Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Deadline)   The Hobbit 2: Bilbo Boogaloo takes the weekend with $73 million, coming up a little short of its predecessor. Frozen locks in at #2 while Tyler Perry's A Madea Christmas bombs, becoming the lowest-opening Tyler Perry film ever   (deadline.com) divider line 138
    More: Followup, Tyler Perry, The Hobbit, A Madea Christmas, Madeas, hobbits, humans, Golden Globes!, David O Russell  
•       •       •

1290 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 15 Dec 2013 at 2:25 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-12-15 12:18:57 PM  
Whoever thought Madea would #1 over the Hobbit was smoking crack, weed, meth, coke, and farking every drug to think that idea would work.

i1.ytimg.com
 
2013-12-15 12:25:28 PM  

eddievercetti: Whoever thought Madea would #1 over the Hobbit was smoking crack, weed, meth, coke, and farking every drug to think that idea would work.

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]



Craft services provided by Tyler Perry.
 
2013-12-15 12:43:53 PM  
Went to see Hobbit yesteryear(b-day treat), When we pre bought our tickets, there was a sign in the window...

11:15 showing of Madea sold out.
 
2013-12-15 01:12:19 PM  
There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"
 
2013-12-15 01:39:02 PM  
Tyler Perry needs to step up his game if he's going to become the next Marc Jacobs:

cdn.stylefrizz.com
 
2013-12-15 01:45:28 PM  
GODDAMMIT! The next subby who posts a "2: Electric Boogaloo" headline will get,,,,nothing, I can't back that up. But still, fark.
 
2013-12-15 02:07:00 PM  
My wife and I went to see Frozen on Friday and really liked it. It was a bit slow to get going, but once it did it was a lot of fun and had some great songs.
 
2013-12-15 02:29:01 PM  

The_Sponge: eddievercetti: Whoever thought Madea would #1 over the Hobbit was smoking crack, weed, meth, coke, and farking every drug to think that idea would work.

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Craft services provided by Tyler Perry.


In association with Tyler Perry Productions, a Tyler Perry Film
 
2013-12-15 02:29:22 PM  
Halfway throughThe Hobbit yesterday I was all like "needs moar dragon" - and then "oh shiat".

/Jackson delivered
 
2013-12-15 02:34:40 PM  
The new Hobbit is a hell of a lot better than the first one. I give it a RECOMMEND with lots of popcorn and everything else they sell at concessions.
 
2013-12-15 02:35:04 PM  
The Hobbit, based on the novel  Push by Sapphire

/A Tyler Perry joint
 
2013-12-15 02:37:51 PM  
$16 Million on an opening weekend isn't that bad. Budget was probably under 30, they'll get that back.
 
2013-12-15 02:43:48 PM  
The Hobbit was in there some where but mostly it was about a torrid love affair between two lesbian elfs chicks and a dwarf. I call it Broke Back forest.
 
2013-12-15 02:44:43 PM  
I didn't like the Lord of the Rings movies, and didn't see the first Hobbit movie, but I really loved the second one.

I didn't think I'd like it, but it was great!

Maybe I'll give another chance to The Lord of the Rings.
 
2013-12-15 02:45:29 PM  
That's what Tyler Perry gets for threatening Larry the Cable Guy.
 
2013-12-15 02:50:44 PM  

Mugato: GODDAMMIT! The next subby who posts a "2: Electric Boogaloo" headline will get,,,,nothing, I can't back that up. But still, fark.


The next subby? You mean Subby 2: Old Meme Bugaboo?
 
2013-12-15 03:01:07 PM  
Tyler Perry's best work may be behind him.  And that's sad on a great many levels.
 
2013-12-15 03:01:53 PM  

EdgeRunner: Mugato: GODDAMMIT! The next subby who posts a "2: Electric Boogaloo" headline will get,,,,nothing, I can't back that up. But still, fark.

The next subby? You mean Subby 2: Old Meme Bugaboo?


Subby 2: Your Sister Is The Subby.
 
2013-12-15 03:02:26 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"



My youngest son, for one. Me, looking forward to watching something in the theater with the kids.

Godfather Part II or Casablanca it's not, but it was a fun way to while away three hours sitting in a theater. I wish Jackson would make up his mind about whether the dwarves should be badass warriors or hapless doofuses, though.
 
2013-12-15 03:08:40 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"


I sure didn't.  He pooped on Tolkien's grave with that piece of crap movie.  I was fine turning it into 3 movies, since there's more than enough material in the Appendix and Silmarillion to do so.  But making Radagast into a retarded idiot?  That was the last straw.  Even the worst wizard was on par with the most powerful elves.  Fark PJ.  Fark him in his a.
 
2013-12-15 03:09:14 PM  

movieman_1979: The_Sponge: eddievercetti: Whoever thought Madea would #1 over the Hobbit was smoking crack, weed, meth, coke, and farking every drug to think that idea would work.

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Craft services provided by Tyler Perry.

In association with Tyler Perry Productions, a Tyler Perry Film


In collaboration with Tyler Perry Distribution.
 
2013-12-15 03:09:33 PM  

shower_in_my_socks: The new Hobbit is a hell of a lot better than the first one. I give it a RECOMMEND with lots of popcorn and everything else they sell at concessions.


I'll see it next weekend on the IMAX screen... ( spectacle over substance,IMHO; but I already know what I'm walking into).
 
2013-12-15 03:10:42 PM  
I saw the Hobbit on Friday morning.

Good that Beorn was in it, though they dropped Gandalf's clever story that convinced Beorn to let them stay.

Loved Tauriel.  Galadriel and Arwen were too good and holy to have naughty thoughts about, but not THIS elf.

Bard certainly had his role expanded greatly.

And Thorin and his allies tried to fight Smaug inside the Mountain, trying to use their knowledge of the place against him.  Didn't quite work, of course.
 
2013-12-15 03:11:02 PM  

LL316: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"

I sure didn't.  He pooped on Tolkien's grave with that piece of crap movie.  I was fine turning it into 3 movies, since there's more than enough material in the Appendix and Silmarillion to do so.  But making Radagast into a retarded idiot?  That was the last straw.  Even the worst wizard was on par with the most powerful elves.  Fark PJ.  Fark him in his a.


wait until you see the river barrel scene where every good guy involved is more invincible than Neo.

Smaug scenes were excellent and the spiders were done well.  Everything else though...
 
2013-12-15 03:18:23 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"


There are people who aren't interested in the Hobbit trilogy who went to see the first one?
 
2013-12-15 03:24:51 PM  

Bslim: movieman_1979: The_Sponge: eddievercetti: Whoever thought Madea would #1 over the Hobbit was smoking crack, weed, meth, coke, and farking every drug to think that idea would work.

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Craft services provided by Tyler Perry.

In association with Tyler Perry Productions, a Tyler Perry Film

In collaboration with Tyler Perry Distribution.


img.blog.163.com
 
2013-12-15 03:32:13 PM  
Didn't see the Hobbit, but saw the second one and enjoyed. Enjoyed it more than the LoTR movies, honestly.
 
2013-12-15 03:33:34 PM  
I'm already looking forward to next weekend, which will feature Amy Adams and Jennifer Lawrence in plunging 70's necklines, plus Bradley Cooper in an awesome perm.
 
2013-12-15 03:34:21 PM  

yukichigai: Bslim: movieman_1979: The_Sponge: eddievercetti: Whoever thought Madea would #1 over the Hobbit was smoking crack, weed, meth, coke, and farking every drug to think that idea would work.

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Craft services provided by Tyler Perry.

In association with Tyler Perry Productions, a Tyler Perry Film

In collaboration with Tyler Perry Distribution.


In the Tyler Perry justice system, the Tyler Perry's are Tyler Perryed by two separate, yet equally important Tyler Perrys. These are their stories.
 
2013-12-15 03:36:40 PM  

Alphax: I saw the Hobbit on Friday morning.

