Why?? Special effects and CGI in LOTR

[Celebuial]

The use of CGI and special effects in P-J's film adaptation seems to me somewhat sporadic. At times, such as the in the prologue to FOTR I feel that CGi are used to great advantage to enhance the reality of the environment created. It isn't too obvious, unnatural, or "in your face". The fireworks at Bilbo's party were a nice touch, they weren't over done and looked almost real. When Galadriel is offered The Ring by her mirror the effects are good. They clearly show the power of The One Ring and also the power of Galadriel and Nenya, but without going over the top. Enough of Kate Blanchet's performance is still visable so it looks believable- you can see the struggle in her face. Lothlorien still looked real and quite natural even though most was CGI.

In TT while most of the graphics remained ok-Helm's Deep looks very real compared to latter battles in the trilogy. However, Tolkien described there to be a faint green glow about Minas Morgul, not a full blown huge beam of green light!

As we progress to ROTK everything seems to go dramatically down hill. The effects are now used to draw the attention away from the created world instead of enhancing it. The battles seem less realistic and instead of showing the huge scale of events, seem only to diminish the appearence of size. Trolls no longer look realistic and orcs don't simply look like orcs; but deformed orcs. Shelob looks, instead of like a spider, like some kind of uber spider and draws the attention away from the emotional turmoil of Frodo and Sam unneccesarily. The dead look completly silly and don;t appear to fit with the style of the rest of the film nor Tolkien's descriptions. The death of Saruman was just a joke- He now shoots energy bolts from his staff, wich is a contradiction to the battle between Gandalf and Saruman in FOTR where you can see the power of the blows on the faces of the Istari and the whole thing looks a lot more like a psycological struggle. His staff doesn't merely break, but shatters and seems rather comical. Obviously there is the incident with SAuron's presence becoming a gargantuan search light.

To me it seems that if the effects were kept to a minimum the films could've been much better and kept truer to Tolkien.

I am greatly interested in other peoples oppinions. Do the effects make the films worse ior better?

[Eomer of the Rohirrim]

I don't quite agree that the effects took over in the final film; I just think that they were not used as cleverly. Good observations sir.

[wilwarin538]

Those were great observations. I agree. When I was watching the third movie I noticed something seemed a little different about it. The way Saruman died and the way his staff broke was just ridicoulous. Next time I watch the RotK I'm skipping that scene all together. But maybe its just some people, I know so many LotR movie fans who like the third movie better then the other two because "it has more action and special effects, its not boring like the first two".

I think PJ just wanted to make good movies and he did. But when I compare the movies and the books there are so many things I find wrong with the movie and then other people don't see anything wrong.

It's just all a matter of oppinion. But I agree completely the special effects were a little much.

~*Wilwa*~

[Morsul the Dark]

Not to be a stickler however... HOw long do you want them to work on these scenes? of course shelob could have been better she is the only cg charactor in the scene however to defend to battle scenes there are so many charactors its hard to make them perfect..the only part I find bad is when Legalas climbs the mumak...eowyns horse barely clears the things ankle and yet legalas is up to its knee...

[The Only Real Estel]

However, Tolkien described there to be a faint green glow about Minas Morgul, not a full blown huge beam of green light!

Creative license. I think when you stop and think about this one it's a rather minor point.

The battles seem less realistic and instead of showing the huge scale of events, seem only to diminish the appearence of size.

I missed this one, the battle looked pretty undiminished to me.

Trolls no longer look realistic and orcs don't simply look like orcs; but deformed orcs.

I actually thought the trolls were well done, for the most part. As to the deformed orc, I don't think anyone likes him, but his looks were not CGId or special effected (there's a new word for you ).

Shelob looks, instead of like a spider, like some kind of uber spider and draws the attention away from the emotional turmoil of Frodo and Sam unneccesarily

To me, Frodo sending Sam away drew more attention from their 'emotional turmoil' than anything. Either that or added unnecessarily to it.
As to Shelob I got the impression from the books that she was an uber spider.

