Mike and Jay talk about Peter Jackson's latest trip to Middle-Earth, The Hobbit, and frustrate both Tolkien fans and HFR projection supporters in the process.
sayabukanhasan It was a microcosm of the problems with the Hobbit movies: like they said, pointless excess. Despite all the things flying around and all the CG I was actually bored with the barrel sequence because it was drawn out so much longer than it needed to be and all the pretty visuals in the world couldn't detract from the fact that its bloat added nothing (think Revenge of the Sith final fight; could've been much shorter and would've served the purpose better). Furthermore, it's textbook ruining the stakes. It was exactly like what Plinkett talked about in the Attack of the Clones review during the speeder chase. The characters are in such a ridiculous situation and they should be dead numerous times and yet they're fine when they shouldn't be (and don't even acknowledge or seem to care about any danger themselves), completely removing all worry or concern for the characters from the audience's minds that these characters could die. There's no more sense of danger or any stakes. To make things even worse, you have Legolas and Tauriel performing ridiculous superhuman feats one after the other, completely taking away our sense of knowing what the characters can do and knowing they are vulnerable and have limitations (think Matrix sequels), knowing the characters are under threat from their enemies ("Jedis cut through these things like they're butter. They really are pretty useless"-- sound familiar?), and knowing that any problem can't just be solved by some superhuman matrix character just coming in and deux ex machining the situation into oblivion (which of course does happen later in the movie). Lastly its over the top cartoonishness heightened the irreconcilability of the Hobbit's two incohesive tones, one of a fun little adventure, the other a grand and dark epic of world-affecting scale. You see the scene and wonder how you can take the other, supposedly dark things seriously, especially when this very stuff frames the barrel scene. Specifically, its the serious elf stuff that is solely there for playing on audience nostalgia/love for the original trilogy and trying to tie it in to that and raise the scale to LOTR levels. The barrel scene (and others) don't fit with that movie, but then of course they aren't the main problem. A shorter and more suspenseful barrel scene could have fit very well indeed within a fun adventure movie (or two movies) like the Hobbit would be better for being.
The word " fortnight " never appears in the Lord of the Rings. Famously, the " f " key on Tolkien's typewriter was broken. He originally planned to call the character Forin Oakenshield. True story.
True though, the Hobbit was just a story for his children. The Lord trilogy was written to his son while he was at war in Europe. Tolkien was interested in the languages and the lore.
@@liamcoak7830this is going to said really esoteric and weird, but I feel like the final fascination of any writer would eventually become language itself. In the same way that people can become obsessed with math itself one can become immersed in the back and fourth relationship between language and reality itself.
@alprazolam1mgs It looked like a poorly rendered video game. It went on and on and on to the point where watching the film became an exercise in tedium. I will not forget or forgive.
Kind of. It's more that the protagonist is "just some guy". And while I'd agree that Bilbo and Frodo are heroes of their stories, he also had more typical heroes and even Messiah figures in his stories, like Aragorn.
It had more to do that Tolkien was following the story structures of antiquity, particularly in Norse mythology: many times a character would be introduced through his feats and lineage, not so much emotional and character progression. Bard wouldn't be "just some guy" in a story of Antiquity: he's Bard the Bowman, son of Bain, and becomes the first king of the new Kingdom of Dale. Do these add anything to his character in a movie? No. Does a character like this work in a children's story? Yes. Characters like these work EVEN BETTER in The Lord of the Rings, where many ancillary Princes and Lords are introduced that are never even seen in the films: Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth, Halbarad (Ranger of the North, and the Leader of the Grey Company), Glorfindel (reincarnated, one of the Firstborn elves, and a former Lord of Gondolin), Beregond (Captain of the Fountain Guard and future Lord of Ithilien), etc etc. They add to the grandiose storytelling, even if they may not have well-defined personalities or backstories. The Hobbit movies add characters like Tauriel to the story "because we need a female love interest." Yes I hated the Arwen-Aragorn romance, but at least it serves a purpose: he does marry her by the end of ROTK. Tauriel ... is a Mary-Sue of a character (ok, I have never even seen Hobbit movies 2 and 3, but I can look and see that that is what she is). Off-hand statement: Tolkien can do a romance: Beren and Luthien in The Silmarrillion IS what a Man and Elf relationship can look like when it adds to the story (it's just in this case, Tolkien likely omitted Arwen from much of the LOTR books because she wouldn't have added much to them).
