'The Battle of the Five Armies' in theatres | SPOILERS

Bluebottle wrote:I like that my completely random line about "The 5 major problems of Azog as a cgi character" actually started a discussion.

Sinister71 wrote:

Bluebottle wrote:I like that my completely random line about "The 5 major problems of Azog as a cgi character" actually started a discussion.

well really it is an issue for many of us here. 5 problems would just be the tip of the iceberg for me.

1 being even though the actors are fighting men in green suits or just on a green screen, there really isn't any connection weapon wise with them hitting a CGI character. the connecting hits look fake no matter how close they come. To make it look real they needed weapon on weapon contact IMHO...Kinda dangerous to be fair, Jackson did say they had to cut down on prosthetics and stunts double action as it looked a little odd in 48 FPS HD at least that was that excuse I've read...

2 his story seemed forced and fake. I mean really why was he hell bent on ending the line of Durin? was it over losing part of his arm? I don't think so, there really is no reasoning behind it.

3 Since when was he ever linked to Sauron being a general for him or otherwise? That's one of my pet peeves with Jackson's interpretation of the books, a 'big bad' is behind everything in the books things are left much more to the imagination- I prefer to think of the Misty Mountains having some sort of evil spirit and defeating the Fellowship, rather than Saruman manipulating the weather Why did Sauron need to be a major player in the Hobbit films other than he was the big bad guy in LOTR... Someone correct me if I'm wrong (Eldo most likely) but I vaguely recall a line or two in the appendices (or the drafts in HOME) hinting at a links between Azog and Sauron, weren't a few Orcs sent north to the Misty Mountains in the Third Age to fight in the Dwarf/Goblin war?

I mean the list could go on and on and on with problems about Azog's involvement

Kinda dangerous to be fair, Jackson did say they had to cut down on prosthetics and stunts double action as it looked a little odd in 48 FPS HD at least that was that excuse I've read...

Sinister71 wrote:

Kinda dangerous to be fair, Jackson did say they had to cut down on prosthetics and stunts double action as it looked a little odd in 48 FPS HD at least that was that excuse I've read...

First off maybe he should have shot on film at 24fps just like he did with LOTR. it would have at least added to the continuity Well yeah he shoudl of, but he admitted hsimelf he was only looking to have fun with this trilogy, if you were given $800 Million to play around with you'd probably try out a few toys in the process I guess...

my beef with the lack of Prosthetics and practical effects is, its been don'e since the beginning of film making. Has society become so pussified that it can't even do action sequences and sword fights like it used to? Yeah probably, but insurance, shooting schedules, etc plus Jackson's illness, 10 year older self and the fandom growing ever more impatient probably pushed him a little, I guess it was just easier I mean seriously wow someone might get a scratch. i guess they aren't willing to bleed a bit for their art.  I know if I were in their shoes I would jump at the chance to be really sword fighting even wearing a ton of prosthetics. That is what the stunt players get paid for is to take risks. Big whoop if they can't handle it maybe directors should go out and find a tougher breed of stunt man. CGI should NEVER take the place of practical effects IMO no matter whatIt sgouldn't but it has unfortunately...). I am all for really blowing shit up , swinging realish swords against each other. Makes for a more believable presence IMO on screen

Well yeah he shoudl of, but he admitted hsimelf he was only looking to have fun with this trilogy, if you were given $800 Million to play around with you'd probably try out a few toys in the process I guess...

Sinister71 wrote:

well for that kind of money I damn sure would have made a film that fit with the original in look and style. Not tried to reinvent the wheelThat ship sailed when he hired GDT, I didn't have my hopes up Jackson would jump back into the mindset he was when he made LOTR, ironic really it was largely made outside the hollywood system, yet TH proved he is now firmly part of it. I am huge on continuity from film to filmI generally am as well. even though LOTR did change more and more as the series went on it was all filmed the same way which should have been the case with the HobbitJackson was probably pushed/wanted to do 3d (can't blame him when he signed on it was still a big hit, Digital is alot cheaper than film as well) impossible on 35mm, come to think of it, I'm not actually sure if any of the major stuidos are still backing movies shot on film . Just an opinion though. I'm not a fair weather person and it takes a lot to change my mindI know :lol: . Not saying I'm not open to change but once I have done something I prefer to keep things in the same series looking similar

Orwell wrote:I stiill haven't seen it!

Orwell wrote:Temptation is not as strong as I would have imagined. Brave though? Mmm... probably... the fear of vomiting for the sixth time? The first five times witheach new arrival...  ... actuallly, maybe I'm too scared (scarred?) to go a sixth time. [LotR - the first three - almost seem unvomitworthy in comparative/retrospective terms .... --- almost ...]

Eldorion wrote:Did you go see it yet bungo? I think Raddy hasn't either, though I haven't seen him around in a bit.

azriel wrote:I didnt, I havent & I wont.

Mrs Figg wrote:I wish I hadn't wasted 7 euros on it.  it was a turkey.