What he hell was Jackson thinking? - The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) Discussion

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 8 years ago

Most importantly, what the heck were the studios thinking about? Peter had to wrap up the Battle of Five Armies to in so short a time. He lost his sleep over it, dammit MGM! 

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Decomposed 8 years ago

The answer is simple:

Peter Jackson is not the same person that made LotR. He has changed. His vision has changed, his passion, his creativity. He simply didn't want to make a gritty and realistic fantasy film again. He wanted something different.

I don't blame him for this. Most people change through their lives. I am much different now at 30 than I was at 20. I am almost a different person myself.

Now imagine living the life of PJ, making movies, becoming a millionaire, gaining world-wide recognition. All these affect a person, his motivations, his desires and his beliefs.

For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3

reply

[–] whusup90201 8 years ago

"I am much different now at 30 than I was at 20. I am almost a different person myself."

Unless you were something like a serious Juvenile delinquent and you had a spiritual event causing a change that completed in your late 20's, you might have a serious problem. What scares me is that you said: "I am almost a different person myself." People slow down somewhat but not where they are completely different.If you are being serious you might want to seek immediate help. My father is a prominent Doctor and he said he see's patients all the time who if they would have come in when the personality change was first being noticed, they could have been saved. You see, personality's are set by the time we are 20. Most of it has been set many years before. A complete change as you indicated is frightening. A Personality change like you indicate can be the beginning stage of several diseases that can be treated more easily early. Now maybe you are leaving something out like you were incarcerated for 10 years or that you were kidnapped and had horrible things done to you. A severe traumatic event can sometimes cause personality changes. If nothing has happened to you, please seek help.

reply

[–] syntinen 8 years ago

A severe traumatic event can sometimes cause personality changes.

So can growing up.

Seriously: at 20 most of us probably thought we were perfectly grown up, but looking back at 30 to our 20-year-old selves we're amazed how green, naive and intolerant we were, and how much our beliefs, values, tastes, interests and ways of dealing with the world have changed. We are different people. Indeed, anybody aged 30 who hadn't changed radically since they were 20 would worry me.

reply

[–] bn_filmz 8 years ago

You're right. But your statement doesn't support Decomposed's claim. In Peter Jackson's case we're not talking about a person who was 20 when he made the Lord of the Rings films. No, he was around 40 years old when he directed the first trilogy .... and he was around 50 when made the Hobbit films.

reply

[–] obtec2001 8 years ago

I disagree with what you are saying. A person at thirty will most likely be more reserved and cautious in his daily life but this guy says: "I am almost a different person myself.". That kind of personality change is indeed indicative of several possible psychosis that can be brought on by a number of different catalyst. I would get checked out. People always wait for more pronounced symptoms like pain, passing out or emotional changes that are so obvious now that you become unemployable and you lose your family. I hope all is well with him.

reply

[–] Decomposed 7 years ago

Now maybe you are leaving something out like you were incarcerated for 10 years or that you were kidnapped and had horrible things done to you. A severe traumatic event can sometimes cause personality changes. If nothing has happened to you, please seek help.

I would get checked out. I hope all is well with him.

Hahaha, it's OK, I'm good guys no need to worry. 😂

You know what I meant, I wasn't talking literally when I said I'm almost a different person at 30 than at 20! Either you people exaggerate or I wasn't clear enough.

I'm still the same person, I'm still shy with women, I'm still a nerd and I still draw comic books. 😝

What I meant was that each of us gets more "mature" as they grow up. We discover new things that we like, we (may) stop smoking pot, we get a better job than pizza-deliver, we meet the woman of our lives... All these affect and change us.

I hope you all agree on the above and just misunderstood what I said.

And to return to the point of this conversation, I believe Jackson has changed. He was a different person when he was an unknown teenager dreaming of making LotR than when he was a multi-millionaire 50-something old man making the Hobbit.

