Samtemdo8 said:
So whats the point of you saying I am entitled to my opinion and then you say the Hobbit movies are bad like it was a fact? How am I supposed to feel and answer about that?
Okay, so what I said was that you are allowed to like whatever movies you want. People like the Bayformers movies, people like the Twilight movies. People like horrible B-movies from the 80s. There are lots of reasons to like or enjoy a piece of art without it being "good".
However, that does not change the fact that on the technical standpoint, the hobbit movies are not great. They have great bits. Some of the actors do a great job (although some do not), some of the visual effects are nice (although some are not). I would go so far as to say that for how incredibly rushed these movies are and how much studio interference there was, it's actually a miracle they aren't worse, it's a credit to the improvisational skills of Peter Jackson and the production team, but they aren't
good movies.
People still talk about the Lord of the Rings movies and get excited about them a decade and a half down the line. People study them to learn how to make movies. In a decade and a half, noone will care about the Hobbit movies.
Like, whatever you feel about Guillermo del Toro as a filmmaker (he's made some stinky movies, but some of his films are rightly acclaimed and he has a very strong sense of visual aesthetic which clearly influenced the hobbit production). He at least
wanted to make this movie. He was excited for it, he had a clear artistic vision for it and he spent over a year pre-producing it.
Samtemdo8 said:
How is this considered a "BAD" movie again? And how did it looked pretty horrible the 48 FPS? I am amazed we had scenes like from a troubled production at all.
So, let's start with the 48fps because it's pretty clear cut.
At 24fps, the illusion of motion is enough to trick your eyes, but it isn't perfect. This means films have to be shot with a little bit of motion blur to compensate. The main appeal of 48fps is that you can get a very, very high resolution image without motion blur or shutter flicker. In a really good, really expensive production this could be cool. It would make jaw dropping CGI look even more jaw dropping (although it's significantly more expensive to do CGI in 48fps). In this production, there are many, many scenes where, when you saw it in a theatre, it just looks like they're on a set.
Even the CGI in those movies is very mixed. Some of it looks downright video gamey. Look at the first clip you posted. It looks okay in very low quality youtube format, but even here there's a clear disconnect between the CGI and the real actors in makeup. Imagine that in a huge movie screen at high resolution, and it's just going to look like a Blizzard cutscene.
But really, the visuals are not the biggest problem with this movie. The biggest problem is the structure and the story.
The story of the hobbit is a short, simple and quite whimsical story about a journey to reclaim a mountain from a dragon, during which its titular character discovers things about himself. Thematically, it's about how even the smallest person can still be important. It is not an epic action fantasy, and it does not suit being adapted into one. It has nothing really to do with the Lord of the Rings except that one random item Bilbo finds in the hobbit becomes a plot device in the Lord of the Rings, and a few characters like Gollum and Gandalf recur. It is tonally distinct in that it is more childlike, but also narratively distinct in that it is a small scale story. Even at the end when there is a big battle, Tolkien literally has Bilbo knocked unconscious because
the battle isn't important to the story.
The hobbit movies have no coherent structure. They have no single story. Instead, they have a bunch of stories mashed together in a way which bizarrely ends up ripping the guts out of the original story so that we can have romance subplots (because we need to trick and patronise women into seeing this movie) and big battle scenes like in lord of the rings and HEY KIDS ITS LEGOLAS and he's so wicked cool and overpowered that he can defy gravity now! Woo, watch out for spooky Sauron! You know who he is because you've seen Lord of the Rings. Does he actually do anything in this story? Lol, no, but he's here and that's important. Oh, and we've got a CGI orc because we need a villain to provide the climax of the first movie since we have to split it into three parts. Anyway, who cares about some interchangeable dwarves and shit. They're not important characters, well except the hot one because he tells a hot elf lady about what he has in his trousers and that's
sexual chemistry.
Snark aside, that simple story is gone. It's dead. It's buried under the weight of all these pointless subplots and alternative stories which don't contribute narrative or thematically to what should be the main plot and ultimately rob the main plot of sufficient time to actually develop.
You know, if I were to pick moments of the movie which made me most happy and most excited and which took me back to being a tiny child learning to read this book with my parents sitting by my bed pointing out the words for me, take a look at the scenes in the first movie with the Dwarves, Gandalf and Bilbo in Bag End. Look at the tone of those scenes. They are not amazing scenes, but notice that they do not feel like anything out of the Lord of the Rings, because those scenes are an adaptation of the Hobbit. Virtually nothing else in these movies is.