Question:
From theonering.net
Here is a picture of the figurine of treebeard that will be available at the release of The Two Towers. Its probably a pretty good indication of what he will look like in the movie.
I, for one, am unsure...but i guess we will see.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/smiddy/treebeard.jpg
The general look seems good, and pretty close to how I imagined it, maybe a bit more tree-like than I had hoped.
Of course, with CG characters the key issues are :
1. How well does he move? Given that I expect his movements to be pretty rigid, they shouldn't have too many problems. WETA have shown with the cave troll that they can give a CGI creature the impression of solid mass.
2. How well does he interact with real actors? Again, with the cave troll, Legolas standing on it's shoulders looked good but that shot lasted seconds, if that.
If WETA can sort these two out, then they've got it made IMHO.
I can't wait to hear Treebeard's comment about being "Not very bendable." Absolutely wonderfull, and harkens back to some of the more fonder characters in The Hobbit...
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
Again, with the cave troll, Legolas standing on it's shoulders looked good but that shot lasted seconds, if that.Did you watch the same film as me? The interaction between Legolas and the troll was the worst effect in the whole film (by a long way). It looked totally fake.
ILM made a similar cock-up with Anakin's interaction with the creature in the field on Naboo. That was just terrible.
Both the troll in LOTR and the very similar one in Harry Potter were badly done IMO.
Any person who interacts with CGI like that always come off looking worse, i mean they always seem to look like rubber and don't really move in the way a real person would.
At least with Gollum it's motion capture stuff, and not on-the-fly CGI (hey that rhymes)
It seems to me that some of you people need to take a few lessons from children on how to enjoy these kinds of films.
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
The general look seems good, and pretty close to how I imagined it, maybe a bit more tree-like than I had hoped.
LOL, I was just thinking he could be a bit treeier :p
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
1. How well does he move? Given that I expect his movements to be pretty rigid, they shouldn't have too many problems. WETA have shown with the cave troll that they can give a CGI creature the impression of solid mass.
I agree with that. The animation of the character will be the key. If they can make it look like he can realistically move around it helps stretch the imagination that wee bit further.
This whole person on beast CGI is always rubbish. Legolas on the troll was about one of the best ones.
Thing is why don't they build a basic animatronic or even use a bucking bronco in front of a blue screen and then just superimpose the real actor onto the CGI creation using motion tracking on the animatronic?
Or is that really silly?
Don't you see a glimpse of Treebeard on the two towers preview on the current LOTR release?
At least I'm guessing it was him - you see something reaching down during a montage of clips (its very short)
No film has ever been able to convincingly do a person riding an animal" in CG. For some reason, no matter how good the CG itself, our brain doesn't process it.
Starship Troopers (guy leaping on huge beetle thing).
AOTC (Anakin on the "cow")
LOTR (Legolas on the troll)
I'm sure there are more.
It just always looks bad.
No.1
The LARCH.
Originally posted by SqueakyG
No film has ever been able to convincingly do a person riding an animal" in CG. For some reason, no matter how good the CG itself, our brain doesn't process it.
Starship Troopers (guy leaping on huge beetle thing).
AOTC (Anakin on the "cow")
LOTR (Legolas on the troll)
I'm sure there are more.
It just always looks bad.
Which makes me wonder just how stupid are they !
Surely it would be better to motion capture the actor on top of a real animal or mechanical "creature", then create CGI for both the animal and the actor. I can't believe you can't create a pretty convincing CGI of an actor using skins the way games do these days. Just take a look at some Doom3 screen shots !!!
Here is a picture of the figurine of treebeard that will be available at the release of The Two Towers. Its probably a pretty good indication of what he will look like in the movie.
I, for one, am unsure...but i guess we will see.
http://members.lycos.co.uk/smiddy/treebeard.jpg
Answers:
The general look seems good, and pretty close to how I imagined it, maybe a bit more tree-like than I had hoped.
Of course, with CG characters the key issues are :
1. How well does he move? Given that I expect his movements to be pretty rigid, they shouldn't have too many problems. WETA have shown with the cave troll that they can give a CGI creature the impression of solid mass.
2. How well does he interact with real actors? Again, with the cave troll, Legolas standing on it's shoulders looked good but that shot lasted seconds, if that.
If WETA can sort these two out, then they've got it made IMHO.
Answers:
I can't wait to hear Treebeard's comment about being "Not very bendable." Absolutely wonderfull, and harkens back to some of the more fonder characters in The Hobbit...
Answers:
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
Again, with the cave troll, Legolas standing on it's shoulders looked good but that shot lasted seconds, if that.Did you watch the same film as me? The interaction between Legolas and the troll was the worst effect in the whole film (by a long way). It looked totally fake.
ILM made a similar cock-up with Anakin's interaction with the creature in the field on Naboo. That was just terrible.
Both the troll in LOTR and the very similar one in Harry Potter were badly done IMO.
Answers:
Any person who interacts with CGI like that always come off looking worse, i mean they always seem to look like rubber and don't really move in the way a real person would.
At least with Gollum it's motion capture stuff, and not on-the-fly CGI (hey that rhymes)
Answers:
It seems to me that some of you people need to take a few lessons from children on how to enjoy these kinds of films.
Answers:
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
The general look seems good, and pretty close to how I imagined it, maybe a bit more tree-like than I had hoped.
LOL, I was just thinking he could be a bit treeier :p
Answers:
Originally posted by Mr_Gimp
1. How well does he move? Given that I expect his movements to be pretty rigid, they shouldn't have too many problems. WETA have shown with the cave troll that they can give a CGI creature the impression of solid mass.
I agree with that. The animation of the character will be the key. If they can make it look like he can realistically move around it helps stretch the imagination that wee bit further.
Answers:
This whole person on beast CGI is always rubbish. Legolas on the troll was about one of the best ones.
Thing is why don't they build a basic animatronic or even use a bucking bronco in front of a blue screen and then just superimpose the real actor onto the CGI creation using motion tracking on the animatronic?
Or is that really silly?
Answers:
Don't you see a glimpse of Treebeard on the two towers preview on the current LOTR release?
At least I'm guessing it was him - you see something reaching down during a montage of clips (its very short)
Answers:
No film has ever been able to convincingly do a person riding an animal" in CG. For some reason, no matter how good the CG itself, our brain doesn't process it.
Starship Troopers (guy leaping on huge beetle thing).
AOTC (Anakin on the "cow")
LOTR (Legolas on the troll)
I'm sure there are more.
It just always looks bad.
Answers:
No.1
The LARCH.
Answers:
Originally posted by SqueakyG
No film has ever been able to convincingly do a person riding an animal" in CG. For some reason, no matter how good the CG itself, our brain doesn't process it.
Starship Troopers (guy leaping on huge beetle thing).
AOTC (Anakin on the "cow")
LOTR (Legolas on the troll)
I'm sure there are more.
It just always looks bad.
Which makes me wonder just how stupid are they !
Surely it would be better to motion capture the actor on top of a real animal or mechanical "creature", then create CGI for both the animal and the actor. I can't believe you can't create a pretty convincing CGI of an actor using skins the way games do these days. Just take a look at some Doom3 screen shots !!!
1 2