PDA

View Full Version : BTW.... Planet of the Apes...



RebelHill
08-30-2011, 08:31 AM
So I only got round to watching the new apes film over the weekend...

Am I the only one who thought that the FX (specifically the characters) looked somewhat... "fake". I mean, they were brilliant and all, engaging, emotive etc, in the way we've come to expect from Weta, but somehow they just didnt seem to "gel" with the rest of the frame (with the exception of the orangutan, which looked increadible in some shots).

For me, I think its somewhat down to weta's style. The FX celarly had the same style and "look" to those we've seen in LOTR and Kong... but in both of those, the overall look of the frame was more stylistic, almost painterly, and with a LOT of fully CG environments to boot so the whole meshed together well.

But POTA was, ofc, much cleaner and more photographic and so I found that a lot of the time the characters didnt seem to fit.

Anyhow, just throwing it out there... anyone got thoughts?

biliousfrog
08-30-2011, 08:44 AM
I thought that the FX in the trailer looked very poor which would have been enough to turn me off even if I felt inclined to see it in the first place. I think that you might be correct about the compositing over real footage but I'm still surprised that the apes were created by the same company that created Kong, which I still find technically amazing.

My thoughts are that it's primarily down to budget, workload and kudos...It was inevitable that ROTPOTA was going to be a stinker and no amount of Weta magic would prevent that so I doubt that they put as much effort into it as Kong. I also suspect that, if it was a Peter Jackson production, it would have looked much better. There's also a lot more going on in POTA with regard to the shear quantity of apes so I suspect that the budget was spread much more thinly.

Dexter2999
08-30-2011, 09:09 AM
Haven"t seen it yet. But what I have seen to date, just makes me think I AM LEGEND. I know it isn't the same but something about it...

stiff paper
08-30-2011, 10:20 AM
I haven't seen it. I was put off mainly because it's yet another bloody re-make/re-do/re-imagining and I've totally had it with re-anything. Hollywood really needs to buck up its ideas. (Or, actually, just have some ideas. Even a bad idea at this point would be a refreshing change from the complete sucking idea-void that's the modern hollywood flick.)

The thing that put the capper on me not wanting to see it though was that the cg apes in the trailers looked like... cg apes. It's great work. Very well done. Can't criticize it. And yet even so, it's just... not quite there.

And I don't think it's right to suggest that Weta does better work for Jackson than anybody else. That's just rude. And it's not being fair to any of the Weta people. Budget considerations? Yes, fine and good. Impugning their work ethic? Not so good.

Titus
08-30-2011, 10:38 AM
I haven't seen it yet, but the trailer was amazing to me.

BigHache
08-30-2011, 10:55 AM
The apes do seem too smooth or too something. I'm skipping this one.

@ Cardboard I think bilious was referring to the producers of this film and not taking a stab at Weta's work ethic. Even Weta can only do so much with what resources they're given. As a point of comparison ROTPOTA has less than half the budget of King Kong.

wrightyp100
08-30-2011, 11:15 AM
The only character who didnt fit was the girl. Clearly thrown in at the last minute by a studio exec so it didnt look like he was having a relationship with the ape. Because obviously everyone would think that...

But, I liked it. also, forcing in lines from the original film didnt fit.

TalleyJC
08-30-2011, 01:05 PM
Considering that for teaser/trailers usually use snippets that have the most wow to them, I figured that this was really a bad sign. Worleys old Sas chimp looked better to me than what I've seen in the commercials. The composites look like something from around 1997 I thought - but I have yet to see the film.

erikals
08-30-2011, 01:29 PM
mask, http://schellstudio.com/gallery/albums/ms-pota/mask-planet-apes-11.jpg
cg, http://www.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Rise-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes-Theatrical-Still-6.jpg
mask, http://wallno1.com/wallpapers/Movie/big/Movie%20-%20Planet%20Of%20The%20Apes%200003.jpg

cresshead
08-30-2011, 02:24 PM
i thought it was a good film, better in almost every way to that pile of poop we had a few years ago.

cresshead
08-30-2011, 02:26 PM
I haven't seen it. I was put off mainly because it's yet another bloody re-make/re-do/re-imagining and I've totally had it with re-anything. Hollywood really needs to buck up its ideas. (Or, actually, just have some ideas. Even a bad idea at this point would be a refreshing change from the complete sucking idea-void that's the modern hollywood flick.)


not gonna happen for ages...last risk takers [banks] put us in the mess we're now in...:hijack:

:D

erikals
08-30-2011, 02:35 PM
story looks good :]

and story is king :]

RebelHill
08-30-2011, 02:44 PM
Well... all in all I thought the movie was reasonably good, maybe a few crits here n there. But as far as the whole remake/imagining goes... it is ofc a remake not of planet of the apes, but of conquest of the planet of the apes... which is a truly terrible movie, thereby making ROTPOTA possible the BEST remake of all time.

