View Poll Results: ILM or Weta
ILM
51
60.00%
Weta
34
40.00%
Voters: 85. You may not vote on this poll
ILM vs Weta
07-10-09, 12:49 PM
#28
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
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.
07-10-09, 01:24 PM
#29
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain
Posts: 20,085
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
7 Posts
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
07-10-09, 01:51 PM
#31
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,297
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Re: ILM vs Weta
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).
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).
07-10-09, 02:11 PM
#32
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
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.
07-10-09, 06:31 PM
#33
DVD Talk Legend
Re: ILM vs Weta
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
07-10-09, 06:38 PM
#34
New Member
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: ILM vs Weta
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?
07-11-09, 12:28 AM
#37
DVD Talk Legend
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
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.
07-11-09, 06:14 PM
#38
DVD Talk Hero
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
As long as they continue to outdo each other, we'll have better and better looking effects.
07-12-09, 08:10 AM
#39
Senior Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 345
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
07-12-09, 08:51 PM
#41
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
07-12-09, 09:19 PM
#42
DVD Talk Legend
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
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.
07-13-09, 01:54 AM
#43
DVD Talk Legend
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
07-13-09, 11:52 AM
#45
DVD Talk Godfather
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
07-13-09, 01:06 PM
#47
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
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.
07-13-09, 01:31 PM
#48
DVD Talk Hero
Re: ILM vs Weta
^ And the Silver Surfer himself looked great. Who did the Galactus cloud? That was actually well done.
Last edited by RocShemp; 07-13-09 at 01:39 PM.
07-13-09, 07:27 PM
#49
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,775
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.
07-27-09, 08:53 PM
#50
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 2,506
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: ILM vs Weta
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.