The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[The Chev]

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.






QUOTE]



Well, the Spider scene were and Barrel were so out there that I didn't notice the other things which is fine. I'm surprised you were cool with those, and didn't like the other things.

Yeah, 3d is the main reason for extra CGI work and lack of Matte paintings. He should have shot in 2d but he didn't. For me personally, I walked into the film with willing suspension of disbelief. Since, I've seen Legolas do this stuff before I wasn't surprised. Had he not done crazy stuff in LOTR I would be more up in arms. Also, it's funny everyone picks on Legolas but nobody talks about Bombur's barrel whatever you call it sequence where he takes out a bunch of orcs.

Off topic, but since we're on Legolas and all his super human feats....

Why the hell couldn't he hit the berserker with the torch running towards the explosive device? I just thought of that now, considering all the stuff he's done in the entire series?

 

[The Ween]

I want to see a whole year of cinema with a blanket ban on using CGI. Would make for interesting viewing

Be prepared for a lot of heavy dramas and romantic comedies then.

 

[The Ween]

I watched the complete making of the first hobbit movie.... I could not believe how all scenes used so much green screen. Even the effects in Bilbo's house, gandalf is green screened in and not even in the same set! They had to do this because forced perspective and 3d don't mesh.

I think shooting 3d was a waste and the films should have been produced similarly to how they did the original trilogy.....it's like Star Wars all over again. I might be jaded though, I just see 3d as a gimmick.

I'm probably one of the few, but I loved the HFR 3D. Everything just popped for me.

I do agree that most 3D is a waste of time and if they get rid of it all together I won't cry. I think it mostly works for animation.

 

[The Ween]

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.






QUOTE]



Well, the Spider scene were and Barrel were so out there that I didn't notice the other things which is fine. I'm surprised you were cool with those, and didn't like the other things.

Yeah, 3d is the main reason for extra CGI work and lack of Matte paintings. He should have shot in 2d but he didn't. For me personally, I walked into the film with willing suspension of disbelief. Since, I've seen Legolas do this stuff before I wasn't surprised. Had he not done crazy stuff in LOTR I would be more up in arms. Also, it's funny everyone picks on Legolas but nobody talks about Bombur's barrel whatever you call it sequence where he takes out a bunch of orcs.

Off topic, but since we're on Legolas and all his super human feats....

Why the hell couldn't he hit the berserker with the torch running towards the explosive device? I just thought of that now, considering all the stuff he's done in the entire series?

He did hit him, twice I think. It just didn't bring him down. I think the second shot made him fall into gun powder ball (for lack of a better name).

 

[The Chev]

Also, I'm not sure how well forced perspective would have worked with 13 dwarves and Gandalf cramped in a tiny room.

PJ made the right call with this particular scene. It's also not CGI in the classic sense. All they did was take the real Gandalf from the Green screen and move him to the real set with the dwarves. Except he was proportioned to look bigger.

 

[The Chev]

Riddick posted this in the other thread, and I think It will make everyone laugh considering what we are talking about. Sort of Spoils a plot point, so beware!

I laughed out loud.

https://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/349/3/7/hobbit_3_the_legolas_chronicles__first_look__by_nebezial-d6y14n8.jpg

 

[toylion]

I want to see a whole year of cinema with a blanket ban on using CGI. Would make for interesting viewing

You know when Silent Movies started talking people said it would never last.

 

[JAWS]

Well, the Spider scene were and Barrel were so out there that I didn't notice the other things which is fine. I'm surprised you were cool with those, and didn't like the other things.

Yeah, 3d is the main reason for extra CGI work and lack of Matte paintings. He should have shot in 2d but he didn't. For me personally, I walked into the film with willing suspension of disbelief. Since, I've seen Legolas do this stuff before I wasn't surprised. Had he not done crazy stuff in LOTR I would be more up in arms. Also, it's funny everyone picks on Legolas but nobody talks about Bombur's barrel whatever you call it sequence where he takes out a bunch of orcs.

Off topic, but since we're on Legolas and all his super human feats....

Why the hell couldn't he hit the berserker with the torch running towards the explosive device? I just thought of that now, considering all the stuff he's done in the entire series?

I did not mind the Web because it was quick and not all the "special" the Barrel step was sort of Funny (stepping on the heads) so I appreciated that. Like I said the other stuff may just stick out more because of my lack of enjoyment of the film. They did not bother me the first time because I was waiting to enjoy the film more. The second viewing everything stuck out more because I felt the film took too much time showing us Legolas the superhero and not Bilbo the real hero.

 

[JAWS]

Riddick posted this in the other thread, and I think It will make everyone laugh considering what we are talking about. Sort of Spoils a plot point, so beware!

I laughed out loud.

https://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2013/349/3/7/hobbit_3_the_legolas_chronicles__first_look__by_nebezial-d6y14n8.jpg

That was funny... I loved him flying away..

 

[JAWS]

The funny thing is, in LOTR despite the story's epic scale and fantastic places and monsters, Jackson was as visually grounded back then as they come in Hollywood. Recently I browsed through a few scenes from FOTR and TTT on my ps3 (still waiting for enough free time to do a little marathon watching) and the difference in look and style between that and movies made today is quite staggering. And I am saying that as person who quite enjoys the color enchanced look of today's films (for example the look of "The Hobbit" fits the Faire style of the book).

It is weird how much different they feel. That is why I have been saying that Middle Earth felt like a place you could visit in LOTR. It felt grounded in reality.

The Hobbit films are much better then the Star Wars PT but I got that same feeling when I returned to the original SW films.

CGI is the greatest and the worst thing to ever happen to film making

 

[The Chev]

That was funny... I loved him flying away..

No matter what side of the debate you are on. That is just hilarious.