I never read the book, but in the 1970's (?) cartoon it seemed the Hero was the Bard's family/heirloom tradition of passing on Black Arrow. So directly the hero was heirloom tradition and maybe his unknown family.
ro luna in the books he was the descendent of the kings of Dale and the black arrows were just regular arrows with different tips and Laketown had hundreds of them
Funnily enough the parts of LOTR in the first book where it's just the hobbits and none of the world ending plot are some of my favorite in the entire story. There's something comforting and simple about a group of characters just camping and moving around on a map that the biggest battle for the fate of the world couldn't hold a candle to in terms of sparking that sense of adventure and fantasy
I know this is old, but I had to comment on it: Peter Jackson wasn’t originally going to direct and movies. He signed on after Guiermo del Toro left. In interviews he said he was pretty much just winging it and there were a lot of problems with the production. It didn’t seem like he was directing the movies out of a great desire to return to the world of LOTR.
I recall watching a video that PJ did the movie because he wanted it made in NZ and if he didn't do it the studios would take the production out of NZ cause the NZ film unions and Hollywood fucking hated each other. Also del Toro pulled out because the studio were very hands on and didn't like what del Toro was doing so he gave them the bird. So Peter had to start from scratch, with release due in less than 2 years, to make 3 movies. The movies writing is garbage but I respect the production crew for making the movies look good enough.
@@whoknows8264 The production of The Hobbit is notoriously controlled by the studios and I find it weird that they don't mention this in their review. It's the reason why the movie looks the way it looks, it's the reason why it's released in three parts (instead of Del Toro's idea of releasing two parts, with the first ending somewhere around when they arrive Smaug and the second being the epic battle and everything). These movies are an embarrassment.
@@DarkAngelEU the whole second part was just them being at The Lonely Mountain and then the big fight and end? That's barely anything haha, like the fight wasn't even very much detailed in the book at all, that would have been a weird choice.
Guillermo Del Toro was supposed to direct these, but dropped out kind of last minute, then Peter Jackson stepped in and had almost no time to prepare the movie. So they basically made it up as they went along. He was bummed about it too.
48 fps is a baffling decision. Theres a whole bunch of technical reasons for why 24 fps looks pretty bad on home television, but it basically boils down to "Showing 24 fps on a 60 hz screen requires each frame to be held for 2 frames and then 12 frames to be held for 3." This causes a juttery effect, its easiest to see in panning shots or shots with long slow camera movements. If home viewing was your concern you would shoot the movie in 30 fps or 60 and IMO you'd be justified in doing it, especially in the modern day where most people stream. 48 fps is probably the worst framerate to pick for home viewing. Instead of 12 frames being held an additional 50% duration like in 24 fps video you now have 12 frames being held for double the duration of the surrounding frames. Contrast like this stands out to the human eyes, so while over all they're held for less time, because the contrast with the surrounding frames is more significant 48 fps looks jumpier on a 60 hz display than 24.
That underground goblin chase was one of the worst scenes I've ever seen in my life. When the stupid bridge fell and they rode it, I wanted to leave the theater...
