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

Hes trying to make a book with low movie potential into something that could match the LOTR and, personally, fuck you all hes doing a pretty good job.

[QUOTE=NoNameForEvil;43111586]doesn't sound like a one-sentence personification to me[/QUOTE] BDA living up to his name? That's actually unusual. [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=The_Marine;43116275]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.[/QUOTE] In the Hobbit, as in the book, as quoted at the top of this page - there were [i]literal[/i] giants. So no, it wasn't overdone or outwith the spirit of the book.

[QUOTE]In the Hobbit, as in the book, as quoted at the top of this page - there were literal giants.[/QUOTE] But not of the size shown in the movie. They see those giants from atop throwing rocks at each other below in a valley. [QUOTE]which is about 1000 pages [/QUOTE] I have it and its no more than 450 including map and notes. And the section regarding Hobbit and LotR is no longer than 40-50 pages.

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;43116706]But not of the size shown in the movie. They see those giants from atop throwing rocks at each other below in a valley.[/QUOTE]it's the old Hollywood tradition of applying the Rule of Cool to everything. worked pretty well if you ask me

[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;43116706]But not of the size shown in the movie. They see those giants from atop throwing rocks at each other below in a valley.[/QUOTE] uh tolkien never gives any further detail about giants in any of his novels that would depict their size the description tolkien gave works fine with what they depicted in the movies

[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] because of the higher framerate I felt it much easier to take everything in. IT didn't have that "Soap opera" effect, it felt like real life you know, real life, which doesn't run on a framerate.

[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] and "fellbeasts" in the novels had beaks, not teeth as depicted in the films but the giants depicted in the hobbit are more loyal to the books than that, because although tolkien loved him some norse mythology, he never went any further with stone giants, and made it very clear in his letters that they were still in the world, and not related to trolls hell, tolkien also has vampires and werewolves in his universe, described in the silmarillion, but nothing more than that same with magic performed by non-istari [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] my automerge

[QUOTE=Sableye;43106730]idk how anyone could not love the hobbit though, its not nearly as dreary as LoTR is because its just a pure adventure not through hell and back, but through these amazing wild untamed places in the height of the 3rd age[/QUOTE] It sounds weird saying it but I sort of liked that dreary-ness. By comparison The Hobbit felt like a Disney movie consisting largely of chase/destruction scenes, cheesy speeches and family-friendly goofiness. I don't find it bad by any means, just a bit different to the LoTR trilogy in ways that doesn't suit my taste. [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=JCDentonUNATCO;43116398]Hes trying to make a book with low movie potential into something that could match the LOTR and, personally, fuck you all hes doing a pretty good job.[/QUOTE] To be honest he's doing a fantastic job with what he's got. The Hobbit had a snowball's chance in hell of living up to the previous trilogy.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;43105176]I don't understand why they wanted to make it three movies anyways, I think it'd be better if they just kept it to two movies and threw all the bullshit with the white orc out the window.[/QUOTE] It's because he's white, isn't it...

[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] But that song is actually in The Hobbit. And it's way longer. It foreshadows the events of the dwarves' journey, gives a bit of history, and causes Bilbo's Tookishness to keep him up all night and get the best of him. The dwarves singing about the adventure is a big motivation for Bilbo going on it in the first place.

[QUOTE=NoNameForEvil;43111586]doesn't sound like a one-sentence personification to me[/QUOTE] Weird, I didn't remember that bit at all. It has been quite a while since I last read the book, though! Even still, I found that scene pretty terrible. The direct quote you were kind enough to provide is nothing at all like what we saw on screen, which was, literally, entire mountains fighting each other. Jackson has taken an almost pornographic approach with the amount of creative license he's exercising with The Hobbit. While I loved his portrayal of LotR, I am definitely not keen on the way he's approaching this! Rhadaghast and White Orc, especially, made me feel like somebody was molesting my favorite childhood story.

i really liked the first one, excited to watch this one

[QUOTE=Craigewan;43116588]BDA living up to his name? That's actually unusual.[/QUOTE] Sorry dude, not even I have an encyclopedic memory of classic literature!

[QUOTE=Im Crimson;43117221]It sounds weird saying it but I sort of liked that dreary-ness. By comparison The Hobbit felt like a Disney movie consisting largely of chase/destruction scenes, cheesy speeches and family-friendly goofiness. I don't find it bad by any means, just a bit different to the LoTR trilogy in ways that doesn't suit my taste.[/QUOTE] It is a children's book. One thing I am thankful for is that they omitted the part where animals can talk (which I reckon Tolkien might have approved of it too if he was still alive) .

