In theatres: 'Desolation of Smaug' [2] SPOILERS

A quarter of the shots, geez

Jeez, talk about ruining it for the actors. All the realism that helped Lord of the Rings work was tossed out for this.

call me old fashioned but this cgi is ruining cinema. It seems like the handmade sets and skills that made LOTR so real are slowly suffocating under the weight of plastic shiny effects. The only saving grace is still the costumes and prop department, but how long before they cgi clothes on the Actors.

How long before they CGI the actors ?? Wont be long & real, flesh & blood people will be made obsolete, only for Theatre. Im with you Figgs on this. Its getting out of hand now with this CGI. I far more enjoy Ray Harryhausen's attempts at mythology than all this green,blue,pink,purple shit ! I still wonder how the holy heck can actors relate to nothing but a screen or prop like a ball ??? how can they possible find any depth or emotion ? theres no interaction, & even cock ups raise a smile & you get social connection with your friends & fellow actors ! But this ?? Nah, Im not enjoying it as much as the manufacturers said on the tin I would ! 

Not that big a surprise really having seen the movie. The 3D as well gave me that feeling. In short, there wasn't a whole lot in the movie that looked real.

And I agree completely on the acting to a plastic ball, Azriel. It seems some people only see progress there and not it's fallbacks. The strain it puts on the actors and their performances.

And am I wrong in saying that perhaps exactly what the acting performances in DOS was lacking was emotional depth?

the thing is I can fully understand the heavy use of cgi for films like Gravity or Avatar,without cgi those films are nearly impossible. But for Tolkien the closer to the earth it gets the better imo. By earth I mean real people actually walking on real grass, real wind on real trees, real horses (grey) galloping towards real wooden sets like in Rohan.

It isn't the CGI that is the issue, it is the producer that is the issue. CGI can create things that are impossible to do otherwise. You can't, for example, build a fleet of starship and blow the shit out of them just yet.

The issue is when it is taken too far. Textures and colours and the way things move and flow in CGI is all done with mathematical algorithms that just cannot match the same complexity in life just yet. So, you end up with what we see so much of now... stuff that could look amazing that just looks unnatural.

BTW - still not seen this.

I still have the feeling it's going to look incredibly dated just in 5-10 years.   That's always the way when using the latest technology.

But you are right of course, in certain situations CGI is very effective. It's the overuse and using it in situations where the drawbacks are huge as well, yes.

CGI is hugely effective as an addition to a scene. Altering a background, or adding stuff in. Its when its front and centre and is everything on screen it falls apart and you end up in the uncanny valley.

My own preference is for model work supplemented by cgi. The ST franchise is a good example, models still look better than cgi ships, but the best is model ships supplemented by cgi.
Cgi alone lacks a sense of weight, of solidity.

azriel wrote:How long before they CGI the actors ?? Wont be long & real, flesh & blood people will be made obsolete, only for Theatre.

This is my other big concern.  I occurs to me that a major reason for making great actors like McKellen, Blanchett, and Lee, (not to mention Bloom, Weaving and the others) act against a green screen may be economic.

Now that they have nearly perfect digital models of everybody, the LotR prequels and sequels can be dragged on indefinitely, long after all the actors are dead and in their graves.   And at very little cost, just some royalties to the heirs  .

People are much harder- and we are a some ways off convincingly doing that.
With objects and animals its easier to fool the eye, but humans are so good at reading other humans that we spot as false cgi people pretty quickly.

Yeh.. It is facial expressions that never seem to translate well. Even the best examples are a way off.

Beowulf was an interesting example of that- technically it was superb in its time yet the eye is not fooled entirely. (For some reason fat faces same more realistic than thin ones)



An earlier example that was also technically impressive but had the same 'uncanny' feel to it was the Final Fantasy film Spirits Within-

Pettytyrant101 wrote:People are much harder- and we are a some ways off convincingly doing that.
With objects and animals its easier to fool the eye, but humans are so good at reading other humans that we spot as false cgi people pretty quickly.

You mean like the White Council?

I mean like most of the film!

Pettytyrant101 wrote:I mean like most of the film!

My point exactly.

Not only did the CGI look cheap IMO, but it was insanely obvious. I'm thinking about Legolas in particular here. What he's doing isn't cool because I'm fully aware that he's not even doing it, that its a CG version of him. At least in LOTR I couldn't tell most of the time when he was real or fake!

no matter how perfect cgi becomes the eyes of the characters are still dead.

I agree Tin- there is an awe involved in seeing humans perform extraordinary deeds- like watching a great circus act- but when you know its all cgi there is no awe, there is no wonder because there is no reality to it. Its dull and boring instead of exciting and worse there is no sense of danger because there is no danger.

A great exemplary of this are the Bond films- they made their name with incredibly difficult, real world stunts.
When they started using cgi it all fell apart and they wisely went back to using real stunts.

CGI is fine until it replaces creativity and ingenuity. Jackson really changed from the Lord of the Rings to now. Not just in how he treated the source material, but a bit in his directing as well. The models are gone, the real actors are gone for some of the orcs like Azog. His self restraint is gone, replaced with callous ego.

His self restraint is gone, replaced with callous ego. - RA

But that was just the same with LoTR's-   I distinctly remember saying so at the time!   

nope

Blah Blah Blah bloody PJ! etc I can't even be bothered to be properly crabbit anymore, maybe the TABA trailer might have some effect on me...

Incidently, Figgs, what do you think Jackson got right with LOTR in comparison to The Hobbit? Were they purely better films (even Petty would agree with that-to an extent), or stronger/bolder adapatations.

We've had this argument before, and whilst I think LOTR are very good (or at least daring, well made, entertaining) films, much of the approach Jackson took with The Hobbit is evident in the earlier films-stupid jokes, over extended fight sequences, erratic pacing and rewriting character arcs for hollywood convention-they are equally tastless adaptations in many regards, they just succeed more on their own terms, doing more interesting things in the process.

Azog chasing the Dwarves, the love triangle between Planky, Cranky, and pass me a hanky I'm going to throw up (Legolas, Tauriel and the Cheeky midget with something down his trousers) and the Dwarves vs Smaug fight all seemed...obvious to me, as if Jackson was ticking the boxes needed for a paycheck.

Personally for me the very fact that Jackson wrangled $280 million out of New Line to make LOTR in the first place shows a certain lack of restraint! Yet 10 years later with much more clout he's become so much more easier to anticipate...

Planky, Cranky, and pass me a hanky I'm going to throw up  

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Beowulf was an interesting example of that- technically it was superb in its time yet the eye is not fooled entirely. (For some reason fat faces same more realistic than thin ones)

Gawd, did I ever hate this movie