The Hobbit - Part 1

King Kong was pretty good as well I thought. Nothing mind-blowing, but a damn satisfying action flick.

Also, voice for Smaug? It was been ten years or more since I read the book, but does he really talk? And the Necromancer is Sauron, right?
 
I much prefer King Kong and District 9 to any of the LOTR. Though that's not saying much, as I really didn't care for any of them. Though that's probably the books' faults more than its Jackson's.

Edit: Welp, he only produced D9.
 
King Kong was a terrible, overwrought, CG infested monstrosity of a film. The only thing they could have done to make it less convincing would have been to actually show the actors against a green screen and remove any pretence of an illusion.

Edit: Same goes for the latter two LOTR films, to be perfectly honest. Loved Fellowship, Two Towers wasn't bad, but christ Return of the King reminded me more of the Star Wars prequels than anything. Legolas can get ****ed with his smug invincible jedi ninja bullshit.

Another edit: While I'm at it I'll just go ahead and completely discredit my opinion by saying I really liked Frighteners. :>

Haters etc.
 
I know exactly what you mean, but your comparison to the SW prequels really connects my point. Much like with Avatar, King Kong gave me a completely fake world I could believe was real. It may have been an empty illusion, but it was a convincing and seamless one (although you seem to disagree with that fundamentally. I haven't seen it in a while, but I thought it looked rather good), whereas LOTR just reeks of choppy, disjointed, and fake throughout all three, to me. Fellowship is a lot better though, now that you mention it. It might actually beat KK if I watched them both again. Anyway, King Kong is Avatar and LOTR is the Star Wars prequels. They're both pretty not good.
 
What the **** people. I don't even.

I watch the extended editions in order like every two months. Fellowship is my favorite, followed by ROTK. I don't see how you can put the masturbatory CGI-fest King Kong on a pedestal on the same planet as LOTR much less right next to or god forbid above it. Same with the Star Wars prequels to be honest. In my book, LOTR is right up there with the original Star Wars trilogy in terms of must-watch must-own pieces of timeless cinema.

How do the few silly moments (Legolas skateboarding down the steps in Two Towers, running up the elephant in ROTK, etc) and a few issues like the total flattening of Gimli and Legolas as characters and the homoerotic mockery of the Frodo/Sam relationship make the rest (read: vast, vast majority) of the films bad? Do you guys just hate the books or what?
 
The books were a chore to read, really... except for The Hobbit, that was genuinely fun to read.
I love the movies to death though, I tend to watch them all in order atleast once a year.

As for King Kong, it's a fun movie and I love the interactions between Kong and Ann but it does have a ton of issues.(terrible use of slomo, being way WAY too god damned long, a completely out of place Jack Black, and again... it's too ****ing long)
 
Ennui said:
What the **** people. I don't even.

I watch the extended editions in order like every two months. Fellowship is my favorite, followed by ROTK. I don't see how you can put the masturbatory CGI-fest King Kong on a pedestal on the same planet as LOTR much less right next to or god forbid above it. Same with the Star Wars prequels to be honest. In my book, LOTR is right up there with the original Star Wars trilogy in terms of must-watch must-own pieces of timeless cinema.

How do the few silly moments (Legolas skateboarding down the steps in Two Towers, running up the elephant in ROTK, etc) and a few issues like the total flattening of Gimli and Legolas as characters and the homoerotic mockery of the Frodo/Sam relationship make the rest (read: vast, vast majority) of the films bad? Do you guys just hate the books or what?
Click to expand...