Darkness1984 It may seem that way from the tone of my comment, but I actually do like fun! And the original LotR trilogy. I could write an essay about why that scene in particular was so bad, but here is the summary: 1. The special effects look very bad. The sometimes CGI, sometimes real actors ran across a badly composited scene (in the, "something looked fake" sense). It felt like the actors were just running at normal speed and waving their arms through the air, pushing weightless CGI enemies without effort. 2. There was no sense of danger. Those kinds of thrilling CGI scenes work best when the filmmaker hints at the vulnerability of the protagonists. It looked like were all immortal and not in any danger. When they were SURFING ON THE FALLING bridge, that was the worst part. 3. It lasts too long on a really simple gag. Scenes like that rely on the special effects looking good, and a sense of empathy for the protagonists. Enjoy the scene if you can, but those aspects make me dislike the scene (and the rest of the movie isn't good enough to make up for it lol). I can't believe the special effects supervisor OKed that scene. SAME WITH THE BUNNY SCENE
polishfish Same for me, took me out of the movie. That's where it hit home for me that this wasn't a LoTR movie with the same vibe as the first three - felt like a disney ride or something. At that point I stopped expecting a more sober, serious tone that would make me feel intrigued or engaged in the story like the other movies did. For example, the battle of helm's deep was some serious feels when the survivors were ''drafted'' to fight and die on the ramparts at the battle they all knew they were going to lose. Then again, the hobbit was based on a children's book so I can't blame PJ too much.
He wasn’t just “some guy,” he was the descendant of the archer that failed to kill Smaug when he attacked the mountain town that they lived in before Laketown. His ancestor (maybe grandpa or great grandpa) claimed that he saw the scale fall from the dragon, but he, and by association his family name became tarnished, so the descendant redeems the family name, after living his entire life as a joke, he arguably has more character arc than 80% of modern Hollywood movies.
I just finished watching the Desolation of Smaug and at 13:00 they're so astutely describing exactly what happened in the barrel scene, except they have no concept of how absurd it became. These guys understand the director's mind well if they can a year ahead of time predict what the production will look like.
Well Peter Jackson took it a step further even. They called the fact that there would have a huge barrel scene, but they seemed to think it would be more of a river rapid/waterfall type action scene, with the danger coming from drowning and rocks. Peter Jackson took it way further, and had the waterfall rock action, while being chased by orcs, who were also being chased and fought by the elves, including fucking Legolas. Tons of people predicted that the barrel scene was going to be a huge drawn out scene in this film, but nobody could have realized just how ridiculous the final scene would end up being...
I honestly would've liked to have seen how Guillermo Del Toro direction would take The Hobbit. Almost all his films have a fairy tale sense about them, so it would've been refreshing I think. It's a shame that he fell out of the project. I still love these films, but I really wonder what could have been.
These are the worst movies because of how long they are. A tiny childrens book is 3 huge movies. I could see the argument to make it 2, but 3? Its blatant "fuck you, give me more money"
I actually liked the first one a lot, the second is not that bad either. The third one however, it's fucking disgusting. The entire movie feels like a gigantic 3rd act. It's just stuff happening, like the climax, but there was no fucking set up before. Of course the set up was the first two movies, but a movie should be able to stand on it's own as far as enjoyment
this is very true. I do hear about Fortnite a little bit from fans, but the people that hate it bitch about it at literally every chance possible @@jakejutras5420
One of the best things about the hobbit movies is it gave faces and personalities to the all the dwarves which are hard to keep track of while reading the book.
I think the main misunderstanding in the Tolkien criticism is that Tolkien didn't really try to tell a story, he just told the story of the world as it was in his head. If he didn't have Bilbo kill Smaug it probably wasn't because he couldn't appreciate the value of an archetypical dragon-slaying hero, being an eminent English professor and one of the main experts on Beowulf. It's because in his head Bilbo *didn't* kill Smaug and he couldn't help it or do something about it.
Jay's excitement at the tapes appearing is my favorite thing ever filmed in the history of things that have been filmed. It seems actually genuine, and it's probably because the whole thing was his idea.
Also Bard is the name of the "random bowman" who killed Smaug. He's actually a descendant of the ancient Lords of Dale, a city that is near the Lonely Mountain. It was ravaged by Smaug long ago and thus it was very fitting that Bard would eventually subdue him. I always liked that bit, it seemed so epic in my mind. I imagined a darker night and a moonlit lake with a few houses dimly lit in the distance. There, Bard would be standing on the docks of Lake town. In the distance Smaug would be seen making his approach, swooping downward. But lo! Bard, with his bow aimed straight and true, let fly a righteous arrow that would pierce the dragon's diamond clad armour. Tumbling downward into the lake, Smaug fell and was no more!!!....I miss the days when my imagination was on fire.
