Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Viggo Mortensen criticizes ‘Lord of the Rings’ films Jackson discovered CGI ‘he never looked back’
NY Daily News ^

Posted on 05/16/2014 4:31:40 AM PDT by Perdogg

So much for that fellowship of the ring.

Viggo Mortensen took a shot at Peter Jackson's dependence on visual effects in the "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy films, which are widely considered to have launched the actor's career to a higher level.

In a frank interview with London's The Telegraph, the 55-year-old star of the upcoming "Two Faces of January" gave a thumbs-down to every J.R.R. Tolkien adaptation his former director has made since the first installment, 2001's "The Fellowship of the Ring."

(Excerpt) Read more at nydailynews.com ...


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; TV/Movies
KEYWORDS: lotr; tolkien
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last
The music is awesome.
1 posted on 05/16/2014 4:31:40 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis; fidelis; JDoutrider; Tax-chick; Altariel; Ann de IL; Aevery_Freeman; ..

ping


2 posted on 05/16/2014 4:32:40 AM PDT by Perdogg (Ted Cruz-Rand Paul 2016)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

Without CGI, those films would never have even been made, I think.


3 posted on 05/16/2014 4:36:03 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I’ll agree when it comes to “The Hobbit” - the endless reliance on ever-perposterous CGI has destroyed the creative story-telling process.


4 posted on 05/16/2014 4:38:45 AM PDT by Yossarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I think Vigo’s criticisms are right on. I also think the headline writer is trying to create more of a controversy than Vigo probably intended. PJ went way over the top on special effects, and in the Hobbit, the effects are now driving the story, at the expense of the plot and characters.


5 posted on 05/16/2014 4:44:59 AM PDT by sphinx
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
I've always thought that the first movie was better than the third. The first was all new, had all that wonder. It was open-ended, but had some sense of resolution and promise for the future. (Putting Boromir at the end of the first movie was a good touch for the movie -- really, it made sense).

The third movie ... the battle was too much "shaky cam" for me. Had it been in 3-D, I would've been nauseous. That said, I can see the advantage of producing them on the cheap to get them finished on the budget they had and they reworking it later.

6 posted on 05/16/2014 4:45:51 AM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Rome didn't fall in a day, either.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
The New York-born Mortensen also expressed disappointment that Jackson has gone on to become a one-man film industry in New Zealand instead of going back to making more intimate movies such as the critically lauded 1994 drama, "Heavenly Creatures."

That's silly - anybody can make small movies. All you need is an idea and small amounts of funding. It's the epic ones that are difficult to make, because of the gargantuan costs.

7 posted on 05/16/2014 4:47:14 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The worst thing to happen to film: CGI.


8 posted on 05/16/2014 4:47:42 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yossarian

That’s how I felt Lucas ruined the Star Wars triology when he re-released them with all sorts of new stuff including the Titanic of CGI, Jar Jar Binks. Once they get their hands on this stuff the story line too easily becomes: ‘Aren’t I so cute and clever?’


9 posted on 05/16/2014 4:48:10 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

You remind me of people who don’t read and yet think short stories are easier to write than novels.


10 posted on 05/16/2014 4:48:53 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

There is one potential upside to CGI, dead actors can come back and star in new films and living, insufferable actors can go away in poverty and silence.


11 posted on 05/16/2014 4:50:33 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Sure, we need more movies about teenaged murderesses. Stuff like that is always “critically lauded,” especially if it has homosexual elements, too.


12 posted on 05/16/2014 4:52:46 AM PDT by Tax-chick (If I offended you, you needed it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

I have often told people that the magic of movies was killed off by computers. The ingenuity it took to pull off effects is extinct. You will never hear someone say, as they walk out if a theater: “Geez, how did they DO that?!”


13 posted on 05/16/2014 4:57:36 AM PDT by cld51860 (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: cld51860

Kids are amazed if you show them a Keaton or Lloyd movie and say “yes, they really did that stunt - it wasn’t created by CGI.” Of course, the problem with CGI is that is looks so unbelievably phony. Even watching the spectaculars from the 50s like “The Ten Commandments,” show enormous energy and talent to create those effects.


14 posted on 05/16/2014 5:00:57 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
There is one potential upside to CGI, dead actors can come back and star in new films and living, insufferable actors can go away in poverty and silence.

Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe will be in porn films. Our society uses new technology is used in the worst possible ways.

