Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - - - - Part 13

[ares834]

This was so much better. At what point would anyone think that is better than this?

Hmm, I actually prefer the CGI one. Yes, I'm all for practical Orcs rather than CGI ones. But Bolg here looks way over-designed.

 

[Persona]

It's not that your opinion is invalid, just that it is so predictable that it need not be stated. Carry on, though: it's good to have all views represented.

your guys' opinions on this film are equally predictable. so what? just because the general gist of both sides' opinions is predictable doesn't mean there isn't some value in stating them, as long as we're not being overly redundant and repeating the exact same points over and over again. if we're talking about various different facets of the movies, i think it's good. but, yeah, i mean...you think i didn't know that some of you were going to take Faraci's comments about the CG and run with it? i didn't know some of you were going to post that Bolg shot and start saying, "oh, the old design was so much better, etc."? pining for GdT to have made these movies? gee, that's not predictable at all!

and, again, DS didn't predict squat, except that, no, i don't hate the CG orcs and think everything about them is bad.

now, yes, there is some overlap between my comments on tORN and on here. but, i mean, it's basically two different groups of people. if someone thinks i should voice my opinions in a different way here from how i voice them on there, whatever, but does it really matter?

 

[Boom]

Hmm, I actually prefer the CGI one. Yes, I'm all for practical Orcs rather than CGI ones. But Bolg here looks way over-designed.

The armor is just a little too top-heavy.

Slim down the armor and it's a damn near flawless design. A genuine work of horror.

 

[regwec]

So the gist I am getting from these reviews is this:

Bilbo's character is essentially second-fiddle to Thorin, Tauriel, Legolas, and to some extent Bard. In a movie trilogy titled after him.

Beorn, a fan favorite and canon character, gets a whopping five minutes of screen time whereas Legolas and Tauriel, both characters that do not appear in the book (and the latter being an entirely made up character), hog the spotlight for a good portion of the movie.

A genuinely terrifying creation of prosthetic make-up is scrapped in favor of yet another uninspired CG creation.

Physics continue to not exist. I guess Eru didn't introduce the concept to Middle-earth until the War of the Ring.

Jackson's penchant for exhausting action sequences appears in full swing once again.


The more I see from the films, and the more I hear from Jackson, it becomes more and more clear to me that this creative team was not the right fit for this project. Their solution to making The Hobbit "filmable" was to turn it into something it isn't. That should have been the red flag right there.

This book deserved someone who wasn't about to apologize for it.

At least it's only a movie. It's not like fatass can ruin the story itself.

 

[Boom]

At least it's only a movie. It's not like fatass can ruin the story itself.

I'm in the middle of reading it right now. Such a great book .

 

[DarthSkywalker]

oh, look, a big puppet.

a big awesome puppet, mind you. but it requires suspension of disbelief just as must as good CG does.

But we aren't talking about good CG are we. We are talking about bad CG.

Anything fictional requires suspension of disbelief. It is only more difficult with crummy GCI, however.

Exactly. Does anyone complain about the Balrog? Has anyone expressed disappointment about Smaug being CG? Nope. It is when you use it needless and then it is subpar that I complain.

Yoda's puppet was perfection to me. Few things made me smile more as a kid. But that didn't stop me from loving Yoda in AotC and RotS. Why? Because he is fantastic, especially in RotS.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm in the middle of reading it right now. Such a great book .

Too shallow for the big screen.

 

[Boom]

Too shallow for the big screen.

Surely more blank-faced and dead-eyed Legolas, 45-minute-long physics-free action scenes, elf/dwarf fan fiction, and force-fed LotR references will help.

 

[Persona]

Before we go anywhere else, bull. Or did you forget what you told me not so long ago?

No one said anything about enjoying the films. I enjoyed the first. It pisses me off at times, but I enjoy it. Martin Freeman, Hugo Weaving and Sir Ian are more then enough to enjoy it. I dislike the White Council scenes, but I love Cate so I enjoy those scenes. I am watch moments I have waited to see on the big screen since I was a little boy in my school library reading the Hobbit for a 5th time.

But why you are an apologist to me is because you defend all aspects from a storytelling and film making PoV in the classic "imo" way that almost always falls on the side of "Peter" knows best. Basically your opinion is that Peter can do no wrong and it becomes "what is the point". Even when you criticize something, you brush it off like it doesn't matter.

You bring up the argument that it is an adaptation, like that means he can just change everything and no one can have an opinion on it when it comes to how it effects the film. If he had changed the film to post-LotR and made Sam the lead and Smaug a returning Sauron, you'd defend it.

Now you can do whatever you want, but it is so obvious and predictable at this point, it is getting kinda funny.

on your first sentence, i didn't say anything about your opinion being invalid or that it should be discredited somehow. i mentioned that you were talking about how much you didn't like the bloat in AUJ over and over again...but i did say that i was probably a bit off-base to bring that up and apologized.

in no way whatsoever have i used "Peter knows best" reasoning to defend these movies. that is just blatantly false. i have voiced criticisms and disagreements with certain decisions. i do defend a lot of the creative decisions because they WORK for me and i give my own personal reasons for that. i have never, ever been the type that just gives a filmmaker carte blanche because he's the filmmaker and i'm not.

i know you're being sarcastic with the "Sam lead, Smaug is Sauron" comment but, again, i don't know why you have such an issue with me having a positive opinion about the film that you try to represent my opinion as something it's not.

