Our Sponsor Sideshow 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

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Nature of CGI complaints...

LittleHobbit
Lorien

Feb 6 2017, 3:41am

Post #1 of 17 (3713 views)
Shortcut
Nature of CGI complaints... Can't Post

I did never even actually know what the term ''CGI'' meant until I read stuff about it in the internet regarding to the Hobbit. If I had win a penny every time I heard a complain about there being ''bad CG'' on this trilogy, I would be richer than Bill Gates -- and that's probably an understatement. But I am not sure I really understand this ''complaint'' about the Hobbit trilogy. So what does it refer to? Here are some options I can think of:

1) Any use of computer generated imagery?
2) The use of mo-cap or green screen?
3) The supposed physical implausibility of some scenes?

OR...

4) Something else entirely?

Anyone care to enlighten this topic for me -- and possibly others?

Cheers! Smile


(This post was edited by LittleHobbit on Feb 6 2017, 3:47am)


DeadRabbits
Rohan


Feb 6 2017, 10:22am

Post #2 of 17 (3597 views)
Shortcut
"Bad CGI" is one of the generic complaints you can throw out there... [In reply to] Can't Post

... along with "wooden acting", "poorly written dialogue", "sluggish direction" and "poor editing". Phrases that makes you look like a professional critic and a veritable cineast in the eyes of your fellow YouTube commentors!

Now now Bill, you swore this was a battle between warriors, not a bunch of miss nancies, so warriors is what I brought


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Feb 6 2017, 2:59pm

Post #3 of 17 (3571 views)
Shortcut
High Frame Rate [In reply to] Can't Post

I think that the HFR might be largely to blame for some of these complaints as it gives the CGI in the Hobbit films a different feel from the CGI as it appears in the earlier trilogy. Our eyes aren't trained to few movies with such a high frame rate and, ironically, it can look cheap to us.

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Feb 6 2017, 4:27pm

Post #4 of 17 (3560 views)
Shortcut
What "bad CGI" means to me [In reply to] Can't Post

As much as I love these movies, there are a few instances where I would use the "bad CGI" description. Some of Legolas during the barrel sequence did look more like a computer game, same as part of his fight scene with Bolg in Laketown. I'm certainly not referring to the fight in Bard's house, which was done with costumed stunt fighters. As for Legolas running up falling blocks, that was probably a case of "bad idea" more than "bad CGI." Another thing I didn't care for was the constant gray background in some of the CGI sequences. Actually, I think most people who say "bad CGI" mean "too much CGI," as in they'd rather see scenes filmed on sets with costumed actors like the first trilogy. I think these same people don't realize just how much CGI was used in the first trilogy - a substantial amount! It's not like the Cave Troll was an actor in FoTR, and that was one of the best scenes in that movie IMO.

I'd say I've entered my second childhood, but I never left the first!


Ostadan
Rivendell

Feb 6 2017, 8:07pm

Post #5 of 17 (3538 views)
Shortcut
One Criterion [In reply to] Can't Post

One way of judging bad CGI or, for that matter, bad _anything_ in a film, from art direction to acting, is whether it destroys what Tolkien called 'primary belief' (distinguished from mere suspension of disbelief). If the miniature sets in a film are shot so badly that you immediately think you're looking at a miniature set instead of a real place (Logan's Run, for an old and uncontroversial example, bungled this due to bad depth of focus cues and other things), or an actor reads a line unconvincingly (choose your poison) or the action is too preposterous to believe, the magic is broken. In a fantasy film, this is even more important than a modern-setting drama.

In the case of The Hobbit CGI specifically, well, some things worked better than others. My belief was broken by the '80s videogame texturing for the molten gold in some of the Erebor running-with-dragons action, but especially by the utterly identical CG elves in Thranduil's army. They all had the same face! I even wondered if it was intended as a joke; if it was, it was a poor and misplaced one.

Obviously, everyone's response will differ, at least somewhat. Did you know that there are actually people who _liked_ Battlefield Earth (other than as unintended comedy)?


