Hobbit Trailer looks crap

[alatar]

Note that many of these same criticism aren't just about Peter Jackson's work. Below is part of a review of the new Superman movie (emphasis mine):

Originally Posted by Justin Craig

Little in this film feels natural or real, which Snyder seems to want to convey. The oversaturation of effects, which has become the norm in most blockbusters, completely overshadows any natural cinematography, which may create a schism between the audience and the film. Nolan’s “Dark Knight” trilogy was a massive success for its dark realism, and there are attempts to do that here, too, but the crew seems to have gotten a bit carried away with creating as many CGI shots as possible that all realism is lost. With Snyder, Nolan and Goyer sacrificing story for endless CGI action sequences, “Man of Steel” can be summed up by that great line Jeff Goldblum says in “Jurassic Park”: they “were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they didn't stop to think if they should.”

Switch out the directors' names with Jackson et al, and swap Superman with Hobbit, and you have many of the posts on this thread.

And I doubt the writer is a Superman book purist...

[Inziladun]

The over-emphasis on special effects to give a sense of "being there" is one of the main reasons I have so little time for modern films. I feel that in most cases the CGI and whatnot detracts from story and acting, as it tends to monopolize the viewer's attention, as well eating up screen time.
I think that's the reason my favorite movies tend to be on the older side, as the technology didn't allow for so much flash, and acting had to take the forefront to make a film work well.

[Nerwen]

Well, I’ve said this before: people often rail against CGI and special effects in general, but they can be a very good tool if used properly. It’s when the effects become the point of the film that you run into trouble.

Also, even with all the advances of modern computer graphics, there are still some things that are better done as live action– I think studios can be a bit prone to kidding themselves about how realistic some of the work they produce looks.

[Kuruharan]

Originally Posted by Nerwen

Well, I’ve said this before: people often rail against CGI and special effects in general, but they can be a very good tool if used properly. It’s when the effects become the point of the film that you run into trouble.

Also, even with all the advances of modern computer graphics, there are still some things that are better done as live action– I think studios can be a bit prone to kidding themselves about how realistic some of the work they produce looks.

Moviemakers seem to commonly forget that in order to tell a story people have to be at the heart of it. An endless string of flash and gimmicks may sparkle and amuse...briefly, but it is not a story.

Stories are what hook people to invest themselves in them. Sparkle and flash by themselves cannot do that because by themselves they really aren't much of anything.

Just thinking about it: the LotR in six seasons (one season per book) where one season would be ten times one hour episodes!

And we would have the added bonus of not having to worry about what will happen when the series catches up to and then passes the author in telling the story.

[Mithalwen]

Having had anothwr look the rare glimpses of Bilbo which were about the only things I rcognised from the book save the doorstep were relatively appealing. The look on Freeman's face when he breathes clear air and sees butterflies was perfect. But it was a nanosecond in a lot of portentous extraeneous stuff. F they hadn' been so desperate to echo the LOTR films there mighthave been a jolly romp of a Bilbo focussed film there. If the trailer is representative then calling it the Hobbit might contravene trade descriptions.

Why ARE Tauriel's ears so big? Much larger than the male elves... really distracting.

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

If the trailer is representative then calling it the Hobbit might contravene trade descriptions.

Happily trailers are not representative as their basic raison d'être is to catch the attention of as many - or the right kind of - people as possible. So all the trailers of action films (which the Hobbit sadly seems to be) are even more packed with action than the real films as they have to convince the wannabe audiences they will get some reaallly hard and fast speed stuff to blow their minds off... they kind of pack the thick of the action scenes into a short music video kind of burst in trailers.

[Bêthberry]

The movie Life of Pi is a superbly done adaptation of the book of the same name--and it isn't slavishly done. And even more stunning is the fact that the special effects and even the 3D support the story rather than supplanting it.

So modern technology can enhance a narrative. Just not in Jackson's hands apparently.

Originally Posted by Nogrod

Happily trailers are not representative as their basic raison d'être is to catch the attention of as many - or the right kind of - people as possible. So all the trailers of action films (which the Hobbit sadly seems to be) are even more packed with action than the real films as they have to convince the wannabe audiences they will get some reaallly hard and fast speed stuff to blow their minds off... they kind of pack the thick of the action scenes into a short music video kind of burst in trailers.

I wonder if they've ever considered that such trailers can turn people off? Or have done marketing surveys to suggest that they will get more money from those who want action flicks than from those who don't?

[Nogrod]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

I wonder if they've ever considered that such trailers can turn people off?

They probably even know it - but consider those people a marginal matter compared to their views of the more desired audiences.

Or have done marketing surveys to suggest that they will get more money from those who want action flicks than from those who don't?

If you just check what kind of films are the blockbusters and bring in the most revenue... Now there sure are exceptions to that, but they are insecure aka. they can't be predicted. So when you are basically just making money (instead of art) you take the more safer road and rely on action and advertising.

[Mithalwen]

Yes I knowthey are after the young male demographic but isometimes there is nothing that appeals to other audiences. When I lived in Paris where you are allegedly never more than a quarter of a mile from a cinema and it was cheap and i had no telly i went to the cinema ja lot and saw nearly everything goimg if it wasnt quite my glass of miruvor it wasnt a great loss. Now with the price of petrol and parkimg and a twenty five mile roumd trip it has to really appeal. This doesn't. And I have to admit that seeing th fellowship trailer changed my mind about seeing the film. Maybe I am just gettimg old and grouchy

[alatar]

Originally Posted by Bêthberry

The movie Life of Pi is a superbly done adaptation of the book of the same name--and it isn't slavishly done.

Note that that movie has nothing to do with mathematics or the discovery of 22/7.

I wonder if they've ever considered that such trailers can turn people off? Or have done marketing surveys to suggest that they will get more money from those who want action flicks than from those who don't?

Me guesses that the number of movie-going persons attracted by action packed trailers greatly exceeds those that aren't.

[Morthoron]

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

The look on Freeman's face when he breathes clear air and sees butterflies was perfect.

Perfect, perhaps, except that the butterflies were blue and not black. Mirkwood, by definition, is reflected by the dark denizens habitating therein (a point Tolkien referred to often). A white stag offers a color variation that is notable as a folk motif. And so, we're back to that whole subtlety thing that PJ is utterly incapable of divining.

Originally Posted by Mithalwen

Why ARE Tauriel's ears so big? Much larger than the male elves... really distracting.

Perhaps she got caught in a lie.