"so obvious and predictable"? again, your side's no different than mine. i guess we should both just shut up and let only the people in the middle talk about these movies then, since they are the ones who won't be so obvious and predictable? i mean, otherwise, maybe we can just have a fruitful, civil discussion and not make it about trying to invalidate each other?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Surely more blank-faced and dead-eyed Legolas, 45-minute-long physics-free action scenes, elf/dwarf fan fiction, and force-fed LotR references will help.

Sold!

But admit it, they will get you with Sherlock Dragon playing wordgames with Watson Hobbit..

 

[Persona]

But we aren't talking about good CG are we. We are talking about bad CG.

and most of the reviews have praised the CG. we'll all have to decide for ourselves once we, like, actually see the movie.

 

[Boom]

Sold!

But admit it, they will get you with Sherlock Dragon playing wordgames with Watson Hobbit..

It sounds like "Inside Information" will be this movie's equivalent to the last one's "Riddles in the Dark" - a scene of complete perfection within a film of rapidly fluctuating quality.

And shocking that the scenes that adhere closest to the text end up being the best material in these films. Although I hear Kili waking up to seeing Tauriel's face halo'ed in stars and sunshine comes respectably close.

 

[Marvolo]

Something to consider: the prosthetics and makeup of the old bolg design probably made it hell to perform in. Frankly I see a limited performance that is a lot less dynamic than what cgi bolg can offer coming from all those prosthetics and makeup. I'm not surprised Jackson wanted to replace it. You film something and get to the end and it isn't what you wanted so you replace it. That's just my guess anyways. There is is no way an actor underneath all that crap can have as much dexterity as a cgi bolg could and at the end of the day that may have been the deciding factor.

 

[Boom]

and most of the reviews have praised the CG. we'll all have to decide for ourselves once we, like, actually see the movie.

Any CGI that isn't absolutely necessary is bad CGI in my book, but then I may be a crotchety old fart who values the tangibility of physical materials on screen as opposed to watching something akin to a video game cutscene just because it's easier and more convenient.

If it can be done for real, real beats fake ten times out of ten. I will respectfully disagree with your assessment of the Queen from Aliens. That "puppet" looks leaps and bounds better than any of the CGI I've seen thus far in these films. It's not even close.

 

[Persona]

also, as far as "PJ fanboy"...you know, it's probably fair enough to call me that, insomuch as i like a good chunk of his movies.

but just for the sake of full disclosure, i'm meh on Bad Taste and The Frighteners, and i downright hate Meet the Feebles and The Lovely Bones.

it's all about LotR, King Kong, Braindead, and Heavenly Creatures, for me.

 

[Persona]

If it can be done for real, real beats fake ten times out of ten.

well, yeah, it'd be pretty cool if they could genetically engineer some orcs and a dragon and such to be in this movie. dangerous, though.

 

[Boom]

well, yeah, it'd be pretty cool if they could genetically engineer some orcs and a dragon and such to be in this movie. dangerous, though.

I figured it went without saying that by "real" I meant "real world" materials.

Like actors in actual makeup and actual prosthetics, wearing actual costumes, acting in an actual scene with other actual actors on an actual set/location.

This new-age nonsense of actors having to work in all green environments, all dolled up in grey spandex with computer markers, and act off of lit-up golf balls instead of other human beings just isn't for me. I about broke my Extended Edition disc in half when I saw McKellen have his nervous breakdown.

 

[Marvolo]

I can't remember who ssid it, but it was someone in hollywood: paraphrasing

You hear people ***** about cgi. CGI and vfx are tools that have been arpund for 100 years in one form or another. Then you hear people say "real is always better than cgi". Newsflash! Nothing in film is real. Its all illusion. Yeah you've got animals and people and locations, but all of that is manipulated to some degree. Everything in film is fake. An illusion created to look real and transport you to another world where physics and everything don't quite behave like the real world.

Its the truth. Yes prosthetics can look better but none of its real. Its a man in a suit. And a man in a suit can no more move like a real orc could than a human can. It still looks like a man in a suit. Cgi can get closer to the physics of how we imagine an orc would move and honestly I'm more about that than cgi vs prosthetics. I prefer something more dynamic. More dynamic than a man in a suit can offer.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

on your first sentence, i didn't say anything about your opinion being invalid or that it should be discredited somehow. i mentioned that you were talking about how much you didn't like the bloat in AUJ over and over again...but i did say that i was probably a bit off-base to bring that up and apologized.

in no way whatsoever have i used "Peter knows best" reasoning to defend these movies. that is just blatantly false. i have voiced criticisms and disagreements with certain decisions. i do defend a lot of the creative decisions because they WORK for me and i give my own personal reasons for that. i have never, ever been the type that just gives a filmmaker carte blanche because he's the filmmaker and i'm not.

