Here's a teaser taster of the LOTR dvd extras.
"Miniatures"
...
Yeah. Stereo video took more than it gave.
I feel like Gandalf:
2000 vs. 2011
I found a lot of the green screen very obvious. Erebor was especially bad for it.
The Hobbit trilogy - News, rumours and discussion
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
I found a lot of the green screen very obvious. Erebor was especially bad for it.
Franchuzas87
Member
Probably my favourite non-action scene of the entire film. Great moment for Bilbo, and it comes with the last sincere smile of Thorin before his total step into madness.
Edit: The difference between 2000 and 2011 in that picture is that this time they were shooting a 3D film and the old visual tricks don't work.
Did we watch different movies? It's all done perfectly.
He is distrustful of Bilbo throughout AUJ, up until Bilbo saves him at the end.
Then in DoS, when the Dwarves are bickering just before the barrel sequence, Bilbo looks to Thorin to shut them up, and he commands the Dwarves to "do as he [Bilbo] says".
Later, (this is an EE scene only) when they are brought before the Master of Laketown, Alfrid asks somebody to vouch for Thorin, as they don't know him, and Bilbo is the only one who plucks up the courage to say that he's travelled far with Thorin and the Dwarves, and that when Thorin says something, he keeps his word. Thorin nods at him in acknowledgement.
On their way to Erebor, they share a moment where Thorin says "you have keen eyes Master Baggins!".
Then their relationship begins to crumble inside Erebor when Thorin is faced with the gold and he confronts Bilbo about whether he found the Arkenstone.
During the Smaug chase, he yells "keep going Bilbo!" to get away from Smaug.
And then you enter the last movie which focuses deeply on their relationship.
Bilbo/Thorin has been one of the strongest aspects of this trilogy. I love all of their scenes.
RelentlessRolento
Member
yeah, I feel like the highlights in this film for me were the Martin + Richard stuff. I was genuinely tense during the moments Richard wasn't his oakensheild self
tryagainlater
Member
I agree that the acting in The Hobbit is better across the board than LOTR. Not to say that it's bad in LOTR, just think there's more stand out performances in The Hobbit. Don't know why people are so surprised by that. It's the only thing I would put above LOTR when comparing the trilogies.
And although there's a bit too much green screen in these movies, there's still plenty in LOTR. You see the same stuff with Gandalf on a green screen filming Bag End scenes, the one where Frodo suggests they should hide the ring. Let's be fair, doing forced perspective to make Gandalf look bigger in a scene with 13 dwarves sitting at a long table would be difficult. It's unfortunate that it upset Ian McKellen though.
And although there's a bit too much green screen in these movies, there's still plenty in LOTR. You see the same stuff with Gandalf on a green screen filming Bag End scenes, the one where Frodo suggests they should hide the ring. Let's be fair, doing forced perspective to make Gandalf look bigger in a scene with 13 dwarves sitting at a long table would be difficult. It's unfortunate that it upset Ian McKellen though.
bengraven
Member
It's like any thread involving Bethesda or Bioware games. These are massively successful companies who make huge RPGs that millions of people love, obviously, because they sell multiple-millions of copies.
But the vocal minority of people who hate either Bioware (because it's not Obsidian) or ESPECIALLY Bethesda (due to engine issues or design choices in later games or because they're not Obsidian) end up turning EVERY thread into a "shit-thread". I consider myself a fan of both devs, but I'm not so apologist that I can't point out the flaws. But to talk about the games you love you need to read through post after post of angry fanboys to the point where it's exhausting.
I can picture the same thing happening in TolkienGAF where every page is 3/4 "how shitty were those Hobbit movies"? until the end of all GAF.
Can't say I agree about the acting in The Hobbit being better than LOTR. Freeman was strong throughout, Armitage was good as was Lee Pace but bar that I cannot say I was taken with the performance of anyone else.
Compare that to LOTR where we had numerous great performances and much better developed characters.
Edit - Serkis was very good too in AUJ, forgot about that.
whatsinaname
Member
Whatever missteps I think The Hobbit movies made, I am grateful that someone tried to push HFR. I love it and hope it is picked up some more, especially for action movies. (Something like Raid 2 would be amazing in HFR).
tryagainlater
Member
Fair enough for you not to agree. Just thought it was weird that some seemed shocked by such an opinion. The three performances you mentioned are the ones that particularly stand out to me and I like them more so than anyone in LOTR. I think Ken Stott as Balin is amazing and very under appreciated. I also prefer McKellen as Gandalf the Grey than Gandalf the White and we had more of him here. Again, not saying LOTR is bad. Not by a long shot. Just prefer them in The Hobbit.
