Realistic Anamatronic TMNT @ Monsterpalooza

[Commenter 42]

Just stumbled across this today (hope I'm not late to the party on this :) ).

Many folks have speculated that PDMT would have been better with practical suits, and the same designs refined to be less cluttered and skinnier.

Something like the look of J S Marantz's rejected designs:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/e4/d3/68/e4d368e1469b0d256fadf2eb34f960c1.jpg

I think this is what you'd get. Splinter is a huge improvement, while the rest...er....well?

a8xxBZml-2c

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/e15/11244790_463628507145944_272574088_n.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/78pMY6D.jpg?1

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CBfTfCjVAAAqOSJ.jpg:large

[The Stryker]

Terrifying.

They kinda have a Mac and Me thing happening in the eyes.

[PangolinFeets]

These are probably the closet thing we'll get to real ninja turtles. My only complaint would be the lack of any real muscle definition.

Still...a thousand times better than Bay turtles.

[Commenter 42]

Terrifying.

They kinda have a Mac and Me thing happening in the eyes.

It's the dead eye stare...freaky :)

These are probably the closet thing we'll get to real ninja turtles. My only complaint would be the lack of any real muscle definition.

Still...a thousand times better than Bay turtles.

I don't know if these are better...they are, different...

[The Boston Ninja Turtle]

personally i find them more appealing than the bat turtles face wise, they actually look turtle ish and not human


the arm scales are a bit to much but everything else is fine

[snake]

That looks horrible

[Commenter 42]

the arm scales are a bit to much but everything else is fine

It's funny, so much effort went into the detail on the head and shell, but then the arms, hands and feet, the scales, a total rush job.

Not to harp on it, but this is exactly why I'm for Sliders over Box turtles.

That looks horrible

Yep, but I've seen worse. We live in an age of the hyper grotesque. I've yet to see live action, realistic designs that don't trip people the **** out.

[Sabacooza]

I can appreciate the work that went into these but I'm not digging the faces, lack of muscle tone, and scales. What I do like is that they actually look young and teenagerish.

[Bry]

I saw these a while back and they're a really cool project. Not my definitive versions by any stretch, but much more appealing than the BayTurtles designs, and I like the level of work put into the heads/faces.

Like others said - I'd tone down the scaliness a bit and have some more work put into the muscle definition. But these are definitely on the right track!

[The Boston Ninja Turtle]

It's funny, so much effort went into the detail on the head and shell, but then the arms, hands and feet, the scales, a total rush job.

yea the head scales look semi natural. but arms and legs look more like bumps than scales

[marcelangelo]

big up for this project!...lot of hard work and thought apparently into those suits...
I personally would use much less of scaley skin on them and avoid using these pointy fingernails or claws almost...I know both these things may come with some turtles, but I myself don't like them too much in ninja turtles design..
another thing that bothers me with this design would be the much too short plastrons!...they look like they are wearing shirts and no undies in those;)...
this seems to be an area where people working on ninja turtles desings nowerdays all seem to have a problem with.I cannot understand it.what is so hard in giving it a turtle-like appearance juts like in every mirage comic book out there??...turtles have arms and legs GROWING OUT from WITHIN a SHELL, so why not follow that concept when working on ninja turtles? I still think the bay turtles-ogres wear these stupid clothes around their waists because the designers def didn't know how to end their plastrons and shells with their 'sticking to human anatomy because of much richer likeness to the actors yada yada'-concept..so poor I think...;(

anyway, didn't want to come off as critisizing this project so much, I actually find this take on them refreshing and much better than the bay turtles, even if I would have gone for a different route myself..

[Turtle Soup]

I like em!

[TrickOrTreater]

Slightly better than BayTurtles, in that it sticks to the basic idea of how Ninja Turtles should look(body type and accessories), but far too realistic and still just unpleasant to look at.

Splinter is a billion times better though.

[Powder]

I'd tone down the scaliness a bit and have some more work put into the muscle definition. But these are definitely on the right track!

Nailed it. For this particular style, those are my only complaints with 'em. They're perfect otherwise, & I'd be more than happy to get a film with this design.

[PangolinFeets]

Are they scary? I think they're actually pretty cute. If they weren't so dang scrawny they'd be perfect, imo.

[Klunk1234]

They make me nervous.:o Red eared sliders or semi aquatic turtle, the TMNT species, are not that scaly. That scaly skin is from tortoises, which they aren't. Master Splinter is OK.

