|
|
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 | ||||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
I've seen the film twice, and I have to disagree with LDM in the first place about it being "Disney'd." Disney had nothing to do with Narnia besides the publicity department. They had no influence on the script or the production, which is why the story stuck so closely to what was in the book.
In the second place, I must disagree with Damien who ripped the CG special effects as unrealistic. He didn't even cite examples. The same effects companies that worked on Lord of the Rings worked on this film, including the king of them all, Industrial Light & Magic. I read that the creators of Aslan actually tried a real lion and rejected that as unrealistic. Aslan needed to be extra-natural, which is why they went full CG for him (except on the Stone Table, where he was a puppet). Other things, like the centaurs or the fauns, I found to be fully engaging even though I knew in my brain that people wore green tights and had their legs replaced with CG elements. The wolves -- Oh! They were a combination of real and CG, and I thought they were quite frightening. It comes down to this: I am saddened that there are those who refuse to suspend their disbelief and simply enjoy a movie for its own sake. They're always comparing it to Lord of the Rings or Jurassic Park or something, when there are two completely different intentions behind the scenes. LotR was designed as a dark, gritty world, where Narnia was designed as a brighter, sweeter one. LotR is about the power of evil, while Narnia is about the power of good. Everything from casting to special effects contributes to this, and so what if it looks like a stage play? Ever seen the film version of The Music Man? I say God bless the people who made Narnia, and may they do as good a job with the remaining six stories. I don't think they could have done much better with The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. Film is a different medium than books, obviously, so I understand the dramatic choices the creators made. And that's the way it is. Carrie |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
Quote:
On 2005-12-21 13:33, Carrie Sue wrote: Well I wouldn't hold Jurrasic Park up as a standard to measure special effects by. I found the fact that the Raptors kept changing size especially annoying.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
Skip Way Inner circle 3771 Posts |
I agree with Carrie Sue on this one (Good Lord, I'm agreeing with a Trekker!) :o) A HUGE part of magic is the suspension of belief and allowing oneself tobe drawn into the realm of illusion and fantasy. Who cares about the technical aspects. Technically, Polar Express is a weak film at best. But both, PE and LW&W offer a great tale. I liked both. Get over yourselves!
Skip
How you leave others feeling after an Experience with you becomes your Trademark.
Magic Youth Raleigh - RaleighMagicClub.org |
|||||||||
damien666 Special user canada 513 Posts |
Thought I would chime in again...
It isn't just about being able to suspend your disbelief and allow yourself to be drawn in - - it's about a production living up to a minimum standard expected with such a big production. It would be like going to Copperfields show and expect ing him to do all of his big stuff and he pulls out 3 different lengths of rope and makes them all the same length. There is a minimum standard expected. I work in the film and television industry as a special effects artist and I know for a fact that LW&W did not look as good as it should have in the Computer department. I never listed examples because there were far too many bad scenes to cite.. Here are a few of the problems that I noticed (that I still remember - having been a few days since I saw LW&W and have been trying to forget it).. The beavers running through the snow were worse computer animation than the original Nintendo Mario Brothers, The fully CGed wolves looked so cartoony and fake, Several of the matte shots and Chroma key scenes were laughable. When I go to a movie, I usually go to a movie to see not only the story line, but the technical aspect of it.. and like I said - it simply did not live up to the standard. The only way it works to be drawn into the illusion of a floating ball is if you can't see the strings. It has nothing to do with getting over one's self as Skip implyed - it is just that when a movie that has recieved the alleged budget and hype that Narnia got; it should have the look and quality to match it. The technology for CGI in films is not perfect, but come on - things have come a long way since the pixelated 'Jumanji'; so when a movie comes out that looks as technically advanced as a gameboy (I may be exagerating a little bit to make a point) - it needs to be called on it. As stated in my last post - the practical Effects were fine; KNB did a wonderful job... but as a whole, regardless of it being the handy work of ILM, The Computer Effects did not live up. |
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
Sorry, Damien, but I think you are jaded beyond suspension of any disbelief.
I'm reminded of something that George Lucas once said: "People say to me, 'Oh, all this digital stuff, doesn't that make everything phony and fake? It's just not real.' And I say to them, look, movies aren't real! It's all fake. The characters are fake, the story is fake, the sets are fake. That's not New York City. It's a big piece of cardboard with a painting on it." Anyone with a bit of sophisticated knowledge about computer special effects can nitpick any film. I've seen Narnia twice, and though I've read much about visual effects techniques, I was enraptured each time. Ripping the animation of beavers or wolves with hyperbolic language about GameBoy graphics is laughable in itself. It simply wasn't that bad. Somehow, I think there's something in the subject matter of the film that you don't like, yet you choose to talk it down on technical merits. Your arguments don't live up to the facts. I hope to see Narnia again on Saturday, and I encourage everyone to see it as well, just for the pure enjoyment of it. It's a great film, and deserves all of our support. Carrie |
|||||||||
John Tudor Loyal user Columbia, SC 209 Posts |
I saw "Narnia" recently and loved it...as to the standards of expectation, I must admit that the extremely high standards set by Peter Jackson in The Lord of The Rings did make it pale a bit by comparison. This was a very minor part of my response to it...I was enthralled.
