4 ms·
You can see this with the Lord of the Rings (Fellowship of the Ring, Two Towers and Return of the King). The Hobbit is much newer but doesn't look so great in
by thevagrant 4y ago
You can see this with the Lord of the Rings (Fellowship of the Ring, Two Towers and Return of the King).
The Hobbit is much newer but doesn't look so great in comparison. Sure it has some amazing special effects but the cinematic footage doesn't compare as well next to the older films
- illiarian 4y agoThe Hobbit was also very rushed, and filmed a lot of things even without a script.
- pndy 4y agoLotR trilogy from over 20 years ago even with its CGI usage still feels real today and all that realism allows you to submerge within the movies - it doesn't even have to be the extended edition. It somehow has a good balance even if the effects feel dated nowdays. But Hobbit trilogy - all the time I had feeling I'm watching it from behind some plastic screen, or perhaps an action game. It's not bad (tho the book was "spread" into 3 movies) but excessive use of CGI and post-processing is clearly visible. Hell, the An Unexpected Journey has moments where Gandalf's face is unnaturally lighten up with dodge tool - and that does give me the unpleasant feelings. I still believe that computers in movie industry should be tools to enhance camera work, not fully replacing it. You can deliver an exciting story portrayed without overfilling it with CGI or... lens flares, bokeh effects in every scene.
- Steve44 4y agoThank you for writing that. I loved the LoTR films and as you say they felt real and natural whereas I've only seen about 15 minutes of the recent Hobbit and I couldn't watch any more. I couldn't put my finger on it, but I just couldn't get into how it looked.