|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Loresilme
Valinor
May 29 2015, 12:32pm
Post #101 of 132
(589 views)
Shortcut
|
I was gearing up to draft a long post explaining my thoughts in more detail, then I read this post and it expressed them exactly  . Therefore may I offer you a big bowl of ice cream
as thanks  - you said everything so much better than I, and so quickly too (how do you do that?? )
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 29 2015, 12:37pm
Post #102 of 132
(592 views)
Shortcut
|
Those seem like they take place in the same world to you? Really?
Yes, they do. For over forty years I've accepted that the books take place in the same world even though the style and tone is different, why should I apply a different standard to the films?
...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...
Well, as it happens, yes, I am. Many of the orcs you see at Helms Deep were CGI. On the commentary track - I think - or somewhere in the documantaries, Peter Jackson actually says that at first they thought the CGI orcs could only be used as background but they turned out to be good enough to use close up. Pelennor Fields was a CGI location - on the documentaries they show you how it was done.
...and the fact they went completely overboard with the action scenes, overusing CGI in the process and sacrificing overall realism...
Ahem.... Which part of Legolas surfing down the steps, or swinging up onto the back of a mumak did you find particularly realistic?
And before anyone moves in for the kill, please note that I'm not criticising the Lord of the Rings films here. I'm certainly not trying to set up a contest between the two trilogies. Just trying to point out the consistencies that I see clear as day between them...
I've watched this argument over the CGI in The Hobbit rumble on and on and have finally reached my own conclusion about it. I don't believe there is any such thing as 'over-use of CGI'. After all, some films these days are entirely CGI: it seems ludicrous to suggest that there is a line somewhere not to be crossed - 'this much and no more'. The only meaningful debate that I can see is on the way the CGI is used, be it ten minutes or the whole film. Effective or ineffective use; skillful or less skillful: I can see CGI that is breathtaking and some that is - well, less than breathtaking. CGI is allowing the cinema to do things that would have been impossible a generation or more ago. But at the end of the day it's only another technique and I don't go to the cinema to critique the special effects. I go to be taken out of my everyday world. I go for a story, for characters I can respond to. I go to be entertained. I loved the Lord of the Rings films and The Hobbit takes me straight back into that world. And no one, here or anyone else, is going to tell me it doesn't. For me the six films blend into one gloriously consistent story. Hooray!
Your judgement of the film is fine for you. But you can't impose it on everyone else. You can't set parameters by which we all have to judge the films and you have no business trying. That's all really....
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 29 2015, 12:40pm
Post #103 of 132
(588 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Mmmm, thanks! I like ice cream :-) //
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
Loresilme
Valinor
May 29 2015, 1:27pm
Post #104 of 132
(581 views)
Shortcut
|
The Shire, Bree and Rivendell being the same designs... well obviously
I'm glad to agree on something  .
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.
When I compare them I see a barrel escape scene in keeping with what that event accomplishes within the context of the story, and an Amon Hen scene that did the same for its purpose. From a story perspective, the two scenes are completely different in action, purpose and consequences. The battle at Amon Hen was a bloody, desperate fight that ended with the death of one of the main characters, the capture of two additional main characters, and the breaking of the fellowship. In comparison to Barrels Out of Bond - where no one dies, it does not end in tragedy - on the contrary it's a relatively upbeat event: a triumphant escape from danger for the main characters due to Bilbo's ingenuity. So to your question then, did "Those seem like they take place in the same world to you? Really?" - yes, to me they really did seem to take place in the same world. Two completely different battles happening for two completely different reasons at two different points in time, in the same world.
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
May 29 2015, 1:27pm
Post #105 of 132
(577 views)
Shortcut
|
I find responding to the same arguments over and over very tiresome (though I admire how tireless you are at doing so), so I don't often chime in. However, my opinion is roughly the same as yours, so you can just assume every time you post that you are speaking for me as well!
I suspect that there are quite a few others who feel the same way but are not willing to engage in the kind of vigorous exchanges that seem to be the norm in this forum these days.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 1:35pm
Post #106 of 132
(572 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Many Examples of Ridiculousness in The Hobbit
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Might be a good idea to actually read the comments I've posted,
because I did mention Legolas in LOTR. Those were two scenes, however. Below, I'll explain to you the scenes that I find ridiculous, of which the vast majority does not revolve around Legolas.