[Bry]

Nailed it. For this particular style, those are my only complaints with 'em. They're perfect otherwise, & I'd be more than happy to get a film with this design.

With some tweaks, something like this would work so well with the Suit+CGI concept Peter Laird was talking up years ago. You'd get the advantage of smooth animation where you need it and avoid the uncanny-valley-ness of pure CGI creations against live-action everything else.

Are they scary? I think they're actually pretty cute. If they weren't so dang scrawny they'd be perfect, imo.

I like the skinniness, personally! They're teenagers, so you don't want them to be too big. And the jacked-up look isn't a good fit for ninjas, IMO. Take something like this and give them a Bruce Lee-esque physique and you're golden.

[IndigoErth]

Agree on Splinter; would like to see some better shots of it, but from that little bit...way better than freaky rat-with-mange 2014 Splinter. Also looks a lot more kindly.

The Turtles... well... not my preferred flavor, definitely caters more toward those that long for a more animalistic-looking TMNT, but still pretty very well done. Agree scales could have been toned down, like the individual scale bumps are just to big/bold; reminds me of something, but can't place it at the moment.

[Amaranthus]

They could totally make a cool looking ninja turtle outfit if they wanted too.
They used a costume for Abe Sapien in the Hellboy movies, right? It's proof that it could work for the turtles.

[shuriken]

I like em, they look trippy. Kinda scrawny and a bit too scaly, but the faces, plastron and overall look is pretty great IMO. Prefer this look over BayTurtles easily. Also Splinter looks boss as well, and also not as scary as the Turtles.

[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]

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.:lol:
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. :lol:

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.

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.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/d5/90/b2/d590b212c3f7971359ffd20a7f85d588.jpg

[beeshaw]

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.

https://scontent.cdninstagram.com/hphotos-xaf1/t51.2885-15/e15/11244790_463628507145944_272574088_n.jpg

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.
http://i.imgur.com/Wv6fydU.jpg

[beeshaw]

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. :tcool:

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

http://images.techhive.com/images/article/2013/02/clouds-100027375-gallery.jpg

Damn you Technodrooooome!

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/images/stories/angrysky2501.jpg

[d_osborn]

Um...actually, you are.:lol:
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. :lol:
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.

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.


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]

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

That's so cute.

[Commenter 42]

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.

bL6hp8BKB24

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]

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]

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. :P 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... :tlove: 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?! :lol: 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]

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).

[Commenter 42]

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?! :lol: 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?

Dude......

The Hobbit movies are not the best of VFX, not by a mile. Best is a strange term to use as well. Best is preferential, and in many ways hard to validate. The Hobbit Trilogy isn't "the best"; however, it is high a profile film, with tons VFX in it. It also has tons of practical elements.

The Hobbit films, are not considered the best in terms of believability, but more due to the sheer volume of high quality work, while still breaking new ground in areas of technical achievement. They spend a ton of money on improving VFX, much like ILM or The Mill, but at the end of the day, it's still a business, and they only have so long to create. much of the time, the question isn't "can we make this perfect", but rather, what can we get away with, and still be good.

As someone pointed out, art is as much about what you see, as what you don't see, what the artists chooses to include in their work, and what they choose to forgo.

I'm sure you've seen the new Planet of the Apes films. Some pretty remarkable CG, to be sure - but it's not perfect. Real apes would definitely look better.

Weta (mostly)
DpSaTrW4leg

The Mill
YwTabNG3pSE

Real Chimps on an Island (A testament to human cruelty, but still...)
69LDbyl4Xjs?t=3m36s

Clearly, the Chimps, being actual Chimps, look the most, like Chimps. You can immediately discern the real from the fake, in a side by side, and it still has a distance to go before it's perfect...or does it? Some shots are better than others - largely due to different effects house handling different shots, due to time and cost, and not sharing assets (the latter happening more than you'd think.)

But the question is, what do we want to se in POTA? Do we want 100% Chimp reality? should we get rid of the CG and simply prod and poke some poor Chimp to dance and act for our amusement? Dance monkey dance?

And what about mixing CG and Live action?

jfcqQf61S-k

It wasn't any more impressive in the end.

I'll agree with you, that the tool can be abused, but what you're ACTUALLY commenting on, is the skill of the artists using that tool, and the amount of time and money spent. You're commenting on the team that created the moment, and all teams have their weak link(s).