The dead look completly silly and don;t appear to fit with the style of the rest of the film nor Tolkien's descriptions

I am on the fence with the Dead Army. However, if I had to pick out my biggest problem with them, it would probably be them wiping out the entire orc army rather than what they look like. They looked pretty realistic to me for the most part, although they did remind me a lot of Pirates of the Caribbean.

The death of Saruman was just a joke- He now shoots energy bolts from his staff, wich is a contradiction to the battle between Gandalf and Saruman in FOTR where you can see the power of the blows on the faces of the Istari and the whole thing looks a lot more like a psycological struggle. His staff doesn't merely break, but shatters and seems rather comical

The fireball that he fired at Gandalf was not one of my favorite parts of the movie--I'll agree with you there. But I don't think his death scene was a joke, other than the fact that if he really was impaled upside-down on a wheel his feet would be not be straight as he was turned under the water (I'm pretty sick at the moment, so if you don't understand that last comment, that's the reason ). When Saruman's staff is broken I almost laughed because of his reaction, rather than his staff shattering. As far as it shattering, I don't mind that much--shatter, break, it's all the same.

Obviously there is the incident with Sauron's presence becoming a gargantuan search light.

I agree with you most on this one. It looked ridiculous & went back on what Saruman was saying about the Eye in FotR, but there are whole different threads on that subject.

In summary, I think that the special effects were used well the vast majority of the time.

[Turin]

I think the main point being made is that there was an over-reliance on CGI, especially in the RoTR. In my opinion, it often leads to a lack of intensity during the battles and detracts from the characters' struggles that they go through.

Not to be nit picky but one of my worst CGIs was the Oliphaunts:

To create, bigger, (supposedly) better battle scenes, PJ&co decided that they would create Mumaks that are the size of small mountains. Now I know they were supposed to be big.. but that big?

*tries not to remember the Legolas rodeo scene* yuck!

[Celebuial]

Thanks for all your comments. I s'pose I was being a bit nit picky...

I agree that there was an over reliance on CGI, that was what I was trying to say. And you went and put it so simply!

I don't agree about the green beam being a minor point though. I understand what you said about poetic licence, but I felt that it just looked as though The Witch King was more powerfull than he is, and it seemed decidedly "untolkienish".

[Imladris]

Everybody views Tolkien's works differently. PJ had his own vision.

For example, I didn't have a problem with the mumualiks.

Also the requirements of film had a lot to do with changes made etc etc etc. More there on the Dumbing it Down Thread

Point is that it seems that a lot of LotR fans are missing the point of the movie. They quibble about Faramir's changed hair colour, the fact that Legolas had blonde hair even though Tolkien does not say what colour hair he has at all, etc.

Please, stop the quibbling about minor things such as light and the roving lighthouse eye. It's getting tiring to read criticisms that are based on the reader's conception.

[Lalwendë]

I didn't find the special effects to be too intrusive at all, but then I'm a little naive and innocent at times and tend to just sit back and watch films, silently accepting that all these peculiar things are in fact, real. To this end, I tend not to enjoy watching those documentaries about how special effects are created as they tend to take away that naive enjoyment I get from them. I was most disappointed to find out that much of Master & Commander was filmed in a water tank, though I suppose my expectations that it might have been entirely filmed at sea were perhaps a little unrealistic. I was, however, pleased to discover that a lot of the shots are actually real time shots from The Endeavour.

But I digress. It is inevitable I suppose that films with a lot of action in them are going to rely heavily on special effects these days. We all want more! bigger! louder! Or do we? There have recently been a fair amount of documentaries sneaking into the local multiplexes in the wake of Bowling for Columbine, and they do pretty well. Not all are political, as shown by Touching The Void. Is this evidence that audiences are actually getting jaded with special effects? I went to see Van Helsing and found myself a little overwhelmed with the effects to the extent that I actually enjoyed it a lot better when I watched it at home and could take a breather halfway through. I think this was a good example of where special effects almost took over entirely; there was simply too much! Then I went to see The Day After Tomorrow which naturally (thankfully?) had to include lots of effects; in this case, they worked beautifully, as they were in context, not just slapped on with a trowel to make a louder, larger film. Perhaps the rise in popularity of documentaries shows that real life is actually more shocking and more stunning than even the best special effects?

