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

Falthyron

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

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...

johnny_ultimate

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mokuba wrote: »

The elves are either d*cks, or Legolas.

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

Heroditas

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

johnny_ultimate

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

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.

johnny_ultimate

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

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

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

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

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

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.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

I agree with pretty much all the criticism here. Another small gripe of mine is when thorin and the bald dwarf are looking for azog near the frozen waterfall why is it that goblins have to make an appearance? The orcs were doing a grand job bashing the ****e out of everything and all of a sudden we have added goblins? It kinda encapsulates one of the major thought processes behind the film, where pj decides to throw in cool looking gimmicks for no real reason other than to have them there.

adox

Loved the original trilogy, watched the first Hobbit movie and was bored to tears, which has put me off watching the other two.

eviltimeban

I loved the first one, but I didn't see in 48fps (though it was 3D). I own it on DVD and have watched it many times. The first part is great, the "recruitment" section, and then setting off - great, here we go, adventure.

2nd one I thought was pretty good, a bit laboured, not as much fun. I saw that in normal FPS as well.

I don't know if my thoughts would've been different with the 3rd one if I'd seen it in either 2D or normal frame rate; all I know is I hated every minute of watching it. I may have liked it more if I'd seen it 24fps.

pinkypinky

Many people have already said the things I want to say but I have to vent. It should never have been 3 films: there's a strong case to be made for one long film but greed was always going to win out over quality.

Didn't really care about any of the dwarves - only ever managed to remember 3 of their names, so interchangeable were they. The introduction of CGI Billy Connolly was beyond weird and too short to care whether he lived or died.

Legolas - well, he's still a bad-ass but some of those fights were utterly ridiculous, and had no weight because we know he lives. Also, seriously, it's supposed to take him 60 years to find Aragorn?!

No resolution for Tauriel. While the love triangle was awful, such a mistake in a kids' movie, I didn't mind the introduction of her character. Are we supposed to think she just died of a broken heart?

Bilbo totally sidelined for a 45 mins battle. I actually fell asleep for 20 mins of it.

Smaug should have been finished in the second movie, but that opener was the only bit of this film that held my attention.

And that final scene in the Shire, I wanted to cry that there was yet more to get through before I could leave (my driver would never leave early).

Summary: 3/10, massively bloated, CGI heavy, waste of time. But it'll make a shed load of money so they'll count it as a success. Middle movie was the best for me 6/10 and 5/10 for the first, which needed at least 45 mins cut from it.

mcgooch

Deleted User wrote: »

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

If you really believe digital offers a better quality sound than analog it shows you know very little, if anything at all, about the subject.

eviltimeban

mcgooch wrote: »

If you really believe digital offers a better quality sound than analog it shows you know very little, if anything at all, about the subject.

Unless he's being ironic.

mcgooch

mcgooch wrote: »

If you really believe digital offers a better quality sound than analog it shows you know very little, if anything at all, about the subject.

Go on then educate me how hissy (Warm) records are better

valoren

david75 wrote: »

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.

Very true. I can't think of any piece of music from the first two movies off the top of my head, except for the company of dwarves theme (which was an ode to the fellowship theme).

I have the same theory about the original Star Wars trilogy. It wouldn't have been half as successful with an adequate, run of the mill sci fi score. I believe John Williams' score was integral to it's success in the same vein as Howard Shore's work on the LOTR trilogy was. I haven't watched the trilogy for a few years but the Shire theme, Rivendell, the Fellowship theme, Gondor, Rohan et al are still all in head

eviltimeban

Deleted User wrote: »

Go on then educate me how hissy (Warm) records are better

Not the right thread.

eviltimeban

eviltimeban wrote: »

Not the right thread.

PM then or in audio forum?