>CGI is 16 years old
>Still looks pretty great
What went right?
they took a lot of time and care to get the balrog right.
there's other effects shots that don't hold up because production was so rushed towards the end, some completed just a few weeks before TT and ROTK hit theatres.
>>86934377
bullshit. lotr was in pre-production for years, they had plenty of time to finish things up. all the effects still stand the test of time.
>>86934409
if you watch the making of with the extended editions they show it happening, they were down to the wire.
>>86934409
Somebody post Legolas surfing down the stairs
>>86934483
post it yourself fucking faggot
Fellowship was just a masterpiece, wasn't it?
I remember seeing it in the cinema for the first time with my dad and being absolutely blown away.
Someone post the webm of the CGI demon thing from Spawn.
>>86934377
Yeah, ROTK had a few noticeably wonky scenes, but TT I don't think suffered at all, although it's not quite on the same level as Fellowship.
>>86934506
Nah nigger
>>86934324
Lighting. It's mostly dark allowing them to cover up more imperfections compared to something in broad daylight. Same goes for the T Rex in Jurassic Park. Basically the same trick they used to use for practical effects, and it still works. Broad daylight runs the risk of you noticing awful shit like pic related
>>86934324
It's mostly black and shadow and they spent a lot of time on it
Saying that, Gollum looks pretty good too. Jar Jar looks good, despite everyone hating him. Because they took the time to make it look good rather than pump it out as quickly as possible.
How do the ghosts and the spider in RotK hold up?
>>86934952
Wow, that's a bit shit
>>86934741
When Gandalf and the Balrog are plummeting, its pretty bad cgi wise.
>>86934476
>PJ still filming scenes for the extended edition of RotK after it swept the Oscars.
He cared so much. I only wish he wasnt forced to blunder through The Hobbit at nonstop pace.