[ SECRET POST #2561 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2561 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Breaking Bad]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The Hobbit]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Monster]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Hannibal]


__________________________________________________



06.
[Law and Order SVU]


__________________________________________________



07.
[GTA V]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Meitantei no Okite]


__________________________________________________



09.
[The Big Bang Theory]















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 043 secrets from Secret Submission Post #366.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Eh, it's not that the CGI is somehow worse, it's just that since 2001 we've been glutted on so much CGI-heavy fares we're just not as readily awed by it anymore. This happened to me even as early back as The Two Towers. I distinctly recall not being nearly as amazed by anything in the trilogy as I had been by the Argonath in FotR.

[fingalsanteater]

I'm actually a lot more impressed and excited with rubber suits, make-up effects, puppetry, stop motion animation (think Harryhausen) than I am with GGI and mocap.

[(Anonymous)]

Me too.

Plus, I feel like the CGI in the Hobbit isn't there to serve a narrative purpose. It's just there to look ~cool~

[(Anonymous)]

There's just too much of it. They should be sparing in CGI usage so that the truly magnificent parts that also serve narrative purposes -- like Erebor -- will stand out more, otherwise it all gets samey after awhile.

[kijikun]

I think this is why I adored Pacific Rim so much. So many delicious non CGI effects.

[insanenoodlyguy]

A-men to that.

[(Anonymous)]

The LOTR trilogy did amazing things with the latter two though. Props where they are due.

[othellia]

This. Doug Walker (the nostalgia critic) had a good video recently about the rise of CGI in everything and how many people are getting burnt out on it. One of the points he brings up is that the effects that have stayed with us/don't look dated/etc, are the ones that've used a mix of techniques. It's why Jurassic Park and the original LotR trilogy still look pretty damn awesome, while things like the Star Wars prequels are starting to show their age.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think it's just that. LotR had a lot of physical special effects. The Argonath, for instance, was originally an actual miniature bigature, to which some CGI was added of course. Same for all the other sets, as far as I know, plus Orcs were mostly made using prosthetics and make-up and so on...
Whereas the Hobbit films (I think mostly due to the 3D + different cameras) have a lot more CGI, so even if it's actually better, it just doesn't look the same and they have a lot more opportunities to fuck up. (And I think there's also issues with colour grading due to the type of cameras they used? I think some of the sets had to have a lot of red in it and looked completely unnatural in real life, because otherwise it would look strange when filmed.)

[(Anonymous)]

The look and feel of the Hobbit movies are certainly different. I'd even say they're cartoonish, but... strangely it works for me, maybe because the films themselves are more lighthearted. The story is at its core a tale of adventure, not of a brewing war like the LotR. Basically I think the movies look fine and CGI is certainly the least of my problem with these dragging, overly padded things.

[(Anonymous)]

AYRT
The story is at its core a tale of adventure, not of a brewing war like the LotR.
Well, they are sort of dragging the films in that direction though, to varying effect in my opinion. But yeah, I'll admit that it's fine for the two trilogies to have somewhat different aesthetics considering the different overall tone (even if I still have issues with how far they went into cartoonishness with the Hobbit).

[(Anonymous)]

Well yeah, I do think they were almost trying in certain parts to trick us into thinking we were watching the LOTR trilogy or something, LOL. But... okay, we'll see. Some heavy stuff is due to go down in the third film, maybe they'll shift the overall tone then.

[(Anonymous)]

Agreed. LOTR used a lot of non-CGI special effects very well while the Hobbit had too much IMO.

[mimi-sardinia.livejournal.com]

I think the 48fps messes around the colour grading.

[(Anonymous)]

I don't think the CGI itself is bad, per se, but the Hobbit movies seem to have a lot more of it so it's more conspicuous than it was for LOTR. I miss the painstaking blend of miniatures/actual landscape and CGI, seeing it for the first time on the big screen took my breath away. I don't really get that feeling in the Hobbit movies because it looks like a computer game. A really, really good computer game! But a computer game nonetheless.

Overall, I think this franchise still does a way better job than most big budget movies in terms of CGI.

[(Anonymous)]

my sentiments exactly