The "Possible Perils" of Special Effects - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

**The Saucepan Man** · 11-25-2004, 05:56 AM

Quote:

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 · 11-25-2004, 04:52 PM

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 · 11-29-2004, 10:44 AM

Quote:

(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 · 11-29-2004, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sapphire_Flame

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

How utterly flattering!

davem · 11-29-2004, 11:27 AM

See - no-one can tell us apart

Then again, maybe everyone expects the most brilliant ideas to come from me

(There's a compliment in there, Fordim, if you look hard enough.)

***Mister Underhill*** · 12-11-2004, 01:11 AM

There are really only three effects in the films that make me cringe and look away: Legolas shield-surfing, Théoden's old-mummy to spry-warrior-king transformation, and the much-discussed Galadriel temptation scene. Interestingly, I think the latter might have been salvaged by decent audio (tip o' the hat to Fordim).

But FX schmFX. FX are simply another tool in the director's toolbox, one which can be used skillfully or clumsily. I commend Jackson on his extensive use of practical effects (i.e., non-computer generated effects): use of forced perspective and different scale sets and props to sell hobbits as hobbit-sized, for instance, or the building of the Golden Hall on an actual bluff in the middle of a rugged wilderness instead of on a bluescreen soundstage.

On the other hand, Jackson's deficiencies as a director -- which I think can all be boiled down to a lack of subtlety -- are as evident in the writing, in the staging of certain scenes, and in particular acting choices as they are in the use of visual effects. I don't think, in short, that taking CGI effects out of Jackson's toolbox would have significantly improved the cycle of films; on the contrary, I think that high-quality, mostly well-conceptualized effects (visual and aural) are one of the films' main strengths.

P.S. -- Before I'm pounced upon by Jackson devotees, let me say that I think he has many virtues as a director: an excellent design sense, good visual instincts, and an enthusiasm for his work which translates to the screen. I also admire that he has created a team and a working environment which seems to put as much emphasis on enjoying the process of filmmaking as on the finished product.

I think his talents will better serve straight up popcorn fare like the upcoming King Kong, though I'm a fan of the LotR films as well, for all their flaws.

Galadriel55 · 03-20-2011, 10:18 AM

Hmm. I actually rather liked the Galadriel-temptation-scene effects.

Aside from some of the already-metioned ones, I really dislike how PJ made Minas Tirith's walls crumble when they were catapulted. Minas Tirith is unassailable!

But - generally - the sound effects were ok. Especially the music.

11-25-2004, 04:52 PM	#2
Fordim Hedgethistle Gibbering Gibbet Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Beyond cloud nine Posts: 1,844	The sound of silence 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. __________________ Scribbling scrabbling.

11-29-2004, 11:27 AM	#5
davem Illustrious Ulair Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: In the home of lost causes, and forsaken beliefs, and unpopular names,and impossible loyalties Posts: 4,240	See - no-one can tell us apart Then again, maybe everyone expects the most brilliant ideas to come from me (There's a compliment in there, Fordim, if you look hard enough.) __________________ “Everything was an object. If you killed a dwarf you could use it as a weapon – it was no different to other large heavy objects."

03-20-2011, 10:18 AM	#7
Galadriel55 Blossom of Dwimordene Join Date: Oct 2010 Location: The realm of forgotten words Posts: 10,520	Hmm. I actually rather liked the Galadriel-temptation-scene effects. Aside from some of the already-metioned ones, I really dislike how PJ made Minas Tirith's walls crumble when they were catapulted. Minas Tirith is unassailable! But - generally - the sound effects were ok. Especially the music. __________________ You passed from under darkened dome, you enter now the secret land. - Take me to Finrod's fabled home!... ~ Finrod: The Rock Opera Last edited by Galadriel55; 03-20-2011 at 10:29 AM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

12-11-2004, 01:11 AM	#6
*Mister Underhill* Dread Horseman Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Behind you! Posts: 2,744	There are really only three effects in the films that make me cringe and look away: Legolas shield-surfing, Théoden's old-mummy to spry-warrior-king transformation, and the much-discussed Galadriel temptation scene. Interestingly, I think the latter might have been salvaged by decent audio (tip o' the hat to Fordim). But FX schmFX. FX are simply another tool in the director's toolbox, one which can be used skillfully or clumsily. I commend Jackson on his extensive use of practical effects (i.e., non-computer generated effects): use of forced perspective and different scale sets and props to sell hobbits as hobbit-sized, for instance, or the building of the Golden Hall on an actual bluff in the middle of a rugged wilderness instead of on a bluescreen soundstage. On the other hand, Jackson's deficiencies as a director -- which I think can all be boiled down to a lack of subtlety -- are as evident in the writing, in the staging of certain scenes, and in particular acting choices as they are in the use of visual effects. I don't think, in short, that taking CGI effects out of Jackson's toolbox would have significantly improved the cycle of films; on the contrary, I think that high-quality, mostly well-conceptualized effects (visual and aural) are one of the films' main strengths. P.S. -- Before I'm pounced upon by Jackson devotees, let me say that I think he has many virtues as a director: an excellent design sense, good visual instincts, and an enthusiasm for his work which translates to the screen. I also admire that he has created a team and a working environment which seems to put as much emphasis on enjoying the process of filmmaking as on the finished product. I think his talents will better serve straight up popcorn fare like the upcoming King Kong, though I'm a fan of the LotR films as well, for all their flaws.