The "Possible Perils" of Special Effects

[HCIsland]

Add me to the list when it comes to the Warg attack. Not because I felt it was gratuitous - I felt it worked very well as far as story structure went - but because of execution, in particular the hyena look of the warg's themselves. Actually, what I really like about the scene is not so much that battle, but the build up to it. I find this quite a lot actually. Jackson does a great job in a number of places jazzing us up for the battles.

I agree that the Dead was overwhelming and Galadriel could have been toned down, but overall, I would say that Jackson had kept himself under control when it came to FX. What I actually find pretty amazing is how many shots contain no FX at all. How much actual scenery and landscapes were used rather than blue screening everything. The obvious counter-example to this would be the recent Star Wars instalements where the shots without effects are the exception rather than the rule, much to the films' detriment IMHO.

H.C.

[Essex]

Davem,

what I'm saying is I wanted War & Peace & got Star Wars, & while there's nothing wrong with either, that's the source of my disappointment.

Ah, now I begin to understand your motives.

Unfortunately, you would never get a War and Peace version on the Cinema Movie screen. Pity really, but impossible. We have to either listen to the BBC audio version (which as good as it was can still be greatly improved) or have a TV mini series filmed in the future which stuck to the books narrative as close as possible, lasting over a number of seasons.

PS We're dissing the Army of the Dead, but again, its just Jackson substituting the men of South Gondor with the Army of the Dead. The battle of Pellenor fields could not have been won without Aragorn and Co, so instead of 'live' humans helping him, Jackson used 'dead' ones, which negated the need for a lengthy summary from Aragorn after the battle explaining how he'd come to Minas Tirith.

The extended edition may well show Aragorn's fight with the Corsairs, and therefore we wouldn't get the 'surprise' of Aragorn turning up at Minas Tirith to save the day: therefore in the EE it would work fine if we had the 'live' people that Aragorn freed from the Corsairs help save the day.

We need to keep in mind the movie maker's viewpoint on when we review these movies. I remember being exactly the same as a lot of people on these forums (ie somewhat negative towards the films) before I listened to the commentaries on FOTR and TT. This has given me a wider view of how films are made, and their constraints. But what it's done mostly is given me an even greater satisfaction of the films, inasmuch as by the time I saw ROTK, I had no real complaints AT ALL about the contents of the film (including the 'green blobs' saving the day). I was dissapointed in what was left out, but understood that these bits would probably be included in the EE.

Indeed my first comment to the missus when the credits started to roll on ROTK was "That was great but I can't wait for the extended version"

[HerenIstarion]

Irrelevant to the discussion, just should confess my ignorance - what is FX?

thank you

[The Saucepan Man]

Originally Posted by HerenIstarion

Irrevelant to the discussion, just should confess my ignorance - what is FX?

thank you

FX = effects

ergo

SFX = special effects.

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

I apologise if this has already been raised in the thread -- I did go through all the posts, but I admit that I perhaps may have, well, skimmed a bit (the volume is a bit daunting!).

Seems to me that by focusing exclusively on the visual effects that we are in danger of neglecting that other at-least-equally-important component, sound effects. A great looking balrog is cool, but if he sounds like an engorged hippo it's going to be silly. The fact that they got the sound of things so dead to rights in the movie was, for me, the real triumph (the balrog, for example, was composed of sounds that they sampled from rocks and stones dragging along concrete or smashing against one another). Other sounds that I think were nothing less than brilliant were the cry of the Nazgul (an important component of which was Fran Walsh screaming her head off), the whoosh of arrows and the reproduction of the Ring's "voice."

I bring this up because sound design is easily the most overlooked (pun intended) aspect of special effects in movies, but one that is absolutely critical. The film's ability to come up with roars that sound like a balrog's roar are, I think, testimony to how effective film can be. It is one thing to imagine a balrog, but it is altogether another to imagine a balrog's roar. That's because it is the image-ination -- the ability to create images in our own minds -- that books appeal to. Very few people have (to coin a word) audimation, or the ability to 'imagine' a noise that they have not heard before.

That's where I think the film is able to transcend its own limitations as a visual representation of a written book, and bring something to the story of Middle-earth that simply cannot exist any other way. Tolkien might have attempted something like "The balrog's roar was as an avalanche of stone" but that is merely simile: the balrog sounds like something else. Only in film is the balrog able to sound like a balrog. When we see a visual effect, we are thinking "that cgi sure looks like a balrog" but we do NOT think "that audio-sampling of concrete bricks, dubbed over with mica and shale striking one another and amplified in the high band sure sounds like a balrog", we think "that's a scary roar!" or even just " " .

Sound is in some way more immediate and believable than sight, and so I think it is more important even than the visual effects. Lucas knew this (just close your eyes sometimes and listen to Star Wars) and PJ figured this out too (again, close your eyes for the Bridge of Khazad-Dum sequence, or for Lothlorien; you won't believe your ears). It's because people aren't paying conscious attention to the sound that it works, I think -- we aren't analyzing it, so it sinks in. I think that's the real magic of movie effects, and like all good magic it works by misdirection. Show us a great looking computer generated monster and get our attention wholly on how it looks, then, while we're looking at that hand, bring in a completely convincing sound effect that we accept uncritically, almost unconsiously, and then *poof* the effect becomes real. Try the converse experiment and watch the effects heavy scenes with the sound entirely off -- you will not believe how much is lost.

[Sapphire_Flame]

(an important component of which was Fran Walsh screaming her head off)

*green* I'd forgotten about that. And what about the cave troll sounding extremely like PJ's attempt on it's roar during a rehersal?

I completely agree with you there, Fordim (great word coinage, btw). The brilliance of the sound effects really up the quality of the movie. It's really sad how many people don't pay attention to them.

And I second Fordim's suggestion: just listen the Bridge of Khazad-dum sequence! It'll knock your socks off.

~ Saphy ~

EDIT: *headdesk* I can't believe I mixed up Fordim and davem! *headdesk again* Sorrysorrysorrysorrysorry!

[Saphy, you are pathetic.]

-_-

[Fordim Hedgethistle]

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Flame

I completely agree with you there, davem. . . And I second davem's suggestion. . .

How utterly flattering!

[Lalwendë]

I always have a preference for TV adaptations purely as there is more time to devote to the stories they are portraying. For me, getting over all the detail and nuance of the novel is important, and is possibly why I am always just a little unsatisfied with book adaptations. I think it was the limits of time involved with film which led to the limits in scriptwriting and hence to the limitations of the film.

However, TV adaptations are not always blessed with large budgets and it takes real skill to make a visually effective adaptation on limited money. One of the features of LOTR is that it needed decent effects - I cannot quite wipe from my mind the fear I had that they would resort to using children as Hobbits or some such cost-cutting scheme. I was pleased that someone with imagination and skill had taken the reigns. And ultimately, despite all of my grumblings, these are films I can watch many times over!

The strange thing is that one major factor in the success of the films not always considered, was the acting, which I found excellent - in the main. In particular, Ian McKellen, Ian Holm, Christopher Lee and Sean Bean. With the quality of their acting, the films could (almost) have gotten away with being made on the most limited of budgets!