Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: The Hobbit is a massive cash-grab
  • Subject: The Hobbit is a massive cash-grab
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: The Hobbit is a massive cash-grab


Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: Palien90

Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: Raptorx7
Cry more, a movie doesn't need to be non stop action especially one that is more about the journey than anything else.

I hate how movies have to be non stop violence and explosions to be successful.


Nice, flame me for having a different opinion and then make awful assumptions.

The original trilogy wasn't filled with just non-stop action, and in fact the movies were longer than this Hobbit movie, but they were much more interesting, and better paced.


The new film is right around the same length as fellowship.


Yes, and during Fellowship I was not bored once, despite it being a similar length.

It was a tight, concise, and excellently paced story.
The Hobbit Part one is a bloated, uninteresting, and most of all boring film


What specifically bored you about it

  • 12.16.2012 12:45 PM PDT

I acknowledge my user name is stupid. However, I promise I'm not.

Disclaimer: The latter is a lie.

I'm really looking forward to seeing it.

:-)

  • 12.16.2012 12:52 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: Palien90

Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: Raptorx7
Cry more, a movie doesn't need to be non stop action especially one that is more about the journey than anything else.

I hate how movies have to be non stop violence and explosions to be successful.


Nice, flame me for having a different opinion and then make awful assumptions.

The original trilogy wasn't filled with just non-stop action, and in fact the movies were longer than this Hobbit movie, but they were much more interesting, and better paced.


The new film is right around the same length as fellowship.


Yes, and during Fellowship I was not bored once, despite it being a similar length.

It was a tight, concise, and excellently paced story.
The Hobbit Part one is a bloated, uninteresting, and most of all boring film
But it's a big part of the story. Necromancers are not mentioned at all in The Hobbit (IIRC), and they're clearly going to be part of the story in the latter half.


I don't even get what you're trying to say. What I'm saying is this could easily be told over 2 films. Jackson got greedy and wanted an extra billion dollars it seems like.

  • 12.16.2012 12:53 PM PDT

Please stop complaining about the 'death of a loved one' it's my job. They probably deserved it anyways. Here's a warning, if you keep making pentagrams out of the neighbors livestock I will personally come to your house and kill everyone you love. Now leave me alone, I got to get back to work.
~M.D~


Posted by: flamedude
The Hobbit film isn't just based on the The Hobbit book. It also contains content from The Silmarillion and other Tolkien works.

You're just ill-informed.

I'm actually reading the silmarillion right now. I highly recommend it.

  • 12.16.2012 12:54 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The funny thing is that Return of the King could have easily been split into two movies.

They cut out the part where Saruman secretly takes over the Shire in the end, and Frodo and Co save the day.

[Edited on 12.16.2012 12:58 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 12:57 PM PDT

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

Get at me

OP have you even seen the movie? Read the book? I doubt it...

  • 12.16.2012 1:01 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!

The Hobbit is appropriately split into 3 books because Tolkien filled its pages with plot rather than in-depth description of every door they see or 10-page-long songs that everyone skips over anyways.

  • 12.16.2012 1:03 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: lVl e r c u r y
OP have you even seen the movie? Read the book? I doubt it...


No, I made this thread without seeing the movie -_____-

And I shouldn't have to read the book. I shouldn't have to read the book to enjoy a film.

  • 12.16.2012 1:03 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: lVl e r c u r y
OP have you even seen the movie? Read the book? I doubt it...


No, I made this thread without seeing the movie -_____-

And I shouldn't have to read the book. I shouldn't have to read the book to enjoy a film.


Sorry the movie didn't have an explosion every 5 minutes and that there was a distinct lack of automatic weaponry in it.

[Edited on 12.16.2012 1:10 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 1:09 PM PDT

Connor Morris

1.Not a tiny book
2.There are too many events from the book to fit it one movie

  • 12.16.2012 1:12 PM PDT

/s

Everything is.

