Eh...I didn't care for most of the computer animated monsters, etc, in LotR, though I understand why it was done. I felt the trolls especially detracted from the battles in the Return of the King. Gollum was great, much more tolerable--but then again, it seemed as if much more effort had gone into making him look as good as possible with the technology available.

Filmmakers seem to rely on computer animation now. It's absolutely overused.

How owuld you have prefered them deal with the dozens of trolls in LotR? It would have cost so much more in time and effort if they had put the same level of detail into the trolls as they did with Gollum. As it was, they looked perfect in LotR, and looked even better (if that's possible lol) in The Hobbit.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

Obviously they didn't look perfect. They were very easily recognizable as computer animated. Computer animation is arguably the best way--perhaps only way, if animatronics were not possible--for large fantasy creatures such as trolls. But that doesn't mean I have to lower my standards when it's apparent that CGI has now often become a technique for cutting corners. Would it have cost more time and money? Yes. But if you're going to do the job, you'd better do your best.

I'm not disputing the fact that computer animation allows for visuals that would have otherwise been impossible. But, in my opinion, computer animation often detracts from a film visually. The seamless blending of animatronics and computer animation in Jurassic Park still stuns. The real, stunning landscapes of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly still memorize. One of the most important aspects of movie-watching for me is the suspension of disbelief. You have to (subconsciously) allow yourself to believe, for the duration of the movie, that it is real. This is nearly impossible to do when everything popping up on the screen is so apparently fake. Some films might as well be fully animated, like Beowulf--that would be better that the increasingly common awkward mixture of live actors and computer animation like Avatar.

I still haven't seen The Hobbit yet, but from the trailers, there doesn't seem to be a great improvement in the CGI from LotR. This is compounded by the fact that the CGI seems to have been used a whole lot more.

All that being said--the computer animation in the Lord of the Rings really is pretty good compared to most other films.

How can you possibly say something looks real or not when it's is obviously a fantasy creation? Who's to say that trolls don't really look like that? No one, because they aren't real. Considering both when it was made and the things that were in it, LotR had some of the best CG. Meanwhile, it's blatantly obvious which dinosaurs were CG and which were animatronixs in Jurrasic Park.

I really don't see how you can judge a film's CG just from the trailers. You can't form an opinion off of them.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

I'll just throw my 2 cents behind this. Usually, trailers have hastily completed scenes that may not be indicative of the final product.

_________________
Gondor: 2339pts
Rohan: 1318pts
Dwarves: 2482pts
Elves: 1091pts
Mordor: 2305pts
Isengard: 1762pts
Moria: 1463pts
Evil Men: 381pts

I'll concede I cannot judge the quality of the Hobbit CGI from the trailers--but it is obvious that much more CGI was used, which is the main point, the main thing I dislike.

Who's to say trolls wouldn't look like that in real life? As in, who's to say the trolls wouldn't look digitally rendered in real life? The trolls look computer animated in LotR. Regardless if it's a fantasy creation or not, you can tell they were digitally rendered with computer technology. I'm not arguing if their anatomical structure or apparent texture would be biologically possible in real life, but here's the thing: live action actors and animatronics are real. They exist in reality and can be physically filmed on screen. Computer generations are not real. So OF COURSE (if done properly) live actors and animatronics will look more "real" than CGI, even if the object in question is a fantasy creature like a troll.

Take a look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... 1iVJExd5vA

It is still possible to differentiate animatronics from living actors, so there is still an element of "fakeness" about animatronics. They're "real," so to speak, but you can tell they aren't living, breathing creatures. However, compare especially the gorilla in this clip to the apes from Rise of the Planet of the Apes--then compare both to a real gorilla. Which movie-magic option looks more convincing?

I understand that CGI is more practical in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. But the argument is which option looks more real, and imo the film would have benefited is the believability department if a mixture of both options would have been used.

Everything in this clip looks better on-screen than every CGI element in LotR. I'm not saying LotR should have been devoid of CGI, that would have been impractical, and in the case of Gollum, the worse choice. But the physical presence of a properly done animatron troll would have been much more convincing. I don't feel like just accepting that the trolls--or others--were perfectly done when they could have been better. They were "good enough" for the trilogy based on the standards set by Gollum. Even if you could call them "great," even if their appearance was the most practical option, is must be admissible that they were very obviously computer animated, and that there was room for improvement in making them more convincingly real.

Even if you can tell when the dinosaurs are CGI or animatrons, the computer animation in JP is easily just as good as most of the CGI in LotR, imo. It doesn't seem like the industry has come very far. Rather, the increased use of CGI (more commonly used, more of it used per film) has harmed its credulity.