For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3

reply

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

I believe Jackson has changed. He was a different person when he was an unknown teenager dreaming of making LotR than when he was a multi-millionaire 50-something old man making the Hobbit.

But he didn't made the Lord of the Rings films when he was a teenager - he made them when he was 40-something. And there are only 7 years between the premiere of The Return of the King (2003) and his first day as director of The Hobbit (2010).

In other words: Peter Jackson was 42, when he finished The Lord of the Rings. And he was 49, when started pre-production of The Hobbit.

So what you say, doesn't make sense. There is no logic or truth in it.

reply

[–] Otaku-sempai 7 years ago

Decomposed never stated that Jackson made the LotR films when he was a teen; he wrote that Jackson may have first started dreaming of adapting the books way back then. However, Peter Jackson actually did try to get a film-version of The Hobbit off the ground first.

"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella

reply

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

Decomposed never stated that Jackson made the LotR films when he was a teen

Let's look at the context:

The OP Thorshairspray asked how the guy who made the Hobbit films could be the same guy who made the Lord of the Rings films. And Decomposed answered: because Peter Jackson has changed.

So the topic here is not the time that has passed between Peter Jackson's teenage years and the production of The Hobbit. No, it's the time that has passed between the Lord of the Rings films and the Hobbit films. ... We're talking about an alleged changed between 1999-2003 and 2010-2013, so what has Peter Jackson's youth got to do with anything?

And come to think of it: The guy who made the Lord of the Rings films already made it clear back in 2006 that he would expand the Hobbit story, so that it wouldn't just be about Bilbo's journey, but also about "that implied stuff with Gandalf and the White Council and the return of Sauron". He said that he wanted to make it "feel more like The Lord of the Rings and less like this kids book". (Source: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/30085)

And surprise, surprise: That's exactly what the guy who made the Lord of the Rings films, did. 

So now we're left with just 3 years between the release of The Return of the King and Peter Jackson's ideas for an adaptation of The Hobbit ... which makes Decomposed's claim regarding a changed Peter Jackson completely unfounded.

reply

[–] Decomposed 7 years ago

I believe he had more passion and excitement when he made LotR than when he made The Hobbit. My 2 cents. I don't care if what I said is founded or not. It's just my opinion and I think we analysed way too much by now.

Let's move on. 😗

For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3

reply

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

I believe he had more passion and excitement when he made LotR than when he made The Hobbit.

Except that he had NOT.

Here's what he said to the dailybeast.com: "I came away from the end of The Hobbit more excited about making movies than I ever had."

(Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/no-regrets-peter-jackson-says-goodbye-to-middle-earth.html)

So you like LotR better than The Hobbit - that's quite alright. But Peter Jackson did NOT have more passion and excitement when he made LotR than when he made The Hobbit. And that's an indisputable fact, as you can see yourself.

reply

[–] Decomposed 7 years ago

Here's what he said to the dailybeast.com: "I came away from the end of The Hobbit more excited about making movies than I ever had."

(Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/no-regrets-peter-jackson-says-goodbye-to-middle-earth.html)

So you like LotR better than The Hobbit - that's quite alright. But Peter Jackson did NOT have more passion and excitement when he made LotR than when he made The Hobbit. And that's an indisputable fact, as you can see yourself.

Yeah, because all artists including actors, directors, singers, bands etc always tell the truth in interviews, especially when they have to promote their new product.
/sarcasm

For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3

reply

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

Yeah, right, Decomposed! Because all artists always tell lies in interviews, when they have to promote their new product. /sarcasm

What a cheap argument!

reply

[–] Ambianwinediet 7 years ago

god you are simple BN.

artists or those who work on films have a far bigger motivation to only say positive things. if not it'll make the studio mad,who they may want to work with again and may not be able to if they are known for crapping on them. it could lose the studio money, which is a corporation, which in capitalism means they want money... It could also be seen as an insult to his fellows who worked on the film with him

just because they have a motivation to lie, doesnt mean every single time, they "always lie".you can only work in false dilemnas, black and white either ors cant you? like the simpleton you are. is it sad for you to know 18 year old first year philosophy students would tear you apart?

