Just give me a movie with swords

[Morthoron]

Well, I don't know how the LotR films have altered my view of movies, if at all, but I have noticed a proliferation of annoying CGI armies sprawling endlessly across horizonless blue screens in the wake of Jackson's movies. Movies previous to LotR, like Braveheart, had to enlist the entire Irish army as extras for their massive battle scenes; whereas, films afterward, such as Troy, 300 and Narnia are almost totally dependent on pixellated gimmickery. Personally, the amazing amount of extras in such movies as Lawrence of Arabia (or any David Lean film, actually) , Ben Hur and even Gandhi (which had approximately 300,000 extras appear at Gandhi's funeral) create more overwhelming scenes than 1 million pixels parading in perfect phalanxes. It's all a matter of taste, I suppose.

[Kent2010]

CGI can get way over the top, I'm thinking about the Wachowski brothers' Matrix movies. The Matrix was an exciting movie and the CGI was an interesting compliment. But, for the last two Matrix movies, the CGI just got out of control. There was too much, it was cheap, and it looked video-gamish.

There were some bad CGI moments in LOTR (like Legolas jumping off the back of a troll, sliding down the Oliphant - well almost any Legolas "stunt," - or the Army of ectoplasm.) but the CGI was also quite stunning. What they did with Gollum was far better than the Star Wars Jar Jar disaster. Also, I thought the battle scenes looked real, despite a few places where you could tell it was obviously CGI. Like Saruman's "blocks" of troops outside Isengard.

[Azaelia of Willowbottom]

I can't say if LOTR really changed my taste in movies. Prior to LOTR, I was a huge Star Wars fan (of the original trilogy, anyway...the new ones choked to death on CGI), so that falls into the same sort of epic escapism category, and I already loved The Princess Bride.

LOTR didn't really lead me to any other movies within the genre, though I tend to wind up interesting places when I follow LOTR actors around. Elijah Wood brought me to Everything is Illuminated, a truly unique film that is definitely within the top five on my favorites list. Viggo Mortensen led me to Hidalgo which has served my friends and I well in terms of rainy-day entertainment. Seeing his face on the cover of The Road by Cormac McCarthy led me to discover a bleakly beautiful book. I'm awaiting the movie with bated breath.

I do think I wouldn't have watched Monty Python and the Holy Grail without LOTR's influence. Make of that what you will, as I certainly don't know as there's any significance to that.

I don't care for the special effects revolution that LOTR brought about. There's something about seeing flesh-and-blood people onscreen that no amount of computer wizardry can replace. That said, the special effects in LOTR do still remain the standard by which I judge other movies. So far, only the first Chronicles of Narnia really measures up. Movies need to have a soul, a purpose, beyond special effects, or they're just a disaster, and I hope that cinema realizes that sooner rather than later.

[Nerwen]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Well, I don't know how the LotR films have altered my view of movies, if at all, but I have noticed a proliferation of annoying CGI armies sprawling endlessly across horizonless blue screens in the wake of Jackson's movies.

Indeed, but is it fair to blame Jackson et al for that (if that's what you're doing)? Besides I don't think "too much CGI" is ever the basic problem with a film.. it's more like "too little of anything else". I know the sort of thing you mean, though.

Originally Posted by Kent2010

CGI can get way over the top, I'm thinking about the Wachowski brothers' Matrix movies. The Matrix was an exciting movie and the CGI was an interesting compliment. But, for the last two Matrix movies, the CGI just got out of control. There was too much, it was cheap, and it looked video-gamish.

I doubt anyone would be complaining if those movies had been better in other ways, though– to repeat myself, there's a basic difference between using special effects to tell your story and telling your story in order to use special effects. By and large I think the LotR movies get it right (with notable exceptions, of course).

[Kent2010]

Originally Posted by Azaelia of Willowbottom

LOTR didn't really lead me to any other movies within the genre, though I tend to wind up interesting places when I follow LOTR actors around. Elijah Wood brought me to Everything is Illuminated, a truly unique film that is definitely within the top five on my favorites list. Viggo Mortensen led me to Hidalgo which has served my friends and I well in terms of rainy-day entertainment. Seeing his face on the cover of The Road by Cormac McCarthy led me to discover a bleakly beautiful book. I'm awaiting the movie with bated breath.

I do the same, although I haven't seen Hidalgo. I watched History of Violence and Eastern Promises just because it had Viggo Mortensen.

I don't care how bad the reviews are, I will watch any movie with Viggo, Ian Holm, or eventhough not an LOTR actor I wish she was - Natalie Portman.

Originally Posted by Azaelia of Willowbottom

I don't care for the special effects revolution that LOTR brought about. There's something about seeing flesh-and-blood people onscreen that no amount of computer wizardry can replace. That said, the special effects in LOTR do still remain the standard by which I judge other movies. So far, only the first Chronicles of Narnia really measures up. Movies need to have a soul, a purpose, beyond special effects, or they're just a disaster, and I hope that cinema realizes that sooner rather than later.

I really have enjoyed the Narnia movies and can't wait for The Dawn Treader. On some levels I think they are better than the LOTR movies. They aren't on the same 'grand' blockbuster scale like LOTR, but I like the attention on the characters. I thought most of the LOTR characters were one-dimensional or too simple.

Originally Posted by Nerwen

I doubt anyone would be complaining if those movies had been better in other ways, though– to repeat myself, there's a basic difference between using special effects to tell your story and telling your story in order to use special effects. By and large I think the LotR movies get it right (with notable exceptions, of course).

