The Hobbit

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Royal

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
Dumar_sl said:
the best way to describe this movie is that while it's certainly good (especially in terms of the absolute shit hollywood throws up every weekend), the best parts of the hobbit story could've been done much better, from the trolls to the goblin king to riddles. all of these scenes could've been much, much more epic than they were portrayed here.
Click to expand...
Another part I think could have been done much better was the beginning. Using Bilbo beginning his memoirs yet again was unimaginative and that entire scene was agonizingly slow and uninteresting. It would have been better to have started with something like Bilbo, Frodo, and Gandalf aboard the ship sailing to Valinor sharing old tales and Gandalf recounting his chance meeting with Thorin in Bree and thus leading to Bilbo's recruitment for the adventure and on to the main storyline. This would have established the timeline for The Hobbit as a prequel for the casual audience just as effectively and would have also made the noticeable aging of Ian Holm more of a plausible story element than a distraction.
 
Araxen

Araxen

Golden Baronet of the Realm
10,447
7,840
Noodleface_sl said:
So far I don't think anyone here has said the movie was bad, yet it stands strong at 65% on RT. Fuck those critics. And they all try to use some lame one-liner to justify their review.

A bigger fuck you goes to the one critic I saw who wrote "The Hobbit came out this week, did we really need this movie?" Go fuck yourself you fucking fuck.
Click to expand...
It should have read: The Hobbit came out this week, did we really need to stretch this out for two more movies?

65% is about an average movie and this was an average fantasy movie so the RT is correct.
 
xzi

xzi

Mouthbreather
7,526
6,763
Very few parts in the movie it did seem like I was literally sitting on set - but I think that's due to the way the shot was lit. The lighting in that movie was pretty superb. Like.. a few scenes were just too "perfect". I have no complaints though, it didn't happen often and looked very good regardless.
 
W

Whatwhat_sl

shitlord
45
0
Royal_sl said:
Another part I think could have been done much better was the beginning. Using Bilbo beginning his memoirs yet again was unimaginative and that entire scene was agonizingly slow and uninteresting. It would have been better to have started with something like Bilbo, Frodo, and Gandalf aboard the ship sailing to Valinor sharing old tales and Gandalf recounting his chance meeting with Thorin in Bree and thus leading to Bilbo's recruitment for the adventure and on to the main storyline. This would have established the timeline for The Hobbit as a prequel for the casual audience just as effectively and would have also made the noticeable aging of Ian Holm more of a plausible story element than a distraction.
Click to expand...
While I didn't mind the setup they used, I think something like this would have been the better way to go.
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Mixtilplix_sl said:
Really? I thought the CGI looked superior to LOTR with the exception of Azog (who knew we'd be seeing an engineer in the hobbit). But honestly I never thought much of the CGI from the first film. All of Jackson's CGI monsters tend to move with a certain cartoon quality, like his animators can't be bothered to animate real motions. Shit just zooms across the screen at warp speed kinda like a Disney movie, the only exception being gollum. I would love to have seen some animatronic puppets in these movies.
Click to expand...
I thought the world and cities looked amazing in The Hobbit, but something about Rivendell made it look just weird this time. I didn't feel the beauty of it, and maybe having the elves play harps was just too gay for me. I thought Goblin King looked great, and yeah, the 1 armed Orc looked so damn fake. The CGI for Rhadagast looked horrible. And this wasn't CGI, but the first time we see Rhadagast, he looked so dumb, almost like there was a clump of makeup glue on his face. I don't know. I'll see it again in a week and probably love it more.

Also, I am just bitching to bitch, because, well, it's fucking The Hobbit.
smile.png


smile.png


smile.png
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Royal_sl said:
Another part I think could have been done much better was the beginning. Using Bilbo beginning his memoirs yet again was unimaginative and that entire scene was agonizingly slow and uninteresting. It would have been better to have started with something like Bilbo, Frodo, and Gandalf aboard the ship sailing to Valinor sharing old tales and Gandalf recounting his chance meeting with Thorin in Bree and thus leading to Bilbo's recruitment for the adventure and on to the main storyline. This would have established the timeline for The Hobbit as a prequel for the casual audience just as effectively and would have also made the noticeable aging of Ian Holm more of a plausible story element than a distraction.
Click to expand...
Yeah, during this part I was like "Fuck, I've already seen this!!!"
 
G

Golt_sl

shitlord
239
0
Saw it in HFR 3D and loved it, had no real complaints. Was worried from some of the reviews going in, but I'm glad to see it was unfounded. Actually going to see this again but in 2D 24FPS to see the differences, overall though the movie was awesome and I didn't notice the length. I have a feeling the HFR made some of the CGI seem a bit more out of place (Radagast rabbit sled chase comes to mind) but it didn't bother me. Didn't even really need my eyes to 'adjust' to the 48 FPS, had no problems with it from the start. And it looked way better than the effects HD can have on movies that i've seen on TV.
 
