The Hobbit : one art direction decision that I don't understand

[Karim_Nassar]

First of: once again Peter Jackson and his team have breathed life into a cg character in an amazing way.
Smaug, just like Gollum in its time, is truly an amazing performance on all grounds.
Congrats to the whole team and thanks for the experience.

Now there is a visual art decision that I just don't understand: over glowy burned out skies.

Different strokes for different folks, fair enough.
But i does not make sense to me as an art direction call.

I feel those glowy skies belong in the visual code of video games.

They came out when the "next gen" consoles were released, I'm talking about the ps3 and x360 back in the day.
Those consoles were capable of new in game effects such as those "glows".
And they were heavily used and abused in many games. It looks like this:

And yet this is strikingly similar as what you see in the hobbit movies.

For such movies I would expect to find rich, detailed, deep skies that immerse you in the scenery.
Which is something we are used to see in cinema, with beautiful matte paintings:

Maybe this is a decision to appeal to younger audiences that plays video games?

Do you agree with me or did you not even notice, or even enjoy this glowy look?

I'd be happy to hear your thoughts

 

[Filip Orlandic]

Watch the Lord of The Rings Extended Bluray films (2013 release) and you will notice the new color grading (different color hue) and glowing highlights especially in Minas Tirith!

"The world is changed..."

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Skies glow with the air is hazy and they glow when they are bright and there is lens diffusion on the camera, so Jackson's efx people may be simulating either or both. I don't see a hazy glowing sky as reminded me of video games, since I never play them, but there are plenty of pre-CGI movies with them -- look "Superman: The Movie" (fog filters) or "Barry Lyndon" (low-con filters). Look at "Tess":

 

[paulherrin]

as i've said before, i think the look and feel the filmmakers are going for in the hobbit trilogy can best be described as a "magical realism" - and that soft glow is certainly one aspect of it, in addition to vibrant colors, chiaroscuro, hdr, hfr, and 3d... not to mention subjects like wizards and elves and dwarves and dragons

just because some of these techniques/looks are found in video games does not in any way mean that they were going for a video-game-look in order to appeal to audiences.

 

[Carlos Murphy]

as i've said before, i think the look and feel the filmmakers are going for in the hobbit trilogy can best be described as a "magical realism"

I agree with you Paul. The film has a magical look that I think will appeal audiences including kids the most. But I really didn't understand the 48 frames that is suppose to heighten the effects of 3D. Some of the characters that I liked on Lord of the Rings are not even on the film. But the film is excellent and the glowing sky put a touch of greatness to the film.

 

[paulherrin]

well, high-framerate (and 3d) makes it more similar to the way we see, and reduces motion artifacts. some people don't like it, mostly it seems like because they prefer the traditional look of 24fps and a flat screen. i've found that most people are moving towards one end of the spectrum or the other... they will watch 24fps and 2D only or they also enjoy 48fps and 3D - very telling.

you should read the books... lord of the rings takes place after the hobbit.

 

[Karim_Nassar]

Watch the Lord of The Rings Extended Bluray films (2013 release) and you will notice the new color grading (different color hue) and glowing highlights especially in Minas Tirith!

"The world is changed..."

I'll have a look thanks

Skies glow with the air is hazy and they glow when they are bright and there is lens diffusion on the camera, so Jackson's efx people may be simulating either or both. I don't see a hazy glowing sky as reminded me of video games, since I never play them, but there are plenty of pre-CGI movies with them -- look "Superman: The Movie" (fog filters) or "Barry Lyndon" (low-con filters). Look at "Tess":

Don't get me wrong I don't mind hazy glowing skies at all and I am not saying that they emulate video games look by themselves.

Actually this is why it disturbs me in the hobbit movies. It does not look like some weather simulation, it is just there all the time no matter the weather or light.
It feels to me like a post glow filter added on top purely for style.

as i've said before, i think the look and feel the filmmakers are going for in the hobbit trilogy can best be described as a "magical realism" - and that soft glow is certainly one aspect of it, in addition to vibrant colors, chiaroscuro, hdr, hfr, and 3d... not to mention subjects like wizards and elves and dwarves and dragons

just because some of these techniques/looks are found in video games does not in any way mean that they were going for a video-game-look in order to appeal to audiences.

Maybe I was excessive when saying that they might have been trying to appeal to audiences that way.
But considering the video game industry is ahead of movies these days and how as artists we are influenced by many things I would not be surprised it had its role.

It might just be purely a "magical realism" effect like you said though, good point.
But in that case too heavy handed for me, when I see glow that has no logical reason to be there it feels like a post work add on and is distracting to me.

 

[Karim_Nassar]

btw I appreciate all of the feedback thanks
Even if none of you agree with me ;-)

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

Littlle more natural skies would not have hurt if you asked me.

 

[Drew Baird]

I'm a fan of the effect it's self, but I do feel like they pushed it a little far. Everything has a bit of a diffused digital feel to it. Half as much would have been perfect for my taste. They didn't ask me for my opinion though. I don't know why.... It almost feels like they don't even know who I am. That hurts. I'm going to go whiskey shopping. I'll talk to you guys later...

