EPT[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 38
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
TurnipThrowingPeach
United States151 Posts
| ||
|
Zooper31
United States5711 Posts
On December 19 2012 13:25 TurnipThrowingPeach wrote: lolololol I cant believe all the hate in this thread. Skimming through, I read more negative than positive comments. Like, for reals...you guys on TL are the most nitpicky SOBs I have ever come across. I wish the community on here could just enjoy things for what they are. Tell me more about how you read The Hobbit and how it has its differences from the movie. It was an amazing flick if you ask me, and its going down in my book as one of the most fun experiences of my life. Enjoy every single second of it, the 3D was done perfectly, and I highly recommend going to see it. And again, tell me a bit more about how you read The Hobbit. Herp derp. Agreed the thread should be about the film, not the book. | ||
|
obesechicken13
United States10467 Posts
If you're going to watch a movie though, there's no problem seeing this one. | ||
|
MajuGarzett
Canada635 Posts
On December 19 2012 14:45 obesechicken13 wrote: The film wasn't as epic as lotr. I don't know if it was a budget issue, lack of effort, lack of productivity, or seriousness. If you're going to watch a movie though, there's no problem seeing this one. Well the most epic parts of the story haven't occurred yet and the hobbit is less of an epic tale than lotr anyways. Smaug and the battle of 5 armies should be quite good in that regard. I didn't expect them to pronounce Smaug like they did. I always thought it sounded just like smog. | ||
|
corumjhaelen
France6884 Posts
What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread  | ||
|
Undrass
Norway381 Posts
| ||
|
Penev
28512 Posts
On December 19 2012 23:13 Undrass wrote: Just saw the movie: What confused me a lot was how Radagast seemingly teleported from the mirkwood and over the misty mountains. I mean, half the movie is how hard it is to get over those mountains, how the heck did Radagast get there so fast and quickly, it just doesn't make sense! Eagles. | ||
|
autoexec
United States530 Posts
Obviously rabbits XD | ||
|
feanor1
United States1899 Posts
| ||
|
Locke-
499 Posts
The same plothole as in LotR appears: Why don't they just eagles to get to the mountain? | ||
|
OKMarius
Norway469 Posts
On December 20 2012 00:24 Locke- wrote: The same plothole as in LotR appears: Why don't they just eagles to get to the mountain? Because they're servants of Manwe, basically the chief angel. The eagles are good, and therefore will help in times of emergency, but they won't do all your work for you. Can be compared to how christians view their god I guess, he might help if you pray, but you still have to buckle up and do shit for yourself. | ||
|
fifasnipe2224
United States243 Posts
IMax: "IMAX® 3D presentations provide the world's most realistic and immersive 3D ever. With the powerful IMAX 3D projector, a state-of-the-art digital surround sound system and the unique IMAX screen geometry that fills the entire field of view." Real 3D: "RealD 3D is the new generation of entertainment, with crisp, bright, ultra-realistic 3D images so lifelike you feel like you've stepped inside the movie. RealD 3D adds depth that puts you in the thick of the action." HFR 3D: "High frame rate (HFR) movies record and play visuals at twice the rate or higher of what’s seen in today’s cinemas." So Imax, Real, or HFR?? | ||
|
snailz
Croatia900 Posts
On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote: I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers | ||
|
Rayeth
United States883 Posts
On December 19 2012 22:59 corumjhaelen wrote: I'll be quick. I'm not a Peter Jackson fan at all, and if I thought his Fellowship was ok enough, I was really disappointed in the two later movies. And here he's not really on his best day. What I liked : the riddles, Radagast (yes !), the songs (I'm impressed), the actor's performances overall, and of course the visual universe, Jackson's real quality, especially pleasing for the Tolkien fanboy inside of me. What I disliked : the action scenes (too long, ridiculous at times -too many goblins- and not even spectacular), the introduction (way too long and isn't good for the narrative), the forced antagonist, most of Jackson's humour, poor Christopher Lee, the music (more pompous than in LoTR, completely overused and too loud), the rythm (flat, about everything is equally supermegaepic for Jackson, really tiring at times), the changes of tones which were handled poorly (the gradation in the book should have been kept- another reason why a single movie would have been better) and the directing (Jackson's grammar doesn't make much sense, he reuses the same shots over and over and they lose any meaning- he should keep it simpler, not everybody is Terrence Malick). I'd guess 4/10, I expect the same comments I had in TDKR thread How anyone can say they liked Radagast is beyond me. He is simply the dumbest thing I have seen in cinema in a LONG time. If there was anything wrong with this movie Radagast and the Pale & Fat Orcs pretty much sum it up. The rest of it is very closely hewn from the Hobbit book, albiet it could have used some editing to make it maybe 2hr 20 or 2hr 15 instead of almost 3. Still way better than 4/10, lol. | ||
