Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: The hobbit was disappointing
  • Subject: The hobbit was disappointing
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2
Subject: The hobbit was disappointing

There was so much CGI in this movie they pretty much George Lucas"d it.Remember how LOTR felt so real well that realism is replaced with something that feels like a video game. There are some things good in the movie bilbo and gollum are pretty much the movies saving grace, but damn they could of made it in 1 movie.There is so much happening that was redudant to the plot like radagast and random pointless scenes that dont progress the plot.

  • 12.16.2012 10:04 PM PDT

I make a living of selling my body, and I don't mean sex.

Well, that's just like your opinion man.

  • 12.16.2012 10:05 PM PDT

Does anyone have lotion?
*Raises hand*
Is mayonnaise a lotion?

GOOD JOB FLOOD

  • 12.16.2012 10:06 PM PDT

I knew Hobbit was going to suck.

  • 12.16.2012 10:18 PM PDT

How about story wise? is it respectful of the books, is it any good in that regard

  • 12.16.2012 10:21 PM PDT

Radagast played a part at hinting of Sauron's return. The CGI really wasn't that bad; I watched it a second time and didn't really notice a problem. CGI really can be the only significant complaint though, because the rest of the movie was amazing.

  • 12.16.2012 10:22 PM PDT

Major props to my hommie Sheeef. He made Recon possible for me. Long time recovering emails and passwords. And it was his. lol.


Posted by: ICanHazRecon911
GOOD JOB FLOOD
LMFAO!

  • 12.16.2012 10:22 PM PDT

I honestly didn't care about the CG at all. CG has gotten so good at this point that it doesn't look like animation at all like it used to.

  • 12.16.2012 10:27 PM PDT

Sometimes, I dream about cheese.

In bed?

  • 12.16.2012 10:38 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

I wouldn't say disappointing, but that's because I kept expectations off the table going in. It certainly wasn't as good as the LOTR trilogy, and it seemed like it easily could have been with a few changes.

  • 12.16.2012 10:43 PM PDT

Death to rank junkies.

0/10

  • 12.16.2012 10:52 PM PDT

Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien.
Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar.
tenn' Ambar-metta!

Your opinion, my opinion is, it's a very well done movie, loved it.


Posted by: dahuterschuter
I wouldn't say disappointing, but that's because I kept expectations off the table going in. It certainly wasn't as good as the LOTR trilogy, and it seemed like it easily could have been with a few changes.


That's the problem with you people, the Hobbit is not another LOTR, if you're expecting epic battles and adventures of epic proportions, obviously you're gonna get dissapointed.

The hobbit is far different from that, way much simplier. If it were LOTR, the title would say it. Geez people....

[Edited on 12.16.2012 10:58 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 10:55 PM PDT

All Retards are Retarded...

You Catch My Drift??????????

I thought the Hobbit was awesome and I did not really care about the CGI at all. It didn't feel like there was too much. The story was great too. I cannot wait for part 2

  • 12.16.2012 11:10 PM PDT

-blam!- Was that actually blammed out? Or did I just type it? You'll never know.

Posted by: MasterSin
That's the problem with you people,
What do you mean, you people?

the Hobbit is not another LOTR, if you're expecting epic battles and adventures of epic proportions, obviously you're gonna get dissapointed. But I just explicitly stated that I kept my expectations off the table. I never said anything about epic battles or scale of adventure. Don't put words into my mouth.

The hobbit is far different from that, way much simplier. If it were LOTR, the title would say it. Geez people....The Hobbit novel is certainly simpler, but the movie came out much more convoluted. It seemed unable to focus, mostly because they were trying to stretch it out by adding things from appendices of other books. The White Council and the Necromancer eing used to tie the two trilogies was a nice idea, but the Azog subplot, and some other parts clearly only existed for the sake of time.

  • 12.16.2012 11:13 PM PDT


Posted by: belvCTU
Remember how LOTR felt so real


Wait what? Did we watch the same film?

  • 12.16.2012 11:49 PM PDT

I am an Xbox Live Ambassador so feel free to hit me up with any questions via PM :)

Follow me Twitter: @TheBestTheyHad

CGI was needed for a lot of this movie. 48FPS has trouble working with costumes and stuff. Its makes the movie look like fast forward as it is so you would see a lot of faults.

  • 12.17.2012 12:13 AM PDT

My name is from Star Wars. Now you know.

Feel free to follow me on my twitter and stalk me.

I agree about the overuse of CGI, but I still enjoyed the movie.
They really broke the canon, yet I'm interested to see where Jackson is taking it. And Martin Freeman did an excellent job as Bilbo.

  • 12.17.2012 12:16 AM PDT

I disagree. I loved The Hobbit. The only CGI that stood out to me as being bad was Smaug's tail as he entered Erebor during the prologue. I thought the music was just as good as LotR's. In fact, Misty Mountains might be my favorite song from any of the Jackson films. I thought the stuff added to it was good. Knowing that the added scenes did not entirely come from nowhere (everything with the Necromancer did happen, just not "on camera" in The Hobbit.) The Hobbit is not meant to be as dark and heavy as The Trilogy is. So comparing it to the trilogy is unfair. It is like trying to compare a sci-fi to a western. The Hobbit is meant to be a fun fairy tale. The Trilogy is a dark epic. I'd personally give the film 9 out of 10.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 12:24 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 12:21 AM PDT


Posted by: Xizor14
I agree about the overuse of CGI, but I still enjoyed the movie.


What is that|?

  • 12.17.2012 12:36 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Look around and see, the world is turning fast, faster, day by day.

-3/10.

  • 12.17.2012 1:20 AM PDT

I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.

I actually thought it was pretty fantastic. They've gotten just about every little thing mentioned in the book, so that's why it's taking more than one movie. I mean, the ending of this movie is like chapter 5 or 6 in the book.

  • 12.17.2012 1:28 AM PDT

I heard it was mediocre, but not Phantom Menace.

  • 12.17.2012 1:38 AM PDT

I keep seeing people post that scenes etc. in the film were "redundant". I REALLY think that these posters don't know the meaning of the word.

  • 12.17.2012 5:18 AM PDT

"Why concentrate on the negative when we can speak of the positive?"
My File Share
Try using the Search Bar next time.
Halo 2 was the best Halo game
A7x FoREVer!


Posted by: Palien90
I keep seeing people post that scenes etc. in the film were "redundant". I REALLY think that these posters don't know the meaning of the word.

They're fans that think Jackson was just making the Hobbit for the big screen, but failed to ever read any book in the Lord of the Rings. If they would actually read the back story and lore of the Lord of the Rings, they'd understand why some of these so called "pointless" scenes are coming from.

For those too lazy to read, Jackson is merging the Hobbit to the Lord of the Ring's storyline. Hes not just making the Hobbit.

OT: I thought the movie was excellent and will be seeing it again next weekend.

[Edited on 12.17.2012 5:56 AM PST]

  • 12.17.2012 5:55 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • of 2