MovieChat Forums > Peter Jackson Discussion > Got "Lucasized", but largely not his fau...

Got "Lucasized", but largely not his fault

posted 2 years ago by Leodicaprio (6426)
5 replies | jump to latest

it's almost eery the similarities between their fall. from practical to cgi. from focusing on good characters to flashy surface level spectacle.

If anyone knows about its production and preproduction, the preparation that went into Lord of the Rings compared to Hobbit was day and night.

Due to this rather than his signature use of practical effects complimented by CGI had to be tossed. They simply did not have enough time to design and shoot everything, and constantly just passed it down the line to the CGI people to do in post production. including the main antagonist Blog who was going to be a practical suit and actor.

it is a shame because MGM and New line deserved to be punished for their pure greed and sacrificing all artistic integrity and fan expectations. of course Hollywood is in it to make money, but this was pure film making destruction in favour of maximum profits to the extreme.

instead they made a profit and yet again a company gets rewarded for bad behaviour

[–] Keelai (32089) 2 years ago

Lucas invented CGI! The prequels were experimental films in which he revolutionized CGI, digital cameras, digital editing and CGI characters. What's considered standard today in movie CGI was thanks to Mr. Lucas' innovation back in the 90s.

He also innovated SFX, movie sound, 3D animation (Pixar!) and photography (Photoshop!) in the 70s with the original Star Wars films which were also experimental.

"What did George Lucas ever do for us?"
https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/what-did-george-lucas-ever-do-for-us/

Jackson became a greedy hack. Unfortunate because the Lord of the Rings trilogy was a masterpiece. The Hobbit trilogy is a money grab with bad CGI and a bad script which had little to do with the book.

Checkout George Lucas' Museum which he's building. Still innovating:
https://lucasmuseum.org/building/

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3567) 2 years ago

There are similarities. But in contrast to Lucas, Jackson made some very good small projects after finishing his main "oeuvre", like the WW1 and the Beatles documentaries.

[–] maul (1533) 2 years ago

It is definitely his fault. Time crunch did not make him go from a practical Azog, Dain, and basic goblins to 100% CGI monstrosities. He has a sickness for digital crap, which is why he utterly destroyed the Beatles footage in his new documentary with Digital Noise Reduction - to where they look like mutilated wax sculptures. Any hint of natural analog film grain he cannot abide, and he no longer has any desire for practicality over CGI. He absolutely is Lucas 2.0, though James Cameron has fallen into this trap as well.

[–] AckbarsRevenge (3567) 2 years ago

Well there's endless "analog" and "grainy" Beatles footage out there for your flavor. You can watch the good old Let it be documentary from 1970 in all its noisy and crappy quality any time. I think his restoration is brilliant. At first when it started I actually thought they filmed some new footage at the beginning, bevor I realized it was the original.

[–] maul (1533) 2 years ago

"I think his restoration is brilliant."

Please, for the love of God, don't say that. It's painful to hear.

This is an utter monstrosity:

https://i.ibb.co/GQvVdwk/2TibjdT.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/x6WbM6w/3-F7-AD013-BC0-A-4538-B0-A3-D49291-E36-C4-D.jpg

With analog film, the film grain literally IS the image. Wiping it away only removes detail, and doing it to this extreme... people don't even look like people anymore. This is not a "restoration", this is an ablation, of all detail and natural filmic texture. I can only imagine how good this restoration could have looked if someone without a digital disease had been in charge.