 

[TheProcrastinator]

It is weird how much different they feel. That is why I have been saying that Middle Earth felt like a place you could visit in LOTR. It felt grounded in reality.

The Hobbit films are much better then the Star Wars PT but I got that same feeling when I returned to the original SW films.

CGI is the greatest and the worst thing to ever happen to film making

On one hand I miss the grounded, palpable feeling of the old LOTR setting. I miss Viggo Mortensen who under the watchfull eye of Bob Anderson was "selling" the concept of realistic movie swordfighting, in which every swing, every move had a proper "weight" and power behind it. I miss the more grounded, less garish look of weapons and armour design.

But on the other hand that color graded look of the Hobbit is not only fitting with the more Faire, whimsically adventurous nature of the book, but it also looks just...pretty. It's not realistical per se, but its definitely eye pleasing. For example, I rewatched the Goblin Town scenes yesterday, and they are so wonderfully lit, there's such a beautiful orange, warm, fiery glow that comes of of these scenes. It's a natural eye candy, plus it is appropriate to the warm, child like spirit of the story.

I wouldn't like "The Hobbit" to look 100% like LOTR. I think it's ok to show the changes in tone between the two stories in the visuals. But I guess a compromise between the two looks would be perfect. Color enhanced and garish, but at the same time shot on location, with more sets and less green screen. After all, it's not like the original trilogy wasn't color graded.

 

[The Josh]

I think the way both movies look and feel fit with each story. As I've said before fitting with how similar yet how different the books are.

 

[Fritz]

Don't argue with people that have LOTR Avatars / Signatures. It's pointless.

...Also, all this talk of LOTR makes me sad I don' have them to watch at home. I need to get the Blu-ray set ASAP.

I mentioned this before and after seeing the film a couple more times, I think the prologue scene is extremely redundant...

Agreed. This and Tauriel healing Kili with Athelas was too similar to Lord of the Rings.

Another thing I do like about the ending is that it wasn't a cup being taken that pissed Smaug off to attack it was being attacked. I love what's in the book but him being attacked works well also.

I preferred the way it was in the book. Smaug didn't want anyone touching his stuff. I don't like people touching my stuff either so I can relate.

...For ex. PJs Smaug was super smart but at the same time sorta stupid by not killing the dwarves as well as Bilbo where as Tolkiens Smaug while Smart was more vicious. Smaug from the book talked to Bilbo because he couldn't see him otherwise it would be kill on sight for dwarves and Bilbo or whoever...

I feel the same way.

More editing and less unecessary scenes would have given the overall film more impact. The reviews would be higher and the general consensus would be more positive. Not sure why PJ thinks longer films are better.

I'm thankful for three films instead of three. For the most part the reviews and general consensus seem to be pretty good. And I say that not having read any actual reviews just reactions to them.

...LOTR was something we never really saw before in Cinema, a massive undertaking and gamble by a unproven director and a smaller studio. Not only did it pay off, but it turned into a phenomenon. Nobody saw that coming, and the reviews were almost glowing all over the bored. I think since the Hobbit isn't groundbreaking where LOTR was...

Sounds about right.

There is a difference between liking and loving. Good and great. More editing would go a long way to bringing it towards greatness.

I love the Lord of the Rings and would marry it if I could. I really like the Hobbit, it's really super.

 

[The Ween]

On one hand I miss the grounded, palpable feeling of the old LOTR setting. I miss Viggo Mortensen who under the watchfull eye of Bob Anderson was "selling" the concept of realistic movie swordfighting, in which every swing, every move had a proper "weight" and power behind it. I miss the more grounded, less garish look of weapons and armour design.

But on the other hand that color graded look of the Hobbit is not only fitting with the more Faire, whimsically adventurous nature of the book, but it also looks just...pretty. It's not realistical per se, but its definitely eye pleasing. For example, I rewatched the Goblin Town scenes yesterday, and they are so wonderfully lit, there's such a beautiful orange, warm, fiery glow that comes of of these scenes. It's a natural eye candy, plus it is appropriate to the warm, child like spirit of the story.

I wouldn't like "The Hobbit" to look 100% like LOTR. I think it's ok to show the changes in tone between the two stories in the visuals. But I guess a compromise between the two looks would be perfect. Color enhanced and garish, but at the same time shot on location, with more sets and less green screen. After all, it's not like the original trilogy wasn't color graded.

So much of The Hobbit is in underground situations whereas LotR was mostly outside. At least it seemed that way to me. Even Mirkwood was under a canopy. I'm sure that effected the way it was filmed as well. Had to use more CGI.

 

[The Ween]

I love the Lord of the Rings and would marry it if I could. I really like the Hobbit, it's really super.

The Hobbit can be your mistress.

 

[The Josh]

So much of The Hobbit is in underground situations whereas LotR was mostly outside. At least it seemed that way to me. Even Mirkwood was under a canopy. I'm sure that effected the way it was filmed as well. Had to use more CGI.

The locations in both did lend to what they had to do in each IMO.

 

[jye4ever]

Wife loves the Arwen/Aragorn love story.

She gets all gooey when they hold hands on that bridge in Rivendale.

 

[The Ween]

Wife loves the Arwen/Aragorn love story.

She gets all gooey when they hold hands on that bridge in Rivendale.

Me too. But Viggo makes me gooey anyway. Still does.

That whole kissing scene is awesome. To me anyway.

I am soooooooo glad the other guy (whose name escapes me) didn't end up with the role of Aragorn.

Mmmmmmmm......Viggo/Richard sammich!

 

[The Chev]

Me too. But Viggo makes me gooey anyway. Still does.



Mmmmmmmm......Viggo/Richard sammich!

TMI! TMI! TMI!