|
View unanswered posts | View active topics
| Author |
Message |
|
Desdemona
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit  Posted: Wed Jan 02, 2013 1:52 pm |
|
| Flounceiad 2011 |
 |
 |
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:26 pm
Posts: 3529
Location: A New England
|
allularpunk wrote: mumbles wrote: I was a little bit confused. How many bilbos were there, thirteen? Fourteen? I didn't like the skinny goblin, I think his name was Roland? He was scary and they were trying to make us feel bad for him but HELLO he is a bad guy! He wanted to eat the main bilbo! The grand elf was pretty cool but he didn't really look like an elf, more like a wizard? I really liked Ragglefarts, he was so funny when he crossed his eyes but it would have been funnier if like an elk had kicked him in the balls. I don't understand why the trolls talked like that. They should have been like "LOL teh bilbos get in my belly!" That is how real trolls talk. They should have done more research before writing this movie. <3 Also, your review reminds me a little bit of Bored of the Rings. Do I also detect an echo of that estimable critic, Jackie Harvey? http://www.theonion.com/articles/the-lord-of-the-rings-is-hobbitforming,16255/
_________________
You can always politely suggest a ham alternative. ~ vijita
Nothing is safe from weiners in my neighborhood... ~ crowderpea
"SMLOUNCE!" ~ smurfterrobang?!
http://elizaveganpage.blogspot.com
|
|
| Top |
|
 |
|
bathsheba
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:10 pm |
|
| Hoards Peppermint Jo-Jos |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Posts: 809
Location: Chicago
|
|
I read The Hobbit when I was in middle school and don't remember it well, so I was just like, "Wheee." It was better than I thought it would be, hearing all the bad reviews. Also, dwarves can be hot. WHO WOULDA THOUGHT.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
mumbles
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 8:54 pm |
|
| rowdily playing checkers |
 |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 2679
|
|
They don't call him Gloin, son of Groin for nothing.
_________________
"Tits are inconsequential, but someone pass me that kitten" ~ papayapaprikás
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
FootFace
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:50 am |
|
| Grandfathered In |
 |
|
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Posts: 8228
Location: Seattle
|
I just saw it, at last. I loved it! But by god, what a flabby, baggy mess of a movie! All the extra junk they threw in, all the unnecessary nods to the Lard of the Rings, all the digressions, all the battles... Making this story into three movies is a big mistake, I think. And I know that part of the fun of Tolkien is the epic drama of it all, but at times they went so overboard it was just silly. The good, according to me: • Goblin Town was great. And Tumor Face was awesome, too.
• Lots of the effects, of course, were brilliant.
• Breathtaking locations.
• The trolls!
• Martin Freeman was excellent in every way.
• Gollum was even better than in LOTR. So well done.
• Just great to be back in Middle Earth for more fun. I've seen the extended versions of the LOTR movies so many times. The bad: • The endless crud with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood. Oh, I get it! These are the same people from those other movies. Ugh.
• The Radagast stuff was laughably stupid. Pulled through the forest on a rabbit sled? And his face is covered in, what, birdshit? "Eating too many mushrooms," indeed. And Radagast was always my favorite from the book, even though he's in it for only a few paragraphs. Or whatever.
• I hated the high-frame rate business. It made things look fake and flat and cheap. It took me about 45 minutes to get past it and just enjoy.
• All the flab they should have cut. Like the stone giants? Who cares! You can't say they were just being true to the book, because they changed so much other stuff.
• The silly way they brought Galadriel and Saruman into the story. We don't need to talk about Sauron, you guys! (And the serious look Gandalf gives Bilbo when he's about to show off his secret ring after the escape from Goblin Town. Enough with that stuff.)
• I don't like spiders. (And in the book, was there any great significance to them, or were they just there. Cause, like, this is Mirkwood, and it's creepy?)
• I thought it was superconfusing who they were fighting lots of times, and why. It was just one damn thing after another, with little regard for what we high-falutin literary types call profluence. Remember? There's supposed to be a story happening?
• Having sexy dwarves is dumb.
