The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

[The Chev]

It's a fair review. I think PJ's imagination has gone a little out of control with the improvements of CGI.

A year ago, I noticed two very strong AUJ opinions forming. Those that loved the slow parts but hated the action and those loved the action but hated the slow parts. I think it's safe to say the former will have a harder time enjoying DOS.

Which parts do you feel are PJ going overboard?

 

[The Chev]

When he says this........he doesn't know. He hasn't seen all three and I've seen the first one and liked it. He probably went into this one hating it already.

I can understand people's hate of nothing but CGI work, however I feel comparing it to the Star Wars PT. Weren't most of the sets in the PT nothing but green and blue?

 

[The Ween]

I can understand people's hate of nothing but CGI work, however I feel comparing it to the Star Wars PT. Weren't most of the sets in the PT nothing but green and blue?

Some of the scenes in the PT have no humans at all in it. He's just over exaggerating in comparing the two.

 

[The Josh]

An obvious idiot who doesn't know his *** from a hole in the ground.

I tend to chuckle when I read OTT negative reviews like that. He's welcome to his opinion. It isn't gonna factor into what I think and from all appearances the critics are quite happy with this one. I think someone on TORn's message boards is tracking the reviews and the total positive right now is like 89% of them going that direction.

 

[The Josh]

Some of the scenes in the PT have no humans at all in it. He's just over exaggerating in comparing the two.

A lot of reviews like that are just pure hyperbole done to get clicks to their website.

 

[CelticPredator]

Not true. At all.

 

[The Ween]

Not true. At all.

CP is the critics expert. I forgot that.

 

[CelticPredator]

It's just an opinion. His site is very popular. He doesn't need the hits. If you're not interested in his opinion, then you probably don't need to read his site.

 

[The Chev]

Some of the scenes in the PT have no humans at all in it. He's just over exaggerating in comparing the two.

Problem is that we all have a tendency to exaggerate when talking about films.

I remember there was a reviewer back when LoTR came out and he hated the first one so much, and said he didn't even sit thru Two Towers, yet still posted a review.

 

[CelticPredator]

When he says this........he doesn't know. He hasn't seen all three and I've seen the first one and liked it. He probably went into this one hating it already.

He's a huge fan of the series. Which is why he's disappointed with this one.

To him, these are the new Star Wars prequels, in the sense that they do not live up to the original films at all. Which, after re-watching, The Hobbit does not. Despite what I said.

The film doesn't have the grounded nature the original films had. It's more loose and less realistic. Jackson doesn't seem to want to replicate the scope of the LOTR trilogy, he wants to do more of it in the computer. And I get that, because the LOTR trilogy looks impossible to make. I still can't wrap my mind around the thing.

But The Hobbit? I don't need a making of featurette to tell me how that film was made. Sets, few locations, and blue screen.

 

[The Josh]

Jackson IMO is mimicking Tolkien in The Hobbit is a little more loose and sillier than The Lord of the Rings. The movies are shaping up no different. The Hobbit movies no matter how good we're never going to be as good as The Lord of the Rings movies. As far as the making of stuff they're every bit as good as the stuff with the LOTR movies. For me anyways.

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

He's a huge fan of the series. Which is why he's disappointed with this one.

To him, these are the new Star Wars prequels, in the sense that they do not live up to the original films at all. Which, after re-watching, The Hobbit does not. Despite what I said.

The film doesn't have the grounded nature the original films had. It's more loose and less realistic. Jackson doesn't seem to want to replicate the scope of the LOTR trilogy, he wants to do more of it in the computer. And I get that, because the LOTR trilogy looks impossible to make. I still can't wrap my mind around the thing.

But The Hobbit? I don't need a making of featurette to tell me how that film was made. Sets, few locations, and blue screen.

A year ago you would have said The Hobbit was superior.

 

[EnShinNoi]

Apendices 7 and 8 were very good. Not magical like the LotR ones but just as well put together, if not better. It was most interesting seeing the design process each character went through.

 

[guyver1]

Jackson IMO is mimicking Tolkien in The Hobbit is a little more loose and sillier than The Lord of the Rings. The movies are shaping up no different. The Hobbit movies no matter how good we're never going to be as good as The Lord of the Rings movies. As far as the making of stuff they're every bit as good as the stuff with the LOTR movies. For me anyways.

What day are the advanced screenings. When are you going?

 

[OSCORP]

Doing very well on rotten tomatoes. Seems to be better than the first, which is welcome news to me!

 

[CelticPredator]

A year ago you would have said The Hobbit was superior.

Well, I still prefer the ensemble feel that The Hobbit has. It feels more focused, at it's basic level at least. But it's technically inferior to the LOTR trilogy...which brings me too..

Jackson IMO is mimicking Tolkien in The Hobbit is a little more loose and sillier than The Lord of the Rings. The movies are shaping up no different. The Hobbit movies no matter how good we're never going to be as good as The Lord of the Rings movies. As far as the making of stuff they're every bit as good as the stuff with the LOTR movies. For me anyways.

I think the problem isn't that they aren't deadly series, but that the films are almost completely opposite of each other, in terms of visual style. They lack any grit, and feel very glossy and fake. That's what turns off so many people to these films.

I had to revisit the originals to understand this. You give it a pass because you're a Tolken fan. Just like I'm an Alien fan, and I can look past the obvious, glaring flaws of Prometheus, and still find some enjoyment in it.

 

[Njits]

For some reason the CGI also just looks more part of the world in the original trilogy (oh god this sounds familiar, doesn't it?) which is super weird because you would think that as time goes on CGI becomes more competent. All the CGI stands out for some reason, and I think the fully digital shots don't help a lot either, example: https://youtu.be/25dVQU3JkkE?t=7m20s

Maybe it *is* true that when a director with huge imagination and creativity get's an enormous budget he loses sight of the creative process and goes overboard with it. You know why the Roman empire fell? because they won, and got lazy. You need that pressure to stay focused and dedicated. Got almost unlimited resources and funds? Pshhh, we'll just green screen these scenes!
Not that I'm saying it went like that, but it's something to think about. I think the obvious comparison you could make is Lucas and the Star Wars prequels, and it's a fair one to make. I still haven't seen TDOS, I'm going in with an open mind, set my exceptions low, and hope to be blown away. It worked quite well for me with AUJ, I think it's important to realize before hand though that LOTR will probably never be topped, not even by it's own director. But that's totally fine.

 

[CelticPredator]

Peter Jackson had a huge budget for the original trilogy, but didn't go overboard with the CGI because the technology simply wasn't there.

And that helped the film. They hold up more then The Hobbit does.

 

[Njits]

Peter Jackson had a huge budget for the original trilogy, but didn't go overboard with the CGI because the technology simply wasn't there.

And that helped the film. They hold up more then The Hobbit does.

I've read that the budget for LOTR was actually quite a bit lower then people might think. But yeah it's also because high fidelity CGI is financially much more feasible right now then it was back then. Also when you say "the technology wasn't there" it meas the same thing as "lower budget." If people say "the the technology wasn't there" it means it was just too expensive at the time, but it was still possible.

 

[CelticPredator]

It wasn't though. You couldn't make an Avatar back then. So there was no good way of doing fully developed computer generated backgrounds.

Remember, the prequels were being made during this time, and Two Towers and Return of the King filmed at the same time. So they couldn't wait and see what Lucas had up his sleeve with the prequels, and utilize that technology (thank Christ).

They came out before the big special effects boom.