"The Hobbit"

[octothorp]

I think the scene where we see armies marching in the trailer here must be a flashback. It's got the colour-grading that Jackson usually uses for 'historic' footage.

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I think the scene where we see armies marching in the trailer here must be a flashback. It's got the colour-grading that Jackson usually uses for 'historic' footage.

Good catch!

[Daradon]

Yeah I thought the first was a little better than good and a little worse than great, but definitely not the masterpiece that the first trilogy was.

And I did find it a little long. And that's coming from a person who owns and loves the extended/directors cuts of the first three.

Second looks good, but I'm not expecting it to be too much better than the first.

And it does seem (sadly) like Jackson is adding too much cg. Still not quite as much as Lucas, but not doing himself any favors. I imagine it's a huge temptation just because it's so much cheaper than sets and costumes and makeup, but don't these directors see there's still something a little off about it that takes you out of the movie if you don't use it perfectly?

I think some movies, though they'd look a little weird now, got away with it, even applauded for it because it was so far ahead of it's time when it came out. Jurassic Park for one. It was amazing, breathtaking. I remember thinking, wow, real dinosaurs! They did it! But only because it was so far ahead of what you had seen to that point. If you made that movie now, even with slightly better dinosaurs, the way they might look with today's tech, it probably wouldn't be nearly as huge as it was then. Because we're used to that level of cg.

The same was for the original LotR trilogy. I remember seeing Gollum and going 'Wow, the first truly believable cg character!' (The new Yoda who came out about a year or so before, still looked a little weird, fake, too shiny) Now, part of that was probably because of the good idea of actually having an actor play Gollum in real time while filming, even if the cg is completely overtop of him, and being able to have the actors play off each other, something they didn't do with Yoda. But part of it was the tech too. They really nailed it. In fact, they nailed a lot of the cg in the way they fused it with the sets and scenery. It looked believable, or at least, like the Jurassic Park example, so fantastically wonderful and ahead of their time, that you didn't worry about how 'realistic' it looked, you just sat in awe in some respect.

But there wasn't any character I felt that way about in The Hobbit. In fact, most of them felt the same way to me as Yoda did when I saw him. A little too shiny, just not right somehow. Gollum still looked pretty cool, but I think that's because again, of Serkis, and also because we already know him as a character, and fell in love with him the first time around. But all in all it felt kinda like there wasn't enough of a jump in technology or production value from what we had seen before to stop your brain from saying, 'well... that doesn't look quite right.' Or maybe they had just got caught in the trap of using too much cg, and not enough set, costume, and makeup. Or maybe both. For whatever reason, there just wasn't that WOW moment this time around. Even the 3D, while done very well, wasn't enough for that WOW moment.

(I think my WOW moment for 3D was Avatar, not sure if I'll have it again. Hobbit was probably done just as well, if not better, but like I said, there's something about the first time you experience a true technological leap)

Still thought it was a decent movie though, and too compare it to the abortion that was TPM, is a little harsh I think.

[JD]

Originally Posted by Daradon

The same was for the original LotR trilogy. I remember seeing Gollum and going 'Wow, the first truly believable cg character!' (The new Yoda who came out about a year or so before, still looked a little weird, fake, too shiny) Now, part of that was probably because of the good idea of actually having an actor play Gollum in real time while filming, even if the cg is completely overtop of him, and being able to have the actors play off each other, something they didn't do with Yoda. But part of it was the tech too. They really nailed it. In fact, they nailed a lot of the cg in the way they fused it with the sets and scenery. It looked believable, or at least, like the Jurassic Park example, so fantastically wonderful and ahead of their time, that you didn't worry about how 'realistic' it looked, you just sat in awe in some respect.

But there wasn't any character I felt that way about in The Hobbit. In fact, most of them felt the same way to me as Yoda did when I saw him. A little too shiny, just not right somehow. Gollum still looked pretty cool, but I think that's because again, of Serkis, and also because we already know him as a character, and fell in love with him the first time around. But all in all it felt kinda like there wasn't enough of a jump in technology or production value from what we had seen before to stop your brain from saying, 'well... that doesn't look quite right.' Or maybe they had just got caught in the trap of using too much cg, and not enough set, costume, and makeup. Or maybe both. For whatever reason, there just wasn't that WOW moment this time around. Even the 3D, while done very well, wasn't enough for that WOW moment.

Yeah, the Ents were like that too. They could have very easily screwed that up and made them entirely cheesy. But they nailed it. Then in the Hobbit, the goblins and goblin king were very easy to screw up, and they managed to. It's all a very fine line I guess and it's difficult to fall on the right side of it.

