The "Possible Perils" of Special Effects

[Essex]

no, because if you're swept up in a story, I believe it doesn't matter what the effects look like. you're actually THERE inside the movie. I remember seing star wars as a kid back in 1977 and it was amazing. I still look at the movie now and am not bothered by some of the death star closeups as luke & co are attacking looking like something you'd build out of some washing up bottles and some sticky black plastic (us british 30 somethings will understand this reference).

I still look at the old buster crabbe Flash Gordon black and white movies and it transports me back to christmas mornings on bbc when I was a kid. I don't care the if the effects look dated. If the story is good enough, then fine.

Thinking of this as I write, like a good wine, LOTR might get even BETTER in years time when we aren;t overawed by the effects and the quality of the pictures, when these may well look normal run of the mill. we'll TOTALLY forget that it's a movie and be totally transported to Middle-earth (except when we see Jackson or his kids - these bits always drag me kicking and screaming back to the real world)

[Lalwendë]

Very good question, Child!

I think that the use of so many special effects was inevitable in trying to portray a fantasy novel. For me, I was quite impressed with them, although knowing a little too much about exactly how they were done takes away a certain amount of the magic. Why did I find them impressive? I found that I didn't actually notice they were special effects! It was all 'real' to me. One or two things did jar, particularly when Bilbo had his 'turn' - I did not like this, possibly as I have such a marked affection for the dear old Hobbit; I found it intrusive. Also, there were a few too many Oliphaunts in the Battle of the Pelenor Fields; though I know many will have particularly enjoyed them, I kept thinking "hang on, this is like an Errol Flynn film".

Yes, special effects do age, but then in many years time that will add charm, rather like the charm of the old Doctor Who films with the slightly wonky daleks.

[Rimbaud]

No critique of the effects in this filmic set is complete without a discussion about the Army of the Dead. I for one was massively disappointed, as although they had something of the deux ex machina about them in the novel, PJ took it to an extreme, and essentially had them win the entire day in a big, not particularly visually pleasing or stimulating, green splurge.

It was highly anticlimactic, andmy non-Tolkien-appreciating companion found it even more ridiculous than I. (This, however, is the lady who laughed hysterically as Denethor attempted the Minas Tirith High Diving Gold Medal, in the same film).

And sadly, Treebeard reminded me of nothing so much as those novelty dancing and singing xmas trees that crop up in supermarkets around this time of year.

Even some of the good stuff was bad - by this, I reference the sweeping panoramic shots of the great battles and set-pieces. Which was all very dramatic, but also over-wrought, and left me thinking about the effect itself, not the image. This relates to Child's deeper criticism, that the dependence on these action-flurries and Massive Picture filming detracted from the humanist elements of the film.

The Cave-Troll seemed very clumsy animation, too.

On the plus side, the Balrog was ace, and indeed the whole Bridge of KD scene was superb.

Reference Bêthberry's comments: she and I had a conversation about Galadriel's scene with her little wobble, and came to the same conclusion from different perspectives. Bb was sad that they had not chosen a more mature actress, with a greater range than Blanchett, who would not have needed the effects for the effect, if you know what I mean. I, on the other hand, respecting CB very much as an actress (Elizabeth, anyone?) was saddened that they had felt her ability needed to be so clumsily augmented. I would rather that had been a straight acting scene, not the high camp that turned out on film. In any case, that scene was one of the best examples of unnecessary dependence on the FX dept.

~Rim

[Essex]

re Galadriel's 'turn'

I don't blame Jackson too much for his view on Galadriel demeanour (for want of a better word) as she's tempted by the Ring. The reason:

Take a look at what Tolkien wrote (I admit this was straight AFTER her words, not during them)

She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.

to show the last sentence in bold 'filmically' we must have something to contrast it to. Jackson took the words (above in italics) and put his stance on them. To me it worked well, especially when she 'diminshes' and shudders after her outburst.

[Estelyn Telcontar]

Just a brief reply for now; the one thing that immediately springs to my mind is the over-importance of the battle of Helm's Deep, which I suspect comes from the use of special effects for the armies (That 'Massive' software they developed had to make itself paid!). It was given so much weight in the movie that it seems to be more central than the battle of Pelennor Fields when comparing them in the context of the whole trilogy.

[Boromir88]

Child, I love this thread you have started. First off, because special effects can hurt or help a movie. The Matrix Trilogy comes to mind, the first movie was great. Then the Wachowski (sp?) brothers got too carried away in their special effects, and the movies just got worse, until I just wanted to puke after seeing the 3rd one.

As for LOTR, I wasn't bothered by many of the special effects. I think as Lalwende says they seemed pretty real, especially the Mumakil.

Rimbaud has already pointed out my biggest complaint, the Dead Army green blobs. (Why didn't Sauron just call in the "Ghostbusters?") Here's one that's not a big one, but just kind of looks cheezy. Legolas' dismount from the Cave Troll. But the Cave Troll was great .

[Sapphire_Flame]

Very interesting thread, Child!

I agree that some of the FX were rather overdone. What leaps instantly to my mind (as it has to yours in many cases) is the Army of the Dead. My family and I have a joke about them being Scrubbing Bubbles, sweeping into Minas Tirith and scrubbing away the orcs!

Helm's Deep was a bit much; considering it had one chapter in the books, I think it didn't have to be as long as it did. It occasionally makes me laugh, when I listened to the actors moaning about how difficult it was to do all those night shoots, when the scene (and consquentally the shooting time) could have been much shorter! And even as it was, the scene was much condensed from all the footage PJ wanted to include. Although, I will give the scene a nod, as PJ refrained from sending Arwen to fight.

On the other hand, I did like the Battle of the Pelennor. Maybe PJ learned his lesson before?

Abedithon le,

~ Saphy ~