just youtube actors and directors interviews for the top 10 movies you think are garbage. if the interviews exists, i gurantee you in 10/10 of them, they will only have glowing and positive things to say about the film and how great it is and how everyone worked so hard and how much fun they had making it etc etc

BN you are an embarassement

reply

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

You have clearly missed the point here. The topic here is NOT whether the Hobbit movies were good or bad movies. Peter Jackson didn't talk about the quality of the Hobbit movies. He talked about HIS OWN mental state, his own mood during the production of the trilogy. On several occasions he has admitted that he was sick, and that initially he was not at the top of his game, because of certain difficulties (such as time pressure).

His openness and honest regarding these aspects was not - and never has been - a problem in relation to Warner Bros. His statements only concerned HIMSELF, and that also goes for his statement: "I came away from the end of The Hobbit more excited about making movies than I ever had."

The keyword here is: CONTEXT.

Promoting a movie is one thing. To talk about his own feelings regarding movie-making in general is another thing.

reply

[–] Ambianwinediet 7 years ago

no point argueing with BN, he will never concede a single thing no matter how wrong he is.

reply

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

People who disagree with you, are not necessarily "wrong" - no, they just have a different opinion. That's life. Perhaps some day you will realize this.

reply

[–] Ambianwinediet 7 years ago

Bn you have never once conceeded a point in the 2 plus years ive been on here.

anytime someone catches you in a lie or you are wrong you simply say "its a matter of opinion". just like the Dain cgi discussion, where you first said dain was all practical,when clearly shown you were wrong, you slinked away like a rat. then later you changed it to dain only being partly practical, to him being almost not at all practical effects.

You have clearly missed the point here. The topic here is NOT whether the Hobbit movies were good or bad movies.

the arguement i commented on was clearly about actors/ directors involved almost never admitting a film is bad or they did a bad job or they had bad feelings towards a film, THey have all the motivation in the world motivation to be positive even when its a lie.

you act like i cant just look at what we wrote two comments above, and are so focused on changing the entire subject i was clearly commenting on just so you do not have to admit fault, yet again>

in the behind the scenes jackson admits he was under massive pressure rewriting, and that he didnt have a year plus to plan the hobbit like he did with LOTR. instead he was thrown in. This was an admission of difficulties behind the scenes. but ever coming out and saying "it wasnt my best work, and in fact suffered from the lack of time and organization we had". is an admission almost no director will make because as i said, it would anger the studio who wants their film to sell.

maybe grow up BN and admit you are wrong for once.....

reply

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

Congratulation! You and other intolerant people have managed to destroy the message boards with your awful behaviour.

Instead of accepting and embracing the fact that we live in a world of diversity and that it will ALWAYS remain a question of personal taste (and NOT a question of "right" or "wrong", as you claim), you chose to hold the position, that your personal opinions are universal facts.

You and others have been behaving like you were small gods who decide what other people (people like me) are allowed to love. Did you seriously think that the administrators wouldn't notice your intolerance, your bad language, your name-calling and your condescending attitude towards people who disagree with you?

Only intolerant, callous person will treat people with a different opinion on a film as his enemies. Your hostility is pointless and destructive - and now you see the result.

Once again: Congratulation! I guess this is what you always wanted to happen.

reply

[–] infracaninophile 8 years ago

I believe he was thinking that a lot of people would like what he likes, and he was correct in that opinion.

reply

[–] rhoskens 8 years ago

Money. Next question.

reply

[–] Decomposed 8 years ago

Money. Next question.

He was already rich before The Hobbit trilogy. He didn't decide to make 3 mediocre movies just to make more money.

PJ has changed as a person. Just like Lucas. He thinks CGI is the solution to everything.