[Daradon]

Curious, what didn't you like about TTT? I thought that was the collective favorite of fans. I could be wrong about that, but I heard it somewhere. Kinda like their Empire.

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

I thought it was entertaining. It wasn't particularly good as a film, but geared to a young audience I'm okay with it. The thing is this one's being marketed as a bit darker and with higher stakes (not ROTK but not dancing and singing around either), so I'm interested to see how it ends up.

Let's put it this way, it was better than the Two Towers. That was an atrocious mess. As long as the last two don't dip under that bar again, I'm fine.

[Azure]

The only thing bad about the first one was the rampant use of CGI. Otherwise I quite enjoyed it.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Curious, what didn't you like about TTT? I thought that was the collective favorite of fans. I could be wrong about that, but I heard it somewhere. Kinda like their Empire.

No.

Just no.

It was awful, campy, stupid. I nearly walked out. I've written long posts about it in the past and won't repeat myself, but the dwarf tossing scene and Legolas skateboarding down stairs are pretty good examples of what was wrong with that movie. "Hey, if we have elves show up at Helm's Deep it'll make a cooler battle scene! Who cares if it makes any sense?"

In FOTR and ROTK there's a list of certain things I would have changed to improve the movies. In TTT I hardly know where to start.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by 19Yzerman19

No.

Just no.

It was awful, campy, stupid. I nearly walked out. I've written long posts about it in the past and won't repeat myself, but the dwarf tossing scene and Legolas skateboarding down stairs are pretty good examples of what was wrong with that movie. "Hey, if we have elves show up at Helm's Deep it'll make a cooler battle scene! Who cares if it makes any sense?"

In FOTR and ROTK there's a list of certain things I would have changed to improve the movies. In TTT I hardly know where to start.

I don't disagree with any of your points, but I don't think they were the sins you do. Not that I begrudge you your opinion. I'll just say my point of view on them.

As for Legolas going down the stairs on the shield, I groaned a little inwardly on that one, so I agree, but it hardly seems like something that ruins a movie.

The dwarf tossing one I didn't mind. I did groan at the joke about that in FotR, and it took me out of the movie there, but by the time they did it again in TTT, it was kinda an inside joke at that point, so I actually chuckled. It was funny seeing it reversed. 'Toss me...' I would think if you were mad about it in TTT, you'd be just as mad about it in the first movie.

As for the Elves at Helm's Deep, it had been so long since I had read the books, I totally forgot about that, or why it might not make sense. So I didn't mind.

Again, not to say your opinion is wrong, just that it didn't really bug me that much, if at all. Thanks for sharing though, was curious.

[19Yzerman19]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Again, not to say your opinion is wrong, just that it didn't really bug me that much, if at all. Thanks for sharing though, was curious.

I've read the trilogy 5 times all the way through, the Silmarillion twice, and basically every tangential publication so I have a heightened sense for what should and shouldn't be when it comes to Middle Earth than the average moviegoer.

I know there are people out there who are just generally pissed off when anything happens in the movies that didn't happen in the books. That's not my attitude - I didn't mind the Warg battle, for instance, even though it was kind of pointless manufactured drama when they "killed" Aragorn, given that he's an un-killable character. There are some things that I take issue with because I don't see why they did it; having Frodo figure out how to get into Moria instead of Gandalf for example, or having Merry and the audience know immediately that Dernhelm was Eowyn (which I could go on at some length on because it was such a missed opportunity for a reveal that would've worked fantastically in a movie format). And then there are things that they did and I know why they did it and I disagree with the rationale, like having Arwen rescue Frodo at the ford (if there's a single moment that could ruin a movie that close-up would've been it, but I got over it). There are other things that I can see both sides of, like having Saruman apparently invent gunpowder.

With the Two Towers it's not individual points to discuss as to whether the change was a good idea (though there are some of those), it's that they basically re-wrote the damned book, ostensibly because they didn't think it would make for compelling enough movie-watching in terms of action. Your response to those two points is meaningless because I specifically said they're merely examples of the larger problem with TTT. Watching it from my perspective there is a general tone throughout that film of a total lack of respect for the source material intertwined with a strong emphasis on appealing to the lowest common denominator, the audience member who just wants to see swordfights, explosions and Legolas doing Matrix-style stuff. Where Tolkein didn't provide enough Michael Bayish bullcrap, they threw out the Tolkein and just made it up, and I could just see people throwing ideas around like "Yeah, that'd look SICK!"

