If you think that it is better than a real action character would have been yo are deluded . . . . if you can watch Gollum on screen and NOT think, "boy, that sure is good CGI" then you are Special . . . because that is all that happens when I look at him!!!
If you watch the "making of..." documentaries, they show how they did it. Serkis really did act in the scenes, and was motion-captured. He was then painted out of the film and Gollum was put in, mirroring his movements. They also matched gollum's face to Serkis and mirrored his facial expressions. It really was a virtual Serkis in that role. That's very different than just having a computer-generated gollum, where the computer animators are doing the acting.
I'm aware of all that . . . . but still, they 'painted' in his hair and facial features etc . . . . there is no way to mimic with a CG the complexity and depth of a real image so that we don't see it as a computer image and in someway feel it as one . . .
I think that explains why so many of the edits are so FAST!!! something I also think is annoying!!!
That way we don't have time to really focus on how much what we are seeing is basically a glorified cartoon
I sat down with my folks to watch it two nights ago....WOW that thing lasted forever with the new footage....and you're all right, the extended and added scenes were FANTASTIC.
There was a strange/choppy edit after Haldir and the elven archers arrive at Helm's Deep (non canon).
Did anybody else notice that? I had to back up to make sure that nobody had leaned into the remote and skipped a scene!
Haven't gotten to the additional materials yet, but I need to get my Dad to watch the Making of Gollum material because he walked around saying that they just based it on Peter Lorre. It will be fun to let a 72 year old see how they made "the frog" come to life.
The documentary on disc 3 about adapting the book to film was ridiculous. Hearing the script team say (to paraphrase) "the way we wrote it for the film was better and how it should have been done" really pissed me off. Specifically the part about Shelob and how they felt it didn't belong in The Two Towers. It's obvious Peter Jackson and his crew don't care as much as they profess to staying true to what Tolkien wrote.
I always understood changes needed to be made, and that's the way of the beast. But to hear them describe the changes and trumpet them as being better than the original is total horseshit. I personally didn't mind the changes that were made until I watched this 30 minute self felatio session. Now it makes the changes seem too self serving and egotistical.
Also, I thought Ian McKellen's acting was a bit over done, but I also thought it fit with what I always thought Gandalf would be like, so I thought it worked well.
McKellen is such a great actor (See Apt Pupil, among others). I trust that if he feels the need to over act a role a bit then the role probably calls for that.
They're talking about for a movie. Tolkein didn't write a screenplay that they changed. Movies and books are different, especially WRT pacing issues, where books allow far more latitude.
Also, he wrote them as one volume, not a trilogy, so I hardly see the problem with moving some scenes around.
I can't imagine non-fans spending 7 years on something.
A friend of mine who is a Tolkien *FANATIC* (no, really - he blows massive amounts of $ on antique collectibles, etc) went to an opening day showing of LOTR with me. (It was his fourth showing that day.)
He had no problem with it... and he was able to explain why succinctly: "I have the audio BBC production that Tolkien did, reading the trilogy aloud. It is 37 hrs long." 37 hrs. They took 37 hrs of spoken word and condensed it to 10 hrs of film.
And people are upset because not every detail made it in. :P
There's staying literal and then staying true. A degree of literality is needed to extract meaning, but you have to progress rather quickly to exploring the truth of something or you risk boring amateurish work. Look at all those religions who insist on literal readings of the bible as "truth" just for starters -- since it's sure to strike a chord on this board -- but also some modern Shakespearean stage productions which have to include every last damn line for the sake of "authenticity" even when the original performers would have never played the whole thing straight through, and that we know didn't ever do so. We get pompous monstrosities like the Branagh Hamlet, just for instance.
As for acting, I have a difficult time understnding what makes it good. I know when I like it, or don't, and usually that's a pretty good indicator of whether it's good or not, but not always, since sometimes I like something even when I think it's bad, or think something may be great but not like it.
Richard Harris might have some insight into this. When asked about Sir Ian McKellan, he mentioned that some actors are highly proficient, technical masters, but that they have made too much of a science of acting and their performances have a funny quality of excellent yet cold.
There are scenes in LoTR where you can see McKellan pursing his lips and raising an eyebrow just so, altering his voice, whispering some line and not others. It's fun, I think, but it's cold. You put it next to Harris' Haggred and you see differences in quality that you might call one genuine in a way that the other is not ???
Are you talking about his role in the Harry Potter movies or some other film?
Richard Harris played the role of Dumbledore in Harry POTTER. Mc Kellan will replace Richard Harris in the next Harry Potter movie. It will be a way to make a direct comparison between the two actors.
I am ready to bet on Richard Harris, the actor was a giant.