For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3

reply

[–] arutha10002 8 years ago

PJ wanted to give jobs to the people of NZ. After LoTR, lots of people in NZ lost jobs and CGI places there were also going bankrupt. By making "The Hobbit" into 3 movies, and nothing but CGI, he guaranteed jobs for his people for years.

reply

[–] Otaku-sempai 8 years ago

By making "The Hobbit" into 3 movies, and nothing but CGI, he guaranteed jobs for his people for years.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'nothing but CGI.' There is certainly more computer animation in the Hobbit films than in the LotR trilogy, but much of that was a function of using the Red Epic cameras and shooting in 3D. There are still plenty of practical effects in these films.

"If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" - The Joker

reply

[–] arutha10002 8 years ago

I am exaggerating. But let's be honest: compared to LoTR, this had a ton of CGI. And it wasn't very good. Every time I saw the CGI (Azog, Wargs, the Goblin King, etc.) I thought to myself "It looks so fake." The exception: Gollum and Smaug looked good. Just about everything else (and that's a lot) just looked so freakin' fake. The only excuse, and it's a pretty good one, is that PJ needed to give lots of jobs to the CGI studios in NZ.

reply

[–] merej 8 years ago

Seems to me Jackson caught the George Lucas Prequel Syndrome. Lets shove as much crap in as we can cos it'll look like, totally cool or whatever. To hell with logic and faithfulness.

Jackson's particular brand of humour just doesn't fit this story (or any story not intended for 4 year olds). Sadly it seems that he took fact that The Hobbit is a children's book and the lack of script as a license to throw as much infantile nonsense and cliched storylines into the mix as possible. Almost every time somebody goes 'and then Peter come up with this briliant idea' in the producton notes and oommentaries, you're in for a turd.

After all is said and done, a lot more will have been said than done.

reply

[–] Decomposed 8 years ago

Almost every time somebody goes 'and then Peter come up with this briliant idea' in the producton notes and oommentaries, you're in for a turd.

😂

For within each death there is always a new life, a new beginning - Dillon, Alien 3

reply

[–] bn_filmz 8 years ago

I don't get how the guy that made The Lord of the Rings trilogy made this mess.

What I don't get, is why you even like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, considering the fact that the Hobbit trilogy has the same style, tone and quality.

War sheep plowing through armoured orcs.

Let me turn back time for you:

"The Return of the King": Horses plowing through armoured orcs.

Dain repeatedly headbutting helmetted orcs.

"The Fellowship of the Rings" and "The Two Towers": Aragorn is headbutting several orcs.

Why does the film forget about the actual battle for an hour?

It doesn't.

Why does Azog use the least practical weapon imaginable in the final battle with Thorin.

Oh yes, I forgot that in real life people always make the right choices! An of course that means that in wartime no soldier has ever used heavy weapons like big axes and big maces instead of lighter weapons like swords and knives. In modern wars no soldiers have ever used heavy weapons like bazookas and flamethrowers, which might be effective if they hit their target, but definitely make the soldiers who carry them move slow and easy to kill if you're behind them and have a machine gun.

Fact is that Azog used both of his weapons against Thorin - not just the chained rock. And for a long time Azog actually had the upper hand thanks to the chained rock.

And if the chained rock is a problem for you, you should also complain about the Withc-King using a similar heavy and unhandy weapon in "The Return of the King" ... which by the way was Tolkien's idea.

Why are the orcs so much least realistic than the ones in the 14 year older Fellowship?

They aren't.

Why do the armies look so obviously like a CGI cutscene?

They don't.

.....

The rest of your questions aren't very relevant.

reply

[–] AmbienWineDiet 8 years ago

just remmeber this is the guy who argued for months that dain is not cgi at all, even when provided with jackson quotes.

only to turn around and say that he beleived dain was mostly cgi all along

BN has no credibility. nto that he ever did

reply

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 8 years ago

The Lord of the Rings trilogy, considering the fact that the Hobbit trilogy has the same style, tone and quality.

This statement sounds a bit far fetched even for a fan of Hobbit. 😅

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

reply

[–] bn_filmz 8 years ago

You may have a different view, but what I wrote is my perception, my experience.