Most people don't get, that within VFX, there are many many people who can sh1t the bed. The plates may be shot poorly. The character designer doesn't understand anatomy. The lighter can make a good model look like garbage, so can the texture artist. The render engine used makes a massive difference, as does the density of the model. The rigger can screw the animator, the animator can mis interpret the boards. Mocap can be a mess, the compositor can badly compositite, and the colorist can destroy it all.

That's a massive oversimplification of the moving parts, but you get the idea. The misconception is that it takes months to create the visual effects - lol - not true - it takes months to get the machine, all of those people who don't really know one another, to spit out something the Director is happy with, or worse, get the studio to sign off on.

It's factory work, where the blueprint is constantly changing, and even if you set out to make a chair, you ended up with a bird house, and no one knows why.

Oh, and the Dino Stamped? Yeah, it looked terrible - thank god that was 10 years ago. I am curious though; do you think they went digital because getting actual dinosaurs to stamped around a cliff was too expensive?

[beeshaw]

To me seeing a CGI character is no different to seeing an animatronic, stop motion or some sort of hybrid. My brain knows that it's an effect. The type, for the most part (unless it's REALLY poorly done), doesn't matter much to me, as much as HOW WELL it's done.

There will ALWAYS be a part of 'that really doesn't exist in real life', no matter how whatever it is created. There's more to it than just the disconnect between your eye and brain. It's whether they can make you forget about it. That's the movie magic. I don't get pulled out of JP when they switch from Animatronic to CGI because of how well it's done. The Apatasaurus in JW.. a little more jarring. Simply because of quality.

[Commenter 42]

To me seeing a CGI character is no different to seeing an animatronic, stop motion or some sort of hybrid. My brain knows that it's an effect. The type, for the most part (unless it's REALLY poorly done), doesn't matter much to me, as much as HOW WELL it's done.

There will ALWAYS be a part of 'that really doesn't exist in real life', no matter how whatever it is created. There's more to it than just the disconnect between your eye and brain. It's whether they can make you forget about it. That's the movie magic. I don't get pulled out of JP when they switch from Animatronic to CGI because of how well it's done. The Apatasaurus in JW.. a little more jarring. Simply because of quality.

THIS is absolutely true. I find myself often looking for the seams during a film.

On the flip side, a friend of mine once remarked - "I've been staring at (CG) skin for so long, real people are starting to look fake."

Then again, even when it's real - the mind has a hard time with things that are unusual. I'd like to think we can tell the difference between real an imagined with ease...but sometimes...

7o1t7hihMnQ

http://usercontent2.hubimg.com/7952413_f496.jpg
http://img.roro44.net/imgcache/2014/09/168378.jpg

[Leo656]

Believe me, I get it. Here's the thing: "Just do it all with computers" should never have become the Default. It's lazy. But because people, in general, ARE lazy, that's how it all evolved. "Why build a set? Just push a few buttons. Why sew costumes? Just push a few buttons." I get it, those buttons can be pushed in bad ways or by stupid people. That's still only PART of the problem. The problem is, doing it "The Easy Way" instead of "The RIGHT Way" should never be the standard. "How do we make this look as good as we possibly can?" should be the only question they ask. NOT, "How do we make this look as good as we possibly can... without having to actually build anything, because that's hard and time-consuming, yo?"

A mix of practical and CGI is always going to look 100x better than just CGI Everywhere, as current tastes and standards dictate. But nobody wants to do the work, and why should they? Not that CGI isn't work, it is, but... compared to physically designing and making costumes and building sets? I'unno. I know sets and models looks a lot better and more realistic than green screen. I know actual costumes looks a lot better than just painting an actor in a mo-cap suit with a CGI suit of armor or whatever. I know things that Exist in a 3D space always look better than things that Do Not, no matter how shiny or how detailed.

It's over-used. Even good CGI is Bad CGI when it's everywhere for no reason other than "Eh." "We could give this guy a costume to wear... or we can just do it in paint." F*ck that. Nobody's gonna justify that to me, not in this lifetime, sorry. It has a place in making movies; I think that place is a lot smaller than the place it currently occupies.

And I'd never call the Hobbit flicks "the best CGI", I just used them as an example of Good CGI b/c every second of footage is green screen but people are still generally okay with the quality of it. Personally I'd never call it "the best CGI" on account of how it's all over every frame. Pretty stuff? Sure. Still gives me a goddamn headache. Overkill is overkill, any way you slice it. And the amount of CGI in movies nowadays isn't just overkill, it's not even remotely necessary.

