The Hobbit: Desolution of Smaug getting somewhat better reviews than 'An Unexpected Disappointmentl' - Polidicks

wow, suddenly nobody liked the Hobbit? I thought it was awesome.

Will it have another ten minute scene of the dwarves messing up Bilbo's house while singing songs? This is make or break for me

i would pretty much watch anything Tolkien based and enjoy it dude created an amazing universe

[QUOTE=Schmaaa;43107281]wow, suddenly nobody liked the Hobbit? I thought it was awesome.[/QUOTE] I've heard some people found it boring at the beginning and not that impressive, but honestly I quite liked it, though not as much as TTT or TROTK. It had atmosphere and character and that held it together for me. As for those that thought it was boring, you should go watch a critically acclaimed old film like Zulu where literally half the 2 hour, 20 minute film is building tension for the battle with no combat at all. If you want to go watch a brainless modern action flick there are plenty.

[QUOTE=Schmaaa;43107281]wow, suddenly nobody liked the Hobbit? I thought it was awesome.[/QUOTE] I thought so too. Been a fan of Jackson's work since the age of 12. Tolkein, longer than that.

[QUOTE=Schmaaa;43107281]wow, suddenly nobody liked the Hobbit? I thought it was awesome.[/QUOTE] I liked it too, but I just found some parts to be incredibly dull and slow.

[QUOTE=Schmaaa;43107281]wow, suddenly nobody liked the Hobbit? I thought it was awesome.[/QUOTE] The tone was all over the place (didn't the pale orc hold up a dwarf's decapitated head? then there's the "they won't catch me with my rabbits!!!!!"), there was too much filler (pale orc, radagast, new one has legolas and female elf filler)., and there was [B]way [/B]too much CG and filters. The entire film looked like a cartoon. Also they made Bilbo not the main character with all the filler. There is no main character.

I really hope they keep the goofy shit out of this one, there was way too much really unfunny moments where they tried to be funny. If I remember correctly, all the goofy shit that happened in lord of the rings actually happened in the books, they're just winging it here. Can't wait for Smaug though, they did his really voice well.

[QUOTE=mr hobo;43105542]The reason its longer, is that J. R. R. Tolkien went back to rewrite The Hobbit after writing Lord of the Rings, to better connect the two. He died before he finished it and PJ got a hold of the notes.[/QUOTE] Weren't these notes all published in the appendices at the end of Return of the King?

Didn't really like the movie to be honest. It's pacing was abysmal, and I almost fell asleep during the Rivendell scenes. The goblin mines sections were just mediocre, and the CGI was really ugly. What I don't understand is how they managed to turn a 300 page book into three films as well.

guys guys guys guys while you keep toting this WHY IS IT 3 MOVIES THE HOBBIT IS SHORT shit if you'd ever have actually read the books you'd know that more than half of the material in these hobbit movies comes from the silmarillon which is about 1000 pages rekt

Whatever your opinion on the film, you must admit Howard Shore writes an amazing score. I'm more excited to hear the music than anything else.

[QUOTE=Carne;43106924]PJ selling out to Hollywood? Doubt it. Plus they're all the way over in NZ, so much less studio control. Just by watching all the vlogs and the behind the scenes stuff should tell you how dedicated the cast and crew are to making these films.[/QUOTE] I meant selling out in the artistic/creative sense by adding many of the tired acting/blocking/dialogue tropes that mainstream Hollywood films still tend to cling on to

[QUOTE=Draghosta;43107693]Whatever your opinion on the film, you must admit Howard Shore writes an amazing score. I'm more excited to hear the music than anything else.[/QUOTE] it's p. much all amazing, people just like to be hip with anger and everything is bad movies are cool and half in the bag should get exclusive rights for making "why is this movie shit" videos, everyone else is just bad at it movies are great and if you rely on videos or internet forums to tell you what movies are good, you should consider working retail or some equal punishment [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] get your own taste folks, I don't even give a shit if you liked transformers go on and do it, I'll actually like you for standing up to the movie I think sucks ass

[QUOTE=Egevened;43107671]guys guys guys guys while you keep toting this WHY IS IT 3 MOVIES THE HOBBIT IS SHORT shit if you'd ever have actually read the books you'd know that more than half of the material in these hobbit movies comes from the silmarillon which is about 1000 pages rekt[/QUOTE] Most of which covers the history of middle earth, not the events of the hobbit or lotr