Good that Beorn was in it, though they dropped Gandalf's clever story that convinced Beorn to let them stay.

Loved Tauriel.  Galadriel and Arwen were too good and holy to have naughty thoughts about, but not THIS elf.

Bard certainly had his role expanded greatly.

And Thorin and his allies tried to fight Smaug inside the Mountain, trying to use their knowledge of the place against him.  Didn't quite work, of course.


Oh the naughty naughty things I would do to Tauriel.
 
2013-12-15 03:39:19 PM  

Imperious Rex!: Didn't see the Hobbit, but saw the second one and enjoyed. Enjoyed it more than the LoTR movies, honestly.


No sobbing hobbits, then?  ( honestly, that almost killed the last two LOTR films, IMHO)
 
2013-12-15 03:40:12 PM  
I enjoyed some of the new characters added to this version of The Hobbit, especially the addition of the evil queen.
 
2013-12-15 03:41:50 PM  
Lessee...

Invincible Legolas. Bullshiat romance. Orcs everywhere, even on the roofs of Esgaroth. Joint orgasm between elf and dwarf brought on by herb. Bullshiat, interminable fight scene in an Erebor that couldn't have fit within the Lonely Mountain. Thorin riding a metal boat on a river of molten gold without sizzling like a pack of cheap bacon. Giant forges and water-driven machinery that just happen to work perfectly even after decades. Bullshiat about "windlances" and "black arrows". A giant dwarf cast of molten gold that dissolves in a gush of bad CGI after holding together for at least a minute.

At least Smaug was entertaining. Other than that, I wasn't terribly happy with the movie.
 
2013-12-15 03:44:53 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: Imperious Rex!: Didn't see the Hobbit, but saw the second one and enjoyed. Enjoyed it more than the LoTR movies, honestly.

No sobbing hobbits, then?  ( honestly, that almost killed the last two LOTR films, IMHO)


None that I recall, it was quite refreshing. The spiders made my skin crawl though, so if you don't like spiders...
 
2013-12-15 03:55:05 PM  

Imperious Rex!: Forbidden Doughnut: Imperious Rex!: Didn't see the Hobbit, but saw the second one and enjoyed. Enjoyed it more than the LoTR movies, honestly.

No sobbing hobbits, then?  ( honestly, that almost killed the last two LOTR films, IMHO)

None that I recall, it was quite refreshing. The spiders made my skin crawl though, so if you don't like spiders...


FWIW, I've never been able to sit through Shelob in the theater.

Whereas this scene just had me up until 6 AM in a fully lit room thinking "Giant Spiders going to eat me, Giant Spiders going to eat me...."
 
2013-12-15 03:57:22 PM  

theorellior: Other than that, I wasn't terribly happy with the movie.


You must be really fun at parties.
 
2013-12-15 04:00:16 PM  
Hallelujer!
 
2013-12-15 04:02:25 PM  
It was great, haters gonna hate. It had better pacing than the first part, and we got character growth and brilliant scenery. Those who biatch about the length should stick to tv shows. And no it's not completely faithful to the books, and thank Fark for that.
 
2013-12-15 04:04:20 PM  

gingerjet: You must be really fun at parties.


Sure I am, just not ones that involve people talking about "The Desolation of Smaug".
 
2013-12-15 04:10:52 PM  

theorellior: gingerjet: You must be really fun at parties.

Sure I am, just not ones that involve people talking about "The Desolation of Smaug".


Just think how bad those conversations must drag on in China....
 
2013-12-15 04:19:36 PM  

Imperious Rex!: Forbidden Doughnut: Imperious Rex!: Didn't see the Hobbit, but saw the second one and enjoyed. Enjoyed it more than the LoTR movies, honestly.

No sobbing hobbits, then?  ( honestly, that almost killed the last two LOTR films, IMHO)

None that I recall, it was quite refreshing. The spiders made my skin crawl though, so if you don't like spiders...


I'm a bit of an arachnophobe, and I saw it in 3D.. yeah, I was looking away a bit during that part.
 
2013-12-15 04:21:07 PM  
I'm having an arguement with a friend. He thinks moria from lotr is the same place as the lonely mountain.

I don't think this is right, am I wrong?
 
2013-12-15 04:22:54 PM  

LL316: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"

I sure didn't.  He pooped on Tolkien's grave with that piece of crap movie.  I was fine turning it into 3 movies, since there's more than enough material in the Appendix and Silmarillion to do so.  But making Radagast into a retarded idiot?  That was the last straw.  Even the worst wizard was on par with the most powerful elves.  Fark PJ.  Fark him in his a.


Maybe he's supposed to be comedic, but I didn't like Radagast being a retard either.  The Istari are supposed to be some of the most powerful in Middle Earth.  Gandalf defeated a balrog single handedly for goodness sake.  He can't take Sauron on by himself, but Christ on a cracker, c'mon!
 
2013-12-15 04:24:24 PM  

Alphax: I saw the Hobbit on Friday morning.

Good that Beorn was in it, though they dropped Gandalf's clever story that convinced Beorn to let them stay.

Loved Tauriel.  Galadriel and Arwen were too good and holy to have naughty thoughts about, but not THIS elf.

Bard certainly had his role expanded greatly.

And Thorin and his allies tried to fight Smaug inside the Mountain, trying to use their knowledge of the place against him.  Didn't quite work, of course.


Why would they think that molten gold will do anything to a dragon that virtually lives in fire?
 
2013-12-15 04:27:46 PM  

JolobinSmokin: I'm having an arguement with a friend. He thinks moria from lotr is the same place as the lonely mountain.

I don't think this is right, am I wrong?


What?  Moria is not Erebor.
 
2013-12-15 04:27:57 PM  
Saw Hobbit on Friday and loved it. The scenes with Smaug were exactly as awesome as I'd hoped. I would have liked a little more banter between Bilbo and Smaug, but the extended fight inside the mountain was amazing. We saw it in 2D, and I plan to go back and see what it's like in 48fps sometime this week.

This movie is definitely better paced and leaner than the first installment. (Of course, since my preferred version is usually the Extended Edition, I didn't have a problem with the first one.) So those of you who didn't like the slower pace of the first one should find this one much improved.

I especially enjoyed the glimpse at the more extended Tolkien universe. The world-building is fantastic, and it's a shame Peter Jackson didn't helm the Star Wars Prequels because this is how you do it.
 
2013-12-15 04:28:41 PM  

AeAe: LL316: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"

I sure didn't.  He pooped on Tolkien's grave with that piece of crap movie.  I was fine turning it into 3 movies, since there's more than enough material in the Appendix and Silmarillion to do so.  But making Radagast into a retarded idiot?  That was the last straw.  Even the worst wizard was on par with the most powerful elves.  Fark PJ.  Fark him in his a.

Maybe he's supposed to be comedic, but I didn't like Radagast being a retard either.  The Istari are supposed to be some of the most powerful in Middle Earth.  Gandalf defeated a balrog single handedly for goodness sake.  He can't take Sauron on by himself, but Christ on a cracker, c'mon!


The five Istari were minor Ainur, sent to Middle Earth in the guise of moral men to inspire people to fight Sauron.  Only one of which stayed true to that purpose.  Radagast was too distracted by his study of birds and beasts; the 2 Blue Wizards ventured far into the East and were never heard from again; Saruman decided to imitate Sauron.
 
2013-12-15 04:37:01 PM  

AeAe: JolobinSmokin: I'm having an arguement with a friend. He thinks moria from lotr is the same place as the lonely mountain.

I don't think this is right, am I wrong?

What?  Moria is not Erebor.


IIRC, Erebor was founded by Dwarves who fled Moria (after digging too deep....waking the Balrog).

/ hope my nerd cred is intact.
 