I've also never, EVER been "blown away" or "had my mind blown" by any CGI effects, not the way I have been by the stuff people came up with back in the 80s, when pushing buttons wasn't an option. People MADE things then. It was a CRAFT, done with care, a specialty skill that most people couldn't do. To me, THAT kind of thing is "mind-blowing", someone doing the kind of stuff the Henson shop did for so many years. That's the kind of stuff that makes me go "Woah, how'd they DO that?!" I'm still impressed when I look at lots of that old stuff. The sheer scope and amount of work it took to make the impossible into something at least plausibly realistic, from nothing. Now they push buttons and paint a picture. I'unno man.

Clearly some people's mileage is going to vary, and that's whatever. I'm not wrong in general though; CGI IS used more than is necessary and thus a lot of it looks sh*tty by default. It's fine when it's there to embellish, clean up, or exaggerate. It has a place. And in some movies like Speed Racer, then yes, you absolutely need to go full overkill on CGI because that's the only way you can or should even attempt that type of movie. But not every movie should use it to that degree, because it doesn't generally look very convincing or good when you do it that way.

Meh. Just meh.

[Commenter 42]

Believe me, I get it. Here's the thing: "Just do it all with computers" should never have become the Default. It's lazy. But because people, in general, ARE lazy, that's how it all evolved. "Why build a set? Just push a few buttons. Why sew costumes? Just push a few buttons." I get it, those buttons can be pushed in bad ways or by stupid people. That's still only PART of the problem. The problem is, doing it "The Easy Way" instead of "The RIGHT Way" should never be the standard. "How do we make this look as good as we possibly can?" should be the only question they ask. NOT, "How do we make this look as good as we possibly can... without having to actually build anything, because that's hard and time-consuming, yo?"


DUDE!!!!

You need to stop man. You're becoming offensive. It's not just pushing some buttons man. I get that you don't understand, but you're making some really silly assumptions.And yes, everything you've just said underlines, in triplicate, how very little you know.

The computer isn't doing anything for you - it's the reverse.

Want to see how most digital creatures start today?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6KWEdgk4xeo/T9en52MY8dI/AAAAAAAAAAY/nRCgAKO1V_4/s1600/1.jpg
Just like practical effects, it starts with a simple shape - and goes from there. the digital approximation of a lump of clay.


Think of it like this - I want a sock puppet in the shot. I pull the damned sock off of my foot, draw two eyes, stick it on my hand, roll camera. Presto - sock puppet for 2.99, plus the cost of a sharpie.

To do the same digitally, is infinitely harder. It takes a ton of work just to get close to matching what you get for free from a physical object shot on the day.


...The sheer scope and amount of work it took to make the impossible into something at least plausibly realistic, from nothing. Now they push buttons and paint a picture. I'unno man.

At this point, I can only assume, you're doing your schtick.

[Leo656]

Well, you would know better as a professional so I'll defer. Generally speaking, my preference isn't going to ever be towards an aesthetic that's predominantly computer effects. My eyes don't like it. Wasn't trying to disrespect your job or you as a professional. Movies with an abundance of digital effects are not my taste. That's not your, my, or anyone's fault. I'll try and be more polite in expressing it.

[IndigoErth]

I will give you that some may use it where it's not needed, I assume often out of trying to be more impressive than what they think they can get with something "real"... Falling tower? Yes. Safer than doing risky real explosions and whatnot? Sure. CGI robo Shredder...? No, and just why. :roll: Costume Shredder probably would have saved time actually.

Ultimately this is the choices of the director, producer or whoever, and not an evil on the studios and individuals producing CGI.

But the amount of work that is put into creating everything that's made in 3D, I'm sure it's a boon for the carpel tunnel treatment industry. I'm just a small fry and not as good with it as I wish I was, but even then it wears on the hands... I can't imagine how it does on those who do this stuff for big film and whatnot, esp those working in a massive amount of realism.

[Commenter 42]

Well, you would know better as a professional so I'll defer. Generally speaking, my preference isn't going to ever be towards an aesthetic that's predominantly computer effects. My eyes don't like it. Wasn't trying to disrespect your job or you as a professional. Movies with an abundance of digital effects are not my taste. That's not your, my, or anyone's fault. I'll try and be more polite in expressing it.