"'' Movies, are no longer about the story, jay, they are about the experience, the immersion into a world "" Yes, you're right, mike, movies are trying to do what video games already do perfectly, why? I don't know.
Some games, yes, like The Wolf Among Us which I find nice to watch like a movie ( or more aptly a TV series ) yet I do not enjoy playing it, therefore it being a video game is rendered somewhat moot. P.S Upon revisiting what I said it may read like I was trying to be negative towards movies, that is not what I intended.
It stems (imo) from trying to translate movie cinematic feel to games, which doesn't work, unless you render aspects of what separates the two mediums (player agency) out of games to obtain the more movie feel (like the atrocious The Order: 1886 tried to do). Like you mentioned with TWAU, it works great there, and it does in a lot of Tell Tale games, but developers need to sit down and think about how to achieve a cinematic experience for a player, without butchering agency (sort of like how music can be used in such a way to boost atmosphere in a movie can be used in a similar fashion to give contextual audio queues to players in a game like Dark Souls). It's not an insurmountable goal, just being approached from a misguided direction. Also, it doesn't help that the word cinematic is being abused when discussing elements in a game that come off an improperly attributed (for a lack of better words) mechanic without understanding how it applies to the situation (outside of cutscenes, and again, The Order: 1886).
Vholst I think you just conveyed what I tried to, but a lot better. And I did feel like TWAU was a bad example after I posted it, because, I wasn't thinking of the player choice mechanics among other things. Also, The Order 1886 is a much better example, change a few things here and there ( like more in-depth characters ) and it would make a great movie, but as video game it is abominable. ( atrocious was underselling it )
Player choice changes with the content and how it's best to be implemented (like walking simulators being more fluff than substance in what the player can do, even though they potentially can be stronger as a genre). I also haven't played TWAU, but I have played their old Sam and Max series, the first season of The Walking Dead and Tales from the Borderlands, and so I don't know if their A team (those that made what I mentioned) or B team (those that made Minecraft or Game of Thrones), but the player takes a different role in being the conductor, rather than an entity. [Spoilers if you haven't played TWD or TftB] The player's choice in these games becomes much more focused and difficult to nail down, as the choices have to absolutely matter, and have the carry weight (trusting in Handsome Jack being a good example), and of course the context in which these scenarios occur at the time (Lee cutting his arm off after being bitten). They aren't perfect, but Tell Tale can tell a tale well (pun unintended) and give the player agency in the direction it can go, and sometimes, cause the player to later regret decisions. To quote a friend "They're like interactive Saturday Morning Cartoons, where you help write your version of the story". 1886 is a gorgeous game, with a great setting, but wrapped around boring shooting sections and QTEs in an insultingly bad presentation and abysmal marketing that was aimed at passive-aggressively insulting the audience. I agree, it would have been a slow, but pretty solid movie, but as a game, it came off as the intro to a prequel stretched out for a far too long (a tech demo if nothing else). It made Killzone: Shadowfall look amazing in comparison.
4:00 - "Make us the money you made for us with Lord of the Rings." Peter Jackson completed that objective with The Hobbit movies out-grossing The Lord of the Rings movies at 3 billion dollars for that jumbled mess of a cash-grab.
As a big fan of The Office (UK) before they made these films, I was very happy to see Martin Freeman cast in such a big role. Too bad he was kind of underutilized. He did well though for what was asked of him. There's an old interview after The Office wrapped where Freeman says something like "if I'm 80 years old and people are still shouting Tim (his character in the Office) at me, I'll understand but wonder why aren't they shouting something else at me? ... still, there are worse things to have shouted at you." (I'm paraphrasing). I guess he's more well known for this role now. Hopefully people aren't shouting "Oi, Bilbo!" at him when he's 80.
