Video games, Goblintown and the falling staircases of Moria

[Alatar]

Actually, from what I have seen the opinion is only widely held among those who are NOT familiar with videogames, so we'll have to agree to disagree on that also. In general it appears to me to be an easy sound-byte with little meaning and I regard it with the respect I believe it deserves. None.

[yovargas]

In general it appears to me to be an easy sound-byte with little meaning...

Except for all the meanings that several people have told you several times now that you choose to ignore or disregard for some reason.

There's a reason the comparison keeps getting made, whether you see those reasons or not.

[Passdagas the Brown]

You forgot the endless horde of anonymous, easily disposed bad guys plus the Big Boss finale.

Yes, that too! Point number 4.

The overall point is that the world seems quite easy to dismiss during the Goblintown sequence. It's all going to be fine, and it's all digital. Even if they fall down a hole and die (as is the case in most video games - you fall far and die) the characters will blink back to life, usually at a convenient location in the game.

LOTR occasionally felt video gamey, but AUJ took that to a new level with the excessive CGI, and the incredibly thin characters.

But playing video games can be fun, while watching a video game being played can be teeeedious. I felt like I was looking over PJ's shoulder, watching him play: "The Hobbit: Goblin Adventures." About as far from a Tolkien-inspired experience as I can imagine...

[Passdagas the Brown]

My apologies. My post was rude. You are entitled to your opinion, however much I dislike it.

I simply find the comparison lazy and inaccurate, even given your examples, which I find unconvincing. But as I say, its is absolutely your right to believe whatever you like, as much as it is my right to think its flatly wrong.

Please carry on and ignore my outburst.

I actually agree that most reviewers use the comparison lazily. I just don't follow their example. I use the comparison with utter seriousness and intellectual rigor!

[Passdagas the Brown]

Replacing the soundtrack in GT with some yappy, techno synthesizer music from a video game, will do wonders for this.

Its like a match made in heaven.


I would add to Passdagas' reasons, the fake looking, teal and orange studio lighting in that scene. Hardly the dark, cavernous atmosphere of the deep, infernal, goblin caves. And the obviously ,"set like" feel of the place, be it walls, rocks,ladders, etc...

Agreed. Though I find this to be a problem in both AUJ and the LOTR trilogy. Through a combination of both set design, lighting and cinematography, the studio sets often look like studio sets! Location shooting (ahem, Rohan?) yields much more beautiful results.

[Alatar]

In general it appears to me to be an easy sound-byte with little meaning...

Except for all the meanings that several people have told you several times now that you choose to ignore or disregard for some reason.

There's a reason the comparison keeps getting made, whether you see those reasons or not.

What can I say Yov, I don't choose to ignore it, I just flatly think they're wrong. To me it's like a bunch of colourblind people telling me my car is blue. It doesn't matter how cleverly they argue, or how many comparisons they make to other things they think are blue, I still won't see it. What do you want me to do? Lie and say I see their point?

Honestly, I think the reason the comparison keeps getting made is because one or two ill-informed reviewers spouted it, and it was an easy Sound-byte to latch on to. Nothing more.

Lots of clever people say Tolkien was a bad writer and that Lord of the Rings is a "boys own" adventure with no depth, and they have very compelling arguments to make. They're wrong too.

[Passdagas the Brown]

In general it appears to me to be an easy sound-byte with little meaning...

Except for all the meanings that several people have told you several times now that you choose to ignore or disregard for some reason.

There's a reason the comparison keeps getting made, whether you see those reasons or not.

What can I say Yov, I don't choose to ignore it, I just flatly think they're wrong. To me it's like a bunch of colourblind people telling me my car is blue. It doesn't matter how cleverly they argue, or how many comparisons they make to other things they think are blue, I still won't see it. What do you want me to do? Lie and say I see their point?

Honestly, I think the reason the comparison keeps getting made is because one or two ill-informed reviewers spouted it, and it was an easy Sound-byte to latch on to. Nothing more.

Lots of clever people say Tolkien was a bad writer and that Lord of the Rings is a "boys own" adventure with no depth, and they have very compelling arguments to make. They're wrong too.

Hate to belabor the issue, but I'm curious: What about the reasons I gave for the "video gaminess" of Goblintown, and the reasons yov and a few others gave here, is wrong? Can you address our rationale specifically, rather than just declaring it wrong (and continuing to insist that people are just latching onto other reviewers' comments)?

The simple truth is that I have played lots of video games, and Goblintown felt like watching someone play a 3D adventure game. A mix between Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario Brothers, Lord of the Rings Online, with some Spelunker thrown in for good measure.

This is not an insult directed at games - it's a valid criticism of the films. It highlights, quite sharply, the deficiencies of PJ's style in that scene (and a few others).