Richard Harris played the role of Dumbledore in Harry POTTER. Mc Kellan will replace Richard Harris in the next Harry Potter movie. It will be a way to make a direct comparison between the two actors.
I am ready to bet on Richard Harris, the actor was a giant.
That was the initial rumor after Harris died, but Michael Gambon was given the part.
Comments
Originally posted by pfflam
If you think that it is better than a real action character would have been yo are deluded . . . . if you can watch Gollum on screen and NOT think, "boy, that sure is good CGI" then you are Special . . . because that is all that happens when I look at him!!!
If you watch the "making of..." documentaries, they show how they did it. Serkis really did act in the scenes, and was motion-captured. He was then painted out of the film and Gollum was put in, mirroring his movements. They also matched gollum's face to Serkis and mirrored his facial expressions. It really was a virtual Serkis in that role. That's very different than just having a computer-generated gollum, where the computer animators are doing the acting.
Originally posted by BRussell
I'm aware of all that . . . . but still, they 'painted' in his hair and facial features etc . . . . there is no way to mimic with a CG the complexity and depth of a real image so that we don't see it as a computer image and in someway feel it as one . . .
I think that explains why so many of the edits are so FAST!!! something I also think is annoying!!!
That way we don't have time to really focus on how much what we are seeing is basically a glorified cartoon
-
I think that explains why so many of the edits are so FAST!!! something I also think is annoying!!!
That way we don't have time to really focus on how much what we are seeing is basically a glorified cartoon
The end shot is pretty sustained. 2+ minutes of gollum crawling and talking.
There was a strange/choppy edit after Haldir and the elven archers arrive at Helm's Deep (non canon).
Did anybody else notice that? I had to back up to make sure that nobody had leaned into the remote and skipped a scene!
Haven't gotten to the additional materials yet, but I need to get my Dad to watch the Making of Gollum material because he walked around saying that they just based it on Peter Lorre. It will be fun to let a 72 year old see how they made "the frog" come to life.
I always understood changes needed to be made, and that's the way of the beast. But to hear them describe the changes and trumpet them as being better than the original is total horseshit. I personally didn't mind the changes that were made until I watched this 30 minute self felatio session. Now it makes the changes seem too self serving and egotistical.
McKellen is such a great actor (See Apt Pupil, among others). I trust that if he feels the need to over act a role a bit then the role probably calls for that.
Originally posted by groverat
Absolutely fantastic.
I agree completely. I have the FotR Extended edition too. Can't wait till the third comes out, though I guess we'll have to wait a year most likely.
Originally posted by drewprops
t they just based it on Peter Lorre.
WOW he hit it on the head . . . . . he looks EXACTLY like the Warner Brothers' cartoon parodies of Peter Lore!!
They're talking about for a movie. Tolkein didn't write a screenplay that they changed. Movies and books are different, especially WRT pacing issues, where books allow far more latitude.
Also, he wrote them as one volume, not a trilogy, so I hardly see the problem with moving some scenes around.
I can't imagine non-fans spending 7 years on something.
He had no problem with it... and he was able to explain why succinctly: "I have the audio BBC production that Tolkien did, reading the trilogy aloud. It is 37 hrs long." 37 hrs. They took 37 hrs of spoken word and condensed it to 10 hrs of film.
And people are upset because not every detail made it in. :P
As for acting, I have a difficult time understnding what makes it good. I know when I like it, or don't, and usually that's a pretty good indicator of whether it's good or not, but not always, since sometimes I like something even when I think it's bad, or think something may be great but not like it.
Richard Harris might have some insight into this. When asked about Sir Ian McKellan, he mentioned that some actors are highly proficient, technical masters, but that they have made too much of a science of acting and their performances have a funny quality of excellent yet cold.
There are scenes in LoTR where you can see McKellan pursing his lips and raising an eyebrow just so, altering his voice, whispering some line and not others. It's fun, I think, but it's cold. You put it next to Harris' Haggred and you see differences in quality that you might call one genuine in a way that the other is not ???
Are you talking about his role in the Harry Potter movies or some other film?
Originally posted by groverat
Haggred?
Are you talking about his role in the Harry Potter movies or some other film?
Richard Harris played the role of Dumbledore in Harry POTTER. Mc Kellan will replace Richard Harris in the next Harry Potter movie. It will be a way to make a direct comparison between the two actors.
I am ready to bet on Richard Harris, the actor was a giant.
Originally posted by Powerdoc
Richard Harris played the role of Dumbledore in Harry POTTER. Mc Kellan will replace Richard Harris in the next Harry Potter movie. It will be a way to make a direct comparison between the two actors.
I am ready to bet on Richard Harris, the actor was a giant.
That was the initial rumor after Harris died, but Michael Gambon was given the part.
I love the poster IMDB has for the 3rd Potter movie. I hope they stick with that.