[QUOTE=Swamplord;43118333]It is a children's book. One thing I am thankful for is that they omitted the part where animals can talk (which I reckon Tolkien might have approved of it too if he was still alive) .[/QUOTE] I don't know, Tolkien was pretty adamant about never having his books turned into films because he knew they wouldn't do his work justice. I'm glad at least that they made Smaug talk, which is pretty pivotal to the story.

[QUOTE=Swamplord;43118333]It is a children's book. One thing I am thankful for is that they omitted the part where animals can talk (which I reckon Tolkien might have approved of it too if he was still alive) .[/QUOTE] I'm aware. God knows LoTR is a helluva lot more light-hearted and endearing than most of what passes for "mature" fantasy, but the original movie trilogy felt like it maintained much more of the the sophistication and subtlety of the source. I just find that The Hobbit came out of the clothes line gauntlet that is the transition into Hollywood with a few too many cartoon underpants clinging to its face. This wasn't the case with the original trilogy. Even in children's movies there's a bit of a difference between Toy Story and Alvin and the chipmunks.

[QUOTE=Loriborn;43118364]I don't know, Tolkien was pretty adamant about never having his books turned into films because he knew they wouldn't do his work justice. I'm glad at least that they made Smaug talk, which is pretty pivotal to the story.[/QUOTE] I was more alluding to the assumption that Tolkien would be ok if the animals roles (in terms of speech) are akin to the ones in Lotr based on reading somewhere (could be false though) that Tolkien wanted the Hobbit to be a more matured narrative. [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Im Crimson;43118487]I'm aware. God knows LoTR is a helluva lot more light-hearted and endearing than most of what passes for "mature" fantasy, but the original movie trilogy felt like it maintained much more of the the sophistication and subtlety of the source. I just find that The Hobbit came out of the clothes line gauntlet that is the transition into Hollywood with a few too many cartoon underpants clinging to its face. This wasn't the case with the original trilogy. Even in children's movies there's a bit of a difference between Toy Story and Alvin and the chipmunks.[/QUOTE] Let's hope the next one is a lot better. [editline]9th December 2013[/editline] Personally I have mixed feelings about the movie. I enjoyed the movie for what it is but the purist part of me was cringing lol

[QUOTE=Craigewan;43116588] In the Hobbit, as in the book, as quoted at the top of this page - there were [i]literal[/i] giants. So no, it wasn't overdone or outwith the spirit of the book.[/QUOTE] Doesn't make it any less stupid and unnecessarily overdone.

[QUOTE=Swamplord;43118810]I was more alluding to the assumption that Tolkien would be ok if the animals roles (in terms of speech) are akin to the ones in Lotr based on reading somewhere (could be false though) that Tolkien wanted the Hobbit to be a more matured narrative.[/QUOTE] I think Tolkien would absolutely detest all of the films made so far. He disliked all the adaptations done during his lifetime, I doubt he would have liked the PJ films. He didn't want to make a lotr film with the Beatles in it, I don't think he would have liked these versions any more. [editline]8th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=The_Marine;43119140]Doesn't make it any less stupid and unnecessarily overdone.[/QUOTE] Uh how was it stupid and overdone?

Having them run around on the giants treating the whole thing like the broken bridge scene from Fellowship, it felt completely ridiculous and over the top while also lacking any tension. Atleast in Fellowship it was well done and intense.

I really liked an Unexpected Journey, although the CGI was a bit overused for my taste. I'm not to fond of that. I had a great time watching it with my girlfriend at the cinema, it was an unexpected surprise.

Don't they only hold the rights to LOTR and Hobbit books? I don't think they can use the stuff from the other Tolkien works. PJ said that in a behind-the-scene video.

[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] this is absolutely and completely wrong and you should feel bad for posting/believing in this

[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] That's interesting. I really don't mind the length of the films just because it's nice to be sucked back into Middle Earth for another adventure. I loved that I grew up with the movies. Now I just need to sit down and read the books for once.

Wasn't Christopher Lee an incredibly good friend of Tolkien and as close to word of God as you can get now the man himself is gone? They may be taking artistic Licence, but I trust Jackson to run shit by Lee, and I trust Lee to channel Tolkien.

[QUOTE=lord0war;43109892]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[/QUOTE] The comparison is realistic, but the frequency is much higher. Most people don't see static flicker above 75Hz according to Wikipedia, but some still see it [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flicker_fusion_threshold#Lighting"]and the 100+Hz flicker of some lights seems to affect people adversely[/URL]. That doesn't mean that there's no benefit with higher frequencies: Very high frequencies can become visible when tracking moving objects as the other ones don't appear smudged uniformly, [URL="http://physics.stackexchange.com/a/19056"]possibly up to 15kHz[/URL].