THE PACK Message Boards

Lupin wrote:

Figarou wrote:

Ultraken wrote:I've come to prefer skilled animatronics and costumes like the Henson Creature Shop produces.

animatronics can look fake as well. (If not done properly.)

Yeah but they've been doing it longer and have more practice.

The T-Rex was part animatronics and CGI in Jurrasic Park. That scene where it was raining weighed down the giant puppet. It made it do jerky movements. If that scene was done in CGI, we wouldn't notice the jerky movements.

Besides, animatronics and costumes have a certain "realness" to them that CGI lacks, even though both are imperfect.

Think of it this way: with CGI creatures, every shot with a gestalt-form werewolf would be an expensive effect shot, and thus they will appear for less time in the film, most likely in action sequences. With animatronics and constumes, the up-front cost is higher but the per-minute cost is much lower, so werewolves can appear in more of the movie. Now, creating realistic animatronics that can "act" is quite a challenge, though the Henson Creature Shop seems quite good at it.

It's a tough call. I think what'll end up happening is both CGI and animatronics, whichever is more appropriate for the scene. People in costumes aren't especially agile, for one thing...

Basically, it comes down to both CGI and animatronics looking fake but in different ways.

(CGI is much more flexible overall, hence its popularity, but animatronics and costumes can integrate into the scene better because they're actually there. Getting actors to respond properly helps when there's a physical object there to ineract with.)

Figarou wrote:The T-Rex was part animatronics and CGI in Jurrasic Park. That scene where it was raining weighed down the giant puppet. It made it do jerky movements. If that scene was done in CGI, we wouldn't notice the jerky movements.

But given the time period, it would have also looked really CG. Remember it was raining.

Ultraken wrote:(CGI is much more flexible overall, hence its popularity, but animatronics and costumes can integrate into the scene better because they're actually there. Getting actors to respond properly helps when there's a physical object there to ineract with.)

Yeah, evidently it's fairly difficult to act and shoot when there isn't anything there.

Ultraken wrote:Besides, animatronics and costumes have a certain "realness" to them that CGI lacks, even though both are imperfect.

Think of it this way: with CGI creatures, every shot with a gestalt-form werewolf would be an expensive effect shot, and thus they will appear for less time in the film, most likely in action sequences. With animatronics and constumes, the up-front cost is higher but the per-minute cost is much lower, so werewolves can appear in more of the movie. Now, creating realistic animatronics that can "act" is quite a challenge, though the Henson Creature Shop seems quite good at it.

It's a tough call. I think what'll end up happening is both CGI and animatronics, whichever is more appropriate for the scene. People in costumes aren't especially agile, for one thing...

The werewolf could be part CGI and costume. The tail could be CGI. The digitigrade legs could be CGI while the rest of him is a costume. Who knows what they are going to use.

Lupin wrote:

Ultraken wrote:(CGI is much more flexible overall, hence its popularity, but animatronics and costumes can integrate into the scene better because they're actually there. Getting actors to respond properly helps when there's a physical object there to ineract with.)

Yeah, evidently it's fairly difficult to act and shoot when there isn't anything there.

thats where someone wearing a blue suit comes in. He can be digitaly erased. If they choose that path.

Lupin wrote:

Figarou wrote:The T-Rex was part animatronics and CGI in Jurrasic Park. That scene where it was raining weighed down the giant puppet. It made it do jerky movements. If that scene was done in CGI, we wouldn't notice the jerky movements.

But given the time period, it would have also looked really CG. Remember it was raining.

Yes, CG was relatively new back in 1993. It would've looked horrible compared to what they can do today.

Figarou wrote:

Ultraken wrote:Besides, animatronics and costumes have a certain "realness" to them that CGI lacks, even though both are imperfect.

Think of it this way: with CGI creatures, every shot with a gestalt-form werewolf would be an expensive effect shot, and thus they will appear for less time in the film, most likely in action sequences. With animatronics and constumes, the up-front cost is higher but the per-minute cost is much lower, so werewolves can appear in more of the movie. Now, creating realistic animatronics that can "act" is quite a challenge, though the Henson Creature Shop seems quite good at it.