Ernest
08-30-2011, 06:41 PM
mask, http://schellstudio.com/gallery/albums/ms-pota/mask-planet-apes-11.jpg
cg, http://www.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Rise-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes-Theatrical-Still-6.jpg
mask, http://wallno1.com/wallpapers/Movie/big/Movie%20-%20Planet%20Of%20The%20Apes%200003.jpg

That was actually one of the good shots of the cg monkey. Several other shots had overly bright and glassy eyes. With more time and budget, they could have rotoscoped them in post.

Shabazzy
08-30-2011, 09:20 PM
I've seen it and I loved it. Story-wise, I thought it was one of the best efforts to come from Hollywood in a long while.

As Erikals says, the story is king, and I thought Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes had a very engaging and thought-provoking story.

Ironically I saw it just after the England Riots and thought, talk about timing.

I thought the VFX were very good and although I thought the mo-cap was a little too human-like for an ape in some places, overall it didn't detract from the film too much.

I give it a thumbs up.

Shabazzy

achrystie
08-31-2011, 04:39 PM
I enjoyed this movie quite a bit. It wasn't perfect, and I agree on forcing in lines from the original being a bit off, but it was definitely well done, overall. It's what I had hoped the remake from 2001 would be, rather than the piece of crap that it was.

This wasn't really a remake as much as a re-imagining, using the planet of the apes brand. If people remember the original story, the origin of the apes is essentially a time loop/paradox, this essentially throws that out the window with a far more realistic and modernized premise, although not a completely original one of course.
Whatever small blunders in the effects that I could pick at, I thought they were more than sufficient for the story, and certainly vastly superior to Roddy McDowell in a rubber mask (and don't get me wrong I do like the original for what it is).
I'd go see a follow up movie on the new storyline, as long as they don't just copy any of the other original movies, including the first one. Something called Conquest of The Planet of the Apes, but done properly showing the apes taking over the world as humans die off. Keep the subject mature, the effects/feel similar, and throw out all the kitschy Charlton Heston references with oddly placed copied dialog.

gordonrobb
08-31-2011, 05:52 PM
What are you guys talking about? The apes, for the most part, looked great. Could CG experts tell they werent' real? of course, but to 'normal' peole they apes looked great.

Also, it was not a remake, or a re-imagining, it was a prequal as far as I'm concerned.

Great story, great film.

Dexter2999
08-31-2011, 06:50 PM
Hate to argue Gordon but if you take the movie down to the most basic premis "An intelligent ape named Ceasar leads the revolt of enslaved apes" then this is a re-imagining of "Conquest of the Planet of the Apes" 1972.

They changed the origin of Ceasar and that makes it look like a prequal. And maybe it is now. But the story was there already.

gordonrobb
09-01-2011, 05:02 AM
You got me on that one. If it is a re-imagining, it's a better-imagining.

I just feel that people on this forum, and other 3D ones by the way, are overly harsh on so much CG or re-make stuff. I remember the furore when the new Star Trek film was being made, (not neccesarily here) and how the puritans went on and on about the design of the ship etc. That was a great film.

Sorry, I'l stop ranting now.

RebelHill
09-01-2011, 05:11 AM
Well my girlfriend thought it looked a bit fake... the girl at the coffe shop I hang at thought it looked fake.

And if you think that my GFs "vision" has been swayed/tainted by being around me... I should probably point out that she said to me...

"You could do better than that, Craig, couldnt you?"

So u see right there... the wonderful depths of her ignorance...

biliousfrog
09-01-2011, 06:03 AM
I actually found the original and the Tim Burton remake's use of monkey suits to be more believable than the CG ones I saw on the trailers. Obviously the originals do look a bit dated now but the faces are still brilliant in my opinion. I can understand why they went 100% CG because these are supposed to be apes, not a humanised version of an ape, but I do feel that the man-ape costumes felt more real than the CG apes I've seen. Weta's work on Kong was almost flawless though IMO which is where the argument about 'normal' people and CG people falls down.