I just saw this, it was good fun, some great action sequences and it's always great to go back to middle earth. Stretching into three movies hurt the trilogy though and so does the over reliance of cgi which took me out of the movie more often than so would like.
The lack of spirit of adventure also made this my least favorite of the three movies, not to mention that I would like more focus on the character, I felt like they weren't there enough. There were some great moments though, the acorn scene for example.
Now I need to get the blu rays and watch the extras, I assume they're different from the ones they put online?
The lack of spirit of adventure also made this my least favorite of the three movies, not to mention that I would like more focus on the character, I felt like they weren't there enough. There were some great moments though, the acorn scene for example.
Now I need to get the blu rays and watch the extras, I assume they're different from the ones they put online?
I'm not sure what's been put online but each of the two extra BluRays for DoS were four or five hours long. The way they filmed the barrel rides on location and in studio was incredible to see.
The LotR EEs are amazing if you are into behind the scenes stuff. And unlike The Hobbit EEs you get four commentary tracks.
It's a shame that the Hobbit EEs don't even have an actors commentary on them.
The LotR EEs are amazing if you are into behind the scenes stuff. And unlike The Hobbit EEs you get four commentary tracks.
It's a shame that the Hobbit EEs don't even have an actors commentary on them.
BertramCooper
Banned
I think there are some legitimately great performances by several of the new cast members, Freeman most notably.
But pretty much all of the LotR veterans give completely boring, perfunctory performances. And I can't really blame them because it must have been pretty damn obvious on set how inferior these films were going to be.
But pretty much all of the LotR veterans give completely boring, perfunctory performances. And I can't really blame them because it must have been pretty damn obvious on set how inferior these films were going to be.
So sad how the majority of viewers will miss his best scene in Two Towers Extended.
Ape Gone Insane
Member
Watched it. Was about as mediocre, lifeless and cartoonish as expected.
I also felt there were a lot of recycled moments/scenes from LOTR with Legolas and the whole Thorin dodging the chained rock etc.
I also felt there were a lot of recycled moments/scenes from LOTR with Legolas and the whole Thorin dodging the chained rock etc.
Some discussion of those missing bits in this interesting article.
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/tolkien-nerds-guide-hobbit-battle-five-armies-180953681/
Here's a teaser taster of the LOTR dvd extras.
"Miniatures"
...
Yeah. Stereo video took more than it gave.
I feel like Gandalf:
2000 vs. 2011
I really, really dislike these comparisons (which also plague the "These Hobbit films are terrible" threads) because they're always posted with zero context. The only reason green-screen was used in those Bag End with scenes with Gandalf was because the forced-perspective trick used in the LOTR films didn't work with the 3D cameras used for the Hobbit films. So for some shots featuring regular-sized characters +hobbits/dwarves, green-screen compositing was used in its place.
Thing is, The Lord of the Rings films did the exact same thing for certain shots. Here's Jackson and Elijah Wood shooting the "We keep it hidden, we put it away. No one knows its here...do they Gandalf?" scene, parts of which were accomplished through blue-screen compositing.
The scene where Gandalf first enters Bag End at the beginning of Fellowship and hands Bilbo his hat/staff? Also done through digital compositing. As for The Hobbit, sure, Mckellen is in a green-sceen Bag End, but the dwarf actors weren't. They were in the actual Bag End set which was bigger than the one used for The Lord of the Rings. This whole trilogy is littered with amazing sets, big and small. Bag End, Radagast's house, Dol Guldur, Rivendell, Goblin Town, Lake-Town, Mirkwood forest, Thranduil's prison, Beorn's House, Smaug's pile of gold, etc. Heck, the Dale set was just a huge as Helm's Deep and Minus Tirith.
Having said all of that, yes, unfinished VFX and seemingly rushed green-screen compositing have plagued these films from the beginning. However, let's not put up this farcical lie that literally every visual effect in these films has been terrible. Far, far from it. I'm not going to bother listing "the good ones", but Weta Digital have done some stellar work on these films. Its just unfortunate that they don't seem to have been given nearly enough time to polish many of the effects in the films before they're released.
"For Gondor, Faramir"
This 'more to come' regarding Tauriel seems to be gaining a bit of traction.
They can't shoehorn her into LOTR, surely? I unashamedly love the character, but even I am struggling to see how she would work in LOTR.
