|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 14 2015, 1:08pm
Post #26 of 41
(911 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But others can tell for sure that in close-up Dain isn't CGI....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We've all answered the OP's question honestly as we see it. I don't think anyone is saying that Dain isn't CGI at all - the debate is about a handful of close-up shots. And as for the production telling us he's CGI, against one comment in the Chronicles book set all the other comments in that book and in the official companion book about Billy Connolly's make-up, his costumes, his prosthetics and make-up, the weight of the armour and his experience of acting against green screens and weapons training and so on.
Maybe the close-ups are CGI, maybe they aren't. There's nothing mean about it either way. I'm sure it's Billy Connolly I'm seeing. But if it isn't I take my hat off to whoever did the CGI. Why is it so important to you to be right?
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Apr 14 2015, 1:18pm
Post #27 of 41
(911 views)
Shortcut
|
I guess less people would comment on it if so many would not be unsatisfied with Dain's use and role in the movie itself.
I didn't mind his look (CGI or not) so much and think he looks more like a warf than most from our company... but the way he is used in storytelling terms is - quite frankly - abysmal imho.
So I do wonder whether the change in design also affected how his scenes were used for the final edit.
"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." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Apr 14 2015, 3:33pm
Post #28 of 41
(901 views)
Shortcut
|
Maybe the close-ups are CGI, maybe they aren't. There's nothing mean about it either way. I'm sure it's Billy Connolly I'm seeing. But if it isn't I take my hat off to whoever did the CGI.
IMO from AUJ to DOS to BOFA there's been those *little moments* where to my consternation I spot digital characters, doubles, stunt people . I'd guess for me 90% of the time it's when I own the discs, where there is the luxury of going through frame by frame. At times it's a bit disappointing especially when I can't fathom WHY a substitution was done.
Re Dain tho outside of the fight scenes and/or scale issues, I'm not seeing it myself - plenty of "smoothing filter" work went on in BOFA tho, LOL everyone is so pretty.   . But this is DAIN , and my worst disappointment is not having MORE of him, and I don't mean the end scene. BC is awesome and the whole tone of the film shifts when he turns up. I wish he had had more lines, somehow. Maybe talking to the other dwarves in battle.
I also wonder as well IF CGI was employed re BC's illness - e.g., PJ and WETA found out the heavy prosthetics were causing BC issues and simply found a way, in which case we will rightly never hear of them being protective of BC, - perhaps? But that is IF re these close shots that look like a person to me.
But if it isn't I take my hat off to whoever did the CGI.
Yes, when WETA is on, they are ON. Hope folks get their BOFA copies soon because frame by frame, for one thing Smaug is an utter marvel. Unbelievable work. LOL I am now spoiled re watching the GOT trailer and its black dragon and thinking more or less "where's Smaug?" WETA has set the bar so very high re dragons.
And Thranduil's elk is more incredible work as are Erebor and Dale. And Azog!
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Apr 14 2015, 4:59pm
Post #29 of 41
(890 views)
Shortcut
|
So many comment the other way because they are happy with his look. His role could be been more but many aren't unhappy with it as a whole.
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Apr 14 2015, 5:22pm
Post #30 of 41
(884 views)
Shortcut
|
|
its not important for me to be right.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Its frustrating that there is an official book from the production that flat out says he was replaced with a CGI double, yet that's somehow not enough evidence for people.
Idk, I just don't understand that logic.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Apr 14 2015, 5:41pm
Post #31 of 41
(875 views)
Shortcut
|
And one of the reasons they even made him CG was because they felt the makeup wasn't working and Billy's performance was lost under it. Knowing that, why would anyone assume they only made him CG for the wideshots? The whole point was to redo his makeup with CGI, which is why the closeups are also CG. And I think it looks really good in that scene with Thorin, but the movements give it away for me.
(This post was edited by Mooseboy018 on Apr 14 2015, 5:42pm)
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Apr 14 2015, 5:46pm
Post #32 of 41
(864 views)
Shortcut
|
I actually think Dains CGI is great. Movements still aren't perfect though, and its the smoothness of the motion that gives it away.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.
|
|
|
Elessar
Valinor
Apr 14 2015, 6:37pm
Post #33 of 41
(855 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Because when its the close ups
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
it looks like a man wearing makeup. It may be CGI even in those moments and if so its the best I've ever seen. Given Weta's work to make Paul Walker have a part in the last bits of Furious 7 it is possible to make something look that good.
