THE HOBBIT: Battle of Five Armies VFX Crowd-Simulation On a Behemoth Scale - Design FX
video description
Date: 2022-07-06
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 10
Alaka'i
The fact of the matter is, that practical effects and CGI are pretty much the same, enhancements used to create something that couldn't exist without said effects. Full motion capture and covering a person in so much prosthetic that nothing of them shows, accomplish the same thing. Only one(CGI) allows for more fluid and natural movements at the cost of realisitc texture, while the other (Prosthetics) provides a grittier looking texture to things usually at the cost of actor mobility and range of movement/expressions able to be seen.
I myself liked the Orcs in the hobbit better then in the LOTR, at least in this trilogy they can show things such as emotive expressions, and actually move their necks and shoulders, giving a much wider range of movement possible.
reply
The fact of the matter is, that practical effects and CGI are pretty much the same, enhancements used to create something that couldn't exist without said effects. Full motion capture and covering a person in so much prosthetic that nothing of them shows, accomplish the same thing. Only one(CGI) allows for more fluid and natural movements at the cost of realisitc texture, while the other (Prosthetics) provides a grittier looking texture to things usually at the cost of actor mobility and range of movement/expressions able to be seen.
I myself liked the Orcs in the hobbit better then in the LOTR, at least in this trilogy they can show things such as emotive expressions, and actually move their necks and shoulders, giving a much wider range of movement possible.
reply
Bill
I think when people say the effects in LOTR were better, they may be reacting to the shots that mix live action/sets/scenery with CGI. In LOTR, most of the CGI work was complementing practical work. In The Hobbit, there are many, many shots that are entirely CGI and thus may come off as looking less realistic when compared to LOTR. I think the CGI in The Hobbit films is generally superior to LOTR, but perhaps isn't as successful because it is often not combined with real sets, scenery, and models. For instance, Helm's Deep is a complex mix of many different practical and CGI elements, while many battle shots in BOTFA are 100% CGI. Therein lies the difference, I think- not the quality of the CGI itself.
reply
I think when people say the effects in LOTR were better, they may be reacting to the shots that mix live action/sets/scenery with CGI. In LOTR, most of the CGI work was complementing practical work. In The Hobbit, there are many, many shots that are entirely CGI and thus may come off as looking less realistic when compared to LOTR. I think the CGI in The Hobbit films is generally superior to LOTR, but perhaps isn't as successful because it is often not combined with real sets, scenery, and models. For instance, Helm's Deep is a complex mix of many different practical and CGI elements, while many battle shots in BOTFA are 100% CGI. Therein lies the difference, I think- not the quality of the CGI itself.
reply
Hans
Is it just me, or does the Smaug sequence portrayed in this video looks a hundred times better than in the actual film? It looks darker, much more menacing, and less shiny and glossy. I want to think that this color palette was changed due to fear the dark tone would grant them an R rating. If that's the case, I'm just hoping the EE for the batle of the five armies looks more like that, since it's rated R. I would still be CGI, but I think it would actually allow the effects to merge with reality the same way it did in LOTR.
reply
Is it just me, or does the Smaug sequence portrayed in this video looks a hundred times better than in the actual film? It looks darker, much more menacing, and less shiny and glossy. I want to think that this color palette was changed due to fear the dark tone would grant them an R rating. If that's the case, I'm just hoping the EE for the batle of the five armies looks more like that, since it's rated R. I would still be CGI, but I think it would actually allow the effects to merge with reality the same way it did in LOTR.
reply
Reeepicheep
For The Hobbit, PJ bastardized the entire aesthetic of Middle-earth and abused CGI in order to pad out extra material to satisfy a trilogy. Weta isn't even to blame here really. Peter's strange technical choices like shooting in unforgiving 5k digital and 48 fps (adding encumbrance for the effects team, doing away with bigatures, and making everything computer-generated hurt the films by eliminating their sense of danger. Such treachery shouldn't be applauded.