AND ( if you haven't seen it ) check out the very funny Narnia rap....http://www.wimp.com/narnia/
"Ars longa, vita brevis." (Life is short, the art so long to learn) -Hippocrates
|
|||||||||
S2000magician Inner circle Yorba Linda, CA 3465 Posts |
What surprises me about the computer graphics is how they can do some of the characters so well and others so poorly.
In particular, the movements of, say, the cheetahs were quite realistic while those of the hyenas were quite unrealistic. I'm not talking about their flexibility or fluidity, but rather the physics of the movements. The cheetahs were balanced: the center-of-mass was always located properly relative to the animal's stance. Not so with the hyenas: if you watch their movements you'll say to yourself that they would have to fall over if they were to stand as portrayed. Bizarre. |
|||||||||
Shane Wiker Inner circle Las Vegas 1199 Posts |
S2000magician,
CG Animation is a hobby of mine, so I know what you mean. There are several people creating each model. In a film like Chronicles of Narnia, there might be 4 or 5 people working just on modeling the characters. Then there would be 1 or 2 more to texture them, then more for lighting, rigging, animating, etc. Since there were probably several animators working at the same time, maybe one of the people on the team wasn't as experienced as the rest, so the characters he was working on animating didn't come out as well as the others. Shane Wiker |
|||||||||
Payne Inner circle Seattle 4571 Posts |
I won't see this until it comes on cable but my wife went to see it last week. she normally doesn't comment on the effects but said she felt that they were really uneven in this flick so they must have been pretty bad as she usually doesn't see this kind of thing unless it really, really sticks out. But then she wasn't enthralled with the plot so perhaps she was focusing more on the effects than most.
"America's Foremost Satirical Magician" -- Jeff McBride.
|
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
Another axiom of film is that a movie is never finished, but it is simply abandoned. You spend the money where it counts, and you work on the most important stuff the longest and hardest.
Some effects shots are left to the end, and time just runs out on them, which is why they may look "unrealistic." I put that word in quotes on purpose. In two viewings, I've not noticed the minutia of cheetahs or hyenas. It's a minor element in the grand scheme, though, isn't it? On balance, I think the film succeeds brilliantly, and I can hardly wait two years for Prince Caspian to be shown. Carrie |
|||||||||
teevtee Special user 963 Posts |
I have been mildly surprised at just how succesful this film has been. It looks like it will make more money than King Kong and that was not expected.
|
|||||||||
Ellen Kotzin Loyal user UPSTATE, NY 280 Posts |
I thoroughly enjoyed this film. GREAT! Wanting to see more. Did not like the BBC one that was kind of long, and unengaging for me.
I enjoyed the effects and each year I am surprised of how people's abilities to make these things look more and more realistic... (ok, I haven't see a Lion talk or made friends with a faun), you know what I mean. Here's my philosophical question. Ok, at the end when they were old and went back to the wardrobe, they exited and were young again. In the series, do they go back---and if so, do they turn young or old again? No time passes going back out of the wardrobe to the house, but what happens the opposite? Ellen harryanderson.net |
|||||||||
Carrie Sue Veteran user Auburn, MI 332 Posts |
I am more than mildly surprised at the fact that Narnia is kicking King Kong's humongous, hairy heiny in the money department. I am fully ecstatic.
Worldwide, Kong is doing better, but here in the U.S. we are all about the sweet fantasy movie from the independent film company that is Walden Media. Hollyweird is so remake crazy that I think the fact Narnia is making so much will be a knock to their complacency. We need more like this. Carrie |
|||||||||
saxmangeoff Veteran user Moscow, ID, USA 353 Posts |
Ellen,
Narnia time and our time are completely unrelated. Yes, when the 4 come back in the book, little time has passed. In Prince Caspian, they go back to Narnia, and hundreds of years have passed in Narnia. Geoff
"You must practice your material until it becomes boring, then practice it until it becomes beautiful." -- Bill Palmer
|
|||||||||
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » The Chronicles of Narnia (0 Likes) | ||||||||||
Go to page [Previous] 1~2 |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |