|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 27 2015, 2:54pm
Post #76 of 132
(1641 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The feeling of the film may differ from the feeling of the book
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I don't think it has to be stated as a 'failure'.
Remember the movies were done after the LOTR series, which standed on their own as a Peter Jackson Movie (based on Tolkien)
Then the expectations of the audiences were on that kind of filming, its grandeur, its scope, its New-Zealand, its actors, its music, its ambiance.
None of those elements could be expected to be found in The Hobbit Book.
What you are asking for is a movie that would have been shot without LOTR being shot before.
A movie centered on the book alone (Bilbo-centered) could certainly have been done,
but if so, P Jackson would have faced audiences would have accused him to let down the LOTR grandeur.
And, most important, filming a 'modest' movie, he would have let down all the crew around him who showed their ability to contribute to huge movies.
I don't think it would have been a good reward for their involvment.
What may be a problem is that PJ was entailed by the former successes he got, into making a another mega-movie, even at the expense of his own health.
But he achieved most of this challenge, and for that I can't find easily motives to blame him : that's the fate of many artists.
|
|
|
Grand Bob
The Shire
May 27 2015, 3:31pm
Post #77 of 132
(1629 views)
Shortcut
|
Jackson certainly was faced with a dilemma trying to tie The Hobbit movies to the Lord of the Rings, but I'm not sure if filming a more modest movie would necessarily have meant letting the crew down. On the contrary, if such an endeavor would have elicited the same positive response that one has at the end of reading the book, I believe the crew and the movie-going populace would enjoyed the effort to a greater degree. In contrast to the generally upbeat book, the movies are a downer, very dark with heavy weighting of negative elements, such as Thorin's severely over-dramatized obsession with wealth and Jackson's almost fanatical obsession with orcs. The dearth of humor and light-heartedness eventually takes a toll. The movies desperately needed such moments, and although it has been joked about, the last movie should have ended with "thank goodness said Bilbo laughing and handed him the tobacco-jar".
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
May 27 2015, 3:32pm
Post #78 of 132
(1630 views)
Shortcut
|
Showing a dwarf beheaded in the middle of a battle isn't shocking to young audiences?
Is it shocking? So what? Children are more adaptable than people give them credit for. Most can handle a bit of shocking material. And it is a parent's responsibility to know what is appropriate for his/her own children, not a filmmaker's.
Personally I think that films (even children's films) should challenge their audiences more often.
"At the end of the journey, all men think that their youth was Arcadia..." - Phantom F. Harlock
(This post was edited by Otaku-sempai on May 27 2015, 3:37pm)
|
|
|
Loresilme
Valinor
May 27 2015, 4:13pm
Post #79 of 132
(1712 views)
Shortcut
|
sadly they fail to keep consistency with the already established ME movieverse
I'm sorry but I don't agree with that at all. I find them to be very consistent. Both trilogies are connected for me and I feel they mesh in terms of the world design and character depictions. As for the tone, many stories start out lighthearted and become increasingly darker. TH is a book that starts out almost goofy in its lightheartedness and ends up with the death of three main characters. I think the film team had their work cut out for them, to present such a story in a way that was cohesive while maintaining both those extremes. For me, I found they did that very well and I commend them on their accomplishment. I view both trilogies as one continuous story, and feel TH trilogy enhances my experience watching the LOTR trilogy.
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
May 27 2015, 8:15pm
Post #80 of 132
(1596 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Have you seen Disney/Pixar's Brave?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Terrifying stuff. A bear mauls her dad's leg off. Imagine if they tried marketing that to kids! They'd have to replace the bear with an elf who stabs a character in the head, watches them fall from a great height and then get crushed by falling rubble. Much more child friendly.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 27 2015, 8:28pm
Post #81 of 132
(1591 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The difference, AshNazg, stays in the 3D/hdr stuff
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have always been frightened by the perspective of a gore rendition of violence in such a format.
A cartoon is a cartoon. Even offensive, even violent, it doesn't hit the visuals the way a 3D real image does.
You have lots of cartoons that are much more violent in what they depict than what the PG-13 stands for movies.
But I admit that nowadays the frontier between cartoons and movies blurs.
And we can also admit that the bath scene in AUJ EE showed some nudity and even else 
fortunately it was quite far 
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on May 27 2015, 8:42pm)
|
|
|
dernwyn
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
May 27 2015, 9:17pm
Post #82 of 132
(1573 views)
Shortcut
|
Kindly refrain from slinging personal comments.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I desired dragons with a profound desire"
|
|
|
AshNazg
Gondor
May 27 2015, 9:47pm
Post #83 of 132
(1565 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Okay, so what's the difference between...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
A bear mauling evil creatures in justified vengeance and wargs mauling good guys out of pure evilness?
