Congratulations! Your video, StudioADI Starship Troopers Animatronic Effects, has reached the #1 spot in the current Top 15 New Videos listing. This is a very difficult thing to accomplish but you managed to pull it off. For your contribution you have been awarded 2 Power Points.

This achievement has earned you your "Golden One" Level 2 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 9 Badge!

>> ^EvilDeathBee:

>> ^JiggaJonson:
@EvilDeathBee "reaching" ain't there yet. Still looks like a cartoon to me (probably bc I play too many games). And nomatter how good it gets, it will always look like the actors are talking to/interacting with empty air. Say what you will about animatronics and puppets but meeting a puppet's eyes is never a problem for actors.

Completely disagree. Did you seriously think Prometheus looked "cartoony"? Also, the CGI Yoda in the Blu-Ray Episode 1 was so much better than the rubbish puppet from the theatrical release (regardless of how shit the film is). No matter how good a puppet or animatronic is, it will always be limited in what it can do and especially how it animates.
And if and actor has trouble meeting the eyes of a digital character, that's poor setup, poor direction, poor editing and even poor acting. As I said, it's knowing when to use CGI and when to use puppets/animatronics/models. All can be blended to work well together, depends on the shot.

Ok, so the Yoda puppet was pretty shit, but I think I still prefer it to the CG one. Whether something is believable seems pretty binary to me. Its not as if either version really does a good job of hiding the man behind the curtain. Some CG I am totally fooled by. Backdrops, a lot of special effects but when it comes to something organic, something thats going to be the focus of the camera CG never really holds up. I've seen tech demos of CG faces, and tbh, I can't really tell the difference. I think the problem often is blending this CG in with the rest of the scene. Our brains seem very good at detecting inconsistency in lighting etc, too often CG elements really seem painted on top and it spoils the illusion. A lot of animatronic stuff matches CG in terms of its animation, but because its actually in the scene it never jumps out at you.

But hey, maybe one day our films will be made entirely in front of bluescreens. Pehraps the performers won't even have to wear makeup or costume, it'll all be superimposed on afterwards. For the moment I still think animatronics has the edge in realism.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

@EvilDeathBee "reaching" ain't there yet. Still looks like a cartoon to me (probably bc I play too many games). And nomatter how good it gets, it will always look like the actors are talking to/interacting with empty air. Say what you will about animatronics and puppets but meeting a puppet's eyes is never a problem for actors.


Completely disagree. Did you seriously think Prometheus looked "cartoony"? Also, the CGI Yoda in the Blu-Ray Episode 1 was so much better than the rubbish puppet from the theatrical release (regardless of how shit the film is). No matter how good a puppet or animatronic is, it will always be limited in what it can do and especially how it animates.
And if and actor has trouble meeting the eyes of a digital character, that's poor setup, poor direction, poor editing and even poor acting. As I said, it's knowing when to use CGI and when to use puppets/animatronics/models. All can be blended to work well together, depends on the shot.

@EvilDeathBee "reaching" ain't there yet. Still looks like a cartoon to me (probably bc I play too many games). And nomatter how good it gets, it will always look like the actors are talking to/interacting with empty air. Say what you will about animatronics and puppets but meeting a puppet's eyes is never a problem for actors.

>> ^JiggaJonson:

Why not just use CGI? It's fast, more cost effective, and looks like pure-fucking-garbage. Win/Win!


Not really. CGI is not faster, it's a lot more expensive and the have you seen Prometheus? Modern CGI is reaching the stage of actually looking like it fits the scene and not completely out of place. Animatronics has limitations, and bad anmiatronics and suits can look just as bad as bad CGI. In the end, both require talented artists, directors and editors

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

IF SST was remade today - I'm sure 99% of bugs would be CGI now - but the animatronics still look better than today's CGI - IMO.

>> ^Jinx:

Pretty sad that the best visual effects are from a decade or more ago.


You may think this is true, but there is still some pretty damn amazing animatronic work being done these days. (some more)

There was no way I'd have guessed that Wink from Hellboy 2 was an animatronic when I saw the film, but then I watched the making of and holy crap, that huge creature is a man in a suit with awesome animatronics.

CG is used a lot these days, but there's still room for awesome practical effects... still room.

>> ^Jinx:

Pretty sad that the best visual effects are from a decade or more ago.


+ John Carpenter's remake of The Thing came out 30 years ago.

Your video, StudioADI Starship Troopers Animatronic Effects, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

CGI is not always cheaper. Film producers learned that the hard way. Peter Jackson could have done every set in LotR or The Hobbit with CGI. Instead they build dozens of miniatures and models and animatronics, because it was faster and cheaper for some scenes than fiddling away for months with computer models and the right amount of virtual lighting.

This movie was a good example of when to use CGI and when to use animatronics, and how to effectively use them together.

I wonder if Blizzard is seeing a dime from these Homages,using their market force to promote this restaurant. Considering how well China respects the Creators of copyrighted material,I doubt it highly.And such a lame attempt at cashing in on World of Warcraft too. Murals,Big TVs. Unworthy.

Now if I were Blizzard,I'd outshine this huckster's game of an eatery in China and make their own Themed Restaurant chain. I've taken people with kids to places in New York City that are special effects extravaganzas with something "interesting" going on at about every 15 minutes. One consisted of a spaceship ride to an alien world,al la 1950's sci fi flicks.and another was called Jeckle and Hyde's
Adventurer's Club where you eat in a supposed Gothic mansion devoted to hunters of the macabre run by the esteemed Dr. Jeckle,who has a cute animatronic transformation into Mister Hyde I'd imagine several times a night. That's the idea of it: having a crew of actors interact with the customers as Magic Mirrors,or a diver speaking from a shark head mounted on the wall.3 tiers overlooking a wall of animatronic Ghoulish delight,little shows,interesting things going on all the time,here and there.

Now try that with the Lore of World of Warcraft as the theme. Maybe a several vinette plot acted out with stage swordfighting and spells special effected to life. There is also a franchise called Medival Times that has horses jousting and the knightly ambiance to boot.You sit as spectators to a 6 course dinner while a show of several acts is going on in the middle. Warcraft Dinner theatre. Both types of show have their advantages. The "stuff going on all the time" thing allows for walk in traffic,so a constant flow of money,or the Super Spectacular you sell like a Play,for a one performance ticket maybe 60 bucks a pop.With Official Blizzard merchendise at the Souvenier stand!

It could work well.It would work well.Will somebody tell somebody about this so something can be done?
KKTHXBYE! LOL

Animatronic Dinosaurs by Mattel. Now With REAL ROTTEN MEAT SMELL!!!