You guys helped me nail what I didn't like about this movie. It spent too much time on the grand scale and forgets to narrow down to the small things that build characters and the world.
22:58 -This is not actually true. A lot of older movies were recorded at lower speeds (typically 12 to 18 frames per second), and were projected at different speeds (sync wasn't very relevant for silent movies). As you mention later, we're used to seeing old silent comedies projected at 24 fps, with everyone moving very fast, but back in the day most of them would have moved at "normal" speed, just will less frames per second - i.e., motion would have looked less fluid). Also, when 24 fps films are converted to PAL (for TV / home video release) they're often sped up by 4%, to match the standard PAL 25 fps (that's why the same film often has slightly different running times in Europe vs. the US, even when the edit is exactly the same - these days most TVs can do 24 fps so publishers don't bother converting them anymore). Converting 24 to 29.97 FPS (NTSC standard) retains the original duration almost exactly, but is a mess in terms of update rate. There's nothing inherently wrong with 48 fps, and it does make the 3D effect a lot _less_ annoying (because it reduces the issues with the lack of sync between both eyes - some 3D systems require both eyes to be in sync, and some require them to be out of sync, but the film is only shot once, which means in some theatres one "eye" will lag behind the other), but you always need to sit in front of the screen. Watching a "3D" movie at an angle is hell _regardless_ of frame rate. Also video wasn't "30 frames a second because of video fields". It was actually ~60 updates per second "because of video fields", but where each update only had half the vertical resolution (and updated only the odd or even lines of the screen). So it was either ~60 fields per second or ~30 frames per second (for NTSC; in PAL countries, which is most of the world, it would be 50 fields or 25 frames). Nowadays, with digital broadcasts and HD formats, a lot of things do indeed use 60 (or 50) full frames per second, with no interlacing. It's particularly beneficial when trying to track small objects moving quickly (i.e., sports, wildlife documentaries). Also, shooting more frames per second doesn't "slow things down". What slows things down is playing it back at a _lower_ frame rate. 24:20 - Motion blur is really a function of shutter speed, not frame rate. Shooting at a higher frame rate does limit the _maximum_ amount of "natural" motion blur you can get, but a lot of 24 fps material is shot with less than a 1/48th ("180º") shutter anyway. As long as the exposure time is the same, you'll get the same amount of motion blur, regardless of frame rate. And, of course, these days it's easy to use optical reflow to get whatever amount of motion blur you want in post. You really should do the technical explanation part _before_ opening the beers, and save those for the film critique. ;-) TL;DR - The "technical" part of the explanation was a mess, and likely to leave people knowing even less. The problem was you watched the film on a huge screen at an angle. If you had watched it on a smaller screen and looking straight at it, the 48 fps would have made it a lot more comfortable than typical 24 fps "3D" (it would still be crap, because "3D" is fundamentally flawed in other ways, but it would be slightly _less_ crap).
@@paulk6399 oh man what is wrong with your life. You are turning into a monster here just because of a meaningless joke you didn't like. All the best for you. Peace.
@@paulk6399 Nah you just told me again that you don't like my old joke. This time you just were even pettier. And hey if you don't like it that's cool, I'm sure you have better things to do than getting upset about some old pun
Oh the "some guy" thing is because it's based on Beowulf, where the dragon is awoken by 13 thieves and beowulf has to fight the dragon. Its linked to those old epics like the Iliad and such
the magcial jumanji vhs boardgame skit was one of the funniest & wittiest things i've ever seen written? god i'm so tired & kind of high but guys that skit at the end was genius & i need you two to know that. amazign work fellas
I don't get it. People complaining about too many frames is like hearing "This purified water is not what I'm use to drinking, it should be dirty, brown and undrinkable." A bottle cap falling for a second at 24fps vs 48fps still takes a second to fall. It doesn't magically hit the table 1/4 of a second faster at 48fps. Just because your norm is lower quality doesn't make it the best choice.