2013-12-15 04:39:25 PM  

Forbidden Doughnut: AeAe: JolobinSmokin: I'm having an arguement with a friend. He thinks moria from lotr is the same place as the lonely mountain.

I don't think this is right, am I wrong?

What?  Moria is not Erebor.

IIRC, Erebor was founded by Dwarves who fled Moria (after digging too deep....waking the Balrog).

/ hope my nerd cred is intact.


You should also remember that Balin, whose tomb they discover in Moria, is one of the dwarves helping take back Erebor. Most of the dwarves from that expedition did not have a happy end.
 
2013-12-15 04:51:27 PM  
So is the new Hobbit worth the IMAX price or just a regular showing?  Felt I got stiffed on the first one.
 
2013-12-15 05:09:40 PM  
wow, lack of holding calls in dallas
 
2013-12-15 05:10:19 PM  
oops wrong thread, putting down the vodak
 
2013-12-15 05:28:56 PM  
Where does the Hobbit leave off? I see Smaug in the previews so he is already at the Lonely Mountain. Just wondering how much is left for the third film. Kinda hope it's more than just the 5 army battle
 
2013-12-15 05:35:53 PM  

AeAe: The Istari are supposed to be some of the most powerful in Middle Earth. Gandalf defeated a balrog single handedly for goodness sake. He can't take Sauron on by himself, but Christ on a cracker, c'mon!


Oh come on. If there's one thing Gandalf does more than anyone in Middle Earth, it's get imprisoned. I suspect he secretly loves it.
 
2013-12-15 05:40:18 PM  
Good on Balbo Biggins.
 
2013-12-15 05:40:31 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"


I was pretty hopeful for the first one; even though stretching the story so much seemed questionable, I liked what the Jackson team had done with LOTR so I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

And... they lazily shat all over The Hobbit, not bothering to keep up anything like the basic quality of LOTR in terms of effects and set-pieces, making terrible directorial choices, and vomiting out a pathetic script.

Was it better than having no Hobbit movie at all? Sure. I'm just disappointed that "marginally better than nothing" is apparently the limit of their creative aspirations.  So, no, I am not eager for this one. On the other hand, there's no way it is as bad as the first one...

(I do think that, once they're done, there will be enough footage for someone talented to assemble one incredibly good movie from the whole trilogy, so maybe it'll work out in the long run.)
 
2013-12-15 05:41:53 PM  
Saw Hobbit in IMAX earlier today. Again, visually stunning as we've come to expect. Smaug was especially well done. My problem though is that as a movie based on The Hobbit, it was entertaining and an enjoyable way to spend a few hours. As a movie of The Hobbit, it fails. I wanted The Hobbit, what I got was Tolkien fan fic.
 
2013-12-15 05:42:34 PM  
So far all that I've learned about dwarves comes down to the fact that they will get captured by every single race in middle earth except for hobbits, apparently.
 
2013-12-15 05:52:36 PM  

snowshovel: So far all that I've learned about dwarves comes down to the fact that they will get captured by every single race in middle earth except for hobbits, apparently.


Plus they love gold and want to recapture their lost homeland. They're basically the Jews of Middle Earth.
 
2013-12-15 05:57:38 PM  

JolobinSmokin: I'm having an arguement with a friend. He thinks moria from lotr is the same place as the lonely mountain.

I don't think this is right, am I wrong?


---
Middle Earth map:
http://static02.mediaite.com/geekosystem/uploads/2013/11/map.jpg

/lonely mtn is in upper right, moria is in middle of mountain chain
//yes, I looked up some of the locations at one point too...
 
2013-12-15 06:00:27 PM  

That guy on the bike: Where does the Hobbit leave off? I see Smaug in the previews so he is already at the Lonely Mountain. Just wondering how much is left for the third film. Kinda hope it's more than just the 5 army battle


===
I'm afraid its going to be all about the crabby humans by the lake, and then the inexplicable 5 armies

/saw film one, have so far avoided seeing film two, will probably be dragged to film three
 
2013-12-15 06:06:55 PM  
I didn't like the Lord of the Rings movies

you, sir, are a buffoon
 
2013-12-15 06:08:06 PM  

theorellior: Lessee...

Invincible Legolas. Bullshiat romance. Orcs everywhere, even on the roofs of Esgaroth. Joint orgasm between elf and dwarf brought on by herb. Bullshiat, interminable fight scene in an Erebor that couldn't have fit within the Lonely Mountain. Thorin riding a metal boat on a river of molten gold without sizzling like a pack of cheap bacon. Giant forges and water-driven machinery that just happen to work perfectly even after decades. Bullshiat about "windlances" and "black arrows". A giant dwarf cast of molten gold that dissolves in a gush of bad CGI after holding together for at least a minute.

At least Smaug was entertaining. Other than that, I wasn't terribly happy with the movie.


This, that, and the other thing.  I'll tack on that if Erebor, a lesser dwarven hall, contained that much gold, the stuff must be damn near worthless in Middle Earth.  The love triangle involving Tauriel was pointless.  The need to have orcs constantly pursuing Thorin was pointless.  Trying to drown Smaug in molten gold was pointless.  Azog should be dead, slain at the Battle of Azanulbizar.  Bolg should be in the Misty Mountains until he learns of Smaug's death and decides to raise an army to claim the dragon's hoard.

What the hell was Thorin's motivation?  In the book he was driven solely by greed.  Thorin never worries about Smaug again once they are inside the mountain.  In the movie he attacks Smaug with reckless abandon for revenge.  Not true to the character at all.  Thorin is treated too much like a hero in the movie.  There is nothing redeeming about Thorin in the book until the very end when he is dying.

What the hell was Smaug's motivation to leave Erebor and attack Lake Town, while leaving Thorin and Co. alive?  The molten gold was never going to harm a fire breathing dragon.  Why wouldn't he shrug it off, murder-fark the dwarves, and eat their corpses?  In the book Smaug does not have a long conversation with a visible Bilbo.  He guesses Bilbo is from Lake Town because he has no idea about Hobbits and Bilbo's riddles mention barrels.  I know Bilbo says his self-given titles in the movie as well, but in the book he then flees back out the secret entrance.  This draws Smaug outside.  The dragon attacks them on the cliff side and smashes the secret door as they seek shelter inside the mountain.  He then flies off to destroy Lake Town as he may believe the cave in has slain them all.  In the movie, Thorin and the dwarves make a stand against Smaug inside Erebor (something that never happens in the book).  Why the fark would Smaug just walk outside to attack Lake Town after the molten gold thing when he still has living enemies inside his lair?

Somebody needed to Jackson "no" a bunch of times during the filming.  This was so far removed from the source material that only place names and character names were the same.
 
2013-12-15 06:41:10 PM  

LL316: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"

I sure didn't.  He pooped on Tolkien's grave with that piece of crap movie.  I was fine turning it into 3 movies, since there's more than enough material in the Appendix and Silmarillion to do so.  But making Radagast into a retarded idiot?  That was the last straw.  Even the worst wizard was on par with the most powerful elves.  Fark PJ.  Fark him in his a.


What did you expect after the abomination that was his Lord of the Rings trilogy? They were great as "Generic Fantasy Trilogy," but they were abysmal failures of a real LotR adaptation.
 
2013-12-15 06:47:39 PM  
The car chases seemed forced and tacked on.
 
2013-12-15 06:49:55 PM  

Carousel Beast: LL316: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"

I sure didn't.  He pooped on Tolkien's grave with that piece of crap movie.  I was fine turning it into 3 movies, since there's more than enough material in the Appendix and Silmarillion to do so.  But making Radagast into a retarded idiot?  That was the last straw.  Even the worst wizard was on par with the most powerful elves.  Fark PJ.  Fark him in his a.

What did you expect after the abomination that was his Lord of the Rings trilogy? They were great as "Generic Fantasy Trilogy," but they were abysmal failures of a real LotR adaptation.


