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  
•       •       •

1289 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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 38 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 »
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