What do you think the turtles will look like?

[Powder]

With edit and multi quote tabs you guys really need to chill with all the spam.

[Slime State Alumni]

Originally Posted by omnimorphic

In Spy Kids? On Point? mmmm no.
It sold well because it was a kids film, and most kids can't discern quality special effects from garbage because they are kids.

Oh God no, you misread my post. I said Attack the Block's FX were on point. But you'll probably argue against that too so I guess it doesn't make much of a difference.

[Slime State Alumni]

Originally Posted by omnimorphic

I know that despite the simplicity, there was a lot of work put into getting that effect on the screen, but even still, it looks like a fun fur sock monkey.

sometimes there is elegance in simplicity, but sometimes....

Surprise, my fortune telling skills are improving.

I thought it worked pretty well, the way their black fur almost absorbed all light to the point where it was just a black void while the teeth glowed without casting any shadows on the body. It just looked off-putting.

I know all of the FX will be in CGI, but I hope the turtles have some weight to them visually so it doesn't feel like Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

[Teal Turtle]

Originally Posted by omnimorphic

I think ILM will do a great job.

Which brings us back to the subject - what would YOU want them to look like/what do you think they will look like.

Clearly you must have an opinion.

You didn't ask me but I will tell you anyway.... I want the turtles to look exactly like we think they will look. Each turtle having a unique look and I am all for the bamboo armour.

[CansecoBat]

I personally was hoping for something that any re-invention of a franchise should do. It should be recognizable to the essence of the character, maintain all the necessities but with a fresh spin. Visually being different to what came before, but recognizably the same thing.

I personally wanted more elongated physiques (not height) maintaing less of a muscular appearance, and more of a supremely athletic and wiry strong type build. Much like a basketball player on a smaller scale. They are teenagers after all, and ninjas. That's a lot of fast metabolisms, and cardio doing all that ninja training. That has always been an issue for me with the way the turtles have looked.

If the turtles were done practically (my preference) and not CGI, this would've allowed for more freedom of movement from the stunt actors, to give us even better fighting action scenes.

I also wanted more Mirage, and frankly realistic turtle like beaks. It would make the edgier looking. More fit for modern audiences.

Different cuts to the bandanas would be cool in my book. Attire? Maybe ninja pants. Personalized swag on Mikey and Don. Mikey for pop culture, Don for utilitarian type purposes in the field as medic or scientist.

As long as the essence is there, I'm adaptable. In fact I'd prefer it to be fresh. That is hardly my worry for this movie. I'm sure they'll nail the look. The story, and adapting of other characters is what has me worried. The tone of the movie. Is it going to shift constantly like the Transformers films? Is this one more based on the OT and less Mirage?

If the story is completely fresh, and it's a total re-invention ... I have to see it before judging. I would be more upset if it was a carbon copy of the '90 film. Maybe new stuff isn't quite so bad. Just don't make Oroku Saki a krang type rip off, please.

I always thought this was a solid jumping off point, to be honest:

[Slime State Alumni]

Originally Posted by CansecoBat

I personally was hoping for something that any re-invention of a franchise should do. It should be recognizable to the essence of the character, maintain all the necessities but with a fresh spin. Visually being different to what came before, but recognizably the same thing.

I personally wanted more elongated physiques (not height) maintaing less of a muscular appearance, and more of a supremely athletic and wiry strong type build. Much like a basketball player on a smaller scale. They are teenagers after all, and ninjas. That's a lot of fast metabolisms, and cardio doing all that ninja training. That has always been an issue for me with the way the turtles have looked.

If the turtles were done practically (my preference) and not CGI, this would've allowed for more freedom of movement from the stunt actors, to give us even better fighting action scenes.

I also wanted more Mirage, and frankly realistic turtle like beaks. It would make the edgier looking. More fit for modern audiences.

Different cuts to the bandanas would be cool in my book. Attire? Maybe ninja pants. Personalized swag on Mikey and Don. Mikey for pop culture, Don for utilitarian type purposes in the field as medic or scientist.

As long as the essence is there, I'm adaptable. In fact I'd prefer it to be fresh. That is hardly my worry for this movie. I'm sure they'll nail the look. The story, and adapting of other characters is what has me worried. The tone of the movie. Is it going to shift constantly like the Transformers films? Is this one more based on the OT and less Mirage?

If the story is completely fresh, and it's a total re-invention ... I have to see it before judging. I would be more upset if it was a carbon copy of the '90 film. Maybe new stuff isn't quite so bad. Just don't make Oroku Saki a krang type rip off, please.

