|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NateGate
Rivendell
Aug 8 2014, 5:09pm
Post #1 of 71
(2945 views)
Shortcut
|
Why so much hate on the CGI?
|
Can't Post
|
|
All I have heard from the very inception of the first Hobbit, was fans whining about the extended use of CGI. I mean granted PJ could have toned it down a little, but I am seeing people say that the Bombur-barrel scene looks like a video game...like WTH?! The CGI in the Hobbit, while overused, is brilliant so far, and would put even the visuals from Avatar to shame. And yet we have people whining about it everywhere, even going so far as to compare PJ to George Lucas. They don't like the CGI orcs, they don't like the CGI landscapes. Hell, I have even seen some people advocating the use of animatronics Smaug..............................................THIS IS 2014 NOT 1980 YOU IDIOT!!
Sorry for the rant, but seriously now, what is your opinion on the CGI used in the Hobbit thus far?
Size matters...
http://37.media.tumblr.com/00bbfb5c354255e11cd8386374b03bbe/tumblr_n5p4jtJVNT1siq18no1_1280.jpg
|
|
|
Nolane
Bree
Aug 8 2014, 5:15pm
Post #2 of 71
(2154 views)
Shortcut
|
I love CGI if its done properly, which it is in Peter Jackson's movies. Special Effects in today's movies are one million times better than the movies pre-CGI. Without CGI, The Hobbit and LOTR movies would not have been made- in fact, other than animated attempts, they weren't.
|
|
|
Faleel
Rohan
Aug 8 2014, 5:16pm
Post #3 of 71
(2132 views)
Shortcut
|
The CGI ranges from "Great" to "Sticks Out Like A Sore Thumb" IMHO.
|
|
|
macfalk
Valinor
Aug 8 2014, 5:18pm
Post #4 of 71
(2121 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, it's quite simple. I love properly done CGI. I hate rushed CGI (like some of Azog's scenes)
The greatest adventure is what lies ahead.
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 8 2014, 5:35pm
Post #5 of 71
(2189 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I am one of the people who think they overused CGI
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I love these films, and have seen them more times than I care to admit. Having said that, I think that a balance needs to be carefully weighed for any film between practical effects (prosthetics, proper sets, miniatures, locations, etc.) and digital effects (set extensions, creatures, etc.). The Hobbit films have leaned a little too far on the side of Digital Effects. This has largely and likely stemmed from PJ's involvement on Tintin, and also being able to watch the evolution of the effects work on Avatar (also Weta). It also likely stems from the weight of heavy production schedule and the massive amount of retconning that needed to be done with the switch to three films. The CGI, on simply an aesthetic level, is disappointing for a couple reasons:
1) It lacks continuity with the LOTR. While some have said the CGI gives the films a more fantastical and whimsical appearance, in line with the book, I personally think this is a cheap and invalid explanation. A lot of that is coming from the color grading, not the effects.
2) CGI orcs: you either love them or hate them. Personally, I prefer the prosthetics. There's a weight and personality to them that is great, and while CGI has improved, it still hasn't managed to capture the way skin reacts to light perfectly. Giving the skin a rubbery and glossy texture. Having said that this isn't really my biggest problem with the effects. I think both Azog and Bolg have great scenes, but also have some scenes that are less convincing.
3) CGI environments: Probably my biggest issue with these films is the CGI environments. While the effects have done a good job capturing structures, the CGI hasn't quite reached the point of creating convincing foliage and trees. I think the decision to CGI the environments was the biggest mistake. The Barrel Sequence in particular has a very rubbery sheen to the riverbank and the foliage around it. While it's very subjective, I've spoken to very passive viewers who are utterly unfamiliar with filmmaking and even they notice the not up to snuff CGI. I think it's remarkably effective in some places, the Woodland Realm and Erebor namely, but I think Mirkwood and Laketown suffered due to the inability to properly capture the way wood interacts with light. It gives everything a very unnatural look. There's also a randomness to nature that no computer can capture. A model maker can be more successful because they can use real natural elements to mix in with their miniature.
