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

Roar · 16-12-2014 10:49pm

SimonTemplar wrote: »

Was Billy Connolly's character CG or just filmed poorly in front of a green screen? I couldn't tell.

CG. Looked like something from Polar Express. Completely took me out of the movie.

LorMal · 16-12-2014 11:15pm

bucketybuck wrote: »

After the rubbish he churned out in the last three films, I can't see why they would let him near the property again.

'Rubbish' is way too strong. The movies are spectacular and exciting - well worth seeing. They only compare badly to the Lord of the Rings trilogy which was incredible. The source material for the Hobbit is not substantial and the movies therefore struggle for narrative and character sometimes - but to call them 'rubbish' is childish and petulant.

bucketybuck · 16-12-2014 11:30pm

LorMal wrote: »

'Rubbish' is way too strong. The movies are spectacular and exciting - well worth seeing. They only compare badly to the Lord of the Rings trilogy which was incredible. The source material for the Hobbit is not substantial and the movies therefore struggle for narrative and character sometimes - but to call them 'rubbish' is childish and petulant.

They are bad films, regardless of any comparison with the LOTR. I have little doubt whatsoever that history will not be kind to these three films.

Saipanne · 16-12-2014 11:36pm

Hobbit 1 - 7/10
Hobbit 2 - 8/10
Hobbit 3 - 8/10

A solid effort. Fair play jackson., once again you took a boring book and made it entertaining.

17-12-2014 12:23am

The Hobbit is not a boring book, especially when read by target audience as a kid

e_e · 17-12-2014 12:48am

LorMal wrote: »

'Rubbish' is way too strong. The movies are spectacular and exciting - well worth seeing. They only compare badly to the Lord of the Rings trilogy which was incredible. The source material for the Hobbit is not substantial and the movies therefore struggle for narrative and character sometimes - but to call them 'rubbish' is childish and petulant.

I just think they're (the last 2 in particular) bad movies on just about every level. Visually very ugly, overstretched, dull, poorly paced, no interesting characters, incoherent, etc etc. All imo of course but I was not entertained, moved or gripped in any way. Was so hoping for this film to redeem the franchise but I just sat there for 2.5 hours with nothing but my own thoughts to pass the time.

davidrowe · 17-12-2014 1:16am

bucketybuck wrote: »

After the rubbish he churned out in the last three films, I can't see why they would let him near the property again.

Of course, it was Warner Bros/New Line who wanted 3 films instead of 2. So they have a lot to answer for too.

david75 · 17-12-2014 2:12am

Boyens, in all the extras on the LOTR extended editions, always seems to be the one that dragged Jackson back to the story and seemed to be the one at least trying 'keeping it in the spirit of the books' via the writing and script..

Wonder how it is she didn't have that same hold over jackson in these movies..

funnights74 · 17-12-2014 6:42am

Saipanne wrote: »

Hobbit 1 - 7/10
Hobbit 2 - 8/10
Hobbit 3 - 8/10

A solid effort. Fair play jackson., once again you took a boring book and made it entertaining.

I would say he took an exciting children's adventure and made it a drawn out and boring trilogy. Recreating your own storylines, the elf romance and moving characters, legolas, from one book to another was always a recipe for disaster and he definitely dropped the ball several times.
Reading through reviews, particularly of people who read and are fans of the book the vast majority feel let down by the movies, a great opportunity missed, what a shame.

Saipanne · 17-12-2014 9:23am

funnights74 wrote: »

I would say he took an exciting children's adventure and made it a drawn out and boring trilogy. Recreating your own storylines, the elf romance and moving characters, legolas, from one one book to another was always a recipe for disaster and he definitely dropped the ball several times.
Reading through reviews, particularly of people who read and are fans of the book the vast majority feel let down by the movies, a great opportunity missed, what a shame.

We'll, you just read a positive review by a non fan of the book.

Swings. And. Roundabouts.

bucketybuck · 17-12-2014 9:55am

Saipanne wrote: »

We'll, you just read a positive review by a non fan of the book.

Swings. And. Roundabouts.

You are very much in the minority I'm afraid.

Saipanne · 17-12-2014 10:21am

bucketybuck wrote: »

You are very much in the minority I'm afraid.

The aggregate reviews aren't as bad as you say, though.

At a glance, the whole series gets an average of 70% from Rotten Tomatoes. A 62% from Metacritic. I averaged the three reviews on Wikipedia for those figures.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_series)

I'd give it around 75%, overall. So I'm a little higher.

