Heroes of Might and Magic Community
visiting hero! Register | Today's Posts | Games | Search! | FAQ/Rules | AvatarList | MemberList | Profile


Age of Heroes Headlines:  
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
6 Aug 2016: Troubled Heroes VII Expansion Release - read more
26 Apr 2016: Heroes VII XPack - Trial by Fire - Coming out in June! - read more
17 Apr 2016: Global Alternative Creatures MOD for H7 after 1.8 Patch! - read more
7 Mar 2016: Romero launches a Piano Sonata Album Kickstarter! - read more
19 Feb 2016: Heroes 5.5 RC6, Heroes VII patch 1.7 are out! - read more
13 Jan 2016: Horn of the Abyss 1.4 Available for Download! - read more
17 Dec 2015: Heroes 5.5 update, 1.6 out for H7 - read more
23 Nov 2015: H7 1.4 & 1.5 patches Released - read more
31 Oct 2015: First H7 patches are out, End of DoC development - read more
5 Oct 2016: Heroes VII development comes to an end.. - read more
[X] Remove Ads
LOGIN:     Username:     Password:         [ Register ]
HOMM1: info forum | HOMM2: info forum | HOMM3: info mods forum | HOMM4: info CTG forum | HOMM5: info mods forum | MMH6: wiki forum | MMH7: wiki forum
Heroes Community > Other Side of the Monitor > Thread: The official movie thread!
Thread: The official movie thread! This Popular Thread is 272 pages long: 1 30 60 90 120 ... 126 127 128 129 130 ... 150 180 210 240 270 272 · «PREV / NEXT»
blob2
blob2


Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
posted January 03, 2015 01:45 AM
Edited by blob2 at 01:56, 03 Jan 2015.

somi said:
So no, my mom did not order me to go and see it, and I suggest you to lover you fanboyism if you want to have a constructive and not flammable conversation.


A little bit of sarcasm here. I'm well aware that a lot of people watch movies like Hobbit cause they're fantasy fans, and it would be strange to not go see such a hyped movie. I won't stop people from not watching it and I don't want to of course, but some guys really give off the impression like they were watching it as a kind of punishment. "Thank God this is over!" blah blah, "Well, at least there won't be another one for a while!" blah blah. Seriously...

somi said:
From visual perspective it is a bad one because they went full CGI, with very little costumes, environment models and similar. A lot of characters where done full CGI where there was no need for it.

Camera angles, and scenes are done on average levels. This makes the movie look like a cartoon/game, and nothing like the feel of original LOTR (where they used a lot more scaled models and costumes for both characters and environments)


See, this is were I'm starting to scratch my head each time I see such a comment. Yes, there were more CGI effects then in the LotR and I'm well aware that computer graphics tend to "age" faster then real-life models but people seem to forget (or they simply do not notice) how much work was put into non-computer aspects of the movie, cause as a matter of fact, practically the same level as with LotR trilogy. And actually it's a matter of technology nowadays. Creators say themselves that CGI has reached such a level, that they can make things that were impossible to do a few years back. If you have the means to do so, why not use them? Plus, it lowers the costs of production, and additionally it's imposed by the producers (less people managment). Actors, costumes, weapons, armors, scenography, or were made the same way like in LotR. If we're talking about scaled models they didn't use so many of them cause there simply weren't that many structures to model. We didn't have structures like Isengard or Minas Tirith so it figures. We had more interiors, which were actual models or segments (like Lego blocks). Going back to teh subject, CGI was used in more dynamic scenes, in making of Smaug (that's a no-brainer actually), to "multiply" soldiers, and make creatures like trolls. If I were to believe some opinions I would think that this is an animated movie even! Fortunately I don't.

Oh, and it was mentioned here that Jackson said that he wanted to appeal to younger audience with some of the CGI heavy and over-the-top scenes in response for the critique about it. When something gives a different reaction then you originally fought would make, you're left with making strange excuses. Funny, when I saw people (only adults) watching the "barrel" scene back in Hobbit 2 in the cinema, they've looked in awe... and I've also had a blast with it, it's something I didn't see in any movie before, even if it's pure fiction. The only CGI heavy scenes I found strange was anti-gravity Legolas, but his a special case...

somi said:
They failed at character development. Except the main protagonist (that is one of the positive aspects of the movie) and the old ones from LOTR (not counting legolas, as he is a totally different personality compared to the LOTR),  most of others are forgettable, or remembered for bad reasons(love interest, over the top acting for a comedy relief-jar jar binks syndrome and similar).

Third thing is the love thing that was executed very poorly and clumsy and did not add anything to the move except to be a filler.

Forth thing - a lot of character with over the top acting that is common for bad kids movies/cartoon.



