Yoda, Gollum Take MTV Awards 271
zoobaby writes "MTV has given the LoTR franchise credit for spectactular work with Gollum. After being snubbed by the Academy Awards, it is nice to see recognition given to one of the most expressive and best acted roles in recent films."
Oscar... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:"+5 Funny?" (Score:2)
I also direct movies for HBO...
Uhm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Giving Gollum some recognition is great and all, but when he wins it jointly with the little guy who jumped around like sonic the hedge hog wielding a light saber, it is lacking credibility. It is obviously the 'digital characters are cool' award.
-Eyston
Re:Uhm.... (Score:5, Funny)
>>> mtv.credibility
AttributeError: class mtv has no attribute 'credibilty'
(no class either, but Python fails to recognize that)
Re:Uhm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yoda didn't win for virtual peformance, he won an award for 'best fight scene.' So him spinning around with a lightsabre was what got him that award in the first place.
Personally I didn't think that lightsabre scene was as sacreligious as people claim it to be. If you take a real close look, you'll see that Yoda doesn't do as many blender-style-720-degree spins as his lightsabre movements imply. While he is spinning, he's also moving the lightsabre in the same direction, giving him more speed and force. I've seen enough Kali/Eskrima classes and demonstrations to be convinced that sometimes even the most simple movements can look overwhelming.
On a side note, I've also heard stories about an 80 year old Kali master who was able to hold his own against 3 young men in their 20's.
Basically Yoda's movements aren't necessarily impossible - difficult yes, but not impossible. If you wanna see impossible, wait for that scene where you see Neo spinning around like a top with that pole when he fights those Smiths. And flies away at the same time. And accelerates his spinning.
Re:Uhm.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Well I don't know about anyone else, but I always thought it would have been much more interesting if Yoda fought Tyranus by just kinda standing there and controlling his lightsabre with the force.
Watching Tyranus fight a phantom lightsabre would have been pretty cool, and you'd reall
Re:Uhm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Uhm.... (Score:3, Informative)
Also about yoda... what if he wasn't using just his muscles for all that movement? what if he was using the force... the war could be over tomorrow... (slaps self out of matrix)
I meant he's THE jedi master and he can move objects many times his wait by manipulating the force. I'm not a huge star wars buff but can't he manipulate the force around him to move his
My Response to Your Assessment (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Uhm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
No SPOILER WARNING!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:No SPOILER WARNING!?!? (Score:5, Funny)
-Eyston
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Its probably a lot easier to be yourself when you know its never going to hit film (your face).
Perhaps acting could become even better in the future, still done by humans, but mapped over with different faces?
With acting you have to let yourself go. I think actors still hold something back though and aren't 100% of what they could be.
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
This would explain Natalie Portman's nosedive in acting ability in both Star Wars films. Not that it matters much, she's still a hot babe....
Max
besides.. (Score:5, Funny)
While I can't believe it either it still puzzles me.
Re:besides.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:besides.. (Score:2, Funny)
WTF? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:WTF? (Score:2)
Re:WTF? (Score:4, Funny)
fuck cgi gollum (Score:3, Funny)
Re:fuck cgi gollum (Score:2)
Re:fuck cgi gollum (Score:5, Funny)
Nobody wants to see Christopher Walken dressed only in a loincloth.
Re:fuck cgi gollum (Score:2, Funny)
Yesss .... cowbell precious ... precious cowbell is to Gollum ...
I'm afraid if Yoda is passed over. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm afraid if Yoda is passed over. . . (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I'm afraid if Yoda is passed over. . . (Score:2)
Well, Palpatine is a bit more expressive than a little green sockpuppet.
Sarcasm? (Score:5, Insightful)
Close... (Score:2)
The event at the Shrine Auditorium is more satire than ceremony, honoring show-business types for such categories as best kiss and villain.
The only redeeming part about the MTV movie awards: the fact that, underneath it all, they're just poking fun at self-important movie stars.
Re:Close... (Score:4, Insightful)
Inanity is not to be confused with satire, and calling the MTV movie awards such is giving the network way too much credit. If you've ever watched one of these things, they're taken about as seriously as anything can be in their teeny-bopper mentality. Obviously it's not on the same level of seriousness (and pretentiousness) as the Academy Awards, but that in no way implies some sort of smart social commentary.
