|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jan 17 2015, 8:38pm
Post #26 of 41
(384 views)
Shortcut
|
|
One thing that is vastly improved in The Hobbit films
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
over The Lord of the Rings is the compositing and the scaling of the different sized characters. In that respect, they're nearly flawless. I'm especially thinking of the map scene in Rivendell in AUJ.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jan 17 2015, 9:16pm
Post #27 of 41
(374 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I actually thought that was a tad jarring itself...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...since the Dwarves should have been shoulder height to the Men and Elves, and about a foot taller than Bilbo (give or take a bit). Whenever you had the Dwarves AND Bilbo in the same scene with either Gandalf, Bard, Elrond, or some other normal-sized characters, the Dwarves looked way too small. I understand why they did what they did, because having three different scales as opposed to two would have likely been a nightmare. I still wish they would have had the Dwarves wearing lifts or something in the scenes where they're standing next to Bilbo. Because a lot of the Dwarves are actually around the same height as Bilbo. That's a minor gripe though.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jan 17 2015, 9:18pm
Post #28 of 41
(350 views)
Shortcut
|
...I'll give you that. Doesn't mean that I think the CGI Orcs were any sort of improvement over the practical ones.
And I didn't find anything particularly shoddy about the Black Gate battle.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jan 17 2015, 9:24pm
Post #29 of 41
(326 views)
Shortcut
|
...of course some CGI was needed in some cases regarding locations. The lack of "bigatures" was noticeable though, especially in regards to Rivendell (guess we'll have to blame the whole 48 FPS thing for that though).
And I saw a lot of "cartoonish" things in The Hobbit, and not all of it had to do with CGI (but most of it did). LotR had a few cartoonish moments too, but not to the extent of TH.
|
|
|
ecthelionsbeard
Lorien
Jan 17 2015, 9:24pm
Post #30 of 41
(348 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I have to admit the cgi at the black gate...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...especially the moment right after the gate collapses looked awful, even when I first saw the movie in theaters back in '03
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jan 17 2015, 9:42pm
Post #31 of 41
(332 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, but that was more of a casting decision.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In keeping with LotR they should have cast shorter, sub 5½' actors for the hobbits (as Martin Freeman is) and over 6' actors for the dwarves. But that would have limited their casting choices for the dwarves, and we never would have gotten Ken Stott, who is one of the best things about these Hobbit films.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jan 17 2015, 9:45pm
Post #32 of 41
(332 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I loved Stott's performance...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...so I would have kept him, just put platforms on him or had Freeman kneel, in scenes where he was standing right next to Bilbo.
|
|
|
burrahobbit
Rohan
Jan 17 2015, 10:18pm
Post #33 of 41
(316 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yes that's exactly what I think
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
How believable a character is comes down to their whole personality, relationships, dialogue and interactions. The visuals are only one part of that.
Gollum is an absolutely fascinating character with many layers, maybe the best Tolkien ever wrote, and the reader/viewer is always guessing what's going to happen next.
On the other hand you can get away with a shallow character with the right atmosphere and settings if they don't hang around too long. The Balrog is superb in FotR, with the great build-up with superb dialogue ("what is this new devilry?"), and iconic clash with Gandalf. But if he stayed on screen any longer or was seen in a different setting then the magic would soon be lost.
|
|
|
FernysApple
Bree
Jan 17 2015, 10:20pm
Post #34 of 41
(319 views)
Shortcut
|
actually I found the scaling far more convincing in LOTR and it was glaringly obvious in TH. It looked 'wrong' somehow, for example Thorin and Gandalf in The prancing Pony was so obviously digitally manipulated it took me out of the film and I never got back in. The cloned Elven faces in the final battle was just amateurish.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jan 18 2015, 6:57pm
Post #35 of 41
(244 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The point about Gollum is key.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It is not whether a character is CGI, though I think it should be used sparingly, it is whether the character is well rounded and known to us so we are invested in that character.