You said it was "rubbish". What's that, 40%? Less?

Tell me, how am I in the minority again?

bucketybuck · 17-12-2014 10:34am

Saipanne wrote: »

The aggregate reviews aren't as bad as you say, though.

At a glance, the whole series gets an average of 70% from Rotten Tomatoes. A 62% from Metacritic.

I'd give it around 75%, overall. So I'm a little higher.

You said it was "rubbish". What's that, 40%? Less?

Tell me, how am I in the minority again?

And the aggregate reviews have been dropping since release as people begin to reflect on what they watched.

Face it, its the Phantom Menace all over again.

Saipanne · 17-12-2014 10:53am

bucketybuck wrote: »

And the aggregate reviews have been dropping since release as people begin to reflect on what they watched.

Face it, its the Phantom Menace all over again.

Ok, given that paltry response, its fair to say I won that battle. I really have nothing more to add. So I'll revert to lurking.

dcrosskid · 17-12-2014 11:03am

Went to see this last night & came away extremely underwhelmed by the this and all the 3 Hobbit movies. I have read a few replies on this thread & they basically cover everything I thought myself. The whole story line was so drawn out with pointless scenes.

2 films would have been perfect, I think a good editor could actually still go back and cut out a lot of ****e from the trilogy and put together 2 decent movies. I have only watched these movies once each but I can think of plenty scenes that could have been moved along a lot quicker/cut completely. Even the opening scene in the 1st film lasted nearly an hour before they actually take off.

How they decided to end the 2nd movie where they did is just shocking, the start scene to the 3rd movie would have been a far better call imo. Outside of Bilbo & Thrain there were very few characters that could draw you in. Legolas? What was the point in that at all? The running up the falling blocks was like a scene from The Matrix.

Anyways i'm ranting now but it was just a disappointment that a story with so much potential was wasted in my opinion.

Hobbit 1 - 5
Hobbit 2 - 5
Hobbit 3 - 4

For the sake of it i'll throw in my ratings for LOTR.

LOTR 1 - 8.5
LOTR 2 - 9.0
LOTR 3 - 8.0

Dan_Solo · 17-12-2014 11:12am

I have to say this a major achievement by Peter Jackson.
Making a movie set in Middle Earth with a $200 million budget that I'm not sure I even want to see on RTE on Xmas Day 2017, nevermind shell out a tenner to see it at the movies...

bucketybuck · 17-12-2014 11:27am

Saipanne wrote: »

Ok, given that paltry response, its fair to say I won that battle. I really have nothing more to add. So I'll revert to lurking.

Won the battle? Are you 12 years old? :rolleyes:

Saipanne · 17-12-2014 11:32am

bucketybuck wrote: »

Won the battle? Are you 12 years old? :rolleyes:

No, which explains why I don't like the book.

orubiru · 17-12-2014 11:45am

LorMal wrote: »

'Rubbish' is way too strong. The movies are spectacular and exciting - well worth seeing. They only compare badly to the Lord of the Rings trilogy which was incredible. The source material for the Hobbit is not substantial and the movies therefore struggle for narrative and character sometimes - but to call them 'rubbish' is childish and petulant.

I would disagree. I think that "Rubbish" is a pretty reasonable assessment.

You have to remember that this is the 3rd part of an ongoing story. This movie starts on the back of more than 5 hours of previous story. Yet, so few of the scenes carry any weight or give us a "pay off" on previous story elements.

Basically, The Battle Of The Five Armies is a succession of images that are interesting to look at. Story, and storytelling, takes a back seat. We are just looking at pictures, really.

Personally, I don't know how anyone can find these movies "exciting". Can someone explain that to me, or at least try to quantify their excitement?

For example, in The Battle of Helms Deep (I am using the weakest battle in LOTR for my example here)...

We have 3 main characters in the middle of the action. Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are coming into their own as warriors and we are seeing (after spending a few hours with the characters at this point) how they would perform in a huge battle.

We have Aragorn trying to convince Theoden that he has to get himself together and fight the Orcs but we also know that it's pointless because the Orc army is so huge.

The key tension and excitement comes from the "race against the clock" we know Gandalf will show up and save the day but will he show up in time? Will they be able to hold out? What will it cost them?