MTV has always tried to present these awards as an alternative to the Academy Awards. That's not the way you do satire - nobody reads The Onion as an alternative to the Washington Post, for example; you don't go there trying to get actual news. These awards aren't satire at all. They may be irreverent, but they're totally straight underneath it all.
And as such, they carry even less weight than if they were satire. The Academy Awards may be overblown but they're at least decided upon by people who know a little something about the subject - those both inside the industry itself as well as those who make a living commenting on it. What the hell does MTV know about movies? About enough to make and market Jackass, I guess. Next you'll tell me that's satire too.
I beg the submitter's pardon! (Score:5, Informative)
Serkis was Eligible (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Serkis was Eligible (Score:4, Interesting)
One thing to keep in mind is that nominations are made only by the respective Academy members. In other words, only actors cast votes for Best Actor (speaking gender-neutrally), only directors cast votes for Best Director, etc. Later, everyone votes on which nominee gets each award. (It doesn't make sense to look too deeply into nomination counts, since there are parallel intenions, but everyone does it anyway.)
So it's really not shock or mystery why Serkis wasn't nominated. The very segment of the Academy population that was the most resistant to recognizing the work of digital characters -- the actors whose jobs may someday be threatened by them -- was the only one that had any say in the matter!
Re:Serkis was Eligible (Score:5, Insightful)
Chris Cooper from Adaptation
Nicky Katt from Full Frontal
Brian Cox from 25th Hour
Ian McKellan from TTT
Dennis Quad from Far From Heaven
Serkis was not elegible... (Score:2)
Gollum sucked (Score:3, Interesting)
Even movies from the 80's that used blue screens for everything looked more realistic than today's CGI aided movies, CGI just isn't advanced enough yet to be convincing. You also can't reproduce the human touch of make-up and hand produced costumes you get with using real actors.
Re:Gollum sucked (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that you can't tell that it's CG, it's that it's done in a way that you don't care that it's CG. It's obvious from the looks of him that Gollum doesn't really exist, but then again, hobbits don't exist but we're willing to accept them as characters. It was the natural nature of Gollum's movement that allowed someone to accept him as a character, to the point that (some) people cared about him. You can put people in costumes in front of a bluescreen, but if they can't convey a sense of their characters (through acting) then they're no better than Jar-Jar.
Re:Gollum sucked (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Gollum sucked (Score:2)
Re:Gollum sucked (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Gollum sucked (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair enough, but just about everyone else does.
In every movie it looks so obvious that there was CGI used that it almost ruins the movie for me
Could you pick out all the CG in every one of the over 1000 VFX shots in Matrix Reloaded or Lord of the Rings? The answer is no, because most instances are seamless, and others are hidden very well if they aren't. You are probably talking about some instances of 3D that looks fake. Many times when visual effects do not look real it is due to budget and time contstraints like everything else.
Even movies from the 80's that used blue screens for everything looked more realistic than today's CGI aided movies,
It is definitly a different look, and I can understand why someone would like one over the other, but saying that 80's blue screen and optical printing is more convincing than film quality compositing and visual effects is pretty rediculous.
CGI just isn't advanced enough yet to be convincing.
It depends on what is being done. Trying to reproduce humans is incredibly difficult. Just because it hasn't been done doesn't mean that it can't. Just it because it can be done doesn't mean it is practical and not just a novelty. To say that CGI in general is not convincing is, quite frankly, bullshit. In just about every movie you go to, you may know where the visual effects lie in one shot, but there are 20 more that you didn't notice, I guarantee it. The movies you watch today are made possible by CGI. Deal with it.
Human facial animation (Score:4, Insightful)
This point is very important. Disregarding static issues like skin and hair modeling and rendering. Human perception has evolved and is tuned for communication, primarily with other humans. Therefore we are very sensitive to minute incongruencies with our expectation of how a face shoud move, both by itself, and in the context of the surrounding environment. This is why completely hand animated human faces are almost always very poor...they strive to be real, but cannot account for the complexity. In contrast, cartooned faces are far enough from reality, that "unrealistic" facial action is accepted...as we are not expecting reality.
It is (I'll be bold and say impossible) for an animator to get the motions perfect for anything more than relatively simple facial actuation. There are just too many, often subconscious factors that go into facial action...but all of these are important to achieve a realistic result.
