[They developed there own special effects as they were going along. If that was true why was Jar Jar Binks so fake. Gollum is possibly the first CGI character that fully interacts with real actors thats actually believable, if you think that isn't groundbreaking then your a moron.]
we were talking about the original trilogy, which was groundbreaking in effects, yes lotr came up with massive, but gollum being real was more to do with the actor than anything else.
Originally posted by pr1983
i think people hate rotj because of the ewoks.
thats what most people that dont like that one seem to hate it for,with me its because of two main reasons. 1.Except for Lando,the acting was not believeable like it was in the first two films from the main characters,2.that whole thing of Leia and Luke becoming brothers and sisters at the end was so corny and stupid.That pretty much ruined the whole thing for me right there.
Originally posted by daronisgod
If you guys are going to ignore my posts then I'm going to keep shouting louder, Lucas could do whatever he wanted to because he was starting with nothing. PJ on the other hand had the much more difficult task of making a book that people had been saying was impossible to film into something anyone could enjoy.SO STOP SAYING "ALL JACKSON HAD TO DO..." because its bull.
I see you have the crystal ball now, I did ask to borrow it first.
Afraid not. They developed there own special effects as they were going along. If that was true why was Jar Jar Binks so fake. Gollum is possibly the first CGI character that fully interacts with real actors thats actually believable, if you think that isn't groundbreaking then your a moron.
There were many CGI characters made before LOTR so it wasn't like they were the first to do that, so again, how was that revolutionary?
Originally posted by Mr Parker
thats what most people that dont like that one seem to hate it for,with me its because of two main reasons. 1.Except for Lando,the acting was not believeable like it was in the first two films from the main characters,2.that whole thing of Leia and Luke becoming brothers and sisters at the end was so corny and stupid.That pretty much ruined the whole thing for me right there.
Yeah, I didn't like either of the things you mentioned and, but having the best space battle out of all the Star Wars movies, and having that final battle between Father and son still saved it for me and really liked it. Having Ewoks was another example of being limited by the technology back then. It was not possible to have Wookies instead, because they could not have gotten that many seven ft. guys to wear the Wookie costumes, just wasn't possible. But now, in Ep III, since they have the technology, they can just make the wookies digital and it won't be a problem. I think Lucas is probably having Wookies in Ep. III since he wasn't able to in ROTJ.
He had Wookiee senators in Episode 1 in the Galactic Senate, and there are plenty of archives photos of multiple wookies.Technology has absolutely nothing to do with it, and if he could find 100 small people to fill the roles of Ewoks in ROTJ, he could find men for the Wookiee roles, and he has for Episode 3, for the Kashyyk scenes.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
He had Wookiee senators in Episode 1 in the Galactic Senate, and there are plenty of archives photos of multiple wookies.Technology has absolutely nothing to do with it, and if he could find 100 small people to fill the roles of Ewoks in ROTJ, he could find men for the Wookiee roles, and he has for Episode 3, for the Kashyyk scenes.
It has everything to do with it. He only has about 10 guys in Wookie suits, the rest are all CGI, which they couldn't do for ROTJ. Yes they had wookie senators in EP 1, but they didn't have 100 like they would've needed for ROTJ. Lucas even said this in the commentary, that he had to design the story around the technology that was available, so that he didn't get to go everywhere or see everything he had wanted in the story.
Originally posted by Cinemaddiction
You made it sound as if the costuming had something to do with the technology, which it didn't. Digital wookiees are bad news, and totally unncessary, given the human element is readily available.
If you could find 100 7 ft. tall guys who were agile enough to perform the scene, then yes it would be possible, but seeing as that would be very hard, it's not really possible. There aren't even 100 7 ft. tall players in the NBA, which has some of the most athletic tall people in the world, so I think it would be very hard to find a 100 just to do a small part in a movie.
Originally posted by pr1983
[They developed there own special effects as they were going along. If that was true why was Jar Jar Binks so fake. Gollum is possibly the first CGI character that fully interacts with real actors thats actually believable, if you think that isn't groundbreaking then your a moron.]we were talking about the original trilogy, which was groundbreaking in effects, yes lotr came up with massive, but gollum being real was more to do with the actor than anything else.
Actually Massive is what lets them have armies of thousands on the screen, acting independantly.
I don't think Massive had anything to do with Gollum.
My point was that Gollum is the most realistic and believable CGI character.
Of course Star Wars was groundbreaking it was made when I was a kid, when my brothers had to programme their own games, and the games they did programme were neolithic compared to the games they have now.
