Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The Hobbit : Battle of the five armies (December 2014)

Options
24567…11

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Jackson's main flaw, for me, is his Lucas-esque obsession with CGI

    LOTR had beautifully married practical and computer effects but from Kong on he just went all show with no substance

    Yep, totally agree. The Uruk Hai in LotR work because they're real, they're there. The orcs in the Hobbit look awful.
    jones wrote: »
    Totally agree I saw something last year where they had one of the main orcs from DOS (cant remember his name but the one who's hunting the dwarfs) and it showed the actor in prosthetics versus the CGi version and the actor looked FAR better. But for some reason Jackson went CGI.

    Yeh I can't remember the name of the orc but it was the one who fought Legolas in Lake Town, one of the best fight sequences I've seen in a long time but the fact that his enemy is so obviously cgi really takes away from it. Why they bothered when they had a lad in prosthetics is beyond me.


  • Options
    #33
    jones
    Registered Users Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭jones


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Azog the Defiler?

    Or was it Bolg by that stage?

    Bolg that's it.
    I'll see can I find the picture but it basically compared the two and the prosthetics looks FAR superior.

    Agreed with the fight it almost took on a computer game look and so I don't think the audience had any real investment in the outcome (plus the fact we know Legolas aint going to die ha)


  • Options
    #34
    jones
    Registered Users Posts: 3,006 ✭✭✭jones


    Here is something along the lines of what I was referring to


  • Options
    #35
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    +1 for the CGI not being even close to as good as the makeup and masks. You'd imagine that they'd be able to do the makeup a lot better nowadays too.


    Even fan cosplays and the ones in this fan film for shadow of mordor do it better


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xK7e0-_3oQ


  • Options
    #36
    PhiloCypher
    Registered Users Posts: 2,388 ✭✭✭PhiloCypher


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Jackson's main flaw, for me, is his Lucas-esque obsession with CGI

    LOTR had beautifully married practical and computer effects but from Kong on he just went all show with no substance

    Just like Lucas Jackson became too proud of this technological terror he'd constructed in weta digital (off the back of his own hugely successful trilogy) and failed to understand the power to Construct worlds digitally is nothing when compared to the power of building them practically.

    With both men having such a large stake in both effects houses of course they were gonna throw as much work at their own companies as possible thus lining their own pockets.

    I loved the extras for the lotr trilogy, the practical effects, the creative use of forced perspectives. I don't think I'd be arsed with anything but the most basic blueray of the hobbit trilogy. You've see one pixel pushed around a screen by a nerd you've seen them all.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Heroditas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    Anyone see Graham Norton the other night? He had Ian McKellan on and they showed a fresh clip from the film - CGI to beat the band.
    First thing that struck me was that it looked very similar to the siege of Minas Tirith in ROTK. Every last bit of it was CGI too. Quite frankly, I thought it looked awful.
    My wife commented "y'know what, it actually looks like a video game". I found it hard to disagree.

    I'm still going to see it but more out of a sense of duty than anything else and I still love the books.
    It's a bit of a tradition for a few of us to go see the films together, ever since FOTR was released back in 2001.

    EDIT: there seems to be quite a few official clips up on YouTube now.


  • Options
    #38
    Roar
    Registered Users Posts: 7,426 ✭✭✭Roar


    Ha. My wife said the exact thing. She just couldn't get over how fake it all looked.


  • Options
    #39
    funnights74
    Registered Users Posts: 1,952 ✭✭✭funnights74


    I totally agree, after seeing a few of the trailers and teaser clips it just looks a bit too polished and perfect. i accept that it's fantasy but every single pixel seems to have been methodically placed there, i recall from the LotR in some shots some of the main characters were added in post production, and it stood out a mile. Hopefully the actual story won't be lost amongst all of this.


  • Options
    #40
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    I wonder if any fans will take all the extended versions of these movies and cut the most important and best parts of each and make it into a single great movie, which it should've been anyway.


