Realistic Anamatronic TMNT @ Monsterpalooza

[d_osborn]

I'm not really sure why this fully animatronic display is being compared to what would have been in the PD movie had practical suits been used. This display is more comparable to something at a cheesy theme park or Chuck-E-Cheese. I'm not knocking the quality or craftsmanship, but this display just didn't have the sort of budget or dev time behind it compared to a big-budget franchise tentpole movie.

I'm not sure if there were ever tests completed (I heard there were pre-PD, but can't confirm). I'm guessing it would have been more in line with what was seen in Where the Wild Things Are. Practical suits worn by actors with mo-cap facial animation, not unlike what was used by ILM. That was the big rumor when Mirage was developing the movie.

[Leo656]

Not perfect, but better than the sh*t we have to put up with now and for the next 10 years or whatever.

[beeshaw]

Creepy and too feminine. Best part is Donnie sticking his tongue out. Everything else is Nightmare fuel.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

This display is more comparable to something at a cheesy theme park or Chuck-E-Cheese. I'm not knocking the quality or craftsmanship, but...

Um...actually, you are.
These are costumes, built by an practical effects house. They decided to take the costumes, and put them on display. The limited animatronics were an afterthought - it's all there in the video.

Originally Posted by d_osborn

I'm guessing it would have been more in line with what was seen in Where the Wild Things Are. Practical suits worn by actors with mo-cap facial animation, not unlike what was used by ILM. That was the big rumor when Mirage was developing the movie.

They also said PDMT was going to be just like The Avengers and The Raid. Unicorns and Fairies man...Just because it's a practical effect, doesn't mean it's going to be awesome, great, or even good. WTWTA is very impressive, and everyone loves to argue that a "mix of practical and CGI is the best approach" but for every WTWTA, you have hundreds of derpy abominations. Frolicing cartoony monsters are one thing; agile weapon toting turtles are quite another.

Originally Posted by beeshaw

Creepy and too feminine. Best part is Donnie sticking his tongue out. Everything else is Nightmare fuel.

Feminine? I don't see it.
You must admit that this Splinter is miles better than PDMT's nightmare-fule-garbage-wretched-vomit-blight.

[beeshaw]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Feminine? I don't see it.
You must admit that this Splinter is miles better than PDMT's nightmare-fule-garbage-wretched-vomit-blight.

Is that Leo there, or Venus? Can't pin point it. they just read as feminine to me. Maybe it's the body shape. Maybe it's the head shape/eyes.



And yeah. I'll give you that Splinter is an improvement.

[Bry]

I don't see them as feminine - I see them as adolescent. They're teenagers who haven't fully developed yet, so I prefer this take to the bigger, overly muscle-bound versions we get elsewhere. They do need some more muscle definition, mind you, but I think it's a nice touch that we don't see enough of considering "teenage" is in the title.

[Commenter 42]

Feminine? Explain.

[beeshaw]

I'm mainly focusing on Leo. His body proportions read feminine to me. He looks like Venus minus the beeewbs. Maybe it's the slanted eyes. Maybe it's the less than broad shoulders and chicken legs (never skip leg day).

The point of them being actual 'Teenagers' above is valid argument though.

[Commenter 42]

The slanted eye is characteristic of all turtles.

[beeshaw]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

The slanted eye is characteristic of all turtles.

Characteristic of turtles or not, MY eyes are reading Leo there, as feminine. That's it. That's all I got. You're not going to change my mind, any more than I can change yours (and I'm not even remotely trying to...). I'll take the Bay-turtles any day over those ones. Funny thing perception and opinions.

Now... do you see a bunny in these clouds, or are you going to argue with me about that too?



Damn you Technodrooooome!

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Um...actually, you are.
These are costumes, built by an practical effects house. They decided to take the costumes, and put them on display. The limited animatronics were an afterthought - it's all there in the video.

Okay, I'll give you that. I am knocking it. It looks terrible-- as huge budget blockbuster suits. These were built for conventions (also in the video) on what I'm guessing was a shoestring budget by a really talented group. I dig the creativity. I dig the craftsmanship. I dig the drive from the artists. The work is awesome. However, it's not even close to what practical, six figure budget suits for a major movie would be. If you were to ask any of the artists that worked on the project, I would be willing to bet that they would say the work was not meant to be compared to super budget costumes.

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

They also said PDMT was going to be just like The Avengers and The Raid. Unicorns and Fairies man...

