|
On December 26 2012 05:23 Mattchew wrote:
Am I the only one that could barely understand what gollum was saying, especially in the riddles sceen?
Awesome movie though, however I'm one of the dumbasses that didn't know it was a trilogy
As a native english speaker it was hard to understand the first 1min or so until I got used to it then it was easy. They could've made that a little bit easier to understand though.
|
Azog is one bad motherfucker. How could they make Azog so cool and they made the goblin king such a fat pussy.
|
On December 25 2012 02:51 SanchoPanda wrote:
Let's get one thing straight...
the scenes of "Riddles in the Dark" were amazing!
Gollum stole the show imo.
This. The entire play between Gollum and Bilbo was brilliant and that alone made the movie worth it. And watching it all in 48fps.. so, so awesome.
|
On December 24 2012 20:03 Bloodash wrote:
I couldn't really put my finger on what I didn't like about the hobbit, but redlettermedia cleared it up for me:
-the story flow just didn't feel right, it stop-started a whole lot of times wich just doesn't do the movie any good.
-48 fps just doesn't work
-would've been better if it where only 1 or 2 movies
Im gonna need an explanation on how 48 fps just "doesnt work."
Its like double most movies. One reason I dont even go to the theater anymore is the framerate blows and it hurts my head.
I have a feeling at certain points they filmed in 24 FPS then tried to speed it up to make it 48 but thats different.
|
On December 26 2012 05:50 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:23 Mattchew wrote:
Am I the only one that could barely understand what gollum was saying, especially in the riddles sceen?
Awesome movie though, however I'm one of the dumbasses that didn't know it was a trilogy As a native english speaker it was hard to understand the first 1min or so until I got used to it then it was easy. They could've made that a little bit easier to understand though.
I envy you, imo subtitles just break the entire 3d effect. (and dub is beyond lame)
|
On December 26 2012 07:01 Kaien wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:50 Zooper31 wrote:On December 26 2012 05:23 Mattchew wrote:
Am I the only one that could barely understand what gollum was saying, especially in the riddles sceen?
Awesome movie though, however I'm one of the dumbasses that didn't know it was a trilogy As a native english speaker it was hard to understand the first 1min or so until I got used to it then it was easy. They could've made that a little bit easier to understand though. I envy you, imo subtitles just break the entire 3d effect. (and dub is beyond lame)
Where I went in Quebec city there were no subtitles in fact, I didn't even know some theaters offered it. But ya if I was given the choice I would still see it without subtitles, I don,t believe missing a few words in a movie is really bad when I read the book twice before compared to having the visuals sorta ruined.
Oh and by the way I wasn't really sure what they decided to do with it (making one, two or three films) the day I went to see it, I asked my friend just before the movie began!
|
I enjoyed this movie WAY more than I expected too at the beginning it is pretty entertaining and I loved it especially because it amazingly true to the book and I loved Radagast + Necromancer twist.
|
I think the movie is beyond awful. This is shaping up to be Star Wars episode 1-3, but worse. Deserves its current rating on rottentomatoes, I'd give it even lower than 60. Probably lower than 40.
How could they possibly make this movie feel so fake and make the pacing so bad? The Hobbit and LOTR are just bad for movies without major revisions, but I think they did much better in LOTR.
Highly doubt I will bother seeing the next Hobbit movies unless some turnaround happens. I nearly fell asleep at one point.
|
I wasn't all that impressed at first but after seeing it again I really liked it.
The only things that bothered me were how quickly into the story they are perused by Orcs, the excessive stone giant scene, and the idea that a bunch of Dwarfes could run from a pack of Wrags... Also I enjoyed the inclusion of Radagast but the rabbit sled thing was bizarre
|
this movie was more true to the books than lotr imo (even though that's not saying much)
I can understand the dissapointment of people who didn't read the book and came in expecting another return of the king movie
|
Hey! I loved the movie and I'm just going to say: will 3 movies make worse movies overall? Yes. But will it allow them to better portray the intricacies of the book? It should do. But overall, without playing BFME II anymore, this is my last chance to relive the Tolkien fantasy... to be honest, I'm grateful to have three movies to enjoy it. That more than balances out the decision to stretch the films, in my opinion.
|
Just saw it this morning. I must say I quite enjoyed the movie and had no issues with the length or watching it in 3D. The only things that bothered me with the movie was Radagast and the Goblin King. Other then that going into the movie not to criticize but to enjoy I came out satisfied and with a sore neck because the cinema seats sucked.