4) CGI Doubles. I think the main problem here is the use of these doubles to do otherworldly and impossible action sequences. While some people would suggest this adds to the whimsy, I would challenge that. Aside from the action sequences, these films have remained fairly close in tone to the LOTR films. I think the decision to add these over the top action moments stems from PJ's indulgence that started in King Kong. There are a few offenders that stand out the most to me:
a)Digital Legolas during the Barrel Sequence - the leaping over the heads of the dwarves gag was a nice touch, and just the right amount of goofiness. But PJ goes 5 steps further to have Legolas surf orcs, leap through the air, etc.
b) The Bombur gag - It's a funny gag, but the effects just aren't complete on it, it has a very video-gamey look to it. If they had mixed in miniatures and live action elements, they could have sold the shot better, which leads too...
5) Using CGI where it could have easily been done with live action. There is a lot of CGI use in places that honestly could have been shot with live action elements. There is a shot behind Bilbo at the Mirkwood entrance "the forest is old and sick" that is inexplicably all CGI. It's a bizarre and ugly shot. There are several examples throughout the film where PJ, instead of using what he has, decides to just squeeze n a CGI shot. Just because he has the tools available to him, it doesn't mean he should always use them. There's a lack of restraint prevalent that's alarming. There are dozens of shots in the films that use digital doubles in bizarre places (the elven soldiers behind Thranduil in the AUJ prologue, among other examples)
The problem with the VFX of the Hobbit films is that there isn't a balance between CGI and practicals. What made the Lord of the Rings special, and what sells the VFX of a movie like Planet of the Apes, is the mixture of real locations, real live action elements mixed in with CGI. Again, I love the films, but I think the CGI has been overused, and as a result some of the effects just haven't been up to par with what we've come to expect from Weta.
(This post was edited by Dcole4 on Aug 8 2014, 5:40pm)
|
|
|
Misto
Lorien
Aug 8 2014, 5:51pm
Post #6 of 71
(2070 views)
Shortcut
|
3) CGI environments: Probably my biggest issue with these films is the CGI environments. While the effects have done a good job capturing structures, the CGI hasn't quite reached the point of creating convincing foliage and trees. I think the decision to CGI the environments was the biggest mistake. The Barrel Sequence in particular has a very rubbery sheen to the riverbank and the foliage around it. While it's very subjective, I've spoken to very passive viewers who are utterly unfamiliar with filmmaking and even they notice the not up to snuff CGI. I think it's remarkably effective in some places, the Woodland Realm and Erebor namely, but I think Mirkwood and Laketown suffered due to the inability to properly capture the way wood interacts with light. It gives everything a very unnatural look. There's also a randomness to nature that no computer can capture. A model maker can be more successful because they can use real natural elements to mix in with their miniature.
Apart from Bombur's barrel scene the one CGI item I have the biggest issue with is Rivendell. It just looks... not right. The graphics may be as high resolution as possible and it may be state of the are in any other respect as well, but I'm sorry, whatever you say will never stop me from feeling like Bilbo is walking through your average video game. Personally, I don't have the technical know-how to tell you what it is it lacks, but it does lack something. LotR-Rivendell was a magical place, Hobbit-Rivendell just doesn't match my standards. It's a bit too edgy in a way I cannot quite describe.
And don't get me started an Azog. I guess I would have preferred a person walking around in a diver's suit with "Azog" printed on it to this very much in-your-face artificial character.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 6:01pm
Post #7 of 71
(2041 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not something that exercises me, I must say.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Neither Lurtz nor Azog is going to convince me that they are real Orcs and neither version of Rivendell is going to convince me it's a real Elven town so I'm not all that much fussed, myself.
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 8 2014, 6:03pm
Post #8 of 71
(2084 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Rivendell was very poorly rendered...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The BTS photos of that sequence are absurd, it's literally Martin Freeman walking in a green room. The main issue here is once again the digital inability to properly render trees and the way they interact with light. It gives them a very unnatural rubbery texture and over exaggerates the way the light hits them. Additionally they aren't able to match natures ability to randomly create billions of textures within a small space. While it's easier to build a CGI building or structure that has a logic to it, it's much harder for digital artists and programs to capture the randomization of nature and, more importantly, the variants and the way they react to light. It's why the miniatures were so outstanding for LOTR, especially for Rivendell. They used natural elements and mixed them into the model. They're also able to capture the "dullness" of rock in a way that computers struggle to.