I'm here to express my honest opinion, not to please others.

reply

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 8 years ago

Oh well...to each, his own I guess.

Although I believe the imaginative and creative camerawork in LoTR are unmatched in style. As for the acting wise and basic plot they're compelling just like many other film aspects. In other words the LOTR is perfect in every imaginable way...well, except for a few plot holes that drives the story.

Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul, ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.

reply

[–] AmbienWineDiet 8 years ago

haven't you learned yet mirkwood.. if its BN opinion that the acting, camerawork and general cinematography, score, sets and plot are just as good, it is true

there is no such thing as film analysis or film history and techniques

reply

[–] zoellnerdennis 8 years ago

if its BN opinion that the acting, camerawork and general cinematography, score, sets and plot are just as good, it is true

Yeah... I forgot, this man "studied" film by watching trash ... He's a real film expert...

With each day the number of people on my Ignore list is growing.

reply

[–] aedh1974 8 years ago

Well, LOTR have some major problems that are hidden behind a, sometimes, brilliant script, great performances (except for the Hobbits and a couple more of characters) and a good direction, along with a lot of money that made each movie worse than the previous one.

Ah, almost forgot about the great emotional moments. Aragorn kissing Boromir's forehead after his death is one of my favourite scenes ever.

Back to my old self.

reply

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 8 years ago

I believe LOTR's brilliant script and genuine character emotions outweighs many of its issues. But then no movie is without flaws and Middle-earth characters are not as one dimensional as many think. Heroes like Celebrimbor, Thranduil and Bilbo aren't without flaws and no villains like Sauron and googly eyed Smeagol aren't without virtues. They're just misunderstood! 

For me,, its the hobbit reunion that gets me everytime.

Yúlallo nárë nauva coivaina, cálë lómillo tuiuva.
http://ow.ly/buqc302drQZ

reply

[–] aedh1974 8 years ago

The script is very good, but sometimes poor, so I won't cal it brilliant, sorry about that. But I agree about the character emotions.

Heroes like Celebrimbor, Thranduil and Bilbo aren't without flaws and no villains like Sauron and googly eyed Smeagol aren't without virtues. They're just misunderstood!

I agree about Smeagol, but I cannot find any virtue in Sauron, except for perseverance.

Back to my old self.

reply

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 8 years ago

Did you forget that he provided employment to thousands of those underprivileged orcs.
They painted him as evil just like that with the 'power corrupts' archetype, okay we get it. Sauron is like the evil overlord with a massive army of hideous beasts and worse.
Can you find me a single reason why everyone demonized Mairon like he was there to destroy the entire world? Sure he sent out his troops to attack strongholds of men and dwarves but it was for Middle-earth's own good. Men and dwarves ̶w̶̶e̶̶r̶e are greedy and selfish and he deemed them unfit to rule Middle-earth.

If you still think he's evil then answer me this dear aedh...How come Sauron and Saruman were able to draw tens of thousands of folks to fight for his cause while men of Gondor and Rohan were hesitant to join forces before it was too late. And Theoden king couldn't muster a force enough to face Mordor's army (remember when Aragorn pointed out their army wasn't nearly enough?) ...and dont get me started on the dwarves...they never cared for other races and they most certainly didnt offer military support to others in need. The only battles Dwarves joined the cause was in the battle of

The first time they fought together in a named battle is in the year 1497 of the Trees, during the First Battle of Beleriand and during the Battle of Unnumbered Tears and briefly in the battle of five armies at Erebor (which was more or less about the Dwarvish king reclaiming Erebor, frankly speaking)
That gives us a total of four battles fought together over the course of about 4 ages (that's about ~6000 years)

If the victors responsible for Sauron's defeat didnt understand why hundreds of thousands joined his cause then there's no saying if Middle-earth is destined to fight another war again...which means, Tolkien's work is not done yet. 