I'm not sure how tone and fight choreography fits in the discussion of creature FX, other than to just continue beating a dead horse. My discussion in this thread isn't meant to be taken as defending the idea as the ultimate solution to the creature FX.

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

Just because it's a practical effect, doesn't mean it's going to be awesome, great, or even good. WTWTA is very impressive, and everyone loves to argue that a "mix of practical and CGI is the best approach" but for every WTWTA, you have hundreds of derpy abominations. Frolicing cartoony monsters are one thing; agile weapon toting turtles are quite another.

True, practical suits could have turned out looking like trash... or really awesome. Immediately knocking the idea of practical suits based on some inexpensive (in relation to actual movie budget) convention suits doesn't really make a lot of sense. Look at the 1990 Henson suits compared to home-brew convention replicas. Night and day. Same issue here.

I would love to see whatever R&D was being developed, if any.

[Commenter 42]

Alright then.

[Amaranthus]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

The slanted eye is characteristic of all turtles.
http://i.imgur.com/Wv6fydU.jpg

That's so cute.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

Okay, I'll give you that. I am knocking it. It looks terrible-- as huge budget blockbuster suits. These were built for conventions (also in the video) on what I'm guessing was a shoestring budget by a really talented group. I dig the creativity. I dig the craftsmanship. I dig the drive from the artists. The work is awesome. However, it's not even close to what practical, six figure budget suits for a major movie would be. If you were to ask any of the artists that worked on the project, I would be willing to bet that they would say the work was not meant to be compared to super budget costumes.


I'm not sure how tone and fight choreography fits in the discussion of creature FX, other than to just continue beating a dead horse. My discussion in this thread isn't meant to be taken as defending the idea as the ultimate solution to the creature FX.


True, practical suits could have turned out looking like trash... or really awesome. Immediately knocking the idea of practical suits based on some inexpensive (in relation to actual movie budget) convention suits doesn't really make a lot of sense. Look at the 1990 Henson suits compared to home-brew convention replicas. Night and day. Same issue here.

I would love to see whatever R&D was being developed, if any.

This guy makes my point for me. Pay special attention to the Great white shark from kon Tiki at 3:20. The stand in was a blue pillow.



And we all know, this dude is just scraping the surface. The truth? Look at how incredible the Transformers look in that clip - and compare it to the 4rth film. Faster, and cheaper, these days, is really showing.

Practical, can't do what CG can, no matter how pretty it is.

[d_osborn]

Originally Posted by Commenter 42

This guy makes my point for me.

Practical, can't do what CG can, no matter how pretty it is.

I'm not sure how you read my replies to be pro-practical/anti-CGI. I make my living off of CGI. My replies were simply stating that knocking the possibility of practical suits working in a big-budget TMNT movie based on low-budget con suits doesn't really make a lot of sense. Apples/oranges.

CGI is a tool, much like practical effects. There is good CGI, there is bad CGI. There are developments in the field that lead to amazing results, just as there are penny-pinching producers that go with the lowest possible bid, leading to subpar work. The same can be said for the practical effects field.

Without a crystal ball or access to the pre-PD R&D FX tests, there's no way to say if practical suits would have looked better than the ILM CGI FX. My thoughts? I doubt it would have. ILM knocked the job out of the park. However, with a different creative team in the saddle, big budget practical suits with CGI enhancement could have been an interesting approach.

[Commenter 42]

Originally Posted by d_osborn

I'm not sure how you read my replies to be pro-practical/anti-CGI. I make my living off of CGI. My replies were simply stating that knocking the possibility of practical suits working in a big-budget TMNT movie based on low-budget con suits doesn't really make a lot of sense. Apples/oranges.

CGI is a tool, much like practical effects. There is good CGI, there is bad CGI. There are developments in the field that lead to amazing results, just as there are penny-pinching producers that go with the lowest possible bid, leading to subpar work. The same can be said for the practical effects field.

Without a crystal ball or access to the pre-PD R&D FX tests, there's no way to say if practical suits would have looked better than the ILM CGI FX. My thoughts? I doubt it would have. ILM knocked the job out of the park. However, with a different creative team in the saddle, big budget practical suits with CGI enhancement could have been an interesting approach.

Fair enough. I might have been reading into your responses a little. We have similar occupations, and with certain clients, it's the sort of thing you hear over and over again; the addage that if it's not practical, it's not "real" or it's easier to do, etc etc. Everyone's always looking for the easy button that just makes it all happen. I'm not taking away from Clay and Paint artists - they're amazing - but if you hamstring anyone's time and money, or throw novice into the pipeline at any important point, you end up with, well, PDMT, and the tool gets the blame.