That's your take on the characters and your opinion. Very well. I'll share mine impressions (sorry for not using actual actor names): Thorin plays his role of momentary madness exceptionally. I really liked his role: first I was like "what the hell are you doing?" A character that I liked (and though I read the books and new what was coming) was beginning to be more and more disappointing, but he finally redeemed himself. Really, you didn't feel anything seeing this fine characters turning (and perfectly played) into someone like that? Thranduil came a long way from being a total douche, to a guy I somewhat respected at the end. Bard was not one of my favorites, but he played his role nicely. The lover duo was not my piece of the cake, but I know at least three people (woman actually) who were really moved by their story (kudos to the makers of the movie, original idea and they've managed to pull it off). Comedy relief? The only one I can think of was that Alfrid, the rest was ekhm "too busy" fighting for their lives (except for Bilbo, but that's how he is) to make comic relief reactions. Of course Freeman was incredible as Bilbo, so much better a protagonist then Frodo, but it's this seems one of the few things we agree on. And while that may really be a pity, character development was not the main focal point of this movie. There wasn't really that much time to "develop" characters cause it's the final chapter, it's main theme being a life-death battle. We had character development (mostly) in two earlier movies no?

And besides, what character development would you see if Hobbit was a 2,5 hours movie like so many people wanted it? The exacts same people would say: so many characters and I didn't even have a chance to know them! Maybe it would work if Jackson choose a "childrens book" adaptation approach, that but he choose a LotR-style take on it and God Bless him for that!

Oh and btw, am I the only one who cried a tear when the light in Smaug's eyes vanished, though his a villain?

somi said:
The movie didnt know what it wants to be. It tried to be a bad kid movie with very bland and irritating character that are there for shallow comedy, but on the other hand you have more mature perspective with all beheading and gore and somewhat dark tones for more grown ups, but with very stupid plot and over the top action. Stupid moves like elves jumping over falanx group of dwarves with full spears in arms in front of them . Its just very, very stupid parts like this (and there are a lot of them in all 3 movies) that force you to turn your brain off, and the worst thing is, there are not that many good parts to overshadow them.


Mind if I ask you sth? Are you serious? Did you really watch LotR trilogy? If so, why things that didn't bother you in LotR (or maybe they did) now make you say you had to turn off your brain? Examples? At least a dozen of Gimli's one-liners or comical relief scenes (like dwarf tossing or Warg sandwich to name a few). Or Mary and Pippins scenes? And were did you see all those comical characters? We also had various acrobatic scenes in LotR. And if you're referring to the elf on dwarf jump scene, I found it very cool, a perfect way to show how the orientation of battle changed.

The film takes on some serious themes like loyalty, greed or joining forces (and discarding pety quarrels) in face of a common enemy. Of course the movie is not about drug addiction or the feeling of modern-day alienation in society, but that is not the point here, no? It's a fantasy epic, with characters that represent some cannon, but it cannot be done otherwise.

somi said:
If you ask me do I want more movies in the LOTR world? Yes. But only if there will be put more effort in them to actually be good, and not a cheap cash cow dragged out to fit it to 3 movies.


Yeah right. With so much money already Jackson was really all about it from the beginning. His a Smaug deep down. Maybe it's the truth, who cares, but you can't discard the work, time, sweat, blood an tears that were put into this movie. I know every movie requires a lot of work, but seeing how Jackson movies are made, I really think they do at least double the amount... if you don't believe it, go watch some making of movies if you're interested (probably not)...

Plus the length of the movies "came out" somewhat in the process of making them, cause they've made so much material it would be a waste not to use it... besides NZ approves, the whole country makes a living from it

somi said:
And never ever be a fanboy. Fanboy and hateboys are generally bad things to be. Be a fan, like something, but acknowledge it bad parts, and that you can like things that are generally considered bad. There are a lot of good movies, that I dont like, and a lot of bad ones that I like.


How can I not be a fanboy when movies so dear to me are met with such baseless critique. Everyone wants to protect their beliefs, that's in our nature (of course, protecting it in a way different then words is when it gets dangerous). I just can't believe how some people who liked LotR movies (at least that's what they say) have gone for a 180 turn with the Hobbit movies. And I'm afraid I mostly don't find any convincing arguments in what they say. Sorry that's how I see it and I can't do nothing about it. Not in this case... Don't like it? Fine. But saying that the movies are complete rubbish makes my blood boil...

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Storm-Giant
Storm-Giant


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
posted January 03, 2015 02:20 AM
Edited by Storm-Giant at 02:24, 03 Jan 2015.

blob2 said:
Plus, it lowers the costs of production, and additionally it's imposed by the producers (less people managment).

Yes, because it must be next to impossible to successfully translate a 200 hundred pages book into a set of movies with over 500.000.000$ of budget! Yeah right

No, the problem with the Hobbit CGI is that it looks rather bad. I don't have the same appeal to rewatch LotR than the Hobbit because of the visuals. They overdo it, and I'm sure a bit more of traditional look would have made so much good for the films.

It's still early to say, but when I watched the new Star Wars film trailer it looked great, without overdoing CGI. I have high hopes in that trilogy.

blob2 said:
The lover duo was not my piece of the cake, but I know at least three people (woman actually) who were really moved by their story (kudos to the makers of the movie, original idea and they've managed to pull it off).

Sorry, but lol

blob2 said:
Comedy relief? The only one I can think of was that Alfrid, the rest was ekhm "too busy" fighting for their lives (except for Bilbo, but that's how he is) to make comic relief reactions.

aaand let's ignore that Alfrid gets more screen time than any dwarf of the company not named Thoring PLUS Beorn. And all for what? For absolutely NOTHING. Alfrid is a d***, all the scenes just show how awful he is and he always gets away with what he does. He is like a bad Jar Jar Binks, a utterly waste of time, money and snow.

blob2 said:
There wasn't really that much time to "develop" characters cause it's the final chapter, it's main theme being a life-death battle. We had character development (mostly) in two earlier movies no?

