The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[CelticPredator]

^ It's all due to the 48fps camera.

 

[jye4ever]

^ It's all due to the 48fps camera.

Hmmmm, but isn't the trailer being shown at 24.

 

[CelticPredator]

They still filmed it with that camera. They have to overcompensate for the color, and it makes the picture look clearer. There's no grit or realism.

 

[jye4ever]

They still filmed it with that camera. They have to overcompensate for the color, and it makes the picture look clearer. There's no grit or realism.

It's like Attack of the Clones on steroids.

 

[DiFabio]

^ It's all due to the 48fps camera.

And lighting, design and art direction.

The LOTR films felt like it was of our own world, maybe even an Earth that is centuries old. A place that actually existed and you could visit on a occasion. It felt real. The built architecture, aged it and threw melded it into the landscape.

Hobbit feels fake and artificial, through and through. Instead of going out and filming in a river and having the actors learn how to row, you've got crazy, ADD crap happening. Rigs, CGI galore. Fake, fake, fake. All the actors are in a controlled climate with tons of post production effects thrown in afterwards. It's all bright, fast, glowy and generated feeling. A place like "Middle Earth" should feel organic, not unnatural and jarring. Why are characters running around doing all these impossible things? Why doesn't it feel natural where these characters are settling?

In LOTR, the only time it felt unnatural was with Legolas doing his little stunts. Like climbing on the oliphant and sliding down or what have you. Then you had maybe two or three shots/scenes that felt like they were filmed with green screen as a post production or pick up or something (mostly in Gondor, coronation especially).

The Hobbit? The WHOLE film feels like that.

 

[CelticPredator]

Yeah. It's visually iffy all around. But the story is good enough that I don't mind too much.

 

[jye4ever]

That's what happens when studios get cheap and lazy and don't want to fly actors and crew and build real outside sets and create hundreds of prosthetics for creatures.

Into the green room everyone goes.

For some reason it bothers me more with this series.

That being said, a ton of cgi was used in LOTR.

 

[The Josh]

I know the differences between Lord of the Rings in the Hobbit in tone, but visually? There's something lacking there.

I don't think there is anything lacking. It I guess it looks a little more fantasy like but that's because it's supposed to. I don't think it's terribly far off of The Alford of the airings though.

This is supposed to be the same world that Frodo and the Fellowship inhabit 60 years later and it just doesn't feel like that's the case. The Hobbit should definitely be it's "own thing", I get that, but the story and characters alone should lend themselves to that, not the world they live in.

I guess that depends. It very much feels like the same world just a world that hasn't quite been touched by what Sauron is about to do. I think you will see more seriousness here and more so in film three. The time between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings the world starts to get darker. The Hobbit by nature is supposed to be lighter and less serious that's why there are differences IMO.

Sure, people will defend it and say, "well, this is before Sauron and darkness crept back into the world" and my rebuttal has always been, "well look at the Fellowship's prologue". They feel world's apart when they shouldn't as far as I'm concerned. The effects only add to that weird feeling.

Well, I just said some of that above. Your rebuttal doesn't work though. If anything it proves why the times need to look/feel different. That time during the second age was a darker time than what you see during any of the films. Sauron could actually take physical form and had the Ring.

I have no problem with the humor and fun, I fully realize that this is based on a book for children. That's not my gripe. The structure, world and creatures that make up this world though leave a lot to be desired. It just doesn't feel right at all. It's just like the Star Wars prequels didn't feel like they could ever really exist or happened before the original 1977.

I totally disagree. There are others that feel that way even people who've spent lots of time learning about Middle-earth. I would say though for me as someone who has spent lots of time dealing with this subject they fit pretty darn good. They fit and feel like their book counterparts do IMO.

And lighting, design and art direction.

The LOTR films felt like it was of our own world, maybe even an Earth that is centuries old. A place that actually existed and you could visit on a occasion. It felt real. The built architecture, aged it and threw melded it into the landscape.

Hobbit feels fake and artificial, through and through. Instead of going out and filming in a river and having the actors learn how to row, you've got crazy, ADD crap happening. Rigs, CGI galore. Fake, fake, fake. All the actors are in a controlled climate with tons of post production effects thrown in afterwards. It's all bright, fast, glowy and generated feeling. A place like "Middle Earth" should feel organic, not unnatural and jarring.

In LOTR, the only time it felt unnatural was with Legolas doing his little stunts. Like climbing on the oliphant and sliding down or what have you. Then you had maybe two or three shots/scenes that felt like they were filmed with green screen as a post production or pick up or something.

The Hobbit? The WHOLE film feels like that.

Actually a lot of The Hobbit was done in the same way The Lord of the Rings was done. People just go to cgi and stuff like that as excuses for things they don't know.

 

[CelticPredator]

That's what happens when studios get cheap and lazy and don't want to fly actors and crew and build real outside sets and create hundreds of prosthetics for creatures.

Into the green room everyone goes.

For some reason it bothers me more with this series.

That being said, a ton of cgi was used in LOTR.

The camera adds so much to it. If you filmed with a film camera, or a different kind of digital camera, I'd promise you, i'd look a lot more real.

 

[jye4ever]

The camera adds so much to it. If you filmed with a film camera, or a different kind of digital camera, I'd promise you, i'd look a lot more real.

Yeah, you're probably right, as is Josh about not being the cgi, look at LOTR.

Big mistake going with digital camera, especially 48.

Were LOTR real film?

 

[The Josh]

I didn't notice anything I the 24fps theater experience or on Blu Ray. The only time I noticed anything was a few seconds of quick motion at the very start when I saw the 48fps.

