The "Possible Perils" of Special Effects - The Barrow-Downs Discussion Forum

Child of the 7th Age · 11-24-2004, 01:55 AM

We have one thread devoted to identifying the special effects that viewers found most interesting in the films. I, too, had my breath swept away with that first sight of Minas Tirith, and I found the lighting of the beacons truly breathtaking.

Yet, looking back on PJ's adaptation, I find myself increasingly ambivalent about the degree to which special effects took over the movies as a whole. Surprisingly, with all our scattered criticism of the films, I did not find a thread devoted to this particular topic, although I did come across occasional posts, including several by Bethberry where questions were raised about the role that special effects played in the movie.

I have a number of specific questions concerning the movies' special effects. Were special effects "overused" in the film to the point that they distracted our attention from the characters and/or caused PJ to invest his energies in something which, I believe, Tolkien would have considered tangential? Did the stress on special effects, where everything is made so obvious to the naked eye, detract from the sense of mystery and magic that is so much more evident in the book itself?

One or two of the special effects were not as well done: the expression on Bilbo's face when Frodo takes out the Ring or Galadriel's pyrotechnics come to mind. Potentially more serious, will the heavy use of special effects tend to "date" the movies so that we pass over them more quickly at some point down the road? What seems marvelous and innovative today can quickly become blase when the next round of technology comes in and produces something far more sophisticated.

Already, the movie Polar Express comes to mind. Whatever you may think of that film as a whole, it would seem that the animation employed goes one step beyond what was used with Gollum. Acording to an article I read, they were apparently able to reproduce the expressions on the actors' faces and not just the movements of the body. And I can't help thinking that all those charging oliphaunts will someday look to us like a herd of stampeding buffalo in an old western movie.

Overall, I enjoyed the films. But these questions linger in my mind. Am I being a curmudgeon, or do others see a similar problem?

Essex · 11-24-2004, 05:14 AM

no, because if you're swept up in a story, I believe it doesn't matter what the effects look like. you're actually THERE inside the movie. I remember seing star wars as a kid back in 1977 and it was amazing. I still look at the movie now and am not bothered by some of the death star closeups as luke & co are attacking looking like something you'd build out of some washing up bottles and some sticky black plastic (us british 30 somethings will understand this reference).

I still look at the old buster crabbe Flash Gordon black and white movies and it transports me back to christmas mornings on bbc when I was a kid. I don't care the if the effects look dated. If the story is good enough, then fine.

Thinking of this as I write, like a good wine, LOTR might get even BETTER in years time when we aren;t overawed by the effects and the quality of the pictures, when these may well look normal run of the mill. we'll TOTALLY forget that it's a movie and be totally transported to Middle-earth (except when we see Jackson or his kids - these bits always drag me kicking and screaming back to the real world)

Lalwendë · 11-24-2004, 06:14 AM

Very good question, Child!

I think that the use of so many special effects was inevitable in trying to portray a fantasy novel. For me, I was quite impressed with them, although knowing a little too much about exactly how they were done takes away a certain amount of the magic. Why did I find them impressive? I found that I didn't actually notice they were special effects! It was all 'real' to me. One or two things did jar, particularly when Bilbo had his 'turn' - I did not like this, possibly as I have such a marked affection for the dear old Hobbit; I found it intrusive. Also, there were a few too many Oliphaunts in the Battle of the Pelenor Fields; though I know many will have particularly enjoyed them, I kept thinking "hang on, this is like an Errol Flynn film".

Yes, special effects do age, but then in many years time that will add charm, rather like the charm of the old Doctor Who films with the slightly wonky daleks.

Rimbaud · 11-24-2004, 06:45 AM

No critique of the effects in this filmic set is complete without a discussion about the Army of the Dead. I for one was massively disappointed, as although they had something of the deux ex machina about them in the novel, PJ took it to an extreme, and essentially had them win the entire day in a big, not particularly visually pleasing or stimulating, green splurge.

It was highly anticlimactic, andmy non-Tolkien-appreciating companion found it even more ridiculous than I. (This, however, is the lady who laughed hysterically as Denethor attempted the Minas Tirith High Diving Gold Medal, in the same film).

And sadly, Treebeard reminded me of nothing so much as those novelty dancing and singing xmas trees that crop up in supermarkets around this time of year.

