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:
I wish the movies hadn't turned the characters into morons for the sake of the plot...
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All

MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien

May 10 2016, 3:09am

Post #26 of 234 (896 views)
Shortcut
I like the movies, but... [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Even though at that stage he has little more than contempt for Bilbo, Thorin was too honourable to watch him be dismembered by the Trolls if he could prevent it.


But he wasn't really preventing it. By disarming themselves to save Bilbo, the Company just allowed themselves (and Bilbo) to be killed, and it is pretty silly of them not to realize that was what the trolls were going to do. The Company had no way of knowing that Gandalf would show up just in time to save them, so really, they were sacrificing themselves to save someone in a way that makes it likely that he and everyone else would die.

It would be like Sauron saying, "Give me the Ring or I'll kill Pippin" and Frodo just handing it over. It's a dumb decision on the characters' part, since they ought to know what's coming.


MyWeeLadGimli
Lorien

May 10 2016, 3:13am

Post #27 of 234 (899 views)
Shortcut
It can be two things [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
As for wondering if anyone agrees with you, where have you been? I'd have thought it was - forgive me - obvious - that some folks here will be very happy to agree with you because, like you, they don't like the films, don't like Peter Jackson, and like having the chance to sound off about it once in a while. (As do we all...)


Some of us like the films, but still think there were things that didn't make much sense or should have been improved upon. I like the films overall (AUJ is my favorite of all six), but I agree with a lot of the OP's points.

I also think that since PJ is aiming for a more serious, epic feel to his version, it's fair to hold him to higher scrutiny about such things than the book. If he'd made the movies as a whimsical fairy tale, I doubt many people would be complaining about the characters' decision-making.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 7:24am

Post #28 of 234 (886 views)
Shortcut
Yup. [In reply to] Can't Post

Exactly my point. The way that situation was presented it made ZERO sense and made Thorin look stupid. Thorin's not supposed to be stupid. He's the leader.

And here's another pet peeve that I forgot to list, but is pretty HUGE.

PEEVE #8 - After Thorin comes to his senses and decides to act like a proper king and help his own people, Thorin and his dwarves decide to run out into the battle without the armor they had on earlier. No one even grabs a helmet.

Really? Oh look, I'm good again! But you couldn't tell, because I was wearing armor designed to protect me! No matter that there is a specific Tolkien passage about the awesome armor we dwarves are supposed to be wearing. Armor Thorin = evil. Thorin sans armor = good. That's just nonsense.

What Peter Jackson Should Have Done: Have epic, angelic Howard Shore music playing as Thorin and dwarves appear at the darkest hour, in the best armor ever seen in these movies to save the day. Like in the book. Or play the Misty Mountains Theme one more time. Cause that was the real Hobbit theme, unlike that tired Sons of Durin chant (which I enjoyed in Desolation of Smaug but found to be overused by the third movie).


(This post was edited by CaptainObvious on May 10 2016, 7:27am)


dormouse
Half-elven


May 10 2016, 7:33am

Post #29 of 234 (883 views)
Shortcut
No, probably they wouldn't.... [In reply to] Can't Post

... but I daresay they'd find something.

Seems to me a tad unreasonable to be blaming Peter Jackson for the times when he sticks to Tolkien's story as well as the times he changes it.....

As for the OP's points, I don't even recognise most of the things he references as having happened in the way he says they happen.

For still there are so many things
that I have never seen:
in every wood and every spring
there is a different green. . .


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 7:58am

Post #30 of 234 (880 views)
Shortcut
Re: Wow, where do I begin? [In reply to] Can't Post

PEEVE 1 - The dwarves knocked down the trolls, knocked the teeth out of one of them, and were basically winning until the trolls grabbed Bilbo and threatened to rip his arms off. And even IF the trolls hadn't made any dent, that's no excuse for the dwarves to lay down their arms, knowing that that would only end with them being cooked and eaten. My logic is sound. The solution that I offered, would have been congruent to Peter Jackson's desire to make the dwarves look tough while not veering too far away from the text. Which is why I "went there". Thorin just wouldn't have sacrificed everybody when the best chance Bilbo had of NOT being eaten (forgetting about Gandalf) was for Thorin to keep fighting.

