Nice, thanks for the link Elmo:)

That's true, and many people will think like that. But most critics and filmscholars are afraid that the 'gratuitous' use of CGI hurts filmmaking as an artform. They are afraid that the 'realness' will vanish as even today editors can change everything from adding CGI monsters to tweeking an actors facial expression. This removes the indexicality of film as they put it since almost nothing we see in the final product is what really was directly captured while filming. In opposition the film noir era is often recalled as one of the best film era's since everything (with the exception of cinematographic editing ofc) was seen in the final product, and the era sported some of the best films ever made.

That said, this is all from a film studies/scholarly view and I personally have no problem with CGI as long as it is used in moderation and to greatly enhance the final product.

For example, good CGI:
Gollum: Absolutely fantastic work of CGI, never could they have done a better job using practical effects or anything.

Bad CGI:
Twilight Breaking Dawn baby: They made the baby CGI because they could not get a real one? It looks terrible and is really really creepy to boot. Uncanny Valley very mucho.

One thing I asked about the Hobbit is that are they still using sets in Locations or its all CGI backgrounds? Because if its the latter than I should appluade them for having me fooled in some parts of the movie.

As to CGI in moderation Forrest Gump is a prime example. And The Wolf of Wall Street.

I never once seen a true Film Noir movie? Got any recommendations?

He's got two more Tintin movies lined up, but that's not a lot to look forward to, if the first one is anything to go by. (I'm a big fan of Tintin, but not in Jackson's and Spielberg's hands. Secret of the Unicorn was crap, for all its technical accomplishment.)

I don't know what's happened to Jackson. The first two Hobbit movies were actually kinda boring, which really surprised me. And I'm genuinely disappointed that the trailer for the third one gives me no sense of the excitement that the trailers for Lord of the Rings prompted in me. I'm not even sure why that is. I'll go and see it, of course I will, but I have no feeling of anticipation for it, or curiosity about how Jackson wraps it up or bridges the story to the LotR movies, as he's promised to do. And i wanted to, dammit. I wanted to be swept away again.

What will Jackson do next? Hopefully, get his mojo back.

That baby is seriously fuckin creepy! The only good about that series... the jump scare when that baby shows up!

Yes those are both excellent examples of CGI in moderation and done right :)

'True' Noir is a very difficult thing to pinpoint as filmcritics and scholars are to this very day arguing what noir exactly is and how to classify it. Mostly it boils down to hardboiled detectives, shady characters, femme fatales, dark streets etc. No one is exactly truely 'good' or 'evil' in noir and that is an amazing feature. Another reason I picked this era of films is that with new cinematography and framing techniques it became a real challenge for directors to shoot increasingly deep and more stunning scenes, as wel as using framing and lighting to add symbolic value to certain shots. You just can't recreate that with a greenscreen :D

As for reccommendations: Humphrey Bogart is one of the kings of the Noir genre, so almost any film starring him is gold. As for some of my personal favorites I'd definitely reccommend:
The Maltese Falcon (1941 version)
Out of the Past (1947)
Double Indemnity (1844)
Mildred Pierce (1945)

to begin with :p

*edit* Also check out In A Lonely Place (1950)

Really? That trailer looks horribly contrived for its source material. It's like they're trying to out-do the main trilogy (which they probably are), except this goes completely contrary to Tolkien's work.

Some things, Hollywood simply has no business filming.

Well name another work of Tolkien that is up to Peter Jackson's alley?

The Silmarillon, Children of Hurin?

If I had the OK and the Budget I would make my own version of the Hobbit in 2D traditional animation and that its 100% faithful to the book.

Even though in the book the Battle of Five Armies just came out of the fucking blue.

I don't expect completely faithful, just not so overbearingly epic. Maybe - probably - Jackson isn't the right person for this book, but in the end it's what the studios wanted.

Jackson and Warner Bros were right for Lord of the Rings but not for the Hobbit.

Disney as they are now could be right for the Hobbit in 2D Animation that is.

And no I don't count the 1970 version. I want it Disney-fyed.

The Hobbit had songs, a more whimsicle athmosphere, etc.

What ?? Nah, you're way off. And I don't think much of your tone. Which is what I referred to as missteps. I disagree with you about the "juvenile feel" in The Hobbit being the same as the book — Tolkien's book is a youthful adventure, and Jackson's is a California skater kid's wet dream. Not the same at all. But that isn't my issue with the Hobbit films; my issue is that they're simply not good films. They're uneven, they lurch forward in fits and starts, with set-pieces outstaying their welcome and becoming tedious (such as the molten gold sequence in Smaug) and a lot of the attempts at humour are grafted on and feel very out of place. "So upset"? I think you're overstating it. But the disappointment a lot of people have expressed is possibly because they're stories people have wanted to see filmed well for a long time, and the opportunity has been blown. The two Hobbit films so far have been seriously sub-par; even if the third is a sudden volta face, it's not going to be enough to redeem the trilogy.

I loved the first movie, did not like the 2nd movie much. I hope they add more emotion and character into the 3rd film and less senseless action (barrel scene anyone?).


A person was arguing with me about the character development in movie 2. They said "But the chick from Lost shooting arrows out of the sky and loving Legolas was awesome!"

I said, "You refer to her as 'the chick from Lost.' You don't know her name, let alone anything else besides a skill and a love. That is not character."

They still disagreed.

Anyhoots, yay for Bilbo!
BTW, totally agree. It's not about growing up (I've been a grown up for a while). LotR is still an amazing set of movies. The Hobbit has just been a pacing and character mess. Hobbit 1 I liked, though. I'd give it an 8/10. Hobbit 2 was almost taken back to the rental store before I finished it. It took us two or three days to sit through it. The action was stupid, the characters will flat and the pacing was all over the board.

I'm hoping Hobbit 3 will amazing and make it all worth it. But I have a feeling it won't be.

By "growing up" I meant you are less likely to be amazed at material like this. I didn't meant to offend anyone or something like that. Many people expected movies in the same tone than LotR, but that had a lot to do with its context.

Viggo Mortensen was in an interview the other day and said that he thought that the first film was the best, but by the time Two Towers and ROTK came around, there was so much chaos and stress with the production that he's not surprised at all why the first film was widely seen as the best one. I totally agree.

With Fellowship, Jackson established a world, the mystery that surrounds the ring, the atmosphere and culture of middle earth, and he did it all without having to shove huge CGI monsters or battles in our faces every 5 minutes. The first film had an even tone, and it took its time building the world for the adventures to come. Sadly, that buildup was the best part of the ride.

I've only seen the first of the new Hobbit movies. I didn't think too much of it. I think Jackson is either biting off more than he can chew, or he's simply lost his touch... as happens with plenty of film makers.