TheZink
Member
Fun fact. Vigo actually broke his toe when he kicked that helmet. the yell and the drop were not planned but he tried to stay in character
She doesn't fit in LotR at all and I am sure she won't be shoehorned in to a new edition.
but if a Legolas/young Strider movie somehow gets made then she'll be there.
Why didn't they ship her off to Valinor?
It seemed too perfect to be true
Edit: the more I think about it, this movie is missing it's ending entirely. We see Bilbo getting back to the Shire out of necessity, essentially. Everyone else is short-changed. Want to know what happened to Tauriel/Thranduil/Bard/Beorn/Dain/rest of the Dwarves? Tough.
BeforeU
Oft hope is born when all is forlorn.
saw it on Friday, was really disappointed. I thought it was the worst middle earth movie out of all 6. So many cringe worthy moment and flat humour, same repetitive soundtrack, mediocre content for a final movie (I haven't read the book). The only thing I thought this movie was going for was the acting, truly amazing performance. Specially Martin Freeman.
But man, as a die hard LOTR fan, and even I loved first two movies. What a disappoint this movie was.
But man, as a die hard LOTR fan, and even I loved first two movies. What a disappoint this movie was.
Why didn't they ship her off to Valinor?
It seemed too perfect to be true
Edit: the more I think about it, this movie is missing it's ending entirely. We see Bilbo getting back to the Shire out of necessity, essentially. Everyone else is short-changed. Want to know what happened to Tauriel/Thranduil/Bard/Beorn/Dain/rest of the Dwarves? Tough.
I haven't seen the film yet (likely will by the end of this week), but it sounds like a lot was left on the cutting room floor - or, rather, for the EE. So much so that for a brief moment last week I actually thought about skipping the film and waiting out until the EE hits. But I soon realized that was silly since I have no idea when the next time I'm going to be able to see Middle-earth on the big-screen will be (plus there's no way I'm going to go a year without seeing the film). So, y'know, carpe diem and all that.
tryagainlater
Member
Thank you for this, Loxley. So much misinformation surrounding these movies because people love to hate them.I really, really dislike these comparisons (which also plague the "These Hobbit films are terrible" threads) because they're always posted with zero context. The only reason green-screen was used in those Bag End with scenes with Gandalf was because the forced-perspective trick used in the LOTR films didn't work with the 3D cameras used for the Hobbit films. So for some shots featuring regular-sized characters +hobbits/dwarves, green-screen compositing was used in its place.
Thing is, The Lord of the Rings films did the exact same thing for certain shots. Here's Jackson and Elijah Wood shooting the "We keep it hidden, we put it away. No one knows its here...do they Gandalf?" scene, parts of which were accomplished through blue-screen compositing.
The scene where Gandalf first enters Bag End at the beginning of Fellowship and hands Bilbo his hat/staff? Also done through digital compositing. As for The Hobbit, sure, Mckellen is in a green-sceen Bag End, but the dwarf actors weren't. They were in the actual Bag End set which was bigger than the one used for The Lord of the Rings. This whole trilogy is littered with amazing sets, big and small. Bag End, Radagast's house, Dol Guldur, Rivendell, Goblin Town, Lake-Town, Mirkwood forest, Thranduil's prison, Beorn's House, Smaug's pile of gold, etc. Heck, the Dale set was just a huge as Helm's Deep and Minus Tirith.
Having said all of that, yes, unfinished VFX and seemingly rushed green-screen compositing have plagued these films from the beginning. However, let's not put up this farcical lie that literally every visual effect in these films has been terrible. Far, far from it. I'm not going to bother listing "the good ones", but Weta Digital have done some stellar work on these films. Its just unfortunate that they don't seem to have been given nearly enough time to polish many of the effects in the films before they're released.
I think RotK was the worst for leaving stuff out after the unfortunate situation with Christopher Lee when the last trilogy ended.
Indeed. There are definitely a number of scenes from LOTR that have made me cringe a little for being very obviously shoddy VFX.
But ... you know what? Somehow, I just manage to not let it bother me. If you get hung up too much in trying to spot how the hotdog was made, then yeah ... you're going to feel a little gross. However, if you just forget about it and eat the damn thing, you might even enjoy it!
anonymous_abc
Member
We're going to watch it tonight.
Enjoyed the first two for what they are. Going in with my expectations in check.
Enjoyed the first two for what they are. Going in with my expectations in check.
They never particularly stood out to me.
