Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Lord of the Rings:
"I always wanted the Black Riders CGI..." PJ 2013
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Silmaril
Rohan


Jan 4 2017, 9:08am

Post #1 of 36 (2808 views)
Shortcut
"I always wanted the Black Riders CGI..." PJ 2013 Can't Post

PJ Interview 2013 about The Lord Of The Rings: ...
1:15 min
"I always wanted the Black Riders CGI, .....but we just couldn't afford it."

The Black Riders are perfect as they are! What do you think?

0:50 min
"The Fellowship Of The Ring has relatively few digital effects shots...good old days."

Oh yes! That movie is perfect!

9:50 min
"I regret that Sean Astin wasn't nominated" (for an Oscar)

Yeah, great performance.



(This post was edited by Ataahua on Jan 4 2017, 7:36pm)


jlj93byu
Bree

Jan 4 2017, 6:22pm

Post #2 of 36 (2696 views)
Shortcut
Interesting to Consider [In reply to] Can't Post

While I do agree that the Black Riders are perfect as is, I would be curious to at least see what he envisioned for CGI ones. They did do Gollum well, bu the CGI wargs not so well, so while they may have been able to pull off CGI wraiths, their horses may have been worse.

But ultimately, I am glad they are as they are, because they were perfect!


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


Jan 4 2017, 7:42pm

Post #3 of 36 (2689 views)
Shortcut
Silmaril, [In reply to] Can't Post

I've edited your post to remove the link to the video as it willl be copyrighted to New Line. Please see the relevant section of our Terms of Service below:

11. The use of copyrighted material should be limited to selected quotes that convey just enough of the essence of a topic to spark discussion. This includes quoting from any of Tolkien's works (J.R.R. or Christopher), quoting from works by other authors of books, lectures or essays and quoting from news stories published in magazines or on the internet. Sources should always be cited and links to the original source provided if available. Film clips should be no longer than three minutes long and be from a film that is already available on DVD. Longer parodies may allowed at the sole discretion of the moderators. However, due to their length and copyright issues, fan edits of the LOTR or Hobbit movies are not allowed on this site, nor are links to them allowed. Not sure if material is copyrighted? Look for references to copyrights, read the source site's Terms of Service or simply err on the side of caution. For more information, follow the link to the "Fair Use" clause of Copyright Law at the bottom of each boards and read this post (http://newboards.theonering.net/...forum_view_expanded;) on the Feedback Board.

I've left the rest of the text of your post as those elements are fine to discuss - just not with the link to the full video.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.


Ataahua's stories


imin
Valinor


Jan 4 2017, 8:50pm

Post #4 of 36 (2685 views)
Shortcut
Extremely happy he didn't have enough money. [In reply to] Can't Post

One of the main problems for me is the amount of CGI in the hobbit films - it feels more in your face than the CGI in the lord of the rings, i also preferred the orcs as people in costume with some CGI rather than full CGI like the hobbit has. Kinda scary to think what the LOTR trilogy would have been like if PJ had the hobbit budget!

Sean Astin definitely should have been nominated at least.

All posts are to be taken as my opinion.


dormouse
Half-elven


Jan 4 2017, 11:29pm

Post #5 of 36 (2660 views)
Shortcut
But the Hobbit orcs aren't full CGI, are they? [In reply to] Can't Post

Or at least, they aren't all full CGI. There are plenty of prosthetic orcs on show in the EEs so I'd say it's still a mixture - maybe leaning more towards CGI, or including some who are all CGI alongside the prosthetics.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


imin
Valinor


Jan 5 2017, 12:17am

Post #6 of 36 (2656 views)
Shortcut
Too much [In reply to] Can't Post

Still too much CGI in comparison loads of the orcs in the hobbit were full CGI with some up close in prosthetics. The look the amount of CGI gives is different to how prosthetics is. It just looks more fake. Not to mention the reduction in on location scenes, changing to sets - case of too much money, not enough sense. Or perhaps not enough prep time as i stated on another thread.

All posts are to be taken as my opinion.


Silmaril
Rohan


Jan 5 2017, 7:16am

Post #7 of 36 (2631 views)
Shortcut
OK [In reply to] Can't Post

Sorry, I did not know about that.