N.E. Brigand
Half-elven


Feb 6 2017, 8:59pm

Post #6 of 17 (3537 views)
Shortcut
Courage, mother. [In reply to] Can't Post

I would just note that your comments need not apply to all movies. Some works of art like to call attention to the fact that they are not real. In theater, Bertolt Brecht's plays are a prime example; there are deliberately artificial films, too.

There are four lights.

-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Discuss Tolkien's life and works in the Reading Room!
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=
How to find old Reading Room discussions.


entmaiden
Forum Admin / Moderator


Feb 6 2017, 11:23pm

Post #7 of 17 (3514 views)
Shortcut
Or the Stonehenge in Spinal Tap [In reply to] Can't Post

Cool


Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan


Feb 7 2017, 4:19am

Post #8 of 17 (3495 views)
Shortcut
Hmmm... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think it's been covered to death but here goes - You have one of the most beautiful places in the world to film. You have fantastic actors. You have thousands of extras that worked on the previous trilogy ready to go. You have thousands of great costumes.

What do we get with this trilogy? Films made on a computer! Mad


(This post was edited by Avnar on Feb 7 2017, 4:20am)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Feb 7 2017, 5:58pm

Post #9 of 17 (3443 views)
Shortcut
em.... [In reply to] Can't Post

 





Quote
What do we get with this trilogy? Films made on a computer! Mad






Not the ENTIRE film, sorry, no! Dale was the biggest set they'd ever built, and of course we know about Hobbiton - and Laketown was a set as well. Yes, there was a lot of CGI, but there was a lot of New Zealand filmed as well - anyone who's watched the Appendices knows that!

I'd say I've entered my second childhood, but I never left the first!


Lindele
Gondor

Feb 7 2017, 6:34pm

Post #10 of 17 (3437 views)
Shortcut
It's very simple [In reply to] Can't Post

It means that the images you are looking at are, and look fake, therefore taking away from the quality of the world in which we are invested in.

When used sparingly, CGI is a very wonderful and valuable tool, as is apparent in 99% of LOTR. In The Hobbit, while most of the CGI is phenomenal, it is used so heavily that it gives the entire trilogy a sense of looking fake.


glor
Rohan

Feb 9 2017, 1:24am

Post #11 of 17 (3353 views)
Shortcut
Some thoughts [In reply to] Can't Post

bad CGI can mean, not liking the design of the CGI rather than the use of it. CGI allows for a myriad of design possibilities that are not possible with non-CGI methods.

However, what it often means I think, is that CGI itself can look flat, it lacks the solidity or real objects or sets, it can also be too perfect, or too close to perfection, the uncanny valley effect. The former looking flat is often due to bad rendering, and software limitation, budget too,

We see with our brains not our eyes, the later just being a lens that the brain uses. We also have to process information quickly, so our brains use prior experience to make sense of what we see.

I for instance, being a Brit that walks past 12 century stone walls on the way to work and spent my childhood years being dragged round many a historic building. My parents were National Trust enthusiasts . I find replications of ancient stone walls, e.g Helms Deep make my brain go, oh that's a set, instantly, it can be jarring. Yet I find well rendered CGI ancient stone less jarring because the CGI allows for more variation, better replication than bigatures.

So when people see the identical Elves that constitute the Elven army in BOTFA, it counters our brains experience that a group of beings that form an army might be very similar in build, gender etc but they shouldn't look identical and our brains OMGZ it fake alert signal goes into overdrive.Wink

I also think there is something else going on; the idea that any relatively new creative technology somehow lessens the creative process. Artistic Snobbery is another way of looking at it. There is this notion that any creative technological advancement, from photography to CGI, even the electrification and amplification of musical instruments, removes the skill, makes the final product less artistic, less authentic and therefore, of less worth. I personally think this is mainly untrue. There are some hysterical, original 1967 reviews of the Beatles Sgt Pepper LP, that berate the lack of creativity of using the studio as a musical tool, one even claimed the Beatles shouldn't even be credited as it was George Martin's album and not the musiciansCrazy. Shows how times and attitudes change. I think sometimes that comes into play in reviews that bad about lazy phrases like too much CGI, as if some computer did all this on it's own without any human input.

