Animated or Live-action?

[Lord Defile]

Many people have been talking about who they would like to see play each character. Others worry about too much CGI. But has anyone thought that maybe an adult animated movie might do the trick? Computer graphics have gotten good enough to make it appear somewhat real anyway.

[Lord Mhoram]

Lord Defile,

An interesting proposition. But with certain scenes like the Lena rape scene, and even Lord Foul himself, don't you think an animated movie might take away the sense of realism (verisimilitude) of the epic?

(I mentioned LF because an animated Despiser might seem like a stereotypical cartoon bad-guy.)

[High Lord Tolkien]

Many people have been talking about who they would like to see play each character. Others worry about too much CGI. But has anyone thought that maybe an adult animated movie might do the trick? Computer graphics have gotten good enough to make it appear somewhat real anyway.

I think animation would work.
Shrek II was awesome.

But live action would be good too.
The colors and effects in movies like Universal's Peter Pan are wonderful and that was a few years ago tech-wise.

So how's that for a non-answer?

[Cheval]

I thought about this very question when I seen a movie discussion forum.
I think that live-action would be good for the characters,
with animated or CGI effects for the scenery and backrounds.
Can a real place be found that would resemble the inside of Mount Thunder?
How would the Dance of the Wraiths be done?
Or even show a caamora ritual without special effects? (Double-exposure would be so bogus)

But on the "live" side of things, I would be interested in seeing the Sun-Bane or Revelstone.
I think no CGI could show the full affect of the mighty Ranyhyn or battle scenes.

But it is just food for thought.

[Warmark]

Not to refer to LotR, too much but it manges locales etc and horses in battle pretty well with CGI

[drew]

How would you make a real Ranyhyn? Use a big stallion and spray-paint a star on its forehead?

[Warmark]

Or Brand them...

[drew]

It would suck if the actors were real, and Foamfollower was a CGI.

[Warmark]

Yea they shoul be able to make him look taller tho.

[Loredoctor]

Animated.

[I'm Murrin]

I think live action would be best. Yes you can do all sorts of things with animation, but in the end, it just wouldn't be real enough.

[onewyteduck]

Perhaps the Team America approach?

(I know, I know. That was sacrilege!)

[Warmark]

[drew]

..."Revelstone!! *#$% Yeah!!"

[Warmark]

Everyone has Leprosy!
Leprosy! Leprosy! Leprosy!

[Myste]

As much as I like the idea of an animated version, I gotta go with live action in the end. It basically comes down to the essence of the story--here's a real-world guy transported to a (possibly) imaginary place. I think you'd lose a lot of the essential conflict of the story by presenting the whole thing in an imaginary or stylized format.

That said, I'd settle down comfortably with some popcorn and raisinettes to an animated version.

[Rane Ja Burn]

I myself would prefer live action. But at this point I would settle for anything. Bring on the entertainment!

[Lord Defile]

If you think about the skill of modern day animators, it can be made to look real enough without providing any contrast to CGI. While watching the commercials for The Polar Express, I found myself trying to remember the actor who played Santa. It took a while to remember it was animated. I don't think anything would be lost in the tanslation. As for Lord Foul, He would be impossible to represent without animation. In TPTP he is described as an absence rather than a presence. How could that be done live? It couldn't without providing a serious contrast to the surrounding area/characters. Not to mention animation would greatly reduce the actual production cost.

[Alynna Lis Eachann]

When you say animation, you all seem to be thinking CGI. Think back to traditional, hand-drawn (heh, or what looks like hand-drawn) animation. I said it before, and I'll say it here again: Animé would be the way to go. Experienced animé artists, directors and voice actors can take any story a long way, and far more dramatically than CGI does.

And I have to disagree about how well LOTR carried off its CGI horses. It was very plain which horses were real and which were computer-generated because the movement was all wrong. This, I think, would be the biggest challenge in animating The Chronicles. The horse is notorious for being pretty much the most difficult animal to draw true to life. To get the horses and Ranyhyn right, they'd either have to hire the people who did Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron, or make their own artists go through the sort of intensive horse anatomy training those people had to endure.

[Cheval]

I know...
it could be done in the "I'm-not-in-Kansas-anymore" type filming.
When TC in in his world (Beginning and ending of the movie), it can be live action.
When in The Land - animation, or as Alynna mentioned:
"Think back to traditional, hand-drawn (heh, or what looks like hand-drawn) animation."

(or CGI)

Remember when LOTR first came out?
It was hand drawn animation over live actors.
Results were not bad.



BTW - This post is not to be taken seriously