There's not much nerdier than fantasy movies.
Btw, The Hobbit's Gandalf didn't know of any upcoming War of The Ring,
He didn't know whether the One Ring would be found again, but he certainly knew of an upcoming war. He discovered that it was Sauron who was the dark force behind those changes of the world, and he found that out at least a hundred years before the events of the Hobbit. He aided the dwarves because he feared that with Smaug active, Sauron would be able to regain the northern passes, re-establish Angmar, and then have the kingdoms of men encircled.
Ok, granted. But how did Gandalf think unassuming Bilbo, a rather hapless Hobbit who had never been far from home, would make an excellent burglar?
Because he'd been fascinated with Hobbits before, and the disaster of the Long Winter (pre-Hobbit) and the orc attacks made it clear to Gandalf that hobbits had an inner strength to them. He befriended the Bagginses at that point.
Starship Troopers was great satire.
+1 to that.
Dude, you've been listening to Christopher Tolkien too much. He's far more purist and hardcore than his father was.
Tauriel being a good little damsel straight from Peter Jackson's imagination?
While Tauriel doesn't seem to have a point besides speaking the most banal of lines... most people who read the Hobbit later in life and aren't used to its eccentricities will reach a moment when they realize "wait a minute. I've read a few hundred pages and I don't think I've even heard a mention of a female, even in passing. Hey, all these characters are single dudes, do woman even exist in Middle Earth?"
Over Christopher Tolkien's dead body
Might be sooner than you think, he's over 90 years old.
Silmarillion covers fascinating material, but it's an encyclopedia.
The better the visual, the more time on screen.
Thus very gifted directors should only work with very gifted editors. Look what George Lucas did when he didn't have enough editing.
That was my assumption for awhile, though I surprised to see that Jamie Selkirk, editor on Return of the King and supervising editor on the other two films, was also the editor on Jackson's way-too-long, needed-far-bigger-edits King Kong remake.
The editor of all three Hobbit films was Jabez Olssen, who really hadn't done any editing outside of Cleopatra 2525 and the Lovely Bones.
Where? I am hard pressed to think of something for the 1st movie
I think the last 45 minutes were extremely good. Riddles in the dark, Thorin's stand against the orcs, and the rescue of the eagles (The Flight to the Carrock in particular fits in well with the majestic portions of LoTR). Unfortunately I had to sit through 100 minutes of pretty bad movie to get there, so maybe it doesn't make as good an impression as it should.
and I haven't seen a single good scene anywhere in the 2nd Hobbit movie
I think you're right, there. The second movie didn't actually anger me like the first did, but it didn't impress.
How about not inventing an entire 45 minute scenario with the Dwarves in the mountain running from Smaug?
I thought it was ok.. but Jackson, who has always been a bit over-the-top, seems to have absolutely no restraint anymore. A scene that should have been short ended up dragging on and on...
It's like someone in a film about King Arthur's knights turning out to be a cyborg,
Alas there is such a film
Based on a Mark Twain novel, no less.
What I find funny is that one reviewed claimed that it was too short at 144 minutes.
I haven't seen it yet, but if it has the same problems as the first two films, it will be that film stretches out the wrong parts, while still giving short shrift to interesting scenes. Why was most of the Mirkwood journey cut out? Why was much of the interactions with Beorn cut? They spend a whole chapter in Rivendell, and are in and out in ten movie minutes. Hell, I would even have liked to hear Gandalf's conversations with the eagles (who do speak..).
New TVs that do interpolation between frames create a different uncanny valley effect when they attempt to create motion blur by morphing between frames that don't contain motion blur. Pay special attention to brow wrinkles, crows feet and mouth creases with the "dejudder" set to max.
Which is why almost every home theater designer/installer knows to turn that "feature" off of TVs.
Transformers was where I found this most obvious, they had to do all the transformations in slowmo for you to actually catch what was going on, and even then it was still too overwhelming to catch without the extra frames
I think part of that problem was the design of the transformers themselves. Way too much going on to make individual sense, and part of one transformer tends to look like any other part of the same robot (or any other robot, for that matter). I don't think it was the 24fps that made it such a visual mess, Michael Bay literally said "put more stuff on the stuff" when he was shown robot designs. I wish I was making that quote up.
* during the first movie, they set the lighting for filming in 24fps, forgetting / not realizing that with double the framerate, comes double the lighting. Hence the lighting looks off, noticeable during the plate-tossing scene in Bilbo Baggins' house.
A big part of that is because it was really intended to be HFR 3D. If you're not watching it in HFR 3D, then you're not watching it as it was intended when filmed, and you're right, the lighting is critical. 3D sucks on a number of levels, one of the biggest being that it cuts way down on the brightness. I saw the first Hobbit in HFR 3D, and it was first 3D movie I had ever seen where I thought the colors, the lighting, everything just looked right.
Specifically, if a movie is in 3D but not HFR, it's not worth it, I see it in 2D instead.