The main point, which I find difficult to argue, is the consequence-less and heavily digital nature of it. In most video games, your avatar is either unrealistically capable of sustaining massive wounding by deadly objects, or if easily killed, can be resuscitated with various degrees of penalty for that resuscitation. But the truth is - you can always (except in the case of some hardcore RP games) bring your character(s) back to life, no matter how devastating the fal. They are digital superheroes, for the most part, and PJ gave the dwarves similar characteristics. After they slid down the pit, and the Great Goblin fell on them, I subconsciously thought "Ok, dead." And then they come back to life, triggering the exact same feeling I have had after having someone "resurrect" my toon in the Lord of the Rings Online MMO.

And that's not to mention how digital it all looked, and the Great Goblin popping up inexplicably from below, like a side-view boss sequence from Zelda II or Metroid.

Sorry, but if you cannot address these comparisons specifically, calling them "wrong" will simply annoy and insult people. The comparisons can be used lazily in the media, but people here seem to be smarter than that.

[Alatar]

Hate to belabor the issue, but I'm curious: What about the reasons I gave for the "video gaminess" of Goblintown, and the reasons yov and a few others gave here, is wrong? Can you address our rationale specifically, rather than just declaring it wrong (and continuing to insist that people are just latching onto other reviewers' comments)?

The simple truth is that I have played lots of video games, and Goblintown felt like watching someone play a 3D adventure game. A mix between Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario Brothers, Lord of the Rings Online, with some Spelunker thrown in for good measure.

This is not an insult directed at games - it's a valid criticism of the films. It highlights, quite sharply, the deficiencies of PJ's style in that scene (and a few others).

The main point, which I find difficult to argue, is the consequence-less and heavily digital nature of it. In most video games, your avatar is either unrealistically capable of sustaining massive wounding by deadly objects, or if easily killed, can be resuscitated with various degrees of penalty for that resuscitation. But the truth is - you can always (except in the case of some hardcore RP games) bring your character(s) back to life, no matter how devastating the fal. They are digital superheroes, for the most part, and PJ gave the dwarves similar characteristics. After they slid down the pit, and the Great Goblin fell on them, I subconsciously thought "Ok, dead." And then they come back to life, triggering the exact same feeling I have had after having someone "resurrect" my toon in the Lord of the Rings Online MMO.

And that's not to mention how digital it all looked, and the Great Goblin popping up inexplicably from below, like a side-view boss sequence from Zelda II or Metroid.

Sorry, but if you cannot address these comparisons specifically, calling them "wrong" will simply annoy and insult people. The comparisons can be used lazily in the media, but people here seem to be smarter than that.

If you insist.

Firstly, digital special effects do not make something look like a video game. It makes it look like digital special effects. In some cases digital special effects are superior to physical fx, and in other cases the reverse is true. However, bad digital fx looks like bad digital fx, where ever it is employed. To say that bad digital fx looks like a videogame is to imply that all videogames have bad digital fx, and that any digital fx that are bad therefore look like video games. This is simply not true, for several reasons. Many videogames have superb digital fx and many movies have very bad digital fx. In fact movies had bad digital fx long before the average home computer could provide the power required to even match those fx let alone surpass them. Therefore, the fault, if there is one lies in the quality of digital fx, which is completely independent of the media, whether it be video games, movies, tv or claymation.

Next you refer to the invincible hero. This is hardly a videogame trope, or if it is, its one borrowed from movies and has existed in movies far longer than video games have even existed. How many stormtroopers did Luke and Han dispatch over three movies without a scratch? Or Errol Flynn before them? This is not a video game phenomenon borrowed for Movies, its the reverse. And again, there are many, many video games where when you die, you're dead, including Spelunker, which you mentioned. Are they to be ignored because they don't fit the preconception?

As for the Great Goblin turning up unexpectedly from below, I'd have to watch again, but it seemed to me to match the geography as depicted in the movie. When the Great Goblin is killed he is on the edge of a rickety wooden platform. The dwarves fall into the ravine below. Great Goblin then falls on top of them. Is it cartoony? Yes. Video game? Not so much.

[Passdagas the Brown]

dp

[Passdagas the Brown]

Hate to belabor the issue, but I'm curious: What about the reasons I gave for the "video gaminess" of Goblintown, and the reasons yov and a few others gave here, is wrong? Can you address our rationale specifically, rather than just declaring it wrong (and continuing to insist that people are just latching onto other reviewers' comments)?

The simple truth is that I have played lots of video games, and Goblintown felt like watching someone play a 3D adventure game. A mix between Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario Brothers, Lord of the Rings Online, with some Spelunker thrown in for good measure.