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;43107781]Most of which covers the history of middle earth, not the events of the hobbit or lotr[/QUOTE] oh yeah fucking really open up your hobbit book right now and tell me if the battle scene where thorin gets his oaken shield was in the book it isn't? oh yeah right because it's in the fucking silmarillon [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] who is the son of sanduril? legolas? where do you gather that from? certainly not the history of middle earth

[QUOTE=Egevened;43107794]oh yeah fucking really open up your hobbit book right now and tell me if the battle scene where thorin gets his oaken shield was in the book it isn't? oh yeah right because it's in the fucking silmarillon[/QUOTE] Don't actually read my post or anything. [B]Most [/B]of the silm is the history of middle earth. The very last section is dedicated to touching on some stuff from the hobbit and lotr, but it isn't not 1000 pages on the just that period of history. Also just because tolkien wrote something doesn't mean PJ did a good job with it

As someone who's never read the book. Why did the first movie get bad reviews?

[QUOTE=thrawn2787;43107781]Most of which covers the history of middle earth, not the events of the hobbit or [B]lotr[/B][/QUOTE] It's funny because the entirety of LOTR is the size of a paragraph at the very end of the book.

Honestly, I watched the whole movie just to see how they pulled off the puzzle duel Bilbo vs Smeagol. And it was worth the waiting.

I didn't even notice the CGI besides maybe the woodland animals. Then again, I could probably watch Dr Who and not notice the CGI.

am I the only person who was really intrigued by the white orc and kind of dissappointed that he didn't play a larger role?

[QUOTE=Bruhmis;43108036]am I the only person who was really intrigued by the white orc and kind of dissappointed that he didn't play a larger role?[/QUOTE] yes. He was a really shoehorned in big bad and this is coming from someone who says fuck the haters, an unexpected journey was great [editline]7th December 2013[/editline] also there's the fact that he just dies in moria in the books so he's really there just to antagonize

[QUOTE=Jmir 54;43107832]As someone who's never read the book. Why did the first movie get bad reviews?[/QUOTE] Critics simply couldn't mentally process 48FPS.

[QUOTE=Draghosta;43108079]Critics simply couldn't mentally process 48FPS.[/QUOTE] "it doesn't look cinematic!" maybe that's because it's new so your notion of "cinematic" comes from most cinema being in 24 fps? HMM? JUST MAYBE?

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43108103]"it doesn't look cinematic!" maybe that's because it's new so your notion of "cinematic" comes from most cinema being in 24 fps? HMM? JUST MAYBE?[/QUOTE] If anything, the film looks shit in 24 because of the panning shots that look like super stuttery shit when they're not 48fps.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;43108072]yes. He was a really shoehorned in big bad and this is coming from someone who says fuck the haters, an unexpected journey was great [editline]7th December 2013[/editline] also there's the fact that he just dies in moria in the books so he's really there just to antagonize[/QUOTE] I enjoyed his presence in the film... he might have been just a little bit cheesy compared to LOTR but so was the whole film.

[QUOTE=Legend286;43108112]If anything, the film looks shit in 24 because of the panning shots that look like super stuttery shit when they're not 48fps.[/QUOTE]Yeah, once you've seen a few 48 fps productions, watching 24 just looks disgusting. Its a blurry and fuzzy mess. I love the more crisp nature of higher fps movies and shows. I think part of the reason a lot of studios avoid it though is because of the greatly clarity mistakes and poor design in sets, props, and costumes are a lot easier to notice. 24 fps can kinda blur it all away but 48 fps doesn't do this so much. It also means CG costs go up quite a lot because they have to work with more frames.

[QUOTE=Yumyumbublegum;43107388]i would pretty much watch anything Tolkien based and enjoy it dude created an amazing universe[/QUOTE] Dude was probably high when he wrote that

[QUOTE=Dr.Critic;43107400]I've heard some people found it boring at the beginning and not that impressive, but honestly I quite liked it, though not as much as TTT or TROTK. It had atmosphere and character and that held it together for me. As for those that thought it was boring, you should go watch a critically acclaimed old film like Zulu where literally half the 2 hour, 20 minute film is building tension for the battle with no combat at all. If you want to go watch a brainless modern action flick there are plenty.[/QUOTE] or watch das boat, all that tension, the crew could just cut it and eat it, but they can't because they dumped the silverware overboard to fake stuff but nvm that [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] anything tolkein is good even with PJ at the helm