2. My point is if Thorin and Dwalin didn't care about being faced with a hundred orcs in the last movie, because they knew they could kill them, it would have made more sense for them to stand their ground against Azog and his twenty orcs, when there were fourteen of them of them. They had just killed a hundred goblins getting out of the Misty Mountais, they knew they were tough. The only one of that warg pack that was a real threat was Azog. Even Bilbo was able to kill one of the huge orcs without any fight experience. My point is reinforced by the fact that when the dwarves left the tree to help Thorin, they took down a number of warg scouts very easily before the eagles showed up.

3. Where did I say it ruined the movie for me? Nowhere. Moving on.

4. Since neither of us care about the romance subplot, there's not much pointing harping on it. I think the whole jealousy arc did Legolas a disservice. It was just clumsy.

5. Letting someone you know you don't trust with your children's lives, watch over them anyway is even worse. It's one thing to let Alfrid be given small tasks to redeem himself. But whether Bard trusted Alfrid or not, his choice to hand over to Alfrid such a responsibility, less than twenty four hours after hearing Alfrid threaten to kill somebody over a blanket was foolish. Period.

6. If Bard knew that those dwarves were going to waken the dragon, he should have taken his children out of town IMMEDIATELY. While the dwarves were heading to Misty Mountains, Bard could have been paddling away in the boat. I judge Tolkien's Bard different from the movie Bard, because Tolkien's Bard was the captain of the guard and thus it was his duty to stay and defend the town. Daddy Bard should have gotten his kids away as soon as he knew that the dwarves were going to be allowed to go to Erebor, even if he himself decided to remain to shoot arrows.

7. The Hobbit could have been a twenty hour movie and I would have watched and enjoyed the whole thing provided that it was always true to the spirit of the book. I don't mind taking liberty with text. Many of Peter Jackson's liberties with Lord of the Rings, I enjoyed tremendously. I liked the first two Hobbit movies a lot. The last one, so completely delved into fan fiction as start becoming unrecognizable (to me) as the Hobbit. The best moments were always, when PJ stuck to the source. I feel if Peter Jackson had been given a smaller budget, and more constraints (such as two films) he would have actually done a better job with the story, rather than trying to solve most of his cinematic problems by throwing money at them, or with gratuitous cgi.

(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 10 2016, 7:03pm)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 10 2016, 9:36am

Post #31 of 234 (875 views)
Shortcut
I wish many critics and audience members wouldn't have turned into morons whilst watching "The Hobbit" [In reply to] Can't Post

Instead of honestly engaging with the films, their aims and actual execution. Not being mean, not pointing fingers, just... okay, well a tiny bit.

Sick of it is all. Jab after jab after jab after jab at this trilogy for going on four years now and I have heard/read about two or three legitimate complaints with the films as presented. For the rest of these lazy barbs, I'm reminded of something posted in another forum over a different topic: "You don't know enough about the things you watch to have such a high opinion of your opinion."

If I've left any doubt, no, these characters were not rendered morons. They remain remarkably consistent within the context and ground rules as established by the writers and filmmaker.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


Noria
Gondor

May 10 2016, 11:57am

Post #32 of 234 (833 views)
Shortcut
Dumb decisions [In reply to] Can't Post

By surrendering to prevent Bilboís imminent murder, Thorin bought time. The Dwarves probably did realize that surrendering might not have a good outcome but where there is life, there's still hope. Anything can happen if there is time, and it did.

If anything I would wonder why, once Bilbo was tossed at them, the Dwarves didn't try to pick up their weapons and resume the fight. I know why though: it was time for the story to move on. I'm fine with it.

This is another example of PJ having to make his badass Dwarves fit into the space occupied by the incompetent Dwarves of the book. Whether it works or not depends on the viewer.


Elarie
Grey Havens

May 10 2016, 12:04pm

Post #33 of 234 (825 views)
Shortcut
that armor [In reply to] Can't Post

"Thorin and his dwarves decide to run out into the battle without the armor they had on earlier. No one even grabs a helmet."
_____________________

That armor was absolutely glorious, but if you watched the appendices you may have noticed the part where the actors mentioned barely being able to move in it. One of them couldn't even raise his arms above his shoulders. One comment made during the press interviews that I remember was, "It was like wearing a Volkswagen", so I think that not wearing the armor in battle is something we just have to chalk up to the realities of movie-making. A complete redesign of the armor would have been the only solution.

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.