The Lord of the Rings movies were better than the books. That's right, I said it.
 
2013-12-15 07:02:17 PM  

Hebalo: AeAe: The Istari are supposed to be some of the most powerful in Middle Earth. Gandalf defeated a balrog single handedly for goodness sake. He can't take Sauron on by himself, but Christ on a cracker, c'mon!

Oh come on. If there's one thing Gandalf does more than anyone in Middle Earth, it's get imprisoned. I suspect he secretly loves it.


He's been captured twice unless I'm mistaken, and both times by superior foes:  Once at Orthanc by Saruman, and at Dol Guldur by the Necromancer, who it turned out is Sauron.
 
2013-12-15 07:02:56 PM  

Carousel Beast: LL316: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"

I sure didn't.  He pooped on Tolkien's grave with that piece of crap movie.  I was fine turning it into 3 movies, since there's more than enough material in the Appendix and Silmarillion to do so.  But making Radagast into a retarded idiot?  That was the last straw.  Even the worst wizard was on par with the most powerful elves.  Fark PJ.  Fark him in his a.

What did you expect after the abomination that was his Lord of the Rings trilogy? They were great as "Generic Fantasy Trilogy," but they were abysmal failures of a real LotR adaptation.



I thought the LOTR trilogy was about as good as we could ever reasonably expect from a movie adaptation. Was never going to be perfect, obviously, but abysmal failure? I don't see it.
 
2013-12-15 07:05:11 PM  

AeAe: Hebalo: AeAe: The Istari are supposed to be some of the most powerful in Middle Earth. Gandalf defeated a balrog single handedly for goodness sake. He can't take Sauron on by himself, but Christ on a cracker, c'mon!

Oh come on. If there's one thing Gandalf does more than anyone in Middle Earth, it's get imprisoned. I suspect he secretly loves it.

He's been captured twice unless I'm mistaken, and both times by superior foes:  Once at Orthanc by Saruman, and at Dol Guldur by the Necromancer, who it turned out is Sauron.


I saw him get treed by a handful of orcs. Does that count?
 
2013-12-15 07:42:26 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Carousel Beast: LL316: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"

I sure didn't.  He pooped on Tolkien's grave with that piece of crap movie.  I was fine turning it into 3 movies, since there's more than enough material in the Appendix and Silmarillion to do so.  But making Radagast into a retarded idiot?  That was the last straw.  Even the worst wizard was on par with the most powerful elves.  Fark PJ.  Fark him in his a.

What did you expect after the abomination that was his Lord of the Rings trilogy? They were great as "Generic Fantasy Trilogy," but they were abysmal failures of a real LotR adaptation.


I thought the LOTR trilogy was about as good as we could ever reasonably expect from a movie adaptation. Was never going to be perfect, obviously, but abysmal failure? I don't see it.


THIS.

Peter Jackson did OK. (Just imagine what a director like Michael Bay or Roland Emmerich would do to Tolkien's work....)
 
2013-12-15 07:57:00 PM  

baconbeard: The car chases seemed forced and tacked on.


And Orlando Bloom's Jamaican accent was totally unconvincing.
 
2013-12-15 08:12:20 PM  
I just got back from seeing The Hobbit. When the credits popped up everyone in the theater was like, "What?!" That was awesome. I did see it in IMAX with the HFR 48fps, but on that I was not impressed. I could not tell any difference between that and regular 24fps. I know in the past fellow farkers have complained about how it made things look "too real" and that they felt like they were watching "community theatre," but too me it looked and moved just the same.
 
2013-12-15 08:23:17 PM  
Weird.  You'd think that adding Larry the Cable Guy to the cast would be a surefire way to carry any movie.
 
2013-12-15 08:56:57 PM  
I made the mistake of seeing The Hobbit today at the faster frame rate. That was...weird. Less like watching a movie and more like watching a play where you could walk among the cast. I was distracted by how clear the definition of everyone's skin was. Didn't realize how threadbare Bilbo's jacket was until seeing it at a faster frame rate.

/spotted Stephen Colbert's cameo
//kind of hard to miss that face
 
2013-12-15 09:05:27 PM  
I like that some of you very obviously decided to hate it BEFORE going in, then saw it, and are now dutifully reporting that it was an atrocity.

I'm one of the bigger Tolkien dorks there is, and I thought it was pretty good. Take them for what they are, not your own nerdboner fantasies.
 
2013-12-15 09:10:34 PM  

LasersHurt: I like that some of you very obviously decided to hate it BEFORE going in, then saw it, and are now dutifully reporting that it was an atrocity.


Oh, please. I loved the first one. I thought the slow pacing was basically reflecting that of the book. You really got a feel for the expanse of Middle Earth. I was expecting something like that this time around. Instead I got too many orcs, too much Legolas, a ridiculous romance and some crap about Bard's grandfather. Along with a fight scene with Smaug that went on for Far. Too. Long.

Parts were great. Parts were excellent. But the tacked on bullshiat was just a bit much.
 
2013-12-15 09:14:54 PM  

LasersHurt: I like that some of you very obviously decided to hate it BEFORE going in, then saw it, and are now dutifully reporting that it was an atrocity.

I'm one of the bigger Tolkien dorks there is, and I thought it was pretty good. Take them for what they are, not your own nerdboner fantasies.


Lotta ComicBookGuy in this thread.

The one thing I thought was pretty funny (and obvious) was that no amount of makeup can make Orlando Bloom look 10 years younger, let alone 25 pounds lighter!
 
2013-12-15 09:25:05 PM  

Carousel Beast: What did you expect after the abomination that was his Lord of the Rings trilogy? They were great as "Generic Fantasy Trilogy," but they were abysmal failures of a real LotR adaptation.


The original adaptation was, I thought, very respectful to the books.  Yeah, some stuff got left out for pacing (was OK with no Bombadil, was less OK with no scouring of the Shire), some stuff got changed for impact or spectacle or as a result of the pacing changes (elves at Helm's Deep, Saruman's end), but for a Hollywood adaptation of a book, it was pretty amazing.

The first Hobbit movie was really schizophrenic, skipping back and forth between a LOTR-style Hobbit adaptation, a faithful kid-focused Hobbit adaptation, and an adaptation of appendix material that didn't really belong.  There was an OK movie in there somewhere, but it needed a ton of edits and rewrites to exist.

This one... as a movie, disregarding the book entirely, big success compared to the last.  As a Hobbit adaptation?  THIS is an abysmal failure.  THIS is what COULD have happened to LOTR and DIDN'T, and highlights why LOTR is a great adaptation.
 
2013-12-15 09:25:20 PM  

theorellior: LasersHurt: I like that some of you very obviously decided to hate it BEFORE going in, then saw it, and are now dutifully reporting that it was an atrocity.

Oh, please. I loved the first one. I thought the slow pacing was basically reflecting that of the book. You really got a feel for the expanse of Middle Earth. I was expecting something like that this time around. Instead I got too many orcs, too much Legolas, a ridiculous romance and some crap about Bard's grandfather. Along with a fight scene with Smaug that went on for Far. Too. Long.

Parts were great. Parts were excellent. But the tacked on bullshiat was just a bit much.


I can't defend the romance, though at least it was relatively underplayed. It's not like they started up a relationship, there were some glances and some drug-induced haze. Other than that, meh.

The orcs are a function of including the return of Sauron as a sideplot; I actually sort of enjoy it, as it keeps the 3-movie-stretch from being too empty. Plus it adds a lot of context for viewers who aren't dorks and don't already know the backstory.

What's wrong with the 30 seconds spent mentioning Bard's grandfather? It (and the windlance) is an add-on, but gives a source for the missing scale without requiring him to talk to a Thrush.