PS. Don't think I'm crazy after reading this. IMO no one is a villain without a good cause. 

Yúlallo nárë nauva coivaina, cálë lómillo tuiuva.
http://ow.ly/buqc302drQZ

reply

[–] aedh1974 8 years ago

Did you forget that he provided employment to thousands of those underprivileged orcs.
They painted him as evil just like that with the 'power corrupts' archetype, okay we get it. Sauron is like the evil overlord with a massive army of hideous beasts and worse.
Can you find me a single reason why everyone demonized Mairon like he was there to destroy the entire world? Sure he sent out his troops to attack strongholds of men and dwarves but it was for Middle-earth's own good. Men and dwarves ̶w̶̶e̶̶r̶e are greedy and selfish and he deemed them unfit to rule Middle-earth.

Yeah, I had totally forgotten that part.

If you still think he's evil then answer me this dear aedh...How come Sauron and Saruman were able to draw tens of thousands of folks to fight for his cause while men of Gondor and Rohan were hesitant to join forces before it was too late. And Theoden king couldn't muster a force enough to face Mordor's army (remember when Aragorn pointed out their army wasn't nearly enough?) ...and dont get me started on the dwarves...they never cared for other races and they most certainly didnt offer military support to others in need. The only battles Dwarves joined the cause was in the battle of

Because of stupidity.

If the victors responsible for Sauron's defeat didnt understand why hundreds of thousands joined his cause then there's no saying if Middle-earth is destined to fight another war again...which means, Tolkien's work is not done yet.

As long as PJ does not rewrite anything else I'm ok with that.

Back to my old self.

reply

[–] Daenerys-Stormborn 8 years ago

As long as PJ does not rewrite anything else I'm ok with that.

The prophecy still stands. The greatest story of all time hasn't ended.... yet!

Melkor will eventually discover how to break the Door of Night, allowing him to escape his imprisonment beyond the world. Intent on regaining his dominion over Middle-earth and avenging his previous defeat, the fallen Ainu will recreate his greatest servants (including Sauron) and destroy the Sun and the Moon. For the love of these, Eärendil will return from the sky and shall meet Tulkas, Manwë (or Eönwë his herald) and Túrin Turambar on the plains of Valinor. All the Free Peoples of Middle-earth will participate in this final battle, Elves, Men, and Dwarves alike



Yúlallo nárë nauva coivaina, cálë lómillo tuiuva.
http://ow.ly/buqc302drQZ

reply

[–] FrodoPotter 8 years ago

Uhm, no. You wrote 'the fact that the Hobbit trilogy has the same style, tone and quality.'

Glad you admit that this is in fact not a fact, but merely your opinion.

Oh, and your opinion is very, very wrong.

reply

[–] bn_filmz 8 years ago

That the Hobbit trilogy has the same style and tone I regard as a fact. However, due to people's different perception of things, I'm aware that some may feel that it has a different style and tone.

That it has the same quality is definitely just an opinion.

reply

[–] FrodoPotter 8 years ago

Maybe you should go look up the definition of fact. Perception does not play any part in that.

Actually, you are the very first person I have come across that seriously states the Hobbit films have the same tone as the LOTR films. LOTR is grim with some light comedic touches. The Hobbit is light comedy with some grim touches. They are so very, very different in tone I can't believe you don't see it.

Style is also clearly not the same, if only for the massive amount of green screen and other forms of CGI in The Hobbit versus LOTR.

reply

[–] bn_filmz 8 years ago

LOTR is grim with some light comedic touches.

That much is true.

The Hobbit is light comedy with some grim touches.

Completely false. The Hobbit is not "light comedy". I have literally read hundreds of reviews of The Hobbit and a further hundreds of articles about the trilogy, and none of them describes The Hobbit as "light comedy". Everybody calls it an adventure or fantasy with light comedic touches. Not the other way around; not "light comedy with some grim touches".

The general consensus is that The Hobbit is initially more light-hearted and amusing than The Lord of the Rings, but slowly gets darker. But that doesn't make it "light comedy".