15 posted on 05/16/2014 5:01:10 AM PDT by Spirochete (GOP: Give Obama Power)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein
You remind me of people who don’t read and yet think short stories are easier to write than novels.

To write either a short story or a novel requires only months or years of effort by a single person. Movies are completely different things. Movies require financing and that in itself is a major undertaking. Directors are like generals planning military campaigns. They need to worry about logistics, timing, equipment, location, expenses and so on. Small movies don't require nearly as much management effort, meaning that sheer artistic vision has a better chance of shining through. Peter Jackson should leave the small movies to the up-and-comers.

16 posted on 05/16/2014 5:02:46 AM PDT by Zhang Fei (Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

The chase in the goblin cavern is too much video game and too little movie sequence.


17 posted on 05/16/2014 5:05:03 AM PDT by OpusatFR
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

Well, if you think the important thing is all the work and sweat behind the scenes, bully for you. I happen to think it’s the work up on the screen that matters and nothing else. Small dramas and good comedies are what are needed in film today not more overblown CGI crap.

I’ll stick with the classics and the foreign movies until things change. Which will never happen.


18 posted on 05/16/2014 5:07:37 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: WorkingClassFilth
...the Titanic of CGI, Jar Jar Binks.

LOL!

19 posted on 05/16/2014 5:07:47 AM PDT by Fresh Wind (The last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Zhang Fei

The movie producer should be handling the money and keeping the director in check.

When a person wears both hats, it is harder than wearing just one.

That said, a $100 million project is not necessarily more stressful than a $10 million project, or even a $1 million project. For example, the person that has their entire life wrapped into a $1 million project is likely to feel a lot more stress than a person contracted to manage a $10 million contract.


20 posted on 05/16/2014 5:13:24 AM PDT by SampleMan (Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Yossarian

Have you ever tried casting 100,000 Orcs for a couple weeks of battle scenes? Even if Moochelle is available that still leaves you 99,999 short.


21 posted on 05/16/2014 5:16:03 AM PDT by USNBandit (sarcasm engaged at all times)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

For my tastes, Vigo Mortenson can go pound lembas bread. He was probably the weakest character in all the LOTR films, a greasy, unkempt mumbler who showed little of the regal bearing required of Tolkien’s Aragorn. It was a bad casting job, and Vigo should be doing “Paint Your Wagon” at the Suburban Dinner Theater’s matinees.


22 posted on 05/16/2014 5:19:12 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete

Yes, I’m sure that will happen but that stuff is already there; just different faces.


23 posted on 05/16/2014 5:22:12 AM PDT by WorkingClassFilth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete

Wait - you mean with each other?


24 posted on 05/16/2014 5:22:24 AM PDT by Hegewisch Dupa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Agreed, although I liked him in Eastern Promises and Historey of Violence. I thought the LOTR films were an excellent adaptation of te books.


25 posted on 05/16/2014 5:23:27 AM PDT by MattinNJ (It's over Johnny. The America you knew is gone. Denial serves no purpose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

When the world created by the mind of the ORIGINAL STORY writer, to create the environment within the character(s) live, breath, think, feel, and act, is changed by Hollywood to where THAT WORLD, i.e., CGI, takes precedence over the character-driven stories, as J.R.R. Tolkien’s stories have always been, the movie sucks.

Example: Edgar Rice Burroughs; John Carter of Mars.

TWICE made, once with Traci Lords, and one without. One called John Carter of Mars. The other, just John Carter.
TWICE sucked.

I have read Tolkien’s works many years ago, before the Bakshi-animated film, “The Hobbit”, was released. THAT film, though not CGI, did act as a precursor to today’s muddling CGI.


26 posted on 05/16/2014 5:27:08 AM PDT by Terry L Smith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

I think Viggo is a dork but I also think he’s right. The first movie was closer to the book, it was story driven. CGI in that one complemented the story nothing else. Starting with the next one, CGI started taking over, visuals over story and ROTR was worse.

The Hobbit (I’ve only seen the first one) was awful. CGI to the point of phoniness. I can’t blame the studios for funding these though, the movie going public (ie young people) don’t care about story. They didn’t grow up reading, they don’t have the desire for a plot.


27 posted on 05/16/2014 5:30:28 AM PDT by Varda
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Spirochete
Audrey Hepburn and Marilyn Monroe will be in porn films. Our society uses new technology is used in the worst possible ways.