This is not an insult directed at games - it's a valid criticism of the films. It highlights, quite sharply, the deficiencies of PJ's style in that scene (and a few others).

The main point, which I find difficult to argue, is the consequence-less and heavily digital nature of it. In most video games, your avatar is either unrealistically capable of sustaining massive wounding by deadly objects, or if easily killed, can be resuscitated with various degrees of penalty for that resuscitation. But the truth is - you can always (except in the case of some hardcore RP games) bring your character(s) back to life, no matter how devastating the fal. They are digital superheroes, for the most part, and PJ gave the dwarves similar characteristics. After they slid down the pit, and the Great Goblin fell on them, I subconsciously thought "Ok, dead." And then they come back to life, triggering the exact same feeling I have had after having someone "resurrect" my toon in the Lord of the Rings Online MMO.

And that's not to mention how digital it all looked, and the Great Goblin popping up inexplicably from below, like a side-view boss sequence from Zelda II or Metroid.

Sorry, but if you cannot address these comparisons specifically, calling them "wrong" will simply annoy and insult people. The comparisons can be used lazily in the media, but people here seem to be smarter than that.

If you insist.

Firstly, digital special effects do not make something look like a video game. It makes it look like digital special effects. In some cases digital special effects are superior to physical fx, and in other cases the reverse is true. However, bad digital fx looks like bad digital fx, where ever it is employed. To say that bad digital fx looks like a videogame is to imply that all videogames have bad digital fx, and that any digital fx that are bad therefore look like video games. This is simply not true, for several reasons. Many videogames have superb digital fx and many movies have very bad digital fx. In fact movies had bad digital fx long before the average home computer could provide the power required to even match those fx let alone surpass them. Therefore, the fault, if there is one lies in the quality of digital fx, which is completely independent of the media, whether it be video games, movies, tv or claymation.

Next you refer to the invincible hero. This is hardly a videogame trope, or if it is, its one borrowed from movies and has existed in movies far longer than video games have even existed. How many stormtroopers did Luke and Han dispatch over three movies without a scratch? Or Errol Flynn before them? This is not a video game phenomenon borrowed for Movies, its the reverse. And again, there are many, many video games where when you die, you're dead, including Spelunker, which you mentioned. Are they to be ignored because they don't fit the preconception?

As for the Great Goblin turning up unexpectedly from below, I'd have to watch again, but it seemed to me to match the geography as depicted in the movie. When the Great Goblin is killed he is on the edge of a rickety wooden platform. The dwarves fall into the ravine below. Great Goblin then falls on top of them. Is it cartoony? Yes. Video game? Not so much.

Alatar,

Well said. Perhaps "cartoony video game" is more accurate.

But let me address your points specifically by laying out in more detail why it feels gamey. It is because of a combination of a large amount of characteristics that are similar to many video games.

It's all digital: Yes, digital special effects do not = video game. However, at least for Goblintown, the reason it resembles a video game is because at times - particularly in some of the long shots, everything on screen is digital. The environment, the main characters, the adversaries. It's all created on a computer. And it shows. That is very similar to a video game environment.

The gamish layout of the environment, and character interactions with it: There are many CGI backgrounds and environments that are still somewhat believable because they seem naturally organized. Goblintown, on the otherhand, with its multi-level wooden bridges, convenient "tools," such poles and ladders that serve as goblin repellants, and digitally swinging bridges to be "activated" by our heroes, is organized like a puzzle dungeon from a video game, and the characters interact in it in a video gamish fashion. Bombur even reverse-Marios down through the multi-level digital bridge environment to get down to his companion avatars' level. It seems to be a cleverly organized game dungeon. This sets it apart from other heavily digital scenes, such as the Pelennor in ROTK, which though full of CGI is not over-constructed into a game-like environment. In short, it's a digital environment specifically and consciously designed to facilitate certain kinds of neat and clever actions by the heroes, such as Bombur's drop, and Gandaf's bridge and stone activation. That's what game developers excel at!

Easily-dispatched DIGITAL enemies and invincible DIGITAL heroes: You make a good point about invincibility and hapless adversaries being a movie trope from the sci-fi serials, and most famously, in Star Wars. However, though silly, the actors and adversaries were real people in costume, which made it all seem to have some basis in reality, however cheesy. The reason G-town feels videogamish is that those tropes are combined with a nearly all-digital cast of characters and environment. Put the tropes and the digitalia together, and you get something very similar to an action-adventure video game. Aragorn and Legolas were often invincible in LOTR, but I never really felt it was videogamish because they, and the environments they were in, seemed real and non-gamey.