It's the long prologue with the dwarves' backstory and Smaug's destruction of Dale and Erebor that sets the tone of the film. And so does the scene around the dinner table (after the arrival of Thorin) where Gandalf tells Bilbo about the Lonely Mountain and the dragon, plus Bilbo's private conversation with Gandalf (the one where Bilbo sits in his armchair), Balin's conversation with Thorin in the hallway and the Misty Mountain song. Between the prologue and those conversations there are several moments of light comedy, just as there were in The Fellowship of the Ring between the prologue and the scene where old Bilbo doesn't want to give up his Ring and calls it "Precious", which makes Gandalf suspicious. ... But again: that doesn't make it "light comedy".

The fact that there are more scenes with comic relief later on in The Lord of the Rings, doesn't make it "light comedy with some grim touches", and the same goes for The Hobbit.

Style is also clearly not the same, if only for the massive amount of green screen and other forms of CGI in The Hobbit versus LOTR.

False again. The Lord of the Rings trilogy contain a "massive amount of green screen and other forms of CGI"? Actually, they couldn't have made it without CGI.

It's true that they used many real locations in New Zealand. But it's also true that the majority of the places our heroes go throughout the trilogy are either models wrapped in CGI or 100 % CGI. And that goes for Mordor, Mount Doom and Barad-dür, Orthanc and Isengard, Weathertop (aka Amon Sûl), Rivendell, the Mines of Moria, Lothlorien, Fangorn Forrest, the Dead Marshes, Helm's Deep, Minas Tirith, Osgiliath, Minas Morgul, Cirith Ungol, the Black Gate and the Grey Havens.

And some people, who criticize the CGI armies in 'The Battle of the Five Armies', seem to forget that 95 % of the elves and orcs in the "Last Alliance" from the prologue of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' are CGI. Most of the goblins in the Moria are CGI. The 10.000 orcs that Saruman sends to attack Helm's Deep are CGI, except for the ones we see in close-ups. Likewise 95 % of the 200.000 orcs that attack Minas Tirith, are also CGI, and so are 90 % of the Rohan soldiers during the famous 'Ride of the Rohirrim'. Most of the wideshots we see during that battle are made by means of computers. In facts there are only very few real locations in 'The Return of the King'. Although some scenes were shot on location, all we actually see from these locations is the ground and/or a couple of rocks and trees.

By comparison there are more digital shots in The Hobbit, but it's not just a matter of counting. Fact is that Peter Jackson and his crew relied heavily on CGI during the making of The Lord of the Rings. They created Gollum by means of CGI and motion-capture, but he's not the only CGI creation of the trilogy. There are many others: the Balrog, the trolls, Treebeard and the other ents, the wargs, the fell beasts and Shelob. And sometimes it's not the nine members of the Fellowship that we see in Moria, but their digital doubles. And when King Theoden, Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli ride out from the Hornburg during the Battle of Helm's Deep, it's also digital doubles that we see. They used CGI to create Bilbo's smoke rings, the writing on the Ring, Gandalf's exploding fireworks, Legolas' arrows, Sauron aka "the Eye", the so-called "Ring world" (that we see when Frodo puts on the Ring), the wraiths in their spiritual form, the abyss that Gandalf falls into ... etc.

They also used CGI for the colorization of the films. And they used it to enlarge the mouth of Bruce Spence who plays the Mouth of Sauron.

reply

[–] FrodoPotter 8 years ago

Whole lot of writing, thanks but just a short response.

The big difference is in the word 'grim'. LOTR is a grim adventure. Hobbit is laughably non-grim. No sense of danger, ever.

As for the CGI. Sure, LOTR had a lot of CGI too, but it was not the main feature. You mention models like it is the same as CGI. It is not. Rivendell in LOTR was a model, Rivendell in Hobbit was 100% CGI, which makes it look like something out of a computer game.

