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  
•       •       •

1271 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 15 Dec 2013 at 2:25 PM (44 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report