  • 12.16.2012 1:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: lVl e r c u r y
OP have you even seen the movie? Read the book? I doubt it...


No, I made this thread without seeing the movie -_____-

And I shouldn't have to read the book. I shouldn't have to read the book to enjoy a film.


Sorry the movie didn't have an explosion every 5 minutes and that there was a distinct lack of automatic weaponry in it.


Ah, yes. Insult my attention span and also go to such extremes. I doubt you even read the OP or my responses in this thread.

All three of the original movies were just as long as this movie, but were epic, tight, well-paced, and never boring.

This movie was just filled with irrelevant fluff, many things that should have been cut (and were cut, but were re-added when Jackson decided to make three films).

  • 12.16.2012 1:13 PM PDT

You just lost the game. Now facepalm yourself for clicking this :P

Then don't watch it.

  • 12.16.2012 1:14 PM PDT


Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: lVl e r c u r y
OP have you even seen the movie? Read the book? I doubt it...


No, I made this thread without seeing the movie -_____-

And I shouldn't have to read the book. I shouldn't have to read the book to enjoy a film.


Sorry the movie didn't have an explosion every 5 minutes and that there was a distinct lack of automatic weaponry in it.


Ah, yes. Insult my attention span and also go to such extremes. I doubt you even read the OP or my responses in this thread.

All three of the original movies were just as long as this movie, but were epic, tight, well-paced, and never boring.

This movie was just filled with irrelevant fluff, many things that should have been cut (and were cut, but were re-added when Jackson decided to make three films).



Examples of "irrelevant fluff" required.

  • 12.16.2012 1:15 PM PDT

**Devil's advocate of the Flood. My posts may or may not represent my personal opinion, I just enjoy disagreeing with people. None of my posts are representative of the official view of the Navy or any government agency.

Non Sibi Sed Patriae
Homework questions? Forget the Flood, join The Academy.
I've got a fan!


Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: theHurtfulTurkey

Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: lVl e r c u r y
OP have you even seen the movie? Read the book? I doubt it...


No, I made this thread without seeing the movie -_____-

And I shouldn't have to read the book. I shouldn't have to read the book to enjoy a film.


Sorry the movie didn't have an explosion every 5 minutes and that there was a distinct lack of automatic weaponry in it.


Ah, yes. Insult my attention span and also go to such extremes. I doubt you even read the OP or my responses in this thread.


I just pointed out that it seems like movies that focus on depth of the world and character development don't suit you. The Hobbit, book and movies, are not about "epic" or "tight" battles, it's primarily about Bilbo's development.

[Edited on 12.16.2012 1:33 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 1:24 PM PDT

Now let's get down to business, I don't got no time to play around, what is this?


Posted by: FaithfulBanana
So is your mom OP!

This was also what I thought when I clicked on this thread.

  • 12.16.2012 1:26 PM PDT

In this day and age what isn't?

  • 12.16.2012 1:27 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

3 Movies? If only they made that more apparent in the title. I thought The Hobbit was going to be a one-time movie covering the whole book at once.

Honestly, Jackson did a good job with the film if it weren't for the High FPS capturing I saw in the 3D showing. If they cover EVERY event in the book through those three films (which should be great, considering that book-to-film adaptation fans always want the events in the movie to match the book).

  • 12.16.2012 1:28 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Intrepid Heroic Member


Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: lVl e r c u r y
OP have you even seen the movie? Read the book? I doubt it...


No, I made this thread without seeing the movie -_____-

And I shouldn't have to read the book. I shouldn't have to read the book to enjoy a film.



....

  • 12.16.2012 1:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Palien90
Examples of "irrelevant fluff" required.


Though I liked what was the there and would hate to see it cut it could have been tightened up for a better cinematic presentation. As it stands it felt like pure indulgence. I'm sure in my comfy armchair it would play better, but at a packed theater it was damn near tedious until they got to Rivendale. The CGI was great sometimes, and dodgy other times. When they are running from the wargs and Radagast was leading the wargs away on his sled it was inexcusable.

