If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wikipedia)   Fark's The Hobbit discussion thread. I feel like a zombie right now, but it's worth it   (en.wikipedia.org) divider line 45
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

221 clicks; posted to FarkUs » on 14 Dec 2012 at 2:55 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



45 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-12-14 01:01:27 PM
It's the greatest adventure that lies ahead...
blah blah blah...
The mold of your life is in your hands to break.

Where is Dildo Daggins?
 
2012-12-14 01:43:54 PM
Eh. I liked it, but it wasn't the "ZOMG AWESOME" movie everyone seems to be calling it.
 
2012-12-14 01:49:25 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Where is Dildo Daggins?


He's the bravest little Hobbit of them all.
 
2012-12-14 01:54:57 PM

Because People in power are Stupid: Where is Dildo Daggins?


You mean Dildo Saggins? In Lord of the G-Strings.
 
2012-12-14 02:07:18 PM
It's Dildo Gaggings, you idiots.

and I don't think I'm going to go see this three-hour tour in theaters. I'll wait until spring and buy the 31 hour "director's cut."
 
2012-12-14 02:17:42 PM
I don't know how you people sit through these movies. The whole series is like f*cking nyquil to me.
 
2012-12-14 02:25:42 PM

Coolfusis: Eh. I liked it, but it wasn't the "ZOMG AWESOME" movie everyone seems to be calling it.


Huh? My experience is that most people are shiatting on it or complaining about it. The AV Club gave it a B- and said that it wasn't very good, etc.

I thought it was pretty great. Not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but very good.

A lot of people are like Fiction Fan, there. It's not a three hour movie, it's two hours twenty, which is about standard for a film these days. But they can't let reality get in the way of biatching.

I haven't heard very many people say anything good about this movie, honestly, until today, and already there are people complaining that people aren't complaining. I'm a very critical moviegoer. I thought this was a very good kids movie; kids movies should be dark and lively, and sometimes goofy, and this was. I felt like the tone was pretty consistent all the way through, regardless of what critics say. I ended up either neither liking nor disliking scenes, or on one level or another liking them, so the experience was a net positive.

They managed to make this movie feel like a chapter, with an ending even, despite the fact that it is in the middle of the hobbit book. And the addition of the supplementary material proves that it's okay this is three movies long. The next movie will have most of the rest of the book in it, including all of Smaug. People have been complaining all month long about the three movie thing, but after seeing this I was pretty convinced that I was right to trust Jackson (who's earned a little after LotR).

It's not as good as Fellowship for the beginning of a trilogy. I'll grant you that. But if you don't compare it to that, it's the best first movie of a known trilogy besides (known trilogy meaning planned from the beginning, so Star Wars doesn't count).

The moments that are "prequel moments" (like Sting & the Ring) are done the way other prequels wish they could do them. Not too much attention paid, not too much reverence, sometimes things are even casual. Everyone in it was terrific, and the dwarves were all distinct in personality. I really like the additions Jackson & Co put in themselves, I honestly felt like it made more sense of the narrative and humanized otherwise stock characters that would have sat there and just ... done stuff. McKellan was in top form. The Radagast stuff was a little too goofy, but honestly only a little, and it's a f*cking kids movie, so I was able to go with it. And the eagles didn't speak.

Also, I'm not a big fan of 3D, but it was the best 3D movie I've seen. My problem with the format is if you accidentally look somewhere you're not supposed to you get thrown out of the environment; but when that didn't happen, MAN it was a pretty looking movie.

So yeah, it was solidly good, and the only thing to really say about it was that it was so. It was good, fun, it definitely wasn't bad, and it's worth nerding out about as much as any other nerd property. So people need to stop trying to force negativity onto this. I think people are still mad about the prequel trilogy or something. I can't imagine what Jackson could have done differently that people would have thought made it better. So I guess everybody unclench their asscheeks and remember how to just have a good time.