I think Marilyn Monroe already was...



28 posted on 05/16/2014 5:34:52 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cld51860

I’ve been playing with 3D effects for years, and I routinely ask “how did they do that?!”

Anyone who thinks the computer does all the work has no idea what they’re talking about. It takes an enormous amount of work and creativity to pull some of this stuff off. That doesn’t detract from the old school special effects stuff, it’s just different.


29 posted on 05/16/2014 5:41:57 AM PDT by Future Snake Eater (CrossFit.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
For my tastes, Vigo Mortenson can go pound lembas bread. He was probably the weakest character in all the LOTR films, a greasy, unkempt mumbler who showed little of the regal bearing required of Tolkien’s Aragorn. It was a bad casting job, and Vigo should be doing “Paint Your Wagon” at the Suburban Dinner Theater’s matinees.

I was going to note that Dunedain were beardless, being of partial Elvish extraction. Maybe CGI can replace Mortenson...

30 posted on 05/16/2014 5:49:47 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
I don't see the connection between Tinkerbell and MM.

I'm sure some female was used as the model for Tink's face, but I don't know who.

She looks more like Sandra Dee than MM, to me anyway.

31 posted on 05/16/2014 5:50:19 AM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

Agreed. Viggo Mortensen is a lousy actor. And a hard left radical.


32 posted on 05/16/2014 5:52:21 AM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit
Have you ever tried casting 100,000 Orcs for a couple weeks of battle scenes? Even if Moochelle is available that still leaves you 99,999 short.

Oh, sure - MAKE me blow coffee through my nose. Bastard. LOL! :)

33 posted on 05/16/2014 5:53:57 AM PDT by kiryandil (turning Americans into felons, one obnoxious drunk at a time (Zero Tolerance!!!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein

Reminds me of my son’s love for Alfred Hitchcock films. While in college on a Saturday night, he decided to stay in and watch one of his favorites: “Rope.” A few of his friends dropped by to see if he was interested in hitting the bars. When he declined, they started making fun of him for choosing to watch “old movies.” One by one, however, they all fell silent as the story line drew them in. Within minutes, the entire gathering fell silent, transfixed by an “old movie” depicting a cold blooded murder, filmed entirely in one room, and centered on three actors. No blood. No gore. No special effects. The boys never moved or spoke during movie. The magic of Hollywood, pre CGI.


34 posted on 05/16/2014 5:55:25 AM PDT by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Varda

The Hobbit movies are okay. Not great literature. I’ve read the LOTR and the Hobbit multiple times and at the first viewing of each movie I had the book in my mind and was disappointed. The second (and in the case of LOTR third time to watch the movie, I got into the visual and accepted that the story line had to change. Most recently I wanted the second Hobbit movie with my granddaughter and loved it. The acting in the Hobbit movies is actually okay. I put them in the same category as the Raiders of the Lost Ark and the other Indiana Jones movie I liked, the Grail with Sean Connery. Fun to watch, not great literature.


35 posted on 05/16/2014 5:58:48 AM PDT by Mercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: USNBandit

Wouldn’t her toes give you another 10 or so?


36 posted on 05/16/2014 6:05:23 AM PDT by ArtDodger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Future Snake Eater

Agreed. Just because the artist is using a computer rather than film, it doesn’t make them any less an artist.

In the end, if you don’t have a good story, and good writing—the best artists couldn’t make a good production.

It’s about the end product.


37 posted on 05/16/2014 6:10:34 AM PDT by Vermont Lt (If you want to keep your dignity, you can keep it. Period........ Just kidding, you can't keep it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey

That’s a nice story - and Rope isn’t even one of the Master’s top movies! It’s all shot in one or two takes I believe. I think all children should be given art education - film, theater, art, opera and dance appreciation. Of course, that’s a pipe dream since kids don’t even get gym or recreation in the playground anymore.


38 posted on 05/16/2014 6:15:23 AM PDT by miss marmelstein (Richard Lives Yet!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Without CGI, those films would never have even been made, I think.

That's my opinion as well. One of the most compelling--if not THE most compelling--characters in LOTR was done with motion capture and CGI.
39 posted on 05/16/2014 6:19:07 AM PDT by needmorePaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

You’re right, they had to wait for the technology to catch up to the books. And this moron after finishing the movie said when asked what he learned he replied war never solved anything.
He should have played a tree.