First yeah, second not really.

blob2 said:
somi said:
The movie didnt know what it wants to be. It tried to be a bad kid movie with very bland and irritating character that are there for shallow comedy, but on the other hand you have more mature perspective with all beheading and gore and somewhat dark tones for more grown ups, but with very stupid plot and over the top action. Stupid moves like elves jumping over falanx group of dwarves with full spears in arms in front of them . Its just very, very stupid parts like this (and there are a lot of them in all 3 movies) that force you to turn your brain off, and the worst thing is, there are not that many good parts to overshadow them.


Mind if I ask you sth? Are you serious? Did you really watch LotR trilogy? If so, why things that didn't bother you in LotR (or maybe they did) now make you say you had to turn off your brain? Examples? At least a dozen of Gimli's one-liners or comical relief scenes (like dwarf tossing or Warg sandwich to name a few). Or Mary and Pippins scenes? And were did you see all those comical characters? The film takes on some serious themes like loyalty, greed or joining forces (and discarding pety quarrels) in face of a common enemy. Of course the movie is not about drug addiction or the feeling of modern-day alienation in society, but that is not the point here, no? It's a fantasy epic, with characters that represent some cannon, but it cannot be done otherwise.

You completely miss his point. The BotFA scene were the dwarves form a falanx formation to hold the orc onslaught and then, the elves jump over them is simply stupid. That move totally destroys the tactical advantage dwarves formation gives, there's no way defending that.

blob2 said:
I just can't believe how some people who liked LotR movies (at least that's what they say) have gone for a 180 turn with the Hobbit movies. And I'm afraid I don't find any convincing arguments in what . Sorry that's how I see it and I can't do nothing about it. Not in this case... Don't like it? Fine. But saying it's complete rubbish makes my blood boil...

Personally I don't think that the Hobbit trilogy is rubbish, but it's a bloody mix of great and awful moments. With so much money, good actors and great story, it feels like a wasted opportunity. The trilogy could have been so much better with a bunch of changes.

Oh, and before you reply, I didn't watch LotR on the cinemas, actually I didn't read the books until 2004 or 2005, when I was young I tried but got bored at Bilbo's party. But to the point, there are quite a lot of things of the LotR movies that I don't like, in all three of them. The two three big battles are heavily changed (and not for good), they screwed Faramir's personality, the whole Rohan's Horseman army hiding in a single room at Helm's Deep, Legolas over the top action scenes (they scalate too much), the Witch King wiping Gandalf the White ass...

But still, all in all, the LotR trilogy feels like a solid package, very enjoyable to watch AND rewatch. The Hobbit not so. And that without entering in cutting important parts of the film to be saved for the Extended Edition, replacing the most important character of the Battle of the Five Armies (Beorn) with Legolas etc...
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blob2
blob2


Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
posted January 03, 2015 12:15 PM
Edited by blob2 at 12:22, 03 Jan 2015.

Finally, some sound arguments!

Storm-Giant said:
Yes, because it must be next to impossible to successfully translate a 200 hundred pages book into a set of movies with over 500.000.000$ of budget! Yeah right


Well, it's not that easy. We're talking about a movie that's a part of one of the biggest franchises in recent years. I'm talking about hordes of fans, great number of various merchandise. They HAD to make this movie as a part of an already existing setting. Besides I hear the argument about the book being short and all over and over again, but let me tell you: Tolkiens was one hell of a story-teller, and he left a lot of supplement material. And the movie is "based" on the story by Tolkien, it's an adaptation, so directors visions included.

Storm-Giant said:
No, the problem with the Hobbit CGI is that it looks rather bad. I don't have the same appeal to rewatch LotR than the Hobbit because of the visuals. They overdo it, and I'm sure a bit more of traditional look would have made so much good for the films.


Nothing beats real-life models but from my perspective Hobbit was in need of more CGI because of the material. Five armies were more "mixed" then those in LotR (we didn't have bats, ogres, mouflons etc there), and overall, in comparison to LotR there were more "critters" in the Hobbit movies. Plus, for or the value of costumes, thinking back on how much of an ordeal it was each time to "dress" the actors (cause it was, it takes a couple of hours per person, and one cannot simply wear such a costume all week ), they've probably decided to make more computer made goblins and orcs. And really, I don't find the movies CGI bad...

Storm-Giant said:
blob2 said:
The lover duo was not my piece of the cake, but I know at least three people (woman actually) who were really moved by their story (kudos to the makers of the movie, original idea and they've managed to pull it off).

Sorry, but lol


What? You see a womans opinion as insignificant? A movies main aim is to appeal to as many watchers as possible... like I said I wasn't interested in that plot element, but I've wanted to indicate that it made its purpose.

Storm-Giant said:
aaand let's ignore that Alfrid gets more screen time than any dwarf of the company not named Thoring PLUS Beorn. And all for what? For absolutely NOTHING. Alfrid is a d***, all the scenes just show how awful he is and he always gets away with what he does. He is like a bad Jar Jar Binks, a utterly waste of time, money and snow.