Now, on those specific effects in LotR. The only times I found them particularly intrusive stick in my mind. In TT there is a scene with a Warg rider which seemed obviously fake, and there are the scenes where Legolas does his outlandish 'leaping on running beasts' stunts. While watching these I thought "these remind me of the jumpy animation in those old Sinbad movies". Then I found out that Jackson reveres Ray Harryhausen and I wondered if he deliberately tried to have some effects like his in the films. Now, those old Sinbad movies may well be ace to watch for a bit of nostalgia, but it was also these effects which wer the only ones I found odd and intrusive.

I did not find I enjoyed many of the scenes where Mumakil/Fell Beasts were wiping out horses left right and centre, but this could be because I am rather squeamish, and again due to my innocent belief that all this is really happening. I tend to watch those scenes from behind a cushion, in much the same way as I used to watch Doctor Who as a child. But it is the long shots that the effects really did work well. There are many stunning scenes which simply could not have worked without special effects, such as the Ride of the Rohirrim, which to me bring apects of the book to life. Though if I'm being nit-picky, there are some errors in comparison to the book (could. not. resist.). The green beam of light at Minas Morgul is a favourite of mine in the long list of special effects, but not due to the visuals, due to the sound. It seems to stop for a heartbeat and almost become reverse sound, if such a thing is possible, and it scares me half to death.

[The Saucepan Man]

I cannot imagine a film of LotR which would not rely heavily on special effects (although Bethberry would probably disagree ).

Generally, I think that the effects were excellent throughout all three films (but then again, I am an SFX fan). Where there is a problem with them, I don't think it is a consequence of their over-use, but rather of the manner in which they are used.

For example, I thought that the close-up shots of the Army of the Dead, particularly their King, in the Paths of the Dead were excellent. They seem to shift between zombie and skeleton without ever being entirely one or the other. But in the long shots, the effect is lost and they end up looking like little more than an amorphous green blobby mass (aka the green virus ). I would have preferred close-up shots of small groups of the Dead routing the Orcs.

Similarly, the Fiery Eye of Sauron was used well throughout the first two films - symbolically as it is in the book. But once Frodo and Sam enter Mordor, it takes on a life of its own. No wonder that so many people believe that Sauron was that Eye. I have to agree that the searchlight was a mistake. Again, a good effect used to the wrong (*ahem*) effect.

But there are many wonderful special effects in the final film too. The Trolls look just as good to me as the Cave Troll in FotR. The Orcs were just as varied and credible - with one notable exception (although I must be the only person here who has a sneaking affection for Gothmog - the idea was good, even if the execution is rather over the top, and the acting is excellent). Gollum just gets better, as far as I am concerned, throughout the three films. And then we have the breathtaking first sight of Minas Tirith (just as I always imagined it), the Eagles, the swooping Fell Beasts with Nazgul sat astride, the depiction of Sammath Naur. The Mumakil may have been gargantuan, but they were (in my view) immaculately executed. I could go on.

And I agree with The Only Real Estel. Shelob was an uber spider. Personally, I thought the decision to portray her as looking like a real spider, only rather larger, rather than a more obviously "fantasy" creature, was a good one. But then, that is how I have always imagined her. The scene where she crawls out of a fissure above Frodo is excellent in its creepiness. That's just how real spiders emerge from cracks (*shudders*).

[Celebuial]

I agree with The Saucepan Man- Lotr wouldn't have been possible without the special effects, but I still feel that there were too many, or that they were just overdone in the third film. Also what you say about the dead kinda does make sense.... I don't agree about the trolls though, for some reason the one that Aragorn stabs in the foot seems so 'fake'. Oh, and I agree about the eye in the first two films, it was exactly as I'd imagined it and with the excellent sound that goes with it, it really is superb.