I don't see why they couldn't just have a close-up of Beorn, zoom into his mouth to imply said creature is being eaten and then cut to something else. Why is that worse than the rather brutal death we got?
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 27 2015, 10:28pm
Post #84 of 132
(1557 views)
Shortcut
|
Nobody would find him stabbing in the brain outrageous, because he did so so many times !
Orlando is a Leggy Dear but not a Teddy Bear. His kills are kinda hygienic.
That would not be the case with a berserk bear.
If you ever look at a bear killing you surely know how it's horrendous. Not so horrendous as a hyenae attrition killing, but only because the bear is so big that we can't closely consider the victim, we only see the beast shaking it. THIS shaking is nauseous if you see what I mean. And, technically, it's also probably much difficult to handle, because the tremendous strength of a bear is needed to shake like that. No machine, no actor can even remotely imitate the shaker one as well as the shaken one.
In theory CGI could do the job, but you may have noticed that the PJ team never succeeded in handling carnivorous mammals, because there is simply no motion-capture available. That's why for instance no Wargs came out being fully realistic. How can you tack sensors on a bear and ask 'him' to shake some living being also tacked with sensors ? And which living being would it be ? A naked turkey ? A naked crane ? True realism would have been horrendous for the victim and so for the audience, but failed cgilism would have been even more jarring.
I think that may have been the main explanation, because the team certainly did think about the scene.
(This post was edited by Milieuterrien on May 27 2015, 10:34pm)
|
|
|
Bofur01
Lorien
May 28 2015, 8:05am
Post #85 of 132
(1524 views)
Shortcut
|
The warg chase scene in AUJ was clearly rushed, but their appearance in the Out of the Frying Pan sequence looked amazing.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 28 2015, 8:20am
Post #86 of 132
(1712 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If mocap isn't needed to shape realism in facial movements,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
why should they hire actors mocaping ?
You may wish to dismiss my argument, but you may also try and look if mocaps were available for Wargs.
Wargs in AUJ or DOS were fine, but realistic, no, nowhere IMO. Even when quiet. Nor furious dogs nor furious wolves act that way.
Sometime one audacious moviemaker will tackup captors on the face of a furious dog.
But if PJ didn't, just go along with the fact he didn't and that it shows.
|
|
|
Bofur01
Lorien
May 28 2015, 8:33am
Post #87 of 132
(1709 views)
Shortcut
|
|
They're not supposed to be furious dogs, nor wolves, but wargs.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
WETA could have mimicked a "Furious dog" if they wanted to, like they did with the spiders (Obviously mimicking spiders, not dogs there) But they chose to give them their own feel, I guess to make them seem scarier.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 28 2015, 9:00am
Post #88 of 132
(1700 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think they did their best with Wargs, but...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Since they dropped off the Assembly of the Wargs, the Wargs-are-speaking stuff, and had many Wargs being mounted by orcs, those animals lost much of their autonomy, so far that they even lost their 'army'. I personally don't regret it, because the wolves speaking in Narnia are simply unwatchable.
Doing so, PJ's team approached realism as much as they could. But I won't be affirmative in stating that 'Wargs are supposed to be Wargs' can be a criteria for realism. Realism is grounded in reality, interactions with the real world, not in self-reference.
Mocap is useful to build and shape those interactions. No mocap, less realism.
|
|
|
arithmancer
Grey Havens
May 28 2015, 12:27pm
Post #89 of 132
(1680 views)
Shortcut
|
In some extra in the EE I recall there was discussion that the decision to NOT make Wargs look just like wolves was deliberate. Conservation groups in Real Life trying to preserve wolves from extinction have worked to improve the image of wolves among the public, and it was not desired to make the evil and fearsome Wargs just like these potentially sympathetic animals (this reason would apply even more strongly to dogs, which many people love and keep as pets). I think some prehistoric canines were part of the inspiration for the Hobbit design.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 28 2015, 8:24pm
Post #90 of 132
(1646 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Lack of Consistency is Real
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogies don't look like one another, don't feel like you're in the same world, things happen that would never have happened in the LOTR films, so I fail to see how The Hobbit films could possibly be deemed consistent with the LOTR trilogy.