Now that you mention it, yeah they did waste time on him. That's one character that wasn't necessary. Though the scene with him hiding in disguise was kind of funny

Storm-Giant said:

You completely miss his point. The BotFA scene were the dwarves form a falanx formation to hold the orc onslaught and then, the elves jump over them is simply stupid. That move totally destroys the tactical advantage dwarves formation gives, there's no way defending that.


My bad, though I wanted to say those things anyway

Strategically yeah. But I find it a really cool scene (like I said, it was game-changing moment), and elves just wanted to show their way of doing things

Though the whole idea of a dwarven phalanx is a bit silly, cause their pint-sized and they don't form a "wall" in it's classical meaning. It's more of a "turtle" or a "porcupine" formation I think (yeah I know they've formed a line, but hey, I don't suppose they've met any Greeks or Romans?)...

Storm-Giant said:

Personally I don't think that the Hobbit trilogy is rubbish, but it's a bloody mix of great and awful moments. With so much money, good actors and great story, it feels like a wasted opportunity. The trilogy could have been so much better with a bunch of changes.


For me is as good as it can get (of course I would make some things different, but it's not in my hands). Though it's my opinion, and I accept yours

Storm-Giant said:
The two three big battles are heavily changed (and not for good), they screwed Faramir's personality, the whole Rohan's Horseman army hiding in a single room at Helm's Deep, Legolas over the top action scenes (they scalate too much), the Witch King wiping Gandalf the White ass...

But still, all in all, the LotR trilogy feels like a solid package, very enjoyable to watch AND rewatch. The Hobbit not so. And that without entering in cutting important parts of the film to be saved for the Extended Edition, replacing the most important character of the Battle of the Five Armies (Beorn) with Legolas etc...


Oh yes, some sacrifices had to be made for good or for worse, and some scenes could've been redone (like the Gandalf one you mentioned). There is no such thing as a perfect adaptation, because even if the movies were exactly like the books, people would say the director just copy-pasted, not adapted the book

Oh, and I've rewatched Hobbit 1 & 2 at least three times each already

On a side note I think that this time the Extended Edition will be far superior to the cinematic cut (just check the scenes which were omitted from the trailer like the Mouflon charge, or the chariot vs wargs). They've really made some bad choices here (15 seconds of Beorn, really? That was the biggest downer for me), so I do hope that the Extended Edition will deliver.

Once you watch the Extended Edition, there's no coming back for you . Of course a movie must defend on its own, but actually I think that Five Armies did a good job (except the ending that is).

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Storm-Giant
Storm-Giant


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
On the Other Side!
posted January 03, 2015 03:42 PM

blob2 said:
Well, it's not that easy. We're talking about a movie that's a part of one of the biggest franchises in recent years. I'm talking about hordes of fans, great number of various merchandise. They HAD to make this movie as a part of an already existing setting. Besides I hear the argument about the book being short and all over and over again, but let me tell you: Tolkiens was one hell of a story-teller, and he left a lot of supplement material. And the movie is "based" on the story by Tolkien, it's an adaptation, so directors visions included.

BS. Jackson had money and time to spare and you know it, had he wanted to rely on less CGI he would have find no problems or whatsoever.

And I perfectly know that the book doesn't cover everything that's going on at that time, in fact what I most enjoyed from this trilogy is Gandalf 'sidequest' to Dol Guldur. But even with that and LotR references & ties it isn't that much. I'm not against making three films of the Hobbit, but I'm convinced two films could have been far enough to cover the story.

blob2 said:
Nothing beats real-life models but from my perspective Hobbit was in need of more CGI because of the material. Five armies were more "mixed" then those in LotR (we didn't have bats, ogres, mouflons etc there), and overall, in comparison to LotR there were more "critters" in the Hobbit movies. Plus, for or the value of costumes, thinking back on how much of an ordeal it was each time to "dress" the actors (cause it was, it takes a couple of hours per person, and one cannot simply wear such a costume all week ), they've probably decided to make more computer made goblins and orcs. And really, I don't find the movies CGI bad...

Using CGI isn't necessarily bad, but overdoing it it is. You will hear no complains from me about CGI-ing characters like Smaug (he was excellent!), but Hell, in the last film Dain's face (beard, mouth...) looked to be made of CGI, a dwarf!

blob2 said:
What? You see a womans opinion as insignificant? A movies main aim is to appeal to as many watchers as possible... like I said I wasn't interested in that plot element, but I've wanted to indicate that it made its purpose.

No. I'm not the HC living misogynist here. But 3 woman liking the romance part doesn't make it good. The romance is so wrong, it starts because the dwarf made a "something down my pants" joke for snowing sake. It's awkard and doesn't bring anything to the story...apart from Legolas over the top action scenes. Which lead to Legolas replacing Beorn in BotFA. The second biggest mistake of the third film. Great

Aiming to appeal to as many watchers as possible doesn't justify everything. I don't recall Tolkien doing so in his books for the matter

blob2 said:
Storm-Giant said:

You completely miss his point. The BotFA scene were the dwarves form a falanx formation to hold the orc onslaught and then, the elves jump over them is simply stupid. That move totally destroys the tactical advantage dwarves formation gives, there's no way defending that.