/didn't see it in 48 fps, I got lied to by my theater! Oh well
//friggin moths. Gandalf's a one-trick pony
 
2012-12-14 02:31:30 PM
I heard it was meandering and ponderous, like most of Jackson's films. The guy needs an editor to be sure. I'll see it eventually but just to see what 48 fps looks like.
 
2012-12-14 02:32:35 PM

A lot of people are like Fiction Fan, there. It's not a three hour movie, it's two hours twenty, which is about standard for a film these days. But they can't let reality get in the way of biatching.



Well Hello There Mister FOX News Reporter.

40 minutes is going to cause you to whine?
Whatever.

I still won't go see it. And I live in reality each day, jackass. That reality being people like you are usually the ones who fall from reality -- and escape it by going to see movies like Hobbit.

I never said it was a bad movie.
I never said it was a good movie.
I'm saying I know this will turn out like LOTR and end up with 500 hours of cut footage and director's cut and special edition, etc.
 
2012-12-14 03:05:51 PM

Fiction Fan: I'm saying I know this will turn out like LOTR and end up with 500 hours of cut footage and director's cut and special edition, etc.


Keep f*cking that chicken.

/gotta go report for Fox News in 26 minutes, I guess
//that was a weird insult
 
2012-12-14 03:11:42 PM

tallguywithglasseson: Because People in power are Stupid: Where is Dildo Daggins?

You mean Dildo Saggins? In Lord of the G-Strings.


They're returning the One Cockring to Mount Poon.
 
2012-12-14 03:30:04 PM
Which 3D version should I see, the IMAX?
 
2012-12-14 03:30:54 PM

Mugato: I heard it was meandering and ponderous, like most of Jackson's films. The guy needs an editor to be sure. I'll see it eventually but just to see what 48 fps looks like.


Haven't seen it yet, but I agree. I think his King Kong remake was easily 30 min too long, and honestly think it would have been better with shorter fighting scenes. Both the T-Rex fight and the bug fight just seem to go on and on. You from "Holy shiat this is awesome" at the start to the verge of suicidal boredom by the end.
 
2012-12-14 03:41:38 PM

ShawnDoc: Mugato: I heard it was meandering and ponderous, like most of Jackson's films. The guy needs an editor to be sure. I'll see it eventually but just to see what 48 fps looks like.

Haven't seen it yet, but I agree. I think his King Kong remake was easily 30 min too long, and honestly think it would have been better with shorter fighting scenes. Both the T-Rex fight and the bug fight just seem to go on and on. You from "Holy shiat this is awesome" at the start to the verge of suicidal boredom by the end.


How long did it take for that motherfarker to die? He climbs up a floor, he gets shot, he falls, he looks longingly at the girl, he falls, he climbs up another floor....just farking die already.
 
2012-12-14 04:04:32 PM

Actual Farking: I don't know how you people sit through these movies. The whole series is like f*cking nyquil to me.


I haven't made it through the entire set of movies. I saw the beginning of the first one, and the ending of the third one, i know everything that happens inbetween because i read the books. I can't get through the first one without falling asleep due to massive boredom.

I'm also the same guy that can't read a book again, not even 20 years later, because after I read the first chapter or so, I remember the rest of the book, and then get thoroughly bored out of my mind with it.
 
2012-12-14 04:05:19 PM
ON the other hand -- my recently discovered 10 yo daughter likes movies. Should I take her to see it?
 
2012-12-14 04:09:12 PM

Sgt Otter: tallguywithglasseson: Because People in power are Stupid: Where is Dildo Daggins?

You mean Dildo Saggins? In Lord of the G-Strings.

They're returning the One Cockring to Mount Poon.


No, it's Dildo & Frito Bugger. Frito is heading to Fordor with Spam Gangree and their guide Goddam.

/Been a while since I read that one
//It was reasonably funny as I recall
 
2012-12-14 04:17:47 PM

Actual Farking: I don't know how you people sit through these movies. The whole series is like f*cking nyquil to me.


