|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Aug 18 2014, 3:07pm
Post #1 of 32
(2130 views)
Shortcut
|
CG eyes and eye contact
|
Can't Post
|
|
I was watching DoS and made the terrible mistake of looking at characters eyes as they talk to eachother. Because, particularly during laketown, they rarely make convincing contact. There are a few issues that are noticable: Continuity - E.G. When Thorin is speaking to Fili in the boat. Fili is looking up at Thorin and in the next shot Thorin is looking way over Fili's head. Digital scaling - E.G. Thorin looking over Bard's head in shots where characters have been digitally placed. But the real reason I made this thread was to share an observation. That when Thorin and Bard both look up at The Master, Bard's eyes are rather creepily CG. Apparently Bard was looking down at Thorin when they wanted him looking up at The Master so they crudely pasted creepy CG zombie eyes onto his face to 'fix' the problem. You will now not be able to unsee it. You're welcome! :)
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Aug 18 2014, 4:18pm
Post #2 of 32
(1346 views)
Shortcut
|
The last two have bugged me too. But not as much as some of the questionable eye contact during the final confrontation with Saruman in RotK.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 18 2014, 8:38pm
Post #3 of 32
(1251 views)
Shortcut
|
We may need to cut the VFX team some slack on this one
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If you've ever read any of my posts you will know that I come down really hard on Jackson and co for many of the decisions they have made in regard to CGI. But I really don't know if there's much they can do to nail this one any better, short of using some alien technology to actually shrink all the actors playing smaller peoples. If you think the problem was bad in these new films, the LOTR is littered with such eye line misses. But at some point you have to accept certain limitations. Eye lines are notoriously tricky in films, even in movies that have NO visual effects. So I can't even imagine half a cast of actors that have been digitally re-sized and nearly flawlessly integrated with normal sized actors in the same settings, and with all kinds of camera movement.
|
|
|
There&ThereAgain
Rohan
Aug 18 2014, 9:59pm
Post #4 of 32
(1145 views)
Shortcut
|
The fact is, there is only so much time and money to perfect everything and typical of PJ's flexible filmmaking style there are lot of shots handed to them that were either unplanned or shot originally with a different purpose. The fact that these films are even made with the craft that they are is a miracle.
"The world is indeed full of peril, and in it there are many dark places; but still there is much that is fair; and though in all lands love is now mingled with grief, it grows perhaps the greater."-J.R.R. Tolkien "Thanks for the money!" -George Lucas
|
|
|
DwellerInDale
Rohan
Aug 18 2014, 11:45pm
Post #5 of 32
(1152 views)
Shortcut
|
An interesting little line-of-sight mistake with Legolas: at the end of Barrels Out of Bond, Narzug sneaks up behind Legolas with bow and arrow, only to have Tauriel shoot his arrow out of the air. Legolas turns around in shock. Narzug looks up to see Tauriel coming at him through the air (uh-oh). But in that split second Legolas appears to have turned his back on the action!