RebelHill
09-01-2011, 06:26 AM
I never thought much of the originals... even as a kid I remember being totally unconvinced by the mouths... they looked like muppets. And even in the recent burton one there was no real expressionality in the faces save some very broad moves... no detail.

The cg is ofc far better in that respect, and the faces and articulation of the apes in this one is pretty flawless... I just found they didnt seem to blend that well stylistically with the rest of the film most of the time.

As for the whole man-ape thing... the one thing that I didnt really get was as caesar grows up... he seems (in some shots) to be near 6 feet tall, and walks and moves like man... which kinda goes against the idea that he's anatomically still a chimp save for his brain.

And that highly talkative orangutang.. who seems completely lucid and sapient... wth did he come from, who gave him the brain juice?? (ok, I know thats plot, not fx related).

pooby
09-01-2011, 06:56 AM
but I do feel that the man-ape costumes felt more real than the CG apes I've seen.

Do you mean photoreal-shading wise? Thats because they ARE real, so its not that surprising really.

However, I don't think the vast majority of the audience's enjoyment of the film hinges on whether the shading/rendering is flawless.

On a similar note not aimed at anyone

The bottom line is that CGI characters in term of both deformation, shading and rendering are not 100% of the way there yet.
As I am involved in this work myself I understand the incredible effort and RandD that has gone into getting to this point. Its easy to remark on the missing piece of the pie, as if you've noticed something Weta haven't, but nobody is claiming it to be perfect. Its just damn hard to do.

biliousfrog
09-01-2011, 09:45 AM
Do you mean photoreal-shading wise? Thats because they ARE real, so its not that surprising really.


No sh!t sherlock!:p

No, I personally found them to be more believable. I wonder whether it's an emotional thing regarding the eyes as much as anything? Again, Kong completely hooked me in, the facial expressions were spot on (for me)...but I'm basing this on a handful of youtube clips, I haven't seen the film (ROTPOTA) so my opinion could change.

pooby
09-01-2011, 10:30 AM
No sh!t sherlock!:p


Your words :)




No, I personally found them to be more believable. I wonder whether it's an emotional thing regarding the eyes as much as anything? Again, Kong completely hooked me in, the facial expressions were spot on (for me)...but I'm basing this on a handful of youtube clips, I haven't seen the film (ROTPOTA) so my opinion could change.

In all likelihood it will.

Titus
09-01-2011, 11:43 AM
Since I was born in 1972, this movie is all new for me. Great scripting, and never felt the motion/performance capture, or men in hairy suits like the Charlton Heston version. I almost cried, but this is between you and me, ok?.

cresshead
09-01-2011, 03:17 PM
No sh!t sherlock!:p

No, I personally found them to be more believable. I wonder whether it's an emotional thing regarding the eyes as much as anything? Again, Kong completely hooked me in, the facial expressions were spot on (for me)...but I'm basing this on a handful of youtube clips, I haven't seen the film (ROTPOTA) so my opinion could change.

the trailers are awful...they nearly put me off going to see it.

it's an excellent film, huge amount of screen time are afforded for the apes to 'do their thing', id be surprised if you don't come away from the cinema with a feeling of a well spent couple of hours.

Shabazzy
09-01-2011, 05:45 PM
...but I'm basing this on a handful of youtube clips, I haven't seen the film (ROTPOTA) so my opinion could change.

I had no intention of seeing this film because it had the Hollywood label attached to it, and after seeing some trailers on my computer, I thought. Nah.

But I'm glad my friend persuaded me to see it. The VFX are VERY different on the big screen. A computer screen rendition is NOT the way to judge the effects of this movie. Believe me, you'll notice the difference when you see it. It's like the difference between consumer brand SD CRT screens and professional HD LED backlit screens.

Shabazzy

Ernest
09-01-2011, 07:24 PM
The bottom line is that CGI characters in term of both deformation, shading and rendering are not 100% of the way there yet.

I thought Gollum was 100% there.

wesleycorgi
09-01-2011, 07:37 PM
So u see right there... the wonderful depths of her ignorance...

Lol!

pooby
09-02-2011, 01:53 AM
I thought Gollum was 100% there.