Not every film can be only 15 minutes of tranny porn, Actual Farking
 
2012-12-14 04:27:43 PM
Actual text conversation with my 65 year old mother 30 minutes ago:

Mom: Just saw The Hobbit in 3D!
Me: Seriously?? Well.....??????
Mom: OMG YOU HAVE TO SEE IN 3D I HAVE ORC BLOOD ON ME
 
2012-12-14 05:05:44 PM

casey.lurvs.bacon: Actual text conversation with my 65 year old mother 30 minutes ago:

Mom: Just saw The Hobbit in 3D!
Me: Seriously?? Well.....??????
Mom: OMG YOU HAVE TO SEE IN 3D I HAVE ORC BLOOD ON ME


That's not blood; a fat nerd just spooged Cherry Mt. Dew on her.
 
2012-12-14 05:31:46 PM
yup...I is zombified today as well...but it was well worth the lack of sleep to see that movie.
 
2012-12-14 05:34:22 PM

Actual Farking: I don't know how you people sit through these movies. The whole series is like f*cking nyquil to me.


oh, well see - that's because you have the attention span of a 12 year old child.
 
2012-12-14 05:36:43 PM

Weaver95: Actual Farking: I don't know how you people sit through these movies. The whole series is like f*cking nyquil to me.

oh, well see - that's because you have the attention span of a 12 year old child.


Funny you say that when those movies are based on children's books.
 
2012-12-14 05:40:14 PM
It's also demeaning to little people. Peter Jackson couldn't make it half way through the first movie without a dwarf tossing gag. Classy. I suppose that's to be expected from the man that brought us Meet th Feebles.
 
2012-12-14 05:42:02 PM
I saw it last night with my brother. Some potentially minor spoilers below.

Overall I thought it was pretty good, but it suffered from the some of the same problems as the later Pirates of the Caribbean films and Star Wars prequels were individual action sequences went on 2 or 3 times longer than needed (like the intro scene, the escape from the goblins, or some of the scenes with Radagast). I think Jackson keeps trying to make all his movies since LoTR as epic as LoTR and sometimes that just doesn't work.

Most of the changes they made were logical in the transition to the screen, especially since they can't easily film scenes that in the book were in total darkness. A few changes I didn't agree with. I though the interpretation of the stone giants was interesting. Much different from mine, but Tolkien was incredibly vague in describing them. One big plus is the additional character development for Thorin - the book doesn't delve into it that much. They also kept much of the original dialogue, and many points that were narrative only in text got moved into dialogue (like the discussion of Bilbo's relation to the Tooks). The merger of Azog and Bolg was an interesting choice, and I guess it left out the need for additional explanation, but I felt there was actually too much of Azog in this first film.
Another problem is that its somewhat uneven in tone, and the book was as well. They kept in most of the songs (except the elven song when they get to Rivendell), but then you have lots of violence and nastiness.

ekdikeo4: ON the other hand -- my recently discovered 10 yo daughter likes movies. Should I take her to see it?


She might like it, but hard to say - really depends on the individual kid.. It is a little long at 160 minutes, and it also ends only part way through the story (at about the beginning of Chapter 7. There is a fair amount of violence, including a few decapitations, and limbs hacked off, but virtually no blood (and definitely no spurting).
Most of the humorous bits from the book were maintained and it generally has a good pace, with a few bits that just go on longer than needed.
 
2012-12-14 05:57:40 PM

Actual Farking: Weaver95: Actual Farking: I don't know how you people sit through these movies. The whole series is like f*cking nyquil to me.

oh, well see - that's because you have the attention span of a 12 year old child.

Funny you say that when those movies are based on children's books.


...which you didn't read, did you...?
 
2012-12-14 06:01:05 PM
Nothing against the Peter Jackson. But the Harry Potter series was better thought out and works in a film medium.
 