Here, here. I mean everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to call LotR a bad piece of cinema just tells me your standards are so impeccably high that are you positively incapable of having fun at the movies. Yes, the films are in no way perfect. The pacing is uneven, but that is attributable to the books themselves. Frankly, the adaptation by Welsh and Jackson is an amazing feat as it is. As for two dimensional characters? Yes, they are somewhat flat, and given little outside of a bit of character development. Yet there are still moments of beauty and charm and genuine sadness in these films that make me still heavily invested in the fates of Frodo and Sam and the majority of the others by the end. A hell of a lot more than I have been by most characters in "deeper", character driven dramas. Gandalf's wonderfully spoken speeches ("and so do all who live to see such times.."), Frodo in the dying moments of Mordor (" I'm glad to be with you, Samwise Gamgee, here at the end of all things.") and even King Theoden's call to arms before Rohan's charge on Pelennor Fields, which gives me some of the greatest shivers up my spine I have ever experienced in a film. These are all beautifully realised moments, and I honestly pity one who could not enjoy them. That's not to mention the memorable music score, the stunning cinematography, the well choreographed and orchestrated action set-pieces..
 
To be perfectly honest I haven't seen them in a while, so my memory could be exaggerating the bad bits. This calls for a rewatchening.
 
The Return of the King is by far the worst of the three. It has many questionable moments. The presence of the Ghosts in the Battle of Pelennor Fields ruins the entire allegory of how mankind are able to stand on their own feet, and thus capable of taking over the leading role on Middle-Earth from the elves. It seems that all the sacrifices made previously during the battle are rendered irrelevant when these Ghosts are able to just swarm out and kill everything in its path. Another problem is the rushed pacing of the film following the battle. No closure at all is given to several key characters (Faramir, Eowyn, Eomer, Gimli and Legolas to name a few).

The Extended Edition also contains the single worst abomination of a scene in the whole trilogy. It's the one where the Witchking of Angmar (the leading Nazgul) confronts Gandalf on the walls of Minas Tirith, and subsequently destroys his staff. To think that a Nazgul would stand even the slightest chance against a Maia like Gandalf is beyond ridiculous.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a good movie, with tons of memorable moments (I especially like the portrayal of Minas Tirith in the movie; it was exceptionally well made), but I can't ever for the life of me understand how people can say it's the best of the three.
 
a14rQ.png
 
...A new character?

What are you doing Mr. Jackson?
 
fingers crossed we might actually see evangeline lilly's character die after the disappointment her survival caused in that abortion of a show lost.

not likely though. eh, she's going to be a part of the elf scenes, i'm not too fussed about a new character being added there.
 
Abortion of a show?
Are you TRYING to start a flame war?
 
lost is awful. pretty sure people are familiar with my stance on the show, if not under knut then under theantipop.
 
They probably felt the need to add some female characters, as not a single woman appears in the novel as I can recall.
 
It's a suitable role for Lilly - I don't think there's any acting required for Elves.
 
Yorick said:
Pretty sure people are familiar with your idiocy.
Click to expand...

is that you samon? is this me?

relax, i'm just not a fan of lost. it's putrid depth, characters, pacing and story just doesn't match up to the standards of other television from around and even before the same time it was made. i can't help it if i think characters from the sopranos, who you are made to dislike, are much more enjoyable or believable then any of the trash found in lost's revolving-door of awful. i just have too higher standards for that kind of childish rubbish!

don't hate me :(
 
I've got to back up all of the people who are saying that LoTR was shit. It has really really cheesy dialogue, cheesy kung-fu action scenes. Almost all of the characters are flat stereotypes of actual characters. The CGI takes centre stage over story and characters. At the time, the CGI was really impressive, so I thought that was cool. But going back and rewatching it by todays standards, it just doesn't age well.
 
knut said:
is that you samon? is this me?

relax, i'm just not a fan of lost. it's putrid depth, characters, pacing and story just doesn't match up to the standards of other television from around and even before the same time it was made. i can't help it if i think characters from the sopranos, who you are made to dislike, are much more enjoyable or believable then any of the trash found in lost's revolving-door of awful. i just have too higher standards for that kind of childish rubbish!

don't hate me :(
Click to expand...

Now you're just trolling.
 
