic CGI character in history. ILM's in trouble...........

2003) ILM tries to have a come back after getting it's ass beaten in the ground with the Hulk. Although impressive, it can not compare with the stunning Gollum.

2005) WETA does it again, creating the incredible King Kong. King Kong him self is an incredible feat, but alot of the other CGI was sub par. WETA though reclaims it's spot as the best digital effects house in the world.

2005) ILM is now sick and tired of WETA killing everything they do, so they bring us Star Wars Episode III. The entire film was loaded with incredible special effets, most notabley General Greivous and Yoda. Whether it was better then King Kong or Gollum is still up for debate.

Now WETA has surficed as a major player and able to beat even the best at ILM. What's ILM gonna do about it?

2006) ILM has done it. They have finally out done Gollum. Davy Jones is considered to date, one of the most realistic CGI characters to ever be created. It fooled a lot of people into thinking that only his face was CGI, but his whole body was created with preformence capture.

2007) ILM creates the Transformers in Transformers. The most realitic CGI robot's todate. The Transformers are with out a doubt some of the most complex CGI charaters, Over 60,000 seperate pieces between all fifiteen of them.

WETA's fucked. ILM has beaten the shit out of anything they've done for the past two years running.

2009) ILM comes out with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Although a shit movie, the special effects are some of the best we've ever seen. The robot devastator alone had over 52,632 parts. This is almost as much as all the Transformers from the first film combined. Not only that, but the films CGI was rendered at 4k resolution. Up until this film CGI had alway's been rendered in 2k.

Well, there you have it. WETA had a run but right now ILM is king. Will Avatar change this? One December 18th will I have to add another landmark that put's WETA as the current king? I'd like to hear from some the people who saw footage at Comic Con for the time being. Will TinTin change anything? Even if it does, will ILM just turn around and beat it?

Supermallet
08-05-09, 08:15 PM
The timeline would be more appropriate without the editorial comments, IMO. Also don't forget the CGI presentation in Star Trek II and the stained glass window that comes to life in Sherlock Jr.

Deftones
08-05-09, 08:24 PM
The timeline would be more appropriate without the editorial comments, IMO. Also don't forget the CGI presentation in Star Trek II and the stained glass window that comes to life in Sherlock Jr.

editorial comments? i think that's being extremely kind. :lol:

Supermallet
08-05-09, 08:30 PM
Oh, and I still think Devastator looked like crap compared to the robots in the first Transformers.

And yes, I was being very kind. :)

RocShemp
08-05-09, 09:03 PM
And only the IMAX scenes had robots rendered in 4K. Last I read, everything else was still done in 2K in TF:ROTF.

And, yes, Devastator was crap. What's even funnier, the infamous testicles shot was even more poorly rendered. And don't get me started on how terrible the debris from the pyramid looked as Simmons was attempting to scale it.

In general, the robots in TF:ROTF looked inferior to the robots in TF. This is due to the large amount of robots ILM had to render and animate in the sequel versus the small number in the first movie.

Solid Snake
08-05-09, 09:18 PM
I only saw TF2 once..but..the robots looked fine EXCEPT for Devastor...I need to eventually see it again. I dunno...the first 10 or 15 mins were well made I think. Not that there was plot to it..but it was cool.

rexinnih
08-06-09, 08:45 AM
Had to go with ILM. WETA has some great movies but not enough to come out on top.

al_bundy
08-06-09, 10:22 AM
I've decided to give this thread new life with a timeline. It will show you which FX house is currently on top.

1989: ILM creates the pseudopod in the Abyss.

1991: ILM creates the T-1000 in Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

1993: ILM outdoes themself again with the first living, breathing CGI creatures in Jurassic Park.

1995: ILM uses photorealistic hair and fur in Jamanji.

1996: ILM creates the first complety CGI character Draco in DragonHeart.

Ok, WETA hasn't done shit yet and ILM has been kicking ass for seven years.

2002) WETA Digital establishes itself as a major player with Gollum in The Two Towers.

2003) WETA creates Gollum for a second time, creating the most realistic CGI character in history. ILM's in trouble...........

2003) ILM tries to have a come back after getting it's ass beaten in the ground with the Hulk. Although impressive, it can not compare with the stunning Gollum.

2005) WETA does it again, creating the incredible King Kong. King Kong him self is an incredible feat, but alot of the other CGI was sub par. WETA though reclaims it's spot as the best digital effects house in the world.

2005) ILM is now sick and tired of WETA killing everything they do, so they bring us Star Wars Episode III. The entire film was loaded with incredible special effets, most notabley General Greivous and Yoda. Whether it was better then King Kong or Gollum is still up for debate.

Now WETA has surficed as a major player and able to beat even the best at ILM. What's ILM gonna do about it?

2006) ILM has done it. They have finally out done Gollum. Davy Jones is considered to date, one of the most realistic CGI characters to ever be created. It fooled a lot of people into thinking that only his face was CGI, but his whole body was created with preformence capture.

2007) ILM creates the Transformers in Transformers. The most realitic CGI robot's todate. The Transformers are with out a doubt some of the most complex CGI charaters, Over 60,000 seperate pieces between all fifiteen of them.

WETA's fucked. ILM has beaten the shit out of anything they've done for the past two years running.

2009) ILM comes out with Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. Although a shit movie, the special effects are some of the best we've ever seen. The robot devastator alone had over 52,632 parts. This is almost as much as all the Transformers from the first film combined. Not only that, but the films CGI was rendered at 4k resolution. Up until this film CGI had alway's been rendered in 2k.

