|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Joe20
Lorien
Jul 30 2014, 5:41am
Post #26 of 44
(499 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Damn good post. My thoughts exactly
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Jul 30 2014, 6:21am
Post #27 of 44
(497 views)
Shortcut
|
that applies to many of the folks,including you who do not like the Hobbit films much.
Unfortunately though,there are some posts in this thread which completely reflect what the OP was trying to say and imply at the same time.For example,the notorious CGI(oh god) complaints.Complaints that come from folks who claim that they LOVE the LOTR trilogy, as if this argument can make their opinion more valid.That LOTR trilogy which had numerous OTT scenes and CGI shots.Imagine now the same arguments being applied to the LOTR movies:
1)Battle of Pelennor and Siege of Minas Tirith:a)The CGI mumakils killing thousands of CGI horsesb)CGI horses spreading chaos into CGI orcs during the ride of the Rohirrim c)a CGI Army of the Dead against CGI mumakils against CGI orcs again d)CGI Trolls devastating the CGI soldiers of Minas Tirith.I could continue about Legolas and some other stuff but we all get the point
2)Helm's Deep:a)OTT sequence of the desperate exodus by Theoden and Co.4(!!!) horse riders against THOUSANDS of the so called hardcore army of Uruk Hai b) OTT sequence of Aragorn and Gimli facing alone hundres of Uruk Hai in front of the gate of Helm's Deep 3)An hour before,a seemingly pointless skirmish between CGI wargs against CGI Rohirrim Horse Riders.That scene's purpose was to find a chance to insert a scene with Arwen kissing a miraculously badly injured instead of dead Aragorn. I could contine this kind of rambling but i think it is obvious what i am trying to say.
So,I find it a bit absurd and tbh a bit hypocritical to criticise the Hobbit movies for this kind of stuff when everything pre-existed in the director's LOTRt ones.Do not get me wrong,i have no problem with most of the things i mentioned above.
All in all,my point is that Jackson,apart from a more extensive use of technology at the cost of not using some of his old techniques,hasn't changed his style of filmmaking in these Hobbit movies.The fundamental difference between the 2 trilogies is the story itself.A story of much depth and many layers of interpretation against a much more simple one.The simple story of the Hobbit book which left so much to the imagination of its readers, people had more of a set idea about it than they had on books where there's more definition to that, but that of course also means by necessity that making a film out of it will force the filmmakers to show their own interpretation.
"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"
(This post was edited by NecromancerRising on Jul 30 2014, 6:28am)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 30 2014, 7:35am
Post #28 of 44
(474 views)
Shortcut
|
But the use of CGI in TH and LotR is obviously different.
PJ says so himself all the time.
He (and you... and for the biggest part me as well) think it is an improvement.
Others would have hoped for a more earthy feel to it all. Or more practical effects (prosthetics, bigatures, no 3D, etc.).
People probably state they "Loved LotR" because they know that if they are too negative, they will get jumped on by people who label them as haters who cannot be satisfied with anything. It is a self-defense in many cases.
And a valid one. There are OBVIOUSLY differences in the use of CGI and color grading between these two trilogies.
Some like it, some don't. But liking one has nothing to do with liking the other.
In all seriousness this is really one thing that is just starting to cause me so much anger. The lack of respect around here. I have always been respectful to others' opinions, especially if they disagree with me. I'd advise you guys to start doing the same. You can start by not making assumptions about the people who disagree with you.
Very much agree with this, redgiraffe. And this although we perceive this movie very differently. But I also hope for more respect regarding different opinions here... the last two days have had a lot of "anti-hater" posts on here which were imho totally out of place. The sad thing is that once this campaign starts, another one follows in which suddenly all who like these movies are labelled as un-critical fanboys. It is a vicious-circle. One we can all contribute to break up. Regardless of our opinions on the movies.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
(This post was edited by Arannir on Jul 30 2014, 7:39am)
|
|
|
Intergalactic Lawman
Rohan
Jul 30 2014, 7:55am
Post #29 of 44
(462 views)
Shortcut
|
The cgi has gotten worse...far worse!
Not only is it used way too much but the quality has gone backwards! It takes me out of these films far worse than any movie and much more often. There are scenes of Gandalf for example, where he is running around dol guldor that look straight out of a video game... And don't even get me started on the cgi orc faces!
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 30 2014, 8:11am
Post #30 of 44
(456 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Well, a lot of people disagree on that one.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That is how it is.
