Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[Bruce Malone]

I can understand how from a technical stand point it's probably easier to deal with cg effects in a studio a week later after the shoot than on the set with make-up and prosthetic shooting that day but the cg is not there yet.

I don't mean that in all cases some cg has been done beautifully and seamlessly but i'm not seeing that in the hobbit right now. I think if Del Toro stuck around he would have gone the extra step and stuck with the practical effects.

I'm telling you the Lucas, Cameron, Jackson cabal are working to put make-up artists out of jobs haha

[redhawk23]

Or perhaps talented directors should be restrained from owning their own special effects houses, haha.

[spidey-dude]

Originally Posted by Bruce Malone

I was just reading the ign review and the comment was made on how all the orcs/goblins are now cgi and how they obviously stick out. Just watching that released clip of the goblin fight and I have to agree.

Re-watching the The LOTR trilogy recently and the make-up/prothetics on the orcs and uru-kai were fantastic. I feel like this is a case of jackson going all "George Lucasy" and thinking if it's not cg it's not worth it now.

IMO other than the lead Orc the CGI was fantastic, if the rest of the Orcs were CGI I couldnt actually tell

[Vartha]

here's the Manip of that Bilbo pic so far. I need to find images of his glasses and a top hat yet.

[regwec]

That is absolutely terrifying.

[Vartha]

Ain't it tho? lol

[terry78]

Basically if you go in looking for CG you've already kind of ruined the experience for yourself. I view CG as stop motion for the modern age. You know the **** is fake, but does it turn you off that much?

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Vartha

here's the Manip of that Bilbo pic so far. I need to find images of his glasses and a top hat yet.

So awesome in a very terrifying way.

Originally Posted by terry78

Basically if you go in looking for CG you've already kind of ruined the experience for yourself. I view CG as stop motion for the modern age. You know the **** is fake, but does it turn you off that much?

I think there is good cgi like there was and still is good stop motion. The good stuff doesn't bother me. And I am not talking super realistic, but more about effective work. I am a huge Doctor Who fan after all.

[regwec]

Originally Posted by Robbie Collin

As a lover of cinema, Jackson’s film bored me rigid; as a lover of Tolkien, it broke my heart.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ie-review.html

Hmph.

[DarthSkywalker]

The comment section is bad. Certain people take this stuff to heart. If you are a fan no matter what, why the need for validation?

[Gianakin_]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

The comment section is bad. Certain people take this stuff to heart. If you are a fan no matter what, why the need for validation?

Denial.

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by regwec

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ie-review.html

Hmph.

As I've said in the past, until YOU see it don't go by what others have said. You never know you'll like it untill all three films are out.
To me unless they give out detailed REASONS why they don't like a film I don't pay attention to what people say unless I know them very well.
Personally I LIKE what I'm seeing and hearing from the Trailers and Interviews.

[RoboAmish]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

The comment section is bad. Certain people take this stuff to heart. If you are a fan no matter what, why the need for validation?

Rather bizarrely, one of them points to the fact that RC "preferred Brokeback Mountain" as an example of his lack of credibility

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Vartha

As I've said in the past, until YOU see it don't go by what others have said. You never know you'll like it untill all three films are out.
To me unless they give out detailed REASONS why they don't pay attention to what people say unless I know them very well.
Personally I LIKE what I'm seeing and hearing from the Trailers and Interviews.

I don't understand this. Do we only have to pay once to see all three? These are three separate films.

I do agree though that the trailers and tv spots are awesome, but then again so are many for not so great films.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by RoboAmish

Rather bizarrely, one of them points to the fact that RC "preferred Brokeback Mountain" as an example of his lack of credibility

I did not see that one. Great, now we can add possible homophobia to the list.

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

I don't understand this. Do we only have to pay once to see all three? These are three separate films.

I do agree though that the trailers and tv spots are awesome, but then again so are many for not so great films.

Because things get moved around in these movies compared to the books, Extended version add to a film to some people.
To ME, it's like picking up a Cliff notes book and expecting to get the full effect of the original book.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Vartha

Because things get moved around in these movies compared to the books, Extended version add to a film to some people.
To ME, it's like picking up a Cliff notes book and expecting to get the full effect of the original book.

But hasn't that been done for the benefit of each individual film? To make them more complete. Like the end of FOTR or how Frodo, Sam and Gollum's journey ended earlier.