[Bigtime]

I've only read LOTR and The Hobbit a few times, but I still think the adaptation of LOTR from books to film was incredibly well done given the source material and the tremendous amount of pressure to live up to expectations. I truly believe Jackson and company did it as a labour of love for the source material, and perhaps we can excuse the odd "flaw" as we see it due to that.

[19Yzerman19]

I do excuse the odd flaw, I said as much above. Or I tried to.

There are lots of "flaws" in FOTR and ROTK, if you even want to call them that, whose merits are open to debate. Some are baffling, some are regrettable, and some are lot of them are just a byproduct of a conversion to film medium and had to be done. Certain things are going to be left out, certain things changed.

The problem with TTT isn't flaws, it's that the movie they made only vaguely resembled TTT. The whole movie was a (blockbusteresque) flaw, with bits of good Middle Earthery interspersed into it... as opposed to the other two which were largely good Middle Earthery with bits of flaws interspersed.

[Brannigans Law]

I agree with cube and tracker, Hobbit was, at best, a mediocre movie. If it wasn't branded as LOTR no one would give a damn about it.

[Violator]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I've only read LOTR and The Hobbit a few times, but I still think the adaptation of LOTR from books to film was incredibly well done given the source material and the tremendous amount of pressure to live up to expectations. I truly believe Jackson and company did it as a labour of love for the source material, and perhaps we can excuse the odd "flaw" as we see it due to that.

As I remember Jackson went to the studio and said i want to do the hobbit I need about 500million for it studio said no as they wouldn't give him the money then he said what about lotr they said yes.

[killer_carlson]

2 weeks until the next installment.

I have very high expectations for this installment. Way more than I had for the first one.

[GreenLantern]

Looks good from the trailers.. it appears as though they will continue to weave LOTR into the story line. Very excited. My GF is not. BUT THAT'S TOO FREAKING BAD!!

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Violator

As I remember Jackson went to the studio and said i want to do the hobbit I need about 500million for it studio said no as they wouldn't give him the money then he said what about lotr they said yes.

I thought it was more like this (going from memory of the FOTR DVD extras):

Jackson: "I want to do LOTR. Here's my idea for two movies."
Studio: "This looks great! But why not three movies? There are three books!"
Jackson: "Erm, I thought it would be easier to pitch two movies, but okay!"

Also, I recall reading very early (1999) that the movies were predicted to be fairly low cost, but I don't know if that's accurate at all. It sure seems like they were big-budget from the start.

[djsFlames]

JP had animatronic giant dino robots. Only the big brontosaurus at the beginning was graphically put in with computer. While the technology used was way ahead of its time, at least the creatures for the most part were real objects on the set, which made it believable then and would make it believable today, too. That's what makes that movie one of the best ever. Even the best CG today can't really be believed to the naked eye, cause they can never seem to get the look of natural light and coloring just right, despite the amount of detail put in. The worst part of the Hobbit series is the Pale Orc. They did a terrible job with him.. just looks like a creature out of a video game cutscene. Definitely makes him less frightening, too. Even the goblins and orcs in the LOTR with actors in suits with their cheesy lines and little british accents were far more creepy.. Can't beat a real thing. I really think Jackson could have used actors for the orcs again. Really cheap and unnecessary of him to go this way when it worked great the first time.

All that aside, I'm excited for this entry. I'm gonna try and put my nit picking over the visuals aside this time and just enjoy it. Seeing it in 48 fps again, which was really cool (although a bit strange) last time. It brings out the sets vs real environments more than the standard frame rate, but it's an experience nonetheless.

Cumberbatch, Lily, Bloom and Evans should make this one more exciting, if nothing else.

[killer_carlson]

Cumberbatch - not sure I get the hype. I'm concerned I'll close my eyes and be thinking Star Trek

[djsFlames]

Well, Cumberbatch hardly contributed to how "meh" STID turned out.

He was arguably one of the stronger points of the movie. Of course I don't think the parts for his character were well written at all. If you want proof that BC is awesome, check out Sherlock.

Besides, it sounds like they'll be altering his voice a bit to sound more menacing and dragon-like.

[Goodlad]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I've only read LOTR and The Hobbit a few times, but I still think the adaptation of LOTR from books to film was incredibly well done given the source material and the tremendous amount of pressure to live up to expectations. I truly believe Jackson and company did it as a labour of love for the source material, and perhaps we can excuse the odd "flaw" as we see it due to that.

I have to confess that I read all your posts in the voice of Tom Hanks. I honestly had no intention of ever telling anyone about this, but this post was just to perfect for it.