Gollum was magnificent, but its a very different challenge adding a surprisingly real looking fantasy creature to a shot than selling the idea that the shot contains a real ape. Your Brain will give gollum a much bigger break and look for the positives, whereas it will be nit picking something which claims to be a real ape.
Certain challenges and lighting conditions / film styles also make the job easier. For example, the T rex in the night time scene by the fence in Jurassic park, still looks totally right, but you can't compare the complexity of the challenge.

Shading and rendering at Weta has come a long way since Gollum. Its just a more difficult task.

mikala
09-05-2011, 07:43 PM
Sorry but these apes looked awful.
I thought we had come a long way since Final Fantasy but seems not in this film.

jasonwestmas
09-05-2011, 08:03 PM
Sorry but these apes looked awful.
I thought we had come a long way since Final Fantasy but seems not in this film.

I was just looking at final fantasy the other day and that is just not comparable to anything as photorealistic as todays movies.

When I see CG I know it's CG though especially when it's fully animated, I have yet to see any digital effect that doesn't look computer generated or composited in. Others though may have a tougher time picking the CG out but I doubt they don't sense it.

So I really can't just turn off my senses of logical detection in this regard, after a while I just accept it and take in the feeling of the movie as it is and try to ignore my logic. Much like I do when playing a 3D video game. I accept it as an art form and not a trick to try and make me believe it is a real creature or other effect.

mikala
09-05-2011, 08:04 PM
Sorry but I guess I've seen too many National Geo specials of primates to be remotely impressed by these.

jasonwestmas
09-05-2011, 08:11 PM
Sorry but I guess I've seen too many National Geo specials of primates to be remotely impressed by these.

Nobody is asking you to be impressed, but the fact is Final Fantasy the spirits within looks older in standards of photorealism than today's effects, especially those done by weta digital in the last 5 years.

mikala
09-05-2011, 08:19 PM
Actually yes the studio is asking me to be impressed by asking I drop money at the box office.
Your views on my opinion are what are not required. Freakin Weta fanboi.

jasonwestmas
09-05-2011, 08:27 PM
Oh yeah? you're not required, you freaking square/enix fanboi! ;)

JCG
09-06-2011, 12:45 AM
See what the monkeys are doing?!
They're making us fight amongst ourselves!!!

gordonrobb
09-06-2011, 03:57 AM
I don't know what film you guys saw. I go to the movies to be entertained (to suspend belief), not to pick apart the VFX. That said, there were parts that the compositing of the apes wasn't as good as it could have been (when he was a baby being fed at the table for example). But the close up shots showing him considering, thinking, scheming were in my opinion, nothing short of incredible. Final Fantesy looked 8-bit in comparison.

I also, think that anyone who is basing their views on 'any' film, and has not actually seen the film in the format it was intended for (ie in a cinema) shouldn't really be stating their opinions as definitively as they do.

It wasn't real apes, therefore, there were parts of it that didn't look like real apes. Some of the nuances of movement that we perceive as human beings may never be realised in CG. But they looks for the most part magnificent - in my opinion.

Iain
09-06-2011, 04:06 AM
I don't know why they don't just use real chimps.
PG Tips were doing it years ago. They even got them to talk. Trailblazers............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgzEBLa3PPk

cresshead
09-08-2011, 04:11 PM
http://www.cgworld.com/showthread.php?655-Rise-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes-%282011%29-HD-Weta-Featurette-Making-Of-Behind-the-Scenes

Ernest
09-11-2011, 07:24 PM
http://www.cgworld.com/showthread.php?655-Rise-of-the-Planet-of-the-Apes-%282011%29-HD-Weta-Featurette-Making-Of-Behind-the-Scenes

Thank you! That shows the exact problems in the facial rig refinement that got some viewers' wrongness lobe tingling.

How are Andy's expressions even remotely in the same universe as the expressions of the monkey to the right? That looks like a bad actor incapable of emoting, trying to copy a good actor's performance.

http://forums.newtek.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=98078&d=1315786732

With these results, Cameron would have sent them back to the rigging room for another two months.

