- Last post
- 30 Responses
You guys bitch too much. I thought it was pretty good.
Gravity as someone mentioned above is another example of a film that is heavily reliant on effects, but you don't even notice because they are a seamless part of the experience. There's really no reason why The Hobbit had to be any more effects-intense or over the top than say, Game of a Thrones, which is a similar genre and also comes off as naturalistic. With a lot of recent Hollywood films it feels like they are just trying to crank it to 11 with the action sequences - like the movie is storyboarded by a fifteen year old or something. The overall effect is boring instead of exciting.
- Game of thrones looks really cheap and crappy in my opinionmarychain
- well game of thrones you're invested in the characters and story. I think Jackson's take on the hobbit is seriously flawed.inteliboy
- Most people like GOT though despite the more limited scaleukit2
I think the issue with the endless CG (the crappy stuff) is that the goal of effects used to be to suspend disbelief, now it's just to show cool stuff, and they almost WANT it to have a CG look rather than strive for more realism. Why does 1993 Jurassic Park's CG dinos look better than most stuff today? Far too much CG for the budget/timeframe to do well, or it is simply that they actually want that fake aesthetic?
For the Hobbit, why does Golum look and move pretty good, but Legolas looks like a rag doll in CG? Legolas suffered the same fate in ROTK, so is it intentional? Is CG still unable to replicate realistic movement without aid of capture suits?
I found the cd in this movie to be tolerable. It wasnt obnoxious like it was in Superman. That movie was fucking awful and the cg was so bad. Every time he fought those 3 enemies in back it looked so terrible. Peter Jackson is good at this stuff, Zack Snyder is not.
talking about CG, the latest superman was a CG fest towards the end... sorry, i know this is about The hobbit, i am too getting annoyed with all the CG. i understand that to push the boundaries they can only do so with CG but... its getting a bit meh!
if you have a problem with cg, then i don't understand why the hobbit is the film that pisses you off...take a look at shortlisted films for vfx oscars: none of them except gravity and hobbit is actually trying to be a movie in my opinion...i understand hating cg or having a problem with it but then you should take a look at transformers, avengers, pacific rim,spiderman and all the other crap people make just to show off cg...hobbit and lotr is in my opinion a different class then those movies...but that's just me...
- i disagree on Avengers. Highly entertaining and satisfying use of sfx i think, when Transformers was just pointless destruction and eye-candy intended to look so complex that it loses its appeal.spl33nidoru
- and eye-candy intended to look so complex that it loses its appeal. The Avengers fight scene had a lot of punch. Great sound design too imho.spl33nidoru
- sound design too to carry them imho.spl33nidoru
I am very satisfied lately to hear younger people around me say they are getting sick of too many CG effects. If even the late teens and 20s are feeling fatigue and simply having overblown effects can't draw crowds, then maybe can see a more restrained balance of CG and practical effects... or simply less effects in general.
Nolan's Batman's and the LOTR trilogy has come up several times as a preferred experience (with exception to some primitive CG in LOTR) in the that they demonstrate a balance of both types of effects.
- * in that theyETM
- Hating on CG is just a scapegoat. It's all in the storytelling, too much vfx or not.inteliboy
- No, the CG is a scapegoat, in lieu of solid film making or storytelling.ETM
- But you can have a great film, with heaps of CG.... Look at Gravity for example.inteliboy
- CG or no CG -- it's the story that counts.inteliboy
- I agree. Problem is CG is a crutch that is far too commonly used.ETM
- < yep. Gravity is a simple powerful story told using CG - its usually the reversefadein11
yep, they would have been much better making it just one film, or maybe 2.. but stretching 3 out of it.. just a waste of time.
also the HFR looks weird. I find it way too distracting. you never get the sense of being immersed in a film, more like watching one of those demo videos played at shops to show off the new HD screens
It was better than the first one, but suffered from the same problem of trying to create an epic story out of a short children's book. I thought the best part was the beginning, the shapeshifter and forest scenes before they got too carried away with big action sequences and stuff flying around in 3D.
The original LOTR movies created a world that was fantasy but still felt real. This felt more like being inside a video game.
One thing you can say for sure, Tolkein would have hated it.
I heard they're going to make six movies out of the back flap of the book.
Is it me or was the CG crapp in this one? Especially the scenes with the liquid gold?
interesting. I just finished the movie and there's this thread.
"The movies either come in on a portable hard drive or if you have a server they can be zapped to you via a secure satellite connection. You also need a key file to unlock the encryption on the movie file. "
Impressive...and yet it didn't stop them
Yeah who was the douche that said this movie has no heart? Fast forward to 1:50. This movie was pretty great.
I enjoyed this one a lot
it wasnt great, it wasn't shit. it was boring, and like the first hobbit, i nodded off in more than one place.
i went more for the lady, she likes this stuff, which is cool as i dont get dragged to see shitty chick flicks...
better than the first. evengeline lily as an elf is frikkin hot! but i want to break out laughing every time they do a profile shot of orlando bloom
Started crappy. Got good. Ended short.