|
Doctor Stranges' biggest sin, aside from being very boring, is rewriting the origins of a decades old character to specifically sell the movie to a country committing genocide against said background.
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
I also think the accent is really silly
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
The Hobbit also hosed over New Zealand's film industry, having a severe negative effect on lots of people's real lives.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Hobbit 3 has an r rated cut. A gory version of a childrens book? *Max Shrek yawn*
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 01:46
|
|
|
Crowetron posted:The Hobbit also hosed over New Zealand's film industry, having a severe negative effect on lots of people's real lives. Is there like a summary of all the weird disasters and blowups surrounding the Hobbit movies? It's hard to remember, the only one I have off the top of my head is the griping around the Tauriel character and one of the very few times the Nerds were actually completely right.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 04:40
|
|
|
mycot posted:Is there like a summary of all the weird disasters and blowups surrounding the Hobbit movies? It's hard to remember, the only one I have off the top of my head is the griping around the Tauriel character and one of the very few times the Nerds were actually completely right. In video form, many of us learned about it from Lindsey Ellis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTRUQ-RKfUs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElPJr_tKkO4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi7t_g5QObs The first two are about all the ways the movies hosed up or things went very not to plan, while the third is about how the acting industry in New Zealand got hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 05:23
|
|
|
I wasn't a fan of Tauriel, but her inclusion wasn't nearly as terrible as shoe-horning Saruman, Galadriel, and Legolas into the movies. The trilogy's greatest sins were 1) being a trilogy, and 2) eschewing the overall goofiness of The Hobbit in order to become a bad rip-off of Lord of the Rings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 05:42
|
|
|
I only saw the first one, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that there wasn't nearly enough barrel-riding when the time came.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 05:52
|
|
|
The barrel riding scene was like 25 minutes and it looked like poo poo. The first movie was somehow probably the best of the three.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 06:11
|
|
|
Cognac McCarthy posted:The barrel riding scene was like 25 minutes and it looked like poo poo. The first movie was somehow probably the best of the three. That's because the first one had the trolls and goblins, and Gandalf punking a very surprised Goblin King was hilarious
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 06:15
|
|
|
As I get older I find I have less and less patience for padding in films, and the Hobbit movies are some of the most shamelessly padded movies that you will see.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 06:46
|
|
|
The characters not being in danger during anything just makes it stupid. On the one hand its all serious stuff (tm) and then the barrel scene happens....
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 10:38
|
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:The characters not being in danger during anything just makes it stupid. On the one hand its all serious stuff (tm) and then the barrel scene happens.... The mines was the worst for that for me. It was like a video game cutscene. Hundreds of goblins killed with no effort whatsoever. No sense of danger or tension in the slightest. The BBC audiobook I listened to as a kid had a thousand times more character/atmosphere/tension. Just awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 11:19
|
|
|
It should not bother me that fire and lava arent hot in films but somehow the hobbit part 2 broke my conditioning and I was mad about it while watching that segment
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 11:36
|
|
|
Roblo posted:The mines was the worst for that for me. It was like a video game cutscene. Hundreds of goblins killed with no effort whatsoever. No sense of danger or tension in the slightest. It's hard competition between that and the barrel scene for what is more videogame-y. I think the barrel scene edges out because they have to leave the barrels to fight orcs so they can pull a lever to advance further. That feels like what I would have expected out of a video game based on the movies haha.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 11:46
|
|
|
Mr Shiny Pants posted:The characters not being in danger during anything just makes it stupid. On the one hand its all serious stuff (tm) and then the barrel scene happens.... Good phrasing. Much like the last Indian Jones movie, it felt like they were on an theme park ride. Never in danger, just lots of thrills and spills.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 14:05