From one of my previous comments: "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. They were forgivable. In The Hobbit, such action scenes are constantly thrown into your face, and not only performed by physics-defying Elves"
Those moments were quick and rare in LOTR and the greatness of the rest made up for it. In The Hobbit, they kept shoehorning such scenes into the film to feed the audience more Legolas nonsense, but not only Legolas did it - which we apparently have an explanation for, with him pretty much weighing nothing at all as implied with his walking on snow in LOTR - dwarves, however, are another story. We had Bombur's ridiculous barrel scene that needlessly lasted almost a minute. No realism there at all. Another issue there is that we're supposed to believe that the dwarves are no warriors in the slightest (save for a few, as Balin said, definitely NOT including Bombur) and that they're in great danger during this quest, and that they'll very likely have a hard time surviving encounters with enemies. Meanwhile, Bombur alone already seems to be well capable of somehow bouncing in a wooden barrel on a rocky surface, crushing dozens of orcs. The Battle of Azanulbizar was the most realistic looking scene of the entire trilogy, but even there they had made some mistakes... heavily armoured infantry (dwarves) seemed to have trouble against orcs, of which few were actually wearing any armour at all. And then later in the trilogy, almost all of the orcs suddenly become weak ragdolls. What? In Goblin Town, they all fall down the goblin trapdoors, tumbling to the "capture-cage" for presumably a few hundred meters and survive without a scratch. Thorin the dwarf somehow manages to deflect the goblin king's gigantic sceptre using only his sword, the huge goblin king smashing it from above, but failing to even put a dent in Thorin's defense as he just swings his sword as if the combined strength of the goblin king's arm and the weight of his sceptre are absolutely nothing. Goblin king falls off the platform, somehow survives. Bilbo falls down into goblin's cave, presumably many meters, somehow survives without even a scratch. Then all the other dwarves go on to accomplish impossible feats, goblins supposedly weigh absolutely nothing so they're just send flying into the air with a quick swing of a warhammer, And then the dwarves get on top of a collapsing platform and all of them survive a fall of hundreds of meters without a single scratch. Then the goblin king drops right onto them, crushing them in between the remains of the platform. Actually, they're all fine, just a bit annoyed by 600 kilograms crashing down upon them. And then we're apparently supposed to believe that Thorin, who gets smashed in the FACE (chin-area) by Azog using his orcish mace - which he previously used in the Battle of Azanulbizar flashback to send ARMOURED dwarves flying into the air without much of an effort - should be able to survive such a hit to the head. Nope, his jaw should've been fractured at the very least.
Moving onto DOS (already covered Bombur's barrel scene) - Legolas balancing on the heads of dwarves who were floating down a river in barrels at high speed looked over-the-top silly. Same for surfing on an orc. Tauriel deflecting an arrow using an arrow didn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The Forges scene just looks ridiculous as well. Bilbo falls off a collapsing stone staircase onto a rock hard floor. No problem, not a single scratch at all. Thorin jumping into the huge gaping hole, surviving through a manner of all kinds of conveniently placed objects on chains, looked absurd enough already. At one point, he also jumps into a wheelbarrow that's just floating in a river of super heated molten gold as if it were water - and then, again, he jumps right at a conveniently placed hanging chain to save his life. Legolas' arrows just flying through orc heads as if they had no skulls looked rather silly as well, but that's minor compared to all those other things...
Let's move on to BOTFA then, shall we?
So apparently, Bard is able to spot Smaug's weak spot from a huge distance in an area filled with smoke. The thing with Legolas using a bat as a taxi looked over-the-top. The whole deal with the troll on peg legs versus Legolas was ridiculous. Legolas running on falling bricks looked utterly ridiculous - whether he has the weight for it or not, you shouldn't add things like that to the film just because it's possible, especially this many of such scenes - actually, the entire Legolas versus Bolg fight was stupid and absurd. Azog was somehow able to jump back to the surface while UNDERWATER, not to forget that he's a huge orc wearing heavy armour at this point. Beorn drops off an Eagle, RIGHT into an army of pike-wielding orcs and somehow doesn't get impaled by ANY of them. Heavily armoured & specially trained orcs get slaughtered by mere fishermen.
