Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
How is The Hobbit possible with '' too much'' CGI ?

Gusev8
Bree

Dec 4 2012, 9:57am

Post #1 of 12 (1061 views)
Shortcut
How is The Hobbit possible with '' too much'' CGI ? Can't Post

I read a lot of troubled and worrying comments about the somewhat negative reviews. People should calm down. I saw the clips and based on that I loved it.
And first see it for youself, I'm sure I'll love it. just letting everybody know, don't take much from '' critics''.


Gusev8
Bree

Dec 4 2012, 10:09am

Post #2 of 12 (605 views)
Shortcut
The only review [In reply to] Can't Post

The only review I respect and read is this one : http://www.theonering.net/...-unexpected-journey/


nobofthepony
Lorien


Dec 4 2012, 10:56am

Post #3 of 12 (513 views)
Shortcut
to everyone hyperventilating over reviews...Relax... [In reply to] Can't Post

If any film had bad reviews coming simply for existing, it's this one...there are a few reasons:

1. LOTR looms over it in every way. Many reviewers will expect the same emotional experience as LOTR, and The Hobbit is mostly a swashbuckling adventure. Not that there won't be emotionally poignant scenes in films 2 and 3 - but the way to build up to them is CHARACTER set up, which this film bears the weight of doing. It may be good to manage expectations on this front: AUJ is not ROTK. It isn't supposed to be. The same reviewers that are "bewuthered" over the lack of weepy moments are also annoyed by the slow build up in Bag End, in which PJ has used to set up the characters. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. The pay-off is not going to be in film 1, but the set-up has to happen in film 1. So it's an easy shot for critics to take.

2. The HFR format is inviting lukewarm responses. Whenever there is an innovation in technology, it will get mixed reviews. I will see it in 24 fps the first time. Whenever a reviewer spends a paragraph denouncing high frame rate, watch it in 24 fps and half of their review is rendered irrelevant. Furthermore, if they don't like the format, it will color the rest of their review. It may put them in an annoyed mood for the rest of the viewing.

3. The complaints that this film is not streamlined enough. I guarantee you, this is similar to the "too many endings" complaint for ROTK. It wasn't ending one film, it was ending a trilogy. PJ let it breathe and I'm glad he did. He is again taking his time, not just to set up one movie, but three. He is a rare bird: a director that can do whatever the hell he wants. I would rather spend more time in Bag End setting up the stakes and characters than get prematurely whisked out into a series of action sequences with no regard for the characters. Again, caring about the characters will pay off in the subsequent films. Films 2 and 3 can benefit from the slower pace of this film, but film 1 cannot benefit from them. Remember The Hobbit is ONE MOVIE in three parts. Imagine critics reviewing the first act of any movie; the reviews would be the same. Too much exposition, not enough pay-off. That is what is happening here.

4. Lashing out at PJ: his last two films were not that great. I enjoyed King Kong but I can understand people saying it was bloated. King Kong is not Tolkien, and the characters were not arguably the most beloved characters in children's literature. Sounds like the Hobbit is a slow grower. Expectations have to be adjusted, and for many reviewers, this is happening in real time, as the reviews are being written. It is easy to take shots at PJ because his track record, apart from LOTR leaves himself open. But I would rather watch an uninhibited director like PJ take his time than watch a studio-driven movie with cardboard characters. Mark my words, by film 3, you will be glad PJ set up everything the way he did.

Granted, I have not seen the film. But I anticipated these reviews and they are not shaking my confidence in the slightest. Once I heard it was ending with the eagles, I know it would be a slow burn and wouldn't be streamlined. My advice: enjoy it for what it is. Enjoy the whimsy, the characters, the return to a more innocent Middle Earth. Things will darken soon enough, and the plot will heat up. But this will be the film you look back to with fondness as the other films put these characters in bad situations. Those films won't work without this one doing the heavy lifting. These same reviewers will be giving 4 star reviews to TABA and ret-conning their tepid reception. In the meantime, let's soak it in and enjoy every minute. I've never had my life enhanced by a critic, but I have had my life enhanced by artists that take risks and do not enslave themselves to expectations, Time will tell, and there is still much more of the story to unfold.


(This post was edited by nobofthepony on Dec 4 2012, 11:01am)


Balrogslunch
The Shire

Dec 4 2012, 11:12am

Post #4 of 12 (447 views)
Shortcut
agree with all you are saying [In reply to] Can't Post

Agree with everything you said .....especially about the set up of the characters at the start.....Jackson couldnt win ..if he rushed the beginning there would be reviews of ...He never introduced the characters ....why should i care a less about any of them going forward.....They went off on this adventure why?.....I think these films were 'easy' for critics (some critics like it) to hate....and think they wanted to hate them because they dont like the Hobbit book anyway.........