Silmaril
Rohan


Jan 5 2017, 7:29am

Post #8 of 36 (2631 views)
Shortcut
I totally agree with you. [In reply to] Can't Post

In TH so much looks like fake, while LOTR feels real and believable. If it should be a 6 film series why make them different?


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


Jan 5 2017, 10:23am

Post #9 of 36 (2622 views)
Shortcut
Hmmm... [In reply to] Can't Post

What happened to PJ?? The world heaped praise on him and then he went and did a George Lucas! CGI destroys creativity...


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


Jan 5 2017, 11:31am

Post #10 of 36 (2618 views)
Shortcut
So... LotR wasn't creative? [In reply to] Can't Post

It's kinda nutso the extent to which many Middle-earth fans forget or gloss over how much CGI is in the original trilogy - and more so when the effects are bemoaned for getting more prominent or more crazy as the story went on. The effects got bigger because the tale got bigger. A battle of hundreds and what amounts to a fiery demon a touch smaller than King Kong in FotR, a battle of 10,000+ and the proper appearance (and rightful prominence) of Gollum in TTT, and finally a battle of 200,000+ complete with oliphants, 'wraiths on wings,' a dead army and a more prominent Gollum in RotK - this is how the general size and scale of the action in the story plays out. How the heck else should it have been done?

In general, the same holds true for The Hobbit, though there certainly was a larger budget and Jackson chose to use more CGI because of it (and because he enjoys the creative freedom it can grant). But CGI - like matte paintings, models, or puppets - is simply a tool for storytelling, no more no less. The only thing that matters is if it is well-implemented into the image and tone of the story. The slightly (and I purposefully say slightly because almost all of the CGI work looks fantastic and believable) more aloof quality of the CGI-heavy Hobbit complements the plot, though I realize a lot here will disagree with that. But the tale itself is a bit more aloof, a bit lighter, and a bit more goofy and playful. It fits.

Also, take a step back to realize that there are more digital effect shots in the first ten minutes of Fellowship (think on the enormous battle set against the slopes of Mount Doom) than many fantasy films have in their entire run time. From the very beginning Peter Jackson was upfront about how he was going to approach the material and it's baffling to ask him to scale it back as the trilogies begin to leave realms similar to our own in order to explore totally alien environments, acquire characters and creatures that do not exist on Earth, expand the general number of participants involved in any given scene, and as the action steadily grows more intense and takes up more space. All of this without getting to how excellent Weta Digital handled the effects on a frame-by-frame basis (they are the best at what they do in the world).

In short (too late), people are or are not creative. CGI is a tool that can be used in creatively interesting or creatively bankrupt ways, depending on who's wielding it.


(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on Jan 5 2017, 11:35am)


Silmaril
Rohan


Jan 5 2017, 12:53pm

Post #11 of 36 (2607 views)
Shortcut
In FOTR CGI was only used when it was not possible any other way... [In reply to] Can't Post

and as TH plays before FOTR it would have been more consistent if real places and actors would have been used as much as possible.
I know it's unrealistic, but TH should have looked like it was done before LOTR. But PJ is too technical interested that he would have done that. So he chose CGI and 3D HFR.


StingingFly
Lorien


Jan 5 2017, 9:49pm

Post #12 of 36 (2576 views)
Shortcut
There must be something about CGI that doesn't work... [In reply to] Can't Post

...though I can't quite figure it out. When watching live, I don't tend to notice the inauthenticity, though if you look at a still image, it is clearly fake. I wonder if our brains can process the images subconsciously while we view them live and we realize that what is happening 'isn't real' (sorry Tauriel). For me, Helms Deep is still the greatest ME battle, where as BOTFA just didn't captivate me.
....As for the Black Riders, I am grateful that they weren't CGI. They were creepy and menacing. The ghost Nazgul at Dul Guldor were unimpressive.


Darkstone
Immortal


Jan 5 2017, 10:44pm

Post #13 of 36 (2574 views)
Shortcut
Duuno [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
PJ Interview 2013 about The Lord Of The Rings: ...
1:15 min
"I always wanted the Black Riders CGI, .....but we just couldn't afford it."