I agree with knut 100% honestly. Lost is just sloppily written in just about every department. It's not trolling to express a valid opinion. Just because you were hopelessly addicted to a TV show doesn't mean it's good. I'll admit there are shows I've gobbled up regardless of the fact that they are poorly written and silly.

Disclaimer: I only watched seasons 1-3 fully, only piecemeal of 4 and 5 and most of 6.

Also if people want to continue expressing their anger and/or disbelief that people don't share the same opinions as you, start a new thread about it because this one is about The Hobbit.
 
Lucid said:
Now you're just trolling.
Click to expand...

...

... so anyway, back on topic and speaking of which: dead excited for the troll scene in the hobbit. loved the reference to it in LOTR.
 
I think after I finish the A Clash of Kings I'm going to reread The Hobbit. I haven't read it since 4th grade or something, I barely remember a thing about it.
 
Ennui said:
Also if people want to continue expressing their anger and/or disbelief that people don't share the same opinions as you, start a new thread about it because this one is about The Hobbit.
Click to expand...

I don't believe this is the problem. People can hate on Lost or any other show all they want, I don't even care. It does bother me when people go "MY STANDARDS ARE WAY TOO HIGH FOR YOUR SHITTY ASS SHOWS" though.
 
And choosing The Sopranos as a way of flaunting said superiority over a show like, say... Six Feet Under or The Wire?
 
Seven years of this and we still have to stamp an "imo" on our tastes, as if the only way to have an adult conversation about this stupid shit is to qualify everything as mere opinion. "You can't say that, taste is SUBJECTIVE!!!" Yeah, so is me wanting to punch you in the neck for being a big whiny baby person. How about you learn to detach yourself from your tastes so you can actually defend them honestly instead of telling us all about how the mean man made you feel bad for liking the shitty movie.
 
taviow said:
I don't believe this is the problem. People can hate on Lost or any other show all they want, I don't even care. It does bother me when people go "MY STANDARDS ARE WAY TOO HIGH FOR YOUR SHITTY ASS SHOWS" though.
Click to expand...

sorry, but it's the truth. it would be no different then you putting your nose up to whatever tv show or movie you decide not to like, it just appears that i seem to have hit a nerve with disliking lost. whudda thunk it, after six seasons of absolute drivel!

Lucid said:
And choosing The Sopranos as a way of flaunting said superiority over a show like, say... Six Feet Under or The Wire?
Click to expand...

well, i was going to say the wire but then i use that in all of my arguments, so instead i went for the next best show to portray fantastic writing in characters. have you never seen the sopranos? it sounds like you are insinuating that it isn't to held to a same degree as six feet under or the wire. of course, that is subjective, but it's a little... weird. whilst i shouldn't normally care about ratings, awards, nominations, categories or general census, it's pretty wildly regarded as one of the tv greats these last 10 years.

but yeah, i would consider the show superior to lost. in all honesty, there isn't much comparison, but that shouldn't be any reason not to compare how characters are developed, or how pacing is done just perfectly . in my eyes, the sopranos trumps it ten fold. so i will use it against it, thank you very much.

MOVING ON.
 
Yorick said:
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Click to expand...

what an incredible contribution to the thread and/or argument.

now, shall we get back to talking about the hobbit, or continue getting all frothy and worked up - over the internet, no less! :LOL: - about someones opinion over such fecal matter like lost? yeah, i'd much rather talk about the hobbit, personally.

ennui, i was the opposite to what to you are doing. i polished off the hobbit before i started a game of thrones. it was a cracking read, as always. do forget how funny that book is. cannot wait to see martin freeman as bilbo, he brings such a charm to all of his characters.
 
knut said:
about someones opinion over such fecal matter like lost?
Click to expand...

It's cute how you keep sneaking things like that into your posts, claiming to want to move the conversation forward while making attempts at subtle trolling. It's a shame you're too stupid to do it right.

You didn't "Hit a nerve" by expressing a dislike of Lost, at least not mine. I know plenty of people who dislike it for valid reasons. It's saying "I have higher standards", "it's childish rubbish", "it's fecal matter", that just makes you sound like a complete moron.

