The Hobbit

[AbsorbantJellyfish]

Originally Posted by mossy

In many of the battle scenes there were actually hundereds of guys actually there. Not all parts of those battle scenes were cgi, many objects were indeed real parts of the set including the likes of a fallen Oliphaunt such as this.


I do see your point but it's hard to compare the likes of Braveheart's battles to the LOTR ones. The battle scenes to me had to be done with as much cgi used to emulate the intensity and scale that was portrayed in the books....and they succeeded beyond my expectations in this area.

i know jackson had like 250-300 for the return of the king battle, i guess i just wasn't a fan of how he framed the shots, it just didn't give me the feeling that there were tens of thousands of orcs/uruk guys vs. the humans. whenever they did a wideshot during the battles it always just looks like huge clumps of black for the orcs and creatures, and green or grey for the humans/elves, at least to me.

Originally Posted by Sea Hag

Yeah.

i'm not saying that is a bad battle scene. but the clip only reaffirmed my dislike of the amount of cgi in that battle. there's a closeup of like 20 guys that are actually there, along with the main characters, then there's a clearly cgi wideshot with tens of thousands of digital people. then there's a closeup of like 20 orc/urukai guys that are actually there, just before they're trampled, then there's another clearly digital shot of the two fake armies colliding. and aside from not being a fan of the cgi, the battles were pretty short. i mean there's like 5 minutes, 2 of those are the battles speech pre trampling, then there's the trampling part, and then it cuts to the hobbits. they cut back, but once again, it cuts back to the non action packed hobbit parts within like 3-5 minutes. i loved the books, and the battles in them seemed longer. i mean they cut alot of stuff out from the books when adapting the novels, so why did they have to leave in some of the hobbit parts that shortened the epic ass battles?

[yoxodo]

I really wish Peter Jackson wouldn't hand this over to del Toro. Its like giving a brick of gold to a bum on the street. I may or may not be in the minority on this but i think del Toro sucks. His movies are overrated peices of trash that somehow garner huge cult followings.

At least it delays his plans for a film version of Lovecraft's At the Mountains of Madness, for a little while anyway.

[Sea Hag]

Originally Posted by AbsorbantJellyfish

i know jackson had like 250-300 for the return of the king battle, i guess i just wasn't a fan of how he framed the shots, it just didn't give me the feeling that there were tens of thousands of orcs/uruk guys vs. the humans. whenever they did a wideshot during the battles it always just looks like huge clumps of black for the orcs and creatures, and green or grey for the humans/elves, at least to me.

If you did a wide shot of a real battle where hundreds of thousands (that's not an exaggerration) of soldiers with each respective 100,000 army wearing similar attire (they all don't come dressed in their own clothes) that's what it would look like. (especially considering one of the army's garbs is basically all black) Can't believe I'm having this conversation.

and aside from not being a fan of the cgi, the battles were pretty short. mean there's like 5 minutes, 2 of those are the battles speech pre trampling, then there's the trampling part, and then it cuts to the hobbits. they cut back, but once again, it cuts back to the non action packed hobbit parts within like 3-5 minutes. i loved the books, and the battles in them seemed longer.

Helm's Deep encompasses almost an hour of film () which is unhread of in the history of cinema () & in the book it's not even a quarter detailed like it is in the film. The Battle Of Pelennor Fields is even longer (bizarro world)

i mean they cut alot of stuff out from the books when adapting the novels, so why did they have to leave in some of the hobbit parts that shortened the epic ass battles?

The battles are not short (i never thought i'd have to point that out in my life) & Frodo & Sam's journey is the heart of the whole trilogy. (that should be common knowledge to anyone that "loves" the books) The two big things that weren't included in Jackson's films are the hobbits meeting Tom Bombadil & the end where they return to the Shire only to find that Saruman has laid claim to it. And those sections were rightfully cut because they wouldn't have translated well to cinema at all.

[AbsorbantJellyfish]

Originally Posted by Sea Hag

If you did a wide shot of a real battle where hundreds of thousands (that's not an exaggerration) of soldiers with each respective 100,000 army wearing similar attire (they all don't come dressed in their own clothes) that's what it would look like. (especially considering one of the army's garbs is basically all black) Can't believe I'm having this conversation.

