And before I get yelled at again, I'm sure that I will buy all three Extended Edition's when they come out. But I never have professed to being Joe Bob consumer.

I think this is a good summary of how I feel about this movie.

I still haven't seen it. Maybe this weekend.

http://theweek.com/article/index/237856/5-reasonsnbspthe-hobbit-an-unexpected-journeynbspis-a-disappointment

So how do you know how you feel about a movie you haven't seen?

I feel like I would like Jack Reacher, but haven't seen it yet. Might find out I hate Jack Reacher when I watch it.

Because I can make educated evaluations, just like you and everyone else did for months and years before this movie came out? For the same reason that I know that the new "Jack Ryan" book that Clancy wrote is crap without pulling it off the shelf?

I'm not saying the movie is crap, I'm really just hitting on the point that these movies are a tribute to money and Peter Jackson's ego.

And I will still see it and the other ones over the coming years. But that's because I love Tolkein's story, not necessarily a plodding overly-grandiose and bogged down treatment of it.

Most of those arguments are pretty dumb though.

1. It's a wholly unnecessary prequel.
It's not a story Peter Jackson just pulled out of his ass in an attempt to cash in on the success of LOTR. He's adapting one of the most famous and beloved books of all time for a film audience. That hardly seems unnecessary.

2. It tries too hard to be Lord of the Rings
So he added some things from Tolkien appendices. Why is that a bad thing? That doesn't mean he's trying to be LOTR, it just means he wants to have the story actually tie in to LOTR instead of having it feel like a self-contained story.

3. It drags out Tolkien's simple story to interminable length
I could count one one hand the things they added that didn't come straight from Tolkien. This movie is, until now, the most faithful to its source material.

4. It's too violent and prolonged for kids — but too simple for adults
That one I could see an argument for, but I don't find it too simple at all. I don't need to see blood and gore to be entertained. And knowing the heroes will be safe just comes with reading the book. The same could be said about LOTR. Doesn't make it "simple".

5. It looks terrible in 48 frames per second
Completely subjective.

quote:

---

So how do you know how you feel about a movie you haven't seen?

---

-Know the source material
-Know that there are 3(!!!!) movies about said source material
-Know that the movies are all ~3 hours long
-Know that the 1st movie is PG-13

That allows you to make a pretty darn good educated guess that:
2. It tries too hard to be Lord of the Rings
3. It drags out Tolkien's simple story to interminable length
4. It's too violent and prolonged for kids

Points 1 (Unnecessary) and 4b (too simple for adults) are a matter of opinion. Point 5 (48fps) you couldn't know without seeing the movie or reading the reviews.

If you have seen it and have an opinion...I can respect that.

If you haven't seen it and have an opinion, then you are an idiot and I could care less what you have to say. You have no idea what the movies are like or how faithful of an adaptation they are.

Compared to the LOTR trilogy, this movie has been MUCH closer to the source material. Jackson has included pretty much EVERYTHING from the book and has only changed things if it enhanced the theatrical representation of the story.

Are there problems? Of course. But the movie is exponentially closer to The Hobbit that Return of the King was to the book.

I just find it hilarious how people would probably have complained about Jackson cutting scenes from the movies if he had made it only 2, but 3 movies is considered entirely too long before anyone has even seen them...just stupid.

I would post more, but my full opinion on the movie is posted in the other thread.

@Ol jock 99: Wow...what a complete pile of self-conceited crap your post is.

[This message has been edited by jlb2957 (edited 12/19/2012 11:06a).]

I agree with point 3 of that article and was the main reason I would give the movie a C. The scenes were just stretched out way longer than I thought they needed to be. Most directors do a bad job of adapting movies because they leave out too much of the books. Peter Jackson is the polar opposite in that he wants to bang you over the head with every little detail of the book. Life of Pi was the most well done adaption of a book I've ever seen.

You could care less? How much less could you care? Please let me know; I'm waiting on pins and needles here.

quote:

---

@Ol jock 99: Wow...what a complete pile of self-conceited crap your post is.

---

Ah, its feelings are hurt.

quote:

---

Ah, its feelings are hurt.

