|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 13 2015, 8:01am
Post #26 of 35
(363 views)
Shortcut
|
..the actual battlefield in front of Minas Tirith, with the mountains facing the city, was not a real physical location. It was created in the computer as a 360 degree environment using a patchwork of photos. They show how they did it in the EE documentaries. They also admit that they varied the angle of the sun to give them the light they needed on different shots. All the things people complain about in The Hobbit, in fact. Of course there were actors playing the orcs, Rohirrim and other protagonists - just as there are actors in The Hobbit playing the main characters, Lake people, elves, dwarves and so on - but the background figures and the wide shots of the battle were made in the computer.
And when I see a video game as beautifully realised as the battle in front of Erebor I'l start taking the last remark seriously!
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Aug 14 2015, 1:35pm
Post #27 of 35
(333 views)
Shortcut
|
There was a CG version of the battlefield for many of the sweeping wide shots, yes. But the basis for everything was still live-action, meaning they still shot on location for a sizable portion of the battle. CGI was used to fill in the background, of course. But the balance between live-action/CGI/miniature work was almost seamless.
If we are comparing the amount of live-action elements to the Battle of Pelennor Fields to the Battle of Five Armies, the latter doesn't even remotely come close. I was never once convinced that an actual battle was taking place in BOFA due to its digital artificiality. The battles of LOTR have a real, tangible feel to them that cannot be replicated by a computer and green screen.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 14 2015, 2:06pm
Post #28 of 35
(328 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I can't for the life of me see any difference....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...the close-up parts and lead actors of Pelennor Fields were shot against greenscreen. There was no battlefield. The battle exists in the audience's willingness to believe it.
...the close-up parts and lead actors of Battle of Five Armies were shot against greenscreen or in the set of Dale. There was no battlefield. The battle exists in the audience's willingness to believe it.
Both used computer technology that was so much in advance of its time that it was developed for the film. The Visual Effects Society (who presumably know about these things?) nominated Battle of the Five Armies for four separate awards: Outstanding Visual Effects in a Visual Effects-Driven Photoreal/Live Action Feature Motion Picture; Outstanding Models in Any Motion Media Project; Outstanding Effects Simulations in a Photoreal/Live Action Feature Motion Picture; Outstanding Compositing in a Photoreal/Live Action Feature Motion Picture.
Maybe you just didn't want to be convinced, because there were other aspects of the film(s) you didn't like. It doesn't make them bad films, just not the films for you.
|
|
|
Smaug the iron
Gondor
Aug 14 2015, 2:34pm
Post #29 of 35
(322 views)
Shortcut
|
Was the only part that was shot on location.
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Aug 14 2015, 2:59pm
Post #30 of 35
(314 views)
Shortcut
|
Let's compare two clips from each battle...the Rohirrim charge in ROTK and Thorin's rally from BOFA. Here are the clips for your convenience.
ROTK
https://youtu.be/l8yOdAqBFcQ
BOFA
https://youtu.be/4d61BIwNal8?t=1m33s
If you can't see any difference in terms of realism and technical craft, then you either have a low bar for suspension of disbelief or you are delusional. I am a filmmaker myself so perhaps my bar is a bit higher than yours, but even an untrained eye can see how much faker the BOFA clip looks. The only live-action elements on the battlefield are Thorin and his company. Everything else is CGI...there is no tasteful balance of elements.
Look at the Rohirrim charge. Real orcs, real actors, real horses, real grass, real weapons. All blended seamlessly and tastefully with CGI. The illusion sells itself so much easier here. Again, my bar might be higher than yours but with so many other audience members & critics complaining about the abuse of CGI in BOFA, clearly the illusion did not sell as well with that film. Clearly the Academy Awards (who presumably know about these things) agreed by the lack of a Visual Effects nomination (after LOTR swept the category three years in a row).
|
|
|
Dipling
Lorien
Aug 14 2015, 3:38pm
Post #31 of 35
(312 views)
Shortcut
|
I believe the problem lies in digital color grading in BOTFA. Wrong color - not realistic enough.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 14 2015, 6:33pm
Post #32 of 35
(305 views)
Shortcut
|
You've deliberately chosen the ride of the Rohirrim which was was a real charge of real riders on real horses across a real landscape. The mountains behind were also real.
I'm talking about the battle that followed, much of which was filmed in the backlot against greenscreens. The mountains behind those scenes were not real. The mumakil were not real. Legolas didn't really climb one, that was a digital double. The fell beast wasn't real. The army of the dead weren't really there. And you might note - though I always try not to - that even in the ride of the Rohirrim, there are digital horses added, when a fall or death is needed, and to my eye those horses really don't look real against the others. It doesn't bother me because I know it's not real - like every other special effect, it requires the willingness to believe.
Many things in both sets of films had to be added digitally - without digital effects these films would have been impossible. And don't forget that BotFA has scale issues Pelennor Fields lacks - Rohirrim, orcs, men of Gondor were all human scale and could all interact with one another.
As for critics, I didn't see any professional critics complain about the use of CGI in Five Armies. Only fans....
Perhaps our bars are just set in different places - and I'm afraid I'm not going to enter a 'who has the highest bar' contest!
|
|
|
Goldeneye
Lorien
Aug 14 2015, 7:16pm
Post #33 of 35
(294 views)
Shortcut
|
Oh, dormouse. You and I both know there is a major difference in the execution of LOTR and The Hobbit, especially regarding the battles. At the end of the day, if we are sticking to the Pelennor/Five Armies alone, you and I both know that there is a significantly higher ratio of CGI to live-action in the latter. You may not mind this fact and that's fine...for me it is just one of the reasons why The Hobbit films are not the cinematic achievements that the LOTR trilogy is. It just looks and feels...fake.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
Aug 14 2015, 7:46pm
Post #34 of 35
(291 views)
Shortcut
|
What do I know....
I know that the same director and basically the same team made both sets of films - and I see the same aesthetic in the design and the art work.
I know that The Hobbit was filmed in 3D, at a different frame rate and with different cameras, and was digital rather than film, and those things are big differences. Would I have been happy to see them done in the old way? Yes, I would, but I can understand that things are changing. Things do. A decade on computer technology is light years away from what it was, and The Hobbit posed all sorts of different challenges. I can understand that - it surprises me that you, as a professional film maker, don't seem to.
But - get this - when I'm watching the film I see nothing that looks 'fake'. I see things - like Thranduil's elk, for example - which are so beautifully realised that I have to pinch myself to remember that it isn't a real creature. I see scenes which - to my eye - are incredibly beautiful. Thorin and the raven. Thranduil looking at the dead and deciding to recall his army, and the elf sounding the recall behind him. For sure there are occasional things about the adaptation and the writing I like less, but visually I think the films are amazing and for that I can forgive a lot. I think they are a real achievement, against the odds. Lord of the Rings was the first and in that sense its achievement can never be matched. No one had seen anything like it before. A decade on we've all seen umpteen imitations. A decade on, of course nothing can take us by surprise in that way again - but when the dust settles I think more people will embrace The Hobbit for what it is.
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Aug 16 2015, 10:07pm
Post #35 of 35
(253 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The TE version first submitted to the US rating board...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...received an R rating. Changes were made to get the PG-13 rating desired for the theatrical release. So I am not sure why it is gimmicky or odd in any way, that PJ's EE version is rated R. He is probably including back, among other things, some moments he had originally hoped to include in the TE.
|
|
|
|
|
