The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[DiFabio]

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

No, it's the CGI too. Not the CGI itself mind you, it's a tool (I'm not anti-CGI, that's absurd) but the difference is how they're used. In LOTR, it was used when it needed to be (Gollum, large scale battles, Oliphants) in addition to other, non-CGI effects to make the scenes. In the Hobbit, it's used all the time for everything. It's abused.


You gave the perfect example Jye, the clone troopers. Not one of those clones was a man in a suit. They literally took Jango's head and put it on top of a character model. Shoddily I might add. The Stormtroopers from the 70s and 80s, you know those British stuntmen in suits were waaaaaay better.


Now look at the orcs and humanoid creatures in the Hobbit, pretty much the same deal. CGI, CGI, CGI. There was nothing wrong with LOTR's use of New Zealand Stuntmen (and women) in make up, armor and prosthetic. It worked beautifully. Now for the Hobbit? Most if not all are CGI creations, or worse, CGI creations done over the live performances. It's just awful.





People's eyes aren't lying to them, that's the point of all this. If there wasn't an issue, most folks would die down and keep their mouth's shut. Even if you don't know exactly what the problem is as far as the effects go (is it green screen, CGI, lighting, etc.), your eyes and brain do.

 

[CelticPredator]

The CGI is a problem indeed.

PJ needs to stop experimenting, and just focus on making a good film.

 

[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.

I don't know, I love it and I'm not bothered by CGI. It's here to stay and it's only going to get used more and more I'm afraid.

Now the newer SW movies were just plain too busy. It's like Lucas had to fill every, single inch of screen with something.

 

[Darkmatter]

saw the trailer when it came out online. then saw the trailer in 3D at the man of steel. NO COMPARISON!!! the scene where bilbo was in the bush with the butterflies was amazing. can't wait for this!!!

 

[CelticPredator]

Nothing in that scene looks real.
But then again, even if that was "real", those **** camera's make everything look unreal.

 

[Darkmatter]

The CGI is a problem indeed.

PJ needs to stop experimenting, and just focus on making a good film.

why don't you drop him an email and ask him what the heck he's doing?

 

[The Ween]

Nothing in that scene looks real.
But then again, even if that was "real", those **** camera's make everything look unreal.

That's a cap from the trailer that someone did. It looks fine, but I'm betting it looks better on the big screen like it's suppose to be seen.

 

[CelticPredator]

Many people have. He doesn't want to hear it.

 

[jye4ever]

No, it's the CGI too. Not the CGI itself mind you, it's a tool (I'm not anti-CGI, that's absurd) but the difference is how they're used. In LOTR, it was used when it needed to be (Gollum, large scale battles, Oliphants) in addition to other, non-CGI effects to make the scenes. In the Hobbit, it's used all the time for everything. It's abused.


You gave the perfect example Jye, the clone troopers. Not one of those clones was a man in a suit. They literally took Jango's head and put it on top of a character model. Shoddily I might add. The Stormtroopers from the 70s and 80s, you know those British stuntmen in suits were waaaaaay better.


Now look at the orcs and humanoid creatures in the Hobbit, pretty much the same deal. CGI, CGI, CGI. There was nothing wrong with LOTR's use of New Zealand Stuntmen (and women) in make up, armor and prosthetic. It worked beautifully. Now for the Hobbit? Most if not all are CGI creations, or worse, CGI creations done over the live performances. It's just awful.





People's eyes aren't lying to them, that's the point of all this. If there wasn't an issue, most folks would die down and keep their mouth's shut. Even if you don't know exactly what the problem is as far as the effects go (is it green screen, CGI, lighting, etc.), your eyes and brain do.

Can you imagine Lurtz jumping around like that.

CGI things lack weight from gravity.

Nothing in that scene looks real.
But then again, even if that was "real", those **** camera's make everything look unreal.

 

[jye4ever]

Well, here's hoping they use a real Hulk for Avengers 2.

Now that I think about it, Thor 2 is looking good with the outside scenes and stuntmen dressed like telle tubbies.

 

[The Josh]

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 prologue takes place during Sauron's reign and shows The Battle of the Last Alliance. That is a very dark and gritty time more so than anything we see during The Lord of the Rings. It's much darker than what follows which is the Hobbiton stuff. That is very bright and softer than the previous sequence. What we see in The Hobbit matches the softness and brightness we see through when Frodo finds out what Ring he has. That's why your rebuttal doesn't work because the time of the prologue is a more serious time than anything we'll see in The Hobbit. We're in a time of peace before it starts to get dark again.

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

I think they would film The Lord of the Rings much the same way they did then. You'd have to with how the story is to show what you'd have to show. There would be some things they could do with The Lord of the Rings in CGI that would clean certain bits up. I don't think they would do Sauron in CGI as Weta does like to flex its muscle with armor.