Some reviews i have read are just plain 'nasty' this is the prime example of one

http://www.boxoffice.com/...n-unexpected-journey and states basically that tolkien cant write.....anyway

But MOST are positive without raving in most cases and that will do for me ....this is the hardest of the three films to create.....your introducing so many characters at the start and if you dont introduce them properly people wont care about the next two....

i am also quite happy that a lot of the 'fans' that have seem it seem to love it so thats all i am hoping for.,....


(This post was edited by Balrogslunch on Dec 4 2012, 11:20am)


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Dec 4 2012, 11:32am

Post #5 of 12 (416 views)
Shortcut
I'm kind of surprised [In reply to] Can't Post

...that they did review screenings in 48 fps. Seems like an unwise move to me. Why would you potentially hinder these important early reviews with a "controversial", unproven new technology? A lot of these reviews are overly concerned with it's presentation, and not the movie itself or the story. Reviewers are understandably distracted from the movie, and focusing way too much of their attention on this mostly trivial, to the general audience anyway, technical matter. I really think this is going to bite them in the you-know-what-- most people would never even have heard of 48 fps otherwise. They just want to know if the movie's any good, and are gonna be scared away by this scary new technology that they would have to go way out of their way to see anyway. Makes no sense to me at all.


nobofthepony
Lorien


Dec 4 2012, 11:36am

Post #6 of 12 (392 views)
Shortcut
completely agree... [In reply to] Can't Post

...it is the only decision by PJ that completely bewilders me. The negative reviews are predictable. Why do that to yourself?

Probably because PJ knows these films are critic-proof. People are going to see them. He does it because he can.

I will probably see it in HFR probably the 3rd time I see it. It's a novelty. I don't want my first viewing to be shaped by the weirdness of 48 fps.


Balrogslunch
The Shire

Dec 4 2012, 11:40am

Post #7 of 12 (383 views)
Shortcut
a point to remember..... [In reply to] Can't Post

I think what we must realise is how many films these critics must watch ....it must be hundreds a year....i for one havent watched a film in the cinema since avatar and this will be my next and probably only one til next years hobbit.....it must be more jarring for them than anyone else.....so unless you go 2 or 3 times a week i think for 'most' people they should beable to adapt within a few minutes and that is what most 'non' critics are saying about it .....


Wordofmask
Lorien

Dec 4 2012, 1:46pm

Post #8 of 12 (290 views)
Shortcut
I hope DOS [In reply to] Can't Post

would not show in HFR for premiere again. It make a huge distraction then reviewers cant concentrate the film itself.


DanielLB
Immortal


Dec 4 2012, 1:59pm

Post #9 of 12 (274 views)
Shortcut
It's the way forward [In reply to] Can't Post

More and more films will take up HFR. By TABA, they'll forgotten about reviewing that aspect of the film.

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



Lindele
Gondor


Dec 4 2012, 4:34pm

Post #10 of 12 (167 views)
Shortcut
Thank you [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with everything you said. Ultimately I don't care what the critics think...but it is hard seeing all of these reviews coming in and some being negative...plus i work for an entertainment news network, and everyone there knows I am obsessed with Tolkien and PJ, and I am dreading having to take their criticisms etc...gonna be a long week.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Dec 4 2012, 5:23pm

Post #11 of 12 (138 views)
Shortcut
Reviews seemed balanced [In reply to] Can't Post

I've read about 15 reviews now, and overall they seem to skew positive. There's been a couple negative ones, but there's been a few glowingly positive ones as well. And most of the out-and-out negativity seems aimed towards HFR, which is understandable (and why press screenings should have stuck with the traditional 24 fps!). A lot of complaints about the slow first act and bad cgi. Everything else is coming off pretty well, especially Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, Gollum, Howard Shore and NZ/Middle-Earth itself.

Me, i'm fine if AUJ is the worst of the 6 films-- as long as it's fun and has plenty of Tolkien mythology. The things that concern me-- bad, overdone comedy (Radagast-- not a McCoy fan), too much cgi (goblins that don't seem "real" or "there"), characters not inhabiting a realistic physical world/cartoon physics-- definitely seem to be a problem, but aren't deal breakers if the overall film is still good. It may not be LOTR, but it will be a hit, and we have 2 more coming no matter what.


totoro
Lorien

Dec 5 2012, 4:41am

Post #12 of 12 (94 views)
Shortcut
Yeah, its' about 75% on the tomatometer [In reply to] Can't Post

Not bad given the groundbreaking technology and the general complaints about book length, etc. I expect it would be higher if reviewers could be objective and not compare to the awesome LotR movies.

In general, I'm glad it is not getting all positive reviews. I might go in looking for a bit more and feeling a bit less.

 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.