I always thought this was a solid jumping off point, to be honest:

I partially agree; their build shouldn't be over emphasized and there should be a variety in how each character is presented to give a sense of individuality to each turtle, sort of what the Nick toon has accomplished.

The beak look I wouldn't mind either. I thought the images of the turtles from the Out of the Shadows game weren't bad. Lean build, thick wrists and ankles, different heights and shells, some differences between the facial structure, etc.

[CansecoBat]

Originally Posted by Slime State Alumni

I partially agree; their build shouldn't be over emphasized and there should be a variety in how each character is presented to give a sense of individuality to each turtle, sort of what the Nick toon has accomplished.

I really, really like that the Nick show got back to individualized physical characteristics too. Different heights, builds, etc. The most the 2003 toon did was varying shades of green, which I've never been a fan of particularly. I rather have the characters differ in character of face, height, build, attire, etc. I totally agree with you, bud.

Originally Posted by Slime State Alumni

Lean build, thick wrists and ankles, different heights and shells, some differences between the facial structure, etc.

I love the lean and mean physiques though. Was never a fan of the 2k3 show how everyone had the same shape, all being body builders. I can't stand however those thick wrists, especially in the Nick show. I don't like the dimensions of their feet and hands. I just want to see more character in their faces.

Something the iconic '90 film achieved, Raph with scar ... being slightly taller and more muscular. Mike being the shortest. Leo being almost baby faced as the good guy, the perfect physique as the leader and level headed one. Don, the intelligent one seemingly with the biggest noggin compared to his body.

It got worse with each film, even being brothers, individuality was lost. Lazy film makers. Especially the ultra generic 2007 CGI movie.

[DONATELLO DUZMACHINES]

I think Spectral Motion would of done some amazing make up and animatronics work on the turtles. They have done alot of the creatures in Gillmero Del Toros movies.

[jestermon]

3-d always looks like 3-d there is no question that puppets or some actual mock up of a piece of a character in a movie is best for close ups.

I don't see why The Rock the movie os bad or the Rock himself I think some of you people don't know how to enjoy a movie.

[Slime State Alumni]

Originally Posted by omnimorphic

Why do so many people want puppets?

Puppets always look like puppets!

And the lip-sync with animatronics is never accurate.

I understand that CG can have a weightless feel - which has much more to do with time and money, but animatronics have not progressed as far as CG in the last decade, and still looks lifeless, most of the time.
Avatar was built on technology from 2006, and it looked incredible.
TMNT will have the benefit of what's been developed in the last 5 years!
This new skin render method for example
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuF90Ks75y4

Yes, Yoda was an incredible puppet, and of course there are some incredible make ups done with animatronics
BUT no, the 1990's film is not the best the TMNT can look. We love it because we watched it as kids. They do not look "real".

And here is a friends self portrait done in mudbox (CG):

And here is another CG creature that looks photoreal:

CG can out preform organic puppets, but it's like everything else - it's the tool in the hands of the artist that determines it's validity on the screen.

And that strange green head with the torn bandanna is neither anatomically accurate nor aesthetically pleasing.
The final product looked nothing like a turtle, more like a diseased turkey.
Turkey:
Attachment 5725

Real turtles"
Attachment 5726

It's just wrong.

CGI or puppets, whatever. As long as it's good and it works, then it's fine. Avatar though was a terrible movie even if it looked gorgeous.

I thought the CGI in Pacific Rim and what they did for the Hulk in the Avengers was pretty damn good - especially how they rendered the Hulk. It was eerily realistic. Sames goes for the monster in The Host. Weta seems to do a pretty damn fine job. But still, it doesn't hurt to do as many practical shots as possible; as long as it helps tell the story better and meshes well with the rest of the digital effects.

And while that weirded out mantis does look photo realistic, it's because it's a still image. Have someone try to render that in full motion on the big screen and it would be a dead giveaway as a digital effect.

[CansecoBat]

Originally Posted by omnimorphic

And puppets always look like puppets, of which there is no question.

They're puppets because you know they are. The rubber suits and animatronics in the 1990 film are near flawless and they still hold up quite admirably today. There is an inherent weight, dimension, and physicality to them that CGI doesn't hold a candle to in all honesty.

The pictures you posted of CGI created image are one still, that took a lot of time on. Not 4 or 5 characters in every scene of a movie. That attention to detail cannot be maintained over a whole production, with strict budget and time constraints.