Gollum is huge in the public mind because of how he looks and wonderful motion capture but equally important because of the excellent script he is given and the underlying backstory.
The difficulty with Azog, whose CGi ended up at the same level of quality, is his underlying backstory and character are not developed sufficiently or with sufficient credibility to carry the post Smaug villain.
There are ways that could have been achieved which are pure Toliken and characters he could have played off for us to come to know him.
The underlying tragedy of Orcs are the belief of the wise that they were indeed Elves enslaved and corrupted by Morgoth. Azog and Bolg are two of a handful enigmatic character set ups, the Mouth of Sauron being another example, where they are much closer to the concept of the "corrupted good" rather than created out of evil. These characters should have been played as corrupted good not irredeemably evil that is why Gollum works so well.
They should have been alluded to as special with a special bond and if you kill one then you have the most powerful vengeance motivation.
If Bolg therefore survives alone in the real time you then have to get in close with him and see his behaviour his hatred of good and his desire to corrupt and destroy as he understands from his racial memory. How could you have achieved that its sat in the story. The torture and ruination of Thrain some well chosen dialogue could have been written between captive and captured emphasising his cruelty and psychopathy not merely chopping off someones finger. Gandalf or Radagast could have speculated that the wise believe he has been responsible for some of the more appalling abductions and tortures such as Celebrian. No fan fiction just connecting up the notes in the appendices.
Armed with an "in The Spirit" of Tolkien back story, dialogue inspired by the LOTR book 6 Orc dialogue and a firm grip on the story line arc, depth without over complication and the result could have been well rounded , believable and tied the antagonist to the family of Durin with even more power.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jan 18 2015, 7:02pm)
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
Jan 18 2015, 7:24pm
Post #36 of 41
(234 views)
Shortcut
|
I have never really understood this objection (except as "it is not what happened in the books", with which of course I can't argue. Azog is supposed to be dead, and he is supposed to be slain by Dain).
However, having Azog be the big bad, while taking away Bolg's revenge motivation by having Azog still alive, gives that powerful revenge motivation to Thorin. It makes the primary Orc antagonist of the films, the character who slew and desecrated the body of Thorin's grandfather, right in front of Thorin (and is additionally believed thereby to have pushed Thorin's father over the edge). It seems clear to me that (arguments about execution aside) this is a strong story choice. Thorin is more important to the book story, and to the film story, than either Azog or Bolg.
Secondarily, I would argue that your prescription for making Bolg (your preferred main Orc villain) more fleshed out, is precisely that which the filmmakers are trying to execute for Azog (their choice). His killings of Thror and Fili in the films both seem to me in line with your project. As does Beorn's backstory, and his interactions with Bolg.
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Jan 18 2015, 9:12pm
Post #37 of 41
(218 views)
Shortcut
|
I am certainly not a person who has issues on an adaptive basis film is different so no problem there. If there was the certainty that your argument is invested with I would be much happier. However here are my instinctive issues:-
1) Chopping off an arm seems way to pat and convienent for me.
2) Balin telling me Thrain was driven mad/lost as an anecdote, as a piece of speculative discourse, has no emotional impact its a foot note not a driver. I am left with a question not an emotional reaction.
3) Azog's "I smelt your father fear" is left as a dead end trail. Its the perfect set up and is entirely lost. Throin never mentions his father as result of that dialogue, not even at Beorn's where it could have been tied together.
4) The wonderful Antony Sher never mentions Azog or is it Conan Stevens Bolg or Lawrence Maker's Bolg that tortured him, that cries out out for dialogue and to invest us and move the story across all three generations and in this case three movies.
5) Thorin after 7 hours of movie making still wants Azog, having not mentioned him for 4 1/2 hours and seen him kill his grand father 5 /12 hours ago. Who is after who Thorin hasn't expressed feelings about his father or grandfather since ….whenever. To me he is driven entirely by the gold and his redemption.
6) Kili's death for me is about Tauriels reaction not Thorins thats how I remember it and Thorin's death is about Bilbo's reaction thats how I remember it.