Elarie
Grey Havens

May 10 2016, 12:22pm

Post #34 of 234 (815 views)
Shortcut
Agreed! [In reply to] Can't Post

The line about "goblin merceneries" always makes me smile - I pictured them as the slightly scrawny goblins from the Misty Mountains and not anything like Azog's orcs. No problem. Smile

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.



Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 10 2016, 12:59pm

Post #35 of 234 (811 views)
Shortcut
Armor? No Armor? Less Armor. [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
PEEVE #8 - After Thorin comes to his senses and decides to act like a proper king and help his own people, Thorin and his dwarves decide to run out into the battle without the armor they had on earlier. No one even grabs a helmet.

Really? Oh look, I'm good again! But you couldn't tell, because I was wearing armor designed to protect me! No matter that there is a specific Tolkien passage about the awesome armor we dwarves are supposed to be wearing. Armor Thorin = evil. Thorin sans armor = good. That's just nonsense.


This complaint has bothered me for a while because it is based on a false premise. Yes, Thorin and his companions charge out of Erebor without the 'regal armor' they were wearing earlier. However, they are not unarmored. They have symbolically dressed down to illustrate that they are no longer being driven by Thorin's madness and overweening pride; however, THEY ARE STILL WEARING ARMOR.

The helmetless thing is stupid, but that is a Hollywood convention going back for many decades; done so that the faces of our actors won't be obscured.

"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."

- Dream of the Endless


Otaku-sempai
Immortal


May 10 2016, 1:22pm

Post #36 of 234 (806 views)
Shortcut
Run away! [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
If Bard knew that those dwarves were going to waken the dragon, he should have taken his children out of town IMMEDIATELY. While the dwarves were heading to Misty Mountains, Bard could have been paddling away in the boat.


Well, if Thorin and Company had been heading toward the Misty Mountains then there would have been nothing for Bard to worry about because THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN HEADING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION!

But seriously, he could still hope that the Dwarves would meet their end at the Mountain and Smaug would leave Esgaroth undisturbed. Even if Bard did grab his children and flee right away, there is still the question of where to go, especially with winter not far off. Thranduil was not especially welcoming to strangers, even if Bard couldn't know that the Elvenking had closed the borders of his realm (also cutting off access to the Anduin vales). The Dwarves of the Iron Hills were Thorin's kin and also stood a good chance of being on Smaug's list for reprisals. The only Men nearby were scattered homesteads of Woodmen, maybe including a few small villages. The nearest large communities of Men--Dorwinion, Rohan and Gondor--were hundreds of miles away across open country, the only 'road' being the Running River to Dorwinion, a route that also required taking a portage path around the falls at the south end of Long Lake--so much for Bard's boat.

"Things need not to have happened to be true.
Tales and dreams are the shadow-truths that will endure
when mere facts are dust and ashes, and forgot."

- Dream of the Endless


(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 10 2016, 7:06pm)


Elarie
Grey Havens

May 10 2016, 1:25pm

Post #37 of 234 (798 views)
Shortcut
reading the Sil [In reply to] Can't Post

Be brave, it's doable Smile The first time I read the Sil I read it front to back like a novel and to say it was confusing and that there was too much to remember is an understatement. Years later when I picked it up again I read the creation story at the beginning and then skipped straight to Luthien and Beren and that was SO much more enjoyable. After that I read some other individual parts, but I don't think I've read the entire thing a second time. For me, approaching the Sil as a collection of short stories made it much more enjoyable and less stressful than trying to remember all the characters, the geography, the wars, etc. as though I was studying for a history test, and there are some great stories in there. My favorites are Luthien and Beren, the history or the two trees, and Galadriel's people leaving Valinor and coming to Middle-earth. I think there are about 20 movies in the Silmarillion if the day ever comes when someone does that. Smile

__________________

Gold is the strife of kinsmen,
and fire of the flood-tide,
and the path of the serpent.



Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 10 2016, 1:34pm

Post #38 of 234 (802 views)
Shortcut
Well, [In reply to] Can't Post

"PEEVE 1 - The dwarves knocked down the trolls, knocked the teeth out of one of them, and were basically winning...." I've seen the movie probably over 150 times, and NO, I can't say the Dwarves were "winning" at any point. It was a stalemate at best. Further, at that point in time Thorin wouldn't have sacrificed ANY of his men, and Bilbo was one of his men whether he liked him or not. He felt a responsibility towards him, the look on his face when he put down his sword reluctantly said as much. It's easy to do that for the person you are MOST fond of, much harder when it's someone you consider a liability, but a leader treats all his men equally. Would it have worked better with Kili? Probably for some, but that's a matter of opinion.