_________________
Did somebody say Keep on rockin?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Desdemona
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:06 am |
|
| Flounceiad 2011 |
|
|
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 8:26 pm
Posts: 3529
Location: A New England
|
FootFace wrote: I just saw it, at last. I loved it! But by god, what a flabby, baggy mess of a movie! All the extra junk they threw in, all the unnecessary nods to the Lard of the Rings, all the digressions, all the battles... Making this story into three movies is a big mistake, I think. And I know that part of the fun of Tolkien is the epic drama of it all, but at times they went so overboard it was just silly. The good, according to me: • Goblin Town was great. And Tumor Face was awesome, too.
• Lots of the effects, of course, were brilliant.
• Breathtaking locations.
• The trolls!
• Martin Freeman was excellent in every way.
• Gollum was even better than in LOTR. So well done.
• Just great to be back in Middle Earth for more fun. I've seen the extended versions of the LOTR movies so many times. The bad: • The endless crud with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood. Oh, I get it! These are the same people from those other movies. Ugh.
• The Radagast stuff was laughably stupid. Pulled through the forest on a rabbit sled? And his face is covered in, what, birdshit? "Eating too many mushrooms," indeed. And Radagast was always my favorite from the book, even though he's in it for only a few paragraphs. Or whatever.
• I hated the high-frame rate business. It made things look fake and flat and cheap. It took me about 45 minutes to get past it and just enjoy.
• All the flab they should have cut. Like the stone giants? Who cares! You can't say they were just being true to the book, because they changed so much other stuff.
• The silly way they brought Galadriel and Saruman into the story. We don't need to talk about Sauron, you guys! (And the serious look Gandalf gives Bilbo when he's about to show off his secret ring after the escape from Goblin Town. Enough with that stuff.)
• I don't like spiders. (And in the book, was there any great significance to them, or were they just there. Cause, like, this is Mirkwood, and it's creepy?)
• I thought it was superconfusing who they were fighting lots of times, and why. It was just one damn thing after another, with little regard for what we high-falutin literary types call profluence. Remember? There's supposed to be a story happening?
• Having sexy dwarves is dumb. I heartily concur with all of your observations, good sir!
_________________
You can always politely suggest a ham alternative. ~ vijita
Nothing is safe from weiners in my neighborhood... ~ crowderpea
"SMLOUNCE!" ~ smurfterrobang?!
http://elizaveganpage.blogspot.com
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
b.vicious
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 8:14 am |
|
| ugh |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:20 pm
Posts: 2459
Location: north of Boston, MA, USA
|
|
I actually liked the high frame rate for stuff that was really filmed but I think the special effects need some time to catch up with it. HFR made the difference between real and CGI way more obvious.
_________________
"I feel like it's not a real political discussion if I'm not morally opposed to something I don't understand." - ndpittman
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
vijita
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 9:12 am |
|
| Stepford Vegan |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:30 pm
Posts: 8370
Location: Saanichton, BC
|
FootFace wrote: I just saw it, at last. I loved it! But by god, what a flabby, baggy mess of a movie! All the extra junk they threw in, all the unnecessary nods to the Lard of the Rings, all the digressions, all the battles... Making this story into three movies is a big mistake, I think. And I know that part of the fun of Tolkien is the epic drama of it all, but at times they went so overboard it was just silly. The good, according to me: • Goblin Town was great. And Tumor Face was awesome, too.
• Lots of the effects, of course, were brilliant.
• Breathtaking locations.
• The trolls!
• Martin Freeman was excellent in every way.
• Gollum was even better than in LOTR. So well done.
• Just great to be back in Middle Earth for more fun. I've seen the extended versions of the LOTR movies so many times. The bad: • The endless crud with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood. Oh, I get it! These are the same people from those other movies. Ugh.
• The Radagast stuff was laughably stupid. Pulled through the forest on a rabbit sled? And his face is covered in, what, birdshit? "Eating too many mushrooms," indeed. And Radagast was always my favorite from the book, even though he's in it for only a few paragraphs. Or whatever.
• I hated the high-frame rate business. It made things look fake and flat and cheap. It took me about 45 minutes to get past it and just enjoy.
• All the flab they should have cut. Like the stone giants? Who cares! You can't say they were just being true to the book, because they changed so much other stuff.
• The silly way they brought Galadriel and Saruman into the story. We don't need to talk about Sauron, you guys! (And the serious look Gandalf gives Bilbo when he's about to show off his secret ring after the escape from Goblin Town. Enough with that stuff.)