Azog has a unique hatred for Thorin so he taunts him with his nephews deaths but that unique hatred is based on humiliation of having his arm chopped off many many years ago what if it is Bolg who has had his mentor slain many many years ago and has subsequently tortured and corrupted his father on screen much more powerful and symphonic.
It all comes back to what are these films about. If Tolkien were sat niggling over this I am sure as with the Silmarillion and Hurin and Turin he would have decided the root of the story is Thror/Thrain/Thorin their fall from grace and Tolkiens vision of bad luck which is articulated through their experiences with the Dragon and Bolg.
My final thought about the failure of the Bolg story is this I know Thranduil, I know Bard, I know the dragon, I am reacquainted with the nine and the one but to me Azog/Bolg are merely plot point adversaries.
My Dear Bilbo something is the matter with you! you are not the same hobbit that you were.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Jan 18 2015, 9:16pm)
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
Jan 18 2015, 9:23pm
Post #38 of 41
(214 views)
Shortcut
|
|
What does a video game character look like?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Are you just saying the graphics were as bad as a video game? Because I can tell you that's not true.
I'd counter your argument and say that, compared to the CG orcs, the prosthetic ones look like something from a stage play. It's always going to be difficult to take an actor completely seriously when they're dressed up as a scary monster. Also, masks severely effect the actor's ability to display emotion, which when the character doesn't speak a real language it's pretty important to be able to read his face.
I'm not saying a prosthetic orc wouldn't work - both techniques have their pros and cons. But is it not enough that PJ tried to make Azog prosthetic TWICE before deciding to make him CG? You're entitled to your opinion on what would or would not have worked, but PJ gave prosthetics two attempts and decided in the end that CG was the better route - And that kind of implies that maybe prosthetics wasn't the best way to do Azog.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Jan 18 2015, 9:44pm
Post #39 of 41
(203 views)
Shortcut
|
Azog looks to me like a character from a video game cutscene - if he were in a video game, he'd look great, but in a film, interacting with other creatures like himself (many of which are guys in prosthetics), he just doesn't cut it for me. As I said, when I saw Lurtz and Grishnakh for the first time, I thought they were utterly frightening. When I saw Azog, my first thought was "Why does this particular Orc look painted on top of the action?"
I also don't get this argument that Orcs need to have a wide range of emotions and expressions. They're Orcs, why do they need a wide range of expressions? And why is it important to be able to read his face due to the language? It's not as if we're dependent on their expressions to understand the language, seeing as how the translation is plastered across the bottom of the screen.
Yup, he gave prosthetics a chance with Azog, and then decided last minute that for some reason he had to make Azog completely stand out from every other Orc we'd yet seen onscreen up to that point. Maybe in his mind CG was the way to go, but I didn't like it, and much preferred the earlier Conan Stevens/John Rawls designs they showed us in the AUJ appendices (personally I'd actually have preferred Azog stayed dead, but that's another matter). So yeah, it's down to my personal opinion. And it's my opinion that everything about Azog was a huge black mark on these films.
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Jan 18 2015, 9:46pm)
|
|
|
sphdle1
Gondor
Jan 19 2015, 1:01pm
Post #40 of 41
(181 views)
Shortcut
|
This is my first post in a while. Kind of a cool way to think of it, that this is through Bilbo's memories glossed up.
For me, I loved the CGI and can't really tell where the CGI ends and the realism begins because it's that good. I my mind, it all looked real when I was immersed into the movie. I think the CGI allowed us to see angles and larger scenes that would never have been cost effective to do otherwise, and yet they kept the realism in the awesome CGI, so much that I can't remember a single moment where the CGI took me out of the movie even for a split second. Come to think of it LOTR movies had a great deal of CGI in them as well, probably more than people realize.
Well done PJ! I'm sure PJ knows that the Oscar snub is all political anyway ...
sphdle1
"The last words Albus Dumbledore spoke to the pair of us?
Harry is the best hope we have. Trust him."
|
|
|
|
|
