• To celebrate the release of Halo: The Master Chief Collection on Steam, Xbox Games Studios has provided 5 Steam copies of the game and 5 Xbox One copies of the game! We will be giving these away in the Gaming Giveaways |OT|. Some Steam copies will also be given away to the PC Gaming Era community.
  • An old favorite feature returns: Q&ERA is back! This time we'll be collecting questions for Remedy Entertainment, makers of Max Payne, Alan Wake, Quantum Break, and Control. Members can submit questions for the next 3 days, 1 minute, 38 seconds. Submissions will close on Dec 12, 2019 at 12:00 AM.

The Hobbit films look absolutely disgusting

Rodney McKay

Member
Oct 26, 2017
3,888
It's a bit heart breaking just how big of a drop in quality the Hobbit Trilogy is from LOTR.

That ugly bloom effect everywhere, the overused poor CG, the bloated length, the second movie's awful cliffhanger, etc.

So many good actors who were perfect in their roles, (all the dwarves and Bilbo), the great Gollum and Smaug scenes, seeing that universe again, etc. But it wasn't enough.
Anyone who saw it in 48fps. What were the panning shots like? I've yet to see one at 24fps on a large screen that hasn't made me want to tear my eyes out.
Those were about the only scenes in the movies I felt benefitted from the HFR. Them walking across the top of a mountain while the camera spun around them in HFR and the 3D actually looked pretty good.

But that's the only highlight of the movies and it might have only happened once or twice, haha. Some of the fast CG action scenes looked more clear in HFR, but having rewatched the movies fairly recently in Bluray I can't say I noticed much difference since seeing them in theater.
 

Anoregon

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,055
Man I was so looking forward to the Hobbit movies and man did they suck. It's a real travesty that they were both rushed and stretched out to appease corporate bullshit.
 

hikarutilmitt

Member
Dec 16, 2017
3,403
Why can't people just make normal, human threads? The hyperbole in the OP pretty much tanks any chance of reasonable discussion, whether or not the point is valid. Just speak like a normal person, it's not hard.
But how else is the OP supposed to get clicks on the thread?

I didn't find it bad, but it should have just been a really good quality CG movie for all the CG that is in it.
 

Pilgrimzero

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,214
I think the difference in mass, if big enough, should allow for some upward movement from him. If you jump up from the ground, you push the ground below in the opposite direction, but since the Earth mass is insanely larger than ours, it's only us who move. This is not theoretically impossible, just the scales of what was shown in the movie are wrong and make his run very improbable - but I guess he is superhuman after all. I just found out a serious analysis of what was actually shown in the movie:
It's a very fun and informative read.
Let’s not forget he walked on snow the others had to trudge through.
 

O Vet

Member
Oct 30, 2017
156
Anyone who saw it in 48fps. What were the panning shots like? I've yet to see one at 24fps on a large screen that hasn't made me want to tear my eyes out.
It was really bad, it somehow looked like I was on the set because I don't know how to describe it. Like watching a live play
 

Praxis

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,878
UK
I watched the first film and din't bother with the rest, I don't even like the book very much. Love the LotR films though.
 

Lunar Wolf

Member
Nov 6, 2017
8,732
Los Angeles
the made up witch king stuff with the mountain tombs were cool. but yeah old and uncontroversial opinion.



Tasteless, abundant, unbelievably gross, stylized CGI.

We will get into the physics issue in a minute. And yes, the wigs and prosthetics are dated and hideous too.

But the films look terrible and it’s distracting. Overcome with stylized bloom lighting, orange and blue sunset colorization, and completely inorganic green screen junk sets - the films are tragically ugly.

To no surprise, the internet is full of people noting The Hobbit looks more like a video game than a fantastical New Zealand. The lighting and colors look off at almost any moment because they insisted on digital manipulation being apparent. Many characters are totally CGI hell holes in shots.

This is made more tragic by the fact these movies were way more expensive than the trilogy from the prior decade. It’s believed to have cost nearly triple the budget to make The Hobbit films compared to Lord of the Rings. We did not get triple the quality. Unlike Lord of the Rings in which each sequel made more than the film that came before, finishing with a near complete sweep of the 2004 Academy Awards, and concluded with a stellar legacy - The Hobbit films each released in declining box office compared to the previous film, and little praise for its Rotten-rated finale.