My bad, though I wanted to say those things anyway

Strategically yeah. But I find it a really cool scene (like I said, it was game-changing moment), and elves just wanted to show their way of doing things

So the 'Elf way to do things' is getting both dwarves and elves slaughtered. And I'm supposed to enjoy that? /Facepalm

blob2 said:
Though the whole idea of a dwarven phalanx is a bit silly, cause their pint-sized and they don't form a "wall" in it's classical meaning. It's more of a "turtle" or a "porcupine" formation I think (yeah I know they've formed a line, but hey, I don't suppose they've met any Greeks or Romans?)...

Tolkien had many influences, and it's a fantasy world. Use your imagination

blob2 said:
On a side note I think that this time the Extended Edition will be far superior to the cinematic cut (just check the scenes which were omitted from the trailer like the Mouflon charge, or the chariot vs wargs). They've really made some bad choices here (15 seconds of Beorn, really? That was the biggest downer for me), so I do hope that the Extended Edition will deliver.

Once you watch the Extended Edition, there's no coming back for you . Of course a movie must defend on its own, but actually I think that Five Armies did a good job (except the ending that is).

I have no doubts that the Extended Edition will be much, so much better than the theatrical version. But there lies the issue, the EE should be about adding scenes to please die-hardcore fans, to add some LotR-connecting scenes; but not about cutting significant parts of the film (like the battle ending, or what happens with the Arkstone). That's bad.

And even the EE won't be able to fix some of the biggest problems of the third film.
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
fred79
fred79


Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 03, 2015 04:05 PM

i just read "the hobbit" for the first time, and am reading "the lord of the rings" trilogy atm. the books are much different from the movies. in some ways good, and in some ways bad. but they are enjoyable reads nonetheless. i definitely prefer the LOTR trilogy over "the hobbit" movies, though. i haven't seen the last one, but i will when i get internet back(i can't afford to go to the movies). the internet i'm borrowing now is far too slow to watch anything online.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blob2
blob2


Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
posted January 03, 2015 06:49 PM
Edited by blob2 at 18:52, 03 Jan 2015.

Storm-Giant said:
I'm not against making three films of the Hobbit, but I'm convinced two films could have been far enough to cover the story.


Well, maybe so. But that would mean one less movie to wait for Thank the Heavens there's still EE to wait for

Storm-Giant said:
but Hell, in the last film Dain's face (beard, mouth...) looked to be made of CGI, a dwarf!


?

Storm-Giant said:
No. I'm not the HC living misogynist here. But 3 woman liking the romance part doesn't make it good. The romance is so wrong, it starts because the dwarf made a "something down my pants" joke for snowing sake.


Well, you have to catch a womans attention somehow But seriously it's not for me to judge, I found their romance ok at most, but like I said, the point of my whole statement is that those opinions are coming from people who's judgement I trust. Of course it's not a great romance story, but enough to make my said female friends root for them (two of them didn't knew the book and didn't know what was coming). But let's drop it, overall that part of the movie is not what I'm most interested in...

Storm-Giant said:
Aiming to appeal to as many watchers as possible doesn't justify everything. I don't recall Tolkien doing so in his books for the matter


Some say that writers write books for themselves. In case of Tolkien it was a fruit of his fascination with Anglosaxon, German and Nordic mythology (aside from Hobbit, he wrote it to encourage his children to read books). It's only by chance that many people find them interesting and they gain popularity (like with G.R.R. Martin for instance). And if you're talking about romance, oh there were some serious ones going around (like the one LotR movies almost entirely omitted, and that they've only made a small hint about in RotK EE: the story of Faramir's and Eowyn's love).

Storm-Giant said:
So the 'Elf way to do things' is getting both dwarves and elves slaughtered. And I'm supposed to enjoy that? /Facepalm


Well, if you look on LotR movies in that way, you have a problem, cause the number of such "tactics" in every of those movies reaches the heights of silliness Like with Helms Deep for instance: what, did you think those elves didn't know they were gonna die? It's a fantasy movie for snow's sake! People ought to do heroic but suicidal things in them.

Storm-Giant said:
blob2 said:
Though the whole idea of a dwarven phalanx is a bit silly, cause their pint-sized and they don't form a "wall" in it's classical meaning. It's more of a "turtle" or a "porcupine" formation I think (yeah I know they've formed a line, but hey, I don't suppose they've met any Greeks or Romans?)...

Tolkien had many influences, and it's a fantasy world. Use your imagination


Now you're not getting my point I'm saying it was some kind of their own "variant" of a popular (Ancient European) tactic, they (dwarves) probably created themselves. Plus I don't remember if it's even mentioned in the books in any way, it's probably the movie creators, not Tolkiens idea...

Storm-Giant said:
And even the EE won't be able to fix some of the biggest problems of the third film.


We'll that's your opinion. For me it will probably be an even better version of a movie I really liked. And seeing how the movie was reduced in length in comparison to the other two (well not so much I guess, but still...) I'm hoping for at least an hour of additional footage!

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
somi
somi


Known Hero
posted January 03, 2015 10:07 PM
Edited by somi at 22:13, 03 Jan 2015.

blob2 said:

A little bit of sarcasm here. I'm well aware that a lot of people watch movies like Hobbit cause they're fantasy fans, and it would be strange to not go see such a hyped movie. I won't stop people from not watching it and I don't want to of course, but some guys really give off the impression like they were watching it as a kind of punishment. "Thank God this is over!" blah blah, "Well, at least there won't be another one for a while!" blah blah. Seriously...


