Excluding the changing of Smaug into a Wyvern.

Seriously what is up with the bitching of CGI? Your probably the same person that criticizes all movies with CGI. Even Guardians of the Galaxy is CGI up the wazoo and no one bats an eye :P

Favorite scenes in Battle of Five Armies.

The Nazgul fight and Banishing Sauron scene.

Bilbo standing up against Thorin in the trade scene.

Thorin's realization.

Oh and Lord of the Rings movies always had that silly things. You say Legolas jumping on falling rocks I say Legolas singlehandedly took down an oliphaunt.

Man, don't even bother arguing with these people. Tolkien has a lot of fanboys that wouldn't be pleased no matter what they did with the movies. The LOTR movies are a little better, but other than those, Excalibur, and the first Conan movie, there really aren't any medieval fantasy movies that are as good as the Hobbit Trilogy. People just like to bitch about things.

Dragonslayer

Zombeavers is actually better than it has any right to be.
Tolkien's own son thinks they sucked.

As movies in their own right, separated from the novels, other than horrific pacing issues (a Jackson trademark) I don't think they deserve to be in the "bad" category, but other than some very nice visual design I personally don't like them at all.

Could be, but let's take for example all those Batman games: should they try to closely follow the stories of the various Batman movies that have been released in recent years? (One may argue that the games are not based on the movies but the generic Batman series, but then it is not coincidence that they are pushing out both Batman movies and games at the same time.)

Or, should the Walking Dead games have tried to follow closely the characters and events of certain WD episodes or seasons?

Or TRON 2.0, should it have closely followed the story of either the original TRON movie, or TRON: Legacy? Instead, it came up with a story (and characters) of its own.

I find it refreshing that the games based on some movies/TV-series, and vice versa, try to retain the tone, but tell a story of their own. Kind of like the movies and the games complement each other, rather than trying to mimic each other.

I feel it is a bit different when talking about making a movie out of a book, at least if it is marketed as the movie adaptation of the book. So yeah, I expected Lord of the Rings movies to at least try to follow the books, maybe with some artistic freedoms here and there. For instance, I don't think anyone really expected the Hitman movie to be an exact carbon copy of any specific Hitman game, following closely its story and events.

I agree though that the tone should remain the same, e.g. if the Hitman games are about stealth and hiding, it would be better if the movies tried to follow the same idea.

I'm not one for zombie movies, but I loved that one!


Other films I like that others seem to hate are:

Death Race 2000 - You really have to have the right group to watch it with, but you can tell they had a ball deliberately making a decidedly cheap and low-quality film.

Hudson Hawk - an entire movie about a want's-to-be-former thief seeking a coffee.

What if I told you there is good CGI and bad CGI, Neo? And that it can be used in moderation, or overused to the ridiculous extreme? You need not look any further for an example then the CGI Billy Connoly in Battle of Five Armies. Why in the hell is he all CGI?

The Hobbit movies simply look much worse than The LotR movies. I though so even watching the first one, which I did not yet hate. LotR looked great because of how the practical and the CG was used together.

And no, I do not criticize every movie with CGI (I just said in this thread I think Man of Steel is great, didn't I). But I do think practical effects and make-up usually end up looking better.

And guess what? I really dislike that scene in Return of the King. But there it is one scene, probably a minute long. In Hobbit? That is what every action/battle scene looks like. Only usually it's turned up to eleven.

It's not a "one may argue", it's a fact. The time of release does not change that.

You do realise there is a difference between an adaptation of a particular story, and various forms of spin-offs, don't you?

TRON 2.0 came out years before Legacy, co it could hardly follow it's story. And it did not follow the story of the orginal, becasue it was it's sequel. Stop mixing things up like that. I never said The Empire Strikes Back should have the same story as A New Hope.

Amazing how can you say that the Hobbit's CGI looks bad when things like Van Helsing and R.I.P.D. exists. Your standards for what is bad and good CGI are irrational.

And I had it with people saying Practical effects are better. CG can create bigger worlds than the limitations that practical effects bring. I rather have a fast,smooth moving and can keep up with the actors CG Dinosaur, than a clunky, jerky moving stop motion/animatronic dinosaur.

But if thats does not reach out to people. Well personally I always prefer the hobbit to be an 2D Traditional Animation or all 3D Realistic CGI like Blizzard's Trailers for WOW. (Realistic CG not that Dreamworks/Pixar look)

I remember when I was in college, we did a double feature of Death Race 2000 and Rollerball. Both great dystopian classics. And both cheesy fun. Throw Slapshot into the mix for a triple feature.

Have I used either of those as examples of good CGI? No Iused the LotR trilogy. So it's you who is being irrational.

Yeah, those clunky, stop motion, cheap looking things that use practical effects. Like Interstellar.

And I had it with people who like shitty CGI. It looks fake, it feels fake, and can't create the kind of tangible, beliveable and creative effect practical effects and make up can. So there. Go sit in a corner and feel bad ;)

Also, I could swear I said that LotR looks better because it uses both CG and practicall stuff in good proportion to get the best possible effect, but I guess it's easier to pretend I hate all CGI, always :P


And now for something completely different: in order to get back on topic, did anyone mention Lifeforce? What was aptly described by one reviewer on IMDB as "The greatest naked space vampire zombies from Halley's Comet running amok in London end-of-the-world movie ever made"? It truly is. It's insane and glorious. Great music, great special effects, Patrick Stewart, and crazy b-movie sci-fi horror plot. It's a masterpiece. Of sorts.

1. No I am giving you an example of worse looking CGI than The Hobbit movies.

2. I have never seen Interstellar.

3. Lused?

No this is worse than Twilight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90PWFEeRApA

As to my answer yes.

Bad movies should be watched as a group. Nothing better than to sit around finding flaws and mocking cheesy dialogue.

The godfather of "really quite bad by any standard, but still everyone loves it"-movies: Super Fuzz AKA Super Snooper AKA Poliziotto Superpiù

Dat theme music!