Motion capture has been used to solve this problem, taking the burden away from the animator, but the mapping problem is still difficult, we have a sparse sampling of skin motion from a human that has different facial characteristics from the model being animated. How do you handle the skin in between the motion capture points? Some sort of interpolation scheme is usually used, but this is a gross oversimplification of skin physics...not to mention, that it doesn't account for secondary motion of the skin such as wrinkling.
Anyway, in short, its a hard problem. BUT, I have no doubt that the problem will be solved...
rant over
Re:Human facial animation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Gollum sucked (Score:3, Insightful)
Another issue is the use of "texture" images - a flat image looks photorealistic until you get close up. That's because it's a flat image, not a texture. The most obvious indicatior of CGI is clothing, because real clothes are ex
CGI will never look human... (Score:4, Informative)
In the clips of the Incredible Hulk, does it look wrong? Yes? Good! The Incredible Hulk is not human. He bounces better, moves differently, is just plain built differently.
Did Spiderman look unusual? Good! A man swinging through a city shouldn't be normal for you.
In fact, your claims that the old effects "looked better" are a backhanded slam against the realism of those effects. Everything moved like a human or a puppet, because everything was a human or a puppet. Both of those motions looked "natural" to you, because you're used to them, but unless they were supposed to be a human or a puppet, that actually means the effect was a poor imitation of what "the real thing" should be.
Do you really think ET's race could have survived long enough to build those spaceships they have if they moved like an eighty-year-old arthritic grandmother? The equivalent of wolves on their planet would have torn them to pieces long before they developed civilization.
This is not to say all CGI is perfect. But you're going to have to either cut them some slack, or watch "Finding Nemo"*-style cartoons for the rest of cinematic history.
In conclusion, I disagree completely. Compared to modern effects the 80s effects are, well, 20 years out of date. They only look better because you're used to them. I've tried to adjust to the modern style, and while it could still use some improvement, compared to the 80s its stellar. If the (non-humanoid) aliens of the 80s are any indication, what the universe needs most from our planet is enormous quantities of Ben-Gay, Aspercreme, and Gold Bond medicated powder, 'cause there sure is an awful lot of joint pain out there.
*: Not meant as a slam against Finding Nemo; I haven't seen it yet but I expect to enjoy it. The point is that it quite deliberately moves like a cartoon, which is another style of movement we're "used to", even though it's totally 100% fake.
Re:CGI will never look human... (Score:2)
The natural implication is that they were faster and sturdier before inventing their high-technology. After that, a few millenia of robot-assisted laziness takes over and evolution pushes in a different direction.
It's a scifi standard: t
Re:CGI will never look human... (Score:2)
There's no reason why this wouldn't be attainable in the next ten years, and if so, I find no reason to think such an achievement would be 'wrong'.
Max
ET (Score:2)
Re:Gollum sucked (Score:2)
And this doesn't take into account entirely computer-animated movies, which I happen to like. An example being Final Fantasy, where the animation was never *supposed
Hmmm? (Score:3, Funny)
(ok, was that a good merging of the two?)
award given? (Score:3, Funny)
Give credit where its due (Score:5, Insightful)
SCI-FI movies esp need more cg characters to bring the world to life. Why is every species in star trek is just like a human. Wouldn't it be neater to see a different variety?
Any one seen simone lately?
Re:Give credit where its due (Score:5, Insightful)
(One exception: He was very good in The Gift.)
Re:Give credit where its due (Score:2)
Crispen Glover and Dennis Hopper made this movie one of Keanu's best ever...
Re:Give credit where its due (Score:2)
Seriously though I think the reason he fit in so well the role of Neo was because his lines were so minimal.
Re:Give credit where its due (Score:2)
Which is exactly why I found Voyager's Speciaes 8472 to be so refreshing. That Preying-Mantis meets ET look was pheonominal (IMHO). It's the one thing Voyager got right.
Re:Give credit where its due (Score:2)
The difference of course is that the digital Neo just fights at high speed while the digital Gollum has many close-up/dramatic scenes, but it's still the same motion-capture technology.
Re:Give credit where its due (Score:4, Funny)
Well duh, Keanu Reeves is a CG actor. I mean it's pretty obvious, the lack of facial expressions and the fact that it looks like there's something fundamentaly wrong any time he's on the screen. He was basically a very early attempt at a fully CG character, I mean even Toy Story has more human seeming characters. Also if you conside...
huh...