When you are writing a scene like that the "excitement" that the viewer/reader is supposed to feel is related to their feelings and identification with the characters, the stakes involved and what it means for the future of the story.

Helms Deep.

Characters : Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli in the heat of battle. Theoden growing as a King and leader of his people. Gandalf proving himself to be reliable and dependable (by saving the day). Eomer forgiving his father and coming back to save his people.

Stakes : The Orc army will destroy the city, kill the women and children, Saruman will have a stronger hand as the story progresses. We understand why they must be stopped.

Consequences : If the good guys win we know that Aragorn and Theoden will become stronger characters. We honestly wonder "what the f is gonna happen NEXT". The battle gets us invested in whats coming up next so we have a genuine anticipation (excitement).

The Battle Of The Five Armies.

The battle starts with nobody we directly care about being actually involved. Dain is introduced so quickly, Thranduil is portrayed as some kind of a-hole up to this point, Bolg and Azog are not fleshed out beyond "big scary orcs". Bard has already had his major character moment by defeating Smaug.

When this battle kicks off... where is the excitement? What are the stakes? Who is involved? What can be lost? Why must "our" characters win? What are the potential consequences of this battle?

Seriously though, how does one get excited by this? It's, as I keep saying, nothing more than cool pictures of big fantasy armies squaring off against each other. Fan art.

MagicMarker · 17-12-2014 11:46am

I still haven't made it past the first 40 minutes of the first Hobbit movie.

I'm waiting for JJ Abrams to do a remake.

Dan_Solo · 17-12-2014 11:51am

MagicMarker wrote: »

I still haven't made it past the first 40 minutes of the first Hobbit movie.

I'm waiting for JJ Abrams to do a remake.

150 minutes of Legolas instead of 140... with a mandatory 10 CGI lens flares per minute... not just adding to canon, utterly destroying it... yeah baby!

orubiru · 17-12-2014 11:52am

Saipanne wrote: »

No, which explains why I don't like the book.

Insulting to anyone who has ever studied children's literature.

It would be more accurate to say that you just don't understand why the book is considered a classic.

There is plenty of scope for adults to read and enjoy children's literature. Just because the book was aimed at 11 to 14 year old boys does not mean that there is not value in the reading for adults also.

Children's movie "Up" has more weight, character development and emotion in it's first 3 minutes than we see in an entire 8 hours of Peter Jacksons Hobbit movies.

Falthyron · 17-12-2014 11:58am

Isn't it great that all art is subjective?

There is no right or wrong opinion to Battle of the Five Armies. Just go and see it if it is a movie that looks interesting to you. I'm going on Sunday and I already know I will be buying the Extended Edition when it comes out next year. I love the world of Middle-Earth and I enjoy every minute of that world Jackson shares with us.

orubiru · 17-12-2014 11:59am

Deleted User wrote: »

The Hobbit is not a boring book, especially when read by target audience as a kid

Absolutely. The Hobbit is a really solid, tight, story. We get the characters, we get a good sense of the world of Middle Earth.

It's quirky, it's fun, it gets dark, it's tense, it has a great ending.

It's actually close to Fellowship of the Ring in what it accomplishes and, as a standalone movie (or 2 movies at most) could have easily rivaled Fellowship, in my opinion.

valoren · 17-12-2014 12:22pm

The LOTR was 3 books that was intended to produce 2 movies.
As Christopher Lee mentioned when Robert Shaye said it needed to be 3 movies;

"Well, thank God for that decision"

If we were to use that logic and apply it to The Hobbit. One book. One three hour movie. The fact that it is a trilogy just reeks of a cash cow unfortunately but such is the business. They have made a lot of money.

It should have been one movie. End of.

I think deep down Peter Jackson knows that and he has sullied his reputation with these movies. They are the end product of what the Tolkien estate were hesitant over for many, many years. Thankfully, the LOTR trilogy was made with the respect it deserved.

evil_seed · 17-12-2014 12:23pm

Saw this last night in 3D and while I did enjoy it, the CG completely took away from the movie.

Nearly all the 1st few minutes had me questioning if the whole thing was in fast forward. In fact anytime there was real action on screen it looked completely out of place when merged with the CG.

It was very distracting. Did anyone else have the same experience?

johnny_ultimate · 17-12-2014 12:27pm

You probably watched it in high frame rate.

17-12-2014 12:33pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

You probably watched it in high frame rate.