And even after this huge load of examples, I wouldn't be done describing them all yet.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 29 2015, 1:37pm)
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 29 2015, 2:03pm
Post #108 of 132
(566 views)
Shortcut
|
Your judgement of the film is fine for you. But you can't impose it on everyone else. You can't set parameters by which we all have to judge the films and you have no business trying. That's all really....
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 2:05pm
Post #109 of 132
(565 views)
Shortcut
|
You're completely misunderstanding me.
If they're departing from it in a good way, then that is obviously acceptable, but departing from it in a questionably awful way while they already had a perfectly fine base for it all laid out is something I won't respond as forgiving to, hence my complaints.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 2:09pm
Post #110 of 132
(563 views)
Shortcut
|
That's an easy way to dodge every and any discussion, of course.
I provide a load of examples to show why The Hobbit is inconsistent with The Lord of the Rings - and that's not being subjective there, it's just a fact that there are way too many unrealistic scenes in a prequel trilogy to a realistic fantasy trilogy, and I've explained why those scenes are unrealistic - yet you're still trying to convince me that it's all merely subjective. Different perceptions, perhaps, but if you perceive some of the scenes I've described as "realistic", then I would say that your perception is flawed outside of a subjective manner. You provide no explanations as for why those scenes are realistic enough to fit in with the majority of LOTR in any way - instead, every single thing is being dodged and described as "completely subjective".
But apparently that's all just my perception, right? All of those scenes completely make sense, as long as you think they do, right?
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 29 2015, 2:11pm)
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
May 29 2015, 2:14pm
Post #111 of 132
(651 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Lorsilme and dormouse, I agree.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I don’t really compare the LotR movies with the Hobbit trilogy, or at least no more than I do The Hobbit novel with the LotR book, which in my opinion are even more divergent in almost every way than are the two sets of movies. They are two looks at ME at different times and from different authorial viewpoints. So are the movies.
I just don’t see these two trilogies as being that different except in tone. Once past the grim prologue and the light Shire scenes, LotR becomes increasingly dark but there was always humour and over-the-top, even silly, action. AUJ starts out more-or-less as the light hearted adventure that the book is at its beginning but as the movies progress the tone slowly shifts into something heavier and darker until the tragic and bittersweet ending. That ending fits with FotR for me, in which the tale of a darker time in ME is told.
I also don’t agree that there is an overabundance of CGI in TH movies. That seems to be a given with some movie detractors but is a matter of opinion. I could name a number of special effects in LotR, practical and CG, which don’t really work for me. Aside from the 3D and HFR of The Hobbit, if we all hadn’t watched all the extras and commentaries for both trilogies, I wonder how many would even realize that different techniques were used.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 2:20pm
Post #112 of 132
(648 views)
Shortcut
|
Yes, only The Hobbit was intended to be rewritten to fit in with the LOTR books and then it wasn't. You also have to realize that these are books with written text, you can imagine the worlds to look exactly the same, but with movies, you've got to stay consistent with the original look and feel if you're making a prequel, and that is one of the things with which they went wrong in The Hobbit. They didn't start out with a silly and ridiculous trilogy - they ignored the standard of a realistic and gritty world and decided to end it on a silly and ridiculous note.
LotR has a certain amount of those things, but in moderation.
The Hobbit seems to be using CGI in places where it really isn't needed, and (especially) The Battle of the Five Armies just looks fake and odd. Like a video game that's attempting to be a movie.
You have to realize that the release date of the final LOTR film and the first Hobbit film are a decade apart - but LOTR still looks better and more realistic while The Hobbit already looks outdated and... not so realistic.
Also, name at least two ridiculous/silly action scenes from The Lord of the Rings that do NOT involve Legolas or any of the Maiar.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 29 2015, 2:24pm)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 29 2015, 2:26pm
Post #113 of 132
(643 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't feel the need to understand your will to show up 'awfulness'
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in those movies, nor I need the feel either, because when I find movies awful I just usually quit. You surely won't make the film better of worse arguing about its 'awfulness', you're just putting a pressure on people you speak with,
and I don't find that enjoyable.
|
|
|
Bofur01
Lorien
May 29 2015, 2:26pm
Post #114 of 132
(638 views)
Shortcut
|
Why is Legolas riding a bat "over the top" would Thorin riding it be less over the top, because he's smaller? What does over the top mean?