WTF do you mean he's real?!?
Ahhh he a robot like R2D2 and C3P0!!
Ohh a human being I see...
Yeah! And wrestling is a real sport and and Linux copied SCO's code, riiight
*snicker*
Strange thing it is! (Score:5, Funny)
He didn't expect it? Boy, that rendering farm and the voice actors sure must work in a hurry to produce a rendered imagine complete with voice acting in such a hurry! You'd almost think this is a huge show, a spectacle aimed at enriching those with the largest marketing/SFX budget! Almost like the gollum thing further on in the article:
Come on people, we're talking about the MTV awards here, brought to us by MTV; the epitomy of modern pop and hype culture. We're talking about something hosted by a TV station aimed at 14 year old girls who faint at the sight of $current_hip_boyband and wish to be like $cheap_spicegirls_knock_off while flooding the rest of the market with artists like $random_teen_chick and $overhyped_guy_who_looks_gay ...
Yoda speak is Latin, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)
eg.
"Strong you are" (Yoda) or whatever, as compared to
"mangus es" (Romans)
Re:Yoda speak is Latin, dammit (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yoda speak is Latin, dammit (Score:5, Insightful)
Modern english, interestingly, maintains this in a form: a "periodic sentence" is one with its main clause at the end, following all subordinate clauses and other elements. This is an echo of the older periodic sentence, revised to technically fit into the syntax rules of modern english (which inverts the verb order).
Re:Yoda speak is Latin, dammit (Score:2)
Re:Strange thing it is! (Score:2)
Bring back Aeon Flux!
Indeed (Score:5, Insightful)
Here comes MTV (Score:2, Funny)
Bored of the Rings.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Bored of the Rings.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Choice snippets:
o A 17-minute battle sequence alone cost over $40 million.
o The 1.4-mile, three-lane loop highway was built specifically for the chase scene on the decommissioned Alameda Point Navy Base at a cost of around $30 million. It was destroyed when filming was complete.
o It was reported that Keanu Reeves volunteered to give up a claim to a share of ticket sales amounting to around $38 million when producers feared that the film would never recoup the cost of the special effects.
o The special effects cost $100 million U.S.
Re:Bored of the Rings.... (Score:2)
Re:Bored of the Rings.... (Score:2)
Re:Bored of the Rings.... (Score:2)
But as much as you like to think that all special fx companies do these days is plug film into a computer a
Re:Bored of the Rings.... (Score:2)
The scene I was talking about was COMPLETE CGI. I'm not talking about taking little bits and using CGI. Guess what? In Forrest Gump, the actor still had to ACT like he had no legs. They didn't completely replace him like they replaced Keanu in Matrix Reloaded.
Re:Bored of the Rings.... (Score:2)
Intersting point. I'm suprised that no one has thought up (or that I haven't read on
Re:Bored of the Rings.... (Score:2)
Sounds like an interesting acting challenge for me, and one that even Keanu stepped up to pretty well - watch Neo's face in those sequences, and you
Re:Bored of the Rings.... (Score:2)
That's going to be quite impressive once it's finished.
Huh? What about Jar Jar!? (Score:5, Funny)
Gollum as one Actor. (Score:5, Interesting)
This is complete rubbish. The reason that Gollum seems as real as he does is because of the connection between voice and motion that you get with every human. It is for this reason that it is always easy to tell when a voice for animation was cast before or after the animation itself was complete.
If I walked around with somebody else's voice all day, I would seem strange. Hats off to Serkis and the LotR crew for knowing this. Now we can begin to cast by acting talent, not physical attractiveness.
Re:Gollum as one Actor. (Score:2)
For a role like gollum, I don't think attractivness could have ever been a consideration.... even without CG.
Is it really any surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Is it really any surprise (Score:3, Interesting)
This is *so* _Little Heroes_, it's not funny, but I look forward to it.
(but will the first open source star be stallman?)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is it really any surprise (Score:2)
If that's your definition of a 'sad world', I pity you. A strong female role model is a role model, regardless of whether it's an actual person or a creative fantasy. People who read fiction often admire, and even identify with, certain characters in the books, even though they know for a fact that these characters do not actually exist - and no one sees the harm in that. It's the exact same thing as what you're talking about here; a
Gah! Spoilers (Score:5, Funny)
Vader is Lukes father
Soilent Green is people
XXX Sucks
And the third LOTR and the third Matrix are actually the same movie!