You are right that Return of the King did have a lot more CGI, and I consider it to be clearly the least strong film of the trilogy for it.

reply

[–] bn_filmz 8 years ago

And also just a short remark from here:

You mention models like it is the same as CGI.

No, I said that the models were wrapped in CGI. For example they used models for many parts of Isengard, but the models were supplemented with CGI backgrounds, CGI surroundings, CGI orcs ... etc.

Rivendell in LOTR was a model

Only in some shots. When Frodo stands in Rivendell and enjoys the view, almost everything we see (except for the balcony), is CGI:

https://laraandthereelboy.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/frodo-at-rivendell.jpg

http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/8500000/frodo-and-sam-rivendell-8527520-326-260.jpg

reply

[–] PatFilm 7 years ago

The hobbit book was far more lighter than the movies.

reply

[–] bn_filmz 7 years ago

That's right.

reply

[–] Ambianwinediet 7 years ago

What I don't get, is why you even like The Lord of the Rings trilogy, considering the fact that the Hobbit trilogy has the same style, tone and quality.

except it doesnt at all

-ones more cartoony, ones grittier
- as for quality one uses far more practical effects, one cgi
- one has 3 dimensional developed characters, one has many 2d ones.

Let me turn back time for you:

"The Return of the King": Horses plowing through armoured orcs.

cavalry has been used to charge into armoured men IN REAL LIFE YOU IDIOT.

also

-male sheep 45-160 kg
-male horse380-1000 kg

please stop talking

"The Fellowship of the Rings" and "The Two Towers": Aragorn is headbutting several orcs.

cant disagree. see i actually can admit you are right.

It doesn't.

Oh yes, I forgot that in real life people always make the right choices! An of course that means that in wartime no soldier has ever used heavy weapons like big axes and big maces instead of lighter weapons like swords and knives. In modern wars no soldiers have ever used heavy weapons like bazookas and flamethrowers, which might be effective if they hit their target, but definitely make the soldiers who carry them move slow and easy to kill if you're behind them and have a machine gun.

Fact is that Azog used both of his weapons against Thorin - not just the chained rock. And for a long time Azog actually had the upper hand thanks to the chained rock.

And if the chained rock is a problem for you, you should also complain about the Withc-King using a similar heavy and unhandy weapon in "The Return of the King" ... which by the way was Tolkien's idea.
id have to rewatch it.

he had the upper hand with the chained rock because, plot and tension... it happened because the script demanded it had to, not because it made sense, flowed naturally, just because "hey look a rock on a chain"

They aren't.

except they are.

and what it boils down to is the number of cgi vs extras the LOTR had. interviews talk about 100+ men dressed as uruhkai's. no such account i have found came out of the hobbit...

100+ peasants in BOFA's sure... but some peasant clothes and dirt on your face for some long shots before they do the close ups is on a far lesser level than 100+ in uruhkai makeup and well choreographed fights with them

reply

[–] Otaku-sempai 7 years ago

-male sheep 45-160 kg
-male horse380-1000 kg

I almost hate to come to bn's defense, but these rams do seem to have been larger and heavier than normal sheep. Not full-sized warhorse big, but still...

"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella

reply

[–] Ambianwinediet 7 years ago

I almost hate to come to bn's defense, but these rams do seem to have been larger and heavier than normal sheep. Not full-sized warhorse big, but still...

you are absolutely right. i was just more commenting how he tried to justify war rams being okay because it was also "fantastical" that horses could charge lines..

reply

[–] Otaku-sempai 7 years ago

i was just more commenting how he tried to justify war rams being okay because it was also "fantastical" that horses could charge lines..

Yes, bn was absolutely wrong on that score. A heavy cavalry charge can be terrifying and devastating to foot soldiers caught in its path, though dwarves on battle rams might be more accurately thought of as light cavalry.

"Hell hath no fury like that of the uninvolved." - T. Isabella

reply

[–] GreatWhiteApeofBarsoom 7 years ago

Money, money,money!

Money!

Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.

reply