Here are things I understand but still struggle to understand:
Before investing 100M in a film which is dependent on CGI, I assume (a dangerous thing) that Hooper did some test footage using the CGI technique he was selling to the Studio/Producers. The problems that were evident in the first trailer, version 1.0 and version 1.1 should have been apparent in the test footage - and fixed before full filming commenced. The dancing, in particular, frequently loses the human aspect and looks/seems fully animated (or has hesitations, blips and inexplicable movements), probably because the CGI artists couldn't keep up. Did Hooper just sell optimism of "don't worry, it will work" or did they not shoot test footage? Or, was the CGI not Hooper's idea - and the producers hired him to execute their vision? I also agree with others that opening an unfinished film did no one any favors - again, optimism must have ruled the day - I understand there is negative publicity from delaying a film, but other films have survived delaying their openings. Of course, I don't know what was in the studio's contracts with the production team and the movie theatres that worked against delaying the opening. Again, perhaps it was just optimism that ruled the day.
But did no one watch dailies or pieces and say "Tom, this just isn't working" - and did he respond "Well, wait till the CGI comes in" to which the response should have been "No, Tom, it's the acting and shot selection and rough edits"? Again, I'm completely speculating that Hooper (and others) thought they could fix everything in post production with the CGI. Optimism.
But, the lack of consistency in vision/tone from scene to scene is Hooper's responsibility. He's the director with the supposed vision for the film. Instead, it looks like different people directed different scenes - and not just in a second unit director filming action sequences way - Rebel Wilson is in a different film than Robert Fairchild. (I assume Wilson's dancing deficiencies is why Jennyanydots' tap number gets cut, and we get a tap number with Skimbleshanks) And, why, all of a sudden, at the end of the fim does Dame Dench start addressing the cinema audience - when that kind of approach has been absent through the rest of the film. The film is set up with the events being explained to Victoria - not to the cinema audience. On stage, everything was, in effect, addressed to the theatre audience - as the opening ("are you blind when you're born?) is directed to the theatre audience, but in the film those lines are directed to Victoria. Aargh. (One nit pick - isn't Macavity supposed to be a ginger cat?) I understand why, story wise - the final shot is Old Deuteronomy looking down lovingly at Victoria who is now a Jellicle cat - but, to me, that was unsatisfying - to me, the final shot should be after the loving look, we see the Phantom Chandalier Balloon disappear in a flash of light indicating it has made the journey to the Heaviside Layer and then the film cuts to the end credits.
Still, in my opinion, the film is not a total disaster - it has its moments.