And nothing wrong with that also. Anyone needs to watched the move for the first time(because again he cant know is it good or not until he goes to the movie theater and sits there to watch it, and in that time he can feel so bad about it that standing up and walking out of it is a problem because you know it is a theater). So there is probably some truth in it. You can complain about it if after watching it he would go against to do the same torture . Than he was probably forced by someone that did not survive that torture .


blob2 said:

See, this is were I'm starting to scratch my head each time I see such a comment. Yes, there were more CGI effects then in the LotR and I'm well aware that computer graphics tend to "age" faster then real-life models but people seem to forget (or they simply do not notice) how much work was put into non-computer aspects of the movie, cause as a matter of fact, practically the same level as with LotR trilogy. And actually it's a matter of technology nowadays. Creators say themselves that CGI has reached such a level, that they can make things that were impossible to do a few years back. If you have the means to do so, why not use them? Plus, it lowers the costs of production, and additionally it's imposed by the producers (less people managment). Actors, costumes, weapons, armors, scenography, or were made the same way like in LotR. If we're talking about scaled models they didn't use so many of them cause there simply weren't that many structures to model. We didn't have structures like Isengard or Minas Tirith so it figures. We had more interiors, which were actual models or segments (like Lego blocks). Going back to teh subject, CGI was used in more dynamic scenes, in making of Smaug (that's a no-brainer actually), to "multiply" soldiers, and make creatures like trolls. If I were to believe some opinions I would think that this is an animated movie even! Fortunately I don't.

Oh, and it was mentioned here that Jackson said that he wanted to appeal to younger audience with some of the CGI heavy and over-the-top scenes in response for the critique about it. When something gives a different reaction then you originally fought would make, you're left with making strange excuses. Funny, when I saw people (only adults) watching the "barrel" scene back in Hobbit 2 in the cinema, they've looked in awe... and I've also had a blast with it, it's something I didn't see in any movie before, even if it's pure fiction. The only CGI heavy scenes I found strange was anti-gravity Legolas, but his a special case...


It doesnt matter how much work is put in something, the thing what maters is how the end product is. Creator will say anything to sell the product/make a excuse for something. The fact is, we do not have yet technology to do everything with CGI and for it to look real. Its very easy for human eye to see CGI, and that is the problem. Yes, its cheaper and easier to do, but it also looks a lot worse and is not a excuse to do it if you want your movie to look good. CGI was used a lot more in hobbits, and there is no denying it. The areas that did not need them, from orc/goblins to main villains, environments and similar (and most of new environment could and should have been done in models unlike what you say).  

There is a reason why so many people said to much CGI, because there was. I mean you can disagre, the only way I can show you is get there, play the movie one next to other and show it to your face how it is done right in LOTR . But if you say it has same amount of CGI as LOTR, there is nothing to comment about anymore, as that is the basic thing that is extremely easy to see.

Yea, the barrel scene are one of the bad things, over the top (turn your brain off) that all people I know didnt like. In fact, there is no person that I know that liked the hobbit. And the funny thing is, my brother while watching the last movie fall asleep... and I am not joking, he snowing fall asleep in middle of the movie and was in that state for few minutes. Person who is much bigger fan than me, as he actually read several of the books. It was after work, but still.

And thank god we did not see those scenes in more movies, as they are not that good for a quality movie. It's more in the range of action pack forgettable movies(turn your brain off) or cartoons. Shame it was not the only one as the movie is full of similar stupid scenes.

blob2 said:


That's your take on the characters and your opinion. Very well. I'll share mine impressions (sorry for not using actual actor names): Thorin plays his role of momentary madness exceptionally. I really liked his role: first I was like "what the hell are you doing?" A character that I liked (and though I read the books and new what was coming) was beginning to be more and more disappointing, but he finally redeemed himself. Really, you didn't feel anything seeing this fine characters turning (and perfectly played) into someone like that? Thranduil came a long way from being a total douche, to a guy I somewhat respected at the end. Bard was not one of my favorites, but he played his role nicely. The lover duo was not my piece of the cake, but I know at least three people (woman actually) who were really moved by their story (kudos to the makers of the movie, original idea and they've managed to pull it off). Comedy relief? The only one I can think of was that Alfrid, the rest was ekhm "too busy" fighting for their lives (except for Bilbo, but that's how he is) to make comic relief reactions. Of course Freeman was incredible as Bilbo, so much better a protagonist then Frodo, but it's this seems one of the few things we agree on. And while that may really be a pity, character development was not the main focal point of this movie. There wasn't really that much time to "develop" characters cause it's the final chapter, it's main theme being a life-death battle. We had character development (mostly) in two earlier movies no?

And besides, what character development would you see if Hobbit was a 2,5 hours movie like so many people wanted it? The exacts same people would say: so many characters and I didn't even have a chance to know them! Maybe it would work if Jackson choose a "childrens book" adaptation approach, that but he choose a LotR-style take on it and God Bless him for that!

Oh and btw, am I the only one who cried a tear when the light in Smaug's eyes vanished, though his a villain?


After 3 movies, except the love dwarf (and its a bad thing as pointed out, and some random women  liking it doesnt change that) and the leader, I do not know any of them. The fat dwarf I know because of his looks more than his character. And thats it. First LOTR movie for 2.5 h has more memorable and developed characters than 3 movies of hobbit combined.