Which I actually love (once the initial weirdness wears off)

Falthyron · 17-12-2014 12:35pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Which I actually love (once the initial weirdness wears off)

I agree. I would prefer film to be shown at 48fps than in 3D...

johnny_ultimate · 17-12-2014 1:16pm

I hate it

I feel it is inherently ill-suited to a film as artificial as this, as it only enhances the artificial valley effect on CG characters and distractingly highlights effects work. Let the BBC wildlife photographers go wild with HFR, I think that would work. But not in CG-heavy blockbusters. There's something about the magical illusion of cinema that is lost when Peter Jackson attempts to achieve a sort of hyper clarity.

Falthyron · 17-12-2014 1:25pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I hate it I feel it is inherently ill-suited to a film as artificial as this, as it only enhances the artificial valley effect on CG characters and distractingly highlights effects work. Let the BBC wildlife photographers go wild with HFR, I think that would work. But not in CG-heavy blockbusters. There's something about the magical illusion of cinema that is lost when Peter Jackson attempts to achieve a sort of hyper clarity.

Less likely to get headaches though! If 48fps had been the standard from the beginning of major film releases nobody would ever think to drop down to 24fps. Too many people are now familiar with the 24fps style and blur when the camera pans, and feel that is a standard or typical of film, that it will take a lot for 48fps to catch-on.

LorMal · 17-12-2014 1:30pm

e_e wrote: »

I just think they're (the last 2 in particular) bad movies on just about every level. Visually very ugly, overstretched, dull, poorly paced, no interesting characters, incoherent, etc etc. All imo of course but I was not entertained, moved or gripped in any way. Was so hoping for this film to redeem the franchise but I just sat there for 2.5 hours with nothing but my own thoughts to pass the time.

'Visually very ugly'? 'no interesting characters' 'incoherent'.......all very harsh. I was very disappointed in comparison to LOTR - but I would sit through these films 50 times sitting on nails with my head on fire before I would watch 'the Internship' again.
Its all relative...

17-12-2014 1:58pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I hate it I feel it is inherently ill-suited to a film as artificial as this, as it only enhances the artificial valley effect on CG characters and distractingly highlights effects work. Let the BBC wildlife photographers go wild with HFR, I think that would work. But not in CG-heavy blockbusters. There's something about the magical illusion of cinema that is lost when Peter Jackson attempts to achieve a sort of hyper clarity.

That's the fault of the artificial film and lazy CGI. 48FPS is a superior experience but not when attached to a bloated mess like this

e_e · 17-12-2014 2:15pm

LorMal wrote: »

'Visually very ugly'? 'no interesting characters' 'incoherent'.......all very harsh. I was very disappointed in comparison to LOTR - but I would sit through these films 50 times sitting on nails with my head on fire before I would watch 'the Internship' again.
Its all relative...

Yes I find the overly digitized image and use of orange and grey as the primary color tone very unpleasant to watch. Not to even mention the jarring jerkiness of the 48FPS image. LOTR had a beautifully tactile, handmade quality and there is absolutely none of that in this trilogy. I could rarely shake the sense that I was just looking at actors in front of a green screen a lot of the time.

I stand by the other points too, Bilbo at least had an arc in the first hobbit movie but he disappears then and is beholden to less interesting peripheral characters in the other two movies. Not even Gandalf has interesting things to do in these films. It's also incoherent in the sense of there being no apparent stakes or purpose to entire set pieces, everything just feels completely incidental and it's hard to care or get involved with anything for me.

e_e · 17-12-2014 2:44pm

Also my point is exactly that it is all relative. Relating to LOTR and even some of Jackson's other work these movies fall way wide of the mark for me. Even as a box office spectacle there's been far better this year.

SherlockWatson · 17-12-2014 2:56pm

bucketybuck wrote: »

And the aggregate reviews have been dropping since release as people begin to reflect on what they watched.

Face it, its the Phantom Menace all over again.

Haha Jesus Phantom Menace is a bit harsh, that truly was a piece of ****.

There's a supercut of the three prequels cut together into one savage movie that's worth checking out.

Wonder if someone would do the same for this series, would be interesting to see!

Agricola · 17-12-2014 3:15pm

Have yet to see the 3rd film, but after reading this thread I can't summon the will to even bother to go see it. Im seriously considering waiting for the blu ray. I never thought a PJ directed Middle Earth film would get that response from me.

orubiru wrote: »

Personally, I don't know how anyone can find these movies "exciting". Can someone explain that to me, or at least try to quantify their excitement?

