Animatronics

[Nóm]

This this interview (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2008/04/25/28747-guillermo-del-toro-chats-with-torn-about-the-hobbit-films/) Guillermo stated that he plans to go animatronic rather that CGI with creatures. He has also shown a special interest in Smaug. In one interview he says that thanks to Smaug dragons are his favorite mythical creature.

What will differ from your films versus Peter’s?

GDT: The only thing I will be pushing for more in these films that the other three are full animatronics and animatronic creatures enhanced with CGI, as opposed to CGI creatures themselves. We really want to take the state-of-the-art animatronics and take a leap ten years into the future with the technology we will develop for the creatures in the movie. We have every intention to do for animatronics and special effects what the other films did for virtual reality.

So, is this good news?

I think so. I believe he will settle for nothing less than superb when it comes to animatronic Smaug. :D

PS - If a moderator takes the gumption, you're welcome to fix the spelling error in the thread title.

[YayGollum]

I fixed the title for you, but, yet again, your poll lacks what I would have voted for. Robots, puppets, and costumes all the way, yo! Nasssty computerses! If I had to go with one of the poll's options, I'd go with the first, I guess. I'm just not a large fan of the lie that is a computer-generated bit of story. Genetically engineered (and hopefully well-trained) dragons = Yes. Robot dragon = Yes. A picture from a computer tossed onto the screen, something that I can't actually walk up to and shake claws with = No. Underwhelming. :rolleyes:

[Nóm]

What's up Yay? Animatronic creatures are essentially robots aren't they?

Thanks for fixing the error.

[YayGollum]

Hm? Yes, I wasn't disagreeing with that. I was merely writing that I would prefer zero jazzing the robots up with computized image enhancements. Pure reality, not reality shined up and glittering.

[Runyadur]

I think that the use of animatronics is a great idea, especially for Smaug. Smaug in the Hobbit is not just a huge monster who spreads terror and disaster but he has an actual part with dialogues which IMHO is something CGI could not cope with realistically enough.

Computer processed Smaug robot flying over Lake Town :rolleyes:.....NICE :cool:

[Barliman Butterbur]

I think computer animation, if done well, can trump anything done electromechanically, PJ proved that decisively. But if animatronics can be done well enough to blend seamlessly with the latter, fine... One advantage to animatronics: the actors have something real to react to, not just thin air or bobbing tennis balls as "place holders."

Barley

[Runyadur]

I'm not really sure about that mr Barley. Where did PJ prove that? The great achievement of lotr movies on the special effects section was Gollum who was based on Andy Serkis' motion. If I'm not mistaken, a number of the army of the dead were based on actors as well. The other creatures (like oliphaunts, the wraiths' mounts, trolls etc) did not actually interact with people, especially verbally, and were made completely using computers.
What I mean is that when a creature is meant to dialogue with the actors the outcome is much more realistic when that creature is based on something real and not totally made on a computer, one of the reasons being the one you mentioned. That's why I think that Smaug should be (at least partially) animatronic


P.S. I'm under the impression that Treebeard was actually animatronic... Please correct me if I'm wrong

[Barliman Butterbur]

I'm not really sure about that mr Barley. Where did PJ prove that? The great achievement of lotr movies on the special effects section was Gollum who was based on Andy Serkis' motion. If I'm not mistaken, a number of the army of the dead were based on actors as well. The other creatures (like oliphaunts, the wraiths' mounts, trolls etc) did not actually interact with people, especially verbally, and were made completely using computers.
What I mean is that when a creature is meant to dialogue with the actors the outcome is much more realistic when that creature is based on something real and not totally made on a computer, one of the reasons being the one you mentioned. That's why I think that Smaug should be (at least partially) animatronic


P.S. I'm under the impression that Treebeard was actually animatronic... Please correct me if I'm wrong

Well, my first thought is that it would be quite a feat to get a line of 17 animatronic mumakil bearing down on an army! But I agree with you: it's a better situation for the actor to have something to relate to. When it comes to Smaug however — if an animatronic dragon can convince, I'm all for it. If it can be done better via computer, then I'm for that. Whatever serves best. As for Treebeard, certainly he was in part at least mechanical (when carrying the hobbits), but I'm not sure if it was actually animatronic. I'm for whatever process most convinces audiences on a case by case basis, whether it be computer animation, animatronics, or sock puppets. :) :p

Barley