Melon Husk
Member
I really, really dislike these comparisons (which also plague the "These Hobbit films are terrible" threads) because they're always posted with zero context. The only reason green-screen was used in those Bag End with scenes with Gandalf was because the forced-perspective trick used in the LOTR films didn't work with the 3D cameras used for the Hobbit films. So for some shots featuring regular-sized characters +hobbits/dwarves, green-screen compositing was used in its place.
Thing is, The Lord of the Rings films did the exact same thing for certain shots. Here's Jackson and Elijah Wood shooting the "We keep it hidden, we put it away. No one knows its here...do they Gandalf?" scene, parts of which were accomplished through blue-screen compositing.
The scene where Gandalf first enters Bag End at the beginning of Fellowship and hands Bilbo his hat/staff? Also done through digital compositing. As for The Hobbit, sure, Mckellen is in a green-sceen Bag End, but the dwarf actors weren't. They were in the actual Bag End set which was bigger than the one used for The Lord of the Rings. This whole trilogy is littered with amazing sets, big and small. Bag End, Radagast's house, Dol Guldur, Rivendell, Goblin Town, Lake-Town, Mirkwood forest, Thranduil's prison, Beorn's House, Smaug's pile of gold, etc. Heck, the Dale set was just a huge as Helm's Deep and Minus Tirith.
Having said all of that, yes, unfinished VFX and seemingly rushed green-screen compositing have plagued these films from the beginning. However, let's not put up this farcical lie that literally every visual effect in these films has been terrible. Far, far from it. I'm not going to bother listing "the good ones", but Weta Digital have done some stellar work on these films. Its just unfortunate that they don't seem to have been given nearly enough time to polish many of the effects in the films before they're released.
I need to make my point clearer. I don't argue that LOTR didn't use green screens. They were used in moderation compared to The Hobbit.
The problem with with special effects, as one can see from the Miniatures webm, is that nobody notices when they are done well. I probably see only 10% of the effects made in The Hobbit. When you lull yourself into this constructed world the bad ones poke out like needles through a cushion. I'm all for immersion, I don't care how it is achieved.
I meant it when I said stereo video took more than it gave, and everything behind that statement. Ditching practical SFX that as a bonus weakened the actors' connection to the milieu, higher frame rate that made for some viewers the sets and prosthetics look fake and killing their suspended disbelief. Even not using film has a small effect on actors' performance (it's psychological, film's running out! but it's there).
And what was gained? A slightly more claustrofobic Mirkwood and flashier special effects did not bring enough to counterbalance the downsides.
I just wish that PJ hadn't chosen the prequels to his loved LOTR trilogy as his first foray into experimental filmmaking techniques.
edit: Yeah, Gandalf 2000 v 2011 is unfair. It's a bit of propaganda. But it pushes my issue simply and quickly, so...
Napalm_Frank
Member
There are a lot of things I would have done differently with the films but I cannot say enough times how much I love TUJ. I liked the other ones ok but I fell in love with the first one warts and all. It has become one of those movies that are in heavy rotation for me, I have seen the vanilla 4 times and EE 2 times already.
Just saw the last Hobbit movie yesterday. I still can't believe it had such amazing use of CGI in one scene and then looked like a Playstation 2 game in the next. Especially CGI Dain looked horrendous.
I actually really liked the first 2 movies. They were also full of useless CGI but at least the sense of adventure was still present. This was just an ordinary showdown devoid of any emotion or character building. I can't seem to find the specific post but someone earlier in this thread hit the nail on the head when it came to Martin Freeman's acting. The whole tilting the head and starting sentences over. He came off a lot more natural in the first 2 movies. The music was also pretty unmemorable and Alfrid, holy fucking shit. That's some Jar Jar Binks bullshit right there.
I actually really liked the first 2 movies. They were also full of useless CGI but at least the sense of adventure was still present. This was just an ordinary showdown devoid of any emotion or character building. I can't seem to find the specific post but someone earlier in this thread hit the nail on the head when it came to Martin Freeman's acting. The whole tilting the head and starting sentences over. He came off a lot more natural in the first 2 movies. The music was also pretty unmemorable and Alfrid, holy fucking shit. That's some Jar Jar Binks bullshit right there.
AdventureRacing
Member
I won't speak for all the performances in the hobbit but Lee Pace was fucking fantastic. I wish we got to see more of him, loved every second of him in the movie. One of my favorite characters from either trilogy despite the screen time.
Ape Gone Insane
Member
Amazing handwaving. People hate the films because most (yes, most) of the special effects are terrible. You notice the awful CGI and it detracts from the enjoyment. No amount of excuses about unfinished effects work is going to change that. That was the final product we got and paid for.
