Hobbit gets greenlight.. Shooting in February IF...

[Tom Lowe]

Actually if I remember correctly Gollum's expressions were almost entirely hand animated from reference video since facial capture wasn't up to the task yet.

Weta didn't start performance capture in earnest until King Kong. Also Cameron didn't invent performance capture or the term. They did do some cool new innovative things with it but the tech was already being employed pretty broadly. The first serious film to use performance capture is unfortunately probably Polar Express which was released a year before Avatar production began and popularized the term "Performance Capture" in the media.

Unless you're referring to the rendering technology in which case, yes they were both I believe mostly rendered in Pixar's Renderman.

Gavin, my point was that Gollum was really the first photo-real, non-human character to work well. You can mention Yoda and some other from previous films, but Gollum was the first to really do it right. James Cameron mentioned Gollum specifically in his interviews about knowing when the time was right for Avatar. You are correct about facial capture and Kong.

Anyway, my point is... this type of large-scale performance or motion-capture technology was not possible until WETA and Cameron did it. I'm talking about an entire film made up of 90% CGI-based, performance-capture characters. This was not possible when Jackson did LOTR. Now it is. So why have human actors playing Hobbits?

To me, fantasy genres should not have guys in rubber suits and masks. If the technology is there to heighten the magic and adventure and otherworldliness, use it. The Hobbit is a damn near perfect opportunity for this new technology.

I think a lot of people are missing the biggest part of what Cameron did in Avatar. It's not the 3D or the CGI.... it's the ability to make non-human characters photo-real and carry an entire movie. That's the real game changer. And no one seems to have picked up on it yet. At least, they don't seem to be making movies using that technology. They seem to have been distracted by the 3D... when that technology is chicken scratch compared to the performance-capture CGI characters.

 

[Mark Collins]

What I like about LOTR is the dirt and organic feel of the film.

Then they should shoot film.

Red is far too clean for the look of LOTR. The camera has a such a distinctive look to it that no matter what you do to it, you can look at the image and say 'That was shot on Red".

LOTR should be shot on Super 35, which is in my opinion, still the best format to shoot in.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Gavin, my point was that Gollum was really the first photo-real, non-human character to work well. You can mention Yoda and some other from previous films, but Gollum was the first to really do it right. James Cameron mentioned Gollum specifically in his interviews about knowing when the time was right for Avatar. You are correct about facial capture and Kong.

Anyway, my point is... this type of large-scale performance or motion-capture technology was not possible until WETA and Cameron did it. I'm talking about an entire film made up of 90% CGI-based, performance-capture characters. This was not possible when Jackson did LOTR. Now it is. So why have human actors playing Hobbits?

To me, fantasy genres should not have guys in rubber suits and masks. If the technology is there to heighten the magic and adventure and otherworldliness, use it. The Hobbit is a damn near perfect opportunity for this new technology.

I think a lot of people are missing the biggest part of what Cameron did in Avatar. It's not the 3D or the CGI.... it's the ability to make non-human characters photo-real and carry an entire movie. That's the real game changer. And no one seems to have picked up on it yet. At least, they don't seem to be making movies using that technology. They seem to have been distracted by the 3D... when that technology is chicken scratch compared to the performance-capture CGI characters.

Gollum was not photoreal, and neither was Avatar. Gollum was probably 80% there, whilst Avatar was probably 93% there. but even on Avatar, it looks somewhat real, but at no point could you have randomly showed me a frame and actually tricked me into thinking it was a guy in makeup. They'll have hit photoreal when they can bring Abraham Lincoln back from the dead using his own face and have everyone wonder who the actor was.

 

[Subhadip Sen]

Gollum was certainly motion capture, I remember it very clearly from the special features. However, perhaps it did not capture detailed facial expressions. But certainly an evolved motion capture technology was used for rendering Gollum. Tintin is a pretty major step for the technology - it has the challenge of rendering human-like figures who are not quite human. (Whereas Avatar had certain liberties) A very similar challenge to hobbits. I can't wait to see how that turns out. If Tintin is successful, I am sure Jackson, Weta & Co. will consider using the same technology for The Hobbit. Weta is no doubt the best equipped to push this technology forward.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Shawn - with all due respect - we have not even scratched the surface of what can be done in 3D from a creative standpoint. How many really talented, great directors have shot in 3D so far?? - you can count them on one hand. The bar is pretty low at the moment IMO.

That's going to change fast - and dare I suggest - you are going to see some amazing 3D.

To suggest that because a film will be shot in 3D - it can not have stunning cinematography - is simply a false statement.

That's a fair statement, we're young in 3d. So I am curious to see where it goes, though it looks like 3d is already dying. I doubt it'll completely go away, but it'll probably settle into a "special use" thing for action tentpoles and cgi movies. People like Christopher Nolan are very influential to show 3d is not the future of movies as we know them.

EDIT: If 3d is to go up again, I think it needs to be the same ticket cost as 2d.