 

[The Josh]

Yeah, you're probably right, as is Josh about not being the cgi, look at LOTR.

Big mistake going with digital camera, especially 48.

Were LOTR real film.

I'm 99.9% sure they used film for The Lord of the Rings.

 

[DiFabio]

Why doesn't my rebuttal work? The Prologue takes place during Sauron's reign and after and we even SEE moments from the Hobbit in LOTR. They look NOTHING like this new world that the Hobbit depicts 60 years to 2000 years).

The only similarity is that sort of old time, sepia feel that the prologues brilliantly share.

So how am I wrong there? If LOTR were filmed today the way they're making the Hobbit, the crew wouldn't be going out to jagged, rocky landscapes (that house landmines), using extras galore and having a fully sculpted Sauron armored suit. They'd build artificial sets in studio lots

They'd use tons of green screen and CGI, crazy, sweeping fast pans, tons of computer generated characters in close ups and a fully computer generated Sauron.



You always seem to discredit people's criticisms with "they don't know better". Now I know you're a hardcore fan Josh, but I think I know what I'm talking about here. I enjoy middle earth too. If it's not an issue and people are "getting it all wrong, making up excuses for things they don't know", then how come so many people criticize the same things? They can't all be wrong can they?




Tonally, the two should feel different. They're different quests and subject matter. I agree there. But visually, from a film making stand point, they're both from the same world, Middle Earth. Unless Sauron and his minions coming about somehow mean more practical, real looking worlds that are less jarring looking for the audience, I don't see how that has any bearing on the look and make of the film.


Did LOTR have cgi and stuff? Yeah, I even mentioned that in my post. But that's not the point. Anyone that think the two trilogies look and feel similar (again, not the story but the world, characters and creatures) are "making excuses". They look worlds apart when the only difference should be that they were made a decade apart. It's the same deal with Star Wars' very real feeling Original Trilogy vs. the clean, fast moving, fakeness of the Prequels.


Let's put it this way. LOTR is the Hobbit's future, right? Shouldn't the Hobbit look less technologically advanced looking if it's LOTR's history, LOTR's history? How come it looks like a colorful cluster **** of fast moving, light glowing madness?

Same with Star Wars. The prequels are the original's past, yet the past is more technologically advanced than it's future with more junk and faster, more sterile environments? It doesn't make any sense. How come the Fellowship isn't faster than all the slow moving dwarves when the run? How come the LOTR characters can't trek up crazy CGI statues? Where are all the bunny transportation sleds and the big, CGI looking orcs in the close up shots?

 

[jye4ever]

Lucas used the excuse that the PT were scrubby clean because Empire had not made a mess of things yet so it was still their golden age of elegance and that all rebellions in history have always used broken down equipment.

Fair enough.

But PT still looks and moves like *** for me.

 

[DiFabio]

Lucas used the excuse that the PT were scrubby clean because Empire had not made a mess of things yet so it was still their golden age of elegance and that all rebellions in history have always used broken down equipment.

Sounds like the same crap reasoning for Sauron and his hordes.



If that's the case, how come the Battle Droids or Separatists or whatever look and seem more technologically advanced than the Empire? Or the Clones and all they're wonderful vehicles, weapons and colored armor vs. the plain Imperials?

Let's not forget all the tricked out vehicles that inhabit the Prequels and ****ing things like General Grievous. The most advanced and complicated cyborgs in the original Trilogy were the grounded characters like Vader and 3PO.



It makes no sense to the story and world other than abusing the modern film making and straight up laziness. The Hobbit suffers from the same crap. Do I think they should all go back to matte paintings, practical effects, stop motion, etc? No. But atleast try and make the worlds look similar. Ain't nothing wrong with bigatures or scaled models and please, for the love of pete stop using green screen for something as simple as sitting in a room and having dialogue. Save the special effects for the big, crazy filled sequences.

 

[CelticPredator]

I didn't notice anything I the 24fps theater experience or on Blu Ray. The only time I noticed anything was a few seconds of quick motion at the very start when I saw the 48fps.

It's not just the frame rate. It's the whole look of the film. It gave it a very cheap direct to video quality with the bright sets and costumes.

 

[jye4ever]

Attack of the Clones speeder chase is a perfect example.

Just because it resembles a 50s hot rod does it make it look like something that would exist before Episode 4.

But the biggest eye sore were all those damn cgi clones.

Ughhh, and enough with cgi water, the earth is mostly water, get your ***** out of those green rooms and go outside.

Can you imagine Jaws today.

Can I tell you, MOS got it right.

 

[The Ween]

That's what happens when studios get cheap and lazy and don't want to fly actors and crew and build real outside sets and create hundreds of prosthetics for creatures.

Into the green room everyone goes.

For some reason it bothers me more with this series.

That being said, a ton of cgi was used in LOTR.

There was a ton of CGI in LotR, just like there's a lot of prosthetics in The Hobbit.

 

[jye4ever]

There was a ton of CGI in LotR, just like there's a lot of prosthetics in The Hobbit.

I think i'm wrong with cgi as the culprit, Celtic got it right, it's the camera and green screen ontop of that.

 

[The Ween]

I think i'm wrong with cgi as the culprit, Celtic got it right, it's the camera and green screen ontop of that.

Maybe the use of so much green screen had to do with having most of the cast under 5' tall and the actors playing them are on average 6'. To make them look short, the orcs or whatever fighting against them had to be REALLY big, so actors in suits were out.