Helm's Deep encompasses almost an hour of film () which is unhread of in the history of cinema () & in the book it's not even a quarter detailed like it is in the film. The Battle Of Pelennor Fields is even longer (bizarro world)

The battles are not short (i never thought i'd have to point that out in my life) & Frodo & Sam's journey is the heart of the whole trilogy. (that should be common knowledge to anyone that "loves" the books) The two big things that weren't included in Jackson's films are the hobbits meeting Tom Bombadil & the end where they return to the Shire only to find that Saruman has laid claim to it. And those sections were rightfully cut because they wouldn't have translated well to cinema at all.

yea, they would look the same if you did a shot from thousands of feet off the ground. but the wideshots from the battles look like they're from a low flying helicoptor, which if they had a decent amount of people actually filmed, wouldn't look fake. the helm's deep battle is definitely not a hour of the movie. yea, it's an hour if you count them preparing for the battle, talking to eachother, and giving motivating speeches and such. but the fighting definitely doesn't encompass an hour of the film, maybe 30 minutes tops. and i mean didn't the battle take place over a few days? the movie in no way displayed this. we see them retreating behind the now fallen wall, then after they cut back from merry and pippin, we see the urukai charging the main hall, during the daylight now. where did the last few hours go? we couldn't have watched aragorn cutting some urukai in half instead of cutting to merry and pippin talking to trees?

pelennor fields is longer, but once again, it's maybe 30 minutes of fighting, and 30 minutes of fighting that's segmented because we keep getting glimpses of frodo and sam. yes, frodo's journey is the heart of the story. but none of the hobbits came off as romantically into eachother in the books. i would've just liked to see more fighting, instead of frodo weakening, and sam comforting/motivating him every few minutes. nothing against frodo, sam, merry, or pippin in the books, just wasn't a fan of them in the movie. i guess it comes down to me just not liking how they cut from the battles to the very effeminate hobbits.

[Sea Hag]

the helm's deep battle is definitely not a hour of the movie. yea, it's an hour if you count them preparing for the battle, talking to eachother, and giving motivating speeches and such. but the fighting definitely doesn't encompass an hour of the film, maybe 30 minutes tops.

You're wrong & that's a fact. If you want to throw in the extended editions & time it be my guest. I already know you're wrong & I couldn't be bothered doing such a thing.

and i mean didn't the battle take place over a few days?

In the sense that it says the battle lasted a couple of days. There's barely any elaboration of what transpires during the battle itself & it's one of the shortest chapters in the book. The battle scenes were the one area where Jackson had free reign to do what he wanted while not stepping on the toes of the books.

the movie in no way displayed this.

In the film it spans an entire night while providing copious amounts of carnage. (to the people who possess even the most rudimentary analytical skills crowd anyway)

we see them retreating behind the now fallen wall, then after they cut back from merry and pippin, we see the urukai charging the main hall, during the daylight now. where did the last few hours go? we couldn't have watched aragorn cutting some urukai in half instead of cutting to merry and pippin talking to trees?

I know right? Why would they even be talking to those big, stupid trees anyway?

pelennor fields is longer, but once again, it's maybe 30 minutes of fighting,

I'm almost sick of saying it so many times but goddamn, you're definitely a moron. You're seriously telling me that the battles in LOTR aren't long enough. In all sincerity that is bar none the absolute dumbest complaint I've ever heard about these films & I seriously doubt it will ever be topped.

and 30 minutes of fighting that's segmented because we keep getting glimpses of frodo and sam. yes, frodo's journey is the heart of the story. but none of the hobbits came off as romantically into eachother in the books.

So you're a homophobe with horrible gaydar

i would've just liked to see more fighting,

Wow.

instead of frodo weakening, and sam comforting/motivating him every few minutes. nothing against frodo, sam, merry, or pippin in the books, just wasn't a fan of them in the movie. i guess it comes down to me just not liking how they cut from the battles to the very effeminate hobbits.

Again, as someone who quote on quote "loves" the books it should be common knowledge that the timelines of Frodo & Sam's, Merry & Pippin's & Aragorn, Gimli & Legolas' respective journeys are told in a manner where they all coincide wiht one another. The timelines are actually more accurate in Jackson's films in the sense that he matches them up in a linear way in the narrative.

But the crux of this whole thing is that you're complaining that the battle scenes in Lord Of The Fucking Rings aren't long enough Pretty incredible..

[AbsorbantJellyfish]

Originally Posted by Sea Hag

You're wrong & that's a fact. If you want to throw in the extended editions & time it be my guest. I already know you're wrong & I couldn't be bothered doing such a thing.



In the sense that it says the battle lasted a couple of days. There's barely any elaboration of what transpires during the battle itself & it's one of the shortest chapters in the book. The battle scenes were the one area where Jackson had free reign to do what he wanted while not stepping on the toes of the books.



