• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Industrial Light & Magic vs. Weta Digital

Status
Not open for further replies.
3

3N16MA

Banned
I decided to make a thread after reading the discussion about the comparison between these two companies in the "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" thread. Some seem to think Weta Digital has surpassed ILM while others do not think so. Weta seems to be able to do amazing work with a limited budget such as "District 9" and "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" which had a budget under $95 million. ILM has a massive track record and did work on "Avatar" but most of the work was Weta's.

Here are some notable films they have worked on in the past few years (2009, 2010, 2011) and a couple big upcoming films for 2011/2012.

ILM:

oAk2Z.jpg
y27cv.jpg
YT1eY.jpg
HBAhn.jpg
aAu4n.jpg
QmGde.jpg
EFlPP.jpg




Weta Digital:

XG1tX.jpg
cHW7N.jpg
SfHYV.jpg
FKsi6.jpg
vTojN.jpg
gjiNb.jpg
 
I can't tell a difference in their talents from the movies in the OP, I can however tell that what seems to matter most is how much time/money allotted by the studio affects the end result as First Class's effects were pretty bad.
 
Weta is at its best when they mo-cap. But their compositing/green screen usage looks ridiculous in a lot of shots. And the CG itself doesn't look quite as "real", IMO.

ILM is more skilled at creating something we've never seen before. Transformers 3 and Davy Jones in Pirates are in a league all by themselves.
 
You forgot to put PotC under ILM, and Davy Jones is still probably the most impressive thing they've done.

Also, I'm pretty sure the majority of CG work in District 9 was not done by Weta but by some much less known company.
 
You picked some weird choices to showcase each studio's work.

Should've mentioned Jurassic Park, T2, Star Trek remake, Star Wars, Pirates for ILM and definitely mentioned Lord of The Rings and King Kong for Weta.
 
I think Weta nearly wins because some of the scenes in Planet of the Apes looked real. Especially that orangutan. Holy shit that was good. District 9 looked amazing and only cost $30m. Lord of the rings is still amazing too.
 
NaughtyCalibur said:
I'm gonna have to go with ILM. Weta's effects are at their best when they're not "in your face" (see: District 9).
Click to expand...


District 9 is image engine (who did the aliens) and Embassy VFX (did the mech). Weta did very little for district 9.
 
I only wanted to show a few notable films from the past few years. If you look at their whole history ILM destroys Weta purely on the amount of work they have done and the variety. Also some seem to think Weta has surpassed ILM within the past few years.
 
X-men: FC's effects were seriously underwhelming in my opinion. The flying sequences especially.

Haven't seen RotPotA (lol) yet and even though I think Weta is a very solid studio, ILM wins in my book.
 
It's not really much of a contest. WETA is not a shitty effects house by any means, but ILM is just so much more advanced in R&D, has more resources and manpower, etc. Basically, if you can't afford ILM, you go looking for WETA. I think that says enough.
 
3N16MA said:
From what I read ILM came into help out but most of it was Weta's work.
Click to expand...
Well I do think as a whole Avatar is more impressive than anything else, so I have to side with Weta I guess. But I have no idea on a technical level.
 
duckroll said:
It's not really much of a contest. WETA is not a shitty effects house by any means, but ILM is just so much more advanced in R&D, has more resources and manpower, etc. Basically, if you can't afford ILM, you go looking for WETA. I think that says enough.
Click to expand...

I think Cameron and Spielberg can afford whoever they want.
 
As far as pure realism goes, Digital Domain wins anyway. What they did on Benjamin Button is insane and still leaves everything else in the dust (see similar attempt by ILM in Tron 2, which looks significantly worse in comparison, despite being created later). They also did Zodiac which basically had completely real looking CG and compositing as well.
 
duckroll said:
It's not really much of a contest. WETA is not a shitty effects house by any means, but ILM is just so much more advanced in R&D, has more resources and manpower, etc. Basically, if you can't afford ILM, you go looking for WETA. I think that says enough.
Click to expand...


Uhh no, it is nothing like that. You guys are making shit up now.
 
Like Weta's style better, but effects are a different matter. ILM is clearly at the top of their game. Weta has a tendency to make me forget about the effects and look at the whole picture.

ILM, on the other hand, seems to make me realize I'm looking at an effect much of the time. This is good for the wow factor.

I don't hate either though.
 
WETA's mo-cap stuff is incredible - but when it comes to those more practical visual effects (ie. explosions, space ships, transforming robots, or what have you) ILM is just in a class of their own.
 
ILM

Weta's stuff is nice, but too often they lack the ability to compose images well, so things just look like they're floating on a layer. As well, Weta seems to have a problem with quick movements, their stuff is noticeably CGI , and it looks bad. I don't watch a tonne of mo-cap but I do appreciate Weta's advancements there.