As I said... respect for other opinions has to be their from both corners.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Eleniel
Tol Eressea
Jul 30 2014, 8:20am
Post #31 of 44
(463 views)
Shortcut
|
for many:
The "tone" argument is ridiculous as the Hobbit book in itself was completely different from the LOTR books tonally.
and
Then there are those of us who wanted more, either something similar to LotR or a bigger, more grown-up version of the story. I got what I wanted. Unfortunately, PJ couldn`t please everyone.
See the conflict?
To my mind one of the biggest problems is that PJ did try to please everyone, by giving us a mish-mash of both the whimsical HOBBIT and the dark, epic LOTR, combined with Jackson's own brand of in-your-face juvenile humour (as opposed to the more gentle, literary humour of the book) and OTT-ness...everything has been thrown in bar the kitchen sink, as the saying goes. We've ended up with a product that is neither fish nor fowl in many respects, and I suspect that is what doesn't sit right with many who enjoyed Jackson's take on LotR.
"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Ŋ Victoria Monfort
|
|
|
Anubis
Rivendell
Jul 30 2014, 8:32am
Post #32 of 44
(458 views)
Shortcut
|
Because I don't! These films are horrible. I have never been so disappointed by a cinematic experience since the Star Wars films.
You think this trailer is "bereft of any ott action" that people complain about??
Guess you missed -
Bard rolling down a hill in a cart (probably taking out 500 orcs the way bombur does)
Dwarf cavalry on crazy cgi rams
Ice chase on a chariot that will no doubt go for half an hour with absurd physics
Legolas surfing Smaug...hasn't been shown yet but pj wont be able to resist
And I can almost see Beorn arriving on a cliff roaring then proceeding to cannonball down the mountain side like blanka straight into the cgi orcs!
A film almost entirely just one battle? Peter Lucas is going to go nuts with absurd physics and crazy situations but then expect us to care when people start dying. Thus far characters have just needed to poke their sword in any direction and a convenient cgi orc has been there to take it. No mountanside can't just be rolled down and every arrow hits it's mark whilst been shot dancing on someones head.
Good lord...
"Bard rolling down a hill in a cart" Ehm... define over the top CGI?
"Dwarf cavalry on crazy cgi rams" Iīm guessing you didnīt like the rohirrim charge scene in LOTR either, am I correct? Bear in mind that these shots are part of bigger scenes, you donīt know how they will play out in the sequence.
"Ice chase on a chariot that will no doubt go for half an hour with absurd physics" Of course, you would have preferred a scene that lasts five minutes that features a chariot moving slowly through the ice, without sliding to any side, without any sense of danger for the dwarves whatsoever. And before you answer me saying that you wouldnīt even implement this scene, I shall remind you that we donīt know whether it will be important, or even necessary, to the movie plot. Btw, didnīt see any "absurd physics" at all, but of course that must be only me, PJ clearly likes to show cartoony scenes that pull you out of the movie.
"Peter Lucas is going to go nuts with absurd physics and crazy situations but then expect us to care when people start dying" Firstly, Peter Jackson has nothing to do with George Lucas, aside from both of them being movie directors; while Lucas created his own story, out of the blue, Jackson is adapting the works of an outstanding writer. The use of CGI is NOT a valid way to compare them; CGI, whether you like it or not, is now the field in which the movie seeds are planted, meaning it has become the contemporary way of expressing stories on-screen.
Secondly, crazy situations are a crucial part of The Hobbit, it has never been about, say, how the dwarves donīt have any water left in the middle of their journey. or about how Ori broke a leg while falling down of a tree in the Frying Pan chapter.
"Thus far characters have just needed to poke their sword in any direction and a convenient cgi orc has been there to take it" You do realize that THAT is what Tolkienīs work is about, among other things. Warriors destroy evil, and orcs are killed quickly and efficiently, unless they are some sort of great orc or something. The fact that you say this makes me believe that you donīt really understand the books, either.
"every arrow hits it's mark whilst been shot dancing on someones head." Elves arenīt like us, they can do things that are way out of our scope. Do you really think Tolkien described an elf that sometimes missed his shots, anywhere in the books? Have you actually read the chapters concerning them?