2012-12-14 06:42:07 PM

Weaver95: Actual Farking: Weaver95: Actual Farking: I don't know how you people sit through these movies. The whole series is like f*cking nyquil to me.

oh, well see - that's because you have the attention span of a 12 year old child.

Funny you say that when those movies are based on children's books.

...which you didn't read, did you...?


You're right. I truly didn't enjoy the movies, but the rest was trolling. Enjoy what you will.

But really, Hobbits are extremely unlikable creatures.
 
2012-12-14 06:42:11 PM
I'm about to go see the 48 FPS version.

PSA: the only 48 FPS versions are those in 3D called "HFR 3D", where HFR stands for high frame rate. If you go see normal IMAX 3D you won't be getting the 48 FPS.
 
2012-12-14 06:45:26 PM
What I'd really like to see is a movie adaptation of Ringworld with loads of graphic and creepy rishathra. But really, with the state of cgi and special effects these days, a Ringworld movie could present some spectacular visuals.
 
2012-12-14 06:57:24 PM
I actually liked the movie. I thought Radagast was made a little too goofy (rabbit sled, heh), but, overall, it's a good movie, and a good start. It's very light and upbeat, compared to LoTR, as it should be, because it feels. But, on the other hand, they did added just a tad bit of the first parts of LoTR mixed in there (again, Radagast) and contrasted to the happy feel of it.

Also, Thorin was painted as a frikkin' badass. Loved it.
 
2012-12-14 07:05:39 PM

CygnusDarius: I actually liked the movie. I thought Radagast was made a little too goofy (rabbit sled, heh), but, overall, it's a good movie, and a good start. It's very light and upbeat, compared to LoTR, as it should be, because it feels. But, on the other hand, they did added just a tad bit of the first parts of LoTR mixed in there (again, Radagast) and contrasted to the happy feel of it.

Also, Thorin was painted as a frikkin' badass. Loved it.


I loved the side track into Dol Guldur. this really does set up the politics in LoTR a lot better.
 
2012-12-14 08:02:45 PM

CygnusDarius: I actually liked the movie. I thought Radagast was made a little too goofy (rabbit sled, heh), but, overall, it's a good movie, and a good start. It's very light and upbeat, compared to LoTR, as it should be, because the book feels exactly like this. But, on the other hand, they did added just a tad bit of the first parts of LoTR mixed in there (again, Radagast) and contrasted to the happy feel of it.

Also, Thorin was painted as a frikkin' badass. Loved it.


FTFM.

Weaver95: I loved the side track into Dol Guldur. this really does set up the politics in LoTR a lot better.


Yes, I'm quivering with anticipation too :D.
 
2012-12-14 08:41:42 PM
I can't wait to see it.

Oh, wait, yes I can.

I farking hate movie theaters, but I occasionally make exceptions, which I will for this - but I'm waiting until the crowds die down. Theaters are tolerable if they're not packed.
 
2012-12-14 09:04:28 PM

CygnusDarius: I actually liked the movie. I thought Radagast was made a little too goofy (rabbit sled, heh), but, overall, it's a good movie, and a good start. It's very light and upbeat, compared to LoTR, as it should be, because it feels. But, on the other hand, they did added just a tad bit of the first parts of LoTR mixed in there (again, Radagast) and contrasted to the happy feel of it.

Also, Thorin was painted as a frikkin' badass. Loved it.


I liked the rabbit sled, but could have done without the guano covering half his face.
 
2012-12-15 12:39:38 AM

Weaver95: Actual Farking: I don't know how you people sit through these movies. The whole series is like f*cking nyquil to me.

oh, well see - that's because you have the attention span of a 12 year old child.


Thanks for this. Some people these days don't realize that movies in theaters aren't supposed to be like tv shows that you DVR. They are experiences. You reserve a block of time to sit and enjoy it, no texting no talking no bullsh*tting with other people. Just watch the damn flick or don't... it's that simple. Not everything has to happen right now... that's why so many movies fail with "kids these days". If you watch movies from the 30s through the 60s, most took their time to tell their story over the two hours. No rush, no hurry, and you had to pay attention to know what was going on.