On your second point, again that was at the END of the movie, which by then Thorin & Dwalin were pretty confident in what they could do. At the beginning, when they had all the others to think about, they naturally had to be more cautious. And yes, in PJ's world apparently Orcs are bigger and badder than Goblins anyway. But yes, the "no more than 100" was a little far-fetched.


Skipping numbers 3 & 4, I'd say the only reason he agreed to "let Alfrid watch over his children" was because he was in the middle of a battle and didn't have much to choose from. Btw, as untrustworthy as Alfrid was, the kids still made it to the Great Hall. Bard's only mistake here was thinking that Alfrid might actually come back to fight.


On number 6, I already explained this, you don't agree, that's fine. But I am a Mom & Grandmother, so I can see both sides. Bard made a calculated decision - better to fight the dragon & kill it with the Black Arrow, because they really can't run fast/far enough to get away. And it was implied that the kids were supposed to leave without him, as I said. Bain and Sigrid were teens, they certainly would have known how to row a boat by then, but the best they could do was hide out in Mirkwood, and Smaug wouldn't have had any trouble torching that, either.



Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association

(This post was edited by Ataahua on May 10 2016, 7:08pm)


Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor


May 10 2016, 1:49pm

Post #39 of 234 (798 views)
Shortcut
Peeve #8 [In reply to] Can't Post

"PEEVE #8 - After Thorin comes to his senses and decides to act like a proper king and help his own people, Thorin and his dwarves decide to run out into the battle without the armor they had on earlier. No one even grabs a helmet.

Really? Oh look, I'm good again! But you couldn't tell, because I was wearing armor designed to protect me! No matter that there is a specific Tolkien passage about the awesome armor we dwarves are supposed to be wearing. Armor Thorin = evil. Thorin sans armor = good. That's just nonsense."



You're right, that is nonsense - and totally NOT what happened, either. It wasn't the armor that made Thorin "bad," it was the dragon sickness. Yeah, he threw off the crown and Kingly robe as a symbolic way to rid himself of the sickness, but that's not why they dropped the heavy plate armor. The run was basically a suicide run, where speed was the most important thing. Yeah, the plate armor would probably have saved Thorin from being punctured in the lung, BUT I doubt he could have gotten up Ravenhill in that suit. In the original take there was a line from Thorin telling them they may not return, keeping that line would have solved that little booboo.

Proud member of the BOFA Denial Association


LittleHobbit
Lorien

May 10 2016, 2:19pm

Post #40 of 234 (783 views)
Shortcut
Totally agreed! [In reply to] Can't Post

I too am sick of hearing this incessant, infinite, endless, constant, interminable, relentless and EVERLASTING complaining about this film trilogy. There is not a SINGLE DAY that goes by without some dozen posts whining and moaning about a perceived ''flaw'' in those movies. It's got a long time ago by the point that I am considering just LEAVING this board, because simply no amount of ''argumentation'' will EVER convince the naysayers that ANYTHING in these movies is even a little good.

The funniest and most ironic part of all this is that, THE SAME GODDAMN THING happened back when the LOTR trilogy first came out. The ''purists'' would not give up in complaining about every little thing changed from the book, whilst claiming that the movies themselves were bad ''as movies'', not just ''adaptations''. Yeah, right... Angelic

So I guess it's a ''coming full circle'' king of thing and, NO MATTER WHAT PJ OR THE FILMMAKERS WOULD HAVE DONE, this insuferable, obnoxious nitpicking would still exist ANYWAY.

I don't mean to offend anyone with this post, I am just expressing my own feelings, I am afraid. But I admit it's a little hard, and takes some effort, to be polite sometimes, especially when the same thing repeats itself over and over and over and over until (apparently) the end of times...

Sorry for the long rant, but I had as well to get this off my chest... once and for all, hopefully.


