|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
painjoiker
Grey Havens
Jan 18 2015, 5:00pm
Post #1 of 18
(1417 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Why did they build pre-destrucion Dale as a full scale set,
|
Can't Post
|
|
when we only saw a small part in the AUJ prologue?
Vocalist of the progressive doom rock band Mater Thallium.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 18 2015, 5:05pm
Post #2 of 18
(912 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Presumably because they weren't sure at that stage....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... how much of it they would need.
|
|
|
moreorless
Gondor
Jan 18 2015, 5:10pm
Post #3 of 18
(827 views)
Shortcut
|
when we only saw a small part in the AUJ prologue?
We did of course see from more of Dale during the flashback to Girion.
There is I would guess also the possibility that the EE of BOT5A may include some kind of prolong involving Dale or perhaps some kind of flash forward showing it rebuilt.
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Jan 18 2015, 5:11pm
Post #4 of 18
(841 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How did they film post-destruction Dale?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
If they used a lot of the same set elements, we saw tons of Dale in Bo5A... just in its post-destroyed state.
|
|
|
SafeUnderHill
Rohan
Jan 18 2015, 5:13pm
Post #5 of 18
(853 views)
Shortcut
|
They knew the post destruction set would be heavily featured, so they built it before destruction first for the AUJ prolgoue. Then they could just destroy it rather than try and build an already desolated city.
It's the same Dale set on location; they just built it and filmed the flashback stuff and then destroyed it for BOTFA.
Wasn't there supposed to be a DOS EE scene of the dwarves walking through destroyed Dale? I was looking forward to seeing that.
(This post was edited by SafeUnderHill on Jan 18 2015, 5:15pm)
|
|
|
Bombadil
Half-elven
Jan 18 2015, 6:21pm
Post #6 of 18
(723 views)
Shortcut
|
Great THINKING! ADD that!.. to our Wish LIST..//
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
www.charlie-art.biz
"What Your Mind can conceive... charlie can achieve"
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 18 2015, 7:10pm
Post #8 of 18
(757 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, they did construct sets as well for Bag End,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... the rest of Hobbiton, the street in Bree, Rivendell interiors, Laketown streets and the interiors of Bard's house and the Mayor's house, Beorn's house, Rhosgobel, Gollum's cave, Mirkwood, and close-up sections of Goblintown, the Elvenking's halls...
That's quite a lot of sets, isn't it?
|
|
|
Ilmatar
Rohan
Jan 18 2015, 8:54pm
Post #9 of 18
(654 views)
Shortcut
|
They also constructed a set for the secret door to Erebor, with the tunnel leading into the mountain. And some columns & stairways inside Erebor were also an actual set that could be moved around (I think it was the treasure chamber), possibly also the throne room (?) and others. And part of Dol Guldur!
(This post was edited by Ilmatar on Jan 18 2015, 9:00pm)
|
|
|
[STARS}TyranT
The Shire
Jan 18 2015, 10:30pm
Post #10 of 18
(614 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It's a shame CGI dominates so much discussion.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Anyone who's watched the EE's appendices will be surprised to find out how many sets there were. I was simply amazed they practically rebuilt Bree just for the couple of shots of Thorin walking down the street.
I think the problem is either shooting on digital or the overuse of colour grading actually makes stuff look fake. Which is saddening.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Jan 18 2015, 11:07pm
Post #11 of 18
(587 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Could it also be that the perception....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... that it's all CGI is blinding people to the presence of so many well-constructed sets. Doesn't seem to me that the colour grading makes the physical sets look unreal. It's only the colour it changes.
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Jan 19 2015, 4:04am
Post #13 of 18
(496 views)
Shortcut
|
...but there is a level of reality that is not reachable by CG.
People who still do stop motion animation do it because of this: there's something about actual sets that simply can't be duplicated.
"Judge me by my size, would you?" Max the Hobbit Husky.
|
|
|
cats16
Half-elven
Jan 19 2015, 8:44am
Post #14 of 18
(441 views)
Shortcut
|
Some innovations for CG take longer than others. Right now, I think 'environment' and 'landscapes' are on the rise, trying to catch up to the jaw-dropping character CG renderings that are out there. I've seen many demos in which, unless prompted, there is no way of knowing that the character is a CGI.
But yes, I agree that virtual sets in a CG world do still have room for growth in the developmental process. Not only for the effects themselves, but the grading, texturing and relationship to light in relation to those effects. It's all a big puzzle, which does not necessarily have to be solved the same way for each artist, of course.
I don't mean to discredit anything you've said. I agree that the physicality of a material object does possess visual qualities that CG images, right now, cannot perfectly replicate the real thing. *But*, the magic of cinema (as always) tricks our eyes into not noticing this, and perceiving the illusion as real.
Fun stuff. 
Join us every weekend in the Hobbit movie forum for this week's CHOW (Chapter of the Week) discussion!
|
|
|
Eleniel
Tol Eressea
Jan 19 2015, 11:05am
Post #15 of 18
(409 views)
Shortcut
|
it's something to do with the 'weight' of a physical object that I don't get from CGI <shrug>
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
¯ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
mae govannen
Tol Eressea
Jan 19 2015, 11:27am
Post #16 of 18
(403 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thank you, thank you for this list of sets!!!
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It feels so good to know that contrary to all the complaints about too much CGI, there are actually so many very real sets that have been built!...
The actors too must have appreciated them greatly: so much more pleasant and inspiring to move about in the actual environment you're supposed to be in...
'Is everything sad going to come untrue?'
(Sam, 'The Field of Cormallen', in 'The Return of the King'.)
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jan 19 2015, 12:45pm
Post #17 of 18
(391 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Not sure I need realism, as such.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some of the matte paintings for LOTR were breathtaking - title shot in ROTK (extended ed.?), for example. Was it realistic? - I've no idea, but it was as realistic as the pages of the book that it was taken from, and it elicited the same response that I had when I read about that part of the story.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
swordwhale
Tol Eressea
Jan 19 2015, 5:36pm
Post #18 of 18
(362 views)
Shortcut
|
is that many filmakers have not simply done photorealism, but stylized their CG creations. I tend to think that cartooning or stylization would be easier in flat mode/traditional cel art... but hten, things like How To Train Your Dragon, where there is a wonderful balance of stylization and realism... and the artists definitely studied the landscapes and animals and cultures they are stylizing.
I have no doubt we'll get to the level of "can't tell the difference"...
look at duck stamps (or other photorealistic wildlife art)... sort of hyper-real...
"Judge me by my size, would you?" Max the Hobbit Husky.
|
|
|
|
|
