i know this may piss people off, but i have to say it. there seems to be a double-standard when it comes to visual FX, at least on this site.

the SFX in LOTR get rave reviews here. seldom do people point out flaws or instances of "unrealistic-ness". i find that while some of the efx look great, especially considering how many there are that i dont notice, there are others that are very obvious in the first 2 films.

compared to other films with many sfx, like TMR and Hulk, LOTR seems to get a free pass, or maybe people just like to criticize the others.

people are quick to point out how fake the Hulk looked in a couple scenes, but never Gollum. same thing with CG Neo. there are many more examples, but these are the first to come to me.

is it just that people like LOTR more and therefore dont mind or overlook the fx flaws? or do people enjoy picking on certain films?

Well, some films are more glaringly obvious than others in how bad they look. Gollum's in a lot of darkness and is seldom the forefront of the scene, and I agree, he looks cartoonish a lot. But it's forgiveable. The CGI doesn't detract from Serkis' acting.

Then you get to situations where the CGI IS the forefront, it IS what's carrying the scene. The burly brawl in The Matrix Reloaded is supposed to be spectacle; if the CGI isn't perfect it DOES detract from the scene. Same with the Hulk, which was worse, because the bodily movements of a tremendously oversized man just couldn't look natural - coupled with very bright scenes and some very shoddy integration of CGI and live action, Hulk just sinks.

Pirates Of The Carribean was nearly flawless in its CGI - the spectacle worked because of the detail and natural movement of the skeletons. Putting POTC beside Hulk, Hulk looks even worse, and you begin to feel there's no excuse for it to look so bad when POTC looks so good with a HUNDRED animated characters.

The extended scene in FOTR showing the man disappearing when he first puts on the ring is AWFUL -- I've seen better FX on TV.

The scene with the trees in TTT is also pretty shoddy, the tree looks like a complete carton cut-out.

And the SFX in PotC were a bit too cartoony, although well done.

There.



Forgive me for I am tired and don't remember all the LOTR characters.

CGI is bad when the use of practical and physical sets can easily be used instead. For example:

Spiderman - who needs CG renderings of him swinging thru the city when we can put a guy in a rubber suit and swing him from building to building on ropes?

Gladiator - who needs a CG colliseum when we can build one and hire 30,000 extras?

Hulk - who needs a CG Hulk when we can paint a bodybuilder green?

I only complain about CGI when it's poorly done AND it's used to carry the movie.

I thought Reloaded relied too much on CGI and effects and not on dialog or plot. LOTR doesn't have that problem, CGI is used to enhance scenes and add depth, but behind the FX there is still an amazing story.

Never saw POTC, but I'm pretty sure that it falls into the second category, with a story and acting to back up it's effects.

birrman54

man it was an F!

Well, there's a fine line between reality and fantasy. Gollum is fantasy, pure and simple. We're not expecting him to look that great, we're not expecting him to look as if he's even real. He's a CG puppet, no more, no less, and that's why he's such an enjoyable character.

Neo on the other hand we expect to look real. We don't want him to look fake because he's not SUPPOSED to look fake. On that note there was way too much virtual character use in TMR. In the first movie they blended CG with real characters so the effect is much more realistic. Remeber how in Star Trek movies the models always looked better than the CGI ones?

Personally, I thought some of the effects in TTT were atrocious—obvious, cheesy, and unnecessary. I realize the events play out in a fantasy world and that the CG are intended to bring life to that world; yet too often, the effects failed to integrate seamlessly with the live action---the trees and Gollum come immediately to mind. I became aware of the trick; seeing the magician’s wires took me out of the movie. IMO the movie would have been more successful if the director had left more to the imagination, rather than creating a poorly rendered universe.

Agreed. Its not a double standard. Some CGI looks better than others. Unfortunately they still haven't been able to outdo themselves since Terminator 2. And that was like 10 years ago.

I felt quite a few scenes in LOTR:TT looked dreadful. Especially the Ents. I do think that they are often over looked because of the rest of the movie.

The quality/craftsmanship of the effects in TTT, The Hulk and TMR are all (for the most part) high-end and well-done - the difference is that TTT had a great story, TMR didn't, and The Hulk didn't have a story at all...

The only reason people really took notice of the effects in The Hulk and TMR is that they didn't have anything else to do for the two hours they were in the movie theater. The Two Towers had a fantastic story to it, so you don't really pay attention to the quality of the special effects until the second or third viewing. The scene with the Ents always is the first choice for poor special effects in TTT...you know why? Because those are the most boring scenes in the film! There are other poor or questionable shots in TTT, but you don't notice them on the first viewing because you're wrapped up in the plot.

Just my two cents worth...I could be wrong.

People gripe about this or that special effect and how 'real' it looked incessantly, even in Star Wars. I think it's pointless and tiresome.

Here's the deal with visual effects: once a film production has 'X' amount of time and 'Y' amount of money, plus some talented and competent people working on it, all effects achieve a certain base level of technical comptence.

Everything that either works or doesn't work about the visual effects after that point is almost always the result of artistic quality. That is the reason why the LOTR effects get consistently praised--justifiably so, in my opinion. You can go back in time to much older effects-heavy films like Return Of The Jedi (the pre-SE version), Blade Runner, 2001, Star Trek: The Motion Picture and even ones like The Thief Of Baghdad; the technically rough edges don't detract because of the artistic quality with which the effects are woven into the visual storytelling.

I thought the fx in LOTR were great on the whole, but the quality in TTT drops in several shots (the wargs, Gollum during the scene where they're watching the Oliphants). I thought HULK looked great for the most part. The only shot I didn't like was when Bruce hulked-out in front of Talbot for the first time. I thought the fx in TMR were good. There were just too many digital characters and that's where it suffered.

I don't know if the CG in TMR was within the matrix or in the real world, as I haven't seen it yet, but... IF it was in the matrix, then it kind of fits, since EVERYTHING shown was actually virtual reality and therefore computer generated (in the story)...

wasn't most of the car chase done for real in tmr, just with slow motion for lots of the crashes (and alittle bit of cgi to distroy the cars more)

"EASILY be used instead"?

you think it's easy to get someone outside of jackie chan to swing from a rope through manhattan? first off, who's crazy enough to do that? second, the logistics would be unbelievable to pull it off. third, the city would never give permission for it.

you also think it's easier to build a Collosseum than 1/3 of it? that would take a year to do, and cost so much.

i agree that practical fx should be used when possible, but these are not good examples to support your argument.

btw, I'm not asking which story is better betw. TMR or LOTR. I would probably say LOTR has the better story. But, it seems so far that LOTR does get more of a free pass on the fx because the other elements of the story are better.

i just dont think people should bash other films for their fx when it's really the story (or something else) that suffers, while the fx are excellent.

As you can see from the absurdity of my post, I was merely being cynical. I base that cynicism on actual discussions I've seen regarding the CGI in those movies