You don't actually have to say "Peter knows best" for it to be your reasoning. Everything you say comes from that position.

Almost every time you voice criticism you do so by ending the point with the idea that the scene or decision was basically immaterial. Not enough to effect the film overall.

i know you're being sarcastic with the "Sam lead, Smaug is Sauron" comment but, again, i don't know why you have such an issue with me having a positive opinion about the film that you try to represent my opinion as something it's not.

It is not about your positive opinion. Of course you can have it. People can think that B&R is better then TDK. That is how opinions work. I have plenty of conversations on this site with those that like films I don't or like aspect of films I that I don't. It is all pretty civil except when it comes to a certain Marvel fanboy who doesn't like any criticism. It is that your opinion so drenched in what looks like bias to me, that I can't take it at face value.

How anyone could look at those shots of CG Bolg and think "better" boggles my mind. Not because CG can't be fantastic, but because that CG clearly isn't.

And that is the big problem with the use of CG in a film like this. There is a already a small window to deliver the work that you aren't going to get their best work from shot to shot. The results are going to vary. There is so much to start with that when you add the unnecessary the results will vary even more.

"so obvious and predictable"? again, your side's no different than mine. i guess we should both just shut up and let only the people in the middle talk about these movies then, since they are the ones who won't be so obvious and predictable? i mean, otherwise, maybe we can just have a fruitful, civil discussion and not make it about trying to invalidate each other?

I talk about the aspects and topics at hand and results do vary. I am all for civil discussion. I respond to many of your post civilly. But then you make post like the one about Potter and then seem to forget it. Where is all the shaky CG in the post-CoS HPs?

 

[craigdbfan]

@Marvolo That's why a mixture of both is the key element here. Some illusions are better than others. No one is arguing the fact that none of this is real.

 

[Boom]

I can't remember who ssid it, but it was someone in hollywood: paraphrasing



Its the truth. Yes prosthetics can lpok better but none of its real. Its a man in a suit and while it may lpok good and a man in a suit can no more move like a real orc could than a man can. It still looks like a man in a suit. Cgi can get closer to the physics of how an orc would move and honestly I'm more about that than cgi vs prosthetics. I prefer something more dynamic.

And actors are wearing costumes instead of actual clothing. Most of the time, they're fighting with fake swords.

We, as reasonable and sane human beings, know that these are props and costumes. But in going to see a movie, we are making a non-verbal agreement with the filmmakers to suspend our disbelief and buy into what we're being sold.

That isn't an actor in a wig and costume fighting with a fake sword. It's a medieval swordsman fighting with a real weapon.

And that illusion is a lot easier to buy into and maintain when the actor is working with something physical and tangible.

Yes, I know the orcs and goblins and Uruk-hai in LotR are men in prosthetics and costumes. When I see the movie, I buy into them being the creatures they are supposed to be. And quite honestly, save for a few bad examples, those guys in prosthetics looked a hell of a lot better and more authentic than the CG molerat-men we got in The Hobbit.

Again, may just be me. But I for one did not hear a single criticism about the handling of the orcs, goblins, and uruk-hai in the original trilogy as a whole UNTIL Jackson decided to go computer crazy on everything. Odd, to say the least.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

and most of the reviews have praised the CG. we'll all have to decide for ourselves once we, like, actually see the movie.

That shot. That shot is what we are talking about and it is clearly poor.

It sounds like "Inside Information" will be this movie's equivalent to the last one's "Riddles in the Dark" - a scene of complete perfection within a film of rapidly fluctuating quality.

And shocking that the scenes that adhere closest to the text end up being the best material in these films. Although I hear Kili waking up to seeing Tauriel's face halo'ed in stars and sunshine comes respectably close.

So true it burns.

I can't remember who ssid it, but it was someone in hollywood: paraphrasing



Its the truth. Yes prosthetics can look better but none of its real. Its a man in a suit. And a man in a suit can no more move like a real orc could than a human can. It still looks like a man in a suit. Cgi can get closer to the physics of how we imagine an orc would move and honestly I'm more about that than cgi vs prosthetics. I prefer something more dynamic. More dynamic than a man in a suit can offer.

I would be with the "more dynamic" argument if the orcs in LotR didn't work so well. The combination of practical and cg brought the single orc and groups to life wonderfully imo. It isn't like the Hulk who needs the CGI to move and look like the Hulk.

And as I said before, I have no problem with CG. I love it. But it is a tool just like anything else and how you use it and the quality is paramount. Bad CG doesn't kill a shot, bad decision making does.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

@Marvolo That's why a mixture of both is the key element here. Some illusions are better than others. No one is arguing the fact that none of this is real.

Exactly.

 

[ares834]

It sounds like "Inside Information" will be this movie's equivalent to the last one's "Riddles in the Dark" - a scene of complete perfection within a film of rapidly fluctuating quality.

And shocking that the scenes that adhere closest to the text end up being the best material in these films.

To be fair, those are also two of the best scenes in the book.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

On the "not enough Bilbo" track. The Hobbit has always been Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf's tale to me. So I tihnk Bilbo should be sharing screen time with those characters and their story. But if we get lost in the Elf fanfic... come on.