Even some of the good stuff was bad - by this, I reference the sweeping panoramic shots of the great battles and set-pieces. Which was all very dramatic, but also over-wrought, and left me thinking about the effect itself, not the image. This relates to Child's deeper criticism, that the dependence on these action-flurries and Massive Picture filming detracted from the humanist elements of the film.

The Cave-Troll seemed very clumsy animation, too.

On the plus side, the Balrog was ace, and indeed the whole Bridge of KD scene was superb.

Reference Bêthberry's comments: she and I had a conversation about Galadriel's scene with her little wobble, and came to the same conclusion from different perspectives. Bb was sad that they had not chosen a more mature actress, with a greater range than Blanchett, who would not have needed the effects for the effect, if you know what I mean. I, on the other hand, respecting CB very much as an actress (Elizabeth, anyone?) was saddened that they had felt her ability needed to be so clumsily augmented. I would rather that had been a straight acting scene, not the high camp that turned out on film. In any case, that scene was one of the best examples of unnecessary dependence on the FX dept.

~Rim

Essex · 11-24-2004, 07:28 AM

re Galadriel's 'turn'

I don't blame Jackson too much for his view on Galadriel demeanour (for want of a better word) as she's tempted by the Ring. The reason:

Take a look at what Tolkien wrote (I admit this was straight AFTER her words, not during them)

Quote:

She lifted up her hand and from the ring that she wore there issued a great light that illuminated her alone and left all else dark. She stood before Frodo seeming now tall beyond measurement, and beautiful beyond enduring, terrible and worshipful. Then she let her hand fall, and the light faded, and suddenly she laughed again, and lo! she was shrunken: a slender elf-woman, clad in simple white, whose gentle voice was soft and sad.

to show the last sentence in bold 'filmically' we must have something to contrast it to. Jackson took the words (above in italics) and put his stance on them. To me it worked well, especially when she 'diminshes' and shudders after her outburst.

Estelyn Telcontar · 11-24-2004, 07:46 AM

Just a brief reply for now; the one thing that immediately springs to my mind is the over-importance of the battle of Helm's Deep, which I suspect comes from the use of special effects for the armies (That 'Massive' software they developed had to make itself paid!). It was given so much weight in the movie that it seems to be more central than the battle of Pelennor Fields when comparing them in the context of the whole trilogy.

11-24-2004, 01:55 AM	#1
Child of the 7th Age Spirit of the Lonely Star Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 5,133	The "Possible Perils" of Special Effects We have one thread devoted to identifying the special effects that viewers found most interesting in the films. I, too, had my breath swept away with that first sight of Minas Tirith, and I found the lighting of the beacons truly breathtaking. Yet, looking back on PJ's adaptation, I find myself increasingly ambivalent about the degree to which special effects took over the movies as a whole. Surprisingly, with all our scattered criticism of the films, I did not find a thread devoted to this particular topic, although I did come across occasional posts, including several by Bethberry where questions were raised about the role that special effects played in the movie. I have a number of specific questions concerning the movies' special effects. Were special effects "overused" in the film to the point that they distracted our attention from the characters and/or caused PJ to invest his energies in something which, I believe, Tolkien would have considered tangential? Did the stress on special effects, where everything is made so obvious to the naked eye, detract from the sense of mystery and magic that is so much more evident in the book itself? One or two of the special effects were not as well done: the expression on Bilbo's face when Frodo takes out the Ring or Galadriel's pyrotechnics come to mind. Potentially more serious, will the heavy use of special effects tend to "date" the movies so that we pass over them more quickly at some point down the road? What seems marvelous and innovative today can quickly become blase when the next round of technology comes in and produces something far more sophisticated. Already, the movie Polar Express comes to mind. Whatever you may think of that film as a whole, it would seem that the animation employed goes one step beyond what was used with Gollum. Acording to an article I read, they were apparently able to reproduce the expressions on the actors' faces and not just the movements of the body. And I can't help thinking that all those charging oliphaunts will someday look to us like a herd of stampeding buffalo in an old western movie. Overall, I enjoyed the films. But these questions linger in my mind. Am I being a curmudgeon, or do others see a similar problem? __________________ Multitasking women are never too busy to vote.

