Weekend Estimates: The Hobbit - 73.6M | Frozen - 22.2M | Madea - 16M

[kowhite]

I don't see how the originals look dated at all.

 

I would say they don't look dated at all.

 

The new films certainly have more advanced technology going on.  Granted, they are also more liberal in their over the top action.

[Emirazza]

The barrel scene was horrible in my opinion.  They looked like they were characters in Donkey Kong.

I've forgotten that movie, need to watch again.

[mcclaine]

I mean, the movie released on VOD same day as theaters.  When does that type of release ever make any money theatrically? 

 

I guess never... ! 

[FTF]

I'm not talking from an artistic standpoint, or which effects/movie you like better, etc.  But from a purely technically standpoint, the sfx/cgi in the 2 hobbit movies are leaps and bounds better than those in the LOTR trilogy.

 

Also, WB is a bit too optimistic with that Sun drop, but ow will still start with a 7 so it saves some face.  OS total will still be over $700m so it'll push $950-$1b ww total and be a huge hit, albeit a "boring" one as those who do not like LOTR/TH will say.

[baumer]

MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH MUCH prefer the gritty look of the LOTR movies to the CGI-overload of The Hobbit.

 

[kowhite]

Are the orcs cgi in DOS or something?, i know some of them were in AUJ, why were they?. Its the 'Lucas' effect at work.

 

Some of them are, the main baddies are.  Why?  They shot him practical in the first film, Jackson thought it looked like crap so replaced him with CG.  Once that's set in the first film, no reason not to keep it.

 

Granted, I don't think it looks awful.  Those who say practical always better...sorry, I don't agree.  They both have their drawbacks.  The CG orcs simply move in a way you'll never get a practical version to move.

[baumer]

I'm not talking from an artistic standpoint, or which effects/movie you like better, etc.  But from a purely technically standpoint, the sfx/cgi in the 2 hobbit movies are leaps and bounds better than those in the LOTR trilogy.

 

Also, WB is a bit too optimistic with that Sun drop, but ow will still start with a 7 so it saves some face.  OS total will still be over $700m so it'll push $950-$1b ww total and be a huge hit, albeit a "boring" one as those who do not like LOTR/TH will say.

 

It looks like a cartoon to me.  I kept waiting for Bugs Bunny and Road Runner to pop out.

[Jack Nevada]

I'm not talking from an artistic standpoint, or which effects/movie you like better, etc.  But from a purely technically standpoint, the sfx/cgi in the 2 hobbit movies are leaps and bounds better than those in the LOTR trilogy.

I dont think they are.

[stuart360]

I don't see how the originals look dated at all.

 

The LOTR films (on the whole) remind me of the first Jurassic park in the sense of the cgi has stood the test of time. The Hobbit films will probably look terrible in 10 years time, they also suffer from the horrid 'Crystall Skull' shooting in a studio look to its sets, its the lighting.

[baumer]

I've forgotten that movie, need to watch again.

 

I mean the video game.

[stuart360]

Yeah, most of the time the orcs are totally CGI.

Why though?, because they couldn't be bothered to do make up?, cgi is super expensive and no wonder The hobbit films have 3 times bigger budgets than the LOTR films while looking worse for it.

[Jack Nevada]

Why though?, because they couldn't be bothered to do make up?, cgi is super expensive and no wonder The hobbit films have 3 times bigger budgets than the LOTR films while looking worse for it.

That's a bingo. 

[baumer]

Why though?, because they couldn't be bothered to do make up?, cgi is super expensive and no wonder The hobbit films have 3 times bigger budgets than the LOTR films while looking worse for it.

 

This is one area where the Goldblum line from Jurassic Park is apropos.  "You were so busy worrying about if you could, you never stopped to think if you should."

[FTF]

The LOTR films (on the whole) remind me of the first Jurassic park in the sense of the cgi has stood the test of time. The Hobbit films will probably look terrible in 10 years time, they also suffer from the horrid 'Crystall Skull' shooting in a studio look to its sets, its the lighting.

 

This is true because, like JP, the original trilogy used so many practical effects and those will always stand the test of time over whatever cgi and computer effects were used 10+ years prior.  I only mean the cgi and computer effects of the original trilogy look dated, not the overall effects and look of the movie, which still has a great feel and atmosphere, etc.

Edited December 15, 2013 by FTF

[The Stingray]

Its not often we get mega hyped, big budget sequels opening to less than the first film, its really making me wonder how low DOS will finish in the US, overseas it will probably be huge regardless.

Jackson is getting to that 'sleepwalking' age that a lot of directors tend to go through at some point (Scott, arguably Speilberg) and i wonder how much Jackson really wanted to make the Hobbit trilogy, he wasn't signed on to direct at the start after all.

The films certainly don't come anywehere close to the LOTR trilogy in any way.

He's probably bored from having made the same movie 5 times.

[Jack Nevada]

The CGI is great in LOTR. Even the spider looked better. The digital effects felt more real and they had some texture to them.

[stuart360]

This is one area where the Goldblum line from Jurassic Park is apropos.  "You were so busy worrying about if you could, you never stopped to think if you should."

 

I blame this guy! -

 

[Noctis]

George Lucas has some beautifully thick and luscious hair for a man his age. L'Oreal should have him as the face of their brand.

[baumer]

I blame this guy! -

 

 

For the first time, I agree with you on this.  I watched Clones the other day and a lot of the CGI is really bad or just dated.  Maybe it was decent for the time, but it just looks icky now.

[kowhite]

This is true because, like JP, the original trilogy used so many practical effects and those will always stand the test of time over whatever cgi and computer effects were used 10+ years prior.  I only mean the cgi and computer effects of the original trilogy look dated, not the overall effects and look of the movie, which still has a great feel and atmosphere, etc.

 

You know, JP is a special effects triumph.

 

But I do think people get carried away when saying practical is amazing.  Practical has issues too...I mean, I can tell a lot of that stuff is practical because of how stiff and stilted the animation is.  Works great for some stuff, but let's get real...it has its drawbacks.  Granted, perhaps the practical doesn't look dated because nobody is really trying to improve that aspect of special effects, so there' not much better than that out there. Even though...it's certainly not perfect.

 

Not that I care...some moviegoers guys bitch about special effects way too much...I have no idea how some people enjoy movies with the perfection they expect.