08-03-2015, 02:09 PM | #21 |
Mad Scientist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,338
|
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. |
08-03-2015, 08:11 PM | #22 |
The Franchise
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,696
|
Not perfect, but better than the sh*t we have to put up with now and for the next 10 years or whatever.
__________________
"I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know." nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/ |
08-03-2015, 08:19 PM | #23 |
Hench Mutant
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Toronto-ish
Posts: 341
|
Creepy and too feminine. Best part is Donnie sticking his tongue out. Everything else is Nightmare fuel.
__________________
|
08-04-2015, 04:13 AM | #24 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
You must admit that this Splinter is miles better than PDMT's nightmare-fule-garbage-wretched-vomit-blight. Last edited by Commenter 42; 08-04-2015 at 04:22 AM. |
|||
08-04-2015, 08:54 AM | #25 | |
Hench Mutant
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Toronto-ish
Posts: 341
|
Quote:
And yeah. I'll give you that Splinter is an improvement.
__________________
|
|
08-04-2015, 09:04 AM | #26 |
So Long, Stinktown!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,463
|
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.
__________________
|
08-04-2015, 09:14 AM | #27 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Feminine? Explain.
Last edited by Commenter 42; 08-04-2015 at 09:31 AM. |
08-04-2015, 09:47 AM | #28 |
Hench Mutant
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Toronto-ish
Posts: 341
|
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.
__________________
Last edited by Jester; 08-04-2015 at 03:53 PM. |
08-04-2015, 10:59 AM | #29 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
The slanted eye is characteristic of all turtles.
|
08-04-2015, 12:12 PM | #30 |
Hench Mutant
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Toronto-ish
Posts: 341
|
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!
__________________
|
08-04-2015, 12:53 PM | #31 | |||
Mad Scientist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,338
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I would love to see whatever R&D was being developed, if any. Last edited by d_osborn; 08-04-2015 at 01:05 PM. |
|||
08-04-2015, 01:24 PM | #32 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Alright then.
|
08-04-2015, 01:28 PM | #33 | |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: West-Flanders, Belgium
Posts: 1,815
|
Quote:
|
|
08-04-2015, 08:24 PM | #34 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Quote:
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. |
|
08-04-2015, 09:15 PM | #35 | |
Mad Scientist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 1,338
|
Quote:
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. |
|
08-05-2015, 10:09 AM | #36 | |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,954
|
Quote:
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. Last edited by Commenter 42; 08-05-2015 at 10:14 AM. |
|
08-05-2015, 12:22 PM | #37 |
Team Blue Boy
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: U.S., East Coast
Posts: 15,242
|
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... Last edited by IndigoErth; 08-05-2015 at 12:31 PM. |
08-05-2015, 01:22 PM | #38 |
I Married a Duck!
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: The bowels of Hell, Texas(otherwise known as Decatur)
Posts: 8,772
|
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!
__________________
"You IDIOTS! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -from "Spaceballs" "Where Science ends, magic begins." -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491 My various stories and fan-fics are now here- https://m.fanfiction.net/u/4770494/#end |
08-05-2015, 09:18 PM | #39 |
The Franchise
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: nWo Country
Posts: 27,696
|
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?
__________________
"I left some words quite far from here to be a short reminder... I laid them out in stone, in case they need to last forever..." "But hey... I'm not telling you anything that you don't already know." nWo Tech: The Official Thread Poison of the Technodrome Forums https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxr...awnHgDz1ceDcfA https://theroxxshow.blogspot.com/ |
08-06-2015, 12:15 AM | #40 |
Team Blue Boy
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: U.S., East Coast
Posts: 15,242
|
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). Last edited by IndigoErth; 08-06-2015 at 12:22 AM. |
|
|