reply
For The Hobbit, PJ bastardized the entire aesthetic of Middle-earth and abused CGI in order to pad out extra material to satisfy a trilogy. Weta isn't even to blame here really. Peter's strange technical choices like shooting in unforgiving 5k digital and 48 fps (adding encumbrance for the effects team, doing away with bigatures, and making everything computer-generated hurt the films by eliminating their sense of danger. Such treachery shouldn't be applauded.
reply
DeanoPiano
I think FX speaking the first 3 films looked better, maybe because they didn't have a high bloom wash over their effect sequences and it seams like more acting/stunts and props were used in the original 3 films that just make it that much more visually attractive, I still think the Hobbit trilogy is great, but visually imo it felt like to much CGI and other effects used ruined its overall contrast compared to the Lord Of The Rings.
reply
I think FX speaking the first 3 films looked better, maybe because they didn't have a high bloom wash over their effect sequences and it seams like more acting/stunts and props were used in the original 3 films that just make it that much more visually attractive, I still think the Hobbit trilogy is great, but visually imo it felt like to much CGI and other effects used ruined its overall contrast compared to the Lord Of The Rings.
reply
Mark
I enjoyed TBOT5A, but for all its 'vastly complicated simulations, terrific character work and breath-taking environments' it looked so clearly CG, which broke immersion, entertaining as it was. Meanwhile the orangutan in Planet of the apes looked REAL, so as far as this goes I can't blame the academy. All the fancy computer advances in the background don't mean a thing when Dain's face looks like a video game character.
reply
I enjoyed TBOT5A, but for all its 'vastly complicated simulations, terrific character work and breath-taking environments' it looked so clearly CG, which broke immersion, entertaining as it was. Meanwhile the orangutan in Planet of the apes looked REAL, so as far as this goes I can't blame the academy. All the fancy computer advances in the background don't mean a thing when Dain's face looks like a video game character.
reply
Dan
Weta is the king of CGI. thats the truth. They didnt nominated The hobbit becasue the Apes are in already. Yes we can say that the apes movie is way more close to real life simulating while the hobbit is 70% pure fantasy so The Dawnofblabla is more worthy. I know weta wont win because Double Negative will win with Interstellar but they work will be honored with the nomination which is good.
reply
Weta is the king of CGI. thats the truth. They didnt nominated The hobbit becasue the Apes are in already. Yes we can say that the apes movie is way more close to real life simulating while the hobbit is 70% pure fantasy so The Dawnofblabla is more worthy. I know weta wont win because Double Negative will win with Interstellar but they work will be honored with the nomination which is good.
reply
Baby
CGI was one of the more glaring shortcomings of this film. The larger scale CGI was impressive at a distance but a lot of the closer up fighting looked off and jarring. What made LoTR spectacular was all the practical effects grounding the computer graphics to work more seamlessly with one another. Sometimes less is more
reply
CGI was one of the more glaring shortcomings of this film. The larger scale CGI was impressive at a distance but a lot of the closer up fighting looked off and jarring. What made LoTR spectacular was all the practical effects grounding the computer graphics to work more seamlessly with one another. Sometimes less is more
reply
Rowan
The CGI of the Hobbit movies is incredible. But most of it is flat out ruined by the colour grade they put over it. In scenes with sun light, there's a weird glare that's on everything. Half the shots looks like something was smeared on the lens of the camera. It ruined what was some truly amazing looking work.
reply
The CGI of the Hobbit movies is incredible. But most of it is flat out ruined by the colour grade they put over it. In scenes with sun light, there's a weird glare that's on everything. Half the shots looks like something was smeared on the lens of the camera. It ruined what was some truly amazing looking work.
reply
Thoughts
Just jaw dropping, particularly the shots of Dain's army running past the elves in the distance, the intricacy of the visual effects that went into this film cannot be understated, its a monumental shame that the academy gave no nomination to this film.
reply
Just jaw dropping, particularly the shots of Dain's army running past the elves in the distance, the intricacy of the visual effects that went into this film cannot be understated, its a monumental shame that the academy gave no nomination to this film.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