My problem with the movie is that there are some REALLY good memorable scenes, however they overshadow the rest of the movie. So you have an entire movie that can't really live up to the sections that are memorable. After I see a pretty good scene. I mentally go okay this gonna be great from this point on. Then you're thrown back into boring segments of poorly executed comedy relief by the dwarfs. So in a sense you feel like you're being taken in and out of the movie, because its almost like it doesn't know what type of movie its trying to be.
I remember being at a friend's house and we were watching some movie at 60FPS and I kept complaining that everything looked out of sync or that it was sped up or something and no one else saw it but me. I felt like a crazy person.
WestcoastWheelman unfortunately, if they filmed this in 24fps, there's literally no way they could reupload it in 60fps. Though, if they re-shoot it...
The frames per second discussion is kind of wrong. Filming at higher frame rates isn't filming things slower at all. You're capturing more information per second (as they do mention eventually). You capture at 48fps... you play back at 48fps... normal speed. Also, old films shot at low frame rates like 16fps are not supposed to look sped up when played back. It's the transfer to TV by lazy technicians.. they simply speed up to the playback to TV standards instead of doing a proper conversion. Do you really think that back in the 20's and 30's films looked all sped up like Benny Hill when you watched them in the cinema?! Of course not.. they were shot at 16fps and played back at 16fps. The end.
It’s a bit more complicated film was recorded by hand cranking the camera so the frame rate wasn’t perfectly consistent. Also, doubling the frame rate halves the amount of light entering the camera per frame, meaning that the lighting has to compensate (or the aperture) so you reduce motion blur and can change depth of field. Changing one thing really impacts other aspects. I think it is great for sports because you want to see with as much clarity as possible (reducing motion blue on a pitch for instance is great).
- "Now there can be two epic fantasy sagas." - "Exactly. Where have we seen that before?" I'm surprised that more people haven't pointed this out. The similarities between The Hobbit and part one of a certain other prequel trilogy, both in tone, lack of sincerity and (I guess) motives behind making it, are uncanny.
In all honesty, Bard really sort of is "Some Guy". He's a Guard Captain, so he's not a nobody, but he's not some kind of legendary hero or main character type.
"I think Tolkien has no idea what he is doing" Mike Stokasa Actually, Tolkein wrote from page one with no plan, and just made the story up as he went along, so you're correct.
"My dear Frodo... I haven't told you everything," thats why very little detail got fleshed out for 1-3 scenes. Cos the Ring-Bearer was butthurt about not knowing every second of his Uncle's life. Thanks Frodo.
2:32 An unexpected 'flop'??? It made millions at the Bix office and made back its money! The term Mike meant was 'unexpected mixed response', flop isn't related to critical agenda, it's financial related.
Its a shame mike doesn't like the LotR books. Its not for everyone of course, but i think he would really enjoy them. Its a "slow burn", as he often says, but its all worth it for the third book.
I could not connect to any of the new films. Part 2 is okay because of Smaug. But part 3 is so awful. One of the worst movies of the last years. Especially compared to its costs.
+Marvin Nash Honestly if you cut all the action out of part 3 and just keep the acting bits I thought it was pretty good as a stand alone movie about a bunch of dwarves.
+TheHoratiosvetlana It really kind of hurts, because I loved the first Hobbit film and thought it was a good as Fellowship. The second one was okay, but I did not like the third. I wish they stuck with the original plan of just having 2 films as opposed to three.
I thought all three were garbage. All three delve into "Prequel physics," where they go wild with CG making a scene that's completely ridiculous to the point where I don't buy anything I'm looking at, and am no longer invested. Of course all the dwarves are fine after they surf-board a wooden plank down a chasm. It's all feels super fake, so they never seemed to be in danger. If you edited out all the over-bloated action garbage from all three movies, maybe there'd be enough dregs left to piece together an okay 90 minute hobbit movie. (though I have my doubts)
I agree so much that the high framerate has no place in film until they can make it look good, probably many years down the line. High framerate can be a really good thing for media, especially videogames, movies arent ready
