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?

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.