Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Message in a Battle

Posted by michael on from the jar-jar dept.

The WP has a tale titled The Messages in a Battle about the recent growth of computer-generated battle scenes in movies, now that you don't have to pay all those extras. RotK clearly wouldn't have been much of a movie if the battle scenes hadn't been so good.

15 of 460 comments (clear)

  1. Quality of RotK by Jacer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While the battle scenes were very eye appealing, I think that all of the actors did a wonderful job. Sean Astin (not sure on the last name) was so convincing as Sam, it was breathtaking. Not to mention Magne....errrr Gandalf (portrayed by Sir Ian McKellan) really had the presence to convince me that he was both wise and powerful. Anyway, I just felt that yeah, the battles were pretty, and it would be hard to have the LotR without a war going on, I still don't think the movie was made by those sequences.

    --
    --fetch daddy's blue fright wig, i must be handsome when i release my rage
  2. Matrix by izzo+nizzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How is it that both Matrix films were un-nominated for visual effects Oscars? While I can understand discriminating against them because of their relative unpopularity, I can't imagine that their visual effects were considered less spectacular. Yet another reason to hate awards shows, I suppose.

    1. Re:Matrix by Sir0x0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One thing lacking in both Matrices, was fluidity. The Visual Effects were large, and imposing, but they were choppy and fake; did not represent actual motion very well. The movement in the shots seemed too computer generated, and falsely blurred to overcome choppiness. Granted, this was probably stylization to a point not only a shortcoming. The Matrix effects are definately not to be overly criticized, they impressed thier audiences. Yet, in a year that offered the best visual effects to date (as a whole), the Matrix came up just short.

  3. You know... things just don't amaze me. by DarthWufei · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Despite how much work and how amazing these CG segments are for the current time period. I have yet to be impressed. I guess until I can actually not tell the difference, or at least only subtle differences, between real an fake. I'll be happy.

    Really the biggest eyesore is CG people. I have yet to see something that really amazes me as it looks like a real person. To be honest, I found the closest being FF:Spirits Within. Crappy movie, but you have to admit the graphics were outstanding.

    I guess my standards are just too high.

  4. The battles would have been a lot better by caitsith01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If they didn't have all of the ridiculously lame dwarf comedy ("nobody tosses a dwarf", "toss me", etc.) and if Legolas hadn't snowboarded down the stairs on his shield. For a movie with such a realistic look to it, those elements of the battles, especially Helms Deep, were totally unneccessary and really ruined the great ambience that the thousands of CG extras created so effectively.

    Why must directors put such painfully lame moments in films, anyway? It's like in Minority Report, when Tom Cruise is fighting the other guy wearing a jet pack and they 'accidentally' cook the hamburgers on the grill to perfection... why? WHY???!

    --
    Read Pynchon.
  5. To the writer of the article.... by _spider_ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In my own personal opinion, I think the writer of the article didn't pay attention to the movies. (esp. LOTR: all three)

    With that, I'll say his opinion is lame.

    Thats my thought..er, .02.

    --
    '/dev/wit' is not available.
  6. cgi porn by jamesh · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is a cgi woman doing sexy things to herself for the entertainment of others still exploitation of women, when no specific woman is being exploited?

    Down this path are all sorts of questions...

  7. My personal complaint by iapetus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Forget the CGI actors. Ignore (if you can) the comedy dwarf tossing. My biggest complaint about the battle sequences is the hideous lack of strategy the leaders seem to have. I don't care who you are: a cavalry charge against a huge rank of spearmen is not a smart idea, and we see it happen at least twice in the series. And charging headlong at rampaging Oliphaunts? You deserve to be crushed underfoot. Swing out and take them from the flank, perhaps?

    --
    ++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
    Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
    1. Re:My personal complaint by Sir0x0 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Also, spearmen are effective at taking out the first rank of a cavalry charge. Once they "break the line" the cavalry are going to wreak havoc. Rohan had no (or few) archers, which are the normal response to heavy-infantry-spear-weilding types.

      Charging into Oliphaunts was not the best idea, but hey, it was the first time most of them had EVER seen oliphaunts! Beginner's mistake eh... :)

    2. Re:My personal complaint by kaisyain · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Maybe you've never read John Keegan's classic The Face of Battle. His section on the battle of Waterloo talks in detail about cavalry versus infantry engagements.

      You are correct that if they break the line cavalry are very good at breaking ranks. However, you miss two things. One, breaking ranks doesn't mean the cavalry have really caused much in the way of casualties to the infantry.

      One Waterloo cavalryman reported, "Many threw themselves on the ground until we had gone over, and then rose and fired." Keegan points out, "To lie down was usually enough to put one beyond a swordsman's reach, and those who shammed were already safely behind the cavalry, whose attention was focused on the enemy lines to which their impetus was carrying them." Thus cavalry can easily break lines but those lines can be readily reformed by good commanders. There is no indication that the orcs armies have poor commanders, poor organization, or poor morale.