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

But hasn't that been done for the benefit of each individual film? To make them more complete. Like the end of FOTR or how Frodo, Sam and Gollum's journey ended earlier.

Yeah, I'm just saying you can't judge the Triology based off one film.
It's like reading a 3rd of a book and never reading the rest and saying the whole story sucked. Granted everyone has their fave of the LotR films but mine is all three.

[redhawk23]

Originally Posted by terry78

Basically if you go in looking for CG you've already kind of ruined the experience for yourself. I view CG as stop motion for the modern age. You know the **** is fake, but does it turn you off that much?

Yes actually because I know what can be done with the proper balance of methods. There are times where practical effects would look better, have looked better and have been used by that particular filmmaker in similar instances so when they instead resort to subpar CG it is incredibly frustrating.

Stop motion effects were ristricted by the technological limitations of their day. However well they emulate reality, with the great stop motion work from artists like Harryhausen you can see the great care and craftsmanship that went into the effects. There is a charm there that remains.

Sloppy cg work never looks like anything but, especially when there was no need for the elements to be done with CG to begin with.
Never was using entirely cg people in I Am Legend a good idea.


Also, CG isn't inherently bad. Great work can and has been done if done carefully. There is a lot of very subtle cg work that never gets praised because it does its job so well that most people never even question it. For instance, the sheep in brokeback mountain are largely cg, but you never hear that film come up in discussions about special effects, even though there are many effects shots and they're insanely well done.


Even with more over CG, we've seen it done well.

Like Maurice the Orangutan in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Or latest version of the Hulk in the Avengers (in comparison to crap Rhythm and Hues put out for the 2008 film)

Or Davy Jones in Pirates

Or even all the way back to Jurrassic park, where the cg work is actually used quite sparingly at the time, where they were honest about its limitations and only used when necessary.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Vartha

Yeah, I'm just saying you can't judge the Triology based off one film.
It's like reading a 3rd of a book and never reading the rest and saying the whole story sucked. Granted everyone has their fave of the LotR films but mine is all three.

Well, that is the problem though isn't it. Why is he making a story based on a third of a small book? The LOTR is one big story, but each individual film very much had its own story and identity. They were each whole, even the not so great ROTK.

I guess I simply don't agree with this point of view. Don't like the idea of crafting or judging individual films based on anything other then themselves.

[redhawk23]

Originally Posted by Vartha

As I've said in the past, until YOU see it don't go by what others have said. You never know you'll like it untill all three films are out.
To me unless they give out detailed REASONS why they don't like a film I don't pay attention to what people say unless I know them very well.
Personally I LIKE what I'm seeing and hearing from the Trailers and Interviews.

There was never any real reason for these films to be split in three but they chose to. They are three films and if they don't work as films they can be criticized for that.

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by DarthSkywalker

Well, that is the problem though isn't it. Why is he making a story based on a third of a small book? The LOTR is one big story, but each individual film very much had its own story and identity. They were each whole, even the not so great ROTK.

I guess I simply don't agree with this point of view. Don't like the idea of crafting or judging individual films based on anything other then themselves.

lol well if movie company's and theaters would MAKE 9 hour movies we could sit and watch the whole thing then couldn't we? lol

I understand what you're saying I really don't have one fave LotR film. I like them all equally. Tho I do consider each movie a bookmark in a Novel. Keep in mind Lotr was originally ONE book not three.

[DarthSkywalker]

Originally Posted by Vartha

lol well if movie company's and theaters would MAKE 9 hour movies we could sit and watch the whole thing then couldn't we? lol

I understand what you're saying I really don't have one fave LotR film. I like them all equally. Tho I do consider each movie a bookmark in a Novel. Keep in mind Lotr was originally ONE book not three.

Wasn't it originally published as 6 books in three volumes? Hence the cliffhangers and the way time passes between the volumes.

The LOTR as one huge 9 hour film would be quite jarring considering how each film starts and stops and how different each one looks.

[Vartha]

Originally Posted by redhawk23

There was never any real reason for these films to be split in three but they chose to. They are three films and if they don't work as films they can be criticized for that.

Well if you didn't it would feel rushed.
Didn't Jackson just say something about that?

[ThePowerCosmic]

Originally Posted by Vartha

here's the Manip of that Bilbo pic so far. I need to find images of his glasses and a top hat yet.

Don't forget something to cover up those Hobbit feet.