May 11, 2003

Visual Effects
Andrew

Has anybody read the article (link to it on TheOneRing.net) with John Gaeta (visual effects supervisor for The Matrix movies) where he says that the effects in the Matrix and its sequels are bigger than Lord of the Rings? Does anyone else find this proposterous?
I mean, think about it. Lord of the Rings has almost perfected digital creations (Gollum, MASSIVE, the Cave Troll, the Balrog, and any number of other little digital nuances that are thrown in along with the Ents, or the wonderfully used miniatures). The visual effects pass by seamlessly in Lord of the Rings, which is what visual effects are supposed to do.
The Matrix simply has digital manipulations (Bullet Time, bluescreen, multiplications such as the hundreds of Agent Smiths scene) but none of them pass by as real. They look very computery.
And John Gaeta has the nerve to say that the effects in the Matrix are better than Lord of the Rings? More doesn't mean better.
Visual effects don't only have to look good, but they have to be used well too (something that George Lucas has no concept on whatsoever). But Peter Jackson certainly does. The effects of the Matrix be good, but they aren't nessicarily used all that well. When effects too obvious and overblown, they tend to break down and become too noticable. The first movie was actually pretty good at using the effects, but just one look at the trailers for the new movies show that Gaeta seems to have lost this talent to use effects well.
If The Matrix Reloaded, or Revolutions, takes away the Visual Effects Oscar from Return of the King, I'm going to scream!
Thank-you.