Let's not forget you said "invincible Legolas," which suggests to me you either didn't pay attention to this film, or The Lord of the Rings - he's no more or less invincible here. Bolg smacks him up pretty good. (though why he didn't shoot him when he gave chase makes little sense)

I'll give you the romance was unneeded, and that the riding a river of gold made me go "wait, severe burns?" as well. Also the molten gold CGI; years of advanced work, but literally nobody has ever done Molten Gold without it looking ridiculous. Still gold barely looks good, most of the time.
 
2013-12-15 09:32:56 PM  
From the other article about it (from Evangeline Lilly):

"We came back for reshoots in 2012 ... and they were like, 'Uh, the studio would really like to see...' And I was like, 'Here we go. Here we go' [shakes her bowed head]. And sure enough I'm in another love triangle."

Surprise surprise the studio wants a love plot. Like every other movie, ever. Sucks.
 
2013-12-15 09:48:00 PM  

LasersHurt: Let's not forget you said "invincible Legolas," which suggests to me you either didn't pay attention to this film, or The Lord of the Rings - he's no more or less invincible here. Bolg smacks him up pretty good. (though why he didn't shoot him when he gave chase makes little sense)


He and Tauriel took out how many orcs with barely a scratch? Twenty? Thirty? The orcs in this movie were worse than Imperial stormtroopers. On top of that, both the scenes on the river with the barrels and the whole clusterfark in Erebor reminded me of the unending fight scene between the ape and the T. rex in "King Kong", another Jackson film that could have used some editing. They just went on and on, each trick with the barrels, each dodging of superhot dragonbreath more unlikely and ridiculous than the last.

LasersHurt: Also the molten gold CGI; years of advanced work, but literally nobody has ever done Molten Gold without it looking ridiculous. Still gold barely looks good, most of the time.


The awful CGI--I mean, the T-1000 in "Terminator 2" looked better than this CGI--was just the cherry on the top of the shiat sundae that was the entire fight scene. The only reason they started the forges was to attempt to drown Smaug in molten gold. Yes, drowning a fire-breathing dragon in hot metal. That doesn't make any sense. But on top of that, why would they even think the forges would be fueled? That the crucibles would be stocked with metal? That the casting mechanisms would even work? That there would be a convenient giant dwarf statue die ready to receive the gold? And a giant gold statue that would magically hang together for a full minute before it started gushing apart? Riiiiight. Finally, molten gold, like other molten metals, is not just gold-colored water. It glows orange, it's pretty damn hot. And it's farking heavy. It doesn't flow like water.

The movie would have been a half-hour shorter and much tighter if Jackson had just done the scene with Smaug like it was in the book. Bilbo taunts him, Smaug gets pissed, destroys the mountainside, then heads off to Esgaroth for revenge. You could even have had the same final shot with Bilbo saying, "What have we done?" Cut. Send to the theatres. Same thrust, less crappy CGI and fewer questionable dwarf antics with molten gold.
 
2013-12-15 09:49:54 PM  
Huge Tolkien fan since childhood. Enjoyed the second installment of The Hobbit, especially Smaug, up until the river of gold, golden statue sequence. Seriously PJ, wtf??
 
2013-12-15 09:54:11 PM  

theorellior: LasersHurt: Also the molten gold CGI; years of advanced work, but literally nobody has ever done Molten Gold without it looking ridiculous. Still gold barely looks good, most of the time.

The awful CGI--I mean, the T-1000 in "Terminator 2" looked better than this CGI--was just the cherry on the top of the shiat sundae that was the entire fight scene. The only reason they started the forges was to attempt to drown Smaug in molten gold. Yes, drowning a fire-breathing dragon in hot metal. That doesn't make any sense. But on top of that, why would they even think the forges would be fueled? That the crucibles would be stocked with metal? That the casting mechanisms would even work? That there would be a convenient giant dwarf statue die ready to receive the gold? And a giant gold statue that would magically hang together for a full minute before it started gushing apart? Riiiiight. Finally, molten gold, like other molten metals, is not just gold-colored water. It glows orange, it's pretty damn hot. And it's farking heavy. It doesn't flow like water.


I'm willing to accept the forges being stocked and filled, the dwarves were run out in a bit of a hurry. Same with them working - Dwarven craftsmanship, etc. Nothing there seems odd.

The giant mold ready to go, the molten gold moving like water and looking like gold, yeah. Dumb. Especially since the molten gold IN the forge was glowing as expected.
 
2013-12-15 09:58:37 PM  

LasersHurt: I'm willing to accept the forges being stocked and filled, the dwarves were run out in a bit of a hurry. Same with them working - Dwarven craftsmanship, etc. Nothing there seems odd.
The giant mold ready to go, the molten gold moving like water and looking like gold, yeah. Dumb. Especially since the molten gold IN the forge was glowing as expected.


I guess I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of this if I didn't think the whole scene was superfluous from a storytelling point of view. Jackson obviously wanted to save the burning of Lake-Town for the beginning of the next movie. Fine. We'd already had a two-hour movie before the dwarves got to Erebor. A quick and simple setup like in the book would have been all that was needed to keep the plot moving.

Basically, I was willing to forgive the dumb romance and the stormtrooper orcs until we got to the molten gold. For some reason that's where my good faith failed.
 
2013-12-15 09:59:16 PM  
disappointed in subby for only using Tyler Perry in this Tyler Perry headline twice. Tyler Perry
 
2013-12-15 10:03:34 PM  

LasersHurt: I like that some of you very obviously decided to hate it BEFORE going in, then saw it, and are now dutifully reporting that it was an atrocity.

I'm one of the bigger Tolkien dorks there is, and I thought it was pretty good. Take them for what they are, not your own nerdboner fantasies.


Yep, haters gonna hate. Thus far it's a been a great, beautiful, engaging story. But... "Not the same as the book" apparently is more important to some.
 
2013-12-15 10:06:39 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: I thought the LOTR trilogy was about as good as we could ever reasonably expect from a movie adaptation. Was never going to be perfect, obviously, but abysmal failure? I don't see it.


Yeah, I feel that way. The casting was impeccable, the costuming and weaponry were carefully crafted down the finest details, and the soundtrack was amazing.

Were there issues? Yeah, but it was never going to be perfect.

The Hobbit, on the other hand, is just horrendous.
 
2013-12-15 10:07:54 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: The Hobbit, on the other hand, is just horrendous.


I just don't see it. It's not perfect, but horrendous? Can't even get close.
 
2013-12-15 10:12:01 PM  
Perhaps Tyler Perrys' next film should be called "Tyler Perry's -- American is getting sick of Tyler Perry movies, staring Tyler Perry"
 
2013-12-15 10:24:04 PM  

LasersHurt: Surprise surprise the studio wants a love plot. Like every other movie, ever. Sucks.


Not Reservoir Dogs. Well, Mr. White and Mr. Orange kind of had a thing.
 
2013-12-15 10:40:12 PM  

Hebalo: LasersHurt: I like that some of you very obviously decided to hate it BEFORE going in, then saw it, and are now dutifully reporting that it was an atrocity.

I'm one of the bigger Tolkien dorks there is, and I thought it was pretty good. Take them for what they are, not your own nerdboner fantasies.

Yep, haters gonna hate. Thus far it's a been a great, beautiful, engaging story. But... "Not the same as the book" apparently is more important to some.


I think most realistic fanboys, myself included, can get along without an 100% faithful adaptation, as long as the story is engaging, characters develop somewhat along with the book, and no golden statues melting in a smaug bog. I will say, Smaug himself was a surprise for the better, so I had no problem with his time on screen being somewhat extended.
 
2013-12-15 10:41:17 PM  
Couldn't possibly have tanked worse than:

cdn.gofobo.com

I'm ashamed, America. How could you NOT picture Tyler Perry as a badass? He's the black Liam Neeson!
 
2013-12-15 10:47:24 PM  

LasersHurt: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: The Hobbit, on the other hand, is just horrendous.

I just don't see it. It's not perfect, but horrendous? Can't even get close.