      More importantly, however, Keegan points out that cavalry are in actuality completely ineffective against trained infantry. "And indeed if the story of Waterloo has a leitmotiv it is that of cavalry charging square and being repulsed...The feat of breaking a square was tried by the French cavalry time and again at Waterloo -- there were perhaps twelve main assaults during the great afternoon cavalry effort -- and always with a complete lack of success."

      Cavalry break the line of infantry not because of anything particularly irresistible about cavalry. They break the line because the infantry fear the horses riding down on them and give up the line voluntarily.

      Keegan's examination of cavalry versus infantry at the battle of Agincourt, which might seem more germane to Tolkiens technological levels, finds essentially the same thing. The French cavalry charge of the British archer lines failed completely. "The 'shock' which cavalry seek to inflict is really moral, not physical in character...The charge, momentarily terrifying for the English...had stopped only a few feet distant, had been a disaster for the enemy."

      I don't see any reason why Gandalf's cavalry charge would have worked out as anything but a similar disaster.

  8. Bullshite! by mrshowtime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "Return of the King would not have been much of a movie without the battles." Bullshit! The amount of artistry put into all three movies has not been seen since the days of "Cleopatra." I am no blind Tolkien freak either. All three movies were beautiful all around. In terms of cost, ROTK cost only $95 million. Contrast that with the recently released "chick flick," "Mona Lisa Smile," what cost $65 million to make and "The Last Samurai" who's costs totalled almost $140 million dollars. The Last Samurai's battle scenes were rather bland and extremely pale in comparison to ROTK. ROTK was just more than the battles, it had a lot of shit going on everywhere in middle earth. I am amazed that Peter Jackson and Co. completed the movie in less than a year, no other Hollywood director or studio could have made ROTK better than WETA and Peter Jackson. Saying ROTK would have sucked without the battles, is like saying Jedi would have sucked without any space battles. Stupid thing to say.

    --
    "Jeremy, you need to get to an internet cafe and cut and paste some appropriate sentiments about me from the world wide
  9. Credit to Casting by drskrud · · Score: 5, Interesting

    One thing I really give credit to the LotR trilogy for is their casting. There are virtually no "big-name" actors in any of the movies. While there are the better known stars, Sir Ian McKellan, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett and even Liv Tyler and Sean Bean, none of them overpower the other cast members to the point of obscurity.

    Furthermore, they found some actors from relative obscurity (Merry and Pippin come to mind) who perform remarkably well. Every single character in the LotR series is acted out almost flawlessly, and I for one can clearly relate their on screen portrayals to those characters from the book. And that's certainly what makes the battle scenes that much more *real* and closer to home. Someone watching the movie can really get a feel for the characters and sympathize with them. No character gets lost behind the face of some huge actor and no one actor steals the show from any other.

    As for the CGI effects, I had no trouble believing that those oliphaunts and huge armies of Orcs were real, they might as well have been. The graphics were more than convincing enough and the fact that the movie is indeed in a fantasy setting allows for what Samuel Taylor Coleridge coined the "willful suspension of belief." I had a harder time believing that Tom Cruise's character could take out four or five samurai before even getting any samurai training.... not to mention he somehow managed to hold them off with a flagpole of all things...

  10. 5 year olds in the cinema by Moderation+abuser · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What got me was all the parents bringing 5 year olds and younger to see the film despite it being a 12.

    We're *not* talking Harry Potter or Peter Pan here, there's massive amounts of blood and guts but they seemed to think fantasy equals gentle fairy story. About half of them were led out in tears.

    --
    Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
  11. The World's Worst LOTR Film Review by Nova+Express · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Here's an NYT writer complaining about the movies being "an FX extravaganza tailored to an adolescent male's fear of sentiment and love of high-tech wizardry." (Lord knows there's no sentiment in any of those death or parting scenes.) In addition to slamming the films for appealing to "geeks" and "nerds," her complaint seems to boil down to them being bad because they're not chick flicks, in much the same way that Fried Green Tomatoes suffers from a complete lack of sword fights.

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

  12. Re:LOTR by happyfrogcow · · Score: 4, Interesting

    My only response to your respected view of the movies is that the movies are an excellent gateway for a large audience into Tolkien's books. Hundred of thousands of people perhaps would never pick them up, simply because they use to be hidden away in the back with the rest of the Sci-Fi and Fantasy books at your popular bookstores. Now those same bookstores have several central displays dedicated to all of Tolkien's works. Jackson, if nothing else, succeeded in bringing a rebirth to Tolkien's vast world through an accesible representation.