7.5/10
|
28100 Posts
I ended up really enjoying this movie. Gollum was good, and the movie was presented well. They didn't change a whole lot of stuff either, which is good.
|
On December 26 2012 05:21 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 25 2012 17:55 Frieder wrote:On December 25 2012 12:21 Caladbolg wrote:On December 25 2012 01:41 BlackPaladin wrote:On December 25 2012 00:49 Chewbacca. wrote:On December 25 2012 00:21 Frieder wrote:On December 25 2012 00:11 Praetorial wrote:What this movie did right was expand upon the original story. Instead of creating a stylized cutting like the LOTR movies did, Jackson managed to add on a great more detail about the world of Middle-Earth while at the same time remaining faithful to the story. On December 24 2012 19:55 Frieder wrote:On December 24 2012 07:41 Thorakh wrote:On December 24 2012 07:21 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
I think the problem is a lot of people were expecting intense gritty action, when The Hobbit is a fucking kids story I read in third grade. I came in expecting fun lighthearted adventure with a little darkness thrown in, thats what I got, and I enjoyed the hell out of it, ^ If you go in expecting the movie will be exactly like the books you're going to be disappointed. What you should do is view the movie as an adaptation of the book set in the universe Tolkien created and stop nitpicking on every little changed bit. You'll enjoy it that much more. I didn't like the LotR movies as well when I first saw them because I was stuck in the EVERYTHING MUST BE EXACTLY THE SAME OR ELSE!!!!!! mindset. Years later I can thoroughly enjoy them because I don't view them as the books in movie form anymore, I view them as the movies by themselves. I can not stress this enough: Jackson doesn't get Tolkien's universe and his worldview. Everything must be exactly like in the books, if not you do not tell the story of the LotR or The Hobbit, you tell some perverted shit. Of course you can and must make some adjustements to fit the genre, but not like Jackosn does it. He makes idiotic and weird changes (adds nonsense, changes totally the character of some figures (e. g. Faramir, why doesn't he understand that Faramir is one of the most heroic figures), changes the storyline (e. g. adding Azog pursuiting the Company)), which totally pervert the character of the stories and their "massage" (I know, you can't use the word "massage" talking about Tolkien's Middle-earth, but I don't know how to paraphrase it). You may enjoy the movies by themselves (and they may be pretty good movies, I don't know enough about movies to evaluate them as movies per se), but they are not an adaption of Tolkien's work. They tell a totally different story. Faramir - Faramir seemed pretty darn heroic in the film, maybe something was lost in translation but I can;t imagine what. Azog - was needed to provide a substantial villain. It's not the best but he pulled it off well. "massage" - I'm afraid I have no idea what you're talking about. Where is Jackson faithful to the story? Introducing unnecessarly Azog (who is dead!), which changes totally the character of their trip. Introducing the White Council in Rivendell? Radagast? Faramir maybe semm heroic because of his fighting, but not because of his virtues (!). Jackson totally changed the character of Faramir, who in Tolkien's work is the example of the ideal Christian knight of the Middle Ages. Read "message". Typing error in the post corrected. IDK Faramir seems pretty heroic because of his virtues as well... Going out to protect Osgilath when it was overrun because it was his duty Letting Frodo and Sam go even though "your life will be forfeit" Not saying Jackson didn't change the character, because he certainly changed characters, particularly Denethor... who he changed from a seemingly good and capable ruler to a madman who doesn't give a shit. But Faramir still comes off as the most heroic non-main character in the movies. Eh, from what I got from it, faramir in the movies was tempted by the power of the ring like his brother was, and decided to take frodo to his father to appease the "father that doesn't love him" complex. Then Osgiliath went under attack (cause peter jackson ran into issues having the scene during helms deep action scenes, so needed to keep the action feel), so he brought frodo with him during his retreat to minas tirith, going through osgiliath first to fortify them. Then after a small speech by sam that faramir happened to overhear, he decided "hmm, maybe I should help them out" for no real reason and let them go. Then later, decides to go off to die in a single charge at a fortified position because daddy doesn't love him. He appeals to teens. Faramir in the book is just fucking awesome, almost gandalf-like in his deep knowledge and wisdom. He HELPS frodo. He feeds him, gives him extra food for his journey, and even warns him of the dangers of gorgoroth and that gollum shouldn't be trusted, even though frodo has nearly given in and began to trust his "guide," it helps to solidify sam's feelings for gollum. He's basically a beacon of light on the edge of darkness. Faramir in the movies is not this. Like, I really love the lotr's movies myself, but the faramir downplay gets me in the feels. ;-; In the DVD appendices, Philipa Boyens explains the massive change to Faramir's character as something that had to happen in order to drive Frodo and Sam's storyline. Otherwise, you lack a clear "conflict" in their storyline, and a climax as well. You could disagree with it or not, but it was a decision made by professional writers who loved Tolkien's work, but wanted to tell it from their own movie-making perspective. Honestly, much of the criticisms received by the Hobbit, and by extension the Lord of the Rings, were mostly changes made by the writing staff to appeal to the general movie-going audience. Yes. And this is nonsense. They obviously don't love Tolkien's work and don't understand it.Did they ever think, that Tolkien wanted to tell the story in this way and not in another (if he wanted to create a Faramir like in the movie, wyh didn't he do it? pls explain it to me). Faramir is one of the most heroic figures: he is full fo wisdom, full of virtues, he is an example of the ideal Catholic knight in the Middle Ages. Professional writers or not. They perverted a important character and with him they changed the last part of Frodo's trip. Such grave changes, which are not necessary! and only darken the beauty of the story, are a sign of disrespect toward Tolkien and his work. It was the middle movie in a trilogy, and they made the change so that it would have a climax. This is a special consideration for the movie, because they couldn't leave the movie's ending just hanging in air. Tolkien oviously intended his books to be read as one, and published them together right away, unlike the movie which had a year of pause in between part II and III. So, I don't particularly like it that they stupified Faramir, but I can see their reasoning. Making a movie is just not the same as writing a book, and unfortunately it requires some changes.