Don't mess with my favorite female elf.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Aug 19 2014, 3:38am
Post #7 of 32
(1081 views)
Shortcut
|
Well, there more "FUN Thingies" to THINK about
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
than Trying to "Micro-Manage A ..Movie".. AFTER..? IT.. ISzzz , in the CAN... There is Soo MUCH... to appreciate ? but If you want to FOCUS on FLAWS... Fine.......... Have FUN? (OH! MY.. there is a Speck of Dirt... on THE "Mona Lisa", ... we better throw THAT 400-year-old Painting AWAY..?) bomby
www.charlie-art.biz
|
|
|
Cirashala
Valinor
Aug 19 2014, 4:09am
Post #9 of 32
(1053 views)
Shortcut
|
unless the "Honey I Shrunk the Kids" machine is invented in real life, there's really only so much they can do and make it look at least mostly realistic. Any amateur attempting the same scaling effects would no doubt have an extreme amount of difficulty producing even half as decent shots as PJ & co have done, I think! Could it have been better? Possibly- but then the movie, with all the scaling that needed to be done due to three races of significantly different heights (four if you count Beorn), would have probably taken four years to make (and that is just principal photography- doesn't count any pickups)! The one shot in terms of scaling miss that really, really bugs me (and that I don't think there's a reasonable excuse for) is that in many distance shots of the Thorin/Bard/Master debate in Laketown, it seriously looks as though Thorin is walking around and is actually TALLER than Bard (and no, it wasn't when he was on the steps- it was when he was describing how Laketown used to be back in the good ol' days). Did they need the two actors (Luke Evans and Richard Armitage) actually together in order to feed so well off each other in that particular scene? Because I swear there are moments where I think to myself that RA is actually on the exact same Laketown set- not a green screen/mixed one- as the rest of the people of Laketown. He's what? Six foot two? That might make him taller than LE- I don't know exactly how tall the other is. And he was taller than many of the Laketown extras too- there are moments where you can see him either face to face with the others in terms of height, or the top of his head when passing in front of a "human". But there's really no way around it- Thorin is in no way, shape or form taller than Bard (not to mention the rest of the Laketowners) I can't believe that the editing team didn't catch that....
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Aug 19 2014, 7:25am
Post #10 of 32
(1063 views)
Shortcut
|
The line-of-sight business bothers me FAR less than the CGI zombie eyes of Legolas. Now those and the pancake-like face (coupled with the silly 'grim' expressions) are really creepy and off-putting.
|
|
|
adt100
Rohan
Aug 19 2014, 11:59am
Post #11 of 32
(980 views)
Shortcut
|
And tbh I've never noticed any issues here, until it's been pointed out in a thread like this or with thorough re-watching. Usually I'm taken up with the film though to notice little details like that, as I imagine are most people. Watching the EE Appendices for AUJ I acquired an even greater respect for the VFX guys and am willing to cut them more than just a little slack, lol.
|
|
|
adt100
Rohan
Aug 19 2014, 12:02pm
Post #12 of 32
(1000 views)
Shortcut
|
Isn't that just his... erm, acting?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Annatar598
Rohan
Aug 19 2014, 1:51pm
Post #13 of 32
(999 views)
Shortcut
|
May I just point out in general that people pick out CG inconsistencies WAY MORE In these Hobbit films than any other films. I mean, Guardians of the Galaxy was full of shady CG effects but eh, no mention. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes had really dodgy effects work at the construction site at the end but oh well. Not to mention Transformers... or the ninja turtles movie. It's quite odd, I must say. I do really wonder why these films get picked on more. I've heard people say Smaug was the most amazing VFX creation ever made but the golden Thror statue at the end ruined the movie for them completely and now they want to go bulldoze Peter Jackson's house.
"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member. Really? Alright... Well, proud to be one I guess.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 19 2014, 2:32pm
Post #14 of 32
(964 views)
Shortcut
|
People don't see more flaws in these films because they don't know any better, or are blinded by some kind of bias. I for one would totally disagree with you regarding DOTPOTA and GOTG, both of which had stellar CG work (also both above 90% on RT!). But those were different stories and different films. You are probably correct that The Hobbit films are held to a different standard. But if that's the case you can surely blame Jackson himself for making film history with LOTR. What many people seem eager to dismiss is Jackson's decision to try and meticulously bridge these films with LOTR (don't say he's not), while deliberately chucking so many of the techniques that won him and WETA so much admiration and acclaim. And ask yourself if Jackson felt that the Hobbit needed to be 3D 48fps in order to tell the best story. Do you believe that? IMO he favored making the change in technology over making the best possible film. It's not without reason; dramatic shifts in film technology rest upon big films likes these to get them to stick. I'm guessing that Jackson knew there would be some fallout, but was audacious enough to push the new 3D 48fps tech that he didn't care what people thought. I applaud his decision to push the technology. I just wish it hadn't been the Hobbit.