In conclusion, it seems like you would have preferred a "Braveheart" with actors having pointy ears and naked, hairy feet.
|
|
|
NecromancerRising
Gondor
Jul 30 2014, 8:35am
Post #33 of 44
(452 views)
Shortcut
|
|
No no, you missed my point Arannir.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I am not saying that all CGI are the same.Obviously this new advanced technology in which PJ constantly refers to is not likeable by some and that is more than fair to claim.I specifically referred to the use of the word CGI.For example, there is already a group of people and sure they will be more once the movie is released who will have problem that there will be CGI rams against CGI Orcs.Not because they will look good or bad or terrible,but their problem lies in WHY there will be CGI orcs or CGI horses or whatever else.I mean their complaints,many times, do not have to do with the quality of CGI(that is irrelevant) but with the EXISTENCE of CGI.I hope you get what i am trying to say 
Saying that "they loved LOTR " in order not to be labeled as haters may apply to a group of folks, which is valid of course,but there are also some who undoubtedly use that argument as a rock shield to establish that their opinion automatically acquires a gravity which is undebatable.And that is not valid at all imo.
"You cannot find peace by avoiding life"
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 30 2014, 8:46am
Post #34 of 44
(445 views)
Shortcut
|
... who use the CGI argument for the sake of it.
It comes down to the imho mix-up of artistic look vs. bad/good CGI.
I think many of those who dislike the look think it is because the CGI looks bad or fake - in the sense of technically bad (and improveable). I am not sure though this is the case for the majority of the scenes. They are supposed to look like it.
In that case it is whether one agrees with the artistic idea behind the look... not so much the CGI in general (as a technical thing).
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Jul 30 2014, 9:32am
Post #35 of 44
(438 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I'm thinking 'poor od Peter Jackson' -
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
To my mind one of the biggest problems is that PJ did try to please everyone
Everyone had their own and often completely different ideas what the movies should have been like. Who's right and who's wrong?
Still, while the movies aren't exactly as I'd envisioned (better in some ways - many ways, actually - while there were a few things I'd have done differently) I'll wait till the other two EEs come out before forming a final opinion.
___________________________________________________
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
(This post was edited by Hanzkaz on Jul 30 2014, 9:34am)
|
|
|
DaoinSidhe
The Shire
Jul 30 2014, 9:39am
Post #36 of 44
(428 views)
Shortcut
|
The "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" FB-page posted a comparison pic yesterday, showing the actors in their mocap-gear on one side, and the finished frame in the film on the other. It looked flawless.
But immediately the comments started: "In the old films people would wear rubber masks, why cant they do that instead of all this animation?"
It's as if a lot of people have a strange, irrational hatred of CG, even if it looks perfectly fine.
I just have no idea why that is the case. I've never heard of that kind of reaction towards any other kind of filming technique.
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jul 30 2014, 9:42am
Post #37 of 44
(425 views)
Shortcut
|
I've never heard of that kind of reaction towards any other kind of filming technique.
Sound, color, digital.
There is always a huge uproar. The internet just works like a multiplier this time around, imho.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Noria
Gondor
Jul 30 2014, 12:34pm
Post #38 of 44
(407 views)
Shortcut
|
|
That could be why these movies may not be quite as popular as the LotR movies.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
That could be why these movies may not be quite as popular as the LotR movies.
Neither the people who wanted an adaptation that was more faithful in tone and plot to the book, nor those who wanted something more akin the LotR movies got their desire. As someone who loves The Hobbit as a piece of the legendarium but does not particularly enjoy the childrens book, Im good with most of the choices that Jackson made. I really like the path PJ took.
Before I first saw AUJ I figured that a) after the huge success of the LotR movies, there was no way that small Hobbit movie was going to follow and b) like LotR, these movies would contain the juvenile humour and huge action sequences that PJ loves. So to some extent I was prepared for AUJ.
Owain made the point on another thread that Jackson would not wish to repeat himself in making The Hobbit movies, would want to make something different and to stretch himself using the tools of his art that are now available to him. Thats what he did in making LotR, but somehow those tools were acceptable and the new ones are not. Again its personal preference.
|
|
|
Hanzkaz
Rohan
Jul 30 2014, 1:52pm
Post #39 of 44
(392 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The Hobbit Trilogy is meant for the (paying) fans of the LOTR Trilogy.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
But there was no way that AUJ that could have been like Lord of the Rings . However as the story progresses throughout the Hobbit Trilogy, you're in LOTR territory towards the end, just like (imho) the book. It just takes a while to get there.
The last movie will be closest to what many people were hoping for in the first place.
___________________________________________________
From the makers of 'The Lord of the Rings' comes the sequel to Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy -
'The War in the North, Part I : The Sword in the Tomb'.
|
|
|
Kilidoescartwheels
Valinor
Jul 30 2014, 4:35pm
Post #40 of 44
(380 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Okay, but can we focus on what IS shown?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Because I don't! These films are horrible. I have never been so disappointed by a cinematic experience since the Star Wars films.
