The Glade 4.0

My problems with the Hobbit trilogy are manifold, but almost all stem from two terrible decisions at the outset that trickled down into every other facet of the filmmaking: 1) the oft-remarked-upon decision to split a slim tome into three ridiculously bloated films, and 2) shooting at 48 FPS.

The decision to trilogify it was a financial windfall for sure, but creatively, it meant that the entire enterprise lost any semblance of focus, and was packed to the gills with a miscellany of plot threads, none of which really felt part of a central work. I get that Jackson knew neither he nor anyone else would probably ever return to Middle-earth in our lifetimes, due to Christopher Tolkien's Christopher Tolkien-ness. Wanting to take a victory lap and do an end-run around the vagaries of intellectual property laws are both things with which I don't have any particular problem. But it didn't feel like Jackson's heart was in the execution of this go-round (something supported by the fact that he tried to not direct them, and only wound up doing so after being basically forced by the producers).

That second bit, the high frame rate, necessitated the junking of the practical effects that Jackson put to such sterling use in the first trilogy. Here's a pretty good breakdown of the missteps caused by that single poor commitment.

That said, the whole enterprise still held just enough magic, and was generally so damned genial that I can't understand those who hate it. Sure, it's a houseguest that overstays its welcome (by a substantial margin). But there are far worse films out there, and at the end of it all, we got a kickass dragon and an amazing battle sequence/film out of it. It's not ideal, but there are certainly worse ways to spend nine hours (reading Tolkien comes to mind).

That actually sounds a lot like my defense of the prequels, lol.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Actually, it reads a lot like my mother in a restaurant that has a smoking section. She can't smell any smoke, the smoking section may be empty for all she knows, but because she's intellectually aware that the smoking section exists, she insists she can smell cigarette smoke.

I am referring primarily to the Cracked.com article. I want the five minutes of my life back that I spent reading that drivel.

So I watched the first movie in a theater in 3D. I missed the second, and since I'm behind, I haven't caught the third, either. However, that first movie looked phenomenal. Some hack writer disagreeing with the artistic direction to get published on the internet doesn't change that, nor does Ian McKellan crying on the set because he's surrounded by a sea of green.

Honestly, computers are vastly more powerful than they were when Peter Jackson made Lord of the Rings. CGI will be used for more things, and it's only going to become more prevalent. All of the critics in the world bemoaning not seeing beautiful, gorgeous New Zealand isn't going to change that. Art has changed. It is less photography and painting, and more 3D modeling. We stopped using foam and rubber suits a while back, too. Maybe in our lifetime, we'll stop using live actors entirely and they'll either do voice work or go back to Broadway.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

I went I was generally pleased, perhaps the joy of no expectations. as far as the whole cgi thing: I don't think its fair to bemoan the advances that makr this series possible

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I thought it was about as good as the first movie in the trilogy, the second being my least favorite, but overall the entire Hobbit trilogy was too long and "too much of a good thing". It seemed like for every additional movie that was released based on these Tolkien books, I grew more and more tired of Peter Jackson's mediocre direction.

I saw it over the weekend and it sadly seems that Jackson has been corrupted by the Lucas effect. He has been so successful that apparently no one is willing or able to tell him no anymore. There is no one to challenge him when he goes over the top and into the excessive, obnoxious or ridiculous.

The imagery in all the films is second to none but they have suffered overall due to the bloat and continual one upsmanship.

Unlike Lucas, critics and audiences alike are generally approving of Jackson's work with the Hobbit. Combined with phenomenal box-office success, there's not very many people who are going to consider these movies a failure.

Seriously, there's generally two ways of looking at movies - public appeal, or critical appeal. That's really it. Occasionally movies get both. The Hobbit isn't Oscar material like LotR was, but it's still keeping most of the critics happy, in addition to TBoFA being on pace for well over a billion in gross box-office sales. I fully get your complaints. I don't like Tolkien as a writer, and (with a couple reservations) loved the LotR movies. I have liked The Hobbit movies, but they aren't nearly as good as the originals. But you know what? They're making Warner Brothers giant piles of cash, and not getting scathing reviews for it to sully their reputation, so complaints will fall on justifiably deaf ears.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Saw it. Enjoyed it. Watching a dwarf army fight is worth the ticket price alone.

I liked these movies far, far more than LOTR. There. I said it.

And I'll also say that anyone who disapproves of the HFR can never, ever say "I believe movies should be watched the way the director intended," ever again. It's not for everyone, and I can understand that. But it is the next logical step to push the medium forward. I've already witnessed it get refined between the three movies, and I'm sure it could be refined even moreso.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

Spurious "argument". Disapproving of a directorial choice like HFR is the same as disapproving of any other directorial choice, such as casting, lighting, or allowing a particular line read.

Should it be viewed as the director intended? Yes. Does that choice have a value associated with it? Also yes, and it can be approved of by audiences or damned. HFR fell into the latter camp and was roundly shunned. Should the Hobbit films still be watched in 48fps? If available, yes. Balancing the financial resources necessary for return on investment, however, means that it won't be, anytime soon; HFR has been so roundly condemned by the general public that there's no call to make it available on a consumer level, and nearly as little call to equip more theaters with the playout ability.

You shut your dirty whore mouth.

Also, I could probably read all of the Hobbit in 9 hours...

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

There's no way the hobbit takes 9 hours to read. I'm fairly sure I would be done the Hobbit midway through Desolation if people in the next room were doing a 3 movie hobbit marathon.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Watched the final movie today and... it was okay. Rolled my eyes so hard they fell out when the gritty Legolas lookalike rested a black arrow on his son's shoulder with a 200lb bowstring right at his neck. Got them put back in my skull just in time to be disappointed by Beorn's two second appearance... and yes, I had to Google "hobbit bear man" to remember his name.

Hey, same here! Hooray for MLK and the kids out of school ....

Much the same reaction. I really wanted the kid to have at least part of his ear shorn off by one of the vanes. Or a big gash on his shoulder. This is why they don't let me make movies.

And, yeah, the whole Beorn appearance was a flop, considering that I really didn't remember what he looked like. When he got dropped off the back of the eagle, I thought it was a goblin or something at first. Then I realized who he was, and was looking forward to some bear-ass kicking, but it was really not to be. I was also disappointed that the Dwarves, Elves and Men didn't get to duke it out first. And ... and ... OK, I'll stop. I did enjoy watching it, so long as I could put aside my own conceptions of what it should look like.

But, damn it, there was no "Baruk khazad! Khazad ai menu!" That's a pretty massive fail in my book, right there (although maybe one of those Dwarves said it somewhere, I can hope).

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

So, for the record: magic, trolls, dragons, immortal elves, all are fine. But giant bows and kids aren't.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!