I rarely share my videos with you guys on the forum, but here is my latest one and I have a feeling you will all enjoy it (hopefully). It's basically just an editorial that 'de-bunks' some of the common criticisms of The Hobbit. It is much better than any of the other videos I bothered to share here.

Keep in mind there are spoilers regarding The Hobbit book, and strong language in parts. Anyway, enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxqNipsCfS0&feature=youtu.be

I actually watch all of your videos

I think months and months later, having fully digested Unexpected Journey, I would call it an 'okay' film. I don't think the original story by Tolkien provided the framework for something of LotR-quality. My biggest complaint about the film is on your list--it's an absolute CGI-fest, which I find very unappealing in films. I think you lose a great deal of suspension of disbelief when everything looks so obviously animated and fake in a live-action film and I think the Hobbit overstepped my personal threshold for an acceptable amount of CGI. I could really get absorbed in and believe in LotR because a great deal of the film was made using traditional methods (though there was enough CGI to be distracting at times). Unexpected Journey teeters toward looking like a video game. Desolation of Smaug looks like much of the same and I don't know if I can muster enough interest to see it in theaters.

Tres amusing and well defended Depressed KitKat, I mean Suicidal Mars Bar!
I enjoyed the film a lot. There are 13 Dwarves in the film and I would say that there is more characterisation within the film than in the book. The lack of characterisation seems to be the main critisism that I hear, but there are 13 of the buggers!

I enjoyed your video, the only problem I had with the film was that I thought the ending was rather anti-climatic. I just wanted an epic duel between Azog and Thorin, similar to that of Aragorn and Lurtz.

Thanks for all the feedback guys, if anyone would care to subscribe they will be showered with many similarly awesome videos in the near future...

@StickyFingerss: That is actually a pretty good point, although I think PJ's choice to sacrifice the chance for another fight scene between Thorin and Azog, and choosing to replace it with a scene that builds on Thorin's arrogance, proves he is a great filmmaker. Also to me Bilbo's 'moment' where he saves Thorin and then charges the wargs with everyone else, was enough of a climax for me (that's what she said).

@Bilbo: I hear that alot and brush it off because yeah, there is more characterisation in the film, and the only ones that I thought maybe didn't get enough screentime were Nori and maybe Oin. Also thanks for watching.

@Jamros: I had no idea you were a loyal viewer, that means alot to me man! I think the cgi was a problem in part thanks to that 48fps that made everything look fake and too detailed. In 24fps the film is great, but alot of people had a hard time with the 48fps screening.

I enjoyed the rant I can add very little.
I think the technology for the high speed is not ready. Much like the early days of broadcast color TV. The high film rate gives me a headache. I am not the only person I know that has that kind of problem with it.

I grew up with clay animation and super puppet animation, stop motion and matte paintings. Some of the fake looking CGI comments are inane. There are technical issues that need to be corrected. Like widescreen to broadcast format, oh wait, you are not old enough to remember that

_________________
"the same as a duck you must be made of wood"

Bizarrely enough I had no issue watching the film in the center of the cinema at the Plabs Premiere at Leicester Square, but at the far left of the screen in Tunbridge Wells (with the same quality and frame rate) I had the occasional headache etc!

@SuicidalMarsbar, I would subscribe, but I don't have a YouTube account

My issue with the CGI is mostly the amount of CGI used, not the quality or appearance. It's good CGI (albeit, you can still tell when CGI is CGI) but they used it for everything. It was completely over-the-top. I felt like the filming location was a green screen and the cast was computer programs.

I'd invite you to revisit the skirmishes in FotR and compare them to the battles in AUJ. Even the heavily-animated section of Moria looked significantly better than the period in Goblin Town, imo. Creators used to try and manipulate CGI with camera angles and lighting and with combined shots of animatronics, real actors, and real-world locations. Now CGI is just a given, so movie creators are quite comfortable showing off high-end CGI, even if it's still easily discernible from real locations and real actors.

For reference, it may be that my tolerance level for CGI is lower than others in this thread. Some of my top movies include Shawshank Redemption and the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, where little to no CGI is used. I don't really have a natural inclination toward films that would require the use of CGI.

That's also a good point. I will keep that in mind when I watch the film again and see if it changes my opinion of the ending.

