awepittance Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 they show almost every money shot from the movie int hat 15 minute special, i would avoid if you want to be fully surprised. But jesus fuck, even just the landscape shots this time around are mind blowingly beautiful, dare i say with all the vibrant colors that LOTR didn't have this film looks significantly more lush. Entertainment Weekly also just put out a few photos showing The Desolation of Smaug, one in particular of Bilbo looking scared as shit sitting on top of a giant pile of gold treasure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 holy shit so much promotion. they're really desperate to hype this. besides the Colbert show, which makes sense since Colbert is a huge fan of Tolkein i'm actually surprised by the lack of promotion for such a big movie until only weeks before it comes out. It is definitely far less than any of the Star War prequels got promoted, and imo this should be seen as an equally big event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 holy shit so much promotion. they're really desperate to hype this. besides the Colbert show, which makes sense since Colbert is a huge fan of Tolkein i'm actually surprised by the lack of promotion for such a big movie until only weeks before it comes out. It is definitely far less than any of the Star War prequels got promoted, and imo this should be seen as an equally big event. I'm judging by amount of preview clips, behind the scene features and so on, you don't see them for every movie do you? but you're right I haven't seen much "traditional" promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 It seems odd to begrudge a film for making the fantastically impossible seem almost possible, but Jackson's new toy camera scales back Middle Earth's grandeur, flattening it even as it presents it to us in three dimensions. Movies don't have to be escape routes from the drudgery of our ordinary lives, transporting us to wild and unlikely places across time and space so that we may forget for a spell the banalities and preoccupations of our present moment, but there's something almost counterproductive about a technology that takes the fantasy out of a fantasy. The Middle Earth of Jackson's The Hobbit is no longer a place that seems out of reach, but one that exists right outside our doors, practically a virtual reality. seems like an interesting criticism, that the hyper real atmosphere jackson has created makes it feel less like fantasy. Is this perhaps the first movie that has created an uncanny valley of the world itself and not just for a humanoid/human cgi character? I hope so, sounds pretty awesome Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zkom Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 It seems odd to begrudge a film for making the fantastically impossible seem almost possible, but Jackson's new toy camera scales back Middle Earth's grandeur, flattening it even as it presents it to us in three dimensions. Movies don't have to be escape routes from the drudgery of our ordinary lives, transporting us to wild and unlikely places across time and space so that we may forget for a spell the banalities and preoccupations of our present moment, but there's something almost counterproductive about a technology that takes the fantasy out of a fantasy. The Middle Earth of Jackson's The Hobbit is no longer a place that seems out of reach, but one that exists right outside our doors, practically a virtual reality. seems like an interesting criticism, that the hyper real atmosphere jackson has created makes it feel less like fantasy. Is this perhaps the first movie that has created an uncanny valley of the world itself and not just for a humanoid/human cgi character? I hope so, sounds pretty awesome Yes, besides the story being blown from a simple little book to an epic movie trilogy my other complaint is that the movie looks to realistic. When I first read the Hobbit I was 9 or 10 years old. I had a hardcover with the original Tolkien illustrations. Stuff like this: The illustrations made the Middle-Earth feel like a very mythical and fairy-tale like place. It was a setting of a pure dream like fantasy. It had a deep impact on me as a kid. Also there was this map with runes and the book gave you hints on how to read the runes. All in all it felt like the book was like an ancient artifact. Just carrying it around felt like I was carrying some kind of sorcery with me. I actually wanted the book because of the cover. I did not know what a hobbit was or who Tolkien was. The illustration of Smaug was enough for 9 year old me to want the book: Now we have this Jackson's hyperreal interpretation of the Hobbit. It feels like it's going to lose all the charm that the book had. It's just another stupid fantasy movie with loads of CGI. Maybe a little more hitech than the previous films but that will date quickly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 If you know its gonna ruin something about the hobbit for you, don't see it? Not saying you dont have a right to have your opinion though, but I never understood why adaptations of something hurts the original. Theres like 20 billion Halloween films, but the first one is still amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zkom Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 But I want to complaaiiiinn.. I actually felt so pissed off at the poster I felt like flipping a finger to it when I saw it. Anyway, I will not probably go see it. It might be a good movie if you can watch it without comparing it to the book, but I think that's pretty impossible for me. Meanwhile I'll just be content with being angry at the people who have only seen the movie and think that they know what the Hobbit is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 from what i've read, the Hobbit film is far closer to the book than any of the LOTR movies were, in fact many reviewers who read the book complained that they did too much of a 'scene for scene' interpretation actually lifting more dialogue from the book than necessary. Maybe visually it doesn't appeal to you, but i think story-wise, especially since they are stretching 1 book into 3 films, you're going to get a lot more of the book here than you might expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 There's no magic in the world today, just as Tolkien said. Cynicism seems to be a powerful weapon of killing it and it shows in films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 There's magic in all of us. We just have to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cult fiction Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 There's no magic in the world today, just as Tolkien said. Cynicism seems to be a powerful weapon of killing it and it shows in films. