The Hobbit

[Meds]

Just come back from my little cinema and I really enjoyed the film. Loved the additional characters, it added to the feel of the film. Irritating ending but that's not a critique it's just because I really want the third one.

[Bromptonboy]

The 3rd film is to be called:  The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

[Ktrek]

I have to say that I've been disappointed with the Hobbit films. The first one just dragged on and on for me and I couldn't wait for it to be over. The Desolation of Smaug I enjoyed more but the CGI in both films was not as good as the Lord of the Ring trilogy, and often it just looked downright fake to me, and made me feel like I was watching a long video game instead of an epic film. Also many scenes looked like sets and not real places and I have had a hard time enjoying the films because of it. Out of the two films so far the scenes with Smaug had the best CGI though but many of the action scenes are just laughable. I wish Peter Jackson could have captured the magic of LOTR as I really love those three films. The first Hobbit film I would give 2 out of 5 stars and the second one 3 1/2 at best but closer to a 3 overall.

Kevin

[ChrisMC]

I can't really agree with you...I didn't notice any glaring effects problems. I think that Gollum in the first film looked even better than in the LOTR films.

[Ktrek]

That's OK Chris. I might be more critical than the average viewer because I'm a big film buff and run a site for fans of classic films. What's obvious to me may not be to others. However, when I compare the sfx of the Hobbit films to the recent Marvel films or even something like Pacific Rim it looks cheesy to me. The transitions from CGI to live action in many instances looked unnatural. In any case I believe that far better work was done by Peter Jackson on Lord of the Rings (even if Gollum might have looked slightly better in The Hobbit).

Kevin

[Rico]

I'm with Chris - the effects looked very good in "The Hobbit" films.  These are fantasy creations so there really is no good way to compare them to something real.  Oh, and I think we are all pretty big film buffs here and are quite well versed in CGI, and film effect techniques.  So, I think it comes down to the eye of the beholder - to a degree.

[X]

Yeah, I'm pretty critical, but I'm not seeing any issues. My father once told me that problems you go looking for are often the problems that you find. When we don't like something, our mind can and does over compensate to justify our reasons to not like it.

For one, I think that if you like the classic film effects, these really can't be that bad because on a bad day, they are significantly more believable that almost all of the "classic" films.

[Ktrek]

Yeah, I'm pretty critical, but I'm not seeing any issues. My father once told me that problems you go looking for are often the problems that you find. When we don't like something, our mind can and does over compensate to justify our reasons to not like it.

For one, I think that if you like the classic film effects, these really can't be that bad because on a bad day, they are significantly more believable that almost all of the "classic" films.

But I am not using classic film effects as the standard. I place films within their proper time frame and setting. I am however comparing it to LOTR and as far as I'm concerned the sfx are not as good. Many scenes look like they were filmed on stage sets, which I know is true, but these type of movies are supposed to help you suspend belief. Perhaps you need to watch the films on a 60 inch LED to see what I'm talking about? I don't know I just know that the sfx in Avengers, Iron Man, Pacific Rim, Star Trek Into Darkness etc. etc. look far more real. The action scenes are especially distracting because there is a morphing effect that is so obvious when the characters are CGI and when it's live action and back again. I just think that LOTR set the bar quite high and these two films never quite reach there and definitely don't exceed it.  I also think these films would be way better if they were about 20% shorter and more tightly edited.

Kevin

[Bryancd]

I think in general, there were simply less and less complicated CG vs. live action in LOTR vs. The Hobbit. I also think LOTR relied on more actual location filming whereas more of the Hobbot's environemnts are computer generated, they visit a lot of fantastical places going there and back again. And it likely saved them $.

[Bromptonboy]

Sounds like the Extended Edition Desolation Of Smaug is coming out with 25 more minutes of extended film.

[Meds]

Bring me those 25 mins now!!!!

[Bromptonboy]

Yeah, I'll hate myself for doing it, but I will probably buy this as well..

[Meds]

Yeah I held off knowing the extended edition would be out. Can't wait for all those extras.

[ChrisMC]

Yeah I held off knowing the extended edition would be out. Can't wait for all those extras.

My wife and I love those, going way back to the LOTR EEs. It's like a reality show of the making of a movie. I get lost in them.

[Bromptonboy]

Yes, I love that as well.  I hate spending the $'s but I will never the less..  ;)