For example, in The Battle of Helms Deep (I am using the weakest battle in LOTR for my example here)...

We have 3 main characters in the middle of the action. Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli are coming into their own as warriors and we are seeing (after spending a few hours with the characters at this point) how they would perform in a huge battle.

We have Aragorn trying to convince Theoden that he has to get himself together and fight the Orcs but we also know that it's pointless because the Orc army is so huge.

The key tension and excitement comes from the "race against the clock" we know Gandalf will show up and save the day but will he show up in time? Will they be able to hold out? What will it cost them?

When you are writing a scene like that the "excitement" that the viewer/reader is supposed to feel is related to their feelings and identification with the characters, the stakes involved and what it means for the future of the story.

Helms Deep.

Characters : Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli in the heat of battle. Theoden growing as a King and leader of his people. Gandalf proving himself to be reliable and dependable (by saving the day). Eomer forgiving his father and coming back to save his people.

Stakes : The Orc army will destroy the city, kill the women and children, Saruman will have a stronger hand as the story progresses. We understand why they must be stopped.

Consequences : If the good guys win we know that Aragorn and Theoden will become stronger characters. We honestly wonder "what the f is gonna happen NEXT". The battle gets us invested in whats coming up next so we have a genuine anticipation (excitement).

The Battle Of The Five Armies.

The battle starts with nobody we directly care about being actually involved. Dain is introduced so quickly, Thranduil is portrayed as some kind of a-hole up to this point, Bolg and Azog are not fleshed out beyond "big scary orcs". Bard has already had his major character moment by defeating Smaug.

When this battle kicks off... where is the excitement? What are the stakes? Who is involved? What can be lost? Why must "our" characters win? What are the potential consequences of this battle?

Seriously though, how does one get excited by this? It's, as I keep saying, nothing more than cool pictures of big fantasy armies squaring off against each other. Fan art.

This is the crux of the problem I think. There is just no weight to the Hobbit films. You just don't really care what happens. This is compounded even more by the fact it's so CGI heavy. As someone who hasnt read the books, Im assuming the reason for this is that Jackson had wonderful source material to simply lift from the pages and put on the screen when it came to the LOTR films. All the character arcs and developement were there, they just needed a little sexing up to bring them to the film format. Whereas with the Hobbit, he is working with a children's book, with much lighter themes. The darkness and threat which is always present in the first trilogy just isnt there this time. When you top this off by reducing the focus on makeup and prosthetics and go completely over the top with CGI, this is what you're left with. The final nail in the coffin is this trilogy coming after the Superhero mania of the last 10 years. So now everything has to go boom all of the time, as spectacularly as possible.

Thank Christ the LOTR got made when it did IMO.

Dan_Solo · 17-12-2014 4:51pm

Agricola wrote: »

Have yet to see the 3rd film, but after reading this thread I can't summon the will to even bother to go see it. Im seriously considering waiting for the blu ray. I never thought a PJ directed Middle Earth film would get that response from me.

This is the crux of the problem I think. There is just no weight to the Hobbit films. You just don't really care what happens. This is compounded even more by the fact it's so CGI heavy. As someone who hasnt read the books, Im assuming the reason for this is that Jackson had wonderful source material to simply lift from the pages and put on the screen when it came to the LOTR films. All the character arcs and developement were there, they just needed a little sexing up to bring them to the film format. Whereas with the Hobbit, he is working with a children's book, with much lighter themes. The darkness and threat which is always present in the first trilogy just isnt there this time. When you top this off by reducing the focus on makeup and prosthetics and go completely over the top with CGI, this is what you're left with. The final nail in the coffin is this trilogy coming after the Superhero mania of the last 10 years. So now everything has to go boom all of the time, as spectacularly as possible.

Thank Christ the LOTR got made when it did IMO.

No, the real problem is that Jackson insists on adding things to The Hobbit which aren't in the book at all, whereas he had it all laid out for him in LOTR.
So while the kill-smaug-rehouse-dwarves central story is still intact, Jackson simply isn't good enough a writer to add in extra Legolas/Lake Town politics/interspecies love interest in any way that it'll matter a damn to what was already there.

Mizu_Ger · 17-12-2014 5:15pm

Falthyron wrote: »

Less likely to get headaches though! If 48fps had been the standard from the beginning of major film releases nobody would ever think to drop down to 24fps. Too many people are now familiar with the 24fps style and blur when the camera pans, and feel that is a standard or typical of film, that it will take a lot for 48fps to catch-on.