Had LOTR never happened, The Hobbit might have seemed 'yeah, okay, I guess that's what we have to put up with to get some Tolkien onscreen.' But this very director and crew had JUST SHOWED US that they could summon the know-how and commitment to do Tolkien well (enough) if they chose to.

I wasn't expecting anything *quite* like LOTR because I knew the material was different and $$$tretching it into another trilogy was really pushing it. But I didn't expect what we got either: they shat their pants so badly I felt embarrassed for them. Even the effects...how do you get so much WORSE over time with the same crew and more resources?

It wasn't horrendous in the sense of being a b-movie or something, but it was hugely disappointing given what they had to work with.
 
2013-12-15 10:52:07 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: LasersHurt: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: The Hobbit, on the other hand, is just horrendous.

I just don't see it. It's not perfect, but horrendous? Can't even get close.

Had LOTR never happened, The Hobbit might have seemed 'yeah, okay, I guess that's what we have to put up with to get some Tolkien onscreen.' But this very director and crew had JUST SHOWED US that they could summon the know-how and commitment to do Tolkien well (enough) if they chose to.

I wasn't expecting anything *quite* like LOTR because I knew the material was different and $$$tretching it into another trilogy was really pushing it. But I didn't expect what we got either: they shat their pants so badly I felt embarrassed for them. Even the effects...how do you get so much WORSE over time with the same crew and more resources?

It wasn't horrendous in the sense of being a b-movie or something, but it was hugely disappointing given what they had to work with.


Nothing you said there is a specific reason. The only effects I thought were particularly bad was the gold / statue scene. So where do we get to "shat their pants so badly"?
 
2013-12-15 10:58:17 PM  
Saw it last night and fell asleep. The last time I fell asleep in a movie theatre? The Hobbit last December. No lie.
 
2013-12-15 11:15:15 PM  
Saw it in IMAX 3d and the dragon looked really awesome, and the rest of it was ok.
 
2013-12-15 11:23:29 PM  
I haven't seen The Hobbit yet, but I did have a Smaug Fire Burger from Denny's on Wednesday night.

Calling the aftereffects "The Desolation of Smaug" quit being funny on the fourth visit to the bathroom.

/tasty, though.
//I actually blame the oil they cook their fries in.
 
2013-12-15 11:24:54 PM  

LasersHurt: From the other article about it (from Evangeline Lilly):

"We came back for reshoots in 2012 ... and they were like, 'Uh, the studio would really like to see...' And I was like, 'Here we go. Here we go' [shakes her bowed head]. And sure enough I'm in another love triangle."

Surprise surprise the studio wants a love plot. Like every other movie, ever. Sucks.


Gravity made a farkton of money with no extraneous love story.
 
2013-12-15 11:26:51 PM  

Mad_Radhu: Gravity made a farkton of money with no extraneous love story.


Mugato: Not Reservoir Dogs. Well, Mr. White and Mr. Orange kind of had a thing.


There are some few, but sadly infrequent, exceptions.
 
2013-12-15 11:29:10 PM  
I thought with Obama geting re-elected, America was forced by law to watch Madea movies.
 
2013-12-15 11:30:55 PM  

Alphax: Bard certainly had his role expanded greatly.


It's been forever since I read the book, but I think I remember feeling like that was a weak point in the book--he kind of showed up and you knew he was supposed to be important but didn't get fleshed out enough to be the major character that he was supposed to be.
 
2013-12-15 11:37:28 PM  

LasersHurt: Monkeyfark Ridiculous: LasersHurt: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: The Hobbit, on the other hand, is just horrendous.

I just don't see it. It's not perfect, but horrendous? Can't even get close.

Had LOTR never happened, The Hobbit might have seemed 'yeah, okay, I guess that's what we have to put up with to get some Tolkien onscreen.' But this very director and crew had JUST SHOWED US that they could summon the know-how and commitment to do Tolkien well (enough) if they chose to.

I wasn't expecting anything *quite* like LOTR because I knew the material was different and $$$tretching it into another trilogy was really pushing it. But I didn't expect what we got either: they shat their pants so badly I felt embarrassed for them. Even the effects...how do you get so much WORSE over time with the same crew and more resources?

It wasn't horrendous in the sense of being a b-movie or something, but it was hugely disappointing given what they had to work with.

Nothing you said there is a specific reason. The only effects I thought were particularly bad was the gold / statue scene. So where do we get to "shat their pants so badly"?


Sorry, I'm talking about the first Hobbit. I haven't seen the newer one. I would hope it is better (hey, more dragon at least).

If I start in on specific reasons for being disappointed I am afraid I will end up with an essay. The worst aspects include the almost-literally-thumbtwiddling time-wasting engaged in throughout the movie to stretch it beyond breaking point but particularly in the scenes at Bilbo's house and Rivendell, the whole stupid vengeful orc business, the shameful videogamey effects particularly in the Radagast and goblin sequences, the poorly-written and inconsistent characters, the tree/eagles scene (hey, if you're going to change a bunch of shiat, change the right shiat)...  The best bits were the dragon, the trolls (mostly), andriddles in the cave. And the stone giants were either one of the best parts or worst parts, maybe both.
 
2013-12-15 11:38:36 PM  

Hollie Maea: Alphax: Bard certainly had his role expanded greatly.

It's been forever since I read the book, but I think I remember feeling like that was a weak point in the book--he kind of showed up and you knew he was supposed to be important but didn't get fleshed out enough to be the major character that he was supposed to be.


He was introduced on the same page he kills the dragon.   He really needed some fleshing out.
 
2013-12-16 12:32:13 AM  

Hebalo: LasersHurt: I like that some of you very obviously decided to hate it BEFORE going in, then saw it, and are now dutifully reporting that it was an atrocity.

I'm one of the bigger Tolkien dorks there is, and I thought it was pretty good. Take them for what they are, not your own nerdboner fantasies.

Yep, haters gonna hate. Thus far it's a been a great, beautiful, engaging story. But... "Not the same as the book" apparently is more important to some.


Wash your shot glasses; GOT is coming.
 
2013-12-16 12:44:16 AM  

Tsar_Bomba1: So is the new Hobbit worth the IMAX price or just a regular showing?  Felt I got stiffed on the first one.


The dragon is completely worth the IMAX, 3D and HFR in my opinion- I can see now why he pushed for it so much...the dragon is spectacular.  The barrel scene had me a bit queasy but the rest of it was cool.  But the payoff was the dragon, hands down.
 
2013-12-16 01:19:09 AM  

thecpt: oops wrong thread, putting down the vodak


Don't sweat it. Posting in the wrong thread doesn't yield a punishment as severe as having to put down the vodak.  Just blame it on 'affluenza'.
 
2013-12-16 01:24:34 AM  
I saw it on Thursday at a special presentation and I thought the movie was good. The barrel scene was the only thing I really frowned at. Being new to these movies I thought it was acceptable. I remember reading the book years ago so my memory is a bit faded. This movie did prompt me to rent the first hobbit movie just to catch up. Now I will be getting the LOTR series just to watch it all.
 
2013-12-16 01:28:45 AM  
I saw the Hobbit and am convinced the Jackson has been killed and replaced by some sort of mindless robot.  The love triangle was just about the stupidest thing I have ever seen (seriously, if you want to add a female character and you turn her into a love obsessed pathetic biatch don't even bother, us females are more offended by that than not having any strong female characters at all), Thranduil was just played weird (I could see him not fighting Smaug the first time, no one wants to draw a dragon's wrath, especially those that live in a forest, but his bipolar moods?  Just not in character), and Smaug was... Smaug was very, very badly done.  For some reason he looked very, very tiny (in compared to the size of a Hobbit, not the scene around him), and the entire fight with him was just poorly done as well.

All in all, I went in expecting shiat and ended up seeing on screen diarrhea.  On the plus side Godzilla looks cool.
 