|
|
|
Annatar598
Rohan
Aug 19 2014, 3:18pm
Post #15 of 32
(947 views)
Shortcut
|
solely on the basis that 24 frames per second is a tired, old and terrible technology to watch movies on. It is a true gift and miracle to watch not some award-bait, nonsensically hyped disappointment that's "pushing the limit" but movies that are of high quality. I'm thankful we do not have Michael Bay or even Jim Cameron (didn't like Avatar at all, though pleased that it brought about 3D) introducing us to the future of movies. We have Tolkien adaptations! AUJ and DOS were spectacular HFR experiences IMO, and I know and recognise people disagree but it's only a normal human reaction to new technology. It is no different to any other time people have responded negatively to technology they have ultimately come to embrace with open arms decades later. Being above 90% on RT means nothing. I cannot accept GOTG and Avengers as better movies than either AUJ or DOS.
"[Annatar598] is an overzealous apologist [for PJ]" - Certain TORn member. Really? Alright... Well, proud to be one I guess.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Aug 19 2014, 3:32pm
Post #16 of 32
(929 views)
Shortcut
|
but i thought all the cgi was top notch, very naturalistic and convincing, with one exception-- the hunt/chase at the beginning of the film. Both the elks (or whatever they were) and the bear were not quite there yet, and the apes' physical interactions with them were, as you say, quite dodgy. Otherwise, i thought the film is some of the best cgi that i've ever seen, right up there with Gravity and Prometheus. But like i said, i've only seen it one time, and there was a lot going on in that final confrontation between Ceasar and Koba at the top of the tower (which i LOVED by the way), so i may have missed some of the less convincing shots. Anyway, i loved the film, and can't wait to pick up the Blu-ray.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 19 2014, 3:37pm
Post #17 of 32
(918 views)
Shortcut
|
solely on the basis that 24 frames per second is a tired, old and terrible technology to watch movies on. Do you really find watching movies in 24fps a really frustrating and terrible experience?
It is a true gift and miracle to watch not some award-bait, nonsensically hyped disappointment that's "pushing the limit" but movies that are of high quality.
What are you referring to here?
I'm thankful we do not have Michael Bay or even Jim Cameron (didn't like Avatar at all, though pleased that it brought about 3D) introducing us to the future of movies.
I don't know about Michael Bay, but to suggest that Camerson is not one of the most important directors where it concerns the future of movie technology is kind of silly.
AUJ and DOS were spectacular HFR experiences IMO , I agree. Again, I just don't know if The Hobbit was the right starter though.
I know and recognise people disagree but it's only a normal human reaction to new technology. It is no different to any other time people have responded negatively to technology they have ultimately come to embrace with open arms decades later.
No offense, but this sounds a little condescending. Not everyone who dislikes the look of hfr will love it in 10 years.
Being above 90% on RT means nothing. It only means nothing if you solely depend on your own subjective opinion, and that's it. Which is fine.
|
|
|
Bishop
Gondor
Aug 19 2014, 3:42pm
Post #18 of 32
(906 views)
Shortcut
|
I was utterly captivated by the CGI work in DOTPAOTA, which IMO is groundbreaking. We can thank the folks at WETA Digital for that, btw.
|
|
|
DaughterofLaketown
Gondor
Aug 19 2014, 5:04pm
Post #19 of 32
(883 views)
Shortcut
|
Flaws are bound to happen! Most people still notice the contact dilemma in Lotr.
|
|
|
adt100
Rohan
Aug 19 2014, 5:06pm
Post #20 of 32
(887 views)
Shortcut
|
Alas that's just the way it is, despite the fact that all of the LOTR an Hobbit movies have disaplyed some of the most consistently high standard and complex VFX/CGI of any film in their respective years, there will still be some that find points to niggle about.