I've found that while it is distracting initially, my eyes/brain quickly get used to it and I don't notice it anymore. But it does (ironically) make things look artificial in these films.

I watched the blu-ray of Oklahoma a while back. It has the 30fps (Todd-AO) version along with the 24fps and I thought it looked great. Looks a little smoother, but doesn't loose the look of film.

It's hard to tell if it's the higher fps or the mix of that with digital (ie. grainless, smooth image) that makes The Hobbit's picture feel weird. Michael Mann's Public Enemies has a similar feel for me, but that was all down to the "digitalness" of the picture not the fps.

Mokuba · 17-12-2014 6:26pm

Couldn't believe how bad this was - like Phantom Menace level bad.

Some reasons why -

1. The fact that they tacked on the proper end of the 2nd movie onto the start of this one

2. Bilbo barely did anything.

3. Too many characters nobody cared about, like that Wormtongue-lite character.

4. Anything Legolas related was awful.

5. Anytime the word "war" was mentioned, it was preceded by a 5 second pause for dramatic effect.

6. A massive war with characters we don't really care about. The dwarves were never developed properly, and Thorin (who we are supposed to root for) spends the entire movie being a d*ck, threatening the protagonist and whatnot. The elves are either d*cks, or Legolas.

7. Tone. Tone. Tone. Peter Jackson does not understand tone. The tonal shifts in this movie are so awkward and abrupt that I can't believe the same guy made the original trilogy.

Dan_Solo · 17-12-2014 6:29pm

Mokuba wrote: »

The elves are either d*cks, or Legolas.

There's definitely an inverse elf law to go with that ninja one!

Heroditas · 17-12-2014 7:33pm

Going to see it tomorrow. Can't wait... well, maybe I can...

johnny_ultimate · 17-12-2014 7:48pm

Mizu_Ger wrote: »

It's hard to tell if it's the higher fps or the mix of that with digital (ie. grainless, smooth image) that makes The Hobbit's picture feel weird. Michael Mann's Public Enemies has a similar feel for me, but that was all down to the "digitalness" of the picture not the fps.

The lack of grain is definitely something that stood out when I watched Unexpected Journey in HFR, and had a detrimental effect.

The key issue with HFR and crystal clear digital imagery for me is that cinema has traditionally not been a mere window into reality. The look of cinema - the grain, the colouring, even the distinctive speed - has always helped us suspend disbelief. When it comes to things like sets and SFX, it helps mask their 'fakeness', and when you have HFR and 4K or higher photography, a lot of the falseness becomes much more obvious. It, for lack of a better, makes me intimately aware of the fact I am watching a bunch of actors running around a set - a feeling I simply do not get when films use a more traditionally cinematic aesthetic. Yes there are some benefits like smoother panning, but the drawbacks are IMO, in this case anyway, more damaging.

I'm sure I'll adjust when - maybe even if - more directors start experimenting with form and the technology improves. I'm not a technophobe by any means :pac: I mentioned documentaries - films that do try to offer a window into reality - as an example of something where there is undoubtedly potential, and I'm sure some creative fiction film director will do something impressive too. But IMO The Hobbit was just about as wrong a choice to introduce the tech with as I can imagine. A lot of cinema's quirks and idiosyncrasies are not something to be cast off, but exactly the things that have made so many of us so interested and excited about the medium. Some of it is nostalgia and the safety of familiarity, sure, but 24FPS, grain, the celluloid look and all those other century old features are IMO fundamental aspects of what makes film great. Obviously new technology offers us new opportunities, but that by no means we should try to fix what isn't broken.

david75 · 17-12-2014 8:56pm

Jackson only had two things to do with these films to make them awesome and match them to LOTR

Make Smaug incredible. He screwed that up by dragging him into the third movie and almost immediately wiping him out without so much as a blink.

But mainly, setting up Sauron...The whole encounter at Dol Goldur should have been the real centerpiece to this film, if they truly wanted to link these to LOTR AND set up Sauron properly..they fail at this miserably..Saruman. It's not explained or shown at all how he turns against them/comes into cahoots with Sauron.
and!
Sauron 'fleeing' is the most god awful poorly executed piece of crap you'll ever see on a screen.

