|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Feb 25, 8:36am
Post #126 of 153
(11734 views)
Shortcut
|
You made the claim. Most people would say that the burden of proof falls upon who is making the case. I don't need to "prove" that TH has more CGI than LOTR. The burden of proof falls upon YOU, who first made this baseless claim.
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Feb 25, 8:43am
Post #127 of 153
(11731 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you have mathematical proof of more VFX shots in TH than in LOTR? What's your point? Nothing further than physics-free Toontown (aka Goblin Town) is needed to cite.
Toontown? That's okay. But just don't pretend LOTR was anything less "physics-free" (!).
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Feb 25, 8:53am)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Feb 25, 8:50am
Post #128 of 153
(11728 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you have mathematical proof of more VFX shots in TH than in LOTR? asking for "Mathematical proof" is IMO a slightly odd challenge in this context. but I suppose I thought that dissatisfaction with the quantity and especially quality of the Hobbit movies' CGI was more or less common ground amongst anyone who'd seen them?
Because it is something that is often claimed, but rarely (if ever), it is backed up with any examples, much less "hard proof".
And it is not "common ground", IMO. It is just an oft-repeated claim amongst those whom disliked TH trilogy for some reason, thrown in as an excuse with little to no logic or reasoning behind it. I would say, having watched all six movies (in their extended editions, no less) that LOTR has just as many "absurd" and "physics-free" scenes as TH.
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Feb 25, 8:55am)
|
|
|
Junesong
Nargothrond
Feb 25, 12:53pm
Post #129 of 153
(11705 views)
Shortcut
|
But I will say that in The Hobbit behind the scenes Ian Mckellen almost quit because he had to spend many days on end (weeks?) filming in a big green tent posing as Bag End. In The Lord of the Rings Behind the Scenes they reveal that they built two identical Bag Ends at different scales to film in and then merged them.
Both films/both scenes seemed to require a heck of a lot of CGI in their own way. I'm not sure if trying to parse out specific amounts is helpful.
BUT - the above anecdote about Sir Ian trying to act in a green tent is kind of what people are getting at. The movies had a whole swath of new and exciting technology open to them and they took advantage of it at every turn. They tried their best to push the envelope and be innovative, just like they had done ten years earlier with LOTR.
In my humble opinion - the films (and the audience reception to the films) is really all the proof you need. Whatever they were doing, or whatever they were trying to do - it seemed to work out a whole lot better from 2001-2003. I think it was the restrictions and the limitations that made those movies great and timeless. I think the endless toy chest of money and technology only hurt The Hobbit films.
(Kind of reminds me of a band who's first album is made on the cheap and the crappy gear and cheap studio and urgency of anonymity and hunger is what gives the record the special sound that propels them to fame and stardom. And then, with all the money of a big studio and in fancy rooms with expensive gear and tech they make their big studio debut and it feels soulless and lukewarm and ordinary and you wonder how the same band could fumble so hard with everything they'd ever need on a silver platter. I suppose in those types of situations, the silver platter may itself be the problem.)
"So which story do you prefer?"
"The one with the tiger. That's the better story."
"Thank you. And so it goes with God."
(This post was edited by Junesong on Feb 25, 12:54pm)
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Feb 25, 6:00pm
Post #130 of 153
(11679 views)
Shortcut
|
Do you have mathematical proof of more VFX shots in TH than in LOTR? What's your point? Nothing further than physics-free Toontown (aka Goblin Town) is needed to cite. Toontown? That's okay. But just don't pretend LOTR was anything less "physics-free" (!).
LOTR did not make me feel like I was in a video game. The only scene that remotely felt that way in LOTR was the run over the Bridge of Khazad-dum with the camera high overhead. As Junesong alludes, much of what LOTR did was practical, in-camera effects, such as "Bigatures," especially with The Fellowship of the Ring before the CGI budget kicked in, while The Hobbit was all the CGI they could bring to bear. Jackson's progression to overuse of CGI from one movie to the next is legend. Even the Mumakil scenes at the Battle of Pelennor Fields, where Legolas did his trick down the trunk, felt more real than most of The Hobbit. Legolas running up falling rock blocks Super Mario-style in The Hobbit is the epitome of physics-free video gaming.
