Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of the Rings:
New Viggo Mortensen interview on the "mess" that was Rings
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All

The Grey Pilgrim
Lorien


May 14 2014, 5:05pm

Post #1 of 160 (7834 views)
Shortcut
New Viggo Mortensen interview on the "mess" that was Rings Can't Post

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/...ubtlety-for-CGI.html


What do you guys think. It's a lot for me to process right now, I knew he was disgruntled at The Towers and The Return of the King, but not to this extent. It really saddens me, I can see that the effects got bigger, but in my opinion not to the detriment of the story. For me the Lord of the Rings trilogy was a masterpiece through and through and I really don't see the complaints that story was sacrificed for CGI. The Two Towers and Return of the King simply had a bigger special effects quota to fill for the narrative landscape of the film, and I don't think Jackson lost sight of what was important. There are countless moments in the 2nd and 3rd that are some of the most personal and intimate of the entire trilogy, and the balance of the epic and the intimate is one of the things Jackson pulled off best in his Rings trilogy, reaching its climax naturally in The Return of the King. I am sad Mortensen feels this way but I have to say I really disagree. His performance as Aragorn is one of the best things in the trilogy and he is one of my favorite actors of all time so to hear him say this is a little sad. I can't speak to the degree of controlled chaos that was the filming as Viggo undoubtedly was there and I wasn't, but with the re-shoots and everything that were added I think PJ and the crew and cast were able to make the 2nd and 3rd films what they should have been. It was smart to focus on Fellowship firstly, if that failed the trilogy would have gone with it, but is it right to lampoon the expansion of the tapestry of storytelling and what was possible because of what could be achieved due to increased budget and resources that simply wasn't possible initially. The films certainly get more expensive as they go along, there is no doubt about that. But I do not feel that get any less personal.

The Hobbit is a very different story, and I would agree there, but strictly sticking to The Lord of the Rings some of these comments from Mortensen while very candid and I'm sure things that he really believes, seem quite disheartening.


(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 14 2014, 9:00pm)


Elessar
Valinor


May 14 2014, 5:26pm

Post #2 of 160 (6397 views)
Shortcut
I don't see anything really bad [In reply to] Can't Post

He still sounds proud to have been part of these films and to be fond of PJ. He just doesn't care for CGI that much so he is closer maybe to FOTR than the other two. We can see from the behind the scenes stuff that making these films were a bit of a mess.



Magpie
Immortal


May 14 2014, 5:32pm

Post #3 of 160 (6316 views)
Shortcut
I'm not sure he's saying stuff that some of us didn't already know... or suspect [In reply to] Can't Post

first, in terms of chaos, I think we got senses of that trickling in here and there. The scale was massive. We knew about reshoots. Shore talks about the timetable of scoring very last minute. People mention the workload almost killed some of them and that relationships suffered.

That's all from watching the extras. It wasn't hidden information. Viggo's just putting it into his words from his perspective. And I think it creates a wider view of the circumstances for him to share it.

As for this,
The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10.

...many people talk about FOTR as being different. Many say it's their favorite. Not all, certainly. But many.

For myself, I was willing to accept that the story changes so much over the course of the book. But I know that those moments that irritate me enough to take me out of my copacetic enjoyment of the LOTR trilogy happen more frequently in TTT and ROTK than in FOTR. And I attribute 'those moments' completely as being due to PJ's taste and influence.

And again, in the extras, we heard how the need for MORE was important in ROTK, esp. The Witch King mace. The new war beast that Alan Lee tossed off in a sketch and was hurriedly added to the already busy digital effects work load.

As with the 'chaos' statement, getting Viggo's perspective just provides a wider context (and points of view) - which I appreciate.

As for the end of that quote up there, if I consider what I think of Hobbit I and II, I can sense this arc - rising in terms of CG flash or declining in terms of intimacy or subtly. And I would totally buy TTT and ROTK as the beginning of that arc. I start with FOTR which totally charmed and enchanted me - and linger at the penultimate point on that arc, TH-DOS - which bored and annoyed me. If Viggo sees TTT and ROTK as part of that arc, I can buy that.

