|
On December 16 2013 01:04 Xxio wrote: Going to see it in a few hours. Expecting a safely bland action-adventure targeting ages 10-16. Oh well. wow you must be lots of fun to watch movies with
|
On December 16 2013 05:30 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 20:47 Biff The Understudy wrote:On December 15 2013 09:22 Ghanburighan wrote:On December 15 2013 00:23 ETisME wrote: I finally got convinced to watch the movie with my fd after the huge disappointment of the first one. definitly an improvement (or maybe because of the dragon??) but overall I am just a little too tired of Peter Jackson movies' CGI. I don't know if it's just me but the movies try so hard to present every locations as grand/magnificent/haunting as possible. It can be cool if it won't all CGI based and every single moment has some level of CGI applied to it.
it's not about the quality of the CGI, I am just tired of seeing grande scenery again and again and again. Yes, gives us crappy scenery and ugly sets. /sarcasm. People really like to hate on things, even if they have no reason. It reminds me of people that are just annoyed at another. No matter what the annoying person does, no matter how innocuous, it's still going to seem very annoying because of the bias. You completely miss his point. Jackson sceneries are so over the top, and so obviously made so that you see them and say "woooaaaw so beauuuutiful" that it becomes utterly boring. You can't just throw for 3 hours 300 meters slow motion cascades at your audience and expect that people will engage with it, just like you can't add cream and sugar ad eternam to a dessert and expect it will get better. ALthough, apparently you can since there are still a lot of people to like The Hobbit and LotR and to think it is great cinema, which, honestly puzzles me. How do you mean exactly? Like they should scale back on Mirkwood, the Elf Halls, & Laketown. Or more the giant forge stuff and mountain shots? Or something else. I mean we are going to different locales- to me the forges were much too large, but Laketown was wonderful.
Good luck getting a constructive response out of BtU in a movie thread.
|
On December 16 2013 08:21 Dunmer wrote: Well now after watching the extended version of the first hobbit I have to say that there are a lot of really good scenes in it. All the dwarves get more screen time and lines so you get to know each one as you would in the books. I know alt of people didn't like that you only really knew some of the dwarves.
Also the crew and cast explain why they do the things they do, and a good amount of it makes sense. Like radagadt and his rabbits, because how can your ride a horse through a deep grown forest and how can a horse out run a bunch of wargs. So he imagined this slay of giant rabbits like slay dogs. They then found these rabbits that are the same size as some large dogs and put them in. Until the. I figured they wanted gandalf to be the only wizard on horseback or something trivial.
Basically for other people who liked the movie but have things they disliked the extended version is worth a consider. The scenes in rivendel are great in the extended version
oh i am absolutely sure they have reasons for everything they did. the question is whether i liked it or not and i kind of feel like a sleigh drawn by rabbits is maybe more fitting for alice in wonderland. also, radagast has bird-feces running down the side of his face. what the fuck.
the thing that came to my mind yesterday about what bugged me so much about the movie, since everyone i talked to who saw it and enjoyed it didn't really disagree with my criticism but still really liked it was that probably my expectations were way too high. i still don't get how they see the same flaws i see without it killing the movie for them.
|
I can't even remember seeing any actual real nature in the movie. Everything is either a helicopter shot, a featureless piece of rock or grass that's just part of the scene they built, or something so massaged with CGI that it ceases to be recognizable as real.
Case in point is when someone is worried about wolves in the forest, but they turn out to be worgs. What's the point of even mentioning wolves (or bears) when there are only mutant wolves (worgs) or mutant bears (shapeshifters) around anyway. When everything is magical nothing is magical etc. I was watching the movie longing to see anything real, but it never happens.
|
On December 16 2013 09:09 Grumbels wrote: When everything is magical nothing is magical etc. I was watching the movie longing to see anything real, but it never happens.
Lol. You do know you are watching a Tolkien movie right? In a FANTASY world?
|
I think you mean Beorn the shapeshifter? The one who is like to kill anyone that comes near his land while in bear form and the company just happens to be in said land and the bear is now chasing after them as they run further into his land. He is apart of the story written in the book and if they skipped out Beorn many people would have a complaint I wager.
As for seeing anything real? I dont understand because it is a movie based on a book with wizards and stone giants and goblins and elves etc so the magic and non realism factor are just in the story. For nature scenes the barrel scene just before and during when they met Bard is real just off the top of head for an example. I am sure others can find examples from this movie. The setpieces are just how Peter Jackson does these movies so he can build the scene like it is in the book because your not gonna find the perfect scene in nature so thats why he uses them alot and the CGI is alot but compared to other movies that come out I dont mind it.
|
lol @ the butthurt people
the book afaik was less serious than LOTR trilogy thus i expected the movie to be fun and full of adventure.
|
Not quite sure the hate this movie is getting right now... I thought it was entertaining and enjoyed watching it a lot. The Dragon scenes were amazing. The acting was good. While I thought that in the first movie the goblin mountain scenes were too much, the barrel scene in this movie was actually pretty fun and well choreographed.
The hobbit is a great movie. It's not on the same level as LOTR, which is borderline masterpiece, but it's a good movie on its own. I think people are simply expecting too much from it and judging it to standards which, quite frankly, aren't realistic. LOTR was so good because people were not sure what to expect. The hobbit is "so bad" because people are expecting too much.