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Aug 19 2014, 5:36pm
Post #21 of 32
(891 views)
Shortcut
|
Here is a couple points to ponder...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
1. In the Movie/Doc "The Secret" one of the well-known philosophers says "...JUST because you don't understand it , doesn't mean... you need to REJECT it..." (source: www.thesecret.tv ) which is Bomby's position about 48HFR. 2., One Weekend before AUJ was released (Thursday night Midnight) Bomby sat through a LOTR Marathon starting @ 11AM... Had to leave @ midnight just after Aragorn was crowned? (The "You Bow to no... one." moment..) (IF? stayed for the whole time, It would have been about 1AM the following day?) This Experiment was for 3 reasons. ...a. Watch the Trilogy on a Really Big Screen for the first time in about 8 years. ...b. Get myself in a PJ mind space. to continue his 6 film saga. ...c. Bomby DIDn't needed to Really look hard @ it to see the stuttering of ALL Camera Pans, the often flat looking color? The OKAY sound while watching it in a High Quality Movie theater @ 24 frames per second PROJECTED from about a 60 foot distance.. Well, Conclusion 48 was WAY Superior, Color Grading was Way Superior, Sound Quality was Way Superior. AND OF course,...the CGI was Un-Believably? Way Superior... THE 3D pushed me inside MiddleEARTH like I wished I had been back in 2001. THIS LEAP in Judgement on PJ'z Part? "WayFarSuperior" movie experience This post is Jus' for information purposes ONLY. not some opinion Bomby learned a while ago.. never try to change anyone's opinion,. bom
www.charlie-art.biz "What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
sycorax82
Rohan
Aug 19 2014, 6:51pm
Post #22 of 32
(889 views)
Shortcut
|
This makes me think of the moment in AUJ where they alter Gandalf's expression
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's at 1:14:25 onwards, when Gandalf has just given Sting to Bilbo. You can see they've messed with Sir Ian's face in that shot so he is making a more 'sad' expression, then his face changes again. It is definitely a digital enhancement, even though I've shown it to some people and they don't believe me! You just have to look very closely. I do suspect that his mouth movements, speaking those lines, are digital as well. That, rather than having Sir Ian do a pickup in front of greenscreen, they just had him do an ADR line and then mapped his face from that shot to the line... After all, we do know that they added that little 'courage' speech late in the day.
|
|
|
Darkstone
Immortal
Aug 19 2014, 8:36pm
Post #23 of 32
(852 views)
Shortcut
|
… aka, “subjectivization by eyeline”, using deliberately mismatched eyelines is a technique seen in films as diverse as Carl Theodor Dreyer’s Jeanne d’Arc (1928), Jean-Luc Godard’s A bout de Souffle (aka Breathless) (1960), Nagisa Ôshima’s The Man Who Put His Will on Film (1970), Stanley Kubrick’s The Shining (1980), and just about any film by Ozu Yasujiro. Forget what the objective interpretation of their eyeline tells you (“Who/what are they looking at?”), instead you are meant to consider what the subjective interpretation is telling you. (What are they feeling? What are they thinking? etc.) This is what is called “character development”. That's why whenever I see something odd on screen I usually go "Now what is the director saying?" rather than "Aha!! Gotcha!!!!", but that's just me.
****************************************** "It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man pierced with many black-feathered arrows, must be in want of a funeral."
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Aug 19 2014, 8:46pm
Post #24 of 32
(813 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree. I was just making an observation
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I just think it's interesting that even with such a big budget and everything that's possible with CG, there are still limitations to what can be done in movies. It's a reminder that special effects still have some way to go before it's possible to do anything
(This post was edited by AshNazg on Aug 19 2014, 8:47pm)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Aug 19 2014, 8:53pm
Post #25 of 32
(815 views)
Shortcut
|
Just for the record. I wasn't making this thread to nit-pick or complain at all
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I agree these films get put down way too much for their use of CG, which in most cases I think are great (I personally even prefer the CG goblins). But I find observations like this interesting. PJ seems to be particularly bad at continuity in his films, The Lord of the Rings probably suffers more than The Hobbit with this. But I don't think it ruins the experience, most of these observations are only made because of multiple viewings. Guardians of the Galaxy may have had some dodgy CG in places, but I haven't watched that over and over again to the point that I notice every detail
|
|
|
|
|