Budget and time. That was the problem here.

djwaterman
09-12-2011, 06:05 AM
A friend of mine was one of the hundreds of "lighting TDs" on Kong, he said that he couldn't understand why they always ended up overlighting every part of the scenes so that there would never be any lost detail. So in the composites the shots are massaged so that you can see everything clearly. I agree, I liked Kong because it was picture book, but it was over lit, like Avatar also, I haven't seen 'Rise', but I'm betting part of it is this over lighting. Also, once your sitting their getting into the movie, you become more forgiving, but when you see a trailer on TV and it looks fake, then that means it looks fake. The original Star Wars looked great in the theatre, but when I saw it on tv a few years later, you could see these huge garbage mattes around all the spaceships, the tv screen (the old ones) are really unforgiving.

jasonwestmas
09-12-2011, 08:49 AM
A friend of mine was one of the hundreds of "lighting TDs" on Kong, he said that he couldn't understand why they always ended up overlighting every part of the scenes so that there would never be any lost detail. So in the composites the shots are massaged so that you can see everything clearly. I agree, I liked Kong because it was picture book, but it was over lit, like Avatar also, I haven't seen 'Rise', but I'm betting part of it is this over lighting. Also, once your sitting their getting into the movie, you become more forgiving, but when you see a trailer on TV and it looks fake, then that means it looks fake. The original Star Wars looked great in the theatre, but when I saw it on tv a few years later, you could see these huge garbage mattes around all the spaceships, the tv screen (the old ones) are really unforgiving.

Yes, the lighting lacked a lot of moodiness in the Peter Jackson Kong. Totally wrong for a lot of shots imo.

Ernest
09-12-2011, 10:26 AM
Actually do not believe the funny claims by studios about "automated processes" in creating virtual humans or characters. In each and every project in that regard, from Benjamin Button to Avatar, animators heavily edited the performance data. So looking for exact matching expressions is simply wrong in hundreds of shots, as what directors and producers find so ubercool about the digital techniques is the freedom to change (even after the deadline. :D).

It doesn't really matter if it's automated or not. Actor movements and expressions are captured for a reason. They provide performances. Capturing the performance in the digital creature can be auto or manual, but when the actor looks like a desperate monkey in a cage and the creature looks like Hugh Jackman's pensive, reflexive pose, something got lost. A picture can tell 1000 words. Andy's picture on the left tells a story. The one on the right doesn't. It's as simple as that.

This medium messes with our heads. We worry too much about it being correct or realistic. The best actors are not the ones that give the most accurate portrayal of a baker or a mechanic. They are the ones who can transmit the most emotion.

Fortunately for me, I've been trained by dozens upon dozens of summer action flicks to enjoy movies even when the acting is really bad. Much worse than even the worst monkey of PotA. But of course good acting can make you enjoy it much more.

Cameron may have allowed some Na'vi to look a bit ugly and creepy but he never let their eyes look emotionless in a dramatic moment.

gordonrobb
09-12-2011, 11:29 AM
Oliver: I completely agree with everything you said. The tiny facial expressions on Ceasar were incredible. I was sucked in most of the time. Great.

shrox
09-12-2011, 11:46 AM
...And if you think that my GFs "vision" has been swayed/tainted by being around me... I should probably point out that she said to me...

"You could do better than that, Craig, couldnt you?"

So u see right there... the wonderful depths of her ignorance...

Oh, I miss hearing stuff like that. I gotta find a GF...

kadri
09-13-2011, 09:25 AM
Guys are you aware that you are arguing over a movie's vfx that have a lots of full CGI chimpanzees-monkeys in it? I would say it is successful from this point. In which film did you see 100% good effects that do have effects other then Spaceships?

Story etc are another thing...

Ernest
09-13-2011, 11:42 AM
I hope you've seen the movie, as I think judging something out of context is slightly unfair.

That's a tricky question! Because I did go see it, but I didn't see anything wrong with that scene when I did. So it does seem like I'm being unfair, huh? But only a little. It's like when you get home and you're not really hungry and you haven't even thought about wanting pizza. But then you get to the kitchen and you see an empty box of your favorite pizza and you shout, "What? you got pizza and you didn't leave any for me?" and you cry all night.

Now that I see Andy's performance and how it is better than the one I ate, I get hungry and wish I had gotten a slice of that!

The pensive poses were great, but they're different muscle groups. You can fine tune the rig to get those expressions right without having it fine tuned for other types of expressions.

jeric_synergy
09-13-2011, 12:21 PM
See what the monkeys are doing?!
They're making us fight amongst ourselves!!!
It's a trap!

jeric_synergy
09-13-2011, 12:21 PM
I don't know why they don't just use real chimps.

$$$ and frankly, I'd be scared to be working around real chimps. Those bastards are dangerous.
+++++
(Over) Lighting:
I think this is one of those "kill your darlings" situations: people BUILT those plants, and gddmn it, the audience it going to SEE them!