Now if there isn't an explosion every five seconds anyone under the age of 25 loses interest... and why you hear them b*ch and moan about movies like Kubrick's "2001". I don't think their brains can hold onto information for more time than it takes to tweet someone else about what they've seen. It's the age of instant gratification... they wouldn't know what to do if tv stations went off the air every night for hours at a time like they used to, or or if they had to wait until next summer to see the re-run of a show they missed in the fall (in the days before VCRs).
 
2012-12-15 02:20:10 AM
Yeah, yeah, sure...wake me up when Galadriel shows up, huh?
 
2012-12-15 02:32:07 AM
I expected it to be bad, and it wasn't so... win?

First, the bad stuff:

The guy who plays Thorin is no Viggo, and Peter Jackson should realize that. Thorin looked downright ridiculous with the dawn breaking behind him and striding through the flames. Way over the top. Corny as all hell. In fact there were a few more corny bits -- making Bilbo into a big hero at the end, etc.

I was pleasantly surprised that the goofy children's book badguys like the goblin king and the trolls translated on the big screen fairly well. There was a good balance between dark fantasy and Tolkein's adventurous humor. What I really didn't like was the great white orc, the defiler dude. That was again over the top and ridiculous. Okay, so I realize you needed a big bad for the movie to stand on its own... but, really?

Also, the movie suffered a bit from too many back-to-back narrow escapes. Now, of course, most of these were taken directly from the book. It's just that they didn't carry over well at all.There's something about the pacing that they didn't nail down. The adventurers feel invincible, and you know that they're just too funny and full of life to be in real danger. I can't offer a fix here, but it just didn't work.

The CGI work was a bit suspect in the Radagast scenes. I kind of liked the character, but the CGI hedgehog was not well executed.

Now, on to the good stuff:

Adding in the scenes with Saruman, Elrond, Galadriel etc. were a very, very good idea. IIRC, the timing is off, but that's acceptable deviation to me. All that background politicking provides a good bridge between the light-heartedness of the Hobbit and the darker LOTR. Same with the Dol Goldur scenes - so we know what's actually at stake. Minor gripe here: Didn't like Galadriel getting turned into some magical being. She's just a really old elf with a few tricks up her sleeves (like a ring).

The core Gollum-Bilbo scene was fantastic. That scene is the heart of the movie and was done very, very well. It's long, and the riddle game could have gotten tedious, but they successfully used good camera work to keep it moving.

At the start, I was a bit skeptic about the Bilbo-personality porn-star-from-Love-Actually-aka-Arthur-Dent (can never remember his name even though I think he's great) was putting on, but it eventually worked out quite well. I thought it was a bit too modern at first, but it wasn't.

Nice of them to work in a few tasty battle scenes.
 
2012-12-15 08:48:25 AM

LesterB: Sgt Otter: tallguywithglasseson: Because People in power are Stupid: Where is Dildo Daggins?

You mean Dildo Saggins? In Lord of the G-Strings.

They're returning the One Cockring to Mount Poon.

No, it's Dildo & Frito Bugger. Frito is heading to Fordor with Spam Gangree and their guide Goddam.

/Been a while since I read that one
//It was reasonably funny as I recall


Reasonably? You must be under Fifty.

Frito and Dildo Bugger; Spam Gangree; Stomper AKA Arrowshirt, son of Arrowroot; Moxie and Pepsi; Goodgulf; Sorehead; the nine Nozdrul; Orlon; Gimlet and Legolam are the main characters. Treebeard and the ents become the Jolly Green Giant and his army of veggies. Tim Benzedrine ...

Chikken Noodul and Minas Troney; Twodor and Fordor;
Bored of the RIngs by the Harvard Lampoon - well worth $8, especially because you get they whole saga in a little under 200pp.
 