I found this statement really interesting, too:
And then he did The Lovely Bones – and I thought that would be his smaller movie. But the problem is, he did it on a $90 million budget. That should have been a $15 million movie. The special effects thing, the genie, was out of the bottle, and it has him. And he’s happy, I think…”


I do think PJ loves what he loves. And his movies are a reflection of that. If you love what PJ loves, then the vibes are good. If one doesn't so much... or doesn't very much at all... the vibes get a little more discordant.

I think Viggo is willing to accept that PJ has a style that makes him (PJ) happy. Viggo just has a different take on it all and I'm glad he's willing to be honest about it and share it. It doesn't make me like the LOTR movies any less than I do, it doesn't make me admire Viggo any less than I do, and I don't have any less respect for the people who worked on the movies. I just think I understand them a little better - or maybe I understand how I feel about them a little better.

Thanks for the link. I'm really glad I read the article. I almost wish you had posted this on main because I think it needs more eyes than it will get here on LOTR movie.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Elwen
Lorien


May 14 2014, 5:38pm

Post #4 of 160 (6326 views)
Shortcut
Actually, I think Viggo is spot on here... [In reply to] Can't Post

"In the first movie, yes, there’s Rivendell, and Mordor, but there’s sort of an organic quality to it, actors acting with each other, and real landscapes; it’s grittier. The second movie already started ballooning, for my taste, and then by the third one, there were a lot of special effects. It was grandiose, and all that, but whatever was subtle, in the first movie, gradually got lost in the second and third. Now with The Hobbit, one and two, it’s like that to the power of 10."

My thoughts exactly, Viggo. The first film, despite it's scale, seems so intimate and so real. That wanes throughout the trilogy, and by the Battle of Pelennor Fields, it's as if it's a completely different director. This is also my chief complaint about the Hobbit movies.

I know many people prefer the later movies in all their CGI glory, but I felt like the actors (and especially the script) took a backseat to effects.

The question I'd like the answer to is "What would Fellowship have looked like if PJ had had the technological and financial wherewithal for CGI craziness for that film that he did for the later films?" Actually, maybe I don't want to know that. Fellowship is by far my favorite.

 photo b46d46c9-4c74-4ab7-b020-9f8681a9c904_zps24eb4def.jpg
Even elves love a Friday Fiesta

(This post was edited by Elwen on May 14 2014, 5:40pm)


Darkstone
Immortal


May 14 2014, 5:53pm

Post #5 of 160 (6331 views)
Shortcut
Ironically... [In reply to] Can't Post

...Jackson did blow half of his entire cgi budget on FOTR, hoping the film would do so well that New Line would cough up more cgi money for the remaining films. It worked, otherwise TTT and ROTK would have been far less cgi intensive.

******************************************
Philosoraptor sez:

What screws us up most in life is the picture in our head of how it’s supposed to be.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


May 14 2014, 10:50pm

Post #6 of 160 (6331 views)
Shortcut
I will always respect Viggo as an actor... [In reply to] Can't Post

...but I'd be lying if I said that I wasn't a little put off by comments he's made throughout the years regarding the trilogy.

It's hard for me to imagine how certain things in the second and third films would have been achieved without the increased use of visual effects. As for the intimacy of the first film, that's only natural considering it's the beginning of the story and obviously would have the smallest scale in terms of CGI. As the tale unfolds, the scale of the story becomes more epic, the ensemble of characters becomes more crowded, and it becomes a war story primarily.

It sounds to me like Viggo is just not a big fan of films involving large-scale visual effects. This became evident when I heard him say, a couple of years ago, that he felt "Eastern Promises" was the best film he'd ever made. Now I'm not arguing for or against that, but it gives you an indication of the types of films he seems to prefer (smaller, gritty dramas).

I shudder to think how he feels about the original Star Wars films (which are also some of my favorite films).