There was maybe one or two slip ups, max in the 1990 film when it came to the puppetry and the voice over. Beyond that, everyone I know comments on how they look so real and believable in that movie.

The script for the 1990 film was a beautiful thing, but it really was Jim Henson that made the film work. If those turtles didn't look real, and plausible ... the entire film doesn't work.

I still firmly believe suits are the way to go. CGI is constantly being improved upon. So much so that if you go with a strictly computer generated image (which always are obviously fake to the human eye), the technology progresses so much year to year. What works in 2012, may look really cartoony and fake in just 3 - 4 years.

Look what happened to Raimi's CGI fest Spider-Man films. They look fake as hell. Even the 3rd one which just came out 5 to 6 years ago in 2007. That's why the Webb series went with a practical stunt man as much as they could. There is actual weight and physics there that human eye detects as real.

Practicality is the way to go, all the best film makers go the practical route. It creates the best immersion. Or at the very least, a combination of practicality and CGI that blend together.

I'm hoping the entire CGI works on this film, but there are even moments in the Transformer films where I feel the weightless / cartoony feel to the image on screen.

I bet if you took a poll, most would feel the 1990 costumes will be visually more palatable and plausible than the 2014 CGI turtles.

Oh and as for the picture I posted ... that absolutely looks like a turtle. Very realistic looking, and tons of character in the face. As for aesthetically pleasing? That's subjective to begin with.

The 1990 turtles weren't "pretty" or aesthetically pleasing. If anything I want them to be gritty, with character and nuance. The turtles don't need to be models, or sexy.

[Teal Turtle]

I actually hope each turtle will have a different shape of green. I think it will be a very dark green/brown.

I honestly think he turtles will look amazing.

[Jester]

That's CG? Doesn't look it...at all.

[Welmanshire]

Originally Posted by omnimorphic

You guys become nasty so quickly.

"There is an inherent weight, dimension, and physicality to them that CGI doesn't hold a candle to in all honesty."

You're entitled to an opinion, as wrong as it may be. Maybe you're just not aware of just how much of a film has been digitally enhanced?

as for being nasty...

The picture you posted looks like a high-school art project.
It absolutely looks like a green vulture, not a turtle. The head structure is wrong on every level. If the artist had used better reference, it might have looked more like a turtle head. as it stands, the anatomical structure holds no resemblance to either humans or Turtles, so it fails on both counts.
I posted an image of a turtle for comparison, the inaccuracy should be plain to see. If i've selected the wrong species, knock yourself out finding one that matches that latex abomination. I'm sure it will be easy to find


And no, you can not compare films from the birth of CG to todays CG, no more than you should compare the stop motion effects of Ray Harryhausen to current practical effects. It's an unfair comparison and grossly misleading.
The speed of advancement in digital VFX has vastly outpaced practical, and will continue to do so. Moore's law is an example of why this is possible, and why you don't look at the work done in 2002 and compare it to what's being accomplished 10 years on.

And the pictures posted? Yes, it took him a month to do, because it was a side project that he worked on in his spare time, ON A LAPTOP. So would it be possible to do for a feature film, at ILM where there are warehouses filled with renderfarms, and a staff of 400 over the course of a year? Just maybe.

Do you really, really, REALLY think, that if they could get the same level of performance out of a rubber suit they would even bother with CG?

It's not cheaper to go digital, not in the least.

There are a ton of films that have BAD CG, we've all watched them. And there are many examples of great practical effects, of course. But going digital works better in a production pipeline. I know a thing or two about it! Practical is very useful for lighting reference. it's useful for scale, and sometimes the idea of the performance. but for so many reasons, it becomes impractical when you need it to do what it can't.

And to your last point, no the turtles should not be sexy, but they shouldn't make me want to vomit either.

You are turning this thread into double post city.

As for the anatomical accuracy of the "latex abomination", I'd say it's just as accurate as the heads from the original movies in its own way.

[Slime State Alumni]

Originally Posted by omnimorphic

Thank you Jester. I think you see my point. Whew!

And yes the hulk was well done Slime -should I call you slime for short? (kidding of course) I agree - but give credit where it's due - he was ILM not Weta that created the Avengers Hulk.

With the mantis creature, yes, I think getting the animation to look photo real is absolutely another story, but a new type of animation, tentatively called
Scan-imation is on the horizon that may be, in part, the answer.

No, I was referring to The Host's monster which was done by Weta. But yes, Hulk was an ILM creation.

You don't have to be so defensive about ConsecoBat's post. He's merely arguing his point; I didn't see him post anything remotely "nasty" in his reply other than the fact that he disagreed with you.