That, at least for me, is not a very good reason to make such signifanct changes. That is not a change, which is required by the genre.
|
On December 26 2012 05:58 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
Azog is one bad motherfucker. How could they make Azog so cool and they made the goblin king such a fat pussy.
Seeing as he was dead before the timeline of the Hobbit, they can do what they like with him, as he isn't in the story.
Goblin King is already in the Hobbit so there's much less they can do to him.
|
The hobbit finally got released in australia today, fucking projector broke right in the middle of the gollum bilbo riddle scene and they couldn't fix it. so mod :<
|
On December 26 2012 17:32 xccam wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 05:58 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
Azog is one bad motherfucker. How could they make Azog so cool and they made the goblin king such a fat pussy. Seeing as he was dead before the timeline of the Hobbit, they can do what they like with him, as he isn't in the story.
Yes. And therefore they can't do what they like with him. He isn't in the story! His stupid introduction totally changes the character of the story.
|
I'm just gonna spoiler all my thoughts on the movie. pewpew
+ Show Spoiler +
I gotta say I didn't love or hate it. Right off the bat I was kind of feeling some *uh ohs* because the entire *hey lets go on an adventure, the Dwarves are coming for dinner, are you coming or not* scenes were incredibly drawn out and had WAYYY too much pointless dialogue and action it seemed. The scenes were just not efficient.
They just felt like they could have happened two or even three times as fast and been as good or better. After the first dwarf (I'm having some serious name issues right now for some reason) arrived I thought that the others and Gandalf would have been at the door, but they had to draw it out by having another dwarf come alone? Then Thorin had to come alone later? And I really thought that when Bilbo woke up the next morning he would have looked out the door and seen the Thirteen waiting for him like *we know your're coming, so come,* but instead he decided to have a change of heart after saying no like five times. :\
They really could have made the Goblin Caves escape scene a lot shorter as well; I'm talking Gandalf does his big kaboom spell, the cave collapses a bit, "Ahh, Glamdring," slash the King, twenty-whatever goblin kills on the run and we're out the door.
I loved the storytelling for Smaug's attack and the fight with Azog, and I thought that the Azog storyline fit in very well -- like it didn't interrupt the main story and flowed nicely, but the quality of the CGI (I didn't like it :\) sort of lessened the Goblin/Orc experience for me. They had good ideas with changing up the how the Goblins looked and acted, but I dunno what happened. The Goblin King was such a douche as well!! wtf! From his appearance, to his voice, to his diction he just wasn't doing it for me. I loved his part in the cartoon version where he got super mad and opened his mouth to eat Thorin in one gulp; now THAT was cool. Btw, getting it in the face by a huge mace wielded by a strong Orc Leader running on a beast should probably kill you.
I was also disappointed that the Eagles didn't talk or anything... If all the King said was, "I will never forget you saving me, Gandalf <3 <3" in a regal voice it would have been kewl. Also, my favourite riddle, the Time riddle, was cut short!
"Slays king, Ruins town, And beats high mountain down," bro. ^^
All in all I really did enjoy it, and it deserves more love than I can give it, but there was just too much that was noticeably meh. :[
|
I really liked the film. But as so many said before me, the Golin King Scene was SO bad. I mean why does he have to be so unserious. Its like there was someone else making the film for a short time. First one Dwarf blocks three(!) arrows with a LADDER and then the Gobo King needs a childish one-liner befor he died. It would be like if Golum would have said some dumb one-liner when he fell into the lava at the end of LOTR ...
Anyways nice film.
|
I didn't expect it to be so action packed. Gandalf saving the day all the time was kind of boring. Hidan and Falkor (Azog and his white Warg) were weird, so were Radagast's rabbits. A lot of CG was lackluster (the dragon's eye was terrible, it was so flat and empty).
Other than that the movie was pretty good. 7/10?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