I don't remember endless cartoony action sequences in the Lord of the Rings films, nor do I remember vulgar jokes and things that don't seem to have a place in Middle-Earth at all. At least, nothing that went nearly as far as it went in The Hobbit. In LOTR, Legolas had a total of two over-the-top scenes (that looked over-the-top) but they never lasted long and were quickly done. In The Hobbit, such action scenes are constantly thrown into your face, and not only performed by physics-defying Elves - to me, there certainly is a lack of consistency.
Not even the orcs look like they fit in the Middle-Earth we know from the LOTR films,
save for the small amount of prosthetic orcs compared to all of the CGI ones.
Yes, many stories start out lighthearted, but The Hobbit doesn't,
unless you want to call the destruction and burning down of an entire city and its people by a dragon "lighthearted".
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 28 2015, 8:28pm)
|
|
|
Loresilme
Valinor
May 28 2015, 9:30pm
Post #91 of 132
(1624 views)
Shortcut
|
The Hobbit and the LOTR trilogies don't look like one another, don't feel like you're in the same world, things happen that would never have happened in the LOTR films, so I fail to see how The Hobbit films could possibly be deemed consistent with the LOTR trilogy.
My experience was different. I felt very much like I was going back to the same world, from the set designs to character designs. It is, I think, completely subjective, if you 'fail to see' something that I do, and I fail to see what you do, then our perceptions are just different.
Regarding the lighthearted beginning of TH, I felt that basically everything in the first part of AUJ was very lighthearted, with the exception of, as you mentioned, the flashback story of Erebor, and I would add, the solemn singing of the misty mountain song. There's the 'good morning' scene, the introduction of the dwarves, the dish cleaning and singing, even continuing with "I'm going on an adventure" and the pocket handkerchief, etc. So I do consider TH as a story that starts out lighthearted.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 28 2015, 9:54pm
Post #92 of 132
(1623 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Does me good to read a post like this....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
... because for me too this is the same world, identifiably the work of the same hands, and slipping back into it was like meeting an old friend after so long away. You're certainly not the only one who feels this way - though over the last few days I've started to feel as if I might be.
I agree with everything you've written here, both on the consistency between the two films and on the lighthearted beginning.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 28 2015, 9:54pm
Post #93 of 132
(1619 views)
Shortcut
|
|
How? I can't manage to view it that way...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But I don't think the visuals suddenly change for every other person. At least, I'm having a really hard time even seeing a bit of consistency between the two.
So, just wondering - how come? How did you manage to see the CGI-filled version of Middle-Earth as shown in The Hobbit as being consistent with the realistic looking Middle-Earth (with CGI and practical effects used effectively) as presented in the Lord of the Rings films? The aesthetic and atmosphere that were present in LOTR are no longer present in The Hobbit, and everything looks too digitalized and many things fake. I don't think it's completely subjective - maybe a little, but hardly completely. Cartoony fight sequences being the usual thing in one trilogy taking place in the same world as the other trilogy, in which (as for the other trilogy, meaning LOTR) the battles are gritty, realistic and convincing - is that consistency? What have I overlooked?
The flashback is the very beginning, so technically not, but I see where you're coming from, even though the Hobbit films generally tend to seem like they don't know what direction to take. One moment can be serious, the next can be silly, the one after that can be quite normal and then ridiculous again, as if each film is trying to be a comedy, a serious movie like LOTR, a film for kids and an action film full of beheadings all at the same time.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 28 2015, 10:22pm
Post #94 of 132
(1611 views)
Shortcut
|
|
We seem to have posted at the same time...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...and as I'm in complete agreement with Loresilme here I'll offer you my answers - though I know it won't change a thing and there's no earthly reason why it should. If you don't see consistency between the two sets of films you don't and we can't show you it - but you have asked, so, though I suspect you will shout down everything I say I'll say it anyway.
First, the same artists designed the overall look of both sets of films. The styles of Alan Lee and John Howe and the artists from Weta are so clear to me that I'm amazed you can't see it. I think it's clear in the new locations as much as the old, but just to reinforce the point, Bag End.... Hobbiton.... Rivendell.... Bree. All recognisably the same places. Then the less clearly defineable things: the same eyes behind the camera and in the editing, making decisions on angles and lighting and how to frame each shot. The Hobbit has exactly the same quality that delighted me in Lord of the Rings - almost every frame is like a moving book illustration. Almost every frame makes me want to draw. From me in both trilogies - this is something else that's consistent - the occasional things I don't particularly like are generally connected with the writing. Visually I think the films are extraordinary and I could happily watch them - and would - if I couldn't understand the language.