(This post was edited by Dcole4 on Aug 8 2014, 6:04pm)
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 8 2014, 6:17pm
Post #9 of 71
(2018 views)
Shortcut
|
I very much agree with your assessment. I will say first that I have a huge respect for the artistry and attention to insane detail that the folks at WETA have managed with these new films. The visual effects are state of the art, and I personally think they should have taken the academy award for it. This doesn't mean that it always works though, or was the appropriate choice for many aspects.
Two more things to add to your post:
1. The use of 100% CGI shots can be a trap for digital cinematographers. 100% CGI shots are most effective, IMO, when the digital camera is grounded in realistic motion. Weird impossible sweeping shots of huge vistas where the camera starts at point A and ends abruptly at point B are a large part of this films visual language. I think this is what a lot of people mean when they talk about things looking like a video game.
2. While I appreciate the need to film on as many sets as possible, they just haven't gotten the light and composite work quite right. The composite work in the barge scene to Laketown is a good example.
Oh, and btw. It has nothing to do with the practical effects days of yonder. I just watched Guardians of the Galaxy, which had a flawless integration of digital effects, and suffered from none of these issues.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 8 2014, 6:33pm
Post #10 of 71
(2046 views)
Shortcut
|
I think the computer work in the films is amazing. Even when I read long and carefully argued posts about why this or that is bad/ overdone/ wrong I can't really see what they're talking about. Admittedly I'm not a great one for video games, but the games and trailers for games that I've seen don't come anywhere near the quality and realism of The Hobbit. I also suspect that occasionally - as with the orcs, for instance - the things which people are criticising as CGI are actually real.
Then there are the things they tried physically first and found that doing it digitally was more effective and less likely to kill the actors - like the super-sophisticated animatronic orc heads.
Fact is, there would be no way of filming Tolkien in a way that would satisfy a modern audience without using CGI.
Maybe it's just that I'm old enough to remember when scenery wobbled and blending a two-dimensional cartoon (and I do mean cartoon) with live action footage seemed pretty miraculous. And yet we still watched and enjoyed. What I'm seeing on screen is extraordinary beauty and wonder, and images that would have been unimaginable a few years ago. And I love it.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
Aug 8 2014, 6:50pm
Post #11 of 71
(1976 views)
Shortcut
|
I love the way these films look, and I think the look is particularly appropriate for The Hobbit, with its whimsical nature on the outside, and deep themes underneath.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Aug 8 2014, 6:52pm
Post #12 of 71
(1973 views)
Shortcut
|
Even when I can see things that don't look quite real, I don't care. It all still looks great to me.
Men and women in prosthetic suits don't look any more real to me than digital orcs. Didn't care in LotR, don't care now.
Etc.
|
|
|
shadowdog
Rohan
Aug 8 2014, 6:56pm
Post #13 of 71
(1985 views)
Shortcut
|
a necessity with the filming techniques used on these movies? I thought I read that miniatures and bigatures didn't work well with the digital cameras.
Also when I watch a movie, I watch the story and the movie, not a frame by frame analysis of background and characters. Maybe I am weird, but I never noticed all the things that you people keep saying are horrible looking.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Aug 8 2014, 7:05pm
Post #14 of 71
(1957 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I haven't had any issue with the majority of it...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...but I don't like the CGI Orcs, not at all. To me they appear cartoonish and weightless, and inferior in every way to the practical Orcs of the first trilogy (and the practical Orcs used in this trilogy as well).
But why must you refer to it as "whining"? Can't you just chalk it up to a differing opinion? Geez...
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Aug 8 2014, 7:18pm)
|
|
|
MirielCelebel
Rivendell
Aug 8 2014, 7:11pm
Post #15 of 71
(1963 views)
Shortcut
|
that I am an avid supporter of PJ and his works. Seriously. I've noticed this with a lot of movies recently but..."they" are right. The CGI sucks. I mean, come on, look at the Lord of the Rings then watch The Hobbit. There is a world of difference. I just watched "Into the Storm" last night because I love Richard Armitage. Compare it to "Twister" which came out almost twenty years ago and the special effects are massively different and BETTER in the older movie!! I think directors and special effect teams are playing with their toys too much to be honest. They are so intent on using the latest and greatest technology that they're making films that don't look realistic. Although both scenarios are equally unlikely, Legolas surfing down stairs on a shield like a skateboard is much more believable than Legolas hopping across a raging river on top of the heads of dwarves in barrels. I'm sorry, but as much as I love and respect PJ and have defended 99% of his cinematic decisions, I have to agree with "they" and say that the CGI was better twelve years ago.
