That's certainly one (diplomatic) way of putting it...
There's an extended bluray? Really? Can't see what else they can put in there! Interesting!
DELETED_74993
- Thread starter DELETED_74993
- Start date
For the first 55 minutes we have Tim from the office bumbling about complaining about dwarfs being in his house. I was bored.
It was vacuous at best. You lot must have really low quality control. Just because a film looks stunning in HD and 3D and HFR doesn't mean its a good.
It was vacuous at best. You lot must have really low quality control. Just because a film looks stunning in HD and 3D and HFR doesn't mean its a good.
I can understand how some people might find the first 3/4hr slow. Personally I went expecting that and actually didn't find it a problem.
So it's everyone else at fault for enjoying the film. That makes sense. Or at least is in keeping with the rest of your well constructed points.
You're the one who has repeatedly used visual quality ("cgi was pants", or "cgi was aweful") in your support of it being a poor film. No one has used the straw man you suggest here.
I'll suggest again you're knee jerking and ranting at this film. It's obviously a big block buster film, which has been very successful, but which you didn't enjoy. That's of course fine, we all enjoy different things. But you now appear to be on a mission (rant) to convince everyone you're right and we're all wrong somehow. And worse still you're using a set of arguments that frankly look unfair and ill-thought out:-
* Nothing happens.
* The CGI was awful
* cgi was pants.
* I hate all the LOTR films.
* The goblin scene just looked like Fraggle rock.
* Were was the story?
* There was so much filler in this nonsense it was painful.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,175
I could sit there and watch the Dwarves singing around a fire with cutscenes of epic dwarven battles for 10 hours and be entertained. So I guess our enjoyment out of the genre in general is a lot different to yours, which is fine of course.
The CGI is a lot better than you think it is, I watched it on my 60" tv and it really did look very good, there are a few weak points (azog, sledge) but the rest of it really does look great. I think you will be surprised if you revisit it in the future. Of course the film could have been a lot better, most films can, the slow pace and inclusion of things like Radagast might give people cause to rage, but I can see why its been done, the deposing of the necromancer (sauron) of dol guldur will I'm sure be a huge part over the next two films. Rightly so as well since it is a huge part of the same time period (just not included in the Hobbit book itself). Obviously the films aren't for everyone, but as someone who loves anything to do with goblins orcs elves et al, any extra content I will happily sit through, dwarves fighting goblins and orcs in huge scale battles???! I will defiantly be entertained for every second of it.
If you are Peter Jackson then you would want the two sets of films to tie up nicely wouldn't you? Galadriel at dol Guldur is going to be absolutely immense if done correctly!
The CGI is a lot better than you think it is, I watched it on my 60" tv and it really did look very good, there are a few weak points (azog, sledge) but the rest of it really does look great. I think you will be surprised if you revisit it in the future. Of course the film could have been a lot better, most films can, the slow pace and inclusion of things like Radagast might give people cause to rage, but I can see why its been done, the deposing of the necromancer (sauron) of dol guldur will I'm sure be a huge part over the next two films. Rightly so as well since it is a huge part of the same time period (just not included in the Hobbit book itself). Obviously the films aren't for everyone, but as someone who loves anything to do with goblins orcs elves et al, any extra content I will happily sit through, dwarves fighting goblins and orcs in huge scale battles???! I will defiantly be entertained for every second of it.
If you are Peter Jackson then you would want the two sets of films to tie up nicely wouldn't you? Galadriel at dol Guldur is going to be absolutely immense if done correctly!
But I didn't see a battle in the Goblin scene.What I saw was CGI, I felt no plight of the characters. Danger or threat. It was CGI
Problem with CGI is that it allows ego to manifest. The scene were they all fall down that crack in the rock with the goblins off that platform was just naff.
CGI means anything is possible visually and sometimes it just becomes spectacle for the sake of it.
I want to see real action...Choreographed fight scene real stuff.
I want to see Hard boiled with Swords..Is this to much to ask?
I watched Jaws the other day with my 12 and 14 year old and they were hooked from start to finish.The Shark was mechanical looked dodgy in some places but it works.The sense of the threat is there. The scene were Quint gets eaten in half still works today even though the shark doesn't look real.
Jaws made today with CGI would be just like most films today, awash with CGI ...Audiences are becoming increasingly disengaged with CGI, my 12 year old daughter is.They are so used to seeing it , Directors try to come up with bigger and better visuals to captivate audiences but its becoming so silly its having the opposite effect.
Jaws was made in 1975, The two kids were silent and captivated from start to finish. This hasn't happened in a long time.
CGI has its place sure. But that sledge scene with Radagast was pointless crap, not true to the story, naff, daft, silly, and vacuous.
The tree scene at the end was all these tings too.
Problem with CGI is that it allows ego to manifest. The scene were they all fall down that crack in the rock with the goblins off that platform was just naff.
CGI means anything is possible visually and sometimes it just becomes spectacle for the sake of it.
I want to see real action...Choreographed fight scene real stuff.
I want to see Hard boiled with Swords..Is this to much to ask?
I watched Jaws the other day with my 12 and 14 year old and they were hooked from start to finish.The Shark was mechanical looked dodgy in some places but it works.The sense of the threat is there. The scene were Quint gets eaten in half still works today even though the shark doesn't look real.
Jaws made today with CGI would be just like most films today, awash with CGI ...Audiences are becoming increasingly disengaged with CGI, my 12 year old daughter is.They are so used to seeing it , Directors try to come up with bigger and better visuals to captivate audiences but its becoming so silly its having the opposite effect.
Jaws was made in 1975, The two kids were silent and captivated from start to finish. This hasn't happened in a long time.