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Speaking of magic in films being dead, I thought Snow White and the Huntsman had a lot going for it. There were certainly parts I didn't like (a gratuitous bridge troll scene, a scene ripped directly from Miyazaki, Kristen Stewart, and full-scale-humans as the 7 dwarves) but at least it took a true fantasy approach to the subject matter. I can't remember it stooping to one liners, over the top cartoonish action, and fart jokes (though I may be forgetting something). I do wish they'd make more fantasy films in the vein of dark crystal, labyrinth, neverending story, etc. They weren't all good but they tried to preserve some magical feeling. Pan's Labyrinth did a pretty good job too, for a more contemporary film. Anyway, this one looks ok, I don't really have a strong opinion on it yet. Will certainly watch it on dvd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 it might sound strange but i thought the movie Rango, at least tonally and visually captured what i liked about older Jim henson fantasy movies of the past. It was all CGI yeah but it had this gritty puppet-like quality that if i would have seen as a child, would have probably scared the shit out of me like when i saw Jabba's palace at age 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 first 2 official pictures from film 2, the Desolation of Smaug Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zkom Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 With all the other things from the 80s being recycled it's kind of weird that the 80s fantasy movies and their style haven't been. It's like everybody remembers the 80s as this day-glo colored pastiche of boomboxes, crazy hairstyles and power dressing but nobody remembers the darkish fantasy films. I remember there were loads of those but can't recall half of their names. I think they also had some impact on how I think how a fantasy world should look like. Besides the Hollywood films there were several Scandinavian fantasy movies at the time. Check Ronia the Robber's Daughter for example. Anyway, maybe some of the magic being lost is because of growing up.. I'd probably be pretty stoked if I was 9 years old now and went to watch the Hobbit.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I don't understand the hate CGI gets, sure there's hundreds of examples of where it is done terribly, but it's just a tool. And if the goal of film is to capture our visual imagination or dreams than it seems like a logical pathway towards achieving that. I mean synthesized sounds for music could be argued as the auditory version of CGI, no? The old argument that if you didnt play the drums or "instrument" its not real music or has no human emotion is a laugh. CGI is in the 70s timeline of electronic music, still very early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoon Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 no, the CGI at its present state is analoguous to *general midi* synthesized music. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Npoess Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Review scores are not that great so far.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zkom Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 I mean synthesized sounds for music could be argued as the auditory version of CGI, no? The old argument that if you didnt play the drums or "instrument" its not real music or has no human emotion is a laugh. Yeah, but synthetic sounds suit certain types of music and non-synthetic other types of music. Same with CGI. Also there's analogue synthetic sounds as opposed to CGI which is computer generated by definition. The problem and the advantage with computer generated stuff is that it's computed by a very strict set of rules and has no deviation unless specifically programmed to have where as non-computed is more organic and error-prone by nature. The result is that they have different aesthetics. I think there will be a backlash to this digital movie making with people going back to film and conventional editing methods and effects as there was a backlash to synthetic music in the end of 80s and early 90s. Once everybody is using digital distribution for movies there will pop up hipster movie theaters using film only.. maybe somebody will start showing VHS tapes also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 So because CGI is digital, it therefore cannot be compared to synthesized music in general and the backlash it received when it first started being used in the mainstream? That's the point I am making. As far as achieving aesthetics I would think that would come down to individual control over CG, but because we haven't even achieved photo-realism yet with CG on a broad/vast base, then that's where the aim is at currently. Once there is vast control and individual ease of creating CG sequences, then infinite aesthetic ideals can be achieved, including imperfect calculations/renderings or renderings of puppetry looking characters if you want the Stan Winston look. Audio is ahead in this area even though digital synths still dont quite match the aesthetic of analogue... but it will get there and then there is generative digital music. So that's all I am saying. Unless you are a hardcore analogue fan and hate digital processes in music I don't understand singling out CGI. Eventually like Jim Morrison dreamed about with a man making music with just machines, films will be produced in the same manner and to the aesthetic of their ideal. It just comes down to computing power, audio being far easier workload than visual imagery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 This tangent is ridiculous. Ok, if cgi=synths, what they're doing with cgi is basically trying to make it looks as realistic as possible, not as outlandish as possible. So we have a synth trying to emulate an acoustic instrument. End result: classical guitar pieces performed on monophonic keyboards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 Exactly However its benefits go beyond that in the end because you can't make this with a classical guitar. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FMccwa-0vAhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FMccwa-0vA But as evident by the insane amount of people who make CGI for film right now, its still very far back on the timeline compared to music. Singularity through computer power and tool sets will open up computer visuals. Its started to happen already the only difference is that aesthetic control is still very limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 11, 2012 Share Posted December 11, 2012 3D is akin to Stereo Audio, and like the initial usages of stereo audio it wasn't the best. So these new techs take time and I think its a bit short sighted to have a hateful attitude towards tools when who knows how they can be used in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.