Ostadan
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 6:25pm

Post #41 of 234 (721 views)
Shortcut
Badass Warrior Dwarves [In reply to] Can't Post

Part of the problem was the result of turning Thorin & Co. into badass warriors. The book dwarves couldn't threaten the trolls, because they had no weapons save small knives. It made Thorin's carrying of Orcrist more important: in the movie, Orcrist is just another sword among many, does not particularly daunt the goblins, and doesn't glow. Similarly, seeking refuge in five fir trees makes much more sense if you are not heroic warriors armed to the teeth.

I understand _why_ Jackson did this, but when you change stuff that way, you cannot ignore the effects on the rest of the story. And Jackson did not stop with, say, just arming a few of the dwarves with axes; he had to make them orc-killing-machine superheroes+. Because more is better when you are making a blockbuster. Right?


Hamfast Gamgee
Grey Havens

May 10 2016, 7:06pm

Post #42 of 234 (703 views)
Shortcut
They where fairly bad-ass Dwarves in the book as well [In reply to] Can't Post

In a number of occasions, the Goblin tunnels, the spiders or even at the end at the Battle of the five armies the Dwarves in the book took on many more enemies than they where and prevailed.


Ataahua
Superuser / Moderator


May 10 2016, 7:13pm

Post #43 of 234 (710 views)
Shortcut
Some posts have been edited and others removed for breaking the Terms of Service. [In reply to] Can't Post

A reminder that we don't allow name-calling or personal attacks on TORN, nor posts made for the purpose of criticising another board member - no matter how badly you might want to. Please stick to the Terms of Service when discussing the topic or you'll find your post removed.

For those who need a refresher, here's a link to the TOS - I recommend that everyone reacquaint themselves with point number 3.

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauronís 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


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 8:45pm

Post #44 of 234 (656 views)
Shortcut
It certainly did look heavy. [In reply to] Can't Post

They really should have made actor light enough for the dwarf actors to run around in. Other actors ran around in armor. Or if push came to shove, they could have had the actors wearing motion capture suits and CGI in the glorious armor later. That's a scenario that actually would call for CGI. Michael Shannon had CGI armor when he played Zod in Man of Steel (I can't believe I'm mentioning an example from that film as a solution). Henry Cavill had a CGI cape. It just would have made more sense for the dwarves to be depicted as properly armed, or explain why they weren't.


CaptainObvious
Rivendell

May 10 2016, 8:53pm

Post #45 of 234 (657 views)
Shortcut
Exactly. [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree with your post. I would have been much more at peace with the dwarves going up into the trees if they were not so well armed. In the book, Gandalf had Glamdring, and he brought along Orcrist for Thorin, but nobody else had weapons. That's why they went up in the trees.

I agree also with the poster earlier who said it made no sense that the dwarves tried punching the goblins after falling into the caves, when they had their swords with them. In the book, the dwarves were completely disarmed, hence the peril of their situation made more sense.


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 10 2016, 11:40pm

Post #46 of 234 (631 views)
Shortcut
Yes to everything you've said [In reply to] Can't Post

And, as much as I'd hate to branch off a long rant with a rant of my own (okay, not really), I'm going to get specific and dig into the heart of why these incessant criticisms and nitpicks irk me so. Because. Free will and all (although accusing someone of whining merits a demotion of one's free will in some forums, apparently).

By far the most widespread perceived flaw this trilogy has acquired is in its very existence. I will quote the overall sentiment, followed by the two facts this sentiment blatantly ignores:

"Churning out three movies from one small novel is nothing more than a cash grab. It should have been two films, tops."

1. Every film funded by a major motion picture studio is green-lit to turn a profit. Not a single piece of cinema baring a studio logo is produced for the expressed purpose of anything other (by those doing the producing) than monetary gain. When a trilogy's greatest flaw is that it is a trilogy to begin with, it is rather a flaw of film criticism and appreciation and blindly dismisses any ambitions and virtues presented in the movies themselves. They are not in and of themselves at fault for existing.

2. 20 years ago, before the last Hunger Games was split into two films, before the last Harry Potter was split into two films, and before New Line Cinema actually granted P.J. and co. the means to adapt three Lord of the Rings movies from the three written installments of the same, no one would be arguing for a two-part Hobbit. Not mere speculation; I was there and people were not clamoring for this. Fans of the novel would have been more than satisfied with a single, well-done adaptation (arguable what this is, but that's another post) of their beloved novel. What has taken place in cinematic adaptation since then is unprecedented and now everyone is a self-made expert on how many movies an adapted work 'should be.' Two is now acceptable but three is not because... why, again?

