The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
A (short) interview with Hugo Weaving


Jul 20 2012, 4:57pm

Views: 2516
A (short) interview with Hugo Weaving

The following website interviewed Hugo Weaving recently on his most defining roles; one of which was Elrond.,82705/

A snippet:


Well, tonally, I think the film [The Hobbit] is slightly different, but the experience didn’t seem radically different, to be honest. If anything, it was slightly more green-screen and slightly less set.

The LOTR/TH questions are only short, and don't contain anything we don't already know Smile



Jul 21 2012, 2:24am

Views: 1103
Not sure about all this CG! //



Jul 21 2012, 3:48am

Views: 1080

I really hope that the technology has advanced to the point, and that Peter's direction has enough of the human touch, to avoid the lifeless Star Wars Prequel effect.


Jul 21 2012, 9:59am

Views: 1055
10 years ago, LOTR had some of the best CGI I had ever seen

With 10 years of development, I'm sure it will be excellent!


Jul 21 2012, 12:12pm

Views: 1012
I'm sure it has too

But if I could choose between real sets or more cgi, I'd of course choose the sets.


Jul 21 2012, 12:15pm

Views: 1023
I think the cgi of LotR is more comparable to the star wars prequels

Than the hobbit's cgi will be. And LOTR's cgi was way more realistic than star wars even ten years ago, so I don't worry about that.


Jul 21 2012, 12:17pm

Views: 1006
Nothing will ever beat the feel of a set

But because of the advances in filming technology (HD etc..) (cheap) sets may not look as good on screen than CGI.


Jul 21 2012, 2:48pm

Views: 1002
That's a great point

And we have already seen, in the trailer, how sets can look very cheap in high res (the first shot of Dol Guldur, and the Rivendell set with Gandalf and Galadriel).

If CGI can create a more realistic effect, then I'm all for it.

Someone recently posted a short video showing off the CGI work on Games of Thrones. Can someone find and repost that?


Jul 21 2012, 3:25pm

Views: 959
Is this it?;#468306


Jul 21 2012, 3:27pm

Views: 952
Yup, thanks!



Jul 21 2012, 3:41pm

Views: 959
It certainly is impressive CGI!

And as the OP said in the other forum, WETA can do it better!

It is a shame that "real" (rather than cheap) sets aren't made. That would be great, but it's just not financially viable.

I didn't think that scene with Gandriel looked particularly fake ... I'm most worried about Mirkwood (both the colour, and it looking like Fangorn...).


Jul 21 2012, 4:46pm

Views: 966
"Real" "sets"

In Reply To
And as the OP said in the other forum, WETA can do it better!

It is a shame that "real" (rather than cheap) sets aren't made. That would be great, but it's just not financially viable.

The rebuilt Hobbiton set at Matamata is an example of a "real" set, made with real materials and meant to last. It was of course much more expensive that way. I've no doubt they hope to generate additional revenues through future site tourism to recoup that investment.

…all eyes looked upon the ring; for he held it now aloft, and the green jewels gleamed there that the Noldor had devised in Valinor. For this ring was like to twin serpents, whose eyes were emeralds, and their heads met beneath a crown of golden flowers, that the one upheld and the other devoured; that was the badge of Finarfin and his house.
The Silmarillion, pp 150-151
while Felagund laughs beneath the trees
in Valinor and comes no more
to this grey world of tears and war.
The Lays of Beleriand, p 311


Jul 21 2012, 4:53pm

Views: 941
Yes, Hobbiton is the exception

Dol Guldur made from real stone (not polystyrene) would look *amazing*. There's just no need for it though Frown


Jul 21 2012, 6:02pm

Views: 936
Not sure why it is assumed that WETA can do better

As the CGI in Game of Thrones is excellent...

I'm sure WETA will do an excellent job, as they did in LOTR, but I can't imagine the static structures being much better than what we see in GoT.


Jul 21 2012, 6:27pm

Views: 934
Basing it on the fact it is a TV show, with a much lower budget /



Jul 21 2012, 6:32pm

Views: 919
Why no need for it?

Why is it okay for Dol Guldur to look fake, while so much care and attention is paid to the Shire?

Sure, it would cost more to make a realistic Dol Guldur set. But doing it on the cheap is not a good option, IMO.

If that's the unfortunate reality of set-building, I'd rather they do the whole thing in CGI.


Jul 21 2012, 6:37pm

Views: 938
The Shire has only been made "real" for The Hobbit ...

and that's for tourism, and not for the film. It was all "fake" for the trilogy.

They couldn't make every set from real materials. It would be massively expensive. And what are people going to see ... a dark, run down fortress ... or the Shire?


Jul 21 2012, 9:09pm

Views: 908
I don't mean fully real

I just mean with higher-quality materials, etc...

The Dol Guldur set looks like some cheaply-painted and sculprted polysterene, IMO... Ruins simply do not look like that.


Jul 21 2012, 9:14pm

Views: 899
Ahhh I see.

So not real stone, but something better than polystyrene? I'd agree to that Smile


Jul 21 2012, 9:25pm

Views: 901
Then can you suggest a better material for the job?

Something imin said a while ago springs to mind. We're none of us here the ones responsible for building these sets, or rendering the CGI.

When it's time to pray, we'll be dressed up all in grey, with metal on our tongues, and silver in our lungs


Jul 21 2012, 9:31pm

Views: 1217
Polysterene could do the trick

The real trick is getting the sculpting, painting, lighting and design right. In some of those shots, the stonework seems to have a rather one-note color to it, and not a lot of stone-like texture. I don't know what it is exactly, but it simply does not look very realistic.