The Hobbit Looks rubbish!

My girlfriend excitedly rewound live tv yesterday to force eed me the new Hobbit trailer. She looked at m with anticipation, she was expecting me to be impressed and hoping I would be as desperate as her to see it! But I shrugged it off and said it looks pretty rubbish.

It looks fake. Or real. Which is it?

Almost every scene looks like a movie set or as if it's a stage/theater show that has been filmed. So, to really get into it as a film it looks too fake. Or you could say it looks so real that it makes it obvious that it is a film anyone get me?

I was pretty underwhelmed. I felt like I was watching a bit of a silly trailer with sill actors playing around on really obvious fake sets. Awful. I hope it gets slated if deserved and not bummed by the types who will claim to like it no matter what!

Better to watch it big. See if yo get what I mean. Every scene change I find that my mind is not immersed (say the way when you are watching batman you feel like you are watching a real batman in a real city) - my brain just says to itself "oh look a man in a costume"... "oh another man in a silly wig"... "look at those computer graphics"... "it looks like toystory"..."oh that's a nice set, I wonder who built that?"

I can't go through a whole film feeling as though it is all on set.

To be fair how can they make 3 films out of a book which isn't even the size of what Lord of the Rings was. If anything it will be filled with a load of crap just to make the running time up.

not into these "fantasy" films.

"oh it's diddly dum a rumtpy tumpty from sprachy pond and his fair wench"

Hipster_Nebula wrote:not into these "fantasy" films.

"oh it's diddly dum a rumtpy tumpty from sprachy pond and his fair wench"

I bet you enjoyed White Men Can't Jump.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:not into these "fantasy" films.

"oh it's diddly dum a rumtpy tumpty from sprachy pond and his fair wench"

I bet you enjoyed White Men Can't Jump.

Yeah it was alright.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Yeah it was alright.

That was fantasy.

I for one am looking forward to it. The Hobbit was a book, and a story, in its own right, and was the precursor to the Lord of the Rings books. I think the analogy between Batman and the Hobbit is a bit weak. We know the Hobbit is fantasy, yet you can believe in Batman, and I'm assuming the streets of Gotham were all real, with no sets. Last time I looked New Zealand was real. OK, whatever Stories like the Hobbit are far more detailed in characters, plots, etc, but I would suggest you read the book, its not too bad, although knowing the background, I'd prefer the film. Its a lot more entertaining. JJ, don't be a miserable sod, take the missus to the pictures !

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

Yeah it was alright.

That was fantasy.

no it wasn't it was a drama/comedy.

I'm talking about the "fantasy" genre as you well know.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

no it wasn't it was a drama/comedy.

I'm talking about the "fantasy" genre as you well know.

Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes only did about 50% of the action shots. Therefore 50% of it was fantasy.

Lord of the Rings was boring. A kids story that didn't fit well with an adult audience. The Hobbit will be more of the same. I preferred Willow.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

no it wasn't it was a drama/comedy.

I'm talking about the "fantasy" genre as you well know.

Woody Harrelson and Wesley Snipes only did about 50% of the action shots. Therefore 50% of it was fantasy.

I'm talking about the "fantasy" genre, as you know.

gloswhite wrote:I for one am looking forward to it. The Hobbit was a book, and a story, in its own right, and was the precursor to the Lord of the Rings books. I think the analogy between Batman and the Hobbit is a bit weak. We know the Hobbit is fantasy, yet you can believe in Batman, and I'm assuming the streets of Gotham were all real, with no sets. Last time I looked New Zealand was real. OK, whatever Stories like the Hobbit are far more detailed in characters, plots, etc, but I would suggest you read the book, its not too bad, although knowing the background, I'd prefer the film. Its a lot more entertaining. JJ, don't be a miserable sod, take the missus to the pictures !

Ok, when watching Harry Potter all the sets look like they are real places - not things built for a tv program.

I have had a google and found out a possible reason why it looks bad... it was filmed at double the frame rate to a regular film - so the detail is higher (double) and it exposes everything for what it is... so scenery and mountains etc look stunning... but for close ups and people in costumes it is so realistic that it becomes hard to believe in. A critic who likes the look said "it feels like you are right there on the set with the actors"... but to me that describes the problem perfectly, "set" and "actors".

When I saw the title of this post I thought it was a reference to Spearings performance yesterday.