CGI is as it is because they rushed to three films; I also suspect the lack of Martin was filming constraints. They decided to do three films for financial reasons and then made it fit.
Clearly the idea was to have two films:
Film One: Bilbo meets Gollum
Film Two: Bilbo meets Smaug
These are long Hobbit based scenes and everything around them just looks weak. These two scenes for me the best of the six films.
Freeman was the best thing about these films; whilst I think the actors in general have been top notch, Jackson should have utilised the Dwarves by letting them act out the story without needing to spend all the time on it.
Clearly the idea was to have two films:
Film One: Bilbo meets Gollum
Film Two: Bilbo meets Smaug
These are long Hobbit based scenes and everything around them just looks weak. These two scenes for me the best of the six films.
Freeman was the best thing about these films; whilst I think the actors in general have been top notch, Jackson should have utilised the Dwarves by letting them act out the story without needing to spend all the time on it.
Mind you I only watched these movies once, but that does seem like an incredibly important scene from relationship point of view. Generally it seems that a ton of world building was left on the cutting floor, while what remained was often a string of empty set pieces.
Bilbo/Thorin overall is good, but I felt some scenes felt out of character for no reason but to create some fake drama. Obviously the worst one I can remember right now is when they pretty much immediately leave the entrance to Erebor, but I honestly felt the movies were not really as memorable as LotR and I simply can't provide many examples. I do remember they bugged me, and most of people I talked with irl (anecdotal evidence, sorry), including those who read the books, felt Thorin was often overly assholish for rather no reason.
I actually give Jackson credit for bothering to keep all 13 dwarves. Of course I have no way of proving this, but I feel like many other directors would have dumped half of them and brought the number down to a more manageable 6-7 (the "important" ones) and just fleshed them out more.
I've said this in the past, but The Hobbit is a screenwriter's nightmare. There are nearly 20 characters that all play an important role in some fashion across the story. With a number like that, good luck making half of them even remotely interesting beyond surface-level character traits. Even across three movies, the focus has still had to be on the principle bunch (Bilbo, Thorin, Gandalf, Balin, Kili and - barely - FIli) in order to keep things moving. This was a common complaint for the LotR films as well. I do think it's a perfectly valid complaint that we spent time with characters who weren't in the book (Tauriel and Legolas) when we could have been spending more time with the dwarves.
Of course you can always argue that lack of characterization of the dwarven company is a problem with the book as well.
I agree, and liked this description from the article I linked on the last page.
BertramCooper
Banned
The biggest problem with this last film is that it was centered around conflicts fueled by motivations that are not particularly intriguing or sympathetic.
The dwarves are fighting because Thorin is being greedy and cheap. Bard and the Laketowners are fighting because they want money to rebuild their village. (Which is a sympathetic motivation but not a particularly intriguing one.) The elves are fighting because they're...umm...why are the elves fighting again? And then the orcs come and then everyone's all like, "Shit, we all need to fight together!"
And the film tries to play it the same way they played climactic battles in The Lord of the Rings, where armies were fighting for the fate of the entire world.
It works in the novel because of the book's lighthearted tone and quick pacing, but here it's just an endless bore.
The whole film trilogy is just a total fucking mess. One of the worst book-to-screen adaptations I've ever had the misfortune of seeing. They pretty much pissed on the book and then set it on fire.
The dwarves are fighting because Thorin is being greedy and cheap. Bard and the Laketowners are fighting because they want money to rebuild their village. (Which is a sympathetic motivation but not a particularly intriguing one.) The elves are fighting because they're...umm...why are the elves fighting again? And then the orcs come and then everyone's all like, "Shit, we all need to fight together!"
And the film tries to play it the same way they played climactic battles in The Lord of the Rings, where armies were fighting for the fate of the entire world.
It works in the novel because of the book's lighthearted tone and quick pacing, but here it's just an endless bore.
The whole film trilogy is just a total fucking mess. One of the worst book-to-screen adaptations I've ever had the misfortune of seeing. They pretty much pissed on the book and then set it on fire.
I agree with this.
