Two Towers Wins 8 Awards at Visual Effects Society Awards (1 Viewer)

[David Forbes]

When Natalie Portman bites into the peach there is obviously no resistance, which screamed fake to me. That's probably a direction thing more than anything, but her phoney bite completely wrecked that effect.

 

[Sean Laughter]

My main problem isn't the peach itself. They could use it for the floating as far as I'm concerned, but they should have at least had Anakin and Padme cutting and biting respectively into a real peach. They'd just have to match their CGI model to the real one they use and blend the CGI into the real peach at the appropriate time, certainly not a difficult task.

SW just became a film for the technology rather than having the technology serve the film.

 

[Chris Atkins]

SW just became a film for the technology rather than having the technology serve the film.

So you think George cared more about the peach than the actors? I bet the peach had its own trailer and everything...

 

[Dennis Pagoulatos]

If we're nitpicking the peach looking a little fake, that's a good sign among 2000 other effects shots!

Sean: To achieve a little bit more realism by using BOTH a real peach, and the CGI peach, we've turned a quick "impress the chick with my cool powers" scene into a technical landmark. I know what you mean though, the CGI peach just doesn't have the emotional resonance of a real peach, dammit!

-Dennis

 

[Sean Laughter]

So you think George cared more about the peach than the actors? I bet the peach had its own trailer and everything...

Quite frankly I think he did care more about the peach. No actor sleep-walks their way through a film the way most of the Star Wars actors do without a completely actor-oblivious director.

Maybe I'm just a bit amused that they can make a sky chase with flying cars look semi-realistic but can't manage to make it look like Anakin and Padme are actually interacting with a peach.

 

[Joshua_Y]

Quite frankly I think he did care more about the peach. No actor sleep-walks their way through a film the way most of the Star Wars actors do without a completely actor-oblivious director.

Nope! There is a lot of subtle acting, its not traditional acting, its more looks rather than words. Take a gander.

 

[Sean Laughter]

Nope! There is a lot of subtle acting, its not traditional acting, its more looks rather than words. Take a gander.

The standard apologist excuses for Star Wars acting (particularly in the new prequels) is no longer cutting it for me. If you want subtle acting "that is more looks rather than words" there are far superior examples to Star Wars.

 

[Dan Hitchman]

Looking at AOTC the other day on DVD, just to give me something to cringe about (acting wise), I still think they should go back to using models with complex motion capture than 100% CGI.

CGI is especially weak when it comes to lighting a 2-D object to make it look 3-D, and also the illusion of random motion and the effects of gravity on an object (it still comes across like a marionette on a string). You're eye is not easily fooled.

Also great, carefully done model work and photography gives the object weight and mass. CGI still looks more drawing than real-life. The SFX movie shot for IMAX had recreations of effects in Star Wars and other films using newly created large scale/detailed models on motion control rigs hooked up to IMAX cameras. The effect on the 4 1/2-story screen was mind-bogglingly good! Far better than what I saw with AOTC and TTT-- all except the King Kong recreation since it was designed to look like old fashioned stop motion animation from the original movie.


Gollum, while not perfect, was probably one of the best CGI rendered characters I've seen so far (yes, they did need motion capture to make Gollum move more realistically). Some close up shots were stunning. In a couple instances it almost looked like they were using a real animatronic puppet on set.

That's probably why WETA got all those awards. I bet the tech guys were wowed by Gollum, and that stuck in their minds over any other effects work in TTT (which, in some respects, wasn't all that great-- like the Wolf Riders).

Dan

 

[Jason Harbaugh]

Nope! There is a lot of subtle acting, its not traditional acting, its more looks rather than words. Take a gander.

Looks?? How could they have looks when all they are really looking at are blue walls? It isn't traditional because traditional acting actually has acting somewhere in there. That is amazing when you consider the talent of some of the actors in the prequels. Blank or subtle stares off into space is not acting. Sorry I just don't buy it.

BTW, congratulations to all of those that won awards. It will be really interesting to see who gets the props next year with X-men 2, Hulk, Matrix 2 & 3 and Return of the King.

 

[Joshua_Y]

Looking at AOTC the other day on DVD, just to give me something to cringe about (acting wise), I still think they should go back to using models with complex motion capture than 100% CGI.

Most of the stuff in AOTC is models with CG additions. Watch the Minatures Doc.