It's a tough call. I think what'll end up happening is both CGI and animatronics, whichever is more appropriate for the scene. People in costumes aren't especially agile, for one thing...

The werewolf could be part CGI and costume. The tail could be CGI. The digitigrade legs could be CGI while the rest of him is a costume. Who knows what they are going to use.

They wanted to do this with Jar-Jar in the new Star Wars trilogy, but it was way too expensive to fit a real costumed bottom part with a CGI head. My guess would be that, with the fur involved and everything, it would be way, way more expensive to fit together CGI and real parts with a werewolf (because of the hair, and no natural join lines like with putting a head on a clothed neck). Except that maybe the tail could be CGI without being so expensive, if all shots had it sticking out from behind, so we couldn't see where it actually connected.

Jamie has a good point; doing it that way risks it becoming even more expensive. I'm all for blue suits and fancy CGI, if the budget can stand it.

(Matchmove isn't trivial.)

Ralith wrote:Jamie has a good point; doing it that way risks it becoming even more expensive. I'm all for blue suits and fancy CGI, if the budget can stand it.

I agree although expensive it works well. But ah money can be an issue sometimes.

Back to the head placement issue several posts back, I prefer the fully lupine attachment over the fully human attachment. I just think it looks better. Although, I would honestly prefer an attachment that is kindof diagonal, a sort of compromise between the two. This gives all the benefits of both types of head attachment, and looks best IMO.

I'm all for lupine; such an arrangement is flexible enough that it's perfectly capble of appearing to be the diagonal one you suggest.

I dunno, the lupine arrangement makes them looked 'hunched'.

Nothing wrong with that.

Meh. I prefer the mix or human.

Hunched looks dumb.

Whew! This took a bit to get through. You never know what’s going to create a long thread.

“I want some personality too. Which could be quite hard during the movie.”
Please get a copy of Kaze Ghost Warrior and watch it. Tim Albee can make our WWs very expressive. And beautiful. And extremely believable.
http://kazeghostwarrior.com/flash/index.htm
I’m sorry, Excelsia, but I don’t see a hunched look being in Freeborn.

And Anubis, I looked at that site. Pretty cool. I notice there is a newer version of our own "What should a werewolf be?” on that site. I’m flattered. I’m going to be reading it to see how/if it differs from our own forum. You can never get too much info.

I’m going to go over some of the things we’ve already discussed and pretty much reached a consensus on. This doesn’t mean we can’t re-hash, but this is how they stand now — as I remember.

Regeneration: We DID decide on this one, pretty much. A WW regenerates much faster than a human. He can heal a bullet wound in a matter of hours, but he can’t survive six bullet wounds. Superhuman, not Super Man.

We have also discussed that WW do NOT have violent tendencies, or strongly aggressive natures. Since humans are the more aggressive and violent of the two species, WWs would be no more violent than humans- and I guess if you think about it, humans are pretty violent. WWs are stronger, quicker, more agile, and perhaps to a frightened human that could LOOK violent.

AND we’ve already discussed Gestalt form. It’ll be larger than the base human form but not significantly so. Sorry, no three meter Gestalts. Low fat to muscle ratio, but more like a wolf than Arnie baby - specifically because speed and agility are lost when you’re muscle bound. It will also vary a bit depending on the base human form of the WW. After all variety is common in both human and wolf.

Wolfbound’s version seems to me to be the closest I’ve seen to the consensus. Though the head is a bit large so it seems short. Still, it’s the closest thing I’ve seen to what we conceive the Gestalt form to be. Well done, Wolfbound!

The bottom line for Freeborn, however is A. Brownrigg, and of course Mr. Albee. Since we are lucky enough to have him on the project, most of the base design for the Gestalt form will be his. We will also be using some costumes and some prosthetics (though I’m not the veteran film maker my husband is so I’m not sure how all this is going to work). Again, they’ll be based off Mr. Albee’s and Brownrigg’s designs. Look at some of Albee's work. I hope you be as anxious as I am to see what he does for Freeborn.