Well, there you have it. WETA had a run but right now ILM is king. Will Avatar change this? One December 18th will I have to add another landmark that put's WETA as the current king? I'd like to hear from some the people who saw footage at Comic Con for the time being. Will TinTin change anything? Even if it does, will ILM just turn around and beat it?

since they all have projects that take years and different upgrade schedules one will always be on top. reason they can make better CGI every few years is that they are always upgrading to faster hardware for each project and someone will always have more horsepower at any time

both houses do a lot of custom coding for a big project, but a lot of it is still limited by the hardware which is AMD or Nvidia

Blu Man
08-06-09, 12:20 PM
The timeline would be more appropriate without the editorial comments, IMO. Also don't forget the CGI presentation in Star Trek II and the stained glass window that comes to life in Sherlock Jr.

You saw the Avatar footage didn't you? How did the CGI compare to Davy Jones and Optimus Prime? Better? Worse?

starseed1981
08-06-09, 01:13 PM
Saw the Avatar footage, wasn't as mind f@#ked as alot of the critics.

That being said, I'd say ILM takes the cake with Davey Jones still being king.

Blu Man
08-06-09, 01:20 PM
Saw the Avatar footage, wasn't as mind f@#ked as alot of the critics.

That being said, I'd say ILM takes the cake with Davey Jones still being king.

Good to know. Thanks.

Supermallet
08-06-09, 01:42 PM
In terms of photorealism, Davy Jones and Optimus Prime still are on top, imo. But Avatar seems to be going in a different direction, and the footage was still fan-fucking-tastic. Plus it's 3D on top of it.

RocShemp
08-06-09, 06:46 PM
I only saw TF2 once..but..the robots looked fine EXCEPT for Devastor...I need to eventually see it again. I dunno...the first 10 or 15 mins were well made I think. Not that there was plot to it..but it was cool.

That is true. After the silly prologue, the first 15 minutes are great. I loved seeing NEST and the Autobots in action. Optimus Prime's intro was fantastic. After that, once the first rumblings of a plot (what little there was) show up, it all goes to hell. But when it was all soldiers and Autobots vs. Decepticons, it was fantastic.

Blu Man
08-06-09, 06:50 PM
In terms of photorealism, Davy Jones and Optimus Prime still are on top, imo. But Avatar seems to be going in a different direction, and the footage was still fan-fucking-tastic. Plus it's 3D on top of it.

How's that? Different direction then photorealism? I thought photorealism was what Cameron wanted.

Supermallet
08-06-09, 06:52 PM
He wants to create an immersing alien world. I'm not sure that requires photorealism in the same way that the Autobots did.

Supermallet
08-15-09, 05:54 PM
After District 9, I'd say WETA is once again neck and neck with ILM. The prawns looked as good as anything ILM has done, including Davy Jones.

Blu Man
08-15-09, 06:15 PM
After District 9, I'd say WETA is once again neck and neck with ILM. The prawns looked as good as anything ILM has done, including Davy Jones.

WETA didn't do the CGI for District 9. Image Engine did the CGI. The CGI in District 9 was good, but it wasn't even close to Davy Jones and Gollum.

Supermallet
08-15-09, 07:02 PM
WETA is in the credits of District 9, listed for creature effects. But there was more than one effects house listed.

And obviously the second statement is an opinion, as it is my opinion that they were as good as Davy Jones and Gollum.

project86
08-15-09, 07:19 PM
District 9 absolutely blew me away, so I'm going with weta.

Defiant1
08-15-09, 07:24 PM
The effects were very impressive considering that D9 only had a budget of $30M. I wonder if the prawns were entirely CGI or if they used body suits or animatronic puppets for some shots?

Supermallet
08-15-09, 10:31 PM
They were all CGI except for a few shots at the very beginning.

Blu Man
08-15-09, 11:32 PM
WETA is in the credits of District 9, listed for creature effects. But there was more than one effects house listed.

And obviously the second statement is an opinion, as it is my opinion that they were as good as Davy Jones and Gollum.
WETA did the final touch ups, but Image Engine in Vancover did most of the work. Peter Jackson said this at comic con. Aparently at the time this was done, Avatar was useing all of WETA's resources.
They were all CGI except for a few shots at the very beginning.

They were all CGI except for the prawns on the tables in the disection room.

tylergfoster
12-20-09, 09:43 PM
My major issue with ILM is they clearly become lazy on sequels in my eyes, or were through the late 90's/early 2000's. The best example is The Mummy Returns. The sand warriors created for the sequel look fantastic and stunning, but effects like the mummy warriors, the water-head and the scarab beetles look like shit because the animators adopted what boils down to a "been there, done that" attitude. Also, the grafting of The Rock's head onto the Scorpion King is a bit of a failure.

As for WETA, they're all right, but I've never quite been a fan of the way the things they've created end up looking, as far as personal aesthetic taste goes. I would personally nominate John Gaeta and the companies that worked on The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions as having done work I enjoyed. The one exception is Sony Pictures Imageworks, a studio responsible for what I consider the worst major-movie digital effects I can remember seeing (constraints of available technology notwithstanding), in The Legend of Zorro. The shots of the train at the end were the most memorable thing about that movie for me; I've forgotten everything about it except how awful the closing sequence looked.

Defiant1
12-21-09, 12:55 AM
WETA did the bulk of Avatar (ILM helped them meet their deadlines though) so I'd give them the upper hand at the moment.

wm lopez
12-21-09, 01:02 AM
From the list that is at the start of this thread I took ILM.
I don't like green in my cgi.
They should be able to color correct movies if can be done on PHOTOSHOP for a picture.

toddly6666
12-21-09, 01:32 AM
Best MECH SUIT special effects:

1. District 9
2. Aliens
3. Avatar
4. Matrix Revolutions
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10. Robot Jox

Are we missing any more ;)