Second, and in both sets of films, the effective use of CGI is a point of consistency for me, not divergence. I just don't buy this 'over-use of CGI' idea. In both trilogies there were times when the computer effects didn't work so well, and in both the CGI at its best is mind-blowing. It brought to life things no other technique could have done and, being handled in both trilogies by many of the same people I'd say that the way it is used is also a point of consistency.
I could go on, but I don't think there's really any hope that you'll believe I mean what I say. Different people perceive things differently. This is how I see them, you don't. Neither of us is wrong, we're just reflecting our own experience. From the moment I saw AUJ begin for the first time I was back in the same Middle Earth: that's how it felt then, that's how it feels now. There are differences in tone between the two trilogies - seems to me they've ended up as a reasonable reflection of the differences between the books - the one told as a moral fable for children, the other feigned history - but definitely to my eyes in the same, gloriously consistent world.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 28 2015, 11:00pm
Post #95 of 132
(1604 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Designs aren't the only things about the visuals
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The Shire, Bree and Rivendell being the same designs... well obviously, and that wasn't what I was talking about. What I'm talking about is that everything looked more real and believable in The Lord of the Rings, but with The Hobbit, that tends to be very different. The fact they filmed it all digitally didn't help either. Again, LOTR just looks far more real and believable, and less overly polished..The tone of the story shouldn't dictate the way an already-established world looks like. It's not a valid excuse, and it will never be. So just compare the barrel escape scene from The Hobbit to the Amon Hen battle scene from The Lord of the Rings.
Those seem like they take place in the same world to you? Really? The designs alone can't do that, the overall aesthetic and atmosphere of the two have to be comparable in order for the trilogies to be consistent visually, in which case they're not.
The CGI wasn't really handled in the same way, unless you're trying to tell me we also had an abundance of CGI orcs in the LOTR films, as well as complete CGI versions of locations to substitute the use of miniatures, plus the huge amount of green screen and the fact they went completely overboard with the action scenes, overusing CGI in the process and sacrificing overall realism and the feeling of a real threat for a stand-off between a live-action actor and a video game character, AKA Legolas versus Bolg, the second time being worse than the first.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 28 2015, 11:06pm)
|
|
|
Lio
Lorien
May 29 2015, 1:41am
Post #96 of 132
(1578 views)
Shortcut
|
|
FYI they did do some mocap for Wargs, apparently
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Lookit! 
Dwalin Balin Kili Fili Dori Nori Ori Oin Gloin Bifur Bofur Bombur Thorin
Orcs are mammals!
"Don't laugh at the Dwarves because they will mess you up." — Dean O'Gorman (Fili)
Want to chat? AIM me at Yami Liokaiser! (Does anyone still use AIM?)
|
|
|
Eruonen
Half-elven
May 29 2015, 3:44am
Post #97 of 132
(1574 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Agree, I had no issue with the world presented.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It was the same as LOTR but in the beginning of AUJ, a bit brighter. The tone eventually darkens as we all are aware.
Judging today, as I have noted before, I would reach for LOTR at least 7/10 times. It is hard for me to forget the magic of seeing FOTR in the theater as a dream come true experience. My expectations for The Hobbit were a little different. A simpler main story and a chance to visit new places, see favorite characters and new ones. I was truly hoping for more of the appendices info re Dol Guldur.....EE hopes outstanding.
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 29 2015, 9:06am
Post #98 of 132
(1551 views)
Shortcut
|
you keep seing LOTR again and again and nothing else if, for you, any difference departing from it is and will ever be a failure.
Some may think that it could be kinda weird to be stuck in a frame of time fixed like a usual day in Punsxutawney. Other may find it rather funny 
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 29 2015, 9:15am
Post #99 of 132
(1545 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Fine ! That image seems to be rare and I didn't hear about it
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm eager to see the scenes where that MoCap is at work.
Nevertheless, the dog looks quite cooler than our standard warg, and I don't see stacks on its chops and facial features.
So I keep wondering how long we'll have to wait before getting facial mocaps on speaking dogs.
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
May 29 2015, 10:52am
Post #100 of 132
(1533 views)
Shortcut
|
|
LOTR inspires me to save up for a better TV, The Hobbit makes me want to buy editing software
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Having said that; The Hobbit films will definitely be a fitting lead in to the larger story of LOTR, for me. Once I train up on my editing software.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
|
|