CGI/costume/prosthetics DO cost money. A lot of it. Which is why A. Brownrigg is doing other projects first. He can show his skill at feature films in the horror genre and increase his chances of getting the funding he needs to make Freeborn a really good film. It takes time if you’re not working for a big studio, or have a big name —but he’ll get there. It’ll be worth it.

Aki wrote:Meh. I prefer the mix or human.

Hunched looks dumb.

Agreed.

Wolfbound’s version seems to me to be the closest I’ve seen to the consensus. Though the head is a bit large so it seems short. Still, it’s the closest thing I’ve seen to what we conceive the Gestalt form to be. Well done, Wolfbound!

awww. thaks Silver......

wolf all the way!

I dont think a wolf head on a human kindof neck would look very good. Just a little to 'furry' ish
No hunchbacked WWs either. A nice medium of the two would be good I think

Silverclaw wrote:I dont think a wolf head on a human kindof neck would look very good. Just a little to 'furry' ish
No hunchbacked WWs either. A nice medium of the two would be good I think

...trouble is...No-One has ever succesfully made a 1/2 wolf/human head that didn't look but ugly, or absolutely nothing like a wolf.

I've only seen;...

1:"furryish" wolf head,

2:"caveman/wolfman" head,

and 3:"is that supposed to be a wolf?".

Silverclaw wrote:I dont think a wolf head on a human kindof neck would look very good. Just a little to 'furry' ish

Yeah, but it's better than the alternatives.

Vuldari wrote:

Silverclaw wrote:I dont think a wolf head on a human kindof neck would look very good. Just a little to 'furry' ish
No hunchbacked WWs either. A nice medium of the two would be good I think

...trouble is...No-One has ever succesfully made a 1/2 wolf/human head that didn't look but ugly, or absolutely nothing like a wolf.

I've only seen;...

1:"furryish" wolf head,

2:"caveman/wolfman" head,

and 3:"is that supposed to be a wolf?".

You're aware that she's talking about the head attachment, and not the head itself, right?

Anyway, I agree with both of you. No blending of human and wolf facial features.

But, I also am not in favor of seeing wolven heads with completely human attachments. Ew. Silverclaw definitely said it right when she said it makes them look like furries. But, I also don't want a completely lupine look, because then they will look hunched. I'd prefer a nice medium.

Excelsia wrote:You're aware that she's talking about the head attachment, and not the head itself, right?

Anyway, I agree with both of you. No blending of human and wolf facial features.

But, I also am not in favor of seeing wolven heads with completely human attachments. Ew. Silverclaw definitely said it right when she said it makes them look like furries. But, I also don't want a completely lupine look, because then they will look hunched. I'd prefer a nice medium.

Oh...sorry...I misinterpereted the statement.

Yeah, I would have to agree that the connection between the head, neck and shoulders should be different than a human (not because that looks "too much like a furry". I really don't see what's so bad about that) because a human neck-joint does not allow the head to tilt naturally into a position parallel with the torso for four-legged walking. The connection needs to be slightly further back on the head for that. A human head can tilt to look straight up...but it is an uncomfortable and unnatural looking strain.

[Edit:]...but I guess everyone has said that allready. Sorry...I should have backtracked the converstation a bit before responding.

Vuldari wrote:(not because that looks "too much like a furry". I really don't see what's so bad about that)

Dontcha know that us furries are just "too cartoony"? Something that looks like a furry could never be a tr00 w3r3.

Excelsia wrote:But, I also am not in favor of seeing wolven heads with completely human attachments. Ew. Silverclaw definitely said it right when she said it makes them look like furries. But, I also don't want a completely lupine look, because then they will look hunched. I'd prefer a nice medium.

I was looking through some pictures, and evidently wolves don't really have that hunched look when they're standing up and looking forward. So I'm changing my vote back to undecided.