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


demnation
Rohan

May 14 2014, 11:13pm

Post #7 of 160 (6258 views)
Shortcut
I think it sounds worse than it really is [In reply to] Can't Post

And I happen to agree (and disagree) with him. I agree that TTT and ROTK ballooned to an unrecognizable degree. But I disagree that FOTR is the best film: I happen to think it suffers from the same problems as the other two, just to a lesser degree. And the frustrating thing is is that The Trilogies best moments show that PJ is capable of doing deep and subtle, it just so happens that he enjoys his monsters and CGI more.

"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Gandalf, "The Last Debate."


Annatar598
Rohan


May 15 2014, 4:18am

Post #8 of 160 (6348 views)
Shortcut
ROTK and TTT would not have been able to be [In reply to] Can't Post

without this CGI that he keeps complaining about.

This is a TOLKIEN story for god's sake. Trolls, wights, wizards and all.

The Hobbit isn't much of a CGI-fest as this small minority of disgruntled people believe it is. How else do you recreate Lake-Town? Or Erebor? Or... Smaug?

I think he has more of a problem with Tolkien's story than he does with PJ. FOTR was always meant to be the slow and grounded start to both the books and films where TTT and ROTK were deliberately meant to bring about the grand quality of Middle-earth.

Sigh... The Lord of the Rings isn't an intimate character study, Viggo. It's a war epic. A war epic with unrealistic locales and beings.

I shudder to think how Viggo would react to reading the Silmarillion. Now that would equate to a mind-blowingly massive CGI extravaganza of a film.

Compare Viggo's comments with Sean Astin's for example. Viggo man, a lot of people worked their arses off to make TTT and ROTK and the Hobbit movies. Don't discredit their hard work please? When I look at the ROTK appendices and then read these comments I can't help but feel disappointed.

And not to be rude but LOTR is what you will probably only be remembered for in your entire life. Might as well make peace with it.

"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member.

Really? Alright...

Well, proud to be one I guess.

(This post was edited by Annatar598 on May 15 2014, 4:21am)


SirDennisC
Half-elven


May 15 2014, 4:36am

Post #9 of 160 (6195 views)
Shortcut
Reposted from main [In reply to] Can't Post

(with slight edits)

"Now there's an opinion I've never read before."

I suppose enough time has passed that people are free to speak their minds...

In the radio interview I posted a link to here about 25 minutes in Viggo spoke a little about seeing the Hobbit with some kids, and about the use of CGI. Pretty much the same sort of sentiment, ie that CGI gradually overwhelmed the movies (my paraphrase). Regardless, he seemed to like the Hobbit movies.

... and a little more on the subject:

Viggo's recollections don't change anything... they don't take anything away from LOTR. With the thing in the can, just think how easy it would have been for them to just leave things as they were, mess and all? That's what happened the last time someone tried to make Lord of the Rings into a movie.

Instead they went back and made the films we still love to this day. His remarks just make "the making of" story, well, more honest for one thing, but also more fascinating.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


May 15 2014, 5:03am

Post #10 of 160 (6216 views)
Shortcut
Character study... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
The Lord of the Rings isn't an intimate character study, Viggo. It's a war epic. A war epic with unrealistic locales and beings.


Yep, pretty much.

I get where Viggo's coming from. He's spent the last ten years working almost exclusively with David Cronenberg on small, intimate dramas - these are plainly the types of films he prefers.

But Rings is simply not that. The scope was always going to expand as the tale went on - and more visual effects were going to be needed to tell that tale.

Interestingly, I actually consider the later films to be - in some ways - more intimate where the individual characters are concerned. We get better examinations of them as the Fellowship splits up, and the focus is on fewer characters interacting with each other in each story strand. This is especially true in The Two Towers.


"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on May 15 2014, 5:05am)


Annatar598
Rohan


May 15 2014, 5:09am

Post #11 of 160 (6192 views)
Shortcut
Exactly, FOTR only lays the groundwork for future character development [In reply to] Can't Post

Such as the monumental moment where Sam picks Frodo up at the slopes of Doom. TTT and ROTK expand upon the seeds of character and personality exploration planted in FOTR.

Tbh FOTR always felt the least real of the three to me. TTT was the most realistic one, especially where we finally saw the kingdom of Men. FOTR carries the fantastical quality of the Hobbit movies as we explore Moria, Lothlorien and stuff like Rivendell. Helms Deep and Minas Tirith always made TTT and ROTK more grounded for me.