2013-12-16 01:48:28 AM  

Bslim: movieman_1979: The_Sponge: eddievercetti: Whoever thought Madea would #1 over the Hobbit was smoking crack, weed, meth, coke, and farking every drug to think that idea would work.

[i1.ytimg.com image 480x360]


Craft services provided by Tyler Perry.

In association with Tyler Perry Productions, a Tyler Perry Film

In collaboration with Tyler Perry Distribution.


-Rand Paul
 
2013-12-16 02:12:48 AM  
I was pretty excited about myself showing up in the movie.
 
2013-12-16 02:24:26 AM  
So, all i'm getting from this thread (haven't seen the movie yet) is that the film is OK, but not strictly faithful to the book right up until something with a river of molten gold  inside erebor? Yeah, i can see how that would be a farking stupid scene in the movie. but for the rest of it, it sounds pretty OK. Can't wait to see it.
 
2013-12-16 03:07:03 AM  
 
2013-12-16 04:05:09 AM  
One clever thing they did, that stood out for me.  In the book, they can understand what the spiders are saying.. but we haven't had talking spiders before.  So.. Bilbo can only understand their speech while wearing the Ring.
 
2013-12-16 08:23:08 AM  
The CGI in any of the broad/long-shot scenes was terribad.  I guess they spent the money on the dragon, and for that they got a good result.

I might have missed it in all the rantings above (some justified, some notsomuch), but one thing I found odd was the decision to put in another Grima Wormtounge in lake town.  I'm supposing this means they'll have the Master have a change of heart or do something noble since we have this extraneous dude with bad teeth wearing black to really play the villain card to the end.

Also...

i.imgur.com
 
2013-12-16 08:58:32 AM  

LoneDoggie: The CGI in any of the broad/long-shot scenes was terribad.  I guess they spent the money on the dragon, and for that they got a good result.

I might have missed it in all the rantings above (some justified, some notsomuch), but one thing I found odd was the decision to put in another Grima Wormtounge in lake town.  I'm supposing this means they'll have the Master have a change of heart or do something noble since we have this extraneous dude with bad teeth wearing black to really play the villain card to the end.

Also...

[i.imgur.com image 731x318]


Eh, I guess they could have shown them camping in Mirkwood more, but would it really help?
 
2013-12-16 09:31:00 AM  

theorellior: I guess I'd be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on a lot of this if I didn't think the whole scene was superfluous from a storytelling point of view


How is it superfluous?  Remember - this is film.  This was a save the cat moment for the dwarves.  Along with the choice the people of Lake Town make to set the dwarves free towards the mountain the fight to kill Smaug was meant to make them look less dickish than they do in the book for waking Smaug and killing thousands.
 
2013-12-16 09:54:50 AM  

Alphax: LoneDoggie: The CGI in any of the broad/long-shot scenes was terribad.  I guess they spent the money on the dragon, and for that they got a good result.

I might have missed it in all the rantings above (some justified, some notsomuch), but one thing I found odd was the decision to put in another Grima Wormtounge in lake town.  I'm supposing this means they'll have the Master have a change of heart or do something noble since we have this extraneous dude with bad teeth wearing black to really play the villain card to the end.

Also...

[i.imgur.com image 731x318]

Eh, I guess they could have shown them camping in Mirkwood more, but would it really help?


They actually didn't show them spend the night at all unless I was busy pouring booze into my diet coke at the time.  Clearly decisions were made on how to spend the time on screen, but I thought the mirkwood part of the story held enough potential that it might have been fleshed out more.  Guess :moar battle:
 
2013-12-16 10:24:15 AM  

LoneDoggie: The CGI in any of the broad/long-shot scenes was terribad.  I guess they spent the money on the dragon, and for that they got a good result.


What's the deal with that? I haven't seen the new one yet but after having recently rewatched the LOTR trilogy and the first Hobbit I made the observation that the CGI seems to have not improved at all.
 
2013-12-16 10:28:00 AM  

browntimmy: LoneDoggie: The CGI in any of the broad/long-shot scenes was terribad.  I guess they spent the money on the dragon, and for that they got a good result.

What's the deal with that? I haven't seen the new one yet but after having recently rewatched the LOTR trilogy and the first Hobbit I made the observation that the CGI seems to have not improved at all.


Those computers cost money, gotta dollar-cost-average them over 15 years to get the best value.
 
2013-12-16 10:41:38 AM  

browntimmy: What's the deal with that? I haven't seen the new one yet but after having recently rewatched the LOTR trilogy and the first Hobbit I made the observation that the CGI seems to have not improved at all.


I think they made the decision to go with more CGI and fewer "bigatures" than LOTR. Most of the widescale shots of big stuff--Barad Dur, Orthanc, the giant statues on the Anduin, Treebeard--were made with actual models and then touched up in post. I think it really made a difference in lighting and surface effects, and made the result less CGI wankery and more breathtaking scenery. Some of the landscapes really looked hokey in this new movie, especially anything that involved twisted trees.

Blathering Idjut: How is it superfluous? Remember - this is film. This was a save the cat moment for the dwarves. Along with the choice the people of Lake Town make to set the dwarves free towards the mountain the fight to kill Smaug was meant to make them look less dickish than they do in the book for waking Smaug and killing thousands.


Well, that was the whole point. Thorin was a dick. He was obsessed with regaining his kingdom, devil take the hindmost. It was only at the end that he realized what his obsession had cost. He didn't give a goblin crap about what Smaug might do when Thorin waltzed back into Erebor, he just did it.
 
2013-12-16 11:00:01 AM  
Folks...FOLKS!  Don't you know that you have absolutely NO RIGHT to criticize *any* of PJ's films?  At least that's what this guy said during our last discussion on Tolkien.

Ishkur:ristst: But PJ omitted and changed a great deal of the story...not to mention the large amount of scenes in his versions that weren't even in the books to begin with.

When YOU spend up to $400 million dollars over six years on a film project and have a window of only maybe a week or two to make it all back and more, then you are free to criticize the way Hollywood makes its movies.

/I have been *thoroughly* put in my place
//the only group that can rightfully criticize a film are the folks who fund it
 
2013-12-16 11:08:03 AM  

LoneDoggie: Alphax: LoneDoggie: The CGI in any of the broad/long-shot scenes was terribad.  I guess they spent the money on the dragon, and for that they got a good result.

I might have missed it in all the rantings above (some justified, some notsomuch), but one thing I found odd was the decision to put in another Grima Wormtounge in lake town.  I'm supposing this means they'll have the Master have a change of heart or do something noble since we have this extraneous dude with bad teeth wearing black to really play the villain card to the end.

Also...

[i.imgur.com image 731x318]

Eh, I guess they could have shown them camping in Mirkwood more, but would it really help?

They actually didn't show them spend the night at all unless I was busy pouring booze into my diet coke at the time.  Clearly decisions were made on how to spend the time on screen, but I thought the mirkwood part of the story held enough potential that it might have been fleshed out more.  Guess :moar battle:


My guess is they filmed more of Mirkwood but it ended up on the cutting room floor during editing.  Gandalf made a very specific plea for everyone to "stay on the path", foreshadowing of course, that they won't and will get into trouble for it.  We didn't get to see any of that.
 
2013-12-16 11:35:54 AM  
The byplay between Pauly Shore and Adam Sandler was priceless.  I still cannot believe that Jackson cut down on Christopher Walken's screen time.
 
2013-12-16 11:56:31 AM  
You would have thought they'd put a metal grate over that exhaust port.
 
2013-12-16 12:06:05 PM  

thecpt:
wait until you see the river barrel scene where every good guy involved is more invincible than Neo.

Smaug scenes were excellent and the spiders were done well.  Everything else though...


Agreed, Smaug was great, but wow was the barrel riding scene just horrific.

That guy on the bike: Kinda hope it's more than just the 5 army battle


I have some bad news....
 