(This post was edited by DGHCaretaker on Feb 25, 6:02pm)
|
|
|
TFP
Menegroth
Feb 25, 10:15pm
Post #131 of 153
(11660 views)
Shortcut
|
You made the claim. Most people would say that the burden of proof falls upon who is making the case. I don't need to "prove" that TH has more CGI than LOTR. The burden of proof falls upon YOU, who first made this baseless claim.
really happy to agree to disagree on this.
(This post was edited by TFP on Feb 25, 10:16pm)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Feb 26, 8:42am
Post #132 of 153
(11548 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Then you would disagree with this critic?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"3. Physical Impossibilities
Don't say "it's fantasy" as if that justifies all impossibles. That reduces LOTR to the level of a Roadrunner cartoon. Why not have "Gimli" run on the air for a little bit before doing a pratfall then? Why not have little birds and bells circling in the air over any character who gets hit, or little hearts over "Arwen" and Viggo at the coronation? Why not have the impossible catapults flip over and flatten their own crews, with ACME stamped on the side? I assure you, none of those would be any more out of place, or any more impossible, than the things which did happen in ROTK-M.
Here is a signal example, that of the in/famous "Beacon Scene." Some pretty pictures, rendered completely meaningless, by their impossibility. The scene in the books was apparently not exciting enough, when Gandalf, racing through the dark to Gondor, is spurred on to even more urgency by the line of beacons bursting into flame one by one in a lengthening chain down the opposite direction, followed almost immediately after by a group of couriers bringing the Red Arrow to Théoden. The beacons, as in the Primary World, are set on hills — not mountaintops, not peaks as of the Himalayas or the Swiss Alps, whereupon in broad daylight vast blossoms of gas-jet flame leap up instantaneously from piles of logs.
This is ROTK-M's version of the impossible Argonath statues, where the realistic upraised arms of the Kings are replaced with utterly impossible extended arms. (Look at any decent art book, you will find plenty of statues of figures with arms raised up to the shoulder, but few (surviving unrepaired at least) with extended arms, for a very good reason called gravity, and another very good reason called breakability. Stone is quite brittle, compared to wood or plastic.) In order to make the "drama" greater, the scene has been reduced to irrationality, rather than remaining a believable fantasy. We are even shown one beacon igniting above the clouds! How, pray tell, is that supposed to do any good to those below, and be visible to the people it is meant to summon? Let alone how it can burn, how its keepers can survive, in a zone of low oxygen and lower temperatures? (The situation, in which Pippin is obliged to scale a tower to light the beacon, is moreover one of laughable implausibility both in its execution and its setup. Definitely an Honorable Mention for the Aristotelian Improbability Award, if not a Bronze.)
But — it's all magic, it's fantasy, it's irrational, just the way stupid science fiction is dismissed by reviewers as "it's sci-fi, what do you expect?" Only it isn't supposed to be — this was billed to us after all as Lord of the Rings, not Dungeons & Dragons, or Indiana Jones, or Tarzan of the Apes, and in Middle-earth, miles are after all real miles, objects have to be carried by someone across a given distance, there are no teleport devices or Magic Bags of Holding, resources are limited to what is available and practicality dominates over histrionics — to the overall increase of drama, imo.
But there's an even less plausible scene, incredibly — one that violates biology and physics in a much more obvious and egregious way — ROTK-M's version of the Moria Orcs Swarming The Walls/Tottering Stair scenes in FOTR-M (something else which in retrospect should have been taken as a warning, not excused) and the infamous Ski-Slope Cavalry Charge Into Pikes of TTT-M. Or didn't you know, Frodo and Sam both have Mutant X superpowers? At least, they — unlike ordinary human beings, child-size or otherwise — can cling by one blood-slippery hand to a rock over toxic fumes, and haul by one hand, with nothing to anchor the lifter's body, a body of equal size up from that rock. A classic H'wood excess and exaggeration of the possible, amplified beyond all plausibility and possibility, turning what should be a terribly moving situation into a farce.
I'm not willing to hang, draw, and quarter my disbelief, I'm afraid".