Here is the correct answer: as long as the films produced have VALUE and are of HIGH QUALITY, it doesn't matter how many there are. Three good films is more good films than one, regardless of how many installments were printed of the source.

Another popular sentiment, again married to two facts conveniently overlooked when purported:

"P.J. went overboard with the special effects. There's just too much CGI everywhere."

1. It is true The Hobbit has more special effects shots than The Lord of the Rings (technology has advanced and been sped up, allowing much that was painstaking and impractical in the past to be done easier and with a greater margin for the artist's creativity in post-production; also, it is worth mentioning that the former is, in essence, a nimble fairy tale, full of adventure and wonder, as opposed to the comparatively more grounded doom-and-gloom apocalyptic vision of the latter), but many have forgotten that there ARE an absolute ton of special effects in LotR. A boatload. Like, way more than most films at that time. In the original trilogy's first five minutes, we are granted a front-row seat to a CGI-heavy battle between elves, men and orcs at the base of a roaring volcano that appears remarkably similar to the presentation of The Battle of the Five Armies on-screen when compared with one another. This must have something to do with locations that do not exist in life, the number of soldiers on the ground and the nature of the action. Hmm. The first five minutes. Not even touching upon Moria. Or the elven cities. Or all of the action at Isengard. Or the climax at Helm's Deep. Or Minas Tirith. Or Pelennor Fields. Or... any sequence that requires this kind of technical workmanship. Worth a notation, surely.

2. CGI is a storytelling tool. It is not cool nor thoughtful to write a movie off because of heavy usage of computer generated effects. The questions to ask are: how do they look (in context - i.e. do they fit within the spirit of the tale)? Are they in service of the plot or to its derision? Are they grounded in relatable human motivation and emotions? You know, like Gandalf and Bilbo discussing tactics amidst the battle. Or Bilbo and Thorin bidding each other farewell on a cold bed of ice. Or Bard and his son atop the bell tower. My question is simple: when an absolutely necessary character has been rendered full CGI (Gollum) in both trilogies with such resounding success, why does this not halt the knee-jerk reaction of Oh, that's just more CGI. It sucks. Kills the movie for me? It should.

These nitpicks with the characters are of no different variety. They disregard context in several cases and demand adherence to a previous textual representation because it's all different now, wah wah wah in most of the rest. Cop outs. Largely unsubstantiated. LAZY.

My only hope is that future generations watch movies better.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


wizzardly
Rohan


May 10 2016, 11:59pm

Post #47 of 234 (617 views)
Shortcut
Ian Mckellen almost quit over the overuse of cgi [In reply to] Can't Post

 http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/nov/20/the-hobbit-gandalf-ian-mckellen-almost-quit-acting


(This post was edited by wizzardly on May 11 2016, 12:00am)


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 11 2016, 12:08am

Post #48 of 234 (613 views)
Shortcut
He is a classically trained actor who's been working in the entertainment business for over 50 years [In reply to] Can't Post

His problem was not with the CGI (I'm sure you know that part comes later), but with having no actors to bounce off of on set in those - limited - scenes. Of course that would be less than ideal for him. And yet, the proof that the technique worked is right up there on the screen. A towering Gandalf mingling with 13 dwarves and a hobbit in a hobbit hole.

I'm not entirely sure how one actor's displeasure with the working condition of a handful of scenes in a 16-month shoot is worth mentioning. He is not the filmmaker and his momentary grief is not representative of the finished project. The finished project is (duh).

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation


wizzardly
Rohan


May 11 2016, 12:11am

Post #49 of 234 (604 views)
Shortcut
No need to bite my head off [In reply to] Can't Post

I just thought it was an interesting article. Smile


TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense
Rohan


May 11 2016, 12:13am

Post #50 of 234 (605 views)
Shortcut
I saw the dispute in the EE's behind the scenes footage [In reply to] Can't Post

And it was indeed interesting. My response wasn't intended to go all Ozzy on you; I read yours as an conscious opposition to the CGI used in the movies.

"And you can trust me. Because I don't care enough about you to lie."
- Parks and Recreation

(This post was edited by TheOnlyOneAroundWithAnySense on May 11 2016, 12:14am)

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

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.