"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member.

Really? Alright...

Well, proud to be one I guess.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


May 15 2014, 5:19am

Post #12 of 160 (6186 views)
Shortcut
FotR... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think I would agree with that sentiment. FotR is definitely the most fantasy-ish of the 3 chapters. I don't think Viggo is arguing that the opposite is true - he's just saying that the story is the most intimate of the three. And, in terms of scope, he's right. But that's just the nature of an epic tale such as this. The story starts small and gets bigger and more epic as it goes on.

It's just a matter of taste, I suppose. It does sadden me, though, that he doesn't seem to think very highly of the latter two films. I love them dearly, and his work in them is a large part of that.

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


Arannir
Valinor


May 15 2014, 10:09am

Post #13 of 160 (6223 views)
Shortcut
Although... [In reply to] Can't Post

... we share most views on the movies themselves, I really have an issue with your reaction towards Viggo Mortensen in this patronizing and respectless way.

Where is he discredting anyones work?

He is stating HIS view on these movies.

And the last sentence IS rude. There are many actors out there who do not have "being remembered" on their agenda and even switch to theater because it gives them more.

So, stop calling people "disgruntled" because they dislike these movies. Please. It poisons the atmosphere on TORN and makes it hard for those with balanced views to get their points across without being forced in either the hater or the fanboy camp.

Again, I agree with you on AUJ and DoS... I believe they will be remembered together with LotR as great fantasy movie making in the future... but there are other opinions out there.

And Viggo Mortensen has a stronger insight and personal motivation for his personal criticism than all of us here.


Please excuse me for sounding a bit harsh, but I really like the discussions on here... however, recently it has become unnecessarily polarized despite most members having rather balanced views. I hope this post stays on here and does not get deleted... it has to be said from time to time, imho.


“All good stories deserve embellishment."

Praise is subjective. And so is criticism.

"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at."

(This post was edited by Arannir on May 15 2014, 10:11am)


Magpie
Immortal


May 15 2014, 11:57am

Post #14 of 160 (6075 views)
Shortcut
I like how you put it, SirD [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
His remarks just make "the making of" story, well, more honest for one thing, but also more fascinating.


I found his remarks interesting and, personally, a bit illuminating. They helped me understand a dynamic I'd been pondering. I don't know if I agree 100% with his position but I don't have any reason to discard it in any disdainful way.

I'm not sure why someone speaking their mind - in an honest and frank way - seems so threatening to people. To the extent they would get a bit disparaging. There is nothing disrespectful in Viggo's comments. He's one man with an opinion, just like the rest of us. And if we can't find a way to talk about a subject while considering all opinions, then why bother talking.


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


Magpie
Immortal


May 15 2014, 11:59am

Post #15 of 160 (6170 views)
Shortcut
oh wow... mods way up [In reply to] Can't Post

thank you!


LOTR soundtrack website ~ magpie avatar gallery
TORn History Mathom-house ~ Torn Image Posting Guide


demnation
Rohan

May 15 2014, 12:50pm

Post #16 of 160 (6152 views)
Shortcut
A bit unfair, I think [In reply to] Can't Post

If I may respectfully disagree, but it doesn't sound like Viggo is attacking anybody or their work in a personal manner, much less Tolkien or PJ. In fact, I'm glad an actor is not being obtuse: his complaint is very specific and really doesn't seem to reflect much on his opinion of the films as a whole.

On the other hand, I can agree with you in the sense about the need for special effects on projects like these. Even a character driven piece like Game of Thrones still requires lots and lots of expensive CGI. And I will say that, while it may not be an "intimate character piece", that LOTR has lots of good, challenging stuff that and actor can cling onto. Maybe that's what disappoints Viggo. *shrugs shoulders*

"It is not our part to master all the tides of the world, but to do what is in us for the succour of those years wherein we are set, uprooting the evil in the fields that we know, so that those who live after may have clean earth to till. What weather they shall have is not ours to rule." Gandalf, "The Last Debate."