|
Striker.superfreunde
Germany1120 Posts
Sorry for going offtopic into the hfr debate  | ||
|
JeanBob
Canada295 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:05 snailz wrote: people like this are exactly the reason why some of the community members wrote in this thread expressing concern about "TL's film taste" i mean for crying out loud, to give AUJ rating of 4/10 and even try to sound objective while doing so would be amusing, if not sad. some tolkien fans/jackson antifans in this thread are a joke, and should not watch the movie but reread the books, and leave the rest of us alone with their "opinions", because they add absolutely nothing of value to the discussion. even when the attempt to be concise and detailed in "what's wrong with the movie" is made, it's hard to take serious after a few give aways of whom you're dealing with. in my personal opinion, Tolkien fans should be pretty happy, if you look what the movie industry is doing to Star Trek, they got a pretty sweet deal. also, i liked the movie. maybe even more than the FotR. cheers Exactly that. As a Tolkien fan, I'm really glad he didn't destroy anything important in Tolkien's universe and even added some plot that was not originally from the book but still "happened" in Tolkien's universe. I must have looked like a kid in a candy shop seeing the lands of Middle-earth I imagined come to life, they did show us Middle-Earth in a very spectacular way. So yeah, it wasn't exactly like the book, but being exactly like the book would have done something worse IMO. | ||
|
StreetWise
United States594 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:21 Striker.superfreunde wrote: Srsly, does anybody had the same experience with 48 frames (HFR)? It looked and felt like watching a theater play. It takes so much illusion out of the movie, and i probably won't watch hfr unless there comes a real good 100% animated movie. HFR will fit to them so much better. Sorry for going offtopic into the hfr debate Yes, both my wife and I felt the same way about HFR. As to those who have doubts, I think that this movie is good, and will probably be like FotR was to the LOTR series, simply a stepping stone into the main story telling. | ||
|
BeHave
Germany121 Posts
On December 20 2012 03:21 Striker.superfreunde wrote: Srsly, does anybody had the same experience with 48 frames (HFR)? It looked and felt like watching a theater play. It takes so much illusion out of the movie, and i probably won't watch hfr unless there comes a real good 100% animated movie. HFR will fit to them so much better. Sorry for going offtopic into the hfr debate I agree on this. There was a scene where I was sure i could see the fake bald head of one of the dawrfs. Other then that good movie. But expactation was way to high, so I got disappointed. Main Critiscm: 1. Movie was to long. 2. It was not " the hobbit". More like the first 3 chapters + X 3. Due to the put in parts (white orc / radaghast) the tale lost stability and the original flow of narration couldn't be picked up. This was enhanced by the change of pace, humor and visual realisation. i.e. : Battle of the dwarvens vs orcs compared to the shire; funny goblin like orcs in the mountains compared to LOTR style white orc gang 4. Why does Thorin look like a human/arragorn 8.5/10 | ||
|
OKMarius
Norway469 Posts
On December 18 2012 19:30 igotmyown wrote: And Ar-Pharazôn went to war against Sauron, brought him back in chains, then decided to sail to the god's island by force. So he might be considered the greatest human. He let himself be manipulated by Sauron, and thereby caused the downfall of Numenor. Defeating Sauron in the first place was easy when you consider how powerful the Numenorean army/navy was, and Sauron willingly let himself be captured. Greatest? No - but definitely the most proud, arrogant and ambitious. | ||
|
RaelSan
Belgium223 Posts
On December 19 2012 13:10 Supamang wrote: I came to this thread to see whether or not the movie would be good, pretty disappointed to read all this criticism. I loved the original LotR series and I had huge expectations so it really sucks hearing about how bad this movie is. + Show Spoiler + Then I remembered about the responses I read in the movie thread for The Dark Knight Rises. It was full of nitpickers and movie hipsters complaining about trivial issues and making comparisons to random movies that have nothing to do with anything. I looked back even farther to The Dark Knight and I see the exact same thing. The moviegoer crowd at TL is absolutely impossible to please. I look forward to seeing this movie and I pray to Vishnu that TL is wrong yet again If you refer to TDKR, a lot of people thought it was pretty bad, not only on TL, and come on, remember the ending... The movie was ok because there were Batman and Bane but the scenario is bullshit. About The Hobbit, I still have difficulties to form a real opinion, but the criticism I recognized the most as true is that the movie was at some points childish and very similar to the darkness of Lotr at other times, so it was a bit disturbing | ||
| ||
