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

I can't wait till all LOTR related shit is out, like harry potter is now just watch every movie all in a row, a really solid entertaining week

I actually really liked An Unexpected Journey.

Moria is a deathtrap for members of the company.

"Close to the grandeur of Jackson's Lord of The Rings films." Uh...no.

Thank you Benny Cumbersnatch

The first movie was like watching a book for me, and I really liked that. The thing that movies can never do is go into intense detail like books, and I think the first movie did just that, get into superb detail. Personally, one of the best movies I've seen.

[QUOTE=Sableye;43108794]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[/QUOTE] Time to go watch das boot again! I think my only issue with the hobbit was how all the parts felt incredibly disconnected. Whereas LotR managed to blend the story elements together giving the feel of a journey taking place, the hobbit, almost ironically given the name, fails to make the journey part work. I can put my finger on it, it just felt that the flow was lost and that something was missing from the drive of the adventure. Not to say i didn't like it, but i much preferred other films released that year, like moonrise kingdom or looper. And coming from lord of the rings being the highlight every year it was released i hope that the new hobbit really does do a better job as people are saying. Going to see it in imax for that full 48fps goodness.

[QUOTE=Deadman123;43109211]The first movie was like watching a book for me, and I really liked that. The thing that movies can never do is go into intense detail like books, and I think the first movie did just that, get into superb detail. Personally, one of the best movies I've seen.[/QUOTE] Yeah. When I finished watching it in-theater, I was already wishing the next one would hurry up and release. I wanted to see where all the plot threads went. Still do, definitely looking forward to watching it with the family.

[QUOTE=Draghosta;43108079]Critics simply couldn't mentally process 48FPS.[/QUOTE] Can anyone explain how this is different to me? I don't watch a lot of movies but I honestly didn't notice the movie was in a different format or whatever.

really you won't actually see a difference... your eyes only work at around 24 fps, which is why 24 fps has been standard in film, it only really reduces the occasional blur and makes motions crisper

[QUOTE=Sableye;43109752]really you won't actually see a difference... your eyes only work at around 24 fps, which is why 24 fps has been standard in film, it only really reduces the occasional blur and makes motions crisper[/QUOTE] Only 24 fps? I need to update my drivers.

[QUOTE=Sableye;43109752]really you won't actually see a difference... your eyes only work at around 24 fps, which is why 24 fps has been standard in film, it only really reduces the occasional blur and makes motions crisper[/QUOTE] Your eyes don't work on frames per second what the fuck [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] You can totally tell the difference between 24 fps and 60 fps

At least this time I will be going in with the understanding that what I'm seeing is not actually The Hobbit. I'm still very irked at Mr. Jackson for attempting to [I]rewrite[/I] what is, essentially, the bible high fantasy, but maybe I'll be able to enjoy it somewhat more if I'm already prepared for him to create half the movie out of thin air. [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] [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] Negatory. Peter Jackson never got the rights to The Silmarillion. The movies are based off The Hobbit and the appendices (which are literally just a dozen or so pages of notes). Characters like Rhadaghast and the White Orc were created off of, literally, one sentence mentioned in passing. Other things were simply made up entirely, or taken [I]massive[/I] creative license with. Remember the scene where the mountains were fighting each other? That was Peter Jackson "creatively misinterpreting" a one-sentence personification that Tolkien wrote to describe a storm, reading something to the effect of, "the storm was so violent that it sounded like the mountains were fighting." Jackson, for some reason, decided to literally make the mountains fight. Heh.

I thought the Rivendell scene was excellent, I just love seeing middle earth to be honest. I could watch the camera go around Rivendell without any dialogue. Maybe the pacing wasnt the best, maybe the CGI Orc bad guy thing was a bit meh But I absolutely loved it, roll on the 2nd one!

[quote]The Hobbit: Desolution of Smaug[/quote] [quote]Desolution[/quote] [img]http://i.imgur.com/jM9civP.png[/img]?

[QUOTE=Sableye;43109752]really you won't actually see a difference... your eyes only work at around 24 fps, which is why 24 fps has been standard in film, it only really reduces the occasional blur and makes motions crisper[/QUOTE] Try the difference between a 120hz monitor and a 60hz monitor, because it IS noticeable. Hell, with games you can even tell the difference between 120fps and 240fps in how it feels and looks (although with movies you don't have feedback/control so this is less of an argument to that but your eyes can still tell).

[QUOTE=Dubious George;43110342]Try the difference between a 120hz monitor and a 60hz monitor, because it IS noticeable. Hell, with games you can even tell the difference between 120fps and 240fps in how it feels and looks (although with movies you don't have feedback/control so this is less of an argument to that but your eyes can still tell).[/QUOTE] I got the chance to play CS:GO on a 120hz monitor a while back, the smoothness is so incredible

[QUOTE=Beerminator;43105386]I liked the first movie don't know why all the hate =/ Watched it like 3 times.[/QUOTE] me too. my friends and i have designed the hobbit drinking game around it and make wizard sticks with our beer cans [img]http://shreddytimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/IMG_0672.jpg[/img] shit is cash. would post the rules but there's a decent amount, basically you pick a member of the party and drink when he does certain dwarf like shit.

48 FPS + 3D was the best experience of a movie I've ever had. It was so fluent, every scene was amazingly sharp due to the higher framerate. I didn't get any headache, the action scenes were much more amazing and the whole movie was like ten times better than with 24 FPS.