• I don't like spiders. (And in the book, was there any great significance to them, or were they just there. Cause, like, this is Mirkwood, and it's creepy?)
• I thought it was superconfusing who they were fighting lots of times, and why. It was just one damn thing after another, with little regard for what we high-falutin literary types call profluence. Remember? There's supposed to be a story happening?
• Having sexy dwarves is dumb. Ha, good points! Except I loved Radagast. He intrigued me in the book and I liked his bunny sled. The bird shiitake on his face was a bit excessive. The Gollum/Bilbo scene was wonderful. I agree about Galadriel and Saruman. Super pointless. Especially Galadriel, because they spent so much goddamn time on her. I feel like they think the Hobbit isn't battle-y enough, but they want to stretch it out to three films for some godforsaken reason, so everything is a battle all the time.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
marmoset
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:00 am |
|
| Attended Chelsea Clinton's Wedding |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 5:34 pm
Posts: 213
Location: Los Angeles, CA
|
|
I really agree with Desdemona and takecare -- the book was integral to my childhood, and it's so damn charming, and so much about Bilbo's inner life -- and all of that is lost in the movie. I did enjoy the movie (although all the annoying things that have been mentioned already annoyed me as well), but it didn't really feel like THE HOBBIT. Much more like The Dwarves.
The one scene I really did love, though, is the one with Bilbo and Gollum. Gollum/Smeagol is such a lonely and pitiable creature -- I was almost crying. The scene was very well done -- Gollum/Smeagol's desperation is tangible and heartbreaking.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
takecare
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:05 am |
|
| Top of the food chain & doesn't need to prove it |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 1:27 pm
Posts: 623
Location: Albany, NY
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
quagga
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:28 am |
|
| Top of the food chain & doesn't need to prove it |
 |
|
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 3:02 pm
Posts: 648
|
takecare wrote: I thought it was lichen growing on Radagast's face, not birdshit. But I may be wrong. Whatever it was, it was distracting as heck. I would have enjoyed Radagast's screen time much more if he had just wiped off his face. He had a nest of baby birds under his hat, so my brain told me it was bird crepe, no matter what the creators really meant for it to be. I kept thinking that this character was Peter Jackson's Jar Jar Binks.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
FootFace
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 11:42 am |
|
| Grandfathered In |
|
|
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Posts: 8228
Location: Seattle
|
|
Yes! Rad Rad Binks!
_________________
Did somebody say Keep on rockin?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
acr
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 12:59 pm |
|
| No-pants hermit 4 lyfe |
 |
|
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2010 10:22 am
Posts: 2347
Location: BKLN
|
|
when my parents were here around christmas, we saw a commercial for this movie, and i mentioned some of the things i had heard people say about it and how i thought it was silly to drag it out into three movies, and my dad almost did a spit-take. he couldn't believe they'd made it into a trilogy. two days later we were in manhattan and we saw a poster for it, and he was like, "so, three movies? really?" and i was like, <3.
_________________
"I dont need someone to slather my butthole, I just need them to bring me tasty foods." - Adam Crisis
"I'm ok with people forcing tables in me." - lavawitch
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
FootFace
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 1:03 pm |
|
| Grandfathered In |
|
|
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2010 1:41 pm
Posts: 8228
Location: Seattle
|
|
Mrs. Face was shocked when the movie ended. She thought it was only one movie and couldn't believe it when I said, "Nope. There's two more of these."
_________________
Did somebody say Keep on rockin?
|
|
| Top |
|
|
|
Liz_D
|
Post subject: Re: The Hobbit Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:16 pm |
|
| Saggy Butt |
 |
|
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2010 9:45 pm
Posts: 284
Location: Oregon
|
|
I enjoyed it, thought Martin Freeman was spot on as Bilbo. But yeah, three movies? I forgot all of the family connections with the dwarves, who was who (like Gimli's dad is Gloin, totally forgot that one).
It does make me want to read it again, I kept thinking, was that in the book? I don't remember it well, though it wasn't as far back as high school that I read it. I first read it after I saw the first Lard of the Rings movies 10 years ago, way way way after high school.
Where this one was all dwarves, fighting and orcs, the next one will probably be all elves, since they had to add several new ones and bring in ones that weren't even in the Hobbit if I recall-coughLegolascough.
|
|
| Top |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
|
|
|
