WETA Digital vs. ELM: Prequel Trilogy vs. LOTR Extended

[swankyfella]

I've just been watching Return of the King: Extended and Star Wars Episode 3.
To the Escapists I query: Which special effects studio will stand the ultimate test of time?

ILM or WETA?

I say Lord of the Rings as a whole. There's still Jar-Jar level badness in one (or more) scenes. But I defy you to point out one character who has JarJar-Class Badness for the whole movie, rather than a couple (ignorable) shots of the Fellowship (and hangers-on).

Again, this is between LOTR and the Prequels. Not the Original Trilogy.
I don't think that's much of a contest the other way.

 

[GameChanger]

There's only one answer to that:

Neither of both will stand the test of time. Even high-end effects of today such as Avatar and Prometheus will terrible in the coming years of technical advances. It does not look real, because it is not real.

If you want effects that stand the test of time, look at the original trilogy. Or even better, look at films like Aliens and Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark. These effects look real because they're already real to begin with. They're real sets, real costumes, and real props.
Even the face-melting scene from Indy looks real because it's a melting wax sculpture. It could have been done with a computer, but in time people would have seen the inconsistencies with it. The Alien looks real because it's a dude in a rubber costume, it's got all the dirt and slime and scariness a computer can't yet generate.

But if you want a real answer I suppose I'd go for the intro scene to SW3. It's got no real value, but it's the nicest eye candy.

 

[Scrustle]

Well if you're comparing the effects in the actual films and not the effects studios as a whole I think it's obvious LOTR will last longer. Episode 3 already looked kind of bad when it was new. They completely over-used the CGI, and it looked sterile and fake because of that. The costumes and stuff in LOTR, on the other hand, looked fantastic. They were highly detailed and looked really realistic. They didn't look like props, they looked like the real thing. And the fact that they were actual real objects being filmed instead of post production effects of course adds more to the realism. The human brain can pick up on subtleties that we're not even aware of, so unless something is exactly the same as real life we will always be able to tell on some level. That's why even though CGI looks amazing right now, we can still tell it's CGI.

Of course, CGI is still getting better. So 10 years or so from now Star Wars will look aged. But I don't see how the costumes in LOTR could really age all that much. They looked just like the real thing would to me. They still look cutting edge if you look at them right now, while Episode 3 already looks behind the curve.

 

[Scarim Coral]

In this case (since you're comaping the effect in the film itself) WETA, mainly because it's too CGI in the Star Wars film. Why they had to used a CGI baby instead of a real life baby in Luke and Leia birth scene I will never know.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

I'd say the LOTR effects. Everything in Star Wars looks so clean and sterile, while in LOTR you can see it's all beat up, dirty, and actual real props.