Some people have very reasonable points regarding plot holes, additions, etc. I am not so certain that this really took away from the movie enough for me to not enjoy it though. Solid 8/10 from me.
|
Was good but have no idea why Orlando Bloom was even asked to be in this movie as he serves no role except as a jealous prince.
|
A small question to Tokien fans: the entire WarCraft franchise was based upon/inspired by LotR right? Orcs, humans, elves, etc. all seems to originate from one source.
|
On December 16 2013 16:02 Xiphos wrote: A small question to Tokien fans: the entire WarCraft franchise was based upon/inspired by LotR right? Orcs, humans, elves, etc. all seems to originate from one source.
If I remember right Tolkien was a scholar in Norse and Anglo Saxon mythology, and that's where orcs, elves, trolls, wizards and all that came from. But yeah his books created the tropes for pen and paper RPGs, then eventually computer RPGs.
|
Canada5565 Posts
Yeah, it was really bad. I went to sleep immediately when I got home to wash the filthy residue from my brain.
|
On December 16 2013 16:02 Xiphos wrote: A small question to Tokien fans: the entire WarCraft franchise was based upon/inspired by LotR right? Orcs, humans, elves, etc. all seems to originate from one source. It's based on the Warhammer series. Much like how Starcraft isn't based on Starship Troopers, but rather on Warhammer 40k.
On December 16 2013 10:50 Dunmer wrote: I think you mean Beorn the shapeshifter? The one who is like to kill anyone that comes near his land while in bear form and the company just happens to be in said land and the bear is now chasing after them as they run further into his land. He is apart of the story written in the book and if they skipped out Beorn many people would have a complaint I wager.
As for seeing anything real? I dont understand because it is a movie based on a book with wizards and stone giants and goblins and elves etc so the magic and non realism factor are just in the story. For nature scenes the barrel scene just before and during when they met Bard is real just off the top of head for an example. I am sure others can find examples from this movie. The setpieces are just how Peter Jackson does these movies so he can build the scene like it is in the book because your not gonna find the perfect scene in nature so thats why he uses them alot and the CGI is alot but compared to other movies that come out I dont mind it. No, it's like how Lord of the Rings is grounded by taking the hobbits as main characters.
In the novels there are wild packs of wolves roaming the country, corrupted under Sauron's influence. Wolves are already dangerous, and to think that they might heed the will of Sauron is appropriately scary. To learn that there are mutant wolves bred for combat and to be mounted by the orcs is even more horrid. But in the movies all wolves have become mutated into wargs. I don't particularly mind, except that I think the movie loses some grounding by being too fantastical and that Bilbo should stop talking about real wolves that evidently don't exist in the movie universe since there are only wargs. Wargs that never kill anything ever and never pose a threat to anyone by the way.
I have stopped believing middle earth is a real place. It's one thing to embellish, to highlight fantastical elements in real nature, but quite another to use CGI to the point of suffocation so that everything feels like a zone in World of Warcraft. Of course, if you have never been out doors who can tell the difference between WoW and real nature? And if you come from computer game fantasy to Lord of the Rings you might even want more lack of realism and high fantasy. But all of that is bad taste. :o
|
Wan't too fond of the first one so watch the second with mixed expectations. I must asy I was rather pleasently suprised. The Desolation of Smaug is a decent fantasy movie and people should definitly go watch it, if that's their thing.
The one thing that still annoys me more than anything about it though, is the addiction to cliches and tropes. There are just so many moment that doesn't make any sense within the plot, but are purely there for the audience. Of course the spider has to be an inch from a dwarf when the elves show up and shoot it in the face. Of course barrels of dwarfs has to be almost emptied into the lake. Of course Bilbo has to kick the key over the edge of a mountain (even though he's fucking looking for it already!). Of course Thorin shows up just in time to step on the key at the very last fucking moment. Of course the dwarfs managed to sneak under a dragon that looking for them, even though the same dragon had no problem smelling and hearing an invisible Bilbo seconds after it woke up for the first time in years. And this is just the beginning.
Every single moment of the two first movies has been analyzed and optimized to manipulate the audience. Obviously there is a reason things become cliche, they work. But when everything can be fitted into a formula it becomes entirely unengaging.
Desolation of Smaug is a very well made movie. But it isn't a great movie.
|
On December 16 2013 16:00 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Was good but have no idea why Orlando Bloom was even asked to be in this movie as he serves no role except as a jealous prince. I was talking to a friend about this and we figured its a way for them to get thranduil to be involved since he has to heed his sons advice. Which is why he's chasing after this orc and probably finds the army amassing and goes to tell his people. Also since he's a bit of a dick in this we guessed tauriel is a way for them to show how legolas becomes the person he is in the LoTR. They could have just had legolas as his character in the LoTR but whatever.
Incidentally I wouldn't mind aragorn doing a fight scene and saying something totally awesome and leaving again. Just to see more aragorn content, even if it has nothing to do with the plot.
|
Canada5565 Posts
i thought orlando had the best acting in the movie
|
On December 17 2013 02:21 Xxio wrote: i thought orlando had the best acting in the movie
One-liner trolling, I expected better from you.
|
Canada5565 Posts
lol i'm serious, i enjoyed his acting the most (despite the stupid boss fight at the end)
|
Looks like this trilogy is the new hate bandwagon people jump on. Personally I enjoyed it a lot. There were a few cheesy things such as the orc bouncing from the boat 5 metres to the air.
|
The hobbit movies were budgeted for near 600 million dollars, were they not? They can't possibly prioritize artistic success when they have so many mouths to feed. Of course the movies will turn into high fantasy exploitation movies very similar in spirit to any of the hundreds of comic book adaptations made in recent years.
|
|
|
|