Peter Jackson is the new George Lucas

It hurts to admit it, but it's true. He's making pretty much all the same mistakes GL did with the prequel films. There's so much CGI that everything looks very fake - more like a cartoon or a video game than a live action movie. The LOTR movies look so good overall after ~10 years because of how much they didn't use CGI, whereas this new movie already looks outdated. It's really stunning how much worse the orcs look in this movie than they did in LOTR.

The Goblin City is blatantly imitative of an amusement park ride. Characters get thrown around in the air and bridges collapse onto slides. It's absolutely ridiculous. This is obviously just a marketing ploy so they can build some theme park ride later. Jackson seems more interested in franchise marketability than artistic integrity.

I understand that The Hobbit is a children's book, but that is not an excuse for snot humor, that thing they called Radagast, and the countless other banalities. The book doesn't have any of the crude pandering to children that this movie does. It is a serious book with serious characters and events, told with an elegant simplicity that allows for children to understand and adults to appreciate as well.

Also it must be said that Azog is like Darth Maul all over again. He's the primary antagonist of the film, and yet none of heroes even know he's alive until the last 20 minutes or so. And then he's forgotten about pretty much as soon as he's dead. He really is a terrible excuse for an antagonist.

The new Hobbit movie is basically the middle-earth equivalent to Episode I.

The Hobbit is still better than Episode 1 despite all this!

as I haven't seen it; I can't attest to that.

Peter Jackson is a bold director who challenges convention and expectations. The status quo is hostile to such people, but they are the true visionaries and artists.Laihendi

but it's hard to believe you're the same person, given the amount of blind faith you gave this director.

The Hobbit is still better than Episode 1 despite all this!

mitu123

Laihendi is equating them on how they seem to be cash grabs. but what makes the hobbit worse is that it's not only a terrible flick, much akin to Star Wars episode 1, but that is also butchered a beloved classic.

Hobbit is a masterpiece, please please don't compare this masterpiece to episode 1 cause you can not understand its not ment to be serious like two towers or return of the king, its ment to be a light hearted adventure. You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. And is that you Venekor?

Hobbit is a masterpiece, please please don't compare this masterpiece to episode 1 cause you can not understand its not ment to be serious like two towers or return of the king, its ment to be a light hearted adventure. You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. And is that you Venekor?

ultimate-k

I have to agree with this

You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. ultimate-k

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. SirWander

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

You havnt't watch the movie so you can't judge at all. Not lowing standards at all, just the Hobbit is a different tone to the LOTRs and he can't accept that. Please don't judge until you actually see the movie for yourself.

You havnt't watch the movie so you can't judge at all. Not lowing standards at all, just the Hobbit is a different tone to the LOTRs and he can't accept that. Please don't judge until you actually see the movie for yourself.ultimate-k

true enough, I haven't seen it. and I don't plan on seeing it.
I've read some of TC's post in other threads about the hobbit, and he seems to know enough to have earned my respect on the subject. But then again I don't know anything about the lore of LOTR outside of the film adaptations.

it's good that you liked it at least. but it having a different tone than what he was expecting does not delegitimize the criticisms that laihendi brought up in the OP.

Hobbit is a masterpiece, please please don't compare this masterpiece to episode 1 cause you can not understand its not ment to be serious like two towers or return of the king, its ment to be a light hearted adventure. You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. And is that you Venekor?

ultimate-k

I think your real complaint it the 48fps.

High frame rates eliminate motion blur and causes CGI elements to stand out more (typically they use blur to blend in)

Just watch it in 24fps if you can't stand the effect you find that the special effects are far greater than LOTR.

Peter Jackson is making movies about books that already exist. So no.

Also it must be said that Azog is like Darth Maul all over again. He's the primary antagonist of the film, and yet none of heroes even know he's alive until the last 20 minutes or so. And then he's forgotten about pretty much as soon as he's dead. He really is a terrible excuse for an antagonist.

Laihendi

[spoiler] Azog didn't die... so he'll continue into the next film, and we're learning his background int he process. Darth Maul on the other hand was a poor excuse as we knew little about him and then he died. Besides, Azog is in the Middle-Earth lore. [/spoiler]

Peter Jackson is making movies about books that already exist. So no.

sonicare

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Peter Jackson is making movies about books that already exist. So no.

Kamekazi_69

I saw The Hobbit last night, and I must say that I loved it. It really lived up to the book in my opinion.

The only meh scenes are the Rivendell ones. The last hour of the movie is the best of all four movies.

HFR is an incredible experience. I will not take any negative opinion seriously. Feel free to enjoy ghosting, juddering, flickering and less details in 24fps. I'm fully on board the HFR train.

Azog is awesome and doesn't die. Stuff like the Goblin King and the trolls is like this in the book. The deus ex machina actually gets really annoying in the book and Jackson improves these scenes.

BTW Azog is played by Manu Bennett, who is Crixus in the Spartacus TV show. I think Peter Jackson specifically wanted him to imitate the way he plays Crixus. It's exactly the same, except that he's a badass orc.

People in suits still play many orcs. Some use performance capture for the heads in order to get more creative designs. The eyes-mouth triangle is pretty restrictive and CGI allows more variety.