You can have great character development in one movie if done right. But i doubt he would pull it off when he didn't do it with 3 movies.

blob2 said:

Mind if I ask you sth? Are you serious? Did you really watch LotR trilogy? If so, why things that didn't bother you in LotR (or maybe they did) now make you say you had to turn off your brain? Examples? At least a dozen of Gimli's one-liners or comical relief scenes (like dwarf tossing or Warg sandwich to name a few). Or Mary and Pippins scenes? And were did you see all those comical characters? We also had various acrobatic scenes in LotR. And if you're referring to the elf on dwarf jump scene, I found it very cool, a perfect way to show how the orientation of battle changed.

The film takes on some serious themes like loyalty, greed or joining forces (and discarding pety quarrels) in face of a common enemy. Of course the movie is not about drug addiction or the feeling of modern-day alienation in society, but that is not the point here, no? It's a fantasy epic, with characters that represent some cannon, but it cannot be done otherwise.


Gimli one liners are nothing compared to barrel riders with elf jumping over their heads, whole dwarf scene with the dragon fight, over the top nonsense, to goblins dancing and singing (dont watch extended edition, its even worse in it, or do it like me, watch the cut scenes on youtube so not to waste watching the whole movie again),  dwarf dancing/eating/singing/door dropping/plate throwing, ,elves wanting to get but speared from dwarves to pooped/drugged mages and ton and ton other things. Give me one liners any time, than crap like that.

The film try to take on some serious things, but it drops flat at the execution, and too many brain turn off scenes that are just simply dumb. And LOTR had few of them also, but at least it is few short scenes in the whole trilogy(legolas killing a mammoth or the shield riding crap). In hobbit you can make a whole movie from them. And as said very little good things to overshadow them  

blob2 said:


Yeah right. With so much money already Jackson was really all about it from the beginning. His a Smaug deep down. Maybe it's the truth, who cares, but you can't discard the work, time, sweat, blood an tears that were put into this movie. I know every movie requires a lot of work, but seeing how Jackson movies are made, I really think they do at least double the amount... if you don't believe it, go watch some making of movies if you're interested (probably not)...

Plus the length of the movies "came out" somewhat in the process of making them, cause they've made so much material it would be a waste not to use it... besides NZ approves, the whole country makes a living from it


I pity so much work and time invested in a product that in the end is juts not good. And as said, working a lot on a movie, investing ton of money and time doesnt mean anything or say anything about the movie quality, and never will.

blob2 said:


How can I not be a fanboy when movies so dear to me are met with such baseless critique. Everyone wants to protect their beliefs, that's in our nature (of course, protecting it in a way different then words is when it gets dangerous). I just can't believe how some people who liked LotR movies (at least that's what they say) have gone for a 180 turn with the Hobbit movies. And I'm afraid I mostly don't find any convincing arguments in what they say. Sorry that's how I see it and I can't do nothing about it. Not in this case... Don't like it? Fine. But saying that the movies are complete rubbish makes my blood boil...

You just need to accept than that you disagree with people and move on and not go around and attack people. I dont know what to tell you, as you your self say you are a fanboy and as most fanboys pointing out things that are wrong with the movie will be ignored. The turn for 180 wad done for a reason as i said in the few posts here. You acknowledge them as thing that are not good, or you dont, but you should not get surprised for people thinking this movie is bad. There is a reason for it, you see it or you dont. I tried to point out reasons with my crappy english.

So lets agree to disagree so we don't waste more time on it, as we will probably move in circles.  I am not used to write so long text in english as it takes me some time, and it probably has a ton of errors, so sorry for that.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
blob2
blob2


Undefeatable Hero
Blob-Ohmos the Second
posted January 04, 2015 12:15 AM
Edited by blob2 at 00:18, 04 Jan 2015.

@somi

Read some of my other posts (I know it's quite a lot of boring stuff to read, but you're referring to only one of them ). I've explained some more of my thoughts about the movie, for instance that I don't claim that Hobbit movies have the same amount of CGI as LotR. Nevertheless that does not change the fact that I really liked those Hobbit movies. It's as simple as that, so you're right, let's not go in circles

I liked my conversation with Storm, because at least he shed some light on the things that many other people find bad about the Hobbit. Of course that does not mean I agree with them, but everyone of us has the right to have his/her own opinion.

I guess that's what makes people different

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 08, 2015 12:06 AM

I saw Ask Me Anything, a very interesting and original movie. It's about a teenage girl who is quite lost, definitely not a likeable person in the classical sense but the writing is good and the character is dimensional and she feels real, so you like her. The best thing the film does is actually, it presents you interesting, unique characters. From the old book store owner who is an ex convict from a sex offense to the broker guy with trophy wife and kid but who has a dark humor about life, everybody is interesting and original without overdoing it and getting artificial. There is a twist in the end but I dont know if it makes everything a real story based on a teenager's blog or if it's Fargo kind of "real story."  If you like drama and films that are closer to literature, focusing on character development, this is certainly worth the time.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
EDN
EDN

Tavern Dweller
posted January 08, 2015 11:04 AM

I haven't seen and won't ever see the Hobbit movies, they simply doesn't seem interesting... I read the book, and that's more than enough for me.