However, I do think there is a problem with the overuse of CGI in films in general. This is because it has become a cheap way of making films. Current ICT advancements, and cheaper technology ( 2001 compared to 2014) mean it is cheaper to CGI an army, a set than it is to use real extras or, real locations/material sets. These are the films where the CGI looks cheap, where one sits there and the brain goes, there hasn't been a lot of effort put into this CGI is stock rendering, I would point out that's no different to older films that look cheap and bad because badly built sets and rushed painted backdrops were used instead of locations.

As for TH. Well I would defend a lot of the CGI criticism, I think there were many practical and financial reasons for using CGI. However, there is some CGI that looks rushed or lazy, e.g identical Elves probably because Warners cared not one jot for Tolkien unlike new Line and just wanted their $$$ making 'franchise' out by a unrealistic deadline.

No mascara can survive BOTFA

(This post was edited by glor on Feb 9 2017, 1:26am)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Feb 9 2017, 10:08pm

Post #12 of 17 (3294 views)
Shortcut
I will agree with this [In reply to] Can't Post

"As for TH. Well I would defend a lot of the CGI criticism, I think there were many practical and financial reasons for using CGI. However, there is some CGI that looks rushed or lazy, e.g identical Elves probably because Warners cared not one jot for Tolkien unlike new Line and just wanted their $$$ making 'franchise' out by a unrealistic deadline."


Of all the movies in the Hobbit trilogy, "Battle of 5 Armies" had the most problems; some was really the pacing but others were overdone CGI. When you compare the extended version to the theatrical it's just amazing how unfinished the TE was. I know PJ kept talking about the "short, snappy pace," but I think that's just cover because some things couldn't be finished on time. But a bigger problem to me was the constant gray background. Yeah, the Elven army looked identical, that's because they had maybe 6 guys to play what, 3,000 elves? I don't think the Dwarven army was much better, and there were times when I had trouble telling the Orcs from the Dwarves because the armor was the same color. Sometimes "bigger" really isn't better; maybe if the armies were smaller the scenes wouldn't have looked so ridiculous. And I think they were smaller in the book? Surely Dain didn't have more than 300 Dwarves, did he?


Another point is Billy Connelly being completely replaced by CGI - and the reason they gave, which I didn't buy for one minute. The official line was that the costume & prosthetics didn't "look right," and they didn't have time to reshoot, so he was replaced by CGI. Personally I think that Mr. Connelly wasn't able to pull of the physical stunts, and THAT'S what "didn't look right." I mentioned above how jarring it is when they go from live Legolas to CGI Legolas, well at least by replacing every Dain scene with CGI it wasn't so jarring. Speaking of jarring, the fight scenes in Dale were done with live people on a real set, and then you switch to a bunch of CGI dwarves & orcs fighting each other in the same dark grey-colored armor - yeah, I can understand the complaints.

I'd say I've entered my second childhood, but I never left the first!


dormouse
Half-elven


Feb 10 2017, 1:58pm

Post #13 of 17 (3243 views)
Shortcut
Dain had 'more than 500' dwarves according to the book..... // [In reply to] Can't Post

 

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


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


Feb 10 2017, 2:16pm

Post #14 of 17 (3250 views)
Shortcut
Yes he did. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Dain had 'more than 500' dwarves according to the book.....


Correct, though Peter Jackson upped that number several times over. The Elvenking probably didn't bring much more than 2000 Elves, going by the book.

"He who lies artistically, treads closer to the truth than ever he knows." -- Favorite proverb of the wizard Ningauble of the Seven Eyes

(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on Feb 10 2017, 2:18pm)


Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea


Feb 12 2017, 7:28pm

Post #15 of 17 (3155 views)
Shortcut
Quality vs Quantity [In reply to] Can't Post

"Bad CGI" is not a complaint I would level against these films. For the most part, the CGI on display is of insanely high quality. The technology hasn't yet gotten to the place where human (or non-human, as the orc may be) animation can be achieved in such a convincing manner that the viewer (or this viewer, at least) can be deceived. That doesn't change the fact that WETA pushed the boundary on such characters as Azog, Bolg & Dain to new heights. Likewise, I think the work done on Tarkin in Rogue One moved the goal post further along than it had been previously. We're not there yet, but the work being done in human animation in the past few years is important in bridging that gap.