2013-12-16 12:10:38 PM  

ristst: Folks...FOLKS!  Don't you know that you have absolutely NO RIGHT to criticize *any* of PJ's films?  At least that's what this guy said during our last discussion on Tolkien.

Ishkur:ristst: But PJ omitted and changed a great deal of the story...not to mention the large amount of scenes in his versions that weren't even in the books to begin with.

When YOU spend up to $400 million dollars over six years on a film project and have a window of only maybe a week or two to make it all back and more, then you are free to criticize the way Hollywood makes its movies.

/I have been *thoroughly* put in my place
//the only group that can rightfully criticize a film are the folks who fund it


biatching about Ishkur is like biatching about the Sun.

/If the Sun were very very funny...
 
2013-12-16 12:24:22 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: There were people who saw the first Hobbit and thought "Man, I can't wait to see the second one?"


Yes, but then some of us are not internet fanboi's who have to shiat all over everything. It must be horrible to live a live of crass cynicism. I mean when you have to consume 1/5 of Jack Daniels to have any enjoyment in live what so ever it must be an awful affliction.
 
2013-12-16 12:26:31 PM  
PJ really, really, really likes his elves.  Insert more elves!  Have them kick more ass than the main characters at every possible opportunity!  Give them more screen time!  Make only one or two of them into douches like in the book!  More elves!  Love scene!  MORE ELVES, PETER JACKSON DEMANDS IT

/More Elves
//Didn't the elves dickishly draw the dwarves off the path in the first place?  Not so in this movie.  Can't have more than one elf being a dick
///It was wonderful watching Legolas bleed even if it was just a tiny bit.
 
2013-12-16 12:28:24 PM  

browntimmy: LoneDoggie: The CGI in any of the broad/long-shot scenes was terribad.  I guess they spent the money on the dragon, and for that they got a good result.

What's the deal with that? I haven't seen the new one yet but after having recently rewatched the LOTR trilogy and the first Hobbit I made the observation that the CGI seems to have not improved at all.


Because Weta Digital is *not* ILM!

/A.I., Pirates of the Carribean and War of the Worlds had better VFX than the last 2 LOTR films and King Kong
 
2013-12-16 12:34:53 PM  

bborchar: Tsar_Bomba1: So is the new Hobbit worth the IMAX price or just a regular showing?  Felt I got stiffed on the first one.

The dragon is completely worth the IMAX, 3D and HFR in my opinion- I can see now why he pushed for it so much...the dragon is spectacular.  The barrel scene had me a bit queasy but the rest of it was cool.  But the payoff was the dragon, hands down.


IMAX for this film: not worth it.

None of the film was shot in IMAX. It wasn't even film, it was 5K digital capture with a final 2K output (not even 4K!).

IMAX does not support Dolby Atmos or 7.1 either.

Save a little bit of money and see it in AMC ETX/Regal RPX or large-screen system that has 4K digital projection on a huge screen and advanced 3D audio.
 
2013-12-16 01:24:03 PM  

theorellior: He and Tauriel took out how many orcs with barely a scratch? Twenty? Thirty? The orcs in this movie were worse than Imperial stormtroopers. On top of that, both the scenes on the river with the barrels and the whole clusterfark in Erebor reminded me of the unending fight scene between the ape and the T. rex in "King Kong", another Jackson film that could have used some editing. They just went on and on, each trick with the barrels, each dodging of superhot dragonbreath more unlikely and ridiculous than the last.


As opposed to The Two Towers when a few hundred people held off 10000?
 
2013-12-16 01:52:03 PM  

LoneDoggie: What's the deal with that? I haven't seen the new one yet but after having recently rewatched the LOTR trilogy and the first Hobbit I made the observation that the CGI seems to have not improved at all.

Those computers cost money, gotta dollar-cost-average them over 15 years to get the best value.


New technology works best when the people involved with the new technology have something to prove. Like with Jurassic Park, half way though shooting, the CG geeks had to prove that they could make dinosaurs with CGI. Therefore, the dinos in JP look better than most CG FX thrown out in the next decade. Same thing here. It's about the VFX getting lazy. Innovation is expensive and only pays off once in a blue moon.

So everything is done with CG and It's all sort of cartoonish and pedestrian.
 
2013-12-16 02:01:09 PM  
I just have one request for Hobbit 3.

PJ, Please, oh please, oh please make Beorn turn into a giant wild boar with 6 inch tusks and plate barding when he fights in the 5 army battle. That would be awesom.

Please?
 
2013-12-16 02:07:25 PM  
There's a lot of hate in here, and most of it is deserved.  Jackson took a simply kid's book and shiat all over it with a terrible script.  Just for fun, I'll highlight the points I think they got right:

Beorn's house looked like I would have pictured.
Beorn himself looked pretty good, and the character was ok for the brief amount of time he was on screen.
Bilbo's increasing fascination with the ring.  Was willing to lie to Gandalf, and go all psycho stabby on a giant spider to regain the ring.
The scenes in Mirkwood showing how the forest plays on the minds of travelers was well done.
The spider's were creepy as they should have been.
The realm of the Sylvan elves looked good.
They got the part right about the elves getting blitzed and Bilbo stealing the keys.
They got the part right about Bilbo spiriting the dwarves out inside barrels (although they should have been sealed inside).
That was about it.

/You have keen eyes, burglar.  Cut to 400 foot dwarven statue...
 
2013-12-16 02:11:23 PM  

limeyfellow: As opposed to The Two Towers when a few hundred people held off 10000?


LOL. The whole point of Helm's Deep--and especially the Hornberg--was that it was impregnable. It was designed for a small number of defenders to hold off a besieging army while the populace sheltered in the caves. Saruman farked that up by inventing explosives, and then the shiat hit the fan.

Comparing that to the Incredible Bouncy Legolas and His Impregnable Skin is kinda dumb.
 
2013-12-16 02:15:46 PM  
I liked it. Legolas-we-can't-kill-him-so-there's-no-tension, and that wierd druid character, and that cool-then-silly dwarf/barrel/orc combat sequence was a bit much, but a good fantasy flick.

Smaug was great. Wish Bilbo would have been featured more.

Ending song was epic too. Have that on repeat. Wish there were more out there like it.
 
2013-12-16 02:21:07 PM  

chuggernaught: There's a lot of hate in here, and most of it is deserved.  Jackson took a simply kid's book and shiat all over it with a terrible script.  Just for fun, I'll highlight the points I think they got right:

Beorn's house looked like I would have pictured.
Beorn himself looked pretty good, and the character was ok for the brief amount of time he was on screen.
Bilbo's increasing fascination with the ring.  Was willing to lie to Gandalf, and go all psycho stabby on a giant spider to regain the ring.
The scenes in Mirkwood showing how the forest plays on the minds of travelers was well done.
The spider's were creepy as they should have been.
The realm of the Sylvan elves looked good.
They got the part right about the elves getting blitzed and Bilbo stealing the keys.
They got the part right about Bilbo spiriting the dwarves out inside barrels (although they should have been sealed inside).
That was about it.

/You have keen eyes, burglar.  Cut to 400 foot dwarven statue...


I liked that Tranduil was an asshole.
 
2013-12-16 07:20:20 PM  
  The thing that struck me most when I saw this on Saturday was that Jackson seemed to be trying to force the story of the Hobbit into the same mold of the LoTR and that each of the 2 Hobbit movies thus far has really been about using the tech now available with his bigger budget (sure he got a lot more leeway with this considering the success of the LoTR movies) to remake in essence a lot of the scenes from the first movies.  Goblin-town and Erebor both served as replacement Moria's and Laketown's buildings, though more densely packed, had an odd resemblance to Rohan (even the music for Laketown borrows heavily from the Rohan theme).  Hopefully he doesn't go full Lucas when it comes to retconning his own movies.
 
Displayed 138 of 138 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report