StdMovie Spoilers (Score:3, Funny)
oo Everybody dies at the end.
oo He leaves her/she leaves him (but they get back together)
o He's/she's NOT REALLY DEAD and will come back to life.
oo There will be a chase scene. Perhaps more than one.
oo There WILL BE a fight of some kind.
oo There's a built-in sequel - they even do it just for the money sometimes, and to Hell with the plot.
o TLG are DEAD. Get over it.
o SW Episode III will probably suck too. So will Hulk.
o Gollum dies.
o Your popcorn has been pissed in, and y
Random Spoilers (Score:2)
o It was all a delusion in John Nash's mind.
o Bruce Willis is already dead
o Colonel Fitts kills Lester
o Lara Croft saves the world.
o Catherine Tramell is the killer.
o The apes take over the city.
o Charlton Heston's character blows up the world.
o 'Rosebud' is a sled.
o Dil is a man
o Bomb #20 kills everyone.
o The butler, a surviving Nazi, did it.
o Eddie is still alive.
o Ash is the only survivor.
o Ash is the only survivor, again.
o Everyone dies, except for Mr Pink.
o The Director committe
Re:StdMovie Spoilers (Score:2)
Re:Gah! Spoilers (Score:3, Funny)
My mpeg-filled hard drive would disgree.
Re:Gah! Spoilers (Score:2)
My mpeg-filled hard drive would disgree.
Isn't that redundant after all? XXX and sucks. I think one of the reasons it's XXX is because of all the sucking going on! I mean, it's about the same as saying XXX anal fisting, or XXX DP Sluts... or was he talking about that other movie, with that one guy and that every so funky coat... *shrugs* who knows.
"In recent films" being the key... (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps, but the definitive Gollum is that voiced by Peter Woodthorpe [imdb.com] in the still definitive BBC radio version [amazon.co.uk]. Anyone who is interested in The Lord of the Rings, but hasn't heard this version, should really do themselves a favour and check it out.
Semi-interestingly, Ian Holm [imdb.com], who plays Bilbo in the films, is cast as Frodo here. Co-incidence? I doubt it. I rather suspect that t'old Mr Jackson has heard this version too.
Cheers,
Ian
Re:"In recent films" being the key... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"In recent films" being the key... (Score:2)
Actually, the Gollum was nowhere near as good as the voice in the movie.
Um.. spoilers (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Um.. spoilers (Score:2)
No MTV.COM Link? (Score:2, Funny)
Bleh (Score:2, Insightful)
That means its recognition that LOTR has been assimilated into popular culture.. nothing more.
I often wonder how "serious" artists and filmmakers manage to hide their indifference about MTV awards.
Congratulations (Score:2)
It's nice to finally see Weeta's acomplishments awarded. They've certainly deserved whatever price MTV have given them.
It's very symptomatic that this award comes from the underground rather than from the academy. The academy might have been in the award business a tad longer, but lately their judgements have been out of synch with the US population.
Many people are complaining about the horrors of pop culture and MTV in particular, but were not Mozart, Beathoven and Bach pop artists of their time? In due
Re:Congratulations (Score:2)
When they give up the music business and the manager at the local McDogballs aknowledges that they have a great deal of talent for working the drive thru?
There are MAYBE a dozen artists in the last 20 years that were orignal, talented and popular. REM and M&M are NOT on that list.
Easy Acting (Score:3, Insightful)
You may say that Gollum's conversation with himself is just that, but it isn't. He gets to switch between two single emotions like a madman which any semi-experienced actor can tell you is pretty damn easy, even fun. Keep in mind that Gollum's conversation with himself was also shot in pieces, once from each angle. In that respect the actor didn't even have to switch emotions as quickly as it appears he did on screen.
Gollum didn't win an Oscar because he didn't deserve it.
Re:Sure... (Score:5, Informative)
Ah but he does very much exist... Andy Serkis [imdb.com] is a graduate of my very own Lancaster University [lancs.ac.uk] and did a very marvelous job of portraying gollum.
The animators used actual footage of Serkis acting out the role in a silly skintight body stocking, and the voice is all him. I am particularly impressed by gollum's dialogue with himself
Re:While we're on the subject... (Score:3, Insightful)