11-24-2004, 06:14 AM	#3
Lalwendë A Mere Boggart Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: under the bed Posts: 4,737	Very good question, Child! I think that the use of so many special effects was inevitable in trying to portray a fantasy novel. For me, I was quite impressed with them, although knowing a little too much about exactly how they were done takes away a certain amount of the magic. Why did I find them impressive? I found that I didn't actually notice they were special effects! It was all 'real' to me. One or two things did jar, particularly when Bilbo had his 'turn' - I did not like this, possibly as I have such a marked affection for the dear old Hobbit; I found it intrusive. Also, there were a few too many Oliphaunts in the Battle of the Pelenor Fields; though I know many will have particularly enjoyed them, I kept thinking "hang on, this is like an Errol Flynn film". Yes, special effects do age, but then in many years time that will add charm, rather like the charm of the old Doctor Who films with the slightly wonky daleks. __________________ Gordon's alive!

11-24-2004, 06:45 AM	#4
Rimbaud The Perilous Poet Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Heart of the matter Posts: 1,062	No critique of the effects in this filmic set is complete without a discussion about the Army of the Dead. I for one was massively disappointed, as although they had something of the deux ex machina about them in the novel, PJ took it to an extreme, and essentially had them win the entire day in a big, not particularly visually pleasing or stimulating, green splurge. It was highly anticlimactic, andmy non-Tolkien-appreciating companion found it even more ridiculous than I. (This, however, is the lady who laughed hysterically as Denethor attempted the Minas Tirith High Diving Gold Medal, in the same film). And sadly, Treebeard reminded me of nothing so much as those novelty dancing and singing xmas trees that crop up in supermarkets around this time of year. Even some of the good stuff was bad - by this, I reference the sweeping panoramic shots of the great battles and set-pieces. Which was all very dramatic, but also over-wrought, and left me thinking about the effect itself, not the image. This relates to Child's deeper criticism, that the dependence on these action-flurries and Massive Picture filming detracted from the humanist elements of the film. The Cave-Troll seemed very clumsy animation, too. On the plus side, the Balrog was ace, and indeed the whole Bridge of KD scene was superb. Reference Bêthberry's comments: she and I had a conversation about Galadriel's scene with her little wobble, and came to the same conclusion from different perspectives. Bb was sad that they had not chosen a more mature actress, with a greater range than Blanchett, who would not have needed the effects for the effect, if you know what I mean. I, on the other hand, respecting CB very much as an actress (Elizabeth, anyone?) was saddened that they had felt her ability needed to be so clumsily augmented. I would rather that had been a straight acting scene, not the high camp that turned out on film. In any case, that scene was one of the best examples of unnecessary dependence on the FX dept. ~Rim __________________ And all the rest is literature Last edited by Rimbaud; 11-24-2004 at 08:31 AM.

11-24-2004, 07:46 AM	#6
Estelyn Telcontar Princess of Skwerlz Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: where the Sea is eastwards (WtR: 6060 miles) Posts: 7,500	Just a brief reply for now; the one thing that immediately springs to my mind is the over-importance of the battle of Helm's Deep, which I suspect comes from the use of special effects for the armies (That 'Massive' software they developed had to make itself paid!). It was given so much weight in the movie that it seems to be more central than the battle of Pelennor Fields when comparing them in the context of the whole trilogy. __________________ 'Mercy!' cried Gandalf. 'If the giving of information is to be the cure of your inquisitiveness, I shall spend all the rest of my days in answering you. What more do you want to know?' 'The whole history of Middle-earth...'

11-24-2004, 05:14 AM	#2
Essex Ghost Prince of Cardolan Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Essex, England Posts: 886	no, because if you're swept up in a story, I believe it doesn't matter what the effects look like. you're actually THERE inside the movie. I remember seing star wars as a kid back in 1977 and it was amazing. I still look at the movie now and am not bothered by some of the death star closeups as luke & co are attacking looking like something you'd build out of some washing up bottles and some sticky black plastic (us british 30 somethings will understand this reference). I still look at the old buster crabbe Flash Gordon black and white movies and it transports me back to christmas mornings on bbc when I was a kid. I don't care the if the effects look dated. If the story is good enough, then fine. Thinking of this as I write, like a good wine, LOTR might get even BETTER in years time when we aren;t overawed by the effects and the quality of the pictures, when these may well look normal run of the mill. we'll TOTALLY forget that it's a movie and be totally transported to Middle-earth (except when we see Jackson or his kids - these bits always drag me kicking and screaming back to the real world)