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 2:31pm
Post #115 of 132
(639 views)
Shortcut
|
And yet here you are, also complaining about something you don't find enjoyable, because apparently it's something that has disappointed you. A bit ironic to complain about how I'm doing that then, isn't it? You surely won't make me stop by telling me how you would deal with it (which I don't believe) and how you don't find it enjoyable.
I don't even remember ever calling these films "awful", the main issue is that I'm having a hard time ignoring all the ridiculous poodoo that they've smeared over something that could've been great without those things. And really, I'm just acting in self-defense because you lot seem to be defending the Hobbit films as if they have no faults at all, and as if everything I say is completely wrong, even though similar things have been uttered about these films many times before.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 2:41pm
Post #116 of 132
(635 views)
Shortcut
|
Because it looks over the top. How did he control it? Why did the bat take him exactly to the top of the tower where he needed to be, while all other bats were going a completely different direction? And then he manages to flip himself to the other side of the bat, somehow. If you can't see the ridiculousness in any of that, then I don't know what's going on.
I'm beginning to get the idea you guys are trying to cover up every fault about The Hobbit trilogy, no matter what. I've not seen a single one of you admitting even one fault about the films and praise them as "perfect companions to the Lord of the Rings trilogy". Is that just me or what, and why? I remember a time when I was actually on the defenders' side of The Hobbit, but I was, at the time, just trying very hard to ignore the things I disliked about them, and the things that took me out of the movie. Which was hard enough. It just didn't align with the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I'm not at all buying into the excuse used everywhere that it's because it's supposed to be "lighthearted". A world doesn't go from looking polished, new and childlike to ancient in 60 years, nor would it ever see its laws of physics changing like that.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 29 2015, 2:49pm)
|
|
|
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Valinor
May 29 2015, 2:54pm
Post #117 of 132
(617 views)
Shortcut
|
Without giving it any thought at all, I can think of two things from the LOTR films that I find much more ridiculous than any of the examples you give from The Hobbit, and neither of them involve Legolas or any Maia. One is Denethor running the length of Minas Tirith while on fire, and the other is Aragorn's cliff dive.
'But very bright were the stars upon the margin of the world, when at times the clouds about the West were drawn aside.'
The Hall of Fire
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 3:01pm
Post #118 of 132
(625 views)
Shortcut
|
You think those two are more ridiculous than any of the examples I've given from The Hobbit? Aragorn fell into the water below, and was actually unconscious apparently, transported to land by the stream. Whenever something like this happened in The Hobbit, none of the characters had even the slightest of a scratch. I can't give much of an explanation for the Denethor example, it may seem odd but is probably not implausible.
(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 29 2015, 10:32pm)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 29 2015, 3:09pm
Post #119 of 132
(606 views)
Shortcut
|
Tauriel had a scratch.
Thorin had a scratch.
Gandalf had more than a scratch
Kili is mortally wounded.
Thorin is killed.
Kili is killed.
Fili is killed.
None, really. Except those who do.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 3:18pm
Post #120 of 132
(596 views)
Shortcut
|
You're ignoring those who didn't have a scratch.
Most of the time, the only times they get hurt are when it's convenient for the plot (Kili's arrow) or absolutely supposed to happen (deaths of the three dwarves). However, in AUJ, no-one else had a scratch after those ridiculous scenes I've mentioned before. Fair enough, I was wrong about saying "not a single scratch", I admit that, but I still stand by my point that there should've been "more scratches", at the very least. You can't fall down over a hundred meters and have 600 kilograms crashing on top of you without suffering a single injury.
|
|
|
dormouse
Half-elven
May 29 2015, 3:19pm
Post #121 of 132
(598 views)
Shortcut
|
|
But this isn't a discussion, it's a monologue....
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
In which you lay down what the film IS and we are expected to agree. And the more people say they they don't share your view of the films the longer and more strident your posts become.