 

[Shawn Nelson]

Close one eye. Problem solved! Or go see it in 2D. Either way. You can either be a whiny... or pretend it's not in 3D. The choice is yours.

Sorry to be short but I'm out of patience for pointless bitching about stereo. Some people really like it. Some don't. Unless Peter Jackson does a bunch of shots with swords poking the screen (which I'm sure he won't) nothing is lost except the studio pays more for their VFX and post expenses.

In other news... I guess all the forced perspective hobbit shots won't work now. That'll increase the budget a little. Then again most of the movie is with a hobbit and dwarves so that will make things easier than a mixed race party in LOTR.

Then you haven't been paying attention. "Nothing is lost"? How about long lens compression techniques? How about the sheer nature of 3d constantly encouraging depth gimmickery? Imagine Lawrence of Arabia in 3d, instead of awesome clean wide-angles, we'd get a camel in the foreground of every shot.

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

LOTR should be shot on Super 35, which is in my opinion, still the best format to shoot in.

I think Anamorphic works better for films with the kind of scope that Lord of the rings has.

 

[Mark Collins]

I think Anamorphic works better for films with the kind of scope that Lord of the rings has.

Super 35 using anamorphic lenses then.

 

[Mark L. Pederson]

Then they should shoot film.

Red is far too clean for the look of LOTR. The camera has a such a distinctive look to it that no matter what you do to it, you can look at the image and say 'That was shot on Red".

LOTR should be shot on Super 35, which is in my opinion, still the best format to shoot in.

We all have opinions. It's my opinion that Peter Jackson is fairly qualified to choose which camera, format and lenses that will best serve his vision for the project.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I think a lot of people are missing the biggest part of what Cameron did in Avatar. It's not the 3D or the CGI.... it's the ability to make non-human characters photo-real and carry an entire movie. That's the real game changer. And no one seems to have picked up on it yet. At least, they don't seem to be making movies using that technology. They seem to have been distracted by the 3D... when that technology is chicken scratch compared to the performance-capture CGI characters.

It's a pain in the ass though to go half and half. Because then you're removing actors from the frame and replacing them with CG.

I'm all for CG but I have to ask "why" in this instance. I'm sure they'll use some CG for the trolls and other characters but hobbits looked perfect in the last film. The dwarves looked perfect. The orcs looked pretty much perfect. Why add all of the trouble when your background plates are all photorealistic and actually exist somewhere?

Sounds like CG for the sake of CG. James cameron when citing gollum also cited the jungles in King Kong saying something like 'A lot of people think they were miniatures but actually they used a lot of cg jungle'. I don't want my LOTR to look like a really amazing miniature I want it to look like reality.

Why place the actors in a motion capture volume when you can affordably just build the set?

I think we will get to the point where performance capture films will be just about every film. Where it will be cheaper. Where it will be easier and where the workflow is so appealing that everyone will want to shoot the performance capture workflow. I don't think we're there yet. I think we need at least another 8 years or so.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Gollum was not photoreal, and neither was Avatar. Gollum was probably 80% there, whilst Avatar was probably 93% there. but even on Avatar, it looks somewhat real, but at no point could you have randomly showed me a frame and actually tricked me into thinking it was a guy in makeup. They'll have hit photoreal when they can bring Abraham Lincoln back from the dead using his own face and have everyone wonder who the actor was.

Shawn, I think you might be missing my main point and idea here. I am not arguing that we can or should create photo-real human beings right now, especially not for this HOBBIT movie we are discussing. Why create CGI human characters like Gandolf or Bard? We can use human actors for human characters.

My point is that the technology Cameron used on AVATAR means that we can now create "photo-real" NON-HUMAN characters, such as HOBBITS, aliens, bigfoot, etc. These are only slightly "off human," meaning that they look somewhat like humans, but not close enough to just slap some makeup, masks, and rubber feet on them and call it a day.

The days of the guys standing around in rubber masks at the Star Wars cantina are over.

In my mind, THE HOBBIT is an absolutely perfect, textbook case for applying this new motion-capture and CGI technology to a major feature film. Hobbits are humanlike, but they definitely are not human. My fear all along about the HOBBIT is that if Jackson was given the project, he would feel compelled to keep some "consistency" with his LOTR trilogy, and thus would have to hold back the technology by ten years in order to match his Hobbits in LOTR. In my humble opinion, THE HOBBIT should be done with the most advanced, cutting edge motion-capture, CGI and 3D technology on the planet today. The story is full of magic and wonder, and the visuals need to carry it to its full potential.

 

[Bill Anderson]

And just think, Tom, there is no Cartoon Actor's Union. No Gollums picketing for more fish, or Navi chanting "more dues for Blues".... ( :

 

[Tim Hole]

I'm with Tom here, although to be fair there is far more dwarves and humans in The Hobbit than hobbits. There is one thing though that really needs to be paid attention to, The Hobbit is far more of a childrens story than LOTR. Goblins pay a big role and goblins are not Orc's and nothing like them.