|
|
|
I will always remember that there's a set of scenes in the first Hobbit where you start with Gandalf in a council with the elves. They talk and talk and talk and then it moves to the next scene... where the dwarves are holding a council where they talk and talk and talk... and then we get to the orcs! Who are having a council, and talking. It was kind of hilarious in the theater, but it's so slow and tedious I never want to watch the film again. Never saw the third, but I was told that Smaug dies basically five minutes into the film, which is ridiculous. Because they needed to cram a big battle scene in that, in the book, Bilbo misses entirely because he got knocked out.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 18:46
|
|
|
Even saying the third one "crams a battle scene in" is being too forgiving for folks who haven't seen it. The third one is a battle scene, one far longer than anything in the LOTR trilogy (I believe) and certainly far stupider than probably anything else out out in the last decade (non-Transformers category). I was right out of college when the first Hobbit movie came out and I didn't quite know what to make of it. It definitely didn't evoke any of the wonderment of the LOTR trilogy, but I thought hey it's a new trilogy, and the Gollum scenes were well done, so whatever. I'm not 12 this time, so maybe this is how adults reacted to LOTR. I actually liked parts of the second one the one time I saw it. Unlike the first one, it actually explores some new places, which has always been a big part of the appeal of the franchise. Everything was obviously stupider than LOTR, but it seemed to be looking up, and the Smaug stuff was well done like the Gollum stuff in the previous movie. The advertising for the third movie hinged on "Peter Jackson is going to wrap it all up in a bow and connect it to LOTR in a way you might not expect, you're going to want to see this!" so I had some faith going in. About an hour in I finally accepted that it wasn't going to "come around", and that this is exactly how adult Star Wars fans felt when the prequels came out. The first two are bad but relatively forgettable. They shouldn't have tried to adapt the book as a dark action adventure series, but at least they still had some interesting visuals and plenty of references to the wider lore. The Desolation of Smaug, however, just bounces from one profoundly embarrassing thing to the next at a truly bewildering pace, without even bothering to pretend it's taking place in a thought-out or interesting setting. It's unequivocally the worst of the three on every level.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 19:32
|
|
|
I wonder how different the Hobbit would’ve ended up being if New Line and WB hadn’t tried to gently caress over Peter Jackson directly after finishing LotR. New Line let Jackson walk, thinking they could just recreate the success they saw with LotR with the Polar Express, which ended up bombing so hard it gave Warner Bros the opening it was waiting for to seize control of New Line and absorb them into their company. If New Line didn’t burn those bridges, we could’ve got the Jackson produced/Del Toro directed version instead of the over bloated mess we’re stuck with.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2020 19:40
|
|
|
I remember the third hobbit just feeling like a game of Total War or Age of Empires or some poo poo
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 02:06
|
|
|
The only redeemong feature of The Hobbit isnt even in the films. Its Benedict Cumberbatch's sheer glee and motion capture performance as Smaug. That the head dwarf went on to be Dracula in Castlevania was a step up for him.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 02:20
|
|
|
the camaraderie of the dwarves and their boisterous but lovable behavior was like, the best part about the book. you got to know and care about all of them. outside of a few gimmick video game cutscenes, a forced tragic love triangle, and a quick "hey remember gimli" scene, the dwarves in this movie receive almost no characterization. Three movies and things move so quickly that we don't have time to get to know any of them. thorin's turn and redemption happen like two or three times as well, and they all feel unearned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 10:28
|
|
|
i was working at a Lego store at the time the first Hobbit movie came out, we had sets associated with that movie but a few of them were special "preview" sets for the second movie which I immediately tagged as Lego covering for the dumb dumb dumb dumb decision to split it from two movies to three. It seemed like it was such a poor slapdash decision and completely killed all desire i had to watch any of them
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2020 23:29
|
|
|
I rather liked Martin Freeman as Bilbo, and I can't decide if the prospect of the focus returning to him for the finale made waiting around for the interminable Battle of Zero Stakes to end more bearable, or less so.