Ok, about the uber spider comment: I meant that PJ put everything that he hated about spiders into Shelob. For me this kinda took away the creepiness of the close-ups. There was too much going on with her for me to just accept that she was one big bad evil spider out for blood. Anyway, I was being picky- the majority of the scene does feel creepy to me.

I don't deny that there are still great special effects that are used well in the third film, I was just focusing on the bad- what can I say? I'm pesimistic. Obviously it goes without saying that Gollum is a work of genius from Andy Serkis and Weta.

Morsul the dark made a very good point about the size of the oliphaunts. I checked last night and they do seem smaller when Legolas is climbing one compared to when Eyowen and Merry are ridding underneath them!

[King of the North]

I agree and disagree with some of wat Celebuial said. Given the quality of the visual effects done by WETA, the more the better. In my opinion, the more PJ used special effects the more of Middle Earth came to life. Looked real. But i would have to agree that the armored trolls looked very CGish, especially the one fighting Aragorn at the end. Celebuial said that

orcs don't simply look like orcs

. Well if ur comparing the RotK orcs to orcs in TT or FotR then no they don't look like orcs. And that was delliberate, because PJ wanted the Mordor Orcs to be a different breed almost. Strong more intimidating. Personally i did not like the appearance of the RotK orcs, and prefer those from TT and FotR. This is because new orcs look more human than elven, and we must remember: orcs are mutilated elves. I would have to say though that I thought Shelob was very well done. Everything about her including all the graphics and also her sound effects. I don't really understand where u are coming from saying that it was not true to Tolkien description. I too agree that Saruman's death scene could have been done better.

You did make some pretty good points

[Lathriel]

We all must remember that nobody ever tried making LOTR (except as animated) because of the amount of visual effects.

I like most of the visual effects.

I thought Shelob was EXTREMELY creepy because they made her so spidery. Even though I have watched ROTK over and over it still creeps me up and I still whisper "Look up," at the screen when Shelob is hovering above Frodo.

I like the Mumakil, and I always thought that they were slightly bigger than elephants.

Also I heard that while WETA was creating the army of the dead Pirates of the carribean came out in theatres. They discovered that what they were doing with the Army of the Dead was very close to what was done in pirates. Yet I think the end result is very neat and also very different. I like the fact that they seem to change being at once skeletal and at other times they look like their rotting flesh is still covering their bones.

However, I don't like Gothmog, he just seemed slightly unnessecary. I think they could have done without him or maybe made his deformations a little less extreme.

[Lalwendë]

I think with many of the special effects, in particular with the creation of the various creatures, the film team were lucky as they had a lot of scope to play with. Not all the creatures are fully described in the books and so they were able to bring in some of their creative ideas. I did like how the different types of Orc looked different, but the creepiest for me were easily the Moria Orcs with their huge eyes and their scuttling way of movement. Possibly a reason why the Mordor Orcs were made so grotesque was to make it more 'acceptable' to have them killed in vast numbers. It's one of our most basic instincts to feel revulsion, and if that is stirred then we could accept such events more readily, on an automatic level. But they were still a little too grotesque for me.

I thought that what was done with Shelob was good. My judgement on this was based on whether people frightened of spiders found it scary, as I like spiders, the bigger the better. And as they did indeed find her creepy then I liked what they did with Shelob. That they based her movements on real spider behaviour was all the better.

It was with the Wargs that I was disappointed, as I am sure they are meant to be more wolf-like. Instead they looked more like hyenas. But again, it could be that the team flinched from showing Wargs as slightly dog-like because we might have felt sorry for them being killed. Though how this argument squares with the scenes where horses get trampled (which I find disturbing) I'm not sure.