He also wanted a Slime Balrog, a Watcher Swarm, and a Warg night attack on Edoras.



In Reply To
]The Black Riders are perfect as they are! What do you think?


They look lousy in the raw footage. I liked them better after they applied FX, especially to obscure their faces.



In Reply To
0:50 min
"The Fellowship Of The Ring has relatively few digital effects shots...good old days."


"Relatively" is the operative word.



In Reply To
Oh yes! That movie is perfect!


Except for all the stuff they left out, added, or changed.



In Reply To
9:50 min
"I regret that Sean Astin wasn't nominated" (for an Oscar)

Yeah, great performance.


Actually Astin says Jackson cut many of his best scenes.

******************************************
“Begone, foul dwimmerlaik, lord of carrion! Leave the dead in peace!"
"Come not between the Nazgul and his prey! Or he will not slay thee in thy turn. He will bear thee away to the houses of lamentation, beyond all darkness, where thy flesh shall be devoured, and thy shrivelled mind be left naked to the Lidless Eye."
"Do what you will; but I will hinder it, if I may."
"Hinder me? Thou fool. No living man may hinder me!"
"But no living man am I! I am Eowyn, daughter of Theodwyn!”
"Er, really? My mother's name was Theodwyn, too!"
"No way!"
"Way!"
"Wow! Let's stop fighting and be best friends!"
"Cool!!"

-Zack Snyder's The Return of the King


LittleHobbit
Lorien

Jan 8 2017, 10:33am

Post #14 of 36 (2456 views)
Shortcut
I will never understand this ''hate'' for CGI... [In reply to] Can't Post

Ever. In. My. Life. Crazy


wizzardly
Rohan


Jan 8 2017, 3:39pm

Post #15 of 36 (2440 views)
Shortcut
I nominate PJ to direct the next Shrek sequel... [In reply to] Can't Post

It's got everything he loves...all cgi, corny lowbrow humor and lots of farting!


Gandalf the Green
Rivendell

Jan 8 2017, 11:19pm

Post #16 of 36 (2407 views)
Shortcut
Yes, that's all good and well... [In reply to] Can't Post

...but that doesn't change the simple fact that The Hobbit trilogy differs significantly, in this case on a visual level (but there are other areas in which you could argue this as well), from The Lord of the Rings films.
The LOTR trilogy looked believable, and the washed out look in terms of colors made it look like a legend. Historical. It gave off a unique and amazing atmosphere. It's one of the many things, and certainly one of the major things, that made the LOTR films so special. The Hobbit, like most modern movies made with the HD mentality of shoving as much color into a film as possible, does not fit in with the original trilogy for this and several other reasons.

I won't deny that The Hobbit has great CGI in some instances. But at times, it simply didn't work in the grand scheme of things.


wizzardly
Rohan


Jan 9 2017, 1:37am

Post #17 of 36 (2394 views)
Shortcut
Seriously... [In reply to] Can't Post

With all of the "in your face" LotR movie fan service in these things, you would think he would at least try to keep it consistent visually. I think he was more concerned with playing with the silly high def technology that nobody cared about and in filming shots that would look good in 3D. What a dreadful mess it all is.


Silmaril
Rohan


Jan 9 2017, 9:08am

Post #18 of 36 (2367 views)
Shortcut
Some of the CGI looks like... [In reply to] Can't Post

Some of the CGI looks like it was made in the last minute. Bolg or Legolas horse in DOS for instance.
I'm just rereading The Hobbit and I really cannot understand why they made the movie so different.
A faithful book/movie adaption with the designs/methods of LOTR would have been perfect.


jlj93byu
Bree

Jan 9 2017, 4:20pm

Post #19 of 36 (2346 views)
Shortcut
Even some non CGI looked like CGI in Hobbit [In reply to] Can't Post

I felt like some of their coloring and digital touch-ups of certain shots, that were done naturally, made the shot look like CGI (in the Hobbit trilogy). Watching the special features, there were shots I saw them filming and thought, "Oh, they actually used practical effects there?" I was surprised, because the finished shot still looked like CGI, probably due to some digital touch-up, color grading, or something like that.