CGI has its place sure. But that sledge scene with Radagast was pointless crap, not true to the story, naff, daft, silly, and vacuous.
The tree scene at the end was all these tings too.
I'm not out to convince anyone of anything, other than a considered opinion actually worth listening to, doesn't resemble childish ranting banter such as:-
* Nothing happens.
* The CGI was awful
* cgi was pants.
* I hate all the LOTR films.
* The goblin scene just looked like Fraggle rock.
* Were was the story?
* There was so much filler in this nonsense it was painful.
I agree with this - If you look back in this thread you'll see my similar complaint about the "Looney Tunes" physics etc, where characters seem immune from harm no matter what happens to them (eg: how high they fall from etc).
The scene you mention of them falling down the crack, is a good example of this and I agree it detracts from the film (IMHO).
If he doesn't like it, he doesn't like it. I like LOTR but could find value in all of those points.
When I say I don't like a film, I can do so without belittling those who disagree. You seem totally incapable of doing similar, dismissing comments you don't agree with as childish or 'anti-fan'.
If he doesn't like it, he doesn't like it. I like LOTR but could find value in all of those points.
When I say I don't like a film, I can do so without belittling those who disagree. You seem totally incapable of doing similar, dismissing comments you don't agree with as childish or 'anti-fan'.
You can say you don't enjoy a film as much as you like. And if you can bring points to the table that explain your reason which have the ring of common sense and reason all the better. We can have a nice adult conversation about it - Which is surely the point of it all?
But you'll have to excuse me for pointing out what appears to be a pointless, valueless 'rant'... As demonstrated above. If you wish to support his opinion the film is "crap", that's fine. And indeed where he finally managed to explain something I even concurred. But if you want to support his other original points (rants) backing up this conclusion, which I've held him accountable for, that seems a shame.
Seems a shame people aren't held more accountable for what they say on the internet... It would be better and more constructive place IMHO.
"Nothing happens" - Really? That's a constructive realistic argument?
Last edited:
I think it's a very fair argument if you flesh it out. It's the same as saying the film is too long, which is probably the most common complaint.
- Gandalf recruits Bilbo and they set off to the Dragon
- Bilbo finds the ring and escapes from Gollum
- Bilbo gains respect from the dwarfs
Those were the pivotal plot points of the film. I don't really think much else did happen. It took an awfully look time to achieve just that and I think it's even worse considering there are a whopping two films to go.
Granted you can do the same with any film:
Titanic
- They get on a boat
- It sinks
But Titanic has some decent interaction between the characters, more so than 'douchey dwarf becomes less douchey'.
- Gandalf recruits Bilbo and they set off to the Dragon
- Bilbo finds the ring and escapes from Gollum
- Bilbo gains respect from the dwarfs
Those were the pivotal plot points of the film. I don't really think much else did happen. It took an awfully look time to achieve just that and I think it's even worse considering there are a whopping two films to go.
Granted you can do the same with any film:
Titanic
- They get on a boat
- It sinks
But Titanic has some decent interaction between the characters, more so than 'douchey dwarf becomes less douchey'.
It's interesting of course you have to take the point (rant) in question, "nothing happens," and in your own words, flesh it out, into a somewhat different point to actually attempt to give it some meaning or credibility? Hence my point exactly!
I can fully understand some people might find the film too long, especially the first third or so. Myself, I went along to watch it expecting (from reviews) for it to be slow, so maybe that helped. But I quite enjoyed immersing myself in the slow start of the film. I personally didn't find it slow.
But anyway, if you want to give "nothing happens" some value as a reasoned criticism, fair enough. I'll continue to construe it as a cheap, knee jerk rant myself
ps: Don't support Titanic, you'll find the same sort of pitch fork wielding haters jumping (ranting) all over that film too because of its profile & success.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,175
I understand what you are saying, In some ways I agree, lotr had a lot more "real" battles, but Peter Jackson wanted the goblins to be more varied and unusual so went with the full CGI. Open terrain battle scenes are probably a lot easier to shoot than the location inside the mountain in a goblin city. I thought it was done very well personally, I liked the CGI goblins and thought they looked good, also the scenes with them trying to escape from it all gave me the skin tingles of excitement (even if it was slightly over the top)!
Maybe I am a bit biased in my opinion, I just love anything adventurey like this and was really quite sad when the film was over.
Just wondering about the character of Radagask I think its spelt, is he that much of a retard in the books?
A bit, yes. He's a bumbling wizard, but he isn't spasticated. Radagast the brown is a bit low key in the books, but there certainly isn't a chase scene with him on some epic rabbits with bird**** all down his face though.
Just wondering about the character of Radagask I think its spelt, is he that much of a retard in the books?
The biggest thing that annoyed me about Radagask, was when he was leading the Orcs away (by making them chase his hare powered sledge) so Bilbo's group could make their escape. Rather than actually just leading them away, he kept going in circles so kept bringing the pursuing Orcs straight back to Bilbo again?
"Nothing happens" - Really? That's a constructive realistic argument?
For 55 minutes we have nothing happen.We have Bilbo and the dwarfs doing the same thing for 55 minutes.They eat they chat sing a bit ..thats it.
I have already said why I think the CGI was crap
Do I really need to explain my other points?
The biggest thing that annoyed me about Radagask, was when he was leading the Orcs away (by making them chase his hare powered sledge) so Bilbo's group could make their escape. Rather than actually just leading them away, he kept going in circles so kept bringing the pursuing Orcs straight back to Bilbo again?
Yes like i have mentioned The sledge scene was vacuous.
Just wondering about the character of Radagask I think its spelt, is he that much of a retard in the books?
No He's mentioned once in the book.