The HOBBIT......don't bother

Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum

Help Support Homebrew Talk - Beer, Wine, Mead, & Cider Brewing Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
The Matthew Broderick GODZILLA was dog ****, plain and simple. I think that is where Darwin was coming from.

I refuse to watch Pacific Rim unless it is free. Looks like a bad mix of Robotjox and Days of our lives.
 
I refuse to watch Pacific Rim unless it is free. Looks like a bad mix of Robotjox and Days of our lives.

If you like gigantic fighting robots then it's not bad...for first 30 minutes or so. Then it just drags on and on. It is what it is though - mildly entertaining. Not to get too far of track, but Charlie Day was abysmal in that movie. Zero difference between his character in Pacific Rim and Sunny, and I love Sunny.
 
I only watched it because of Guillermo Del Toro. :rockin:

It was alright.
 
Pacific Rim wasn't as bad as it might seem. The story is entirely predictable and the whole premise is just STUPID, but if you can just sit and enjoy giant robots beating up giant aliens from the ocean, then it's not bad. It was well made and the acting wasn't that bad.

And I liked Charlie Day. He was a lot like his character from Sunny, but I liked his character in Sunny!

Anyway, we were discussing Hobbit, not Godzilla or PR, although I'd totally go see a Godzilla movie. What man here wouldn't go see it just because it's GODZILLA!? Remember those things from your youth?? They would have a series of them each day for a week on Channel 5 that would could get most days. I'd go outside afterwards and pretend to smash things and throw big chunks of snow and try to make Godzilla sounds...

So, ok back to The Hobbit...
 
Well, I may be done then, I will not pay to see the hobbit 2 or 3.

If they named it something else, I might skeptically go to see a new fantasy fiction film, but probably not.

I am not a complete sap, but I really remember the Hobbit fondly, and have barely managed to erase that first piece of **** from my memory.

If you are pondering going to see any of them, I suggest you actually improve your IQ and read the book. (as opposed to lowering it by watching another hollywood CGI actionfest)
 
Well, I may be done then, I will not pay to see the hobbit 2 or 3.

What, you're not going to see "Die Hard: The Desolation of Smaug" in theaters? Are you crazy?


I'm still up in the air about it. I read an LA Times review, where the reviewer said that part 2 was significantly better than 1, primarily because part 2 wasn't "so weighed down by reverence to the source material" and went its own way much more. I'm not making this up. It kinda makes me want to rip Jackson's gizzard out and eat it for dinner. Rat bastage.
 
What, you're not going to see "Die Hard: The Desolation of Smaug" in theaters? Are you crazy?


I'm still up in the air about it. I read an LA Times review, where the reviewer said that part 2 was significantly better than 1, primarily because part 2 wasn't "so weighed down by reverence to the source material" and went its own way much more. I'm not making this up. It kinda makes me want to rip Jackson's gizzard out and eat it for dinner. Rat bastage.

Fava beans and....ya know.....some kind of italian red wine.

;)
 
OK. (last :off:)

Pacific Rim......"Reset the Clock"....BATTLESTAR GALLACTICA

"some new weapon that destroys networked computers.....but some OLD **** we have lying around WiLL KICK SOME ASS..............." BATTLESTAR GALACTICA.

Suck it.
 
Pacific Rim, because it makes sense to build World-Wide-Poverty-Causing Giant Robots for Trillions and Trillions of dollars, rather then a few million dollar MOABs, or even just some good old fashioned armour piercing explosives...

I can't imagine why a reviewer would be so negative about Tolkien's book. I can understand the need to liven up, or maybe even leave out, some scenes, or even to fill in some areas with background story from the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales or something. But it almost seemed as though HALF the movie was extraneous BS IMO. This could have easily been at most a 2 hour movie.
 
True. I thought the scenes at Dol Guldur, which weren't depicted in the Hobbit, were pretty solid and filled a missing void.
 
Pacific Rim, because it makes sense to build World-Wide-Poverty-Causing Giant Robots for Trillions and Trillions of dollars, rather then a few million dollar MOABs, or even just some good old fashioned armour piercing explosives....

I would have traded ALL of those ridiculous robots for 1 B-52 loaded with nukes. Or how about a well armed submarine?

PREEEEEEEEEEEEEEE posterous.

I can't imagine why a reviewer would be so negative about Tolkien's book. I can understand the need to liven up, or maybe even leave out, some scenes, or even to fill in some areas with background story from the Silmarillion or Unfinished Tales or something. But it almost seemed as though HALF the movie was extraneous BS IMO. This could have easily been at most a 2 hour movie.

That reviewer should be shot.......but for some reason........

THE SHINING that followed only approximately 9% of the book, is a far better movie than the later remake that followed 93% or so. I think that is a fluke, and a testament to Kubric's genius, not a model to try and replicate.
 
Pacific Rim is a little stoopid, but kinda fun. Don't see myself ever watching it again, but I don't hate it.

The CLOCK idea was clearly ripped off from BSG, and poorly done at that. In BSG it was amazingly well done.

The Galactica would JUMP to a sometimes random location hoping to evade the far superior Cylon force. Like clockwork the cylons appeared after a certain amount of time (32 minutes?). The grudging relief felt when the clock went 1 second...2...3,4,5,6 seconds past the zero and finally complete relief when it became apparent that something was different was AWESOME.

The EMP or whatever the Jaiju (or whatever) shot out that crippled the newer Jagers but left the old one OK was pretty poorly done and transparent too.