Bracegirdle
Valinor


May 15 2014, 1:02pm

Post #17 of 160 (6148 views)
Shortcut
Who’s Vitto Morgenstein anyway? OOoops: Book-firster here…Wrong forum [In reply to] Can't Post

Does it REALLY matter what some actor thinks of the movie they were in? NO!
It’s the finished product that is of import, not the judgment of some player who may or may not have read The Books.
If we can’t enjoy the Desecration of Tolkien on film because of the opinion(s) of an actor we need not watch…. eh?

>>>>THIS SPACE FOR HIRE<<<<
Contact Messrs. Grubb, Grubb, and Burrowes.
Hole #14, Bywater Pool Road


Darkstone
Immortal


May 15 2014, 1:33pm

Post #18 of 160 (6182 views)
Shortcut
That's the way of the artist. [In reply to] Can't Post

You mature, you look back on your past work, and see how it could have been done so much better.

If you're good, that is.

******************************************
Philosoraptor sez:

What screws us up most in life is the picture in our head of how it’s supposed to be.


malickfan
Gondor


May 15 2014, 2:36pm

Post #19 of 160 (6032 views)
Shortcut
I partially agree with Him [In reply to] Can't Post

Fellowship was always my fave in the trilogy, even before reading the books I found it the most balanced and focused of the films, to me (along with the first hour of AUJ) it was really where PJ nailed the spirit of the books.

Although I'm a little uncomfortable with Mortensen giving an interview like this, it's good to know he feels comfortable enough to be honest, nothing in this interview gives me the impression he is ungrateful to Jackson (edited drastically in all likelihood-look at how websites reported Christopher Tolkien's Le Monde interview (which some people took as a personal insult-you can respect peoples right to honesty whilst not agreeing with their views), editors will always try and sensationalize things with an angle), merely that on reflection he had a few issues with his approach to the story, and the way the chaotic production impacted on the story of LOTR, I guess for members of the fanbase it's often hard to forget filming these films is a job to actors, and like all jobs there are things we don't enjoy or would do differently about them.


Although Mortensen has struck me as a 'serious' actor who wouldn't normally do these types of films, he has spoken in the past of the great camaraderie he has with his fellow Rings actors, and it's obvious he respects Jackson's creative talents (and the options LOTR gave him), but I don't see why he shouldn't share his views, after all he saw things from an inside perspective so perhaps is better placed to offer an objective view.

You can't deny Jackson has a reputation (good or bad depending on your point of view) for employing SFX, one of the most common complaints with TH is an apparent overuse of them, Mortensen seems to have similar issues with the films as many people I know, so I'm personally not going to take his views any more seriously than those I've heard many times before, just welcome them for being insightful.

As for The Hobbit, to me it was always a small intimate story, on screen it has become a large story with a meandering focus-I came out of DOS rather indifferent, as I wasn't entirely sure who I was supposed to be caring about.

Mortensen owes Jackson alot, but certainly not undying loyalty, nothing he said in that interview (which he was under no obligation to share-would people rather the cast and crew stay silent without giving their inluminating views) gives me the impression he's ungrateful to Jackson, and his personal views (influenced by a distance of many years, his subsequent career in low buget drama's and a personal connection none of us have to the films) won't change the way I feel about the films.

Thanks to the OP for sharing, I think everyone is overreacting a bit.

Just my rambling, badly organised views of course.








Arannir
Valinor


May 15 2014, 2:37pm

Post #20 of 160 (6225 views)
Shortcut
For the other thread... [In reply to] Can't Post

... since the other one is closed I would like to comment here on the comparison between this interview and Sean Astin's book.

I really think one should not compare them. Mortensen is voicing reasonable issues he had or has with the style of PJ (and Co)... the book, however, was more of an attempt of an actor to deal with obvious insecurities about his job and standing in the industry.


People should not forget that besides all the industry aspects of it all, this has something to do with art. And art is not thinkable without a certain amount of criticism and discontent with the achieved, just as Darkstone stated above.