2012-12-15 03:33:32 PM

dionysusaur: LesterB: Sgt Otter: tallguywithglasseson: Because People in power are Stupid: Where is Dildo Daggins?

You mean Dildo Saggins? In Lord of the G-Strings.

They're returning the One Cockring to Mount Poon.

No, it's Dildo & Frito Bugger. Frito is heading to Fordor with Spam Gangree and their guide Goddam.

/Been a while since I read that one
//It was reasonably funny as I recall

Reasonably? You must be under Fifty.

Frito and Dildo Bugger; Spam Gangree; Stomper AKA Arrowshirt, son of Arrowroot; Moxie and Pepsi; Goodgulf; Sorehead; the nine Nozdrul; Orlon; Gimlet and Legolam are the main characters. Treebeard and the ents become the Jolly Green Giant and his army of veggies. Tim Benzedrine ...

Chikken Noodul and Minas Troney; Twodor and Fordor;
Bored of the RIngs by the Harvard Lampoon - well worth $8, especially because you get they whole saga in a little under 200pp.


$8?!? Listen, youngster, back in the day, I got my copy for $1.50, brand new! And it was funnier, too, because it was more relevant:
"Grundig blauplunk lugar frug, watusi snark wazoo. Nixon Dirksen nasahist, Rebozo boogaloo."
 
2012-12-15 06:02:14 PM
Just got out of a 3D HFR showing.

Enjoyed the movie; it didn't feel like three hours.

I didn't like the HFR though. Not that I think it's a bad technology, just that I think directors need to learn how to shoot in it properly first.
 
2012-12-16 07:33:38 AM

GentlemanJ: dionysusaur:
Reasonably? You must be under Fifty.

Frito and Dildo Bugger; Spam Gangree; Stomper AKA Arrowshirt, son of Arrowroot; Moxie and Pepsi; Goodgulf; Sorehead; the nine Nozdrul; Orlon; Gimlet and Legolam are the main characters. Treebeard and the ents become the Jolly Green Giant and his army of veggies. Tim Benzedrine ...

Chikken Noodul and Minas Troney; Twodor and Fordor;
Bored of the RIngs by the Harvard Lampoon - well worth $8, especially because you get they whole saga in a little under 200pp.

$8?!? Listen, youngster, back in the day, I got my copy for $1.50, brand new! And it was funnier, too, because it was more relevant:
"Grundig blauplunk lugar frug, watusi snark wazoo. Nixon Dirksen nasahist, Rebozo boogaloo."


I know - the hardcover was $5. Then again, a Cadillac was 8 grand, and a pretty nice house was $20k, so 8 bones for a paperback now is actually a pretty decent deal.

/ belt onions, I haz them.
 
2012-12-16 05:48:38 PM

Rev. Skarekroe: Because People in power are Stupid: Where is Dildo Daggins?

He's the bravest little Hobbit of them all.


Astride his stalwart steed, Lemmywinks.
 
2012-12-17 09:59:37 PM

Cheesehead_Dave: Just got out of a 3D HFR showing.

Enjoyed the movie; it didn't feel like three hours.

I didn't like the HFR though. Not that I think it's a bad technology, just that I think directors need to learn how to shoot in it properly first.


You're right, I think that's the problem. A lot of the cinematic tricks that make scenes look really cool in 24p, don't work in 48p. The aerial flyover shot of the city in the beginning? That would have looked huge and dramatic in 24p. In 48p it's weirdly hurried and you feel like you're just looking at a model.

48 fps is going to demand a new cinematic language to be as expressive as 24. I think the potential is there, though. The CGI blends much better with live-action than it does in 24p (although it's pretty sad that even the likes of Weta Digital can't get skin and hair to look real yet).
 
2012-12-17 10:02:27 PM
Jackson also takes to 3D cinema like a fish to water. The 3D is leaps and bounds better than what Cameron did with Avatar. It feels like a window into another world, not a lame attempt at eye-popping spectacle.
 
Displayed 45 of 45 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report