Well I suppose I just finished watching all the 'behind the scenes'n footage from the Star Wars prequel in which Geroge Lucas films the ENTIRE trilogy in bluescreen, with no time spent on location, except for the Tatooine sections, so I guess I am worried people might start thinking PJ is like Lucas. PJ doesn't use CGI for the sake of it, he is still using to illustrate a part of the plot, or to bring a character alive in a unique way, whereas Lucas will just throw in tonnes of unnecessary cgi aliens and speeders just to make a 'dense shot', which he thinks is the mark of a good movie.

To be fair to George Lucas, there weren't many planets and locations in the Prequels that could be effectively filmed on location. Geonosis, Tatooine and Naboo perhaps. Most planets were very alien like with vistas and futuristic alien structures that don't really exist anywhere on earth.

_________________
My (more regularly updated) painting blog:
https://www.facebook.com/Pindergorn/

PJ's choice to sacrifice the chance for another fight scene between Thorin and Azog, and choosing to replace it with a scene that builds on Thorin's arrogance, proves he is a great filmmaker. Also to me Bilbo's 'moment' where he saves Thorin and then charges the wargs with everyone else, was enough of a climax for me [/quote]

That's also a good point. I will keep that in mind when I watch the film again and see if it changes my opinion of the ending.[/quote]

Definitely agreement with you guys, also PJ has has constructed the film with a direction in mind and it may we have not seen it as an entire entity yet!

The arrogance wasn't obvious to me at the time, but the level of hatred the dawrf suffers for Azog must have been considerable.

On the George Lucas note, its amazing how good the original Jabba the Hut puppet looked and still looks, particularly when compared to the millenium CGI Jabba that I thought looked Devlan Mud at the time, and looks like a pile of old pants now.

George Lucas has occasionally genuinely wowed viewers at the cinema, particularly with the Death Star trench run (with 1970's tech), its a shame that he has put so much faith in CGI when it just wasn't ripe at the time of the last three films!

When it got to the point in the film where Radagast was caring for a poorly animated hedgehog, when it would have been the perfect opportunity to bring in animatronics or a live animal, I got the sense that PJ was using CGI more as a short cut than necessity in the film, unlike LotR. I also really don't think the orcs should have been CGI, when the LotR trilogy demonstrated that they could be actors in costume and look extremely effective. And as to your rebuttal on that point, yes, I do have a problem with CGI Gollum, but I will concede that his top-notch design warrants the use of CGI. But just because Gollum's CGI is so good, doesn't give the movie creators the excuse to extend that CGI to other areas in the film in lieu of traditional effects, which look loads better.

Here is a blog post and many comments I agree with on the subject: [html]http://singlemindedmovieblog.blogspot.com/2010/04/why-cgi-sucks-and-old-school-effects.html[/html]

The CGI in the Hobbit is the best I have seen with the possible exception of the Transformers films. I suspect metal robots look more acceptable in CGI compared to depictions of flesh, clothing and feathers. However I can rarely forget that I am watching a film with CGI as its not quite ready yet!

really enjoyed watching that, thanks for making it.
can't follow you on YouTube as I don't have an account, but will watch your other films over the next few days.

_________________
Harfoots-The first of the Hobbit people to cross over the Misty Mountains and enter Eriador.

Yet again thanks for the responses everyone! The positive feedback is very welcome

No need to apologize for not having an account to subscribe with, the fact you watched just 1 video of mine is all the support I need

Not bad, you adressed all if the points I see as the most pressing and defended them well. But I'm still going to say that I would have preferred it if Azog was more like gothmog in terms of CGI vs makeup. But I do understand that I would have been hard for them to have done that with the time they had to shoot the actual Azog parts once it was 3 films instead of two. As for the CGI goblins, I can't complain. Really the way I see it, there is no other very practical way to shoot a scene like that without gross amounts of CGI (I mean maybe with a few models of the carvern, but still)

_________________
Fight! Fight to the last man!

If this was to be our end then I would have them make SUCH AN END as to be worthy of remembrance

I've re-watched the Hobbit movie with the ideas that you have given me and I must say I enjoyed it more. I was initially critical of the ending when I first viewed it as I thought it was a bit of an anti-climax when Thorin failed to do anything to Azog. But now I realise that the ending was far more about 'there is more to come' and the dragon eye ending gave me excitement.

The Fellowship of the Ring on the other hand, ended with despair with the death of Gandalf and Boromir (which I think are some of the best deaths I've seen in films) and it gives you a feeling of 'how on earth are they going to continue?' when An Unexpected Journey gives you a feeling of 'i can't wait to see what they are going to do next film.'

Funny video, I like the way you made it.

However it is - and probably not intended - really going into the critics.

So I am not convinced at all.