While I still enjoyed the trilogy, one of my primary complaints was the overuse of CGI. Again, for reasons stated--it just didn't have as much of a natural, earthy feel as LOTR. Even the bigatures in LOTR had a nice, authentic look, as opposed to completely CGI environments. A lot of the CGI was great--Smaug was absolutely perfect, gorgeous, and stunning. But there was so much CGI that they couldn't ensure all of it was as great, and received the attention it needed, and so too many CGI shots slipped in that didn't feel as refined and polished.


(This post was edited by jlj93byu on Jan 9 2017, 4:21pm)


Silmaril
Rohan


Jan 9 2017, 4:34pm

Post #20 of 36 (2341 views)
Shortcut
"But there was so much CGI that they couldn't ensure all of it was as great.." [In reply to] Can't Post

That's true. If they had not to do all these (imo unnecessary) big action scenes like barrel escape and Smaug chase they would have had time for more quality.


FarFromHome
Valinor


Jan 10 2017, 12:16pm

Post #21 of 36 (2273 views)
Shortcut
Agree that CGI hasn't quite got out of the uncanny valley... [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
I wonder if our brains can process the images subconsciously while we view them live and we realize that what is happening 'isn't real'

I think that's what happens - our brains are judging things in ways we're not even aware of, and leaving us feeling unconvinced even when we can't put a finger on why.

We probably shouldn't be surprised at PJ's desire to keep trying to use CGI though - it seems to have been his geeky thrill at being in at the birth of the technique that got him interested in making LotR in the first place. And I think we have to admit that Gollum and Smaug are masterpieces of CG imagery at this point in time (just as the Hammer films PJ admired were the height of movie special effects in their own time).

Personally I think the greater unease with the effects that we sometimes feel in The Hobbit is mostly due to other things, especially the high-def cameras that make everything too sharp and so make deficiencies very obvious, and the decision to go 3D, which forced a lot more use of CGI and green-screen, as opposed to the more natural-looking in-camera tricks that worked in LotR.


They went in, and Sam shut the door.
But even as he did so, he heard suddenly,
deep and unstilled,
the sigh and murmur of the Sea upon the shores of Middle-earth.
From the unpublished Epilogue to the Lord of the Rings



Dipling
Lorien

Jan 10 2017, 2:26pm

Post #22 of 36 (2267 views)
Shortcut
Same thinking... [In reply to] Can't Post

I see digital color grading as the main "Hobbit color scheme" problem. With color grading you can do everything, change everything. They should aim for subtle grin LOTR look.
With LOTR PJ aimed for Braveheart look. In Hobbit we have modern HD look - HFR and Red epic cameras combination.

But i still love AUJ and DOS. BOTFA is OK - too clean looking battle. Azanulbizar battle looked more dirty than BOTFA battle. And those same moving Elves - too perfect even for Elves. WETA did this way better in 2001-3.

But i watch Hobbit movies through LOTR eyes - not as a children book. But many of us have the same problem.


glor
Rohan

Jan 11 2017, 1:51am

Post #23 of 36 (2232 views)
Shortcut
Different times, Different costs [In reply to] Can't Post


Quote
till too much CGI in comparison loads of the orcs in the hobbit were full CGI with some up close in prosthetics. The look the amount of CGI gives is different to how prosthetics is. It just looks more fake. Not to mention the reduction in on location scenes, changing to sets - case of too much money, not enough sense. Or perhaps not enough prep time as i stated on another thread.

I agree to a certain extent but the one thing that needs to be said is that today's expensive becomes tomorrows cheap when it comes to technology.

When PJ made LOTR CGI was the expensive option. The computer technology in terms of hardware and, software was more expensive than prosthetics and locations, in fact PJ and the WETA crew had to invent new software and ways of using CGI to get the LOTR films made. When PJ made The Hobbit, the relative costs were reversed with CGI being a far cheaper option than prosthetics and locations.

Location costs were particularly problematic on the Hobbit because the Company was larger than The Fellowship plus, TH's company didn't have the decency to split up into component parts for sizeable sections of the trilogy thus reducing the costs of location shoots. This means PJ had to get get 13 plus actors filming up the side of a mountain, rather than 3, that's a lot of extra crew too.