Like Mark said 3D is only really just beginning to take hold. I am waiting to see what they do with Tron, but I have a lot of ideas about shooting 3D and utilising space - but no-one seems to be doing anything with 3D. I have been utterly disappointed with the live action 3D that has been sent out, and a lot of it is quick and dirty post 3D.

Besides we need People like Peter Jackson and James Cameron because they, and their minions have the ability and backing to really push the boundries with the technology that will eventually extend to people like myself in the future. I have no issues with them using virtual actors to play some of the roles. As you all know, its all about how you use the technology. To be fair I'm sure there has been a lot of advancements made in the development of Tintin that we don't know about.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Hobbits might be 'non-human' but as far as appearance goes they were described by Tolkien in very human terms. Maybe slightly larger facial structure. Which is to say that they're barely even a prosthetic effect.

Goblins should be CG. Trolls should be CG. But dwarves and hobbits I don't see the point.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

This all depends on how photo-real you think the all-CGI portions of "Avatar" were -- personally, when I think of some of the Navi fights in "Avatar" and compare them, let's say, to a sword fight in LOTR between a human and a stuntman in an Orc costume, I'd say that the fight between the human and the stuntman in prosthetic make-up looks more "real". "Avatar" looked very good, but it still looked like some sort of ultimate video game rather than 100& photo-realism. Now you can argue of course that a fantasy film like "The Hobbit" doesn't have to be grounded in a National Geographic level of realism, not to mention plenty of chunks of LOTR were all-CGI, so just how photo-real any of that has to be is debatable.

I think the question has to be less one of photorealism and more one of audience emotional investment in the hobbits, whether using CGI actors makes that harder, especially if mixed with real human actors in scenes. Of course, "Avatar" and the Gollum in LOTR has already proved you can create a CGI performance that you care about, but it's not exactly as easy as filming a real actor. On the other hand, it also took a lot of work to fake the size of the actors playing hobbits in LOTR.

It also comes down to just how human hobbits look. If they are just shorter with big feet, otherwise looking completely human, then you might as well just use human actors most of the time, save the CGI for wide shots where the comparative heights matter more. Peter Jackson may also want "The Hobbit" to look like a part of the LOTR series and thus not change the way hobbits look.

 

[Tom Lowe]

In addition to Goblins and Trolls, what about Wargs? Wizards? Wood-elves? Eagles? Dragons?

I mean, there are barely any humans in this story at all, even if you count the wizard Gandalf.

If it were me, I would make the entire thing performance capture, now that I think about it. I would have the characters more stylized and epic. The whole thing would be more of a heightened magical reality. Kids and adults would really eat it up if it was done well. You are trying to transport people to another "world" that doesn't exist. Even the landscapes should be infused with a magical, heightened quality. This is a fairy tale after all.

Just slapping human actors in there using "shrinking" techniques and rubber feet doesn't do it me.

 

[Gabe Conroy]

In addition to Goblins and Trolls, what about Wargs? Wizards? Wood-elves? Eagles? Dragons?

I mean, there are barely any humans in this story at all, even if you count the wizard Gandalf.

If it were me, I would make the entire thing performance capture, now that I think about it. I would have the characters more stylized and epic. The whole thing would be more of a heightened magical reality. Kids and adults would really eat it up if it was done well. You are trying to transport people to another "world" that doesn't exist. Even the landscapes should be infused with a magical, heightened quality. This is a fairy tale after all.

Just slapping human actors in there using "shrinking" techniques and rubber feet doesn't do it me.

I really disagree...the thing that the LotR films did that hadn't really been achieved in most fantasy movies was in making it feel like it was a real world. Things like filming on location really made the world feel grounded. That realism to me is what made the movies more "magical". You could relate to it in a way you rarely can in fantasy movies when everything looks like a set or a miniature or whatever.

 

[Mike Gross]

Tom, your comments are not very becoming of someone who's respected around here.
Peter Jackson deserves alot more than credit than you're giving him.
After all, most of Avatar was done at Weta.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Of course, this Hobbit thing is a story about wizards and dragons and monster and hobbits and goblins. Not exactly "reality" subject matter.

If you think about it, if Jackson uses humans in makeup and rubber suits for Hobbits, Dwarves and Gandalf, then 90% of the main cast will be played by humans, even though in the novel, less than 5% of the main characters are human. To me, that takes away the magic.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Tom, your comments are not very becoming of someone who's respected around here.
Peter Jackson deserves alot more than credit than you're giving him.
After all, most of Avatar was done at Weta.

Wait a minute, Mike. Because I am suggesting that Peter Jackson or any director that tackles the Hobbit should use Avatar-style performance capture and 3D, somehow this is disrespectful to Peter?

It's just my paltry 2 cents about filming techniques and technology.

The only negative thing I've said about Peter is that King Kong was about an hour too long, but that's just my opinion. I'm a nobody. I do love Peter's films.

I hope it doesn't get to the point where I cannot express my opinions about filmmaking around here anymore.