For such a long movie I have rarely seen such a group of underdeveloped characters. Seriously, did Bombur speak one line? Once they got to Rivendale the film improved immensly for me, but once again that bit could have been tightened up. We didn't need the scene of the dwarves eating and Bombur breaking the bench. The conversation between Galadriel and Gandalf about Bilbo wasn't really necessary in the theatrical cut.

The walking didn't feel near as epic and atmospheric this time. Can't really put my finger on why that is, because even after ten years the LOTR walking and scenic moments still get me. Some bits lingered longer than they should and many scenes and shots could have had seconds trimmed. All in all this felt like a rough draft of a better film, and I really think it is because of the late decision to make it into 3 films.

[Edited on 12.16.2012 1:37 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 1:37 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: RyanW

Posted by: Forever MS

Posted by: lVl e r c u r y
OP have you even seen the movie? Read the book? I doubt it...


No, I made this thread without seeing the movie -_____-

And I shouldn't have to read the book. I shouldn't have to read the book to enjoy a film.



....


What? Are you saying you should have to have read a book to enjoy and understand a movie adaptation? That's ridiculous.

[Edited on 12.16.2012 1:38 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 1:38 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

inb4 butthurt response from Palien that addresses none of your points.

  • 12.16.2012 1:40 PM PDT

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

Posted by: Forever MS
Posted by: Palien90
Examples of "irrelevant fluff" required.


Though I liked what was the there and would hate to see it cut it could have been tightened up for a better cinematic presentation. As it stands it felt like pure indulgence. I'm sure in my comfy armchair it would play better, but at a packed theater it was damn near tedious until they got to Rivendale. The CGI was great sometimes, and dodgy other times. When they are running from the wargs and Radagast was leading the wargs away on his sled it was inexcusable.

For such a long movie I have rarely seen such a group of underdeveloped characters. Seriously, did Bombur speak one line? Once they got to Rivendale the film improved immensly for me, but once again that bit could have been tightened up. We didn't need the scene of the dwarves eating and Bombur breaking the bench. The conversation between Galadriel and Gandalf about Bilbo wasn't really necessary in the theatrical cut.

The walking didn't feel near as epic and atmospheric this time. Can't really put my finger on why that is, because even after ten years the LOTR walking and scenic moments still get me. Some bits lingered longer than they should and many scenes and shots could have had seconds trimmed. All in all this felt like a rough draft of a better film, and I really think it is because of the late decision to make it into 3 films.


I agree about the Radagast sled chase, that was pretty tiresome.

As for the underdeveloped characters..... this was the reason why Peter Jackson wanted to do LotR first. He was extremely worried that having.... what.... 14 main characters would be too difficult to do. He needed to do LotR to basically convince us of this world and then go back to The Hobbit.

I suspect that they had to prioritise who gets development and who doesn't. There are spots of backstory for other character here and there but if they all had backstory the film would be 9 hours long and you'd probably be a lot more annoyed......

  • 12.16.2012 1:41 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Here's something i've been thinking about in regards to the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

With LOTR there are certain story strands that you can see throughout each film.

FOTR - Forming and breaking of the Fellowship
TT- Freedom of Rohan from Saruman
ROTK - Battle for Middle-Earth

Is it just me or is the Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey really hard to sum up storywise? To me it just seems like a 'they get about half way to the Lonely Mountain' which isn't much of a story.

I'm guessing it's hard because the Hobbit isn't three parts like LOTR but still.. any thoughts?

  • 12.16.2012 1:46 PM PDT

Posted by: Billygoat456
I'll bring the tritium laser cutters if you bring the beer!

Funny story.

Posted by: Forever MS
I'm guessing it's hard because the Hobbit isn't three parts like LOTR but still.. any thoughts?
How did you miss the character development of Thorin? That was the whole point.

  • 12.16.2012 1:48 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4