Springbok

Springbok

Karen
<Gold Donor>
9,386
13,903
The only CGI complaints I had were the rabbit shit, and the Orc lead (defiler guy). Other than that - CGI was SIGNIFICANTLY worse in the LOTR trilogy. If you don't believe that, watch them in HD again. Some of it is already showing its age.

I will say that the scene in this when they first get to the Elf place looked pretty fake as well - but overall the CGI was much better in The Hobbit than in LOTR.
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
Springbok_sl said:
The only CGI complaints I had were the rabbit shit, and the Orc lead (defiler guy). Other than that - CGI was SIGNIFICANTLY worse in the LOTR trilogy. If you don't believe that, watch them in HD again. Some of it is already showing its age.

I will say that the scene in this when they first get to the Elf place looked pretty fake as well - but overall the CGI was much better in The Hobbit than in LOTR.
Click to expand...
Interesting. Perhaps I think LOTR was better because it's been so many years since I've seen them. Honestly, I've tried re-watching them but in recent years I'm just so damn bored with them.
smile.png
Will try again. I do remember the CGI scene with like Legolas flipping onto his horse that looked absolutely retarded.

smile.png


smile.png
 
B

Bacon_sl

shitlord
91
0
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
I do remember the CGI scene with like Legolas flipping onto his horse that looked absolutely retarded.
Click to expand...
Ha! I'll give you that one. I saw it in IMAX and enjoyed the hell out of it. Maybe I'm biased because I enjoyed these books so much. I know there were some silly parts to the movie, but it is based off a children's book. I think it laid a solid foundation for the remaining movies.
 
Paranoia

Paranoia

Trakanon Raider
1,845
643
Just saw it on IMAX 3D fantastic movie. Special FX's done very well I think only when the camera was panning out after showing the heart of the mountain the picture got very fuzzy. Other then that enjoyed the hell out of it. I did like learning more about the history of middle earth.
 
J

Joe_sl

shitlord
63
0
I enjoyed it in HFR 3D. The 3D was really effective at some spots especially when they were throwing those pinecones. Some of my friends moved their heads back when they were watching that lol. It does get fuzzy at some points but it refocuses back pretty fast.
 
Furry

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭
<Gold Donor>
21,885
28,606
Little to no complaints here. I saw normal imax 3d. Looked good, but motion was noticeably blurred during movement like almost any 3d movie. Really wish it had been at 48 fps so I could see the difference. Movie was beautiful, fun, and all around entertaining.
 
xzi

xzi

Mouthbreather
7,526
6,763
It's a lot more pristine in 48fps to me. For a 3D movie it was pretty close to perfect when violently moving or crazy fight scenes.
 
W

wanand

Bronze Knight of the Realm
281
28
As some one who has never read any Hobbit/Lotr book I really enjoyed the movie. For me it was good to get a better understanding of the build up to the lotor films and this film does it very well, as well as telling it's own story.

Would highly recomend this to anyone well worth a watch
 
Leon

Leon

<Silver Donator>
5,598
19,054
Paranoia_sl said:
Just saw it on IMAX 3D fantastic movie. Special FX's done very well I think only when the camera was panning out after showing the heart of the mountain the picture got very fuzzy. Other then that enjoyed the hell out of it. I did like learning more about the history of middle earth.
Click to expand...
This was also the case in 2D. That scene was painfully blurry all around.
 
Blackyce

Blackyce

Silver Knight of the Realm
836
12
Saw it opening night on Friday and loved it. My only complaint was that I could never adjust to the 48fps on close ups and action scenes so they all became blurry and hard to watch. Other than that, the 3d was incredibly sharp and beautiful.

Also, I think PJ did the opening sequence as a transition to something we were familiar with which I think was completely unnecessary.
 
Amzin

Amzin

Lord Nagafen Raider
2,917
361
Yea the opening sequence was kinda weird. Seems like it would have been better at the end of the third movie. I saw it in 3D but was the normal framerate because old theater or something. The 3D was very subtle for the most part and not all "HEY LOOK THIRD DIMENSION" like some other movies do. A couple of times the 3D stood out kind of harshly but it was rare. Planning on seeing it again in 2D with people who don't like 3D, and will make sure it's the higher framerate this time.
 
Jait

Jait

Molten Core Raider
5,035
5,317
Well. I appreciated that the 3D wasn't a gimmick. I didn't want arrows flying at my face, or a mace being swung at the camera. I really liked the way it was done, with the ambient things. Insects, smoke from the pipes, fireplaces, etc...

On another subject, getting Radagast nice and loaded during that one scene was a little....excessive? But had me laughing too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.