Link: https://multiversemonitor.neocities.org/Oddlots/arthedain/promises_kept
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Feb 26, 8:46am
Post #133 of 153
(11547 views)
Shortcut
|
You made the claim. Most people would say that the burden of proof falls upon who is making the case. I don't need to "prove" that TH has more CGI than LOTR. The burden of proof falls upon YOU, who first made this baseless claim. really happy to agree to disagree on this.
But the post you replied to, well...wasn't directed at you. Or are you responding for someone else's post?
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Feb 26, 8:47am)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Feb 26, 8:51am
Post #134 of 153
(11545 views)
Shortcut
|
The only one I didn't respond to was Junesong, because his post was quite, well...long. And I need to read it again to properly respond and do justice to it. AND I am "strapped" for time right now. 
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Feb 26, 8:53am)
|
|
|
TFP
Menegroth
Feb 26, 1:57pm
Post #135 of 153
(11510 views)
Shortcut
|
You made the claim. Most people would say that the burden of proof falls upon who is making the case. I don't need to "prove" that TH has more CGI than LOTR. The burden of proof falls upon YOU, who first made this baseless claim. really happy to agree to disagree on this. But the post you replied to, well...wasn't directed at you. Or are you responding for someone else's post?
apologies, I suppose I just assumed I was at least one of the people who you were addressing, since:
(a) My post #118 was the first one on this thread to bring up the Hobbit movies, and the first one that you replied to (post #119);
(b) I suppose, in my own eyes, this made me, in your words (post #126) the person who "made the claim/...the case" (post #126).
very happy to stand corrected though.
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 26, 2:30pm
Post #136 of 153
(11502 views)
Shortcut
|
You made the claim. Most people would say that the burden of proof falls upon who is making the case. I don't need to "prove" that TH has more CGI than LOTR. The burden of proof falls upon YOU, who first made this baseless claim. really happy to agree to disagree on this. But the post you replied to, well...wasn't directed at you. Or are you responding for someone else's post?
If you were not responding to TFP's post then you probably shouldn't have linked your response to it. It's understandable why they were think that they were being directly addressed.
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Feb 26, 10:38pm
Post #137 of 153
(11449 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Paulo, I too love The Hobbit movies but don’t sweat it.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I wouldn’t get hung up on the number of CGI shots in each of the films. It doesn’t matter. Some people were put off by what they perceived to be excessive CGI, others were fine with it.
It’s certainly not true that The Hobbit movies are universally disliked. Many liked them, as evidenced by their box office success. By the only metric that really counts in the movie making business - money made - the films did very well, each earning over or close to a billion dollars worldwide in theatres.
IIRC, in various interviews, commentaries and such PJ stated that there was considerable CGI and other technological innovations in TH movies because, as with LotR, he was eager to use the newest film making tools available circa 2010 to tell his version of the story. He also didn’t want to just reproduce LotR. The LotR movies wouldn’t have been possible without a lot of new technology, including great advances in CGI. I’ve never really understood why innovation needed to stop in 2003. Sometimes I’ve wondered if some LotR fans were somehow imprinted by Jackson’s movies so that they interpret all things Tolkien through that lens.
It was inevitable that Jackson’s Hobbit films would be epic, which displeased many book lovers who understandably wanted a more literal adaptation of the little book. His version was obviously never intended to have the gravitas of his LotR, until BotFA, just as the book abruptly changes in tone after Smaug. TH films were meant to be lighter, sillier, reflective in their own way of the lighter tone of the novel, and that didn’t suit some LotR movie fans. I’m not disputing that there were unresolved problems with trying to marry that lighter tone with a world-in-the balance overarching story and that the shift from two to three films didn’t create some awkwardness.
One CGI issue that I did have with TH movies was the appearance the Orcs. I went back and forth on whether I preferred The Hobbit’s more interesting looking CGI Orcs or what were obviously people in Orc suits in LotR. Maybe ironically, it was the Orcs of RoP that convinced me that for me the people in suits approach works better. On the other hand, CGI was used to create the stunning interiors of Erebor and Thranduil’s realm, and even Goblin Town, as well as other wonderful locations. And the magnificent Smaug.
