PJ's stance on Orc aesthetics

S

Shagrat

Gondor
Perhaps the second most interesting revelation in this interview: http://www.dga.org/Craft/DGAQ/All-Articles/1303-Summer-2013/DGA-Interview-Peter-Jackson.aspx

"However, on The Lord of the Rings we had actors in prosthetics playing the orcs, and I was always a little frustrated by that. If I could have afforded it then, I would have much preferred to have all the orcs CGI. Now, in The Hobbit, I can."
Click to expand...

These words are rather concerning I must say. If PJ felt this way all along, then why did he have Bolg, Fimbul and Yazneg (formerly Azog) as guys in prosthetics? Can we expect Bolg to be mapped over by the time the film is released? You see I always suspected that the reason for Azog's troops having CGI faces was because of the late change to make Azog an entirely CGI character, so he wouldn't stand out so much acting alongside guys in prosthetics. Now I'm not so sure.

As much as I liked Azog I thought some of the CGI faces on the other Orcs were very noticable (probably because they didn't have the same amount of work done on them), and certainly no better than guys in prosthetics. I know this has been one of people's bugbears with this no film so it's interesting to see that PJ feels so different to others.
 
in terms of designing Orcs is to do with the fact that you are somewhat limited to the "two eyes and a mouth" triangle that a human face has, in order for an actor to be able to function behind prosthetics. With CGI you can create far weirder, less-humanoid facial designs. I'm sure he talks about this on one of the early v-logs?
 
The prosthetic orcs are far superior in my opinion. The have a real presence and weight and are actually generally frightning. Whereas the cg goblins and orcs in the Hobbit just feel tacked on and lifeless. And I know they used actors during the filming process but these have clearly been digitally replaced, not just the heads.

Don't get me wrong, I enjonyed the film but so many of the wonderful elements of the original trilogy, like the location shooting, just have not been retained or are used to a much lesser extent. I mean theres like 1 maybe 2 shots in the entire Desolation Of Smaug trailer that were shot on location. Such a shame, I think. [:(]
 
... in LotR the prosthetics worked... like the Uruks that capture Merry and Pippin.

For others, like The Cirith Ungol Orcs and especially Gotmogs, it was close to trashy imho.

I totally agree with him that the much richer face-motion possible via CGI will be the way to go for the future and I am glad he uses it in TH.

I certainly do not agree that the prosthetics were just THAT amazing in LotR as some now make them out to be... actually I remember quite some criticism at the time for them, though of course most of them were magnificent (compared to what we saw in other movies) and got their Make-up awards well deservedly.
 
It's a sign of an artist with no restraint, and really mirrors George Lucas' change of heart while directing his prequel trilogy...

Just because you can doesn't mean you should. I would even argue that CGI is not good enough to so readily replace everything with it. As you mentioned, in a lot of instances, it looks worse than practical effects.

The key is in a healthy mixture. If you're only thinking about what really looks the most convincing, mixing effects is the only answer. Going all the way in either direction is a bad mis-step.

What bothers me a lot is the seemingly random on-location scenes in The Hobbit. It's as if the production is screaming "SEE! HEY! LOOK! WE SHOT ON LOCATION!!!!". Even though they really didn't most of the time...
 
Or at least, from your post it seems that they were wrong to do it, because it was 'random' - so, I suppose, some sort of token gesture of using real locations when they didn't need to or when, in your view, the locations didn't fit... Or they were using a few location shots to hide the fact that really they weren't shooting on location most of the time - and that was wrong too....?

Sorry, you've lost me. I think the location shots were fabulous. Just that.
 
They looked pretty much real as far as i'm concerned. As far as Azog goes, sure, you could still tell that he was CGI at times but i could also tell that the Uruks in LOTR were people in prosthetics.
 