(This post was edited by Elessar on Apr 14 2015, 6:38pm)
|
|
|
Bernhardina
Rohan
Apr 14 2015, 7:25pm
Post #34 of 41
(844 views)
Shortcut
|
The Academy would have nominated BOTFA in a heartbeat. Since they didn't I am pretty sure Dain is real in most of the scenes where you can clearly see his face. I wouldn't be surprised if they added some digital make-up though, to make him look younger, like with the elves.
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Apr 14 2015, 8:03pm
Post #35 of 41
(831 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't understand your reasoning.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
How is the lack of a visual effects nomination clearer evidence than Weta blatantly stating that Dain is completely CG?
|
|
|
Avandel
Half-elven
Apr 14 2015, 10:53pm
Post #36 of 41
(810 views)
Shortcut
|
How is the term "CGI" even being used - e.g. - to me it means a character, possibly motion-captured, but it's NOT an actor under prosthetics or heavy makeup. But within a film production, I could see the term CGI being a kind of catch-all word for any time facial smoothing is done, or alterations to the face and body - and I am guessing? that prettying people up is not done frame by frame - I don't know - but some sort of program that does it?, or at least helps. E.g. -
Original
Quick "smoothing" in PS.
So I'm thinking if you apply a filter re a script to a whole bunch of frames, it's gonna "smooth" everything, which may explain the "eye glide" (tho I didn't notice that). I'm not saying that there was never a CGI Dain - I'm just suggesting that even re the book, saying "PJ wasn't getting the performance from BC that he wanted re getting smothered in all the prosthetics" COULD be taken a lot of ways, and we just don't know the kind of processing that's done in the films, how much, and how often. Unless a future book spells it out, like with the creation of the Stone Giants, step by step.
But as others have posted, if the re the closeups that's all CGI Dain, IMO it is astounding work IMO. But there's a whole lot of smoothin' going on in these films - not saying that's a BAD thing.
(This post was edited by Avandel on Apr 14 2015, 10:55pm)
|
|
|
Mooseboy018
Grey Havens
Apr 15 2015, 2:39am
Post #37 of 41
(781 views)
Shortcut
|
I have a feeling we'll get an extensive look at how Dain was created in the EE appendices. At least I hope so.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 15 2015, 10:19pm
Post #38 of 41
(730 views)
Shortcut
|
|
He's 100% CGI except for the bits where he isn't?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
For what it's worth my own guess would match yours, but I'm not sure you can take issue with the logic that statement in the accompanying book does not mean that Dain was entirely CGI in every scene, when you yourself point out scenes where you believe he was not CGI.
If others agree that the statement is not universal but believe other scenes or elements are excluded, it's not a matter of faulty logic.
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Apr 16 2015, 2:23am
Post #39 of 41
(706 views)
Shortcut
|
Is that Dain wouldn't be CGI in some random shots for seemingly no reason. Especially the closeups.
1 or 2 OTS shots that show nothing but hair would be far easier and more logical to achieve. And that's exactly what happened. Totally CGI. Except...
"We have a few OTS shots of Billy we can use that show nothing but hair."
"We can shoot a few OTS shots so we have less footage to render".
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
^^^ That unnecessary apostrophe and "e" is due to the leaf itself. And this part of the signature was documented quite some time after the effect had worn off.
(This post was edited by jtarkey on Apr 16 2015, 2:25am)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Apr 16 2015, 8:34am
Post #40 of 41
(664 views)
Shortcut
|
... and we don't know what it was, not being there.
It is clear from the Official Companion book and Chronicles that they did shoot a lot of greenscreen footage of Billy Connolly in full costume, make-up and prosthetics. Maybe they used some of it. Maybe they used it with some digital 'make-up', as demonstrated in Avandel's post. Maybe they abandoned all of it. I don't know - and nor do you.
I think the close-ups look like Billy Connolly. You think they're entirely digital. You may be right but you can't possibly say "And that's exactly what happened" unless you were there.
|
|
|
Spriggan
Tol Eressea
Apr 16 2015, 3:50pm
Post #41 of 41
(636 views)
Shortcut
|
We don't know about reasons one way or another. It isn't faulty logic.
As I say, I happen to agree with you on which shots are, at least partially CGI, but we can't prove that logically.
|
|
|
|
|