For those who complain about physics-defying action, I remind you of scientist DwellerInDale’s excellent post on the physics of the bridge fall in Goblin Town in AUJ.
http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=617010;search_string=goblin;guest=483993944#617010
See also his post on barrels and the forest river chase in DoS.
http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=614351;page=2;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC;mh=25;guest=483994574
The sun yet shines
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Elvenhome
Feb 27, 2:21am
Post #138 of 153
(11439 views)
Shortcut
|
Harder to excuse is Legolas' gravity-defying Mario Bros. impersonation in The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies[/I[].
“Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved.” - Tony Isabella
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Nargothrond
Feb 27, 6:16am
Post #139 of 153
(11397 views)
Shortcut
|
|
A New Tidbit Linking BOFA and ROP
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thanks for the shoutout- doing the analyses of "Goblin Town" and "Barrels Out of Bond" back in the day was truly enjoyable, and I'm glad that folks learned some non-intuitive things about physics.
This reminded me: there is an interesting little physics link between The Battle of the Five Armies and the Season 2 finale of The Rings of Power. In the former, most people criticized Legolas' stunt in his fight against Bolg, but nobody noticed one small detail. During the fight, a tall stone tower falls over, creating a bridge where the battle eventually concludes. This wasn't physically realistic, because such a tall tower would break apart somewhere between one third and halfway from the tower's base. In physics, this is called the "falling chimney effect", and the reason involves the difference in angular acceleration between the top and bottom of a falling structure. In the season finale of ROP, there is a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment where Elrond looks back at the burning Eregion, and Celebrimbor's tall tower containing the forge falls over: if you watch carefully, you can see it break about halfway up as it falls. Glad to see they got that right!
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
|
|
|
TFP
Menegroth
Feb 27, 9:46am
Post #140 of 153
(11370 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The other really striking example of good CGI in the Hobbit
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
You rightly mention Smaug but for my money the job they did with Gollum, whose treatment in the LoTR films had already been very good, was really first rate. Generally the 'riddles in the dark scene' was very good. The first of the three hobbit movies was IMO the strongest by a very great distance, being much more character and less action-based - whereas, amongst the LoTR movies, the first was my favourite for similar reasons, but there are IMO relatively plausible arguments to be made for the others in a way that's not true for the Hobbitses.
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Feb 27, 1:46pm
Post #141 of 153
(11336 views)
Shortcut
|
...I'm glad that folks learned some non-intuitive things about physics.
I only learned that even scientists can engage in cognitive dissonance, preaching faith instead of science when it is obviously otherwise.
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Feb 28, 4:08am
Post #142 of 153
(11314 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There is no excuse for Legolas, unless you’re a Legolas super-fan.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That’s who these stunts were created for. But that started with the shield surfing in TTT and the oliphaunt scaling in RotK. I just find the sequences amusing.
Again, who knows what immortal beings who can walk on snow can do, because you know, humans can’t walk on snow.
The sun yet shines
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Feb 28, 4:12am
Post #143 of 153
(11313 views)
Shortcut
|
|
An interesting example of a Hobbit movie stunt failing the physics test.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I guess they can’t win them all.
Thanks for that. I think that I vaguely recall complaints about the tower fall but Legolas himself drew so much ire that maybe it didn’t stand out as much as the Goblin Town bridge slide.
I remember seeing Celebrimbor’s tower fall but will go back and look at it again to see that detail you mentioned.
The sun yet shines
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Nargothrond
Feb 28, 4:12am
Post #144 of 153
(11312 views)
Shortcut
|
Presenting arguments based on what one considers "obvious" doesn't demonstrate much in the way of deep thought. Quite the opposite. If you care to follow the threads that Noria posted, you'd find that several people obstinately refused to consider or try to understand the analyses, insisting that they knew better. One person was even admonished by the moderators for making personal attacks, concluding that I was obviously unqualified for my area of research, since I had to be wrong. So I've seen it all before, and these attacks on my credibility by amateurs are frankly tiresome.
If you have a mathematical demonstration that my analyses of "Goblin Town" or "Barrels out of Bond" are incorrect, then I'd be glad to listen. If you have proof that I've made errors in the mathematics, then I'd be glad to correct them. Everything is there in the essays, all the equations and assumptions, and in a subsequent thread I presented a derivation of the main differential equation for free fall with quadratic drag. Nothing in either essay was done based on trying to make excuses for scenes that violated physical principles; in fact the opposite is true. As I wrote at the time, one of my very favorite scenes in the LOTR trilogy (Gandalf falling with the Balrog) is quite impossible from a physical standpoint. So no, I also had no hidden agenda.