The
banishment of Sauron fight
Film makers will have to adapt to the format to make it look more convincing. It is easy to spot details such as make up and figurine or backgrounds when you have double the amount of information reaching your eyes. But I wish the HFR will be the new default format, at least for action films.
tryagainlater
Member
I'm certainly not begrudging people disliking the crappy special effects like the molten gold. It's just people bringing out the Gandalf surrounded by the green screen pic or acting like there was no sets in these movies is what bothers me. The misinformation just fuels the hate and it's annoying.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
Speaking of hfr, it looked way better in this movie than in the first one (didn't catch DoS in hfr). I actually really enjoyed it
I don't know if it even worked in the book. I hope I don't get burned at the stake or anything, but I always felt that sudden huge-battle-out-of-nowhere was very out of place.
I do feel they didn't do a good job adapting it. Mostly on part of what felt like greed and lack of canonical sense -- they changed things for the sake of change and it ultimately wasn't worthwhile. For example, the way they titled the third Hobbit film and showcased the title at the beginning of the movie, it was like they were thinking, "Well, this is how the Lord of the Rings movies did it, so we should do it for the Hobbit movies." But it was just something they made up on the spot. The title "Battle of the Five Armies" isn't something an LoTR/Hobbit book reader would identify with like "Return of the King".
I like the movie and the trilogy, but I wouldn't call it a definitive adaptation.. somewhere down the road it'll be made again in another attempt to adapt the book, and it'll probably be better.
Skellig Gra
Member
I think a big part of this is your brain has "figured it out" and adjusted. Certainly the first time you watch an HFR flick it takes awhile to adjust. I love the tech personally. It's much more immersive.
This is also a detriment too unfortunately. Since legions of people will give something different at most a minuscule chance. People hate change.
BertramCooper
Banned
Man, Peter Jackson's post-LotR directorial output has been abysmal.
Dude hasn't made a legitimately good movie since Return of the King.
Dude hasn't made a legitimately good movie since Return of the King.
Franchuzas87
Member
So, after finishing this new journey through Middle-earth with the release of BOTFA, yesterday I started watching The Fellowship of the Ring to continue the story. It truly is a timeless... wait, what...
What are these two old men doing, spinning and jumping through the air like prequel jedis?
And lol at some of the noticeable green screens around here. So bad.
Legolas defying gravity. So he weighs less than the hobbits? Sure, why not.
Now is time for a shoehorned action scene with a complete CG monster.
It must be contagious, because by just touching the troll Legolas also becomes fully CG. Wow.
It's also funny how after the bridge of Khazad Dum breaks, the Balrog falls but Gandalf keeps looking elsewhere. Maybe it's because he was in a studio looking to a tennis ball or something.
Speaking of filming inside a studio. Couldn't they find a real forest with big trees or what? Looks so fake.
Time for a fart joke. Classic Tolkien.
And now the dwarf/comic relief of the group falls for an elf. Can we go back to the fart joke, please?
Oh, look, miniatures. Looks great. Because they are REAL, you know...
...wait a second. What? Why is the statue on the left raising his right arm now? Lol, the CG team doesn't even care.
So Legolas has daggers, but he chooses to use his arrows in close combat too? Lol, so stupid.
My favourite part must be when the invented antagonist of this film confronts Aragorn and stabs himself just to get closer.
Silly guy in a costume, you deserve to be beheaded without a single drop of blood.
Man, I don't know what to say. Peter Jackson has just lost it. He is in George Lucas territory now, isn't he?
What are these two old men doing, spinning and jumping through the air like prequel jedis?
And lol at some of the noticeable green screens around here. So bad.
Legolas defying gravity. So he weighs less than the hobbits? Sure, why not.
Now is time for a shoehorned action scene with a complete CG monster.
It must be contagious, because by just touching the troll Legolas also becomes fully CG. Wow.
It's also funny how after the bridge of Khazad Dum breaks, the Balrog falls but Gandalf keeps looking elsewhere. Maybe it's because he was in a studio looking to a tennis ball or something.
Speaking of filming inside a studio. Couldn't they find a real forest with big trees or what? Looks so fake.
Time for a fart joke. Classic Tolkien.
And now the dwarf/comic relief of the group falls for an elf. Can we go back to the fart joke, please?
Oh, look, miniatures. Looks great. Because they are REAL, you know...
...wait a second. What? Why is the statue on the left raising his right arm now? Lol, the CG team doesn't even care.
So Legolas has daggers, but he chooses to use his arrows in close combat too? Lol, so stupid.
My favourite part must be when the invented antagonist of this film confronts Aragorn and stabs himself just to get closer.
Silly guy in a costume, you deserve to be beheaded without a single drop of blood.
Man, I don't know what to say. Peter Jackson has just lost it. He is in George Lucas territory now, isn't he?
Joke post, obviously
- Status