Something is wrong here...

B

BrendanRawa

The Shire
I'm going to provide you with several images of GCI and SFX in both the lord of the rings trilogy, produced over a decade, and the brand new hobbit movie.
exhibit 1: the cave troll
http://www.geocities.ws/khallandra/Fellowship/cavetroll2_lrg.jpg
http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/An-Unexpected-Journey-Trailer-Breakdown-12.jpg

exhibit 2: the warg
http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20061224140110/lotr/images/3/37/Warg.jpg
http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/An-Unexpected-Journey-Trailer-Breakdown-22.jpg

exhibit 3: gollum
http://pagexof366.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/gollum.jpg
http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/An-Unexpected-Journey-Trailer-Breakdown-19.jpg

exhibit 4: THE GOBLINS
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120209161424/lotr/images/d/dd/Goblins2.jpg
http://webzoom.freewebs.com/thetruehobbits/0000000000agobfreaky.jpg
Notice they are actors, dressed in awesome costumes...
http://www.empireonline.com/images/uploaded/An-Unexpected-Journey-Trailer-Breakdown-13.jpg
...and that is the hobbit...

Why does 10 year old GCI look better? It blends nicer, isn't as over the top and in your face, has much more texture and quality...
 
pretty much all your LOTR images are publicity images or drawn from media where there is no motion blur, etc.

All your Hobbit images are drawn from that trailer. They show motion blur and the screenshots may have been taken from lower quality media.

You need to compare publicity images to publicity images or youtube video screencaps to youtube video screencaps to get good comparison data.
 
... TH definitely has different CGI style, with less realism

Here are some possible explanations:

1. Overall tone is lighter - more cartoonish CGI
2. 3D makes more contrast necessary (less subtle)
3. Trolls - in TH have names and talk, certainly not like LOTR cave trolls (see #1)
4. Gollum - younger, healthier
5. Goblins - I believe in the vlogs they mentioned making TH goblins non-human in form. LOTR orcs had a human form so it was easier to use live-action actors.

Especially concerning is the Goblin-King, he looks way too silly to take seriously. Just a brief shot of the wargs, but I hope as well that they look more realistic.
 
I still feel that the cave troll from FOTR is the best bit of CGI I have ever seen. It is so amazingly life-like.

In comparison, the trolls from the AUJ trailer seem very cartoonish.

However, I will reserve judgment until the film is released.
 
please there's no way one can judge the CGI on a highly compressed trailer from an individuals' personal computer. I mean one can judge of course, but they'll be able to more accurately judge once the film comes out and one can see it in a proper environment.

right now all this hullabaloo is a waste of time.
 
For the most part, people will watch the Hobbit films on their computers and TVs far more than they will in the cinema.

So, is the computer and TV not a proper environment?

Just sayin'.
 
it's an unfortunate state of affairs these days for my industry that people are watching the hours and hours of meticulous detail go to crap on tiny screens.

The cinema is still the best way to see films and I'm happy filmmakers are still striving to create a real cinematic experience.

I cannot stand to watch films on a phone, tiny tv, airplane, etc.

It's disrespectful and disgusting and it makes me weep.
[:(]
 
If you watch Fellowship of the Ring, instead of the publicity photos there, you'll see the rudimentary CGI for the trolls as compared to today's CGI.

Technology available to WETA Digital today is far, far more advanced than what they had available during LotR. They did a stunning job that still holds up, especially considering when they made it, but the detail and realism in movement of CG creatures is far more advanced today.

Davy Jones from Pirates of the Caribbean and some of the shots in Avatar done by WETA Digital are my favorite CG. Sometimes CGI will always look like CGI though, for sure. But sometimes, there is an amazing shot that fools you quite a bit.
 
apologies SA, I feel very strongly as it's my livelihood and to see it go to waste on our crappy computer screens and terrible compression rates upsets me to no end.

alas that's just the way things are going.

I can't even watch movies on netflix, ugh gross. barf.
 
Last edited:
that is one argument for 48fps I always thought made sense (but not one I recall seeing made here before). Higher resolution stock is a way to address the downgrading that occurs on portable (smaller) screens and due to streaming.

On the other hand, having more data per second is going to gobble up bandwidth and probably cause more lag than there is now.
 
Maybe it's because my living room is so comfy, but anytime I try watching a movie at home (I do have an ok HDTV and bluray player) I either fall asleep or get distracted.

I genuinely love the immersive and committed environment of the movie theatre.
 
All I meant to say is that the films will eventually leave the cinemas, and the only way people will be able to watch them is on the computers and the TVs they can afford.

