|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lonelymountainhermit
Lorien
May 29 2015, 4:00pm
Post #126 of 132
(500 views)
Shortcut
|
PJ obviously has his fans. But yes, as an adaptation to J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Hobbit", these films are a failure. And there's really no use in going through the many points where these movies let down Tolkien's admirers. They have all been stated before, and they should really be pretty obvious to anybody who has read the book. Seriously people. One thing I find amusing about this whole thing is how the movie fans defend everything that PJ decided to do. I mean, everything? Really? I bet it could have ended with Tauriel falling in love with Bilbo, and the both of them walking off into the sunset, and people would be like, "Y'know, it's hard to adapt a book to a movie. There needs to be certain changes." ugh.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 29 2015, 4:20pm
Post #127 of 132
(577 views)
Shortcut
|
We do have a physicist on the forum who has carefully explained many times that the physics in many of these supposedly unrealistic scenes actually has an inner consistency - it works. And as even said physicist is generally shouted down or ignored, I know that trying to discuss these things with someone who just wants to make their point is - well - pointless. I notice, for example, that you've completely ignored the qustion of Thorin and the mace... The porridge goes back to the first propostition we were given to analyse in philosophy class, years ago. "I'm glad I don't like porridge because if I did I would have to eat it and that would be horrible." I'm often reminded of it when caught up in these pointless circular arguments. If there are no laws on the taste of porridge there are also no laws on the acceptability of films. You find many of the scenes in The Hobbit ridiculous. Fine. Your point is made. But there is no 'law' that backs you up. You can't claim an authority for your view that trumps all others: all you have is your own, gloriously free, subjective opinion. That's great - enjoy it, revel in it, but leave others just as free to express theirs. As for this...
Whether you enjoyed it or not, the thing is that in every corner of this forum, you *seem* to be saying that The Hobbit is entirely perfect with no flaws whatsoever. I do often find myself defending the films, but if you'd actually read my posts you'd know that I've never said anything of the sort.
(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 29 2015, 7:34pm)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 29 2015, 4:41pm
Post #128 of 132
(557 views)
Shortcut
|
Legolas antics are a matter of equations
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
We know that CGI now can show virtually anything But what we could ask to the EE is whether those equations are grounded on earth equations or out of anything known. For instance, what is exactly the weight of Legolas, and Leggy's legs' strength ? Is he 'really' jumping, or in fact flying ? What were the parameters of the falling stones ? How did they check Legolas antics ? Sometimes the team did look for realism : that's how they found that gold pieces don't move like some sand or a liquid. Somebody also showed that they finally did put stacks on dogs to try and get realistic wargs. But when did they do so ? Before of after the end of AUJ and DOS ? Criticising the alledged realism of a movie is one thing, but checking how far went the picture-making to reach realism is another one, more interesting IMO.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 5:09pm
Post #129 of 132
(529 views)
Shortcut
|
But then, presenting a caricature of someone else's views is just another way to shout them down, isn't it? To add to that, you have done this yourself, too, by telling me I didn't enjoy The Hobbit at all. What? I've never said that before. Are you telling me that pointing out a large amount of flaws about something means you didn't enjoy it as a whole? If I didn't want to like them more, I wouldn't have been bothered about it, but I did and do. I find them fairly entertaining as popcorn flicks in several places, but that doesn't say much about the quality of the films at all. There were some good and some great scenes in the trilogy, I'd say, but also a lot of occasions on which they really missed the mark and those seemed to outnumber the positives, largely, which is a shame to me since I'm a huge fan of the LOTR trilogy. I simply hate the way they've treated this trilogy for the most part, because they had a stellar cast (especially Martin Freeman), a fantastic Smaug, but still managed to turn it into a mess that only succeeded as a somewhat entertaining set of films - as long as I viewed them while pretending they were standalones (which they're not), otherwise it only bothered me - with much cringeworthy stuff throughout.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 29 2015, 5:15pm)
|
|
|
Ataahua
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
May 29 2015, 7:46pm
Post #130 of 132
(446 views)
Shortcut
|
A reminder to stick to the topic and not post for the sake of criticising other board members.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A whole sweep of posts have been removed or edited from this discussion thread as some board members have apparently forgotten one of our Terms of Service: 3. Posts containing racial, ethnic, religious, political, sexual or other slurs, personal attacks (on a TORn user or other person) intentional attempts to drive posters away or make them feel unwelcome, or posts made with the purpose of criticizing or insulting another poster will be edited or removed. If you haven't read the TOS recently, please take two minutes to refresh yourselves of what they include and make an effort to stick to them. We'd prefer to not remove posts but we will if the TOS are breached again. And remember, if you think a board member has crossed the line, please don't respond but instead alert the admins on the Feedback board and we'll handle it. Thanks.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..." Dwarves: "Pretty rings..." Men: "Pretty rings..." Sauron: "Mine's better." "Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak. Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
May 29 2015, 10:07pm
Post #131 of 132
(407 views)
Shortcut
|
I don't know about you, but for me, in the Real World, I can see a cartoon depiction of Paris, one filmed using film, and one filmed digitally, and feel that all three depict the same Paris (a lovely city I finally visited last Fall! ) It really makes no sense to me that the switch to digital would even be considered relevant for deciding whether or not the LotR and Hobbit films depict the same world. Ditto for CGI vs. other special effects, for depicting the same places.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
Jun 1 2015, 5:36pm
Post #132 of 132
(352 views)
Shortcut
|
This is about a movie saga, not videos of Paris
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's like the transition from SW originals to SW prequels. The point is that Middle-Earth looks far too different, and also seems to be too polished in most places in The Hobbit. It can't go from looking new and polished to ancient in 60 years. On top of that, some stuff that happens in The Hobbit tend to be things you would never see in The Lord of the Rings. Whether things are possible according to physics or not, some things just look ridiculous and take you out of the movie. The CGI is another factor - using awesome looking, prosthetic orcs in one trilogy, and then using full-on CGI orcs that generally look fake in the prequel trilogy, simply doesn't work. Especially when you attempt to mix the two in one of the trilogies, which already creates an inconsistency within its own trilogy. It's supposed to be part of a 6-part saga along with the LOTR films according to PJ, but the two trilogies look and feel nothing alike aside from designs of certain things. Your example of Paris has no relevance to this whatsoever, since one video of Paris and another are likely to be completely separate and have no real expectations to live up to in terms of atmosphere and aesthetics as a prequel or sequel. This is about two trilogies in which both trilogies seem to have a rather different look for Middle-Earth and certain things that are plausible to happen in it, yet they're supposed to be part of one 6-part story according to PJ himself. This is a lack of consistency. It's lacking the original aesthetic and atmosphere of Middle-Earth, and most of the reasons for it not working have already been stated by AshNazg on page one.
|
|
|
|
|