All I'm trying to get across, is that the misconception is that it's easy. The hardest thing to do in CG, is to make any digital asset look real, period. When you manage to accomplish this, you've done your job properly, but now, no one knows you ever even did your job. So, when people talk about CG they overlook the great work, and focus on the lesser work, which because you notice it, becomes the defining example of all the work.

What I'm saying is, no one likes the look of CG, including me, especially when you can tell it's CG. That's fair, and I agree, but you shouldn't assume it was because people were lazy. Instead, know that the client was cheap, indecisive, or poorly organized. Know that they probably awarded the job to the lowest bidder, who in turn didn't have the level of expertise to deliver. CG artists aren't really lazy - Hard to be lazy working 23 hr days.

Often times, the reason it sucks, has more to do with the money budgeted to the studio, and the BS politics of film, than the ability of the artist(s) involved.

This is why it's frustrating. I appreciate the sentiment, but an artist is still an artist, and the studios are still a$$holes.

As an aside, Rick Baker also works digitally. He's very talented, but even his best digital work isn't as good as his physical sculptures.

[Wildcat]

The problem with a lot of people against cgi is once again their cynicism towards modern day movies. I've seen it so much...so-and-so looks fake, it's a cgi fest, practical always looks better etc...

Seriously if you take a good look at older movies from the 80s and 90s, those praised for effects, a lot of the practical stuff comes off just as fake. You can tell when a puppet or trick was used. People just consider it better because it was a different time and associate it as having more "care" put into it.

Now, as an adult, when I watch some of my old favorites I look at the monsters or whatever I can basically determine how they did it. Nothing wrong with this as long as it looks good but its the same difference as knowing stuff is cgi.

Creating a good cgi shot must be just as difficult to produce if not harder since it has to literally be animated to fit the environment (lighting, shadow, debris, etc..) Every little detail that comes with one shot.

Of course some movies have better cgi than others but the same is true about practical effects. Plus I have a feeling nowadays people purposely focus on what's cgi instead of the overall scenes/movie on screen which is not fair. Do that with older movies and the fake practical stuff becomes more apparent too.

[Powder]

Stop trying to make the same (wrong) point all the time.

People consider it better because it's actually there, it's real, it's in the 3rd dimension, can be touched, interacted with live, etc. When a prop is done well, it's infinitely more believable because of that. You don't have to worry about the laws of physics being bent to the will of a computer animated character, you don't have to worry about conflicting light sources, moisture looking metallic, etc because the final product is often bound to reality's rules. For many people, suspension of disbelief is hard to attain knowing that actors X & Y were talking to paper plates on broom handles. It's not about whether or not a thing looks man made, it's about how convincing it is that the thing is actually there with the actors.

People don't just rally against modern cinema because of nostalgia...

TMNT 1990's turtles are far more real than TMNT 2014's, for example, because they literally ARE real.

I'm not knocking CGI, just Wildcat's ignorance.

[Wildcat]

So according to that practical effects are better just because they physically exist? Guess I can go make my own animatronic and no matter how crappy it turns out it's better automatically because...look I can touch it.

This is actually another thing I've thought of. No matter how good CGI gets there will always be people that think practical is better just because it was "made". Which is pretty stupid. That logic right there is just nostalgia.

[Powder]

Try to read the whole post before replying.

"When a prop is done well, it's infinitely more believable because of that."

Don't be a wad. Obviously modern CGI is going to be superior to the work of a novice, but by that same token, an expert prop shop would kick the ass of the guys who do the kinda movies you'd see on The SyFy channel. A skilled veteran of Henson's creature shop could give an ILM animator a run for their money any day of the week. I didn't say it IS better, either, I just gave the reasoning why some do. Or rather, why they prefer it to CGI, at least with respect to characters. Because it's real, & that gives it a leg up.

Preferring a prop to a model because of it's physicality has 0000.0% to do with nostalgia.

[Wildcat]

And I never said CGI was better than practical. Shortened, I said...both cgi and practical can come off fake but a lot of people harshly judge cgi just because it's cgi.

I'm not going to be biased and defend even my most favorite movies as having better effects when some of it is obviously discernable of how it was actually done despite how good looks. The best cgi is simply better in these instances.

Don't know why you bring up the turtles. Of course the 90s turtles look better. The 2014 cgi is not well done.