Elsewhere, the quality of the effects (from Smaug to digital set extensions) was mostly of extremely high quality. My biggest beef with the quality of the effects had more to do with the green screen compositing, which often did not look convincing (moments like the Dwarves & Bard's first meeting, several battle/fight scenes in BotFA, etc.). This probably had a lot to do with lack of time to finish the work, which is what happens when you have a film of this scale with so much CGI.....which leads me to the second half of my post.

There was too much of it.

Yes, I know. The oft-repeated rebuke of "There was lots of CGI in The Lord of the Rings too." Indeed there was, particularly by the time of The Return of the King. But there was also extensive use of miniatures. Matte paintings. In Camera Visual Effects. Real life extras. When battle scenes in The Lord of the Rings were shot, you had real, flesh and blood humans, elves and orcs on the ground. Not CGI doubles. Such technological wizardry was saved for wide shots, where the vast numbers of armies could only be captured via computer imagery. Character design changes were solved with reshoots, not full CGI character replacement.

If PJ had made those films today, they probably would have had the enormous amount of CGI that he used in The Hobbit. But, then, that's the thing about working with more limited resources. It forces you to be more creative. We've seen this before, with George Lucas and Star Wars. I used to hate making the comparison (mostly because I think PJ is a far better director - particularly when it comes to working with actors), but the two do share the similarity of losing themselves in their new toys. There's a sadness that comes from the fact that PJ was my savior for a long time with regard to his use of VFX. At a time when Lucas was showing the world that he cared more about CGI innovation than telling a compelling story, PJ was showing the world how it was done. He crafted a fantasy trilogy that made use of all manner of special effects techniques to bring Tolkien's tale to life in a fully believable fashion - his telling felt wholly real.

But a decade later, and it would seem that he had succumbed to the temptations of advanced technology. Thankfully, he remained (IMO) a better writer and actor's director than Lucas, but that only carries you so far if the images you create on screen (film is a visual medium, after all) fail to convince the audience of their authenticity.

In closing, I don't mean this to sound like I'm ragging too much on either the films or those who have different appreciation of the VFX than I. A couple years ago, I probably would have been more inclined to be defensive of PJ's visuals (such is the loyalty I feel towards him). But time away from The Hobbit has clarified my feelings on the execution of the films. I have gained a greater appreciation for the things that I feel work quite well in the films, and, unfortunately, the reverse is true for the elements I feel do not.

"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


Feb 16 2017, 5:00pm

Post #16 of 17 (3044 views)
Shortcut
Dwarves & Bard's first meeting [In reply to] Can't Post

Are you talking about the river scene? Because that WAS a river - I don't think there was any CGI there. In fact, there's a brief scene where Balin steps forward to talk to Bard, and it's clearly the scale double. Some of the scale doubles didn't look anything like the actors, but since most of those shots were brief and from a distance, you didn't notice it too often.

I'd say I've entered my second childhood, but I never left the first!


Dipling
Lorien

Feb 16 2017, 6:00pm

Post #17 of 17 (3037 views)
Shortcut
Correction [In reply to] Can't Post

Some of it was shot later in studio. It was shown in production diary. And you can clearly see bad background effect, after Bard fires his arrows. One of bad shots in DOS at 1:13:54.

Also in Botfa there were again just as bad shots when Bard rides to the mountain or shots when he is in front of elves. Same are some Bard and Thranduil shots in front of elves army.
http://youtu.be/wrKiJfJ-Mds?t=1m21s

I still cannot believe that they released such bad effects. Its not WETAs and PJ standard. There had to be some real time pressure to release half done effects. And they weren't corrected in EE.


(This post was edited by Dipling on Feb 16 2017, 6:04pm)

 
 

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.