Lets dive right into this one quoting one of the most common phrases used with regards to CGI (apart from other obvious phrases which display the hate towards CGI practices in films today and leave little to no ground to logic)
1) "you can't shake off the fact that most of what you are looking at is computer-generated imagery"
That there. What is that? And on a film like the Hobbit, which was nicely done I might add and it gave away no such sense. On the contrary it felt quite immersive.
That is all a matter of mindset. Soon as you believe its all cgi, then you can't shake it off indeed. And that is the problem with today's' film viewers. Perhaps it is even the fault of the film makers themselves revealing how they do specific shots and ruining the magic. The only reason a bunch of people knew that an army of soldiers was running on a green screen is because they saw it how it was made before hand.
Complete and utter spoils with regards to immersion. However, I saw that too and yet it was not spoiled for me. How is that so? Well, because I didn't sit there and get fixated on the fact that it is green screened as though it is the end of the world. Thus I was able to completely wipe it out of my mind when I watched the film and couldn't even remember much less care what I had seen.
Blurring something out is Not Realism!
80% of LOTR was cgi as well, and the same cgi too actually however at much less quality. Blurring things out was more common back then when quality could not be reached in certain images created.
It simply takes focus into different areas and fools people into believing it is realistic. Far from it, it is a downplayed and toned down shot that is anything but realistic.
There are some CGI scenes in LOTR that even if you don't know are cgi in the making of them they are obvious. Add their poor quality by comparison, and when you notice them they look ridiculous. Clever placing of imagery takes the eye away from them, but they are there. Those do ruin immersion, yet people do not notice them, falling prey to the easiest of tricks to what is in focus and what is not, and believe it to be more realistic?
One example I came across after enough views is the part in LOTR3 were Sauron dies and the orcs are running away. It is so bad you can actually tell orcs being completely cut over a hole in the ground which also does not exist and seems flat (bottom right corner unless my memory is wrong). And that is just one. There were many more.
And yet you hear people say "and I can easily spot the CGI"...
That is very debatable. If some people, the same people actually that make such a statement for the Hobbit, can't spot the ugly CGI in the Lord of the Rings to the point that they would even defend said and given examples even if they are pointed out to them, I doubt they are able to honestly "easily spot the CGI" in better films.
It is all quite simply, a matter of ones mindset before entering a film and what opinion they have. The saddening truth is that sometimes it is not even that, it is the whining and comments of others that sway them into thinking so even if they cannot truly come to the conclusion on their own.
And this brings us to the culprit behind it all, Conditioning.
That is another thing I noticed, conditioning. People are conditioned to see less quality in films from so many years, with the result that when a scenery looks magnificently detailed it is cgi to them.
No, its just higher detail of the same cgi you have always been accustomed to.
They are using real locations in the Hobbit and touching them up just as much as the old trilogy, the tech is simply better to bring across better detail, which actually I would debate is much more realistic because it mimics what the eye would actually see if one was there. People are used to fuzzy crappy imagery which has led them to believe realism is dull and with a lack of detail. That is not the world outside, take a walk sometime, it is hardly fuzzy and blurred.
That is by some today practiced studios simply lazy, and back in the day the best they could do. And yet, the Hobbit has been called by many lazy CGI work? Some even claimed they have seen better Playstation graphics. Ok now I know they are trolling.
A world of luster and fantasy
That is very debatable. If some people, the same people actually that make such a statement for the Hobbit, can't spot the ugly CGI in the Lord of the Rings to the point that they would even defend said and given examples even if they are pointed out to them, I doubt they are able to honestly "easily spot the CGI" in better films.
It is all quite simply, a matter of ones mindset before entering a film and what opinion they have. The saddening truth is that sometimes it is not even that, it is the whining and comments of others that sway them into thinking so even if they cannot truly come to the conclusion on their own.
And this brings us to the culprit behind it all, Conditioning.
That is another thing I noticed, conditioning. People are conditioned to see less quality in films from so many years, with the result that when a scenery looks magnificently detailed it is cgi to them.
No, its just higher detail of the same cgi you have always been accustomed to.
They are using real locations in the Hobbit and touching them up just as much as the old trilogy, the tech is simply better to bring across better detail, which actually I would debate is much more realistic because it mimics what the eye would actually see if one was there. People are used to fuzzy crappy imagery which has led them to believe realism is dull and with a lack of detail. That is not the world outside, take a walk sometime, it is hardly fuzzy and blurred.
That is by some today practiced studios simply lazy, and back in the day the best they could do. And yet, the Hobbit has been called by many lazy CGI work? Some even claimed they have seen better Playstation graphics. Ok now I know they are trolling.
A world of luster and fantasy
Besides touched up scenery used, just like in LOTR, the sets actually built in the Hobbit are as detailed as the LOTR if not more. In fact, they had more work to do this time around as they had to make more details that would be caught on Higher Definition cameras as well as for 3D, all up resulting in sets and props which they worked harder on.
I also doubt a studio will go through the trouble of buying a land and building Hobbiton into actual existence rather than have it set up as a film-set again and at the same time be lazy and use cgi because they simply can't be bothered doing more.
End of the day, whatever the means used (which I continue to stress is as much CGI as the old films) it simply has better detail than ever before. Isn't that the point of progress? To one day reach visuals and imagery that mimic the real?
Take for example a scenery in real life. When your eye focuses at a point in that scenery the rest dulls a little and blurs out. Having a less focused on one spot view clears things more. A well lit day with hard shadows will make your surroundings sometimes even magical in the detail it holds within it. Meanwhile, when you gaze at a scenery, as blurred as some locations may seem as you focus in different areas, focusing in a new area will bring up the detail again and in all the entire location is simply magnificent in its own beauty that nature bestowed upon it. (wow, that sounded deep).