Watched Dog Day Afternoon with Al  Pacino yesterday, good movie! ATTICA! ATTICA! .. Anyway, me and my girl has been watching one movie every day lately, trying to get through my list of about 100 movies. Going to take time, but it's gonna be fun! 14 movies each month, so I might be finished in a year

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Adrius
Adrius


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
posted January 13, 2015 06:13 PM

What are we?

Hahahaha. Really gotta watch this one...
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
DagothGares
DagothGares


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
posted January 13, 2015 07:53 PM

Been going through some classic animation films with my gyarufurendo. We've watched "Jin-Ro: The Wolf Brigade," "Ninja Scroll," Miyazaki's works, "Grave of the Fireflies," and soon I'll be watching "Ghost in the Shell" and "Sword of the Stranger."

I liked them all, else I wouldn't be rewatching them, obviously.
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Stevie
Stevie


Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
posted January 14, 2015 09:48 AM
Edited by Stevie at 09:49, 14 Jan 2015.







This is actually happening lol.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Adrius
Adrius


Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Stand and fight!
posted January 14, 2015 10:16 AM
Edited by Adrius at 14:23, 14 Jan 2015.

What we do in the Shadows was an absolutely hilarious film.. mockumentary following three vampire flatmates in New Zeeland.

It's bloody brilliant, pun absolutely intended. Haven't laughed this much at a comedy since Borat.

First six minutes
____________

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
emilsn91
emilsn91


Supreme Hero
posted January 17, 2015 11:26 AM

The Interview

I saw The Interview the other day.

I laughed. I thought it was a stupid movie filled with bad poop jokes and dick jokes.. but I laughed. I didn't laugh my a** off, but I laughed and I enjoyed the movie. There were one scene where it in my eyes went too far (the last scene in the control room didn't really make me laugh)

James Franco's character was horrible and annoying, but it was a well played part taking the movie into consideration.

All in all it was too hyped, and the hype did not do anything for the movie, but a fine movie.

6 out of 10 on IMDB from me.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 17, 2015 01:23 PM
Edited by artu at 16:37, 17 Jan 2015.

Enemy: A very stylish, metaphorical movie about married life and the feeling of "entrapment" that comes with it, watch it if you want something to remind you that cinema is art.

The Judge: Formulaic Hollywood drama but crafted well, especially the acting and especially Robert Duvall, not great but worth the time.

Predestination: They made this story a movie, nothing more, nothing less.

John Wick: Incredibly stupid action movie where a dialog between a Russian mob boss and a professional hitman, which comes down to this, was actually scripted (spoiler):
- Tell me where your son is, so I can go kill him, if you do, I'll let you, the mob boss go free, I wont fear revenge. Oh, and you should also promise to pull off that contract on my head.
- Okay, hitman. I take your word. My son is in this address exactly.  Go kill him but know that a small army is already waiting for you.
- That wont change anything. In this movie, they always come at me one by one so that I can take a headshot, no matter the numbers.

____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Tsar-Ivor
Tsar-Ivor


Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
posted January 18, 2015 03:26 AM

I tried watching the Hobbit, got to 22min and then I gave up. Bottom line, it made me feel physically sick, and very awkward to watch.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | PP | Quote Reply | Link
emilsn91
emilsn91


Supreme Hero
posted January 18, 2015 11:28 AM

artu said:


John Wick: Incredibly stupid action movie where a dialog between a Russian mob boss and a professional hitman, which comes down to this, was actually scripted (spoiler):
- Tell me where your son is, so I can go kill him, if you do, I'll let you, the mob boss go free, I wont fear revenge. Oh, and you should also promise to pull off that contract on my head.
- Okay, hitman. I take your word. My son is in this address exactly.  Go kill him but know that a small army is already waiting for you.
- That wont change anything. In this movie, they always come at me one by one so that I can take a headshot, no matter the numbers.



John Wick was a great action movie! Stupid plot, but Taken had a stupid plot as well to name a more recent action film. I actually liked it.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
artu
artu


Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
posted January 18, 2015 12:13 PM

What is great about it? The plot is dull and moronic, the characters are one-dimensional, the acting varies between horrible and mediocre, the fighting scenes choreography is uncreative and unbelievable... The film has no pros but only cons, put aside being great. If it's an action movie, we should adjust our expectations to a bottomless level of low is a mentality caused by the recent increase in the number of bad action films out there but I refuse to be a part of it. Good action films that doesnt require you to shut off your brain completely can be and had been made.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Pawek_13
Pawek_13


Supreme Hero
Maths, maths everywhere!
posted January 18, 2015 02:30 PM

Stevie said:
This is actually happening lol.

For me, the whole book series and the upcoming movie is a soft porn for middle class and aged women that are unhappy with their sexual lives.
Recently I've seen "Psycho" for the first time. The atmosphere of this movie is really dense and me feel uncanny unlike any previously seen movie.

 Send Instant Message | Send E-Mail | View Profile | Quote Reply | Link
Jump To: « Prev Thread . . . Next Thread » This Popular Thread is 272 pages long: 1 30 60 90 120 ... 126 127 128 129 130 ... 150 180 210 240 270 272 · «PREV / NEXT»
Post New Poll    Post New Topic    Post New Reply

Page compiled in 0.3737 seconds