You should watch more television so that you understand what bad shows actually are. Lost wasn't perfect, but dismissing it as being awful without any real argument except a brief line about how the pacing and writing were weak just makes it sound like you're trying to hate on something to be cool.

I haven't weighed in on this topic (I don't think?), so now is a good time. I generally despise Tolkien's writing, but I actually did quite like the Hobbit. Martin Freeman should be able to play the character of Bilbo wonderfully, given what I saw of him in the mediocre adaptation of Hitchhiker's Guide.

I'm surprised that some of you really love the LOTR films. They aren't bad films, but they do feel mediocre to me. It's not the fault of the studio so much as the source material. The characters are rather flat, and the story is often quite bland. I saw all three LOTR movies in theatres, and I have to admit to being, well, bored through most of them.
 
The writing style of LotR was a tribute to Tolkien's influences, most notably in Beowolf. This accounts for its rather straight-forward, descriptive language and the limited use of allegories. Regardless of what you think of this approach, you have to respect the amount of work he put in in creating a fictional world with an enormous detail to its languages, history and mythology. In my opinion he came closer to creating a truly living and vibrant world than anyone has before or since, and Jackson & co did a tremendous, if imperfect, job in adapting that world to fit the cinematic art form.
 
LotR films are to LotR books what Beowulf 3D was to the original poem or what Troy was to Homer's The Iliad.
 
Yorick said:
It's cute how you keep sneaking things like that into your posts, claiming to want to move the conversation forward while making attempts at subtle trolling. It's a shame you're too stupid to do it right.

You didn't "Hit a nerve" by expressing a dislike of Lost, at least not mine. I know plenty of people who dislike it for valid reasons. It's saying "I have higher standards", "it's childish rubbish", "it's fecal matter", that just makes you sound like a complete moron.

You should watch more television so that you understand what bad shows actually are. Lost wasn't perfect, but dismissing it as being awful without any real argument except a brief line about how the pacing and writing were weak just makes it sound like you're trying to hate on something to be cool.
Click to expand...

right, because i'm the most brash person in the film & television forum to this day. you aren't going to get shirty with samon at least? the guy's far more blunt then i'll ever be with his criticism, or passed off attempts, and i'm almost 100% certain i've seen you acting similar. i suspect i could probably search a transformers thread and find something just as equal to me calling lost fecal matter or childish rubbish, if not the exact!

the reason i don't go into specifics is because this thread is titled the hobbit, not lost. i might have some crits in the old lost thread, or actually even some praise for it. i quite liked it a couple of years ago, then i rewatched it and wanted to gouge out my eyes.

oh, and i watch plenty of television. too much, you could say. so much so that when i weigh up lost to such favourites as the wire, the sopranos, breaking bad, rome, hill street blues, band of brothers, dexter, game of thrones, curb your enthusiasm, the thick of it, the corner, homicide, arrested development and whatever else is sitting on my shelf at university that i do so fancy as good television. i think that's enough to compare what i think 'bad' is with what i think 'good' is, but need i not remind you that mine or your word as to what good or bad television is irrelevant, as it's opinion, so i'm afraid you telling me what you think a bad show is and why you think lost isn't one of them isn't going to cut it. i think it is bad, personally.
 
ach i mean nothing by it, i'm just saying it's not like i'm the first to call out on things in a such a brutish manner and i know the two of you are quite chummy so i thought it a bit odd, is all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

love_nutz2
Telltale's Back to the Future - the game
Replies
36
Views
2K
ríomhaire
ríomhaire
SpArKs
Why Go To The Cinema When You Can Just, Play The Games!
Replies
29
Views
784
Apocalypse89
Apocalypse89
thenerdguy
'Rings' hits $1 billion box office mark
Replies
8
Views
664
AmishSlayer
AmishSlayer
Back
Top