In a film, they usually focus on one point and keep the rest blurred, but when we have an image reach the point that it looks like a high detailed photo, a scenery that is in high definition and focused all over, it is anything but fake and as a matter of fact takes after the real more. Just like in a real location, everything before you is in full detail as always. Your own focus alone governs what part you see clearer or not. Such imagery is truly amazing, and when you sit there in the theater flying over mountains in the new trilogy from Peter Jackson, you feel as if you are truly there flying over mountains. You can focus on different spots, and see different details, and look around at your free will the same way you would in real life to take it all in and enjoy it.
Do this with a fantasy world, and then indeed it can feel unreal. But that is the point isn't it? It was never meant to be real. It is a fantasy world after all.
What film did you buy a ticket for to begin with?
Seeing better detail has people believing its only cgi. These images however are based on sets as much as the older LOTR films were. More green-screening is used in some cases as they deal with 14 little men now... But even that balances out because in LOTR they had 4 Hobbits, 1 Dwarve, 2 men, an Elve and a tall Wizard. Hence more green screening was used in the older as the group had more varying sizes interact with each other all the time. Here we have 14 short men most of the time together with a tall wizard off doing his own thing.
I also doubt a studio will go through the trouble of buying a land and building Hobbiton into actual existence rather than have it set up as a film-set again and at the same time be lazy and use cgi because they simply can't be bothered doing more.
End of the day, whatever the means used (which I continue to stress is as much CGI as the old films) it simply has better detail than ever before. Isn't that the point of progress? To one day reach visuals and imagery that mimic the real?
Take for example a scenery in real life. When your eye focuses at a point in that scenery the rest dulls a little and blurs out. Having a less focused on one spot view clears things more. A well lit day with hard shadows will make your surroundings sometimes even magical in the detail it holds within it. Meanwhile, when you gaze at a scenery, as blurred as some locations may seem as you focus in different areas, focusing in a new area will bring up the detail again and in all the entire location is simply magnificent in its own beauty that nature bestowed upon it. (wow, that sounded deep).
In a film, they usually focus on one point and keep the rest blurred, but when we have an image reach the point that it looks like a high detailed photo, a scenery that is in high definition and focused all over, it is anything but fake and as a matter of fact takes after the real more. Just like in a real location, everything before you is in full detail as always. Your own focus alone governs what part you see clearer or not. Such imagery is truly amazing, and when you sit there in the theater flying over mountains in the new trilogy from Peter Jackson, you feel as if you are truly there flying over mountains. You can focus on different spots, and see different details, and look around at your free will the same way you would in real life to take it all in and enjoy it.
Do this with a fantasy world, and then indeed it can feel unreal. But that is the point isn't it? It was never meant to be real. It is a fantasy world after all.
What film did you buy a ticket for to begin with?
Seeing better detail has people believing its only cgi. These images however are based on sets as much as the older LOTR films were. More green-screening is used in some cases as they deal with 14 little men now... But even that balances out because in LOTR they had 4 Hobbits, 1 Dwarve, 2 men, an Elve and a tall Wizard. Hence more green screening was used in the older as the group had more varying sizes interact with each other all the time. Here we have 14 short men most of the time together with a tall wizard off doing his own thing.
Fight scenes are all green-screened in different areas on both trilogies. Entire armies are completely CGI in both trilogies.
Beorn is an example of another cgi altered/added character that looks so damn detailed its amazingly fantasy like, and that is the only aspect of the Hobbit that makes it less realistic. Not the cgi itself, but the fact that it is a fantasy tale.
Clearly, it all comes down to the mindset of people. The fact that they do not expect to see a fantasy world and expect realism is beyond me, or the fact that they are making a range of assumptions in their mind and set their thinking to a certain way has them in the end completely miss the point to what they bought a ticket to watch in the first place. Those that are not looking for fantasy in the Hobbit and find it unrealistic are in the wrong film genre to begin with much less the wrong theater.
The Hobbit is meant to be as deep into fantasy as it can be. Even more so than the Lord of the Rings. That was the fun part of the books to begin with as well as the main difference between the two stories.
Complaints about a film that uses CGI and praises towards another that used the same amount of CGI. Conditioned people to think realism means crappy quality (no wonder why many so foolishly believe some home made "found footage" claimed work, as if grain and fuzzy imagery results in real-life for some strange reason). Add the lack of appreciation to an image that now gives them 100% detail in all its glory, only to be met by even more complaining. A fantasy and magical world that was never meant to feel realistic. Perhaps they did not expect this much fantasy? What film did you people buy a ticket for to begin with? Did you not know it was the Hobbit?
Yet even so with all that fantasy and world so unreal, it was so magnificent in its shots taken and imagery, I never felt so much a part of Middle Earth until the Hobbit trilogy. People are simply conditioned to less. And I'll be damned and will probably take a shuttle off of Earth the day studios listen to them and start making crappy imagery once more.
Some can sit there and claim Peter Jackson is milking a franchise. I on the other hand say, if that is indeed what they are doing, milk on guys and never stop. I never want to see this experience of Middle Earth end. Ever. The saddest part by far in all this is not the haters, not the conditioned viewers, not the sheep that blurp out things because they heard them somewhere, having displayed on many occasions that they cannot spot CGI if it was shown to them. The saddest part by far, is that the Hobbit ended and left me wanting for more.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments...