• zikzak025English
    1161·
    21 days ago

    This movie does not need to exist.

  • popcar2@piefed.caEnglish
    30·
    21 days ago

    I’m very impressed that this movie is still moving forward even though the Gollum game crashing and burning in development made it clear nobody wants a story centered around him.

  • T00l_shedEnglish
    28·
    21 days ago

    Wait, this isnt a shit post? Its an actual movie?

  • MidsizedSedanEnglish
    16·
    21 days ago

    I can’t wait…

    To re-watch the original trilogy in December

    • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      9·
      21 days ago

      “You loved small amounts of a tragic story refined by the ground breaking acting of Andy Serkis, you will love it as a SEVEN COURSE CGI ONLY SERKIS-LESS BANQUET. You will.”

  • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    124·
    21 days ago

    Corridor Crew recently interviewed the top man at WETA, who led the company as they put extraordinary detail into set pieces like dead oliphants and miniatures of Helm’s Deep, just in case a fan ever went frame by frame, the detail would more than just hold up. That interview helped me finally find peace with why the Hobbit movies disappointed me: the top guy says that they had NO practical effects. The original LOTR films was ALL practical effects. I had no idea, but my eyeballs were trying to tell me: this is clanker. This does not matter, because it’s just slop on a greenscreen. No wonder.

    • TheRealKuni@piefed.socialEnglish
      36·
      21 days ago

      The original LOTR films was ALL practical effects.

      This is not accurate. There was a LOT of CGI in those movies. But CGI is not inherently bad. We have this strange notion that CGI is bad and practical effects are good, but in reality a proper blend between CGI and practical effects is important, and both need to be done well. Poor practical effects will look bad, poor CGI will look bad.

      The Hobbit movies looked bad because they were rushed. It was like 6 years lead-time for LOTR vs 6 months for The Hobbit or something. So no time for good practical effects.

      • LastYearsIrritant@sopuli.xyzEnglish
        3·
        21 days ago

        I think the biggest problem with high-budget, CGI heavy movies, is that they make the movies backwards when you rely on computer graphics too much.

        When you make a primarily practical effects movie, you have to plan out everything before you start shooting. When you make a primarily CGI effects movie, you can shoot, then do the effects later. Also, many primarily CGI focused movies use multiple contractor companies to make the effects, and they never have to talk to each other.

        Then you have the issue where the actors don’t even need to be in the same room to shoot their parts, cause it’s all greenscreened in a soundstage.

        I think a movie that’s mostly CGI can be great, as long as the same care is taken as a mostly practical effects movie. Do all the planning beforehand, have the actors move around and interact with each other, and physical things. Have the artists involved with the lighting and camera work, so they’re all part of the process.

      • Ilandar@lemmy.todayEnglish
        31·
        21 days ago

        The Hobbit movies looked bad because they were rushed.

        Wasn’t it also because a lot of people watched them in HFR initially? There was so much complaining about the “soap opera” effect when the first one came out, but one other downside was it was just easier to spot imperfections with smoother panning.

        • TheRealKuni@piefed.socialEnglish
          1·
          21 days ago

          That was part of the issue when it was in theaters. I was sad about that, because I would very much prefer a higher frame rate for panning shots.

      • verity_kindle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        2·
        21 days ago

        I may have misunderstood what Sir whatshisbucket said in the interview. Perhaps he was being hyperbolic. I know there is CGI in the original trilogy.

      • The Picard ManeuverEnglish
        2·
        21 days ago

        I don’t actually mean it to be too critical, it’s just the first thought I had when seeing this image.

        • Orvorn@slrpnk.netEnglish
          2·
          21 days ago

          I think it’s that the image is too sharp, revealing too much detail in the fabric, where the original LotR trilogy are very soft (in a good way). Modern lenses pushing for sharpness and clarity make a lot of things look cheap or hyper-real in an immersion breaking way, in my opinion.

  • jtrek@startrek.websiteEnglish
    2·
    21 days ago

    I don’t really like prequels. A lot of the tension goes away when you know the ending. Getting a concrete answer to a mystery is also less rewarding than leaving it for people to mull over. But I don’t think there even was any mystery left here.

  • M137@lemmy.todayEnglish
    2·
    21 days ago

    Image isn’t loading in my app (summit), browser on both phone and computer, both via the lemmy link and the image url.