|
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2020 23:44
|
|
|
The fact that they repeat the exact same characters exact same emotional beats across the films is infuriating and if you try to treat them as standalone where the events of one need not lead to the next the emotional beats themselves are undercooked and their narratives unsatisfying. I really dont have anything positive to say about the hobbit films.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 00:30
|
|
|
The ending of the second Hobbit movie, what with all the dragon fighting and running and jumping and stuff, is by far one of the most annoying movie finales of the past decade. It's just so void of any meaning and suspense, since you know full well that Smaug ain't gonna bite it there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 01:52
|
|
|
God Hole posted:the camaraderie of the dwarves and their boisterous but lovable behavior was like, the best part about the book. you got to know and care about all of them. You're gonna be disappointed if you ever give the book a reread, only like 4 of them have any personality or distinguishing traits or individual lines of dialogue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 02:46
|
|
|
Blood Boils posted:You're gonna be disappointed if you ever give the book a reread, only like 4 of them have any personality or distinguishing traits or individual lines of dialogue. the book takes about as long to read as it does to watch one and a bit of the movies, so it's less of an issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 06:22
|
|
|
Blood Boils posted:You're gonna be disappointed if you ever give the book a reread, only like 4 of them have any personality or distinguishing traits or individual lines of dialogue. I'm going to stand by my 11-year-old self's assessment of the characterization of the dwarves and reassert that the movies' portrayal of them did not measure up 
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 11:28
|
|
|
This is what starts playing in my head anytime I think about the Hobbit films: Sexy Sexy dwarves, don't mean a thing, huh Oh you sexy dwarves Sexy Sexy dwarves, don't ever change, huh Oh you sexy dwarves Because for some reason they tried to make the dwarves hot.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 11:43
|
|
|
Are any of the fan edits of The Hobbit any good, or does its shittiness run too deep? Bloat aside, a lot of it just looks like rear end from what I remember. I know the orcs look miles worse than they did in LotR.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 17:43
|
|
|
I just found the Dwarven design to just not be compatible with suspense or action Like they just look too doofy for my suspension of disbelief to take and the whole thing looks bad
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:14
|
|
|
Jestery posted:I just found the Dwarven design to just not be compatible with suspense or action I think that's part of it. They're from a goofier universe than the ones from Lord of the Rings, but the film doesn't lean into that. SMG made a good comparison, pointing out that the sense of aesthetics is much closer to 300 than Lord of the Rings. Lord of the Rings did everything it could to make sure the world felt grounded and real, not just the costuming, but the film making itself. Everything felt like it could actually exist. Most of the time, the camera moved like a real camera, even in ridiculous scenarios and virtual shots. The Hobbit frames itself as a crazier thing, a product of it being a story Bilbo is telling Frodo, but it doesn't do enough with it. We whiplash between a semi grounded LOTR take and a much more fanciful version, without ever really choosing. We see little hints of the craziness, like Legolas killing 100 while upside down hanging from a bat, but it needed to take it much further.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2020 23:25
|
|
|
God Hole posted:I'm going to stand by my 11-year-old self's assessment of the characterization of the dwarves and reassert that the movies' portrayal of them did not measure up Sorry kid, but they have way more personality in the movies. Unique designs, everyone gets their own dialogue (except Bombur and the one with the axe in his head) and something to do. The book usually presents their speech and actions as a collective, not individuals; it's our imagination that has to ascribe them to individual dwarves. For better or worse
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:06
|
|
|
Its also really hard to edit the three films down because they repeat emotional moments multiple times so youre either weirdly enlogating threads so the actual payoff is further in making people seem like assholes or your cutting entire movies contributions
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 03:48
|
|
|
I mean it's also possible that Thorin being emotional and unhinged is characterization
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 05:06
|
|
|
Tac Dibar posted:Because for some reason they tried to make the dwarves hot. Just the one dude, which was a mistake since it meant he didn't have any dwarf make up. Which meant he didn't look like a dwarf. Even Bilbo had gross feet and ears! Some nerds seem to object to mere presence of the romance, but it's one the genuinely good ideas in the series. The real problem is it's portrayal is beyond tame - it's already an attraction between a mythological miner/smith and woodland sprite; so what if his face is "ugly", it should be! This is a fantasy! About a race war for crying out loud, it could use a good sexy kiss between the dirt man and tree girl But they chickened out, first by making him look normal attractive (and the elf too, come to think on it) and second by giving them just a chaste kiss on the cheek. 5 armies is the best of the trilogy but that poo poo is weak as hell
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 05:46
|
|
|
Uncle Boogeyman posted:i recently watched this movie Street Law which is an interesting Italian pre-Death Wish oddity where the lead isn't avenging anyone's rape or murder, he's just avenging the fact that some bank robbers beat him up and humiliated him. Worth tracking down, not one of the worst movies of the 2010s or the 1970s for that matter
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2020 19:28
|
|
|
Blood Boils posted:Sorry kid, but they have way more personality in the movies. Unique designs, everyone gets their own dialogue (except Bombur and the one with the axe in his head) and something to do. The book usually presents their speech and actions as a collective, not individuals; it's our imagination that has to ascribe them to individual dwarves. For better or worse Bombur was robbed but at least we got Bombur's Battle Barrel
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:53 |
|
|
The biggest problem I had with The Hobbit films is they were exactly what everyone feared LOTR would be when they were turned into features. Just Hollywooded up and down instead of being the grounded pictures with a true creative focus.
|
|
#
?
Feb 10, 2020 00:54
|
|