:incazzato:

 

[paulherrin]

don't disagree with you per se, but it's definitely a stylistic choice and it definitely involves post filtration. i think they very clearly wanted to place this in a world of its own where (essentially) anything can happen. i think what you get is this kind of magic floating in the air is the idea. maybe they've pushed it to the max, but you've got to realize how unobserving audiences are, sometimes you've gotta go beyond subtle to stand something out. you've got a very small percentage of us critiquing filtration choices.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

The movie already looks sharper than the previous trilogy shot on film; don't you think that if "The Hobbit" had been any sharper and clearer it would have looked even more digital, not less?

 

[paulherrin]

i think there's a difference between digital and video, david... although that's hard to define, very subjective. it's just a way to differentiate between something that's noisy, low-res, low-range and grounded in the tech of 80's and 90's... obviously there is a difference with digital cinema and it has to do with texture, resolution/sharpness, dynamic range, and post-processing. in that way - almost everything these days has some aspects of a digital-look, even if it's on film because of NR and the DI - and a lot of stuff shot digitally has some aspects of a film-look because of its perfected response curve and the traditionally referenced looks (and lenses) and additive grain-textures we're using.


personally i do think the hobbit has a very (obviously purposeful) digital look and feel due to the vibrancy/color clarity, high-dynamic range, digital filtration, amount of cgi structures, scenes, cameras, and characters, and of course the spatial/temporal details and use of 3d. think 'virtual dream'...

you could certainly relate that to video games if that's your point of reference, i'm just not sure that it's trying to look like a video game so much that similar tools/techniques are being used for similar purposes.

 

[Björn Benckert]

Littlle more natural skies would not have hurt if you asked me.

Agree, The hobbit films are very impressive in some ways and then there is some aspects to it that I really do not understand. To me most of it looks like a sunday matinee like Zena the war princess or such, which does not get high ratings in my book. But I guess that all of that goes with the concept.

Peter Jackson has said that he do over saturate the sets and such to compensate for the color loss that comes from current 3D cinema technology... But me thinks that the he maybe has been standing in those over saturated sets for so long now so he actually got used to that look and then tend to keep the colours in there instead of grading them down as he had planned initially. However the richness of some of the shots really impress me but then there is other shots that are simply really poor, that to me would need some serious treatment or even a reshoot for some of them.

But I must agree it's all very odd, considering the level of difficulty and struggle they must go through with the rest of the VFX work.I find it strange that they let sky enhancements for some shots look like they are done by an VFX intern that came straight from school. Those shots just hurts my eyes from the first frame of the clip, and feels far from dialed in,To me even when aiming for a more atmospheric look it kind of needs to be weighted and melted together with the rest of the image, But it looks like the just key on highlights above the horizon and poke in some glow. To me that something that was even hard to get away with back in the days of music videos, but today with the given technology available it just does not cut as glowing skies, it simply looks like a poor post effect, they should at least use some volumetric 3D renders and relight the whole scenes instead of just pushing the glow button, or if not that, at least dial down the glows to more subtile levels.

But then again, I'm not pushing out mega block busters every christmas so what do I know

 

[paulherrin]

i don't think there's any question that these two films have been a rush-job... i highly doubt that was a creative decision.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Of course the amount of saturation and the amount of diffusion are creative decisions -- people manage to pick those amounts on low-budget projects that have an even shorter post schedule, and these effects are not done on some sort of "auto" setting, they are selected by a human being making a creative choice as to how much level to use.

Diffusion effects have been a part of the Lord of the Rings films since the beginning. "The Fellowship of the Ring" has some shots with much heavier diffusion than does "The Hobbit", are you suggesting that was because they were even more rushed on "The Fellowship of the Rings"? That makes no sense.

Clearly there are artistic choices being made here that some of you don't agree with, but for some reason would ascribe to accident and error rather than choice.

It also makes no sense that the decision to glow the sky, something that has been done with filters since the dawn of cinema, is now due to wanting to please video gamers.

 

[paulherrin]

david, as far as the rush, i was responding to bjorn and referring mostly to things like compositing/fx and saying the schedule was not creatively decided...

i think we're in agreement. your point about the lord of the rings is exactly what i'm talking about - those i think are landmark 'digital-look' films.

on another note...

Watch the Lord of The Rings Extended Bluray films (2013 release) and you will notice the new color grading (different color hue) and glowing highlights especially in Minas Tirith!

"The world is changed..."

you're saying they did a completely new grade for the 2013 bluray?

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think it's surprising that every time a movie is color-corrected by the original filmmakers, it changes somewhat unless the goal is simply 100% recreation of the previous grade. That doesn't mean earlier grades were wrong or right, or that with each pass, it gets "truer", etc., it's just the nature of artistic reevaluation.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

When I was a teenager, one of my favorite effects shots was this from "Empire Strikes Back":

One of the reasons it felt real was the use of a fog filter on camera to cause the painted sky backdrop behind the models to glow into the models, making it feel more like a sky that had light emanating -- as a light source would -- from it rather than a painting of a sky. This was very hard to create in optical printer blue screen composites of the day, though everyone had different techniques to create some realistic bleed-thru when compositing an object against a bright sky. Once composites were done digitally, it was a lot easier to add a glow pass. Yes, sometimes it has been overdone if a totally photorealistic look is desired, but all of the Lord of the Rings films have had elements of fantasy and magic realism in the visuals.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

Also, isn't it possible that video games do the glow pass to emulate feature film effects, not the other way around?