  • Options
    #41
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    DoYouEvenLift wrote: »
    I wonder if any fans will take all the extended versions of these movies and cut the most important and best parts of each and make it into a single great movie, which it should've been anyway.

    I would watch the **** out of that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Josey Wales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,432 ✭✭✭Josey Wales


    Are Cineworld not showing the HFR version in there big (fake) IMAX screen?


  • Options
    #43
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    Josey Wales wrote: »
    Are Cineworld not showing the HFR version in there big (fake) IMAX screen?


    Emailed to ask them the other day and got a stupid automatic response with a long FAQ that didn't answer the question and haven't heard anything since. Theirs is listed on the imax site as one of the projectors capable of doing hfr imax yet seems like they're not using the opportunity, stupid really.


  • Options
    #44
    Josey Wales
    Registered Users Posts: 4,432 ✭✭✭Josey Wales


    DoYouEvenLift wrote: »
    Emailed to ask them the other day and got a stupid automatic response with a long FAQ that didn't answer the question and haven't heard anything since. Theirs is listed on the imax site as one of the projectors capable of doing hfr imax yet seems like they're not using the opportunity, stupid really.

    I saw the first two Hobbit movies in their IMAX screen in the HFR format. I wonder if they feel they are losing sales by having it in this format.


  • Options
    #45
    sonic85
    Registered Users Posts: 4,208 ✭✭✭sonic85


    far too much cgi in this trilogy and its kind of ruined the films for me but ill still go see this. really cant understand why Jackson would change his approach from prosthetics that clearly work and look fantastic to dodgy cgi that's so clean looking and polished that it basically looks like a video game.

    bah


  • Options
    #46
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    sonic85 wrote: »
    far too much cgi in this trilogy and its kind of ruined the films for me but ill still go see this. really cant understand why Jackson would change his approach from prosthetics that clearly work and look fantastic to dodgy cgi that's so clean looking and polished that it basically looks like a video game.

    bah


    More CGI = more business for his special effects company I'd say


  • Options
    #47
    jaykhunter
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 12,013 Mod ✭✭✭✭jaykhunter


    Hi there. Was there a reason they changed the title of the movie from "There and back again"? Battle of 5 Armies sounds like a concession to get more punters in the door.


  • Options
    #48
    bucketybuck
    Registered Users Posts: 18,161 ✭✭✭✭bucketybuck


    jaykhunter wrote: »
    Hi there. Was there a reason they changed the title of the movie from "There and back again"?
    Because...
    Battle of 5 Armies sounds like a concession to get more punters in the door.


  • Options
    #49
    funnights74
    Registered Users Posts: 1,952 ✭✭✭funnights74


    DoYouEvenLift wrote: »
    More CGI = more business for his special effects company I'd say

    Definitely, himself and Richard Taylor own weta digital. I suspect this is their motive behind the 3 films, there's no way the hobbit book justified 3 films, they borrowed heavily from the appendices of the LotR books to fill up the 3 hobbit films, plus extended versions of the dvds of course. No surprise it all boils down to money.


  • Options
    #50
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    I wouldnt side with the $$$/slightly cynical view of these three films had they simply been better films. Impossible to meet or even come come close to their LOTR forbearers maybe, those 3 films each being a new standard in class and quality.
    But, when presented with the chance to see things i've always wondered about, like the White Council descending on Dol Guldur to vanquish Sauron, to see Smaug toy with Bilbo, or even the battle of the five armies in all its scale, I can't be cynical. I don't have much hope for this film based on the first two, but maybe, just maybe, it'll all be worth it.


  • Options
    #51
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    funnights74 wrote: »
    Definitely, himself and Richard Taylor own weta digital. I suspect this is their motive behind the 3 films, there's no way the hobbit book justified 3 films, they borrowed heavily from the appendices of the LotR books to fill up the 3 hobbit films, plus extended versions of the dvds of course. No surprise it all boils down to money.