However, the one thing the CGI did in TH that was a massive positive IMHO was it reduced the need for scale doubles. TH would have required a lot of scale double shots considering there were 13 dwarves so, rather than get smaller actors in as substitutes which would have resulted in some very awkwardly shot scenes, they used CGI to make the sets bigger, to make the actors look smaller and used green screen splitting.

The scale double shots in LOTR I noticed in the cinema, when I initially got my dvds and watched them at home on 28" CRT it wasn't an issue. Now in full HD Blu-ray on a 42" or more recently a 55" screen those scale doubles grate and stand out like a sore thumb. Just to add, some of the bigatures look fake in certain shots. I have spoken about this before a few years ago. The bigature issue may be being English and seeing a lot of medieval stonework in churches and the like on a daily basis, there are 11th century city walls I walk past every day, when I go to work. Therefore, I know that real stonework is far more intricate and subtle than what I see on screen. So my brain kicks in and tells me it's fake.

However, I do agree with the general sentiment that the Hobbit trilogy doesn't have quite the same feeling of realness as LOTR but, I think that more about lighting and colour, natural sunlight can bring a film alive, give a sense of space, of reality that artificial lighting cannot. That's not just about CGI, it's also the heavy use of indoor sets, one of the oldest methods in film making. Just watch Lawrence of Arabia and realise one of the main reasons that shoot was one of the longest in film history was because David Lean wanted to wait for the right natural light to fill the frames.




No mascara can survive BOTFA

(This post was edited by glor on Jan 11 2017, 1:53am)


dormouse
Half-elven


Jan 11 2017, 9:17am

Post #24 of 36 (2217 views)
Shortcut
I think you make some excellent points here.... [In reply to] Can't Post

...about the relative costs involved in filming LotR and The Hobbit, and about the developments in technology in the years between the two trilogies - things that are often overlooked when this discussion comes up.

I agree with you about the scale doubles in the first trilogy, and about some of the large scale models. There are visual elements in the Lord of the Rings films which never worked perfectly for me - with the scale doubles, for example, the difference in body proportions is plain to see. But they've never been a problem for me - I just accept that this is so and get on with enjoying the film. And knowing how far from the here and now Tolkien's stories take us I'm more inclined to marvel at the achievement of the films in realising that world than grumble at the cracks. I reckon it's always worth remembering the role of the audience. All films (and plays, and stories) are make-believe. To experience them and enjoy it the audience needs to buy into the illusion.

Reminds me of the Prologue to Shakespeare's Henry V, which apologises to the audience for trying to represent world-changing events in a tiny theatre - 'Piece out our imperfections with your thoughts...' Things have changed a lot, but in essence the contract between players and audience is the same. What happens on page, stage and screen isn't real and as the audience we'll always know this. It's just a question of letting go and entering the story. The very 'reality' of the Lord of the Rings films was often achieved with clever camera work, clever lighting, and above all, clever computer manipulation of the filmed image.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


imin
Valinor


Jan 13 2017, 7:30pm

Post #25 of 36 (2169 views)
Shortcut
Good post [In reply to] Can't Post

You make a lot of good points, some i did not think about such as the changes in costs for technology and differences due to the crew sizes. :)

I did find some of the scale doubles annoying the lord of the rings movies, and don't get me wrong i found quite a lot i didn't like from the films, they seemed to be more minor than the issues i have with the hobbit films. In general the LOTR films had the right feel to them for me as vague as that is. I also haven't watched the films for ages - a good few years - i think i last watched them straight after AUJ and it made me realise how much better i thought the LOTR trilogy was - and yet now i look back and think that AUJ is the best of its trilogy! On a side note, might be time to watch the LOTR trilogy again. I have after all just gone through my Christmas tradition of reading the hobbit and lord of the rings - still get a lump in my throat at the ending.

I agree most strongly with your last comment. The lighting or maybe its colour grading - i think its colour grading in the hobbit movies is horrendous, i find it terrible to the point i can't really watch the films and as it is there all the time you can't really get around it. I also feel the lack of on location shooting hurt the films in a big way, you can tell sets are sets and its jarring. The set issues were present in LOTR films but just to a lesser extend. I guess there is no point moaning now though, lol.

All posts are to be taken as my opinion.

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.