I personally would rather look at the gorillas from RotPotA than a movie with the gorilla from that video. I feel that good CG is better than great animatronix, but that's just me. By perfect for the trolls, I don't just mean in looks, which I thought they looked great, but also in practicallity. I could easily tell the difference between the CG in JP and LotR, and I could DEFINITELY tell the differnce between the CG in LotR and TH.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

I would have voted for CGI were it not for the hobbit movie. I loved it but I don't think there was enough live action characters, case and point is Azog, they could have done
him like gothmog or lurtz but they didn't which annoyed me.
That might have been because I saw it in 24frames 2d, but until I see it in 3d 48frames I'm going to stick to my opinion that they would have been better with more practical effects.

_________________
Fight! Fight to the last man!

If this was to be our end then I would have them make SUCH AN END as to be worthy of remembrance

I guess Gollum is so great since its just 1 to 1 from an actor instead of using the computer for moves (or a mix maybee even).

Well...fair enough. No point dragging this out any further, it seems we just have different tastes and expectations for films.

Yes, that's one major reason. CGI allowed for the most fluid motions and best possible character design compared to costume/animatron. I don't think Gollum would have been such a great character had he not been CGI.

In just about every other case though...

From what I heard, Azog was only drafted into the film when they decided to make three movies. To save re-filming every single scene that had included Bolg, they replaced him with a hastily-animated CGI Azog.

_________________
We will seize this chance to TAKE BACK EREBOR!

I cant answer this question. Both are good when done right and both are usually used badly in many, many, many movies.

I think when you compare The Hobbit to Lord of the Rings, its clear that the first has a lot of more noticeable CGI. Personally I think Gollum is the best CGI character ever made and was never as believable as is in the riddles scene. I dont particularly like the design they used for Azog, but both him, the Trolls and Great Goblin are obviously CGI, but its good CGI nontheless.

Could they have been done with prostetics? Maybe. But...

Azog is really big, and so are the Trolls and the Great Goblin. Still, they never had much problem working out the different sizes for hobbits and dwarves and humans and that.
What I think was the main issue when they decided to go completelly CGI for these was that, unlike LOTR, these new characters need to be to show strong face expressions, make wide movements and... talk. Not quick one liners, but quite substancial speaches. That was never the case in LOTR where they had just small lines, here and there. If you watched the dvd extras (wich I'm sure most of us did ad nauseum) I remember Gimli (who had minor prostetics when compared to orcs and uruks) saying that he really had to over act to show some 'face acting' and complaining about all the hours it took to do apply all the parts and do the make up. Now imagine how it would be for someone completelly covered in heavy prostetics who completelly change the face and body layout!

Do you think you could get all the array of emotions you get from Azog, Goblin and Gollum ( in particular) from guys in heavy prostetics? I really dont think so, unless they would make substancial changes in the character designs.

I also read that, for some reason, its more obvious that miniatures and creatures are now less 'realistic' and not as disguised as in the movies 10 years ago. I think the issue is... colour! The pallete in this first movie is bold. The colours are vivid and beautifull reflecting an era where the power of Sauron wasnt strong yet. When you watch LOTR again, particularly movies 2 and 3, the pallete is a lot more subdued and grey, what helps quite a lot to make it look more realistic I think.

_________________
Tell me... Do you bleed?
You will!
Chewy, we're home!

Another point on CGI: there have been many advances in the 10-11 years since the FoTR hit the big screens. And even more advances in the 'unseen' technology behind the rendered finished product - dynamic engines, higher resolution scenes with more elements, improvements in AI, increased computing power, software improvements, a wider range of interface and capture technologies.

I can watch animated films like Shrek, Toy Story, Rango etcetera, with no sense of 'this isn't realistic' as I am immersed in the story and the characters. The only parts of PJ's films that nag me slightly are some of the cheesey bits that are dotted here and there - sometimes referred to as Legolas Moments - the example that annoys me most is the looney mounting of the horse when the Rohirrim charge the warg scouts on the journey to Helm's Deep.

_________________
Published ebooks:
Instrument of the Empire
A Note of Defiance
Phantom Ships, Ghost Flotilla
More to come!

My 'problem' with cgi in the Hobbit was that the 48fps version made the cgi look more fake because everything else looked so real. Andy Serkis is one of my favourite actors and i really like motion capture in sci-fi and fantasy, the best example of this is probably halo 4 or the hobbit. I quite liked how Azog looked but in 3d at 48fps the whole film looked horrible.

Definitely live action over CGI, however I wouldn't fault Pete for the CGI in the Hobbit. With the Goblins it was a no-brainer as they were too small, and most of their environment was tricky. With the Orcs they were on Wargs the whole time; same thing they did in LoTR. And Azog was only CGI'ed because when they realised he was going to be so prominent they had no time to go and make more prothetics and reshoot every scene with him in; they shot a few but most he is CGI'ed over another character.

_________________
"Do not be naive enough to think a small group cannot change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has"