The LotR trilogy has this myth around them of this band of brothers doing what was perceived as a masterpiece against all odds. It was always clear this wasn't and couldn't be the case (it would actually be not good for creativity if it were). We sometimes heard aspects of the "other" side: Christopher Lee and his cut scene come to mind. Ian McKellen also publicly stated he thinks the end sequence of DoS is too long or - in a totally different circumstance - said he admires Christopher Lee but knows that CL knows not all of them have had the highest standard. All this happen in a business that despite all studios and box office numbers still rely on art and artists.

All perfectly normal and also needed.


“All good stories deserve embellishment."

Praise is subjective. And so is criticism.

"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at."

(This post was edited by Arannir on May 15 2014, 2:51pm)


bungobaggins
Lorien

May 15 2014, 2:52pm

Post #21 of 160 (6161 views)
Shortcut
That is extremely rude. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To


And not to be rude but LOTR is what you will probably only be remembered for in your entire life. Might as well make peace with it.


And it's not like he's here to read your comment anyway, so what's the point of droning on and on.
Angelic


NecromancerRising
Gondor


May 15 2014, 3:16pm

Post #22 of 160 (6056 views)
Shortcut
I admire and appreciate straightforward [In reply to] Can't Post

rudness much more than a veiled,sneaky,and underhanded one full of "poisonous" hits below the waist.
I guess some folks find that behaviour acceptable for the reason that they act this way in their everyday life themselves.Well,good for them.No other explanation.

"Obsession and narrow-mindness is the trend of the 2000's and synonyms to many Tolkien fanatics"

(This post was edited by NecromancerRising on May 15 2014, 3:16pm)


Arannir
Valinor


May 15 2014, 3:18pm

Post #23 of 160 (6292 views)
Shortcut
? [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
rudness much more than a veiled,sneaky,and underhanded one full of "poisonous" hits below the waist.
I guess some folks find that behaviour acceptable for the reason that they act this way in their everyday life themselves.Well,good for them.No other explanation.


Are you serious about the last sentence? Because this would be quite an insult to all those here who have tried to give reasons for their understanding or acceptance of Viggo Mortensen's interview. I hope it was ment as a more general remark, though...


“All good stories deserve embellishment."

Praise is subjective. And so is criticism.

"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at."


Macfeast
Rohan


May 15 2014, 3:19pm

Post #24 of 160 (6089 views)
Shortcut
Was about to reply on the Hobbit-board. [In reply to] Can't Post

I really don't think it's an insult to suggest that the post-FOTR films are less subtle (I agree somewhat, particularly when it comes to the Hobbit, though not to the same degree as Viggo suggests). A lack of subtlety does not make a film worse by default (plenty of good films out there that favors spectacle over subtlety, after all), nor does subtlety automatically improve upon a film; Going with less subtlety is simply a different but perfectly valid style of directing a film. Viggo suggesting that the post-FOTR films aren't subtle enough for his taste should not be taken as a comment upon the quality of the films (note that he in another interview even found it in him to say that he enjoyed AUJ); "Not subtle" does not equal "bad". If I suggested that "I dislike horror-films", should that be taken as "horror-films are bad"?

Also, I don't understand why "more subtlety" is seemingly equated with the very extreme "there should be no CGI at all, not even for fantastical elements like dragons or non-human locales". CGI is a tool, and it can be used for good and for bad, with subtlety or for the sake of spectacle; It does not by itself equal a lack of subtlety. If, for example, during the Thunder Battle-sequence in AUJ, they used CGI to simply depict the stone giants throwing stones in the distance, barely visible, I would call it an example of subtlety; It's the roller coaster ride that makes the sequence as depicted on the screen over-the-top, not the fact that there is CGI in it.


(This post was edited by Macfeast on May 15 2014, 3:28pm)


NecromancerRising
Gondor


May 15 2014, 3:22pm

Post #25 of 160 (6057 views)
Shortcut
I am 100% serious, yes. [In reply to] Can't Post

And that was a general remark.Not towards anyone in particular.

"Obsession and narrow-mindness is the trend of the 2000's and synonyms to many Tolkien fanatics"

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.