---

Haha...damn do I know your type. Very predictable post for internet tough guys who don't like being contradicted.

Carry on, buddy. Didn't mean to offend you.

I'm not the one calling other people idiots now I am? If you'd like to post a critique of my post other than "lol ur so dum", I'd be glad to give it an honest response.

I thought I did post a critique...that those with such a strong opinion of something they've never seen are idiots. Also something I would say to someone in real life...not just on the internet.

I'm sure I even expounded on that critique.

Keep a trollin'

Here we go again.

First pic from The Desolation of Smaug.


Cannot wait to see this scene on the big screen.

mother of god

He is wearing the ring.

The guy I went with fell asleep if that tells you anything.

Wow, he's going to get all the way into Smaugs lair in the next movie?

quote:

---

The guy I went with fell asleep if that tells you anything.

---

Tells me nothing.

Are you guys seriously getting into a heated argument about how someone you don't even know feels about a movie?

Of course they are! TexAgs is serious business!

I enjoyed the first three movies but basically slept through this one... I guess it is because we know how it all ends. And we have two more Hobbit movies on this one book?

quote:

---

The guy I went with fell asleep if that tells you anything.

---

He was tired.

quote:

---

I enjoyed the first three movies but basically slept through this one... I guess it is because we know how it all ends.

---

Would've been the same if you'd read LOTR, as well.

Shouldn't Bilbo be invisible if he has the ring on?

Strickland, they can't very well make the actor in greyscale. That is a visual effect added later, plus Smaug can sense/smell him.

would you rather they just release a picture of a pile of gold?

finally saw the movie. in my total fanboy opinion it was awesome and those who say otherwise are retards.

Friend who didn't really care for the LOTR movies went with me and really enjoyed it as well. Said the movie was better served not having Frodo moping his way up a mountain for half the thing (and I tend to agree).

I didn't expect it to be as funny as it was. It was also really hard not for me to keep seeing Martin Freeman's mannerisms as Watson appear as Bilbo, especially during the scene where he first meets the dwarves.

So I'm retarted because I didn't like The Hobbit? Your expectations of people are pretty low their slick.

quote:

---

So I'm retarted because I didn't like The Hobbit? Your expectations of people are pretty low their slick.

---

chill the eff out there bro

I said "in my total fanboy opinion", if you couldn't tell that was an exaggerated viewpoint/joke then I kindly suggest that you lurk moar.

I finally got to see it on Friday (Note: when I first posted on this thread, I had zero children. Now I have two.) In this fanboys opinion, it was very good.....and was too long.

The scene in the beginning with Frodo had no point. Both chase scenes were in need of some serious editing. I get why Jackson brought in Azog, but it created too much tension in my opinion.

On the plus side, I thought the cinematography was beautiful. Note, I saw it in 2-D. I thought the dwarfs were perfectly casted and enacted. And I enjoyed the White Council stuff, even if it added to the time of the already long movie.

All in all I give it a solid B. Not up to the level of the previous three movies, but very good in its own right.


[This message has been edited by Ol Jock 99 (edited 12/30/2012 7:57p).]

quote:

---

The scene in the beginning with Frodo had no point

---

I agree, but I feel like that was more for non-fanboys, to give the story an obvious link to LOTR from the very beginning. So I understand why it was included even if I felt it was unnecessary.

quote:

---

chill the eff out there bro

I said "in my total fanboy opinion", if you couldn't tell that was an exaggerated viewpoint/joke then I kindly suggest that you lurk moar.

---

Fair enough. I've been around enough fanboys to know that many get their feelings hurt when someone doesn't like their movie and feel the need to lash out (comment sections of rotten tomatoes). I consider myself a fanboy of the Marvel universe.

But answer this question. I haven't read any of the books so I don't know anything about the characters besides what's in the movies. Why don't those eagle things just drop them off to their final destination? Wouldn't it just make their journey a heck of a lot easier? Serious question.....I don't know.

The eagles are too proud to be the equivalent of carrier pigeons. They don't mind helping out in times of need but they are not work animals. Just think of them as another highly intelligent being with their own agenda and problems.