How was Mr. Wood ?dave123321

All I am saying is. The hobbit is a very short book. It could be divided in two ,ovies. Three movies will require padding like Twilight has never used before.curono

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. SirWander

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

All I am saying is. The hobbit is a very short book. It could be divided in two ,ovies. Three movies will require padding like Twilight has never used before.curono

if I rewrote LoTR in The Hobbit's style it would be a very short book as well.

And where were the rock giants during LOTR? They could have been useful. And who created them? How are they alive. Ask Tolkien.Personally I consider them to be a sort of "rock ent".

In the book, they could be interpreted metaphorically, Not at all. Gandalf talks about how he "Really must find a more or less decent giant" and get him to block up the hole the goblins came through in the book.

but this was just stupid. 4. The Trolls. In LOTR, trolls couldn't talk. Why should they now? Because they talk in the Hobbit book.Also just because the trolls in LotR don't talk doesn't mean they can't.

brucewayne69

if you're going to nitpick, nitpick on legit things, like Radagast and his sleigh.

[QUOTE="brucewayne69"]

And where were the rock giants during LOTR? They could have been useful. And who created them? How are they alive. Ask Tolkien.Personally I consider them to be a sort of "rock ent".

In the book, they could be interpreted metaphorically, Not at all. Gandalf talks about how he "Really must find a more or less decent giant" and get him to block up the hole the goblins came through in the book.

but this was just stupid. 4. The Trolls. In LOTR, trolls couldn't talk. Why should they now? Because they talk in the book.Also just because the trolls in LotR don't talk doesn't mean they can't.

Storm_Marine

if you're going to nitpick, nitpick on legit things, like Radagast and his sleigh.

personally i thought he did a fantastic job with The Hobbit. but i too was disappointed with CGI. i wished some of the orcs or goblins at least were make up/masks instead of CGI but it's not major problem because the movie was awesome!

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. SirWander

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

The Hobbit isn't a serious tale by any stretch of the imagination. It's not that he should lower his standards, it's that you shouldn't expect what is already a slightly goofy fantasy adventure to be a dark, edgy, and serious quest of self-discovery like the LOTR was.

I'll put it this way:

The Hobbit isn't LOTR. Don't expect it to be a serious journey, because it never was.

[QUOTE="SirWander"]

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You went into the movie expecting LOTR thats your fault not Peter Jackson's. WiiCubeM1

so lowering his standards would have made the movie a more enjoyable experience? That absolutely makes no sense.

With each subsequent release of the LOTR films, the expectations for the next were raised. People expected the Two Towers to be as good if not better than the Fellowship of the Ring. They also expected that Return of the King to be as good if not surpass the bar that was raised by the Two Towers. The fact that not only did those sequels manage to surpass those expectations, but that one of them (Return of the King) is tied with winning the most academy awards is nothing short of an astounding feat.

so I wouldn't begrudge TC just because he didn't lower his standards to fücking braindead

The Hobbit isn't a serious tale by any stretch of the imagination. It's not that he should lower his standards, it's that you shouldn't expect what is already a slightly goofy fantasy adventure to be a dark, edgy, and serious quest of self-discovery like the LOTR was.

[QUOTE="ultimate-k"]You havnt't watch the movie so you can't judge at all. Not lowing standards at all, just the Hobbit is a different tone to the LOTRs and he can't accept that. Please don't judge until you actually see the movie for yourself.SirWander

true enough, I haven't seen it. and I don't plan on seeing it.
I've read some of TC's post in other threads about the hobbit, and he seems to know enough to have earned my respect on the subject. But then again I don't know anything about the lore of LOTR outside of the film adaptations.

it's good that you liked it at least. but it having a different tone than what he was expecting does not delegitimize the criticisms that laihendi brought up in the OP.

Hobbit is a masterpiece

ultimate-k

I'll see the film before a start to draw parallels, but whenever people return to a franchise, that's something I fear happens.

TBH, I know how Lahendi feels. It's not easy to see something you really like take a bad turn. I am yet to see the Hobbit, and I think it will be great, but I felt the same way regarding certain video games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood that I felt totally destroyed the franchise.

TBH, I know how Lahendi feels. It's not easy to see something you really like take a bad turn. I am yet to see the Hobbit, and I think it will be great, but I felt the same way regarding certain video games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood that I felt totally destroyed the franchise.

BossPerson

[QUOTE="BossPerson"]

TBH, I know how Lahendi feels. It's not easy to see something you really like take a bad turn. I am yet to see the Hobbit, and I think it will be great, but I felt the same way regarding certain video games like Assassin's Creed Brotherhood that I felt totally destroyed the franchise.

brucewayne69

AC2 was the only good one.

AC2 was the only good one.

coolbeans90

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

AC2 was the only good one.

BossPerson

Yeah, but I REALLY had to force myself to finish that one. Really, the franchise had a one-hit wonder. Sad, b/c it was p. great while it lasted. I can't fvcking believe I dropped full price for AC3.

I am bitter.

AC2 was the only good one.

coolbeans90

Ubisoft has caused me both great joy and great torment. The bitterness of Warrior Within still lingers in my heart. So to does the abomination of Splinter Cell Conviction. BossPerson