    Peter Jackson's already worth $400m too, at what point is money not an influencing factor anymore for guys like this? He's rich enough to take absolute gambles with artistic projects and even if they were absolute fails he still has enough money to fall back on and live like a king. What can be done with $400m that couldn't be done when he was worth $10m. Seems like their company is well off the ground and getting decent business so they could've left out the fuking OTT CGI for these movies


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    that view is a bit cynical..CGI offers endless possibilities..it's just strange this crew havent taken the same care with CGI that they did with LOTR...

    or perhaps the CGI theyre usin is being shown up by the HFR?


  • Options
    #53
    Duggy747
    Registered Users Posts: 13,295 ✭✭✭✭Duggy747


    This video from Peter Jackson's page really shows how much worse the newer films look compared to the LOTR trilogy, spit-shined to death CGI and bloom / vaseline rubbed on the lens effect.


  • Options
    #54
    johnny_ultimate
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,129 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    It's marginally better than its predecessors, if only because the shorter running time doesn't allow for quite so much filler. Not that there isn't filler - 'the star crossed lovers and Legalos too' subplot is still absolute nonsense, several characters could easily be excised completely, and there's a lot of relatively contrived building up before the titular battle kicks off. When it does, you know what you're getting really. There's one excellent setpiece before that kicks off, though, and the one time the blatant LotR links feel worthwhile (there's at least three or four other moments here that shout 'BY THE WAY, LORD OF THE RINGS HAPPENED NEXT' in amusingly unsubtle ways). The Smaug stuff should definitely have been over and done with last film, it's detrimental to the pacing and flow of this as everything just kicks off at full speed for a few minutes before slowing down into this film's self-contained arc. Strangely, it's the quieter scenes that often feel worst impacted by Jackson's CG overload, as it's very clearly characters standing in front of a green screen. It's more po-faced than either of the earlier films, but at least that means there's less lame attempts at comedy.

    The whole trilogy over and done with, the fear from back in film one has been conclusively proven - it is simply too long. There's good stuff in the Hobbit trilogy, but it's lost among a whole lot of bad. It is also a series of films that have embraced technology in wholly the wrong way, and would have loved the team to more willingly stick with the effects mix that worked so well in the Lord of the Rings.

    I saw the first two minutes of this in HFR in Cineworld, but there was a technical hitch and it restarted again in 24FPS - based on that two minutes of 48, I breathed a sigh of relief that I didn't have to put up with it for any longer :P


  • Options
    #55
    e_e
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,464 ✭✭✭e_e


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdxJxiZYKsA


  • Options
    #56
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    So they are or aren't showing it in HFR in cineworlds imax?


  • Options
    #57
    Sad Professor
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 22,671 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sad Professor


    DoYouEvenLift wrote: »
    So they are or aren't showing it in HFR in cineworlds imax?

    They are.


  • Options
    #58
    BoJack Horseman
    Registered Users Posts: 12,248 ✭✭✭✭BoJack Horseman


    Just watched a clip of the battle scene shown on the Graham Norton show.

    The CGI is startlingly poor..... its quite incredible how far weta have fallen.


  • Options
    #59
    Heroditas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,445 ✭✭✭Heroditas


    BoJack Horseman wrote: »
    Just watched a clip of the battle scene shown on the Graham Norton show.

    The CGI is startlingly poor..... its quite incredible how far weta have fallen.


    It looks like a big screen version of something like Rome: Total War or Medieval: Total War.
    In fact, I could just power up Medieval: Total War with the Middle Earth mod and stick it up on the TV... dear oh dear.


  • Options
    #60
    billyhead
    Registered Users Posts: 9,589 ✭✭✭billyhead


    Would it be a big mistake it I went to see this without seeing the previous hobbit films which I believe were poor. I saw all of the LOTR trilogy.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    FunLover18
    Registered Users Posts: 6,793 ✭✭✭FunLover18


    billyhead wrote:
    Would it be a big mistake it I went to see this without seeing the previous hobbit films which I believe were poor. I saw all of the LOTR trilogy.


    why are you interested in seeing it then?


Advertisement