The Hobbit
- Thread starter Feien
- Start date
-
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!
Famm
Ahn'Qiraj Raider
- 11,041
- 794
It really doesn't need defended anyway. No one in this thread has openly shit all over the movie like it was Prometheus or something equally disappointing. There will always be some nitpicks, but by this board's standards its an overwhelmingly positive response.
Muligan
Trakanon Raider
- 3,231
- 901
All the people doing this is getting exactly what they wanted... some air time. CNN has nothing to talk about and if you look at the negative reviews on RT, it is mainly the reviewers that people dislike the most and have a history of trashing decent movies. I think its hilarious that people are taking this approach. The Hobbit probably ranks 2 or 3 on my LotR movie lists so yeah, I understand its not the greatest thing on planet earth but if you give it an honest review it is easily a 8.5/10 and I think that's being pretty fair. Anyway, there is no such thing as bad publicity and I hope PJ has confidence in his work and just stays the course. All this negative criticism is just going to generate even more attending when part 2 comes out.
If you haven't seen The Hobbit yet, everyone here pretty well sums it up nicely. I'll go with one review I read about a week ago.... if the framerate of your movie is your greatest issue, you've probably made a good movie.
gogusrl
Molten Core Raider
- 1,362
- 105
ham
Lord Nagafen Raider
- 1,489
- 92
I had delayed seeing this for so long because all the reviews and feedback I seemed to get were very lukewarm. I enjoyed the movie, it's not as good as LOTR and I see no reason why it needs to be 3 three hour films, but a really enjoyable film that's probably sure to end up in my top 10
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Saw it last night. Was good, I'd rate it slightly below Fellowship and about even with the other two. I can see why people said it had problems, so saying it's not a masterpiece is fine. But anyone saying it was a bad movie or even a mediocre film, like 30% of the rotten tomatoes critics, is just being huge hipster douche bag and trying to draw out small flaws in order to fit their mind set where they can look trendy and unique by bashing something already popular.
I swear, every time I read a critic who gave it a bad review based solely on how the higher frame rate makes it look crisper and more defined, I think of this.
I think this thread, in total, has been fair. There are flaws, but absolutely nothing that should make the film feel under a 7-8 out of 10.
I swear, every time I read a critic who gave it a bad review based solely on how the higher frame rate makes it look crisper and more defined, I think of this.
I think this thread, in total, has been fair. There are flaws, but absolutely nothing that should make the film feel under a 7-8 out of 10.
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
Seriously though, the word hipster was created specifically for these people. Someone who was pretentious would have just said the film had flaws which made it not work (Mildly negative)--it takes a hipster to say it's a terrible movie that will ruin the entire art of film because of how clean and sharp it makes the picture. (World ending negativity)
Xalara
Golden Squire
- 826
- 81
Likely pretty much the same, by the time Del Toro left the script was written and most of the props, costumes, and sets were well into production. He still has some creative input, if I recall correctly.
McCheese
SW: Sean, CW: Crone, GW: Wizardhawk
- 6,918
- 4,315
Given that it's based on the book and the visual style was already pretty much set in stone by the LOTR films, I doubt it would have been much different in either story or visuals.
i really think the only big negative to the movie was the light hearted comedy that was haphazardly thrown into the film for some unknown reason. i really don't see why it was put in there, as it definitely detracted from the movie at several points, the biggest being when they are captured by the goblin king, and the scene with the trolls. i also could have done without the added shit they put into the movie that wasn't in the book. just seemed like unnecessary filler, and i think the movie wouldn't have felt as disjointed at times with it taken out. i also think it would have been great to just make it one long movie (like 4 and a half hours) or maybe broken it into 2 movies. i honestly don't see how they're going to get 2 more full 3 hour movies out of what's remaining to the story. i thought the movie was great, but thought it could have been better. it just didn't seem to be as memorable or epic as the fellowship was, and i actually prefer the hobbit story over that of the LOTR trilogy.
Xalara
Golden Squire
- 826
- 81
Yes, but that was after filming was in progress. It was a combination of:
1) Oh crap we've shot way more film than we can actually put on screen for two movies.
2) $$$