And why did you post a still again as an example of CGI being realistic? That's another still image, not a fully animated digital effect.

And of course you can call me Slime. I actually think it has a rather nice ring to it.

PS Troll 2 > Avatar (at least Troll 2 was entertaining, albeit in an unintentional way)

[Candy Kappa]

The best cgi, photo realistic cgi is nothing without great animation.

Just watch Final Fantasy spirits within. The first photo realistic cgi movie and how badly it looks with poor animation.

[Jester]

Originally Posted by Candy Kappa

The best cgi, photo realistic cgi is nothing without great animation.

Just watch Final Fantasy spirits within. The first photo realistic cgi movie and how badly it looks with poor animation.

I'll agree with this. A still of photo realistic CG is one thing. but once it starts moving, that's when "Uncanny Valley" kicks in.

[Slime State Alumni]

Originally Posted by omnimorphic

Absolutely true. I guess I'm just saying it's possible.

@Slime - I just think that CG gets a bad rap far too often, because of all the "Bad" cg that's been done. Digital creations are just as difficult to create, and artists who do never get the respect they deserve, because it's "assumed" that art done through a computer, instead of by hand, is some how "cheating".
I don't think that there isn't a place for practical effects, quite the opposite, it's very important to the workflow, and I also don't think Digital trumps practical. I think they need to be used in the right context, and dismissing work of a digital artist is really demeaning.

So from that perspective, it's "nasty", and ignorant to be honest.

BTW the Troll 2 comment = hilarious.

OK real quick so it doesn't seem like I'm going off topic:

I don't think anyone is outright dismissing digital effects completely. They have a place for sure and can be used in a practical manner, ie what's done with Boardwalk Empire and a lot of scenes in Fincher's Zodiac. Seamless CGI done with subtlety (which is key) in order to add to what is taking place in-camera. For subject matter that involves more of the fantastical, again, The Host is a solid example of well done CGI done with restraint. That's fine. When it de-evolves into a bunch of actors pretending to run away from air in front of a green screen, that's when people should take issue because it's absurd and takes the viewer out of the world being presented and ruins the overall mis-en-scene (if there is one at all to begin with) of the movie. I don't want to see a bunch of CGI turtles running through a CGI cityscape being chased by some CGI mutant with a CGI Shredder flipping around like Sonic the Hedgehog just because the director thinks he can getaway with it due to his dependence on digital effects. It's the cheap (not literal) way out to trying to structure, execute, and present a thought out scene that involves a combination of multiple elements in order to create a believable illusion. And granted, Bay isn't directing, but if he's producing, I don't want the guy who literally took a scene from another movie he made and slipping it into his next movie and covering it up with CGI to be anywhere near a movie that's supposed to be adapting something I'm actually invested in. That, to me, is far more demeaning. And by the way, I'm referring to a scene from one of the Transformers (does it really matter which) that lifted an entire chases scene from The Island shot-for-shot and shoved some CGI robots into it.

But yeah, did you see the Troll 2 documentary?

[sgtfbomb]

The problem people tend to have with CG is not usually the problem they think they have with it. CG is the modern version of stop motion animation, and if you ask me, it only looks slightly more convincing than any other effects employed. (Though, The subtle stuff you'll never realize was CG ..... and sometimes, miniature shots are confused with CG, i.e. the Star Wars prequels, which still had a lot of miniature shots.) A full on CG character, just like the ED 209 from Robocop, will look like an effect, and that's no necessarily a bad thing. Looking more real and being convincing aren't exactly one and the same. (For example, that picture above, looks real, but if it were in motion, it might not be as convincing, as that's where "weight" and "dimension" tend to dissipate -- one specific tell is that the image is glossy and the eyebrows look artificial.) Unless they're born yesterday (or the early 1900s) people generally know that when they're watching either the ED-209 stomping around or Spiderman swinging from building to building, that they're seeing an effect. Whether or not it's CG is irrelevant.

No, the problem truly is with how the CG is handled. A lot of filmmakers just go crazy, and devise sequences that break EVERY single law of physics. An average member of the audience may or may not know which laws are being broken, but they tend to know something's wrong.

Plus, you have people like George Lucas, who push the technology forward, only to create CG characters that do Ren & Stimpy impressions in the background.

So while CG will most likely be a major criticism/praise as to why the upcoming film is good or bad, it's really what the filmmakers have planned for the CG.

[Teal Turtle]

I think it's time we get a sneak peak of the turtles. Its time....