Last edited:
was more with some of Azog's group, like that guy with the weird nose. Though it didn't help that his design was rather poor.
 
this statement of PJ really worries me, and explaines a lot of my problems with the Hobbit film. the aesthetic is what makes or breaks a movie, especially if it's a fantasy one.

first of all i agree that the orcs in LOTR looked far more realistic, a lot more menacing and simply better than these hordes of soulless CGI-creatures in overly lit battlegrounds. the goblins along with their caves were completely unbelievable in the film and there was literally no sense of danger to them, not even a sense of physicality like they were really getting hit or hitting themselves.

i don't agree that the orc designs being based on human face-features and facial traits and proportions is worse than overly distorted digital faces.
the reason why the orcs in LOTR worked so well is because they were real. they had two eyes, a nose, a mouth and ears (in most cases). and however off or strange/ ugly and distorted they were, they were still played by humans mostly and therefore real and relatable, so you could take them seriously. that is completely lost with all those cgi-dudes.

the worst design idea that PJ has ever made were the goblins and their caves really. it was such an iconic passage in the book and he butchered it relentlessly.
the hunter orcs were better. a lot of them were also played by real actors in prosthetics i think and therefore there was a better sense of realism and seriousness to them immidiately. still: their designs weren't all too satisfying for me either. i miss my badass, ironclad orc-fighters and got some dudes covered in fantastic and utterly impractical fur and bone clothing, which is a long way from tolkiens description of the orcs in my opinion.

but oh well. looking at these

http://31.media.tumblr.com/4165bfbaacaf744d04cec1ef43fb6588/tumblr_mozebsTzhm1rsp1ito4_1280.jpg
http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/18b3ji1ioh2mrjpg/ku-xlarge.jpg
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GOp9Y6CPPqY/UK5fvmuJHWI/AAAAAAAAX-8/wMdAxzzyUO0/s400/HOBBIT_CONCEPT_002.jpg
http://www.premium-format.de/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey_concept_art_by_nick_keller_1.jpg

i'm glad they were given at least some realism. that were my two cents
 
I watched AUJ last night and thought the goblins looked fantastic and realised how much I like the whole Goblintown sequence. I know it's one scene that people dislike but I love it!

I also think Azog looks beautiful and his CGI is pretty much flawless. If any of the characters could be criticised for some lapses in quality, it's the Goblin King. Once or twice I thought his CGI faltered.
 
but considering most orcs are corrupted elves and Lurtz > anything in AUJ, I just don't see the value of CG orcs/goblins/etc.
 
...for the warg riders. They look really cool.

While i disagree about the de facto superiority of prosthetics, i do think the goblin town sequence could have used a little more... how to put it... grit, mood.
 
probably because I have few complaints about AUJ in general.

IMO, although most of the Orcs and Uruk-Hai in LotR look great, they do always look like guys in suits. I liked the Goblins in AUJ, with their strange faces and at times odd bodies, just as much. Some of them were obviously guys in suits as well, even if their faces had been replaced.

As is mentioned in that article, PJ started out as a practical special effects guy. In fact, if I remember correctly from a biography that I read, he wanted originally to make a career in special effects before deciding that directing suited him better. I would say that if he’s using digital effects, it’s because physical ones won’t give him what he wants, at least not in a way that is practical or affordable.

As for locations, I appreciated the beauty we were given in AUJ, both in the Shire and many other places but I thought that the sets looked fine as well. Since I don’t examine each scene to see which were shot on sets and which on location, I have nothing to complain about.

The shooting of these movies is finished and so the decisions are made about what will be live action or CGI or some combination of the two. I doubt that DoS and TaBA will be much different from AUJ so there is nothing to be alarmed about, unless you are really hoping for something different.
 
They looked pretty much real as far as i'm concerned. As far as Azog goes, sure, you could still tell that he was CGI at times but i could also tell that the Uruks in LOTR were people in prosthetics.
Click to expand...
 
Many of the orcs/Uruks looked good in The Lord of the Rings trilogy but many of them looked funky. I really liked the look if the Orcs/Goblins/Azog in The Hobbit. They looked pretty darn real to me.
 
if PJ made all the orcs and Uruks CGI in LOTR, today they would show their age and look dated, even Gollum shows that in some scenes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top