Is this going to be something like Digital Domain in the hands of a restrained director who listens to Baker? Or is this going to be Van Helsing Part Deux?

In the absence of real info, why do you think they'd use CG for the transformation anyway? How about movement? The drawback with animatronics is the thing will be relatively rooted to the spot. We've seen that, he's done that before. The drawback with cg is believable mass and gravity, and whether the animators are up to it.

My vote is for using BOTH cg AND animatronics for the transformation/s. And when doing the cg, let Baker cast his eye over it and have as much say as Johnston (see Quint? Spell his fucking name right, dammit). The reason Baker's CG modelling is so good is because of that eye and sense of design.

As a sort of post-script, remember that the transformation in American Werewolf wasn't done the way Baker wanted either. Ironic about the dinner party attack. I'm crossing my fingers that as Baker has so much love for the Wolfman, that they don't break his heart on this. He's talked about retiring. I reckon if they fuck him over this could be the proverbial last straw. Hopefully Johnston will be wise about it, whatever he decides. He's used both in concert before.

Durant, check your facts, for crying out loud. The simplification and errors don't do you any favours.

GVR, for once that stupid "INO" stuff works! Wine-o eh? Heh heh. I hope not...

And yes, I'm aware I just came off like a complete prat. Just playing Devil's advocate.

. . . force the movie industry to create new stuff. For Pete's sake already! This, Journey to the snatch of the Earth, whatever. C'mon! 'Nuff o' d'is already. OH, I don't a silver bullet is discussed in this film, no?

Still like to know what shop and of course would reserve judgment of it until we get a glimpse (since I expect all shops will get better over time)... and my facts are only links from shops to projects, if any are wrong, correct me of course.

I'm really interested to know where Baker's done CG modeling (since that's something you mentioned that I didn't know) - would like to evaluate how that turned out...???

If your way was the way people like Baker thought we'd still have 'pure' stuff like the original Wolfman and never would have progressed to American Werewolf, with it's 'technology-based' and 'impure' animatronic effects. Remember how Baker was branded a heretic (no, you're probably too young)? Baker wasn't the absolute first to use bladders and mechanisms. History is just repeating itself with cg, that's all. Restrictions in technique or technology may be good for a director, but not for writers. The promise of cg is that writers lose the creative shackles. Which is a good thing.

It doesn't seem to matter how much the masters of this sort of stuff say "it's just a tool", fanboys don't want to hear it. Great design and performance is the most important thing, whether it's prosthetics, animatronics, or cg. There was plenty of crap before and after Jack Pierce, plenty of crap before and after Rick Baker, and plenty of crap before and after (digital-age) Phil Tippett. Take a breath, C.

As for Baker's cg stuff, do a search on 'monstermaker' for some z-brush and modo stuff. And I bought a cg tutorial he did of an African woman I think at Gnomon. And just by the by, I loved his truly old-school stuff with the jaw on the sheriff in The Frighteners, mixed with the cg midriff. So cool.

What WAS cool is they list Kiran Shah! Playing "wolfboy"!

HV - Between DK, In Bruges (loved, you can tell where they had to use CG, but you can't tell it's CG), some Abe Sapien, and Stardust (yeah Gaiman, even if the movie itself could have been better) among many others that's don't cry out "this is a computer" - I'd hold out hope for something good from Double Negative...

"Exaggerated anger" eh? I think you ARE tossing it out, as that could either be a (n appropriate) design choice (remember AMiL?), based on the idea that there won't be 1-minute cuts displaying a gamut of emotions in the same damn edit, or left to the 'un=hairy' BDT as the wolf is his manifestation of rage and 'animal' side and again the design would fit the metaphor. Also, have you seen moving footage? Maybe there are a number of heads with different expressions (like 'the old days')? We've seen STILL shots, right? Maybe there IS range? And why in God's name would they be showing anything BUT an 'exaggerated anger' expression at this stage? They're going to show a 'default' or 'at rest' version? Really? Just tossing it out there myself, mate.