Always take "backlash" based only on internet postings with a grain of salt. If this was After Earth or the Lone Ranger I'd say yeah, people are responding with their actions and wallets but DOS is getting generally favorable reviews and has been going strong at the box office.
I think it's making Middle-Earth new again and is catching a lot of people off guard in a good way. From what I see the only people complaining about the Smaug battle and Tauriel sequences are those being snobby about the fact that it was different in the book.
But those same people were out in droves during the LOTR with Arwen being chased by ringwraiths, elves fighting at Helm's Deep, Frodo indirectly causing Gollum to fall off the ledge, and so on. The critics and the Academy are apparently "over" PJ's Middle-Earth and have moved on to shiny new things like Life of Pi and Gravity, but both AUJ and DOS are solid entries worthy of the series and in time I foresee all naysayers being quieted just as they were 10 years ago.
Just want to make sure that everyone knows that even though I did not care for this one film... I am not snobby. I love all the rest. I don't care for the female elf because while she is a very cool character, the love triangle is forced and goofy and I don't like some of the over the top Smaug fight stuff. But like I said I pretty much love all the rest of the films.
Never ever say that the audiences are responding with their wallets... All the STAR WARS PT did well... Hell even ROTS got good word of mouth......... At first. Not comparing the films really but time is the great equalizer. Of course having said this I could find that time will make me appreciate this film more.
oh please, quit trying to paint everyone with a single brush stroke. There are valid issues with the3 film. I am fine with changes if they fit and don't affect the pacing. Some of the changes in Hobbit are baffling. The reviews are positive but not great. It is a good movie but it is not a great one. Box office numbers are no measure of quality.
There are valid issues and it's not just the book purist who are having trouble with it.
Personally, I didn't notice any other Legolas stuff other than when he slides down the web and Barrels out of Bond scene, and while the Oliphant scene take down was cool I'd always felt the sliding down the trunk was overkill and is only saved by Gimli's line. From my point of view is that Legolas in PJ's films does outrageous stuff, from Sliding an Opliphant trunk to Shooting an Arrow 600 feet up in the air and hitting it's mark. I wasn't surprised at all by what I saw in DoS. To me it would be the same thing as saying "Lotr are amazing and DoS is nowhere near as good! I mean C'mon PJ, how many times did we need to see Bilbo play with the ring!?"
Similar stuff happens in both trilogies. The effects in both have good spots and bad spots. I'm starting to see some real reaching going on in the negatives. Not really on here, but all over.
Also, I read an article where someone from WETA discusses why they didn't use force prospective with the dwarves. He says, and I'm paraphrasing, because I'm trying to find the article again. The reason was because of the 3-D cameras. Practical effects don't won't work on regular cameras which is why more shots had to be digital. So, despite what some whiners on the internet are saying, PJ is not like Lucas who just whacks off in front of a green screen. It's also a good reason why The goblins and orcs where changed to digital. Here's an interesting interview from Youtube
There are several shots where Legolas is doing CGI stunts. Watch it again and keep a look out. I don't even mind the Barrel ride or the Spider web parts. It was all of his other Ooooo Look at Legolas geek moments. The scene I mentioned before of Legolas sliding through the Orcs legs... Pretty sure he was digital there.
Like someone else said. Legolas had some moments in the original films but they were not like a "big" Legolas moment every time he was on screen.
Oh and I love the sliding down the trunk also... He gives that little cool "yeah I just did that" head nod at Gimli (see even I can be a Legolas geek
)
And if the reason the film was done with more CGI is because of the 3D well I know how you can fix that..... DONT SHOOT THE FILM IN 3D!!!! Not yelling at you Chev
personally I could care less about 3D (I always go to 2D unless it's a cheesy movie like Parana 3D) and if the film is taking a hit because of the process then that is a bad decision on the film makers part.
Now I will say that perhaps I am being too hard on the CGI in this film. After all it was in AUJ also and I did not mind. I think it has to do with the fact that I did not enjoy the film that much. Had I enjoyed it more the CG probably would not bothered me at all. Same probably goes for Legolas. Had I enjoyed the film as a whole more I probably would not complain about him either. But he stood out more because I thought he took away from the other "important" characters.
Sure both trilogies get the same type of criticism, but there's a matter of 'scale'. Lotr also had to content with accussations of changes, but back then Jackson had arguably a lot more restraint and sense when it comes to adapting and most of the changes he made (even the drastic ones) had a lot of sense behind them (like the cutting of Bombadil, or the things done to Faramir). But this time, there are so many alterations and padding, that even though I see the reasoning behind some of them, many of it is hard to defend.
The same goes for accusations of "blockbustery" antics and feel. While I've spend a long post defending probably the most excessive scene of the last two movies, I am not blind to the reasons why people might not like it. LOTR had it too but nowhere near this scale. In Lotr such elements were singular moments, while in case of Hobbit, it's more indicative of the overall tone of the films (though I think that actually fits nicely with adventurous spirit of the book).
Basically LOTR had to contend with the same criticism but most of it back then was a lot easier to defend. This time around, If someone is a person who dislikes PJ attitude, then he's got a lot more ammunition to use. Especially now after DOS which I felt was a culmination and a showcase of all things that some people don't like about his vision of Middle Earth. I just hope I am wrong and it's not as bad as I am making it out to be. And that this trilogy as a whole will leave a less "hollywood'y" impression than DOS left on some.
A friend of mine who has read all the books put it like this.
PJ took the original LOTR books which where bloated and full and turned them into tight well scripted, exciting movies.
In the Hobbit he took a tight, exciting book and made it bloated and full.
Having not read any of them (tried to read fellowship once and got to page 100 and just could not get into it) I can't say if this is true. But DOS made it feel like it might be.
PS - I know I said I would not comment about this film anymore but It's too much fun... and I will try to not come down on it as hard until I see the EX cut and the final film.