In the film it spans an entire night while providing copious amounts of carnage. (to the people who possess even the most rudimentary analytical skills crowd anyway)



I know right? Why would they even be talking to those big, stupid trees anyway?



I'm almost sick of saying it so many times but goddamn, you're definitely a moron. You're seriously telling me that the battles in LOTR aren't long enough. In all sincerity that is bar none the absolute dumbest complaint I've ever heard about these films & I seriously doubt it will ever be topped.



So you're a homophobe with horrible gaydar




Wow.



Again, as someone who quote on quote "loves" the books it should be common knowledge that the timelines of Frodo & Sam's, Merry & Pippin's & Aragorn, Gimli & Legolas' respective journeys are told in a manner where they all coincide wiht one another. The timelines are actually more accurate in Jackson's films in the sense that he matches them up in a linear way in the narrative.

But the crux of this whole thing is that you're complaining that the battle scenes in Lord Of The Fucking Rings aren't long enough Pretty incredible..

whatever man, you can be as condescending as you want. the battles definitely aren't an hour long. maybe if you count every talking scene that takes place during or after the battles, then yea they may take that much time. but there is definitely not an hour of constant fighting, or even segmented combat. i'm not a homophobe, i could care less if the hobbits were gay in the movies, or even if they were originally written that way. just saying i wasn't a fan of watching digital armies fighting for a few minutes, then segwaying into sam and frodo having a heart to heart. just didn't like how it was paced, that's all. yes, the story lines are written coinciding with eachother. just saying that sacrifices were made when adapting the books to film, so why couldn't a few of the sam/frodo heart to heart moments have been cut for the sake of keeping the battle on screen. and carnage? yea, for a pg-13 movie.

in any case sea hag, i'm just gonna concede on this one since i'm pissing you off with my opinions, so yea, i live in a bizarro world where only i am dissatisfied with the battles in lord of the rings. just wasn't a fan of the cgi in the battles, and their length and/or cutting away from. relax, they're only my opinions.

[mossy]

Originally Posted by AbsorbantJellyfish

.. they're only my opinions.

WELL KEEP THEM TO YOURSELF BRO...THIS IS A FORUM!!

[Sea Hag]

Originally Posted by AbsorbantJellyfish

relax, they're only my opinions.

Originally Posted by AbsorbantJellyfish

the helm's deep battle is definitely not a hour of the movie. but the fighting definitely doesn't encompass an hour of the film, maybe 30 minutes tops.

pelennor fields is longer, but once again, it's maybe 30 minutes of fighting

Those aren't opinions. Those are examples of being wrong. ("i wanted more fighting" he says)

[AbsorbantJellyfish]

Originally Posted by yoxodo

I really wish Peter Jackson wouldn't hand this over to del Toro. Its like giving a brick of gold to a bum on the street. I may or may not be in the minority on this but i think del Toro sucks. His movies are overrated peices of trash that somehow garner huge cult followings.

i could see people overrating hell boy 1 and 2, but have you seen pan's labyrinth? that's a good ass movie. as far as his earlier work, i've never heard people overrate devil's backbone, or cronos, or anything. but i mean didn't peter jackson not have a choice? didn't the studio making it have some ongoing legal dispute with'em or something? or vice-versa?

Originally Posted by Sea Hag

Those aren't opinions. Those are examples of being wrong. ("i wanted more fighting" he says)

just watched them on youtube for the last few minutes. in the fellowship of the ring there's about 15-20 minutes of fighting between the under ground battle in moria, and the one at the end in the woods. in the two towers, there's about 15-20 minutes of fighting during the helm's deep battle. but yea, you're right on this one, peter jackson had free reign, so it's not like the book gave him anything more dense or longer to draw from. and during return of the king, there's about 45 minutes of fighting between the minas tirith battle and the black gate one. so all in all, i still would've liked to see more fighting. they were about 3 hours each, i definitely wouldn't have minded an hour of epic battles for each movie.

[Sea Hag]

Originally Posted by AbsorbantJellyfish

in the two towers, there's about 15-20 minutes of fighting during the helm's deep battle.

Again, that's factually wrong. Youtube is the last source I'd use to draw reference upon. And let me get one thing straight. You don't consider the scene where Aragorn remembers of Gandalf coming to their aid & him telling Theoden to ride out & meet them during the last legs of their stand part of a battle? Even if you didn't your 15-20 minutes assessment is wrong by alot.

so all in all, i still would've liked to see more fighting. they were about 3 hours each, i definitely wouldn't have minded an hour of epic battles for each movie.

It's like saying I wish Charles Bronson gave more blank stares in the Death Wish movies