True, with a competent lead actor and a story line people can follow (I doubt the guy who played the Architect knew half the things he would ramble about), the CGI might not have mattered.

I have to admit I enjoy the Sci-Fi original movies, simply for the dreadful script and bad CGI. I've seen the Sci-Fi movies with better CGI than The Matrix, and I doubt those movies had the amount of money put into them as The Matrix.

[TheGreatElvenWarrior]

I am a bit scared for the Dawn Treader to come out, the last Narnia film was very well, it had much CG animation in it, they will probably have more nasty stuffs in the next one.

Going back to LotR though, I didn't really like the whole large CG army thing, give me real acting and I'll be happy. Even if it isn't very good acting.

[William Cloud Hicklin]

Lawrence of Arabia. Lots of scimitars, horses, camels, mass charges.

Zulu, if assegais count. Or bayonets. Lotsa real, human extras who were genuine Zulus.

[Old Noakes]

Originally Posted by Morthoron

Well, I don't know how the LotR films have altered my view of movies, if at all, but I have noticed a proliferation of annoying CGI armies sprawling endlessly across horizonless blue screens in the wake of Jackson's movies.....Personally, the amazing amount of extras in such movies as Lawrence of Arabia (or any David Lean film, actually) , Ben Hur and even Gandhi (which had approximately 300,000 extras appear at Gandhi's funeral) create more overwhelming scenes than 1 million pixels parading in perfect phalanxes. It's all a matter of taste, I suppose.

I completely agree Morthoron. When I first saw the FOTR film I liked the depiction of the Last Alliance and the rippling ranks of elvish swordsmen. But by the end of ROTK I was heartily sick of CGI and now I can hardly bear to watch such stuff, and I return to epics with real people, such as The Vikings, El Cid etc. That Rohan charge at the Pelennor when the 6,000 spears become 600,000 is just plain stupid, made all the more so by the fact that Bernard Hill has dialogue in which he mentions how he has 6,000 and wished for more (clearly King Theoden had reckoned without his CGI eoreds)

[alatar]

Welcome to the Downs, Old Noakes!

You state that you like the old movies with the billions of real flesh-and-blood extras. Any ideas about why the industry moved away from them? Sure, CG could be cheaper, but then again, maybe not. Any chance someone will go back to those methods?

As I stated in another thread, with the advent of the movie "Avatar," CG doesn't have to be so glaring.

[PrinceOfTheHalflings]

There's plenty of scenes in the LOTR movies that don't employ CGI. Most of the battle scenes have hundreds of costumed extras (in some case thousands of them). The film is also notable for its use of models to represent places such as Helm's Deep and Minas Tirith, even though CGI could have been used. Sometimes the models are CG enhanced, of course, with little added visual elements inserted into (or onto) the models.

Obviously there are sequences that are CG - the scenes with the Oliphaunts, for example, would have been impossible any other way. Some of the scenes with horses would have been extremely difficult to safely do with real horses. Clearly much of the stuff with "Legolas - Super Ninja" was also CG, but on the whole the LOTR films are pretty much the last major fantasy movies that employ extensive modelwork, large armies of extras, and scenes shot on location rather than in front of a greenscreen.

I must say I missed the scene of "600,000 Rohirrim" riding to Minas Tirith! Although Peter Jackson definitely increased the size of the besieging forces to around 250,000, I can't say that I thought the Rohirrim were exaggerated in numbers. As I recall those scenes were shot with about 300 real riders and horses. Extra riders were added in using CGI.

The reality is that even in the "old days" the number of people in a battle scene was often exaggerated by clever use of camera angles. Films like "Lawrence of Arabia" and the Russian version of "War and Peace", where there really were thousand of extras, were the exception rather than the rule.

If LOTR was filmed without CGI then it would have been more or less impossible to do. Stanley Kubrick contemplated doing it in the late sixties after 2001, and even he thought it was impossible to film at that time.

There's also the problem of actually costuming the extras. It's one thing to have thousands of extras but it's another thing entirely to have to put 20,000 people in uniforms! 20,000 orcs is even more difficult. Stanley Kubrick (yes, him again) developed a method of mass producing military uniforms for his version of Napoleon (which never made it past pre-production) by printing the uniforms onto a special kind of paper. So you would have seen armies of thousands wearing paper uniforms if that film had ever been made! Kubrick also planned on shooting much of the film in the studio rather than on location. If you've ever seen 2001 then you may be aware that the entire film (except for one shot) was filmed entirely inside a studio, even though the first 20 minutes are set in Africa. Kubrick pioneered a revolutionary technique where huge high-definition images could be projected at an angle onto a special reflective screen placed behind the actors, this resulted in a far more realistic effect than the more commonly used "rear-projection" technique. It also allowed far larger images to be used - you could in effect depict an entire huge landscape, something that wasn't possible with rear projection. If Kubrick had made LOTR then he would have undoubtedly made use of this technique.

The real problem with the LOTR films isn't excessive use of CGI, it's more to do with a failure of tone. There are moments where Peter Jackson seems to be utterly tone-deaf in terms of the material. However, this is not unusual in film adaptions - imagine if you will a Cecil B. de Mille version of LOTR. Sure he might have used thousands of extras, but he would have also dumbed-down the material dreadfully. Even worse, in modern terms imagine a Michael Bay version of LOTR!

You'd be amazed by the number of films that use CG imagery these days. It isn't just fantasy and sci-fi. Almost all historical films use it now - if you're shooting a movie set in the 1920s it's a lot easier to just digitally remove any inconvenient modern elements from a shot rather than having to try and "shoot around" things.