[Powder]

People judge CGI harshly because it doesn't have nearly as good a track record as physical creations. It's only just starting to look believable now, but that's mostly with vehicles, backgrounds, & explosions, it's still got a long way to go when it comes to living things like robots, aliens, beasts, humans, etc. I don't think a single person here was debating that bad props are better than good CGI, it's like comparing splinters to gunshot wounds, there's no argument.

I brought up the turtles because there are plenty of cases where preferring something from 25 years ago is valid rather than simply nostalgia & cynicism. 2014's TMNT is not well done, that's right, & that further drives home the point that even in the now there's tons of unconvincing crap on the big screen. So it's plenty fair to judge it harshly. When everything looks as good as Star Wars' next installment inevitably will, it'll be a different conversation.

[Jester]

That said a bad practical effect can still be better than bad CG because at least it's there and can be interacted with by the actors. Bad CG is just inserted after the fact and doesn't have any depth to it in even the actors probably aren't even looking in the right place

[Metalwolf]

I will give you that some may use it where it's not needed, I assume often out of trying to be more impressive than what they think they can get with something "real"... Falling tower? Yes. Safer than doing risky real explosions and whatnot? Sure. CGI robo Shredder...? No, and just why. :roll: Costume Shredder probably would have saved time actually.

CGI has it's uses at times, although I would say that one other knock against it is the temptation and tendency to try use it to make 'impressive' props instead of stuff that looks real and practical.

Shredder's costume? Does not look practical.
Donnie's abundance of stuff on his body? Not practical.
Bayformers? Intentional bunch of tiny little parts whizzing about instead of a robot that looks practical and durable.


Another example of CGI's shortfalls: Nick TMNT. CGI is impressive, but the backgrounds and people models are severely limited, there are no (or barely any) people walking NYC at night like there would be in real life. It takes time and money to 'sculpt' a model instead of just drawing it in a fraction of the time. Even during the day it looks 'deserted,' whereas with 'traditional' animation this wouldn't be an issue.

I think one possibility with people being sort of against CGI is that CGI is always pushed as being automatically 'better' just because, instead having it's flaws acknowledged like other tools of creating tend to have.

I'm not knocking CGI. But not everything is perfect with it either, which is what I think proponents often tend to overlook.

[Commenter 42]

It takes time and money to 'sculpt' a model instead of just drawing it in a fraction of the time.

This is absolutely not true, at all, in any way.
It's crazy how much disinformation has piled up over the years. I blame all the behind the scenes extras on DVDs. :lol:

[Leo656]

I'm not knocking CGI, just Wildcat's ignorance.

You, sir, are the Hero of the Day. :lol:

Just woke up and your posts already made my morning. :tgrin:

[Commenter 42]

People judge CGI harshly because it doesn't have nearly as good a track record as physical creations. It's only just starting to look believable now, but that's mostly with vehicles, backgrounds, & explosions, it's still got a long way to go when it comes to living things like robots, aliens, beasts, humans, etc. I don't think a single person here was debating that bad props are better than good CGI, it's like comparing splinters to gunshot wounds, there's no argument.

I brought up the turtles because there are plenty of cases where preferring something from 25 years ago is valid rather than simply nostalgia & cynicism. 2014's TMNT is not well done, that's right, & that further drives home the point that even in the now there's tons of unconvincing crap on the big screen. So it's plenty fair to judge it harshly. When everything looks as good as Star Wars' next installment inevitably will, it'll be a different conversation.

Well, to be fair, comparing Henson Splinter to Baysplinter is like comparing Splinter to a gunshot wound.

[Leo656]

You guys Rock.

[Commenter 42]

so you start with a rat...

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-z6Y05i-wGak/UcnmjexVnfI/AAAAAAAAHq0/97EFAdJbxR8/s1600/cute+rat+tail.jpg

http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/74636535-98e2-4488-bac1-0c6874247083/8a0cf125-91eb-4191-a885-37c1aa9386d0.jpg

http://img15.deviantart.net/1f12/i/2014/329/b/5/the_99_cheese_pizza_by_donnietheturtle-d87npk7.png

[Lou 500]

Why the f*** does he have a dog nose...


I personally adore these animatronics, I remember seeing the costumes a while ago and being really impressed. Yeah, they could probably tone down the scales (terrapins like sliders don't really have scales) and add a wee bit more muscle definition; I can see why they're not super muscley, they're meant to be 15-16 year olds and aren't quite fullt developed yet. The faces are perfect.

But they are so, so much better than what Michael Bay decided on. Eat it, Bay. EAT IT.