Linearity and consequence-less movement: Though Goblintown has some depth, the company simply runs and runs until they get to the exit. How in the world did they know where they were going? Simple. It's a level in the video game, and the only way to go is to the right! Not all games are linear (see MMOs and many RPGs) but many are. This is part of the consequeless aesthetic. It doesn't matter where you run, you will get to the exit. Just as it doesn't matter how may goblins come at you, you will beat them and escape! Oh, and all that in a digital space.

Digital boss fight: The Great Goblin, at the start of the fight, falls off his throne platform. Then the heroes run and run for ages through a vast cavernous environment, all the while chased by millions of digital goblins. Near the end of the chase, the Great Goblin just appears. There was no indication that he was following them, and no explanation of how he could possibly have gotten there. Why? Because that didn't matter. It was simply important to PJ to have a face-off on a bridge with the big Goblin boss. I mean, this massive fat beast JUMPS through the wooden bridge from some unseen platform below to confront the heroes. Again, Zelda, Metroid, Godzilla. The similarities to some classic games are obvious.

Cinematography: It's a brightly-lit, slick, digital environment. Never has a cave so cavernous been so well-lit and clean. It just looks like a place created by game developers so that you can easily move your digital avatar around in.

None of these characteristics ALONE makes for a video gamish experience. But put them all together, and a strong impression is made that PJ was influenced more by gaming than he was by anything else for this scene. You may not have a problem with that, and clearly millions of viewers didn't, but I find it frustrating to watch games in the movie theater.

Next time, PJ should at least give us the freedom to control the characters. Heck, I'll even make Thorin kill Smaug, if that's the case.

[Dave_LF]

At the very least, I'd think one would have to concede it's a scene that would be very easy to adapt into a level in a videogame based on the film. All the beats, obstacles, puzzles, and maneuvers are already laid out for you in order.

[yovargas]

I'd go as far as saying that it would be very easy to adapt into a good level in a videogame. It looks fun to play!

[kzer_za]

I agree that the Goblin King popping up does seem remniscient of a boss cutscene in a Zelda or Metroid game. In both the 2D and 3D games, you have bosses bursting up out of the ground to fight the player. If I had access to my home computer right now, I might even be able find an example or two on Youtube.

[Frelga]

Would it be possible to have the video game conversation be on a separate thread? It's an interesting topic, and it keeps popping up in different threads.


Al, you give examples of movie heroes dealing out damage. Different from the ability to take damage that is common in a video game character, and which in a game is useful simply to let the player keep going longer without interruption.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I'll see if I can successfully move the posts to the already existing thread. Give me a moment.

[Passdagas the Brown]

Would it be possible to have the video game conversation be on a separate thread? It's an interesting topic, and it keeps popping up in different threads.


Al, you give examples of movie heroes dealing out damage. Different from the ability to take damage that is common in a video game character, and which in a game is useful simply to let the player keep going longer without interruption.

That's a key point. Han Solo didn't get hit by twenty lasers and survive, he just didn't get hit!

On the contrary, the dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf survive (with no sign of serious injury) some of the most deadly falls one can imagine. I call it "blinking back to life" ala many a video game hero.

And I agree with yov. Looks like a very fun game. In fact, I would love for a game developer to create Middle Earth games based on the principles of the original Mario Brothers, and the first three Legend of Zeldas. Would be a blast (but then, I have a nostalgic preference for the old school games).

[Alatar]

I will absolutely give you that it would make a good video game, but so did The Two Towers. I had a great time running round as Legolas kicking over ladders and shooting down torch wielding Uruk-hai.

Part of the problem here is the different aesthetic. LotR is not the Hobbit. In film and book, the former is more realistic and the latter is more Saturday Matinee. I have always said that the closest thing to the Goblin-town sequence is Indiana Jones. To answer Frelga, Indy falls out of an airplane without a parachute, inflates a rubber dinghy and surfs down a mountain in it to finally come to rest in front of a mystic Guru who calmly states "We've been expecting you". Is that any more believable than the Dwarvish escape in AUJ?

Now I'll grant there's nothing like that in LotR, but there's nothing like that in Videogames either. Its pure Saturday Matinee.

Frankly, I wouldn't bother playing a game where my character was as invincible as movie characters, cause there's no tension if you can't die.

I'll also agree that the Great Goblin bursting through the floor is reminiscent of a Boss Battle in video games, but guess where they stole it from? Movies.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I have always said that the closest thing to the Goblin-town sequence is Indiana Jones.

I agree with this. And like Indiana Jones, it is fun, unless it is poisoned with expectations that it will be something different.

The Hobbit is a fun book, with layers of depth and moral complexity way beyond what many people realize. Despite some things that I don't like (Azog, the GG's death, the overboard bafoonishness of Radagast, the axe-head) I see a lot of signs that Jackson's adaptation will successfully capture that mix of fun and deeper levels.