No amount of tinkering and adding in the extended editions will help this.

17-12-2014 10:27pm

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The lack of grain is definitely something that stood out when I watched Unexpected Journey in HFR, and had a detrimental effect.

The key issue with HFR and crystal clear digital imagery for me is that cinema has traditionally not been a mere window into reality. The look of cinema - the grain, the colouring, even the distinctive speed - has always helped us suspend disbelief. When it comes to things like sets and SFX, it helps mask their 'fakeness', and when you have HFR and 4K or higher photography, a lot of the falseness becomes much more obvious. It, for lack of a better, makes me intimately aware of the fact I am watching a bunch of actors running around a set - a feeling I simply do not get when films use a more traditionally cinematic aesthetic. Yes there are some benefits like smoother panning, but the drawbacks are IMO, in this case anyway, more damaging.

I'm sure I'll adjust when - maybe even if - more directors start experimenting with form and the technology improves. I'm not a technophobe by any means :pac: I mentioned documentaries - films that do try to offer a window into reality - as an example of something where there is undoubtedly potential, and I'm sure some creative fiction film director will do something impressive too. But IMO The Hobbit was just about as wrong a choice to introduce the tech with as I can imagine. A lot of cinema's quirks and idiosyncrasies are not something to be cast off, but exactly the things that have made so many of us so interested and excited about the medium. Some of it is nostalgia and the safety of familiarity, sure, but 24FPS, grain, the celluloid look and all those other century old features are IMO fundamental aspects of what makes film great. Obviously new technology offers us new opportunities, but that by no means we should try to fix what isn't broken.

You all sound like those lads stuck in the past loving records over better quality digital music

david75 · 17-12-2014 11:14pm

ooooouch
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies Is Final Proof That Peter Jackson Has Lost His Soul
http://www.vulture.com/2014/12/movie-review-the-hobbit-battle-of-the-five-armies.html?mid=facebook_nymag

johnny_ultimate · 17-12-2014 11:17pm

As much as I love the look of proper 35 or 70mm, I'm not even talking just about celluloid. I'm all for digital cameras - there's a lot of extremely capable, very impressive ones out there. I'm all for digital projection, even if I don't want it to supersede traditional projection completely

. And I love that digital cameras are offering people the opportunity to make films that would otherwise have been impossible. Films like Leviathan:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2wNiJt-I6U

None of that really factors into my opinion that The Hobbit's HFR was a misjudged distraction, though

davidrowe · 18-12-2014 1:17am

david75 wrote: »

Jackson only had two things to do with these films to make them awesome and match them to LOTR

Make Smaug incredible. He screwed that up by dragging him into the third movie and almost immediately wiping him out without so much as a blink.

But mainly, setting up Sauron...The whole encounter at Dol Goldur should have been the real centerpiece to this film, if they truly wanted to link these to LOTR AND set up Sauron properly..they fail at this miserably..Saruman. It's not explained or shown at all how he turns against them/comes into cahoots with Sauron.
and!
Sauron 'fleeing' is the most god awful poorly executed piece of crap you'll ever see on a screen.

No amount of tinkering and adding in the extended editions will help this.

I agree that the Dol Guldur storyline was a real missed opportunity. We should have heard about the imprisonment of Thrain (and Sauron's capture of his ring) in the first film. And also something (perhaps in the second film) about Sauron's possible plans for Smaug. That might be addressed in The Book of Lost Tales as opposed to the Appendices. But Jackson could have "made up" something "similar", if necessary.

david75 · 18-12-2014 1:24am

Ive just put on disc 2 of fellowship randomly and realised something we all know. The score in LOTR adds SO much to the whole thing. You're looking at amazing helicopter shots on mountainsides but that's not what comes in. It's the music, rousing and powerful, down to Gandalf at the walls of Moria, warning Frodo about the effect of the ring on the others, subtle and effective.
The score was hugely important in the LOTR films. And sadly none of the hobbit films have a score that conjures those feelings or helps imply what you are meant to be feeling, in anything like the same way. Real loss.

eviltimeban · 18-12-2014 8:42am

Saw it last night and wanted to walk out after about 20 minutes. The frame rate was ridiculous. I felt like I was watching a TV documentary with a cheaply made reenactment of some battle scene. Totally took me out of the movie and I could barely enjoy it.

As for the movie itself, no plot, dreadful acting, battle scene after battle scene that we've seen before.

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

Comments