In BSG, well......just watch it. It is only 345 times better than Pacific Rim, and 1427 times better than the HOBBIT ;)
 
Oh, that schmuck from the LA Times? Betsey Sharkey is her name. Want to go egg her house?

Only if she is standing in front of it...

I seriously wonder if she has ever read the book. I take that back. I seriously doubt she has ever read the book.

She appears to have preferred the (not always great) CGI effects to the actual story. Now, don't get me wrong, SMAUG was rendered beautifully, and even if some of the drawn-out action scenes dealt with him (and nothing that was even in the book), he was still a wonder to watch.

There were plenty of nearly God-awful action scenes rendered in CGI that were not lifelike, which made it tremendously difficult to suspend disbelief.

Know what would be great? A Middle Earth series filmed like Game of Thrones... Then we could REALLY see some dwarf on Elf action!

Female Elf: And what's your name, dwarf?
Male Dwarf: They call me Smaug, because I'm a draggin! (wink)
 
Know what would be great? A Middle Earth series filmed like Game of Thrones... Then we could REALLY see some dwarf on Elf action!

Female Elf: And what's your name, dwarf?
Male Dwarf: They call me Smaug, because I'm a draggin! (wink)

<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:southparkstudios.com:4b86dc0a-7075-4fd8-90a1-f623a666dc01" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe></div></div>
 
Oh man. Worst joke all month. You win 10 internets. ;)


Since I haven't yet seen it, is this a more accurate review, to your thinking?

I think that's a fairly accurate review, at least from my point of view. I disagree with the author's critique of movie's visuals as I thought they were very impressive, if not spectacular in certain sequences. Everything the author wrote regarding the storyline is spot on.
 
Elf: You Dwarves are well known for finding your way around in the dark... and for burrowing in tight places. Tell me, what do you know of wood?
Dwarf: I'm FAMOUS for my wood!
 
<div style="background-color:#000000;width:520px;"><div style="padding:4px;"><iframe src="http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:arc:video:southparkstudios.com:4b86dc0a-7075-4fd8-90a1-f623a666dc01" width="512" height="288" frameborder="0"></iframe></div></div>

I love South Park and I laughed till it hurt with that song.
 
I love South Park and I laughed till it hurt with that song.

I loved the slight dig at George R. R. Martin and his famous delays on writing his books. I should catch up on a few episodes. The quality of that show hasn't seemed to have declined over the years as most show have.
 
It is gold. Last season had some meh episodes, but all in all it's been pretty funny.
 
South Park is pretty awesome. A lot of people claim it's gone downhill since the first few seasons, but in reality at that point it was just going over the top with crass, offensive humor and gratuitous swearing for its laughs.

But it has grown into a satire that is on point and far more relevant than any other fictional show... largely made possible by a production schedule that literally BEGINS work on the concept for an episode only one week before airing. Virtually any other scripted show is looking at the better part of a year from concept to airing, at which point the satire is no longer relevant and "fresh" - especially in the age of the Internet and the 24-hour news cycle, where most topics tend to almost immediately become "old news", and quickly lose any relevance for South Park's newer (more educated, informed, and dare I say... more "high-brow") main demographic. As opposed to their initial target audience who didn't rely on
typically-long production schedules either, as they responded very predictably and reliably well to "fuçk you's" and fart jokes, anal probes, offensiveness for its own sake, and a total lack of any necessity to engage any real part of your brain.

One could perhaps make the argument that the show peaked several years ago rather than steadily going downhill since the first few seasons, and while I don't know if I'd agree, I could at the very least accept and respect such an argument. But to argue that its glory began right with its inception is absolute bananas, as it steadily transformed over the years from gratuitously offensive toilet humor to quite possibly the most intelligent, insightful, and (again) relevant satire that the entire television medium has to offer. :mug:
 
Saw the Desolation last night. I do think it's better than the first one actually, but not in being accurate to details of the book. If that's what you're looking for, you will be sorely disappointed. Still wasn't amazing, but I enjoyed myself a bit more.
 
Saw it yesterday in 3D HFR.

First the HFR. I saw the first one in 2D so I wasn't sure what I'd think of the HFR. It takes some getting used to and I definitely felt that "soap opera" effect where it looks like actors on a stage. That said, I got used to it by the end (of this loooong movie.)

I didn't like how the Beorn scene was done nor did I like the look of Beorn himself. That's one of my favorite parts in the book so the changes bugged me. I think he got shortchanged.

I thought the Mirkwood stuff was great - the spiders especially. The whole barrel riding scene was a lot of fun and I enjoyed it. Gandalf's plotline was well done.

Laketown was cool but the whole Kili plotline did nothing for me. You can really sense a lot of the padding that went into turning this into a trilogy, especially the whole part with the dwarves at the end. This movie would have worked much better if it had been trimmed down. Smaug kicked ass though.
 
This movie was so disappointing after all; and I am not one to pick apart movie adaptions. I get changes happen and I enjoyed LotR and the first Hobbit enormously. But this last installment was so disheartening. It was a complete fabrication, not an adaption. Wtf is the deal with Legolas and that female elf? And the little trumped up love triangle that added nothing to the story. And Bilbo was much more bold when he talked to Smaug, reciting his various names. Ugh. Peter Jackson, why? I thought about just leaving halfway through. The book had more than enough action and adventure in it to make for a fantastic film, left just how it was written. They tried way too hard to make a LotR prequel.
 
Back
Top