But that doesn't mean LOTR didn't do anything groundbreaking either, I'm sorry but if you believe there have been CGI characters as believable and realistic as Gollum, then I'd like proof. Watch the scene in ROTK where Gollum is talking in his sleep... they do a close up of Gollum, his skin is so detailed and realistic its unbelievable.
Originally posted by cal31
The LOTR world is small compared to Star Wars, if you think Middle Earth is bigger than a galaxy, that's your own problem.
A world as in history, which any real world has to have, you can go as far back in LOTR history as you like, right back to creation, this isn't about the actual size of the world, its about the world itself and the characters and events in that world.
Originally posted by cal31
There were many CGI characters made before LOTR so it wasn't like they were the first to do that, so again, how was that revolutionary?
We're talking believability here, we're talking about how realistic the character is, Gollum had to be believable because you have to react to him the way you would a real actor, but what we're looking at on screen is computer generated and CGI characters have never been believable enough to take seriously, until Gollum.
Star Wars>Lord Of The Rings
I am basing this on the Lord of the Rings Films as I have not read the books. I love all three of Star Wars films and I cant say the same for LOTR. I loved the first LOTR and TTT was good too but ROTK was like watching the end half of TTT twice but with little differences on how the huge battle(s) took place. If I had to choose between LOTR and SW it will definitely be SW by a long shot but my favorite films of all time are The Matrix Films.
I don't think Massive had anything to do with Gollum.
i didn't say it did, i said that the graphics for gollum had been done before. U can have life like graphics as much as you want, without serkis' performance gollum would'nt have seemed real. Gollum's looks were not groundbreaking, spirits within was gollums precursor, the graphical quality was not created by lotr, it was expanded upon, thats not groundbreaking.
Originally posted by pr1983
i didn't say it did, i said that the graphics for gollum had been done before. U can have life like graphics as much as you want, without serkis' performance gollum would'nt have seemed real. Gollum's looks were not groundbreaking, spirits within was gollums precursor, the graphical quality was not created by lotr, it was expanded upon, thats not groundbreaking.
Sorry but this seemed to imply you did think Massive had to do with Gollum...
Originally posted by pr1983
yes lotr came up with massive, but gollum being real was more to do with the actor than anything else.
Yes you are partly right, Andy Serkis's performance was a big part of what made Gollum real, but equally so did the CGI, it is Gollum's detail that makes him realistic.
If its true that Gollum wasn't groundbreaking in his realism then show me a CGI character as believable as Gollum.
Peter Jackson: "We... built Gollum from scratch – using new software that had been written, new software that our guys had written – and improved him a lot."
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/380/380092p1.html?fromint=1
Much of Gollum's realism, believability is in the detail.
People forget Gollum is CGI for a reason, the same reason they forget that the trolls on Pelennor Fields are CGI, its odd but it hadn't even occured to me that those trolls are CGI until someone mentioned it, that is the true measure of CGI success that you don't notice it isn't real, that it doesn't even occur to you, you don't even think about it, I know I didn't.
Originally posted by daronisgod
There are plenty of LOTR conventions, believe me.
really? Ive never EVER heard of them. And have they been going strong over 20 years now? Internationally and on the same size and scope as the SW ones? Somehow I doubt that.
Actually its totally the opposite way round, LOTR made Orlando famous, he was still at acting school when LOTR got hold of him.Take it from another old woman, I've been a LOTR fan for about twenty years, so has my sister, my mum has been one for at the very least thirty years. So just because your experience is that you read LOTR once and then forgot about it, it does NOT speak for everyone, not even close... don't use your own limited experience to draw conclusions about something like LOTR... it has been popular for fifty years, LOTR stays with most people for life... your point is well... pointless because its based on nothing at all, how could that possibly be true when its been popular for so long.
I never said my experience spoke for everyone. What I said was "many of us have read it and forgotten about it". Many does not = everyone. If you are going to respond to a quote I make please dont twist the quote. And whether you choose to accept it or not EVERYONE has a point. So saying someones opinion is pointless is well.......rude and speaks volumes to me about your maturity level.
On the other hand I watched SW when it first came out and I really couldn't give a stuff about it, in fact now I find it boring, so this is clearly an entirely personal thing, so you can't base any assumptions on it, because it doesn't apply to everyone, not even close.
Whether a person likes SW or LOTR is based on their personal likes and dislikes, but I'd be willing to bet that in the US anyway if you lined people up the SW fanbase would overwhelm the LOTR fan base.
Originally posted by darktim1
peter jackson said if george lucas did'nt event the digital tech stuff that he would'nt have been able to make lotr.But I have to say I love both trilogys they are amazing to watch and we should be glad that their are movies like this to watch for now may ring be withyou.
Very true