The "Possible Perils" of Special Effects

[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 ~

[Essex]

technically, the battle of pellenor fields was also one chapter, comparible in size. (Of course this doesn't count the siege of gondor and the few pages of fighting regarding the ride of the rohirrim)

I think it's a case of jackson and co spent enough time on helm's deep, but not enough time in comparison on everything else, as we would have had 6 movies instead of 3.

now there's a thought. He probably had enough material to eke out 6 movies, 1 for each book. Imagine how much more money he could have made. I mean it's working for Potter isn't it?

[radagastly]

Most of my biggest FX complaints have already been addressed. Bilbo's transformation in Rivendell, and Galadriel's transformation when tempted by the Ring both come to mind. Neither actor needed their performance bolstered by such tricks, and I think in both cases, the scenes in question would actually have been better to let the actors do their job and leave it at that. Not that I thought the effects looked cheesy. It's simply that I thought them gratuitous, a general tendency with Jackson's approach to the films. In addition to the "Attack of the Blob" look of the Army of the Dead, I would add the Warg attack to what I thought was simply ineffective. Listening to the directors comments on the EE the other day, Jackson would agree with me. He wasn't completely satisfied with their look either. His problem is (to my mind) that he never questioned whether the attack should ever have happened in the first place. Again, gratuitous. I also have a bit of a problem with his decision to portray Sauron as an eyeball/searchlight. Setting aside the fact that he should not have been simply a giant eye in the sky, I question whether he should have been portrayed at all. Putting him there was another gratuitous move on Jackson's part. There is no more frightening a villain than an unseen monster, under the bed or in the closet or behind the bushes or walled in a black tower behind mountains of shadow. You'd think a horror director would have remembered that much, at least.

There is a Hollywood aphorism: Put the money on the screen. If you're spending 300 million dollars of someone else's money, you need to show where the money went, and you need to show it on screen in the final product. It might include exotic locations, or expensive actors or grandiose special effects. While this kind of story does demand a large amount of special effects, I still think Jackson went over the top in many instances, a natural temptation when there are so many toys to play with and investors to answer to, but still an error in judgement to my mind. Make no mistake, I enjoyed these films trememdously, but I think that, in this case, more discretion overall would have made for better story-telling.

Essex:

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

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.

Contrast that with this from early in the (book) story:

Gandalf's eyes flashed. "It will be my turn to get angry soon," he said. "If you say that again, I shall. Then you will see Gandalf the Grey uncloaked." He took a step towards the hobbit, and he seemed to grow tall and menacing; his shadow filled the little room.

Bilbo backed away to the wall, breathing hard, his hand clutching at his pocket. They stood for a while facing one another, and the air of the room tingled. Gandalf's eyes remained bent on the hobbit. Slowly his hands relaxed, and he began to tremble.

"I don't know what has come over you, Gandalf," he said. "You have never been like this before. What is it all about? It is mine isn't it? I found it, and Gollum would have killed me, if I hadn't kept it. I'm not a thief, whatever he said."
"I have never called you one," Gandalf answered. "And I am not one either. I am not trying to rob you, but to help you. I wish you would trust me, as you used." He turned away, and the shadow passed. He seemed to dwindle again to an old grey man, bent and troubled.

Jackson got this effect exactly right with a simple zoom lense and a dimmer switch on the lights (and a justified reliance on two very skilled actors.) The Galadriel scene needn't have relied on the same tricks, but it also needn't have gone all green and windy. It was over the top for what it needed to be in the context of the film. Galadriel was not developed enough in the movie (especially in the theatrical release) to need such a spectacular transformation.

Estelyn:

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.

I think that the lengthy massiveness of Helm's Deep was more due to its placement as the action climax of and gist of "The Two Towers" movie, and the downplay of Pelennor Fields was for the same reason in it's placement in the third film. If it was too spectacular, the attack on the Black Gate and the destruction of the ring might have been less excitingby contrast, and so less of a climax for the film overall. I agree, though, that it was overdone. He could have spent more time (and more special effects) on the battle of Isengard and kept the death of Saruman and Wormtongue in the film (and skipped the extra battle at Osgiliath altogether--more gratuitous battle effects.)

Based on these and other previous films, Peter Jackson has a clear fondness for special effects films. I think that he may well have gotten himself caught up in telling that part of the story while (in some cases) sacrificing other (perhaps more legitimate) aspects. When I was watching the directors commentary on the EE the other day, I noticed a comment he made about the death of Theodred, and the politics of Rohan. I don't recall the exact comment, except that he seemed to find those aspects of the story boring and difficult to tell in a compelling manner. It's quite natural that, given that, he would rely more on the special effects in order to gloss over the more subtle aspects of the story he was telling. While I must stress again, that I enjoyed these movies a great deal, I do think a more restrained approach would have been more in keeping with Tolkien's taste and intent. It certainly would have been more in keeping with me.

[Lalwendë]

The 'amorphous green blob' of the Army of the Dead was disappointing, in more ways than it just looked bad. It also tended to give the impression that it was entirely due to the efforts of that army that the battle was won - an opinion canvassed from a non-reader friend again. I can only describe that effect as a green 'slime' thingummyjig; admittedly, it was a difficult concept, but I was disappointed by it.

Some of the best effects were the simplest ones, for example the camera and set tricks used to make the Hobbits seem genuinely small. And of course, the scene where Gandalf rears up in anger at Bag End - part of that, however, was due to the genius of Ian McKellen's acting!

Was it me or did others find the seemingly continual flashy mounting and dismounting of various beasts of burden by Legolas a tad irritating? I kept thinking that eventually he was going to fall and hurt himself or maybe land face down in an Oliphaunt pat.