Try to understand, you are not proving anything. I enjoy the films, you don't. It's that simple. I find that the differences in tone are on the whole a pretty fair reflection of the differences between the books. You don't. I could plough through your list and tell you why I don't share your criticism of each scene in turn - on the point about Thorin being hit on the face by Azog's mace, for example, if you look very carefully you'll see that it doesn't hit him in the face at all, it strikes him just below the shoulder where his clothing is thickest. But I know there's no point in saying even this much. You don't want to hear what I think. You can't even concede the possiblity that there might be any thoughts on this other than yours.
Suppose you really love porridge and your brother hates it. Does that make the porridge bad or good?
|
|
|
Bofur01
Lorien
May 29 2015, 3:28pm
Post #122 of 132
(593 views)
Shortcut
|
|
So it means it looks ridiculous.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Thanks for the clarification, I legitimately didn't know...
And yes, it does look a bit odd. Clearly green screened, no moving shadows on Legolas.
But I don't mind it, he's a near weightless elf with superhuman reactions. There's nothing impossible about it.
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 3:31pm
Post #123 of 132
(595 views)
Shortcut
|
This is not about porridge, this is about the lack of realism in scenes that obviously display a lack of realism, unless you're willing to tell me that The Hobbit films are realistic according to the laws of physics.
There is no such thing as "the laws of the taste of porridge", which is something that *is* subjective. 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.
Somebody jumping through frozen ice while underwater = unrealistic, that is hardly objective to me. This way you could also say that grass being green is subjective and perceived differently by others.
P.S. I never said I didn't enjoy the films, I never said I hated them furiously or even hated them at all, what I'm pointing out here are flaws that are major to me. They may not be major to you, but they are major to me. The lack of realism in some of these scenes may be minor to you, but it exists, whether you're willing to admit it or not. You're free to enjoy the films but I don't get why you're trying to tell me some of these scenes that I've given examples of are realistic, both visually and according to physics, when anyone with eyes could tell they're not. They may not bother you, some of the scenes may be a more questionable case of whether they're realistic or not, but an amount of the scenes I've given examples of *do* ignore realism, whether that bothers you or not.
Whether you like those scenes and whether they are acceptable to you or not, in my view it's still true that the lack of realism in some of these scenes is objective, not subjective.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 29 2015, 3:33pm)
|
|
|
Milieuterrien
Rohan
May 29 2015, 3:43pm
Post #124 of 132
(569 views)
Shortcut
|
|
If you're talking about wounds
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Nowhere did Tolkien write that any other dwarf than those killed ended the battle wounded, nor any one of them ended wounded after the goblins tunnels. Shouldn't have some of them being lost or wounded in such horrid fights ? Why don't you carry a single blame for it on Tolkien's shoulders ?
Are all Tolkien's writings realistic ? Are Tolkien's dwarves like human dwarfs, Tolkien's elves like... known realistic humanoids ?
I do believe that realism isn't always necessary in fantasy tales, because if it would be, fantasy tales wouldn't exist to begin with.
For me, the alleged over-the-top antics are part of the fantasy, and what I look about them is their choreography, their dose of fun, of imagination, the weight of emotion they carry (Aragorn's fall and his companions reactions), and so on.
If you dismiss events in a fantasy movie just because you find them ridiculous, won't you end to find ridiculous the simple fact you get into a theater to see a fantasy movie ?
|
|
|
Gandalf the Green
Rivendell
May 29 2015, 3:57pm
Post #125 of 132
(561 views)
Shortcut
|
Fantasy does not mean that it shouldn't be grounded in reality.
Especially if it's a prequel to another trilogy - a trilogy that already had an established level of realism that ended up largely being ignored by said prequel. I went into the theater to see The Hobbit expecting to see another story set in the Middle-Earth that I know and love from the LOTR trilogy, not something that vaguely resembles Middle-Earth, with similar and some of the same characters, while not acting like the Middle-Earth that was established in the original trilogy.
Yes, Tolkien never wrote that any of the other dwarves were wounded, but he has never written ridiculous things like characters falling from heights of over a hundred meters and all of them being unharmed TWICE, or not suffering any injuries at all after being squeezed in between a large rock and a mountain's side, either. I'm not blaming Tolkien for any of it because my complaints apply to Peter Jackson's adaptation only.
(This post was edited by Gandalf the Green on May 29 2015, 3:58pm)
|
|
|
|
|