[QUOTE=Antimuffin;43110924]48 FPS + 3D was the best experience of a movie I've ever had. It was so fluent, every scene was amazingly sharp due to the higher framerate. I didn't get any headache, the action scenes were much more amazing and the whole movie was like ten times better than with 24 FPS.[/QUOTE] I would love 48 without 3D.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;43110392]I got the chance to play CS:GO on a 120hz monitor a while back, the smoothness is so incredible[/QUOTE]I've used a 120hz monitor on a couple of occasions and it was simply amazing. Using my 60hz afterwards just felt so bad.

the first one was good and all, but when the dwarves started doing that weird sad song near the start i had to look around the cinema to make sure i wasn't tripping or something, was fucking weird.

[QUOTE=NoNameForEvil;43111586]doesn't sound like a one-sentence personification to me[/QUOTE] Still a far cry from the CGI spectacle that PJ gave us. Given Tolkiens fascination with Norse mythology and folklore, it was likely meant to be similar to the concept of folkloric trolls and giants being fond of throwing large stones, not literal walking mountains throwing entire cliffsides, just so that we could have another [i]exciting action sequence[/i] where the dwarves and bilbo nearly die.

My problem with the first film was that by trying to make the film as 'epic' as they could, PJ and co just made it ridiculous. The whole running battle through Goblin-town just had me shaking my head whilst watching - arrows hitting the rungs of a ladder and being deflected with a sword, Bombur the fat dwarf fighting off hordes of goblins with a little knife, and the whole riding-the-wooden-platform-down-a-ravine was just ridiculous. If The Hobbit series weren't a prequel to LOTR that would be fine, but it makes everything the Fellowship did look like nothing. When a morbidly obese dwarf can fend off several goblins with a butter knife, suddenly the Fellowship battling a few dozen orcs doesn't look so heroic. Not to mention the fact that all the fight scenes in LOTR were done physically - with real combat choreographed by Bob Anderson. In The Hobbit half the combat is CGI which looks fake and brings up the question: if these dwarves can backflip and dive and roll all over the place why didn't the Fellowship? Why didn't Gimli? He's a dwarf too! The excuse that these films are more light-hearted and jolly doesn't really make sense - because everything PJ has done has been in an attempt to make this trilogy feel more epic and grand. Don't even get me started on the White Orc (who died in the book way before the events of The Hobbit) and his terrible CGI, and the overall lack of physical effects. I'm really hoping this next film is a big improvement over the first part but it looks like PJ is still going for WOW LOOK AT THIS IT'S SO EPIC!!!!!! [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Chrille;43111857]Still a far cry from the CGI spectacle that PJ gave us. Given Tolkiens fascination with Norse mythology and folklore, it was likely meant to be similar to the concept of folkloric trolls and giants being fond of throwing large stones, not literal walking mountains throwing entire cliffsides, just so that we could have another [i]exciting action sequence[/i] where the dwarves and bilbo nearly die.[/QUOTE] I found that sequence incredibly boring, and was willing it to be over. The screen was literally just a jaggedy grey mess of shapes moving at a snail's pace with the occasional dwarf yelling out.

[QUOTE=Marzipan Dildo;43111844]the first one was good and all, but when the dwarves started doing that weird sad song near the start i had to look around the cinema to make sure i wasn't tripping or something, was fucking weird.[/QUOTE] What. The song was amazing. The entire scene was amazing.

I think the general problem the first movie faced was that the number of people who enjoyed the book and wanted to see it as a film were fewer than those who somehow expected LOTR 4.

[QUOTE=mr apple;43107615]they're just winging it here[/QUOTE] Maybe it's in the unfinished tales?

[QUOTE=Chrille;43111857]Still a far cry from the CGI spectacle that PJ gave us. Given Tolkiens fascination with Norse mythology and folklore, it was likely meant to be similar to the concept of [B]folkloric trolls and giants being fond of throwing large stones[/B], not literal walking mountains throwing entire cliffsides, just so that we could have another [i]exciting action sequence[/i] where the dwarves and bilbo nearly die.[/QUOTE] Not sure about that. There is a difference between stone giants and giants in the Lotr universe. [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Marzipan Dildo;43111844]the first one was good and all, but when the dwarves started doing that weird sad song near the start i had to look around the cinema to make sure i wasn't tripping or something, was fucking weird.[/QUOTE] When I read the book I thought the song was supposed to be in an upbeat mood lol

[QUOTE=Swamplord;43112912]Not sure about that. There is a difference between stone giants and giants in the Lotr universe.[/QUOTE] It's not really known what they were. But there are tidbits of information out there, so assumptions can be made. We know that Treebeard was supposed to be a giant at one point, early in writing, with Tolkien later adding different types of them, such as tree-giants and stone-giants. The tree-giants became the Ents. Stone-giants were at one point supposed to be trolls, which were large stones inhabited by Goblin spirits. Evidently this changed, but I think that size-wise, stone giants were to be roughly the same size as Ents. In any case, the size they gave them in the movie is just ridiculous.

The stone giant scene in the film was fucking stupid and completely unnecessary. Could've just had them trekking through a storm and have someone remark how it sounds like stone giants throwing boulders at each other. Looking back, the movie was horrible and my extreme hype for it clouded my vision. Overuse of CGI, replacing Bolg with a character that was supposed to have been dead long before the events of the story took place, zero suspense in any of the action scenes, rabbit sleds, old dumb wizard with bird poop on his face, and a needlessly long exposition scene with Frodo. I don't expect this to be any better.