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

[Victarion]

Nowhere near.

The amount of expression they were able to convey under all that prosthesis was incredibly transparent too. I still don't understand why they shifted away from it.

Look at the birth of Lurtz. Way more of an impact.



Not sure.

Games Workshop has retitled Bolg's old design to "Gundabad General", so I think you're right - that's our new Bolg.

 

[Persona]

i mean, i actively dread the quidditch scenes.

 

[vinsanity]

Persona, are you unexpected visitor user in TORN forums?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Persona your attempts at saying that CGI is the only future does not mean it is allowed to be subpar. We have seen much better cgi then this. And of course you like the design. You weren't ever not going to like it or not prefer it. Also while CGI advances, you do realize practical does as well right? Go look at TDKT. Look at the Craig Bond films. Showing the advancement in both.

i LOVE Prisoner of Azkaban. the others, not so much.

lots of warts in the FX, too, maybe not quite as much as your standard FX-heavy blockbuster, but they're there.

Where? I need some examples.

i mean, i actively dread the quidditch scenes.

The first films quidditch scenes are bad. The rest aren't and it makes sense considering they have a lot of practical work. One of the reasons there isn't a lot of quidditch is because Dan hated filming the scenes. Apparently very painful and annoying.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Persona, are you unexpected visitor user in TORN forums?

What would ever give you that idea?

 

[regwec]

And of course you like the design. You weren't ever not going to like it or not prefer it.

Heh. True apologists are fascinating. Why do they bother to share their opinions, when everyone already knows precisely what they will be?

 

[vinsanity]

What would ever give you that idea?

I also post there and this user replied to my post using the same phrases and sentences as Persona did in that post about CGI Bolg (although in a more PJ fanboy way)

some day all prosthetic/make-up effects for non-human characters are going to be considered outdated.

No, it won't.

 

[redhawk23]

Along with a lot of prominent cgi of course, there has been a number of notable examples of returns to practical sets and makeup work when appropriate. Take Oblivions in-camera sky effects or the crew of Pacific Rim building and pupeteering the controls for the Jaegers. Elysium actually featured a lot of model work and it look damned great. Then there are all the filmmakers that figured out that Iceland looks awesome. I think there will continue to be some pushback against the cgi deluge if only for simple reason that many times now its not actually cheaper or easier than just doing it for real. Not to mention the audience response.

 

[redhawk23]

Unless the film is Gravity, its CGI is going to suck. Cuaron seems to be the only one who can use it well. I would add del Toro to the list, but his films have been hit or miss in this regard.

His films have been hit or miss in terms of having a budget, haha. Can you really hold Blade 2 against him years later?

 

[vinsanity]

Along with a lot of prominent cgi of course, there has been a number of notable examples of returns to practical sets and makeup work when appropriate. Take Oblivions in-camera sky effects or the crew of Pacific Rim building and pupeteering the controls for the Jaegers. Elysium actually featured a lot of model work and it look damned great. Then there are all the filmmakers that figured out that Iceland looks awesome. I think there will continue to be some pushback against the cgi deluge if only for simple reason that many times now its not actually cheaper or easier than just doing it for real. Not to mention the audience response.

Also JJ Abrams wants to do more practical effects for Episode VII.

 

[Boom]

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

So they go from "blood-soaked hellscape with Regan eyes" to "mini-CGIzog with skull plates."

So disappointed.

 

[vinsanity]

[YT]mcG2GeCAqLA[/YT]

Very interesting interview with PJ. The design of Laketown that we see is the movie is very much the design created by Guillermo del Toro.

 

[regwec]

That's probably why it's good.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Heh. True apologists are fascinating. Why do they bother to share their opinions, when everyone already knows precisely what they will be?

I called it last page.

I also post there and this user replied to my post using the same phrases and sentences as Persona did in that post about CGI Bolg (although in a more PJ fanboy way)

No, it won't.

It is him. I figured it out last week. He had another post that matched up very well. His favoritism is clear. He defends everything one way or another.

Also JJ Abrams wants to do more practical effects for Episode VII.

It is all about using both methods appropriately. One of the reasons both Star Trek films look fantastic. I am so happy he is going to do the next Star Wars.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

So they go from "blood-soaked hellscape with Regan eyes" to "mini-CGIzog with skull plates."

So disappointed.

Not to mention GoT lost their Mountain That Rides because of Azog and Bolg, and both ended up being changed. Both ended up not using Conan Stevens. Pisses me off.

[YT]mcG2GeCAqLA[/YT]

Very interesting interview with PJ. The design of Laketown that we see is the movie is very much the design created by Guillermo del Toro.

That's probably why it's good.

Of course.

 

[Victarion]

I wonder if the prosthetic Bolg is one of Del Toro's creations. Compare Bolg to Lurtz and Gothmog. Bolg's got more going on with his design whereas Lurtz and Gothmog are fairly barebones (though Lurtz is at least intimidating compared to the pizza-faced catman). Bolg looks like he'd be at home in the Troll Market from Hellboy II.

Yeah, Conan did a great job conveying Ser Gregor Clegane's ferocity.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

On a slightly more serious note, I fell in love the look of Lake Town from the first glimpse I caught in the vlogs. That it is a GDT design makes me sad. He knew what he was doing. If he had only made these films...

 

[Persona]

Persona, are you unexpected visitor user in TORN forums?

yup.

DS, you didn't call anything. you said i was gonna come here and just talk about how the CGI orcs are better whereas instead i gave a detailed explanation of why i think there are pros and cons to the CGI orcs. to me it's not as simple as one being better than the other, but once again, thanks for trying and failing to make a straw man out of my arguments.

you guys call me an apologist, as if liking these movies in general somehow discredits my opinion from counting. i have plenty of criticisms, but, yes, i do really enjoy these movies, so i spend more time defending them than i do attacking them. that doesn't invalidate my opinion and, frankly, it's kind of pathetic to act like it does. i don't talk about your guys' opinions that way.

 

[Persona]

on a sidenote...At the Mountains of Madness. now THAT is a perfect fit of classic source material with GdT's sensibilities. i still hope it gets made someday.

 

[regwec]

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.

 

[Persona]

I also post there and this user replied to my post using the same phrases and sentences as Persona did in that post about CGI Bolg (although in a more PJ fanboy way)

No, it won't.

oh, look, a big puppet.

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

 

[Victarion]

The puppet's more tangible than CG. The actors can actually see the beast vs a piece of cardboard that lights up.

 

[regwec]

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

 

[Boom]

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 going to apologize for it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

yup.

DS, you didn't call anything. you said i was gonna come here and just talk about how the CGI orcs are better whereas instead i gave a detailed explanation of why i think there are pros and cons to the CGI orcs. to me it's not as simple as one being better than the other, but once again, thanks for trying and failing to make a straw man out of my arguments.

you guys call me an apologist, as if liking these movies in general somehow discredits my opinion from counting. i have plenty of criticisms, but, yes, i do really enjoy these movies, so i spend more time defending them than i do attacking them. that doesn't invalidate my opinion and, frankly, it's kind of pathetic to act like it does. i don't talk about your guys' opinions that way.

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.