Criticizing someone's work from an armchair perspective while having no understanding is at best a waste of time. Anyone can talk the talk. Walking the walk is a different matter.
Don't mess with my favorite female elves.
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Feb 28, 4:30am
Post #145 of 153
(11306 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I agree that Gollum was really well done in AUJ
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I seem to recall some mention in one of the Hobbit documentaries of Weta animating more of Gollum's facial muscles or something the second time around.
I liked AUJ a good deal for its relative fidelity to the book as well as its humanity, so to speak, revealed in the characterizations. Riddles in the Dark is one of the movie’s high points.
But, since I very much like DoS and BotFA, I don’t agree they’re weak or that they failed. I liked DoS because it was different from the book and therefore surprising, and because of Thranduil, Tauriel’s starlight scene, Bard and of course Smaug. Big battles are not my favourite thing but BotFA’s was well done, IMO, with plenty of smaller emotional scenes to offset the spectacle.
The sun yet shines
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Mar 9, 12:02pm
Post #146 of 153
(11085 views)
Shortcut
|
"Paulo, I too love The Hobbit movies but don’t sweat it".
What do you mean by "don't sweat it"? I am not a native English-speaker. Is that an idiom? It probably is. But I never heard it and I don't know what it means.
"I wouldn’t get hung up on the number of CGI shots in each of the films. It doesn’t matter. Some people were put off by what they perceived to be excessive CGI, others were fine with it.
I agree, but he CLAIMED that the Hobbit movies had more CGI. And he didn't back it up. I simply asked him to substiante his point.
And, as a level 0 surprise, he didn't do that.
(Him or her, I didn't check the individual account/profile to see if the gender was specified).
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Mar 9, 12:17pm)
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Mar 9, 12:35pm
Post #147 of 153
(11075 views)
Shortcut
|
The gender is indeed specified. That user is male, or at least it is stated so in the profile.
|
|
|
DGHCaretaker
Nargothrond
Mar 9, 4:13pm
Post #148 of 153
(11033 views)
Shortcut
|
What do you mean by "don't sweat it"? I am not a native English-speaker. Is that an idiom? Yes. It means don't worry about it, not a problem, or maybe in this case ignore bad behavior from others toward you.
I agree, but he CLAIMED that the Hobbit movies had more CGI. And he didn't back it up. I simply asked him to substiante his point.
And, as a level 0 surprise, he didn't do that. More than one of us didn't substantiate the claim, so not sure which he you mean. Mostly because it's a ridiculous request we wouldn't waste time on, like being asked to prove grass is green, because while obvious it really would take a lot of futile analysis to satisfy a stranger who is just creating meaningless work for us in the end. As in who cares? But don't sweat it.
|
|
|
Noria
Hithlum
Mar 9, 5:26pm
Post #149 of 153
(11005 views)
Shortcut
|
Your English is very good but slang is hard.
“Don’t sweat it” simply means don’t worry about it.
What I meant is that this issue – the number of CGI shots – isn’t worth arguing about. I seem to recall Peter Jackson saying that the use of CGI was more extensive in The Hobbit and we can see an example of that that in the replacement of live action Orcs with CGI characters. The exact figures can probably be found somewhere. I just don’t think it matters one way or the other. The Hobbit movies are what they are.
Sometime between 2003 and the making of The Hobbit, CGI special effects seem to have gone out of fashion, become untrendy or whatever. So TH received a lot of criticism over the use of CGI from certain quarters, sometimes from fans who seem to believe that they speak for everybody. They don’t, but they are entitled to their opinion. So are those of us who love TH movies.
If I only loved that which is perfect, I wouldn’t love much, including Lord of the Rings.
The sun yet shines
|
|
|
Paulo Gabriel
Menegroth
Mar 21, 4:34am
Post #150 of 153
(3324 views)
Shortcut
|
http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?do=post_view_flat;post=1016802;so=ASC;sb=post_latest_reply;#1016802
The link above LITERALLY doesn't link to "TFP's" post.
(This post was edited by Paulo Gabriel on Mar 21, 4:38am)
|
|
|
|
|