"The Road goes ever on..."
Writing Bliss
|
|
|
huzzlewhat
The Shire
Aug 8 2014, 7:16pm
Post #16 of 71
(1956 views)
Shortcut
|
"I also suspect that occasionally - as with the orcs, for instance - the things which people are criticising as CGI are actually real."
I've given up on having the CGI discussion, honestly, because of this. Too many times hearing critique (reasoned or rant) of how fake a CGI sequence is, only to have it shown to be real stunt work, etc., in the behind-the-scenes footage.
::Shrugs:: I think the effects are amazing. Even the things that look "unreal," are beautiful to me — I've read so much criticism of the Rivendell sequence, for example, but to me it looks like a Maxfield Parrish print come to life, and that heightened unreality is what makes it so stunning.
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 8 2014, 7:17pm
Post #17 of 71
(1946 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I still watch it for the story as well...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Like I said, I love the films. I love what they've done to expand on the characters and the events of the book. On a storytelling side of things I really only have a couple nitpicks.
This post is about CGI, so I commented on the issues of using CGI on these films. While many viewers won't really see the issues mentioned (which is great), they do still remain issues on a simply technical level. Which is why we are discussing and commenting on the CGI on the basis of filmmaking.
Digital camera do work with miniatures. There was a fear that they wouldn't stand up with the 48 fps but I think the decision to go digital was more to do with the ability to shoot anything at any point in the production. Using miniatures is limiting in that it takes a lot of time to shoot them properly, and so it's very difficult to add last minute shots (as PJ likes to do). There is also the issue in that you can only get so close to the miniature without literally hitting it with the camera. The bonus of miniatures, especially with forests or natural environments, is that you will get a much more realistic image because you're using real elements and they are reacting to real light. I think a mixture of miniature and CGI environments would have gone a long way.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Aug 8 2014, 7:20pm
Post #18 of 71
(1946 views)
Shortcut
|
Sure, there's plenty I could quibble about. BUT. It's more than offset by the extraordinary spiders, orcs, trolls, and SMAUG. As well as for me some of the environments being absolutely spectacular - Mirkwood, Thranduil's realm, Erebor, the forges.
When folks were bringing up the CGI work recently re the new EE clip, and negatively, I couldn't even figure out what they were talking about. Looked like a fine, swampy, humid environment to me - I thought it was amazing . And while not being a PS expert I don't think I am totally stupid about digital stuff, and it's not that I don't LOOK. And I do think PJ is too enthusiastic about digital characters at times, when some of us would settle for less characters in costume .
But, I'm just gonna guess that some people on TORn - like w. music - know a lot more than I do about certain technologies, and perhaps can make valid arguments for their displeasure or approval. And for me knowing how much work has gone into these films - I also figure if it takes a week to do one scale on Smaug - well if they have to cut corners here and there w. some stuff *shrug*. Because sure, everything can be utterly perfect if you have the time, and money to pay for it.
So, some of the goblins could have been done better, and I'd have rather seen the Company riding up to Mirkwood than some obvious digital characters on horses in the long shot. But it's not something I think a lot about, it's a few seconds of footage. Tho LOL why they didn't put Legolas on a real horse - the guy CAN ride and is athletic.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 8 2014, 7:21pm
Post #19 of 71
(1935 views)
Shortcut
|
Fact is, there would be no way of filming Tolkien in a way that would satisfy a modern audience without using CGI
This is exactly what they did when they filmed LOTR. While CGI was a major player in the films, the marriage of model work, practical slight of hand, astonishing set work and on location filming, and vfx was absolute gold. They knocked it out of the park. Though Jackson lamented the fact that he couldn't use CGI a lot more, which always boggles my mind because I thought the disciplines on screen of the entire team was the best thing ever. They were recognized for this achievement.