In almost all cases for me the give-away on CG elements is they are too sharp, which is another form of saying "look what I built!" >|^P

.

Larry_g1s
09-13-2011, 12:59 PM
Am I the only one who thought that the FX (specifically the characters) looked somewhat... "fake". I admit, I haven't seen nor do I plan to, see the movie. The trailer alone put me off to the look. I don't know if "fake" is the completely accurate, but I know what you mean. There is just something not right or weird about an animal giving off that type of emotion or thought process yet still trying to stay grounded that it's a "real" animal.

Titus
09-13-2011, 01:01 PM
Besides that, the main character had some sequences that are nothing but shockingly impressive - several shots in succession with him just "thinking", close to no movement, you knew 100% what was going on in his head. Perfect. And I admired the fact that as the movie was getting closer to the end I did not think about CGI anymore, but only wanted to follow the apes - I was drawn in. Can't want more from a movie - at least I don't. :thumbsup:

This. I never thought about CG while watching the movie. The thinking character was always there, micromovements very well done, and a very good transformation from ape into an almost grown up man; "This is my home". Wow!

jasonwestmas
09-13-2011, 01:06 PM
I admit, I haven't seen nor do I plan to, see the movie. The trailer alone put me off to the look. I don't know if "fake" is the completely accurate, but I know what you mean. There is just something not right or weird about an animal giving off that type of emotion or thought process yet still trying to stay grounded that it's a "real" animal.

Regardless of how many emotions an ape might be feeling inside, I think their emotional expressions in reality have less dimension to them than what the movie portrays. Which is of course the point, the emotions of the beasts were developing and becoming more dimensional throughout the film. And of course the Apes fur and skin we usually see in the wild are more beat up and weathered than what is going on in the film.

cresshead
09-13-2011, 01:07 PM
excellent movie, only thing that detracted a tiny bit was the human love story forced into the script

jasonwestmas
09-13-2011, 01:48 PM
Well arguing is intellectual fighting. . . but fighting with tactful words in order to avoid discouragement and to accurately understand others. . .that is probably more the aim of a good argument.

jeric_synergy
09-13-2011, 01:59 PM
Maybe we can do our teensy bit to upgrade the public discourse and call it 'struggle' rather than 'fight'.

jasonwestmas
09-13-2011, 02:11 PM
Maybe we can do our teensy bit to upgrade the public discourse and call it 'struggle' rather than 'fight'.

Yes, that's "struggle" ladies and gents. . .not "strangle". :D

kadri
09-13-2011, 03:10 PM
...
BTW: Who's "fighting"? Honestly, I think this was an interesting discussion. :thumbsup:

Not sure if this is aimed at me Oliver but i choose the word arguing deliberately. I like most of the arguing that is going on here about movies most of the time and really like to be a part of it:thumbsup: (Edit: It was not me i think but no problem)

As you probably know writing in another language is sometimes hard and you can easily miss the point .

I did mean more on the side that you do argue here if the effects are good or not ( that there are all sides with pro and con opinions ) this is some kind of sign that the effects are better then average at least. And if you look 5 years ago ...
But yes 5 years later we will see many weak points that we maybe now look as acceptable .

But honestly human and monkey like behavior look is maybe the top of vfx . The movie is from this point not bad in my opinion.

And if there was another director at work the movie could be better from some of the aspects you argue here. It is maybe not all only VFX and money-time problems. There have to be a good director too and i think some of the problems are more in this way.

Hieron
09-13-2011, 03:37 PM
A hard to please crowd here. I thought it was pretty good... The amount of apes and shots and their rather odd "in between" mental state considering. But I try to forget CG work when I'm in the cinema these days, so maybe it helps.

Then again, my gf never *ever* considers me more capable than Weta :)

jasonwestmas
09-13-2011, 04:15 PM
Was aimed at that - all in good fun. :)

oooo, ooooo, eeeeeee ahhhhh!

gordonrobb
09-13-2011, 04:25 PM
Wait, are we arguing about what to call the discourse?

jasonwestmas
09-13-2011, 06:42 PM
That monkey looks fake and composited in. :D

KurtF
09-13-2011, 09:05 PM
I thought the Orangutang looked amazing.

The main character however, had too many HUMAN features to be a realistic chimp. I guess it was a stylistic choice, as they wanted the audience to sympathize with his plight.

Now if they DID actually decide to do this, then they were successful, even if the believability factor suffered.