[Bêthberry]

Originally Posted by The Saucepan Man

I cannot imagine a film of LotR which would not rely heavily on special effects (although Bethberry would probably disagree ).

Generally, I think that the effects were excellent throughout all three films (but then again, I am an SFX fan). Where there is a problem with them, I don't think it is a consequence of their over-use, but rather of the manner in which they are used. . . .

Well now, SaucePanMan, why ever would you think I might disagree? After all, I am a publically-declared Star Wars fan. Nor, in fact, am I a 'Middle-earth Purist."

I do agree with you that is it not the prevalence of SFX which might be the question, but the quality of the particular special effects. Two in particular I found, for me, unconvincing. And I am quite willing to acknowledge that this is a matter of personal, subjective taste.

The first is Galadriel's "Dark Queen" scene. I cannot help but compare it to Gandalf the Grey's temptation scene, which to me was far more "believable." That is, it seemed in keeping with the wizard's character without appearing to satisfy any visual pyrotechnics. (I supposed the fireworks scene amounted to Gandalf's pyrotechnics. ) I cannot fathom why Blanchett was preempted for special effects unless it was simply to wow us with special effects. And that, I think, it a misuse of SFX.

The second SFX which in many ways disappointed me was--and I am fully aware that I am likely a minority of one in this regard--in fact Gollem. It is not that I think the CGI was poorly done or overdone, as with Galadriel. It is because I have seen a human actor on stage recreate Gollem spendidly. The actor was not only a talented actor, but an exceptional gymnast. Perhaps I might even say contortionist. His performance made me feel I was in the presence of real art, real 'subcreation', to use one of Tolkien's terms. I could not erradicate my memory of this performance as I watched what I knew was a different kind of art, a technical/computer device to mimic a character. Wonderful as this CGI Gollem was, I remained rooted in the perception that this was a neat CGI, rather than a stunning visual effect which could not easily or effectively be created by mere human presence.

There was one other aspect of the SFX, come to think of it (and yes I know this makes three) that disappointed me. It was every time a creature reminded me of a creature in Star Wars. Here I will mention the Moria troll. There were others as well. The movements, shapes, and sizes many of the other special effects creatures in fact did not make me think of Middle-earth, but of the Ice Planet Hoth, or, well, I shouldn't go on.

I guess in part my 'definition' or appreciation of art involves illusion, or magic, or slight of hand, the substitution of something to make me imagine something else, rather than a full scale depiction of the alterity. Where the SFX gave me the imagined illusion of Middle earth, I loved them. Where they made me think of themselves as technical procedure, or previous SFX, then, for me, they failed.

As for the various orcs, well, the more I realised I was being asked to relegate them to the side of evil because of their disgusting physical abnormalities, the more I became uneasy with the suggestion that evil has a counterpart in physical deformity. I could not overcome my (modern? contemporary?) moral understanding that evil takes many forms, not all of them having a clear correlation with physical appearance. Sometimes, for me, beauty holds a terror. There were moments when the movie, because it is such a complete recreation of image, made me uncomfortable for its suggestiveness. And, interestingly, that is something I never felt, for instance, about the famous bar scene in the original Star Wars.

Chaq'une à sa gout.

[Celebuial]

Bethberry, and Lalwende made very good points about the deformation of the Orcs. I'd never even considered this before. I feel quite ashamed to admit that. Anyway, now you mention it I see what you mean. I rewatched some of the scenes with lots of Orcs and saw that what you said was true. I'm quite horrified by this. Not quite, very. I never felt this like Bethbery said whilst watching Star Wars either. Very interesting. I shall spend a good long time pondering this, so I can write a better response....

[Lathriel]

Well the idea that evil always comes in the form of deformity is certainly a common theme in these movies.
They were going to counter this with Sauron coming to the battle field in a beautiful form. However, I prefer evil in the shape of orcs and other such disgusting creatures than Sauron coming to the battle field.

But I don't think this observation is completely true since the southerners' costumes are pretty (I think) with the maroon/gold and khol around their eyes.