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?

I don't think that's the case but if they don't know I will try to inform them on why they are off. There are cases where things are totally opinion so all I can say is why I disagree. People think The Hobbit was all green screen with little physical items. I believe you. I don't know what background you have with reading up on this subject. I know what I know and try to use that to explain my POV. They can be. Doesn't mean they are though.

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.

They are from the same world but they shouldn't look exactly alike though. The way they look helps express how different the times in Middle-earth are. The Hobbit is bright and soft (film one anyways) because nothing bad has happened for thousands of years. The coming darkness is still 60 years away and we see that change quickly in The Fellowship of the Ring. Film two will start to get darker within Mirkwood and especially when we get to Laketown. I believe film 3 will be the darkest as they start to show even in it the coming darkness. The worlds we visit will look a lot like what we saw in The Lord of the Rings with practical sets during close ups and CGI to complete outter shots much like we saw of Minas Tirith, Barad-dur, Orthanc, etc.

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.

They do look and feel similar. Not exact but similar. They're not supposed to be exact IMO because the stories are different. So there is no making excuses from my end.

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?

The Hobbit is only 60 years before The Lord of the Rings. I don't think the technology they're using looks anymore or less advanced than The Lord of the Rings. Again, The Hobbit looks brighter because it should look and feel that way especially in film 1.

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?

What do you mean why aren't they faster? Both move at a decent pace. Is that really a complaint? I don't even think about crap like that. Trek up crazy CGI statues? The Dwarven statues with the steps built into them that lead to the door? I actually loved how that looked in the trailer. The bunny sled was alright. There were plenty of CGI orcs in The Lord of the Rings even in close ups. A lot of the ones in The Hobbit are only CGI in the head area with the body being a guy in a suit.

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.

All, I can say is I think you're 100% wrong. It did not and has not looked that way to me.

 

[The Ween]

I now know how my mother used to feel when my father and brothers were talking at the table and she tried to get a word in edge wise. She used to look at me and say, I guess the men are talking now. :shrugs:

 

[CelticPredator]

No. I'm not wrong. Just because you like it, doesn't mean i'm wrong.

The quality of the visual style has dropped to a new level with this film. It looks more like a big budget BBC production. Dr. Who or something. Everything is bright and colorful.

 

[DiFabio]

I now know how my mother used to feel when my father and brothers were talking at the table and she tried to get a word in edge wise. She used to look at me and say, I guess the men are talking now. :shrugs:

Go back to the kitchen Ween, make us a sandwich.

 

[The Ween]

Go back to the kitchen Ween, make us a sandwich.

If I make you bastards a sandwich, you'll be eating it with the wrong end!



Wow! Po op is blocked but not bastard.

 

[The Josh]

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.

They used a new technique during this. During The Lord of the Rings they used forced perspective but this they did some green screen to do this so the main actors could be used more. I find it impossible to tell.

No, it's the CGI too. Not the CGI itself mind you, it's a tool (I'm not anti-CGI, that's absurd) but the difference is how they're used. In LOTR, it was used when it needed to be (Gollum, large scale battles, Oliphants) in addition to other, non-CGI effects to make the scenes. In the Hobbit, it's used all the time for everything. It's abused.

Its really not abused. This is what I was talking about having watched all the pre-production stuff and reading the art books you find out its not as much CGI as one thinks.

Now look at the orcs and humanoid creatures in the Hobbit, pretty much the same deal. CGI, CGI, CGI. There was nothing wrong with LOTR's use of New Zealand Stuntmen (and women) in make up, armor and prosthetic. It worked beautifully. Now for the Hobbit? Most if not all are CGI creations, or worse, CGI creations done over the live performances. It's just awful.

Actually, a lot of the Orcs and Goblins were guys in suits and several were in suits with the heads being motion captured. Both looks work really really good IMO.

Nothing in that scene looks real.
But then again, even if that was "real", those **** camera's make everything look unreal.

Yes, it does. You can tell the trees are props from a set.

Many people have. He doesn't want to hear it.

How do you know? Have you emailed him?

 

[jye4ever]

Ween is about to give us a cgi sandwich.

 

[The Josh]

No. I'm not wrong. Just because you like it, doesn't mean i'm wrong.

The quality of the visual style has dropped to a new level with this film. It looks more like a big budget BBC production. Dr. Who or something. Everything is bright and colorful.

Doesn't make you right either. I trust my eyes and opinion more.

It hasn't dropped at all but at least from my POV.

The Hobbit is supposed to be more bright and colorful. It goes with the type of story it is.

 

[CelticPredator]

What a snarky ****ing response. I trust what Peter Jackson said more then your eyes.

And I also trust the actual way that camera works, more then your eyes.

 

[jye4ever]

Forced perspective probably a pain in the *** to do but it probably yields a more realistic look than cgi perspective.