You think this trailer is "bereft of any ott action" that people complain about??
Guess you missed -
Bard rolling down a hill in a cart (probably taking out 500 orcs the way bombur does)
Dwarf cavalry on crazy cgi rams
Ice chase on a chariot that will no doubt go for half an hour with absurd physics
Legolas surfing Smaug...hasn't been shown yet but pj wont be able to resist
And I can almost see Beorn arriving on a cliff roaring then proceeding to cannonball down the mountain side like blanka straight into the cgi orcs!
A film almost entirely just one battle? Peter Lucas is going to go nuts with absurd physics and crazy situations but then expect us to care when people start dying. Thus far characters have just needed to poke their sword in any direction and a convenient cgi orc has been there to take it. No mountanside can't just be rolled down and every arrow hits it's mark whilst been shot dancing on someones head.
Good lord...
You admit yourself that two of your criticisms of the trailer aren't even in the trailer. And please, that Legolas stuff about surfing and the never-ending quiver of arrows was prominent in LoTR. Your other three criticisms sound to me like a general dislike of CGI, which is fine, it's not everyone's cup of tea, but your overall tone is extremely hostile! It would be very nice if people could just respectfully say "I loved it," "I hated it," or "well I liked it but it could have been better" (my personal opinion) without people taking personal offense or feeling like they're being coerced into agreement. But try to see things from the OP's point of view: A group starts talking about how awsome the movie is, and then along comes someone who's extremely critical of the OTT action/CGI, and it feels like they're bringing the rest of the group down! Kind of like how a group of like-minded Tolkienists would feel if their thread criticizing the movie was interrupted by a fan calling them "nay-sayers" and other things. Yes of course people are entitled to their opinions AND are free to express those opinions as you just did - and let's face it, nothing anyone says on this board will change ANYONE's mind about the movies, one way or another. My sincere, heartfelt advice to you is to not waste your time or money on the third film, since it is obvious you won't enjoy it. And then you can avoid threads about the third film that may make you feel like you have to blindly agree with anyone.
|
|
|
Imladris18
Lorien
Jul 30 2014, 5:02pm
Post #41 of 44
(364 views)
Shortcut
|
|
People don't seem to understand that picture quality is at an all-time high.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
It's getting increasingly harder to "hide" the imperfections of a rubber mask.
LotR BluRays have aged LotR quite a bit, imo, making the "fake" stuff much more obvious.
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Jul 30 2014, 5:44pm
Post #42 of 44
(349 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Such stuff was always noticeable to me...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
...even watching the DVDs. So I've never had the feeling that the Blu-ray's "aged" the films at all. They look better than ever IMO.
"The danger with any movie that does as well as this one does is that the amount of money it's making and the number of awards that it's got becomes almost more important than the movie itself in people's minds. I look at that as, in a sense, being very much like the Ring, and its effect on people. You know, you can kind of forget what we were doing, if you get too wrapped up in that."
- Viggo Mortensen
|
|
|
Imladris18
Lorien
Jul 30 2014, 5:52pm
Post #43 of 44
(352 views)
Shortcut
|
I can suspend my disbelief to a good degree, so I agree that overall the quality is better, but it's also easier to notice the imperfections, imo. I'm okay with the trade-off, though.
(This post was edited by Imladris18 on Jul 30 2014, 5:52pm)
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Aug 3 2014, 3:53pm
Post #44 of 44
(285 views)
Shortcut
|
|
My problem isn't with cgi per se,
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
but the over-use of it. With the Planet of the Apes, in the comparison you mention, there were humans on screen, real horses, actual locations. In The Hobbit films, far too much of it is entirely digital, which is inherently unreal. I don't mind digital characters, or digitally extended sets, or long shots of battle or whatever that are all digital-- in fact, as a life-long fan of special effects, i love those things. But what we're getting here are entire sequences that are all digital, and there's nothing real for the eye or the brain to latch on to and engage in. Things don't move quite right, or look quite right, or feel quite right. So when i see that shot of that cart bouncing around with that physically impossible camera move in a landscape that just does not feel "real", i'm just taken out of any sort of reality that the film is supposed to have, that i've left Middle-earth and entered the world of Tin Tin, and i think "here we go again..."
(This post was edited by sauget.diblosio on Aug 3 2014, 3:57pm)
|
|
|
|
|