Lord Error said:
As far as pure realism goes, Digital Domain wins anyway. What they did on Benjamin Button is insane and still leaves everything else in the dust (see similar attempt by ILM in Tron 2, which looks significantly worse in comparison, despite being created later). They also Zodiac which basically had completely real looking CG and compositing as well.
Click to expand...

That's Bay's company isn't it? They worked on the Transformers films with Bay (though ILM did most of it).
 
Lord Error said:
As far as pure realism goes, Digital Domain wins anyway. What they did on Benjamin Button is insane and still leaves everything else in the dust (see similar attempt by ILM in Tron 2, which looks significantly worse in comparison, despite being created later). They also Zodiac which basically had completely real looking CG and compositing as well.
Click to expand...

Damn, I fucking forgot Digital Domain. They are by far the best in the game - they use special effects in ways that are not "special", but just another tool in the filmmaker's hands. Zodiac, BB were both great examples of incredible CG (though, that's the Fincher fanboy in me coming out a bit). Shame Cameron decided to sell them off, they did a great job on Titanic as well.

I just love how the three big effects houses were all founded by essentially these legendary directors - ILM by Lucas, WETA by Jackson, and Digital Domain by Cameron. All damn good, each with their own specialty.
 
duckroll said:
You know that they're not the ones paying for the movies they make right? Lol.
Click to expand...
Well now Avatar is the biggest film ever, the budget for 2/3 would certainly be large enough to use any studio they wanted, so are they switching to ILM?
 
duckroll said:
You know that they're not the ones paying for the movies they make right? Lol.
Click to expand...
Didn't Cameron personally choose Weta for Avatar? They just brought in ILM to finish up work and they needed someone incredible to do work really fast.
 
Lord Error said:
As far as pure realism goes, Digital Domain wins anyway. What they did on Benjamin Button is insane and still leaves everything else in the dust (see similar attempt by ILM in Tron 2, which looks significantly worse in comparison, despite being created later). They also Zodiac which basically had completely real looking CG and compositing as well.
Click to expand...


DD did the cg character in Tron as well. Also benjamin button digital replacement is mostly done in Lola VFX (it is their specialty).

http://www.lolavfx.com/#work_18
 
Here's a question I've had about CG work for awhile now: In a film such as Transformers, for instance, are the transformers actual 3D models inserted into the film, or are they created piece by piece in every frame like a painting?

If it's the later, then holy crap, what a ton of work.
 
PhoncipleBone said:
Didn't Cameron personally choose Weta for Avatar? They just brought in ILM to finish up work and they needed someone incredible to do work really fast.
Click to expand...


Pretty much every studio worked on Avatar. It is rare a studio does every single shot in a movie themselves.
 
StuBurns said:
Well I do think as a whole Avatar is more impressive than anything else, so I have to side with Weta I guess. But I have no idea on a technical level.
Click to expand...

I would put avatar and lotr as some of the most impressive cgi I have ever seen.... but I would say ilm's work seems more consistent.
 
Weta has definitely been picking better projects lately, that's for damn sure.

Lord Error said:
As far as pure realism goes, Digital Domain wins anyway. What they did on Benjamin Button is insane and still leaves everything else in the dust (see similar attempt by ILM in Tron 2, which looks significantly worse in comparison, despite being created later). They also Zodiac which basically had completely real looking CG and compositing as well.
Click to expand...

You dummy, Digital Domain worked on Tron Legacy, they used the same technology from Benjamin Button. :lol
 
Summary Man said:
Here's a question I've had about CG work for awhile now: In a film such as Transformers, for instance, are the transformers actual 3D models inserted into the film, or are they created piece by piece in every frame like a painting?

If it's the later, then holy crap, what a ton of work.
Click to expand...


They are rendered in a 3d software and composited in. Some of the shots are fully CG since it is easier to do that than to shoot live action plates for them.
 
/\/\ Hahaha oh god stop with the bullshit

Summary Man said:
Here's a question I've had about CG work for awhile now: In a film such as Transformers, for instance, are the transformers actual 3D models inserted into the film, or are they created piece by piece in every frame like a painting?

If it's the later, then holy crap, what a ton of work.
Click to expand...


They are rendered in a 3d software and composited in. Some of the shots are fully CG since it is easier to do that than to shoot live action plates for them.

You guys should watch some behind the scenes footage. It explains it alright for the layman without getting too technical.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Monkey's Magic Merry Go Around Trailer
3
205
jason10mm replied
  • Poll
Peppermint vs. Spearmint
25
676
Zacfoldor replied
  • Poll
Darth Maul vs. Rey.
2
55
603
John Marston replied
  • Poll
Superman (1978) vs Batman (1989) vs Spider-Man (2002)
2
81
1K
MrCunningham replied
KCD2 vs F1
6
568
Catphish replied
Top Bottom