That mindset is changing gradually, but in general, we're seriously undervalued.

ILM, yes and no - Some very impressive technical approaches to the work, but they were still working with horrid designs and direction.

[IndigoErth]

I can't get over the lack of respect there is for VFX and the artists while some celebrity who just got paid to walk through a door several times for a scene is treated like royalty. If the industry itself held it in higher respect and the directors/producers were more public in their praise for those covering that end of their production, maybe the public would have a bit more appreciation for the art and the fact that these days a number of their favorite films would otherwise be actors in front of a blank green screen and the film would not even exist. (Is the issue that it's "fake"? It's film making, in some way it's nearly all fake.)

The Turtles... they might not be too pretty and a bit overdone, though what is able to be accomplished with the addition of mocap nowadays is awesome. Practical suits are great if done right, and for the right films, but where mocap is concerned, the level of facial expressions and very subtle body language and mannerisms is just... That has to be hard to combine suits and CGI faces though, I assume, and take some serious talent. Esp if you were going for that same level of realism on the Turtles; not personally sure it would be possible to quite hit the mark...

[MsMarvelDuckie]

This is neat! I liked the little touch of giving them small claws, which makes sense for a more turtle-like design. I like it. Donnie with his tongue out- too cute!

[Leo656]

I personally don't like CGI as much as practical for anything but touch-ups, because on some level, your eye always screams at your brain "That's Not Existing in a 3-Dimensional Space" once you're using it on something big, something that has weight and depth and girth to it. I do get the, "It's movies, it's all fake anyways" point, but I don't agree, as some things are, shall we say, "Less Fake" than others. As good as the Hulk model for the Avengers flicks has gotten... it still ain't doin' it for me. He's still too "Light" and "Bouncy". I use Hulk as an example because that's a perfect example of how you just can't put an all-CGI character front-and-center in a movie and not have a serious disconnect between Eye and Brain, and how they've tried a lot of approaches to just that one character with some pretty varied and often disastrous results.

Then you get sh*t like the "dinosaur stampede" in Jackson's King Kong... what the f*ck was THAT sh*t?! It looked like a bunch of dinosaur-shaped parade balloons crashing into each other. I was just getting into the movie and then for the next 5 minutes I couldn't believe the bullsh*t my eyes were being forced to ignore. Just Awful.

Those are obviously Bad Examples, or rather, Examples of Blatantly Bad CGI, but for me, even when it's "good", like the Hobbit flicks... it's still pretty bad, just by virtue of being everywhere. I mean, I like pretty much every super-hero movie... they all still look halfway like sh*t, because when they cut to CGI FX you can instantly tell, and even if it doesn't bother you, as you're watching it it's like listening to a vinyl record and suddenly there's a tiny pop or hiss, just audible enough to take you out of the moment right when you were getting into it, and once you know it's there, you can't NOT hear it ever again. You can make it look Great but it never really looks "Real". And I'm convinced it's because it's just way overused anymore, especially in places it may not be fully necessary, to the point where it stands out when it shouldn't.

I mean, I know it's work. And it's a tool, it can be used for Good or Evil. I still think the best mix for Truly Great SFX is to do as much as humanly possible in the camera with practical effects, and then use CGI to wipe out errors, make other things "pop", and take care of all the things you simply can't do practically. That's how it started and where it should have stayed. Computer effects used to be the seasoning; now they're trying to push it like it's the whole damn steak and it just don't taste right, ya dig?

[IndigoErth]

Originally Posted by Leo656

ya dig?

Not really, because I'd always hoped to be doing it for a living and envy those who are good enough they leave me almost unable to wrap my mind around the fact that something isn't real; because some artists really are that good. (Obviously that's more true when it's representative of things that do exist, rather than inhuman fictional characters.) I've enjoyed watching the technology for it grow and evolve and it has come far over the years. But I respect a difference of opinion in a matter of personal taste. I mean, don't get me wrong, I like both when done well.


The practical stuff itself has gotten better though, too. Personally now I see the Jaws shark and it doesn't look too real anymore. lol Original Jurassic Park holds up pretty well given it's age now, though it's budget and access to very talented and innovative people was probably high. Similar goes for 3D/CGI/VFX (what ever you wish to call it).