The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

  On 12/8/2012 at 3:13 AM, Awepittance said:

 

  On 12/7/2012 at 10:02 AM, GORDO said:

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.

  Quote

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

  On 12/9/2012 at 5:47 AM, Awepittance said:

 

  Quote

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

There's magic in all of us. We just have to believe.

  On 12/11/2012 at 9:52 AM, gaarg said:

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.

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.

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.

first 2 official pictures from film 2, the Desolation of Smaug

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..

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.

no, the CGI at its present state is analoguous to *general midi* synthesized music.

Review scores are not that great so far....

  On 12/11/2012 at 12:47 PM, compson said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

In my eyes/ears 3D is to colour film what surround sound is to stereo, but honestly I just grabbed this opinion out of my ass, so it doesn't really matter. Hopefully the Hobbit will be fun, if not I will have wasted four hours and some money. I can live with that.

Gocab, I like what you did with your avatar.

As for advancements in films, music and video games. People like real stuff. Materials you can feel or imagine you can feel them. Cgi so far mostly failed on that front as far as I'm concerned. You put a person in a costume performing a goblin and there's a 800% chance he'll do a better job of convincing us he's the real thing than a topshit cgi goblin will do. Its a art thing basically.

Electronic music is awesome but feels introverted for me all the time. I needed it for just that aspect in my last 10 years, but now I'm leaning towards the old instruments again. They just "feel" more open and real and that is important to me.

As for computer games it's interesting how the realistic graphics and environments and sounds ultimately don't do anything for me. It's fun seeing these new games that use the same strategy as films (making "realistic" visuals top priority) but then the mostly fail at being awkward, uncanny and unfun for me. Give me minecraft and pixels, thank you.

All in all, I want my entertainment products to have character, to feel real and sincere. Having 10 000 computers and people and 100 000 000$ has no meaning. Gaarg has spoken.