The visual effects work in the new series is excellent work. But it's not right to come down on people who aren't totally chuffed with it. Some people are more tuned into things like the movie making process, and how it makes them feel while they experience the film. Why can't people understand that?
|
|
|
swampB
Bree
Aug 8 2014, 7:35pm
Post #20 of 71
(1945 views)
Shortcut
|
Nate,
The CGI looks best in hfr 3d at 48 fps, and it's not just because there is no strobing or motion blur... I'm sure everything was designed with HFR in mind... Nothing looks better... Even the landscapes look gorgeous!
But there is a trade off... Sets like bag end look cheap in hfr and for some crazy reason look way better on bluray or 24fps...
I remember quite a few jaw dropping moments of cgi in hfr... Gandalf in the trees, bilbo and the spiders, Gandalfs entrance in goblin town, the moving shadow of the necromancer... Insane looking in hfr 3d!
|
|
|
Dcole4
Rohan
Aug 8 2014, 7:37pm
Post #21 of 71
(1914 views)
Shortcut
|
"Tho LOL why they didn't put Legolas on a real horse - the guy CAN ride and is athletic."
There are more than a few instances of moments like this throughout both movies. Here's the shot of Bilbo outside Mirkwood. notice that the entire shot is digital.
EDIT: I also included Thorin in the wheel barrel.
(This post was edited by Dcole4 on Aug 8 2014, 7:39pm)
|
|
Attachments:
|
Screen Shot 2014-08-08 at 12.31.41 PM 3.jp2
(48.2 KB)
|
|
|
Screen Shot 2014-08-08 at 12.38.05 PM.jp2
(28.5 KB)
|
|
|
Name
Rohan
Aug 8 2014, 7:38pm
Post #22 of 71
(1914 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The cgi hasn't bothered me to an extreme.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
As mentioned above, it's the cgi environments, cgi orcs, and those shots that are like 99% fake. Those are my personal issues.
I don't get the intense cgi hate that's out there, and I like cgi when it's used effectively.
(But hint hint, miniatures always look better!!!!!!!!!!)
How many Tolkien fans does it take to change a light bulb?
"Change? Oh my god, what do you mean change?! Never, never, never......"
|
|
|
BlackFox
Half-elven
Aug 8 2014, 8:29pm
Post #23 of 71
(1876 views)
Shortcut
|
"If you look for perfection, you'll never be content." - Leo Tolstoy, Anna Karenina
“As he caught his footing, his head fell back, and the Milky Way flowed down inside him with a roar.” - Yasunari Kawabata, Snow Country
|
|
|
NateGate
Rivendell
Aug 8 2014, 8:56pm
Post #24 of 71
(1848 views)
Shortcut
|
I couldn't put my finger on it, now I can. Its the lighting which makes the CGI look better or worse. For example, in the scene where Azog is outside Beorn's house, they used real moonlight and it looks INCREDIBLY real. In contrast are the Dol Guldur scenes, where we have hazy sun/cloud mixture of lighting and thus, I'll admit, Azog and Bolg look kinda fake.
Size matters...
http://37.media.tumblr.com/00bbfb5c354255e11cd8386374b03bbe/tumblr_n5p4jtJVNT1siq18no1_1280.jpg
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Aug 8 2014, 8:57pm
Post #25 of 71
(1849 views)
Shortcut
|
OK. The 2 shots you show (thank you!) - those I guess go by too fast for me to notice. The few I flinch at in DOS is when Smaug is breaking up the forges and Bilbo falls off the ledge and then looks at Smaug - really bad there. And some stuff where the gold statue is melting - some of it I think is great, other shots like near Smaug's leg looks all Disney cartoony to me.
But, all I can think of is budget and time - and possibly re Legolas safety reasons, in that they don't want a hurt actor holding up the shooting schedule, and if I remember correctly during LOTR, OB had broken his ribs so they CGI'd some stuff. It's sure not because these guys can't turn out premium CGI - I still am amazed a Smaug, and even the way the "firelight" glances off the trolls.
|
|
|
|
|
Got me
[
1