So, in that context, computers and TVs must be seen as a proper environment, that's all.

I want these films to hold up well in any format, really.
 
Last edited:
What you end up watching on your computer or TV will have been formatted for a DVD, not a theater screen. Instead of comparing apples (watching a trailer on a computer scree on a computer or TV). and oranges (watching a movie on a theater screen), you're now adding pears (watching a DVD on a computer or TV). Many conclusions can be drawn right now on how the trailer looks on a computer, or even a big screen TV, but I can tell you first hand that they have no bearing on how it looks in a theater, and neither one of those is the same as how it will look on a DVD.

I remember the first copy of Fellowship I bought was on a *gasp* VCR tape after having seen it in theaters. I knew the quality was poorer, but what was a poor girl to do at the time. Once I upgraded to a DVD I was stunned at the details I had missed, and again when I upgraded to a Blue Ray. Formatting is key, and enhanced formatting in final form is everything.
 
that's what is so tricky these days.

Up until the 80s the only way people saw films was in the cinema, but now there are so many viewing mediums and there are really whole companies devoted to adjusting the original final product so that it looks best on say someone's iphone. However, very rarely are the original filmmakers involved with this part of the process.
 
with the Warg scene, Whether there is motion blur or not, at least the wargs 10 years ago looked like something that could be a real beast, actually "IN" the scene. These new wargs while looking more wolf like also look more cartoonish and fake, like they have been placed over the scene and not actually in the scene. Same goes for some of the goblins in Goblin Town some of them just look like they filmed the scenes and then put them on top of the scene to include them. They don't feel like they are "in" the scene as it was shot...

LOTR the creatures and CG elements felt like they were a part of the scene even if there were limitations as some people say, while the new CG while supposedly being better and more realistic has creatures looking super imposed over the scene or cartoonish instead of feeling real. I just think too many people either have blinders on not wanting to see these things or are just willing to accept this IMO subpar CG just because WETA is responsible for it. Granted I think it looks ok, but a bit too Narniaish (which wasn't WETA responsible for some of that too?) instead of the realistic looking world we got with LOTR. The trolls now I think are alright bit cartoonish but we haven't seen Stone trolls yet in LOTR they are a different breed of trolls than the cave trolls we got in LOTR, so IMO they are a bit easier to accept, but still have that cartoonish edge to them but at least THEY look like they are "in" the scene, unlike the newly designed wargs.

I know people are saying different feel to the Hobbit and they would be right if we were discussing the books but Peter Jackson has been saying since these films became a reality that He wanted them to fit together just like one big piece of work. To start chronologically at the beginning to the end keep us immersed in the same world. This middle earth from the Hobbit so far has too much of a different feel to have all the films feel as one big piece IMO. Hopefully they are still tinkering with effects and CG in post on the films even the scenes we saw in the trailer because I agree some of the scenes we did see fall short of middle earths already in place standards of quality and the detail based in realism...
 
Last edited:
People had been watching movies on television for decades before the advent of home video- albeit via broadcast television.

There were major network presentations as well as hundreds of local movie shows; the features were all edited for commercial breaks, widescreen films were presented in pan and scan. Networks used to have bidding wars over broadcast rights for blockbuster films, which would air many months - even years - after they had disappeared from theaters. All ancient history.

However, I totally agree with you that nothing can compare with seeing a movie correctly presented in a first rate theater, up on the big screen, in the dark, with an audience. Not only do you see the film in all its glory as intended by its creators, there is also the sense of occassion seeing a movie with fellow fans. I leave aside discussion of pokey auditoriums, uncalibrated sound systems, annoying texters and screaming kids that can on occassion be a part of modern movie going experience.

Lastly, I also agree it's premature to compare CGI between LOTR and TH until we have the latter in theaters.
 
Some of these goblins are full body costumes, and some are CG. I can't tell which ones so obviously they did a good job:
http://heirsofdurin.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/t99.jpg

Though I agree it's easy to notice that the goblin fighting Bilbo is CG, but if it is Grinnah then he will be a mixture of both. Stephen Ure is playing him, and there will be costumes and prosthetics.

The main reason they decided to do more CG goblins is because the costumes had to be so detailed for the 48fps, which also required more advanced masks. There has to be blinking eyes, moving nostrils, skin wrinkling etc. In the end it became too hard for the performers to move around, hear and even see due to all the technological components inside the masks.

Plus you're basing this one a couple of seconds of footage. I'm sure they'll look great in the final movie.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top