They don’t just look bad in images. They look ridiculous in motion. Described by many as cartoonish, slapstick, and video game-y - the physics and CGI motion was a haunting cloud over all scenes after action took place. Leaping across barrels in river rapids, skipping across individually separating bricks on a walkway, surfing on dry earth, rabbits pulling a sleigh.



How the HELL did it end up being so horrendous?
Legolas true powers only unlock when he's riding something.

Riding barrels, riding a shield, riding an elephant, riding rocks, riding a winged creature etc.
 

Turbo Tu-Tone

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,727
The biggest tragedy (for me) was that the original The Mountain actor (Conan Stevens) from Game of Thrones actually left GoT to play an Orc...and then his entire role was cut when they extended it from two the three movies to make more money. Instead of filming reshoots, they decided to replace him with a CGI character. So we lost the best (and most scary) Mountain from GoT, and also an amazing costume for The Hobbit.

Here is what he was supposed to be in The Hobbit (costume):



Here is what the character ended up being (CGI):



It's very sad how bad it looks in comparison to the physical costume.
Holy shit, the DISRESPECT.

How do you do practical effects artists like that? Fuck whoever made the call to go with the CGI WIP Pinterest character, instead of that badass at the top.
 

Zorg1000

Member
Jul 22, 2019
188
I recall an interview from Viggo Mortensen (Aragorn) talking about how he would get into arguments with Peter Jackson about his growing love of CGI even during the LotR trilogy.
 

Garlador

Member
Oct 30, 2017
7,560
the cartoon version is the only one for me
I thought that's what we were talking about.


Straight out of Beowulf.


I haven't seen the film, but some of the gifs look in line with the first trilogy.
You're not entirely wrong, but I think the fact that 10% of the LOTR had dodgy CGI while 80% of the Hobbit had dodgy CGI makes it more egregious. Every major action scene in The Hobbit movies felt like the Legolas elephant trunk slide scene from ROTK.
 

Tuorom

Member
Oct 30, 2017
2,395
They are just bad movies all around. When the unexpected party happened I had reservations. The trolls were a disgrace. I was pretty fed up after the ridiculous mountain segment with the goblin king. The fuck was that. Then it got worse.

I think I watched the 2nd....don't remember much though. I do remember it was terrible, except for Smaug. But then the fucked that up by making the encounter last foreverrrrrr.

And the difference with LOTR is even though Legolas had ridiculous abilities, they happened once a movie. The Hobbit crap was happening the entire running length.
 

bobeth

Member
Oct 28, 2017
299
I have to agree with you OP. The whole thing looked artificial. I felt I was watching people with wigs and makeup surrounded by GG, could not get pulled in. Shame..
 
OP
OP
BAD

BAD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,562
USA
The difference from The Hobbit films is that this happens very quickly and is slightly obscured. It’s not so glaring.

The scenes with Legolas and the war elephants in ROTK are far more illusion breaking than that quick shot.

Sorry are you alleging that the long shots like the river barrels or Legolas hanging upside down from eagles or the main Orc Or whole bloom lit CGI actor composites were quick and obscured?
 

nazgul_hunter

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,560
Sorry are you alleging that the long shots like the river barrels or Legolas hanging upside down from eagles or the main Orc Or whole bloom lit CGI actor composites were quick and obscured?
He's saying the ROTK scenes are more similar to the Hobbit... the scene he's reference that's quick and obscured is the shot of Legolas getting on a horse.

Which, funnily enough, was created out of necessity, because on editing, they realized they didn't have a shot of Legolas getting on a horse, but they did have scenes of him on a horse later, so they created that shot to explain.
 

Mahonay

Member
Oct 25, 2017
15,389
Pencils Vania
Sorry are you alleging that the long shots like the river barrels or Legolas hanging upside down from eagles or the main Orc Or whole bloom lit CGI actor composites were quick and obscured?
Lol no the other way around. The Hobbit CGI shots are all too long and glaring.

I was referring to Legolas swinging onto the horse in LOTR being more obscured than anything in The Hobbit films.
 
Last edited:

Cugel

Member
Nov 7, 2017
1,693
The difference from The Hobbit films is that this happens very quickly and is slightly obscured. It’s not so glaring.

The scenes with Legolas and the war elephants in ROTK are far more illusion breaking than that quick shot.

Its like they took this scene and shield surfing, thought, "people like that !", cranked it up to 11, and there you go.