40 posted on 05/16/2014 6:28:19 AM PDT by longfellow (Bill Maher, the 21st hijacker.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

I was neither a fan of his portrayal or Jackson’s directing in general. Sadly that was filmed during the Clinton years when retro earth-hippie was cool again, and Jackson admitted that that was his approach, which he kind of mingled with medieval imagery and lowbrow slapstick humor. It completely left out the regalness of the book and the Numenorean/Elvish high culture.


41 posted on 05/16/2014 6:28:27 AM PDT by Free Vulcan (Vote Republican! You can vote Democrat when you're dead...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Free Vulcan

-— Jackson admitted that that was his approach, which he kind of mingled with medieval imagery and lowbrow slapstick humor -—

Seems about right. It’s even more apparent with the Hobbit.

The characters are flat, so the movies have no heart. This explains why Gollum stands out. He’s the only complex character.

Still, the CGI is off the charts.


42 posted on 05/16/2014 6:33:36 AM PDT by St_Thomas_Aquinas ( Isaiah 22:22, Matthew 16:19, Revelation 3:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil; IronJack
"...a greasy, unkempt mumbler who showed little of the regal bearing required of Tolkien’s Aragorn."

"I was going to note that Dunedain were beardless, being of partial Elvish extraction. Maybe CGI can replace Mortenson..."

I first read Tolkien's books (the four of them) back in 1966 and did an immediate re-read along with two other re-readings over the ensuing decade. I approached this film effort with great trepidation.

The first film, FOTR won me over and I actually got excited about seeing the rest. (My tolerance for modern, CGI dependent, explosion a minute films is very limited.)

Mortenson was without a question the weakest link in the chain of characters and that greasy, unkempt aura never quite gave way to anything resembling regal, especially alongside the superb kingly acting effected in the person of Theoden, King of Rohan. Mortenson left me with a vague feeling not only of not being kingly, but sexually ambiguous. It seemed like all the romantic effort was coming from Arwen.

Maybe my fantasies are running away with me here, but I think if I had been that close to Liv Tyler I could have mustered up a more impassioned response.

43 posted on 05/16/2014 6:34:53 AM PDT by shibumi (Cover it with gas and set it on fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

This sounds like some old silent film actors.

When the movie studios discovered “talkies” they never looked back.


44 posted on 05/16/2014 6:35:50 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

I don’t see the connection between Tinkerbell and MM.

_________

I think Tink was being compared to Audrey Hepburn


45 posted on 05/16/2014 6:37:52 AM PDT by Chickensoup (Leftist totalitarian fascism is on the move.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Terry L Smith

I could not get past the wormy-wiggly hair on the shorts-wearing Hobbits’ legs. It overshadowed every scene where we could see their hairy little legs.


46 posted on 05/16/2014 6:55:20 AM PDT by TheOldLady
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Yossarian

I agree there were basically no live scenes in the Hobbit. There were a few more in Smaug. The first 3 were awesome and had just the right amount of CGI to make the story work.


47 posted on 05/16/2014 7:06:34 AM PDT by Resolute Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: shibumi

I actually think Jackson paid great fealty to Tolkien’s vision. Sure, he took some cinematic license, but in the main, he screened characters that embodied the virtues (and failings) of the Tolkien cast pretty well ... with the notable exception of Aragorn.

For example, Brad Dourif’s Grima was every bit the despicable opportunist Tolkien painted. And Sam — though occasionally heavy-handed — came through as an archetypal hero who doesn’t even comprehend his own heroism.

But probably the truest characterization was Ian McKellen’s stellar portrayal of Gandalf. An epic performance in an epic role he was born to. Too bad he’s a poof ...


48 posted on 05/16/2014 7:20:10 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Chickensoup; COBOL2Java
I think Tink was being compared to Audrey Hepburn

I see! Very good!

49 posted on 05/16/2014 7:21:54 AM PDT by Steely Tom (How do you feel about robbing Peter's robot?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: IronJack

I didn’t like the character of Aragorn in the movies, but that is the way it was written by Jackson & Co. I also think VM is a dork, but he is spot on about what Jackson has done. The Hobbit films (films? YGBSM!) are hideous caricatures of what Tolkien wrote. Jackson knows nothing about plotting or stories, only overwhelming CGI.


50 posted on 05/16/2014 7:49:15 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-72 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson