|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Dec 22 2014, 8:45pm
Post #1 of 7
(888 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Jackson, the man who went up against the trends he helped create?
|
Can't Post
|
|
One interesting aspect for me when it comes to looking at Jacksons films post LOTR(especially Kong and the Hobbit franchise) and the way people have reacted to them is that he seems to have somewhat gone against the trends that he helped create with those films.
I would argue that his version of LOTR played a very important part in both "taming" CGI and in bringing back the "serious" blockbuster. Prior to these films(and for awhile afterwards) Hollywood had been on a steady diet of blockbusters that were being sold on CGI special with not that serious a tone(Emmerich's films like ID4 spring to mind).
Whilst on the surface I think that was a positive move and probably helped cinema overall I think in the eyes of a lot of critics and viewers LOTR's influence fostered the highly questionable "darker = better" mind set when it comes to "weighty" blockbusters. In Kong and the Hobbit though Jackson has I would argue clearly gone against this mind set, he's looked to create films that do have weight to them BUT who'se tone is larger than life and somewhat cartoonish. A lot of the negativity I see seems to stem from the idea that these films are "too silly" not so much in terms of lacking emotional weight but because of that tone.
Added to that as well I think Smaug in the Hobbit and even more so Kong give the outward impression of being somewhat "CGI event" films that again seem to go against a rather surficial take on the influence of LOTR.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Dec 22 2014, 8:46pm)
|
|
|
patrickk
Rohan
Dec 22 2014, 9:10pm
Post #2 of 7
(420 views)
Shortcut
|
|
BUT who'se tone is larger than life and somewhat cartoonish...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
....but it is a childrens story and PJ went with that except for the end, whne he had to merge tone with LOTR,
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Dec 22 2014, 9:10pm
Post #3 of 7
(423 views)
Shortcut
|
I do no think that LOTR in any way 'tamed CGI'...in fact quite the opposite. LOTR is what made people realize that really incredible things could be done with CGI.
Smaug and Kong are no more of a 'CGI event' than Gollum and the other CGI elements of ROTK etc...
|
|
|
haarp
Rivendell
Dec 22 2014, 11:00pm
Post #4 of 7
(309 views)
Shortcut
|
after return of the king directors started making big battle scenes with thousands of units on screen
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Dec 22 2014, 11:15pm
Post #5 of 7
(307 views)
Shortcut
|
|
LOTR pushed CGI to the limits available at the time.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In some ways that benefited LOTR as, PJ was not able to indulge himself in quite the same way he has with The Hobbit.
Over a decade on and computing power has expanded so now whole worlds can be created on film when the only real thing is the actor in a green screen studio.
That was not possible for an entire movie at the turn of the century but it is now
No mascara can survive BOTFA
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Dec 23 2014, 7:41am
Post #6 of 7
(206 views)
Shortcut
|
I do no think that LOTR in any way 'tamed CGI'...in fact quite the opposite. LOTR is what made people realize that really incredible things could be done with CGI.
Smaug and Kong are no more of a 'CGI event' than Gollum and the other CGI elements of ROTK etc...
When I saw LOTR's tamed CGI I mean not just that it limited the use of CGI(although it did relative to say the SW prequals) but that it used CGI effectively to drive the plot.
Bare in mind here what I'm really talking about is as much the perception by the casual viewer(who increasing make up more of the reviewer base with the rise of the net) as the actual reality. That is as much that the "trends" that have followed LOTR are actually more superficial than the strengths of those films rather than the idea that Jackson has turned against those strengths.
I think its most obvious in the "darker/more realistic = better" mind set that I think has risen in the years since. If that's what you take from LOTR than you've really missed the point I would say. The problem is I would say that it plays into the "inner manchild" of a lot of the audience, the desire to reject that which on the surface appears childish but also to reject anything with too much intellectual or emotional weight as well.
So much of the negativity around Kong and the Hobbit to me seems to stem from a rejection of the larger than life/cartoonish nature of the films and a desire to look past any deeper drama they might contain.
(This post was edited by moreorless on Dec 23 2014, 7:42am)
|
|
|
cartermoulton
Bree
Dec 23 2014, 9:27am
Post #7 of 7
(192 views)
Shortcut
|
|
i think people need to focus more....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
on the use of green screen vs. practical sets....the difference between hobbit and LoTR is huge in this area. I remember watching the video-blogs thinking to myself, "why even shoot in new zealand?" LoTR used tons of CGI and pushed the technology forward, but it was smart about when to use it vs. when to use practical effects (orcs in prosthetics, natural light, etc.)
"the road goes ever on and on..."
|
|
|
|
|
