Nobodys_Fault Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 (edited) I mean the 300 pages into three movies? Really?It's not 300 pages though. There's a shitload of stuff in the LOTR appendices that explains in detail the events surrounding The Hobbit. That's where Jackson is getting a great deal of his material.3 movies may be a bit much, but I think I'll go see it before concluding that a 71% average from a handful of reviews means it 'officially sucks'. Edited December 5, 2012 by Nobodys_Fault Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bran Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 (edited) I hope The Hobbit makes a profit so MGM won't bust again.Betcha they're praying the same thing.I don't feel one bit sorry if a movie studio goes under. Piracy is GROSSLY overstated. Just make good movies, and people will see them. Also, 13, 14, 15 dollars to see a movie is why people aren't going to the theaters. I don't see movies in the theaters, but I buy them when they come out if I hear they're good.piracy is a scapegoat. look at skyrim for video games. in less than a month at 60 dollars a pop it sold over 10 million copies and made 625 million dollars.its the record companies and movie companies that put out and market shitty music/movies that rehash old ideas a million times over while gouging the consumers to watch or listen to their shit, then they cry piracy when their stuff tanks. Edited December 6, 2012 by bran Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 If a film doesn't double its budget and make up for marketing than it will be considered a flop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Bond Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Both of my local theaters are $9 for a movie. $13 for 3D generally. Tuesdays is cheap night ($5 for a movie, $7 for 3D) and there's usually student deals too. I read so many accounts of how ticket prices are too expensive nowadays so I'm pretty glad mine haven't been affected.Add me to the list of hoping this will do well so MGM doesn't go under again. I think it'll be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Georgy Zhukov Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Both of my local theaters are $9 for a movie. $13 for 3D generally. Tuesdays is cheap night ($5 for a movie, $7 for 3D) and there's usually student deals too. I read so many accounts of how ticket prices are too expensive nowadays so I'm pretty glad mine haven't been affected.Add me to the list of hoping this will do well so MGM doesn't go under again. I think it'll be fine.Red Dawn is a flop, it might force them to cut some of their losses but it wouldn't be as bad as The Hobbit flopping. Even if it does under perform they have two more films. I think the next wo films combined are equal to the first, but hopefully should generate some profit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luciusfunk Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 The 48fps looks like shit. I have no interest in The Hobbit, I'll wait till all three are on DVD/Blu Ray, but I've been watching the extended LOTR movies at work the last few nights. They're a little long, but I forgot how good they are. I used to hate The Two Towers, now I love it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bacardimayne Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 thank god i dont like lotr or i'd be really mad right noq Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunsguy Posted December 9, 2012 Share Posted December 9, 2012 who is going to check it out in high frame rate? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted December 10, 2012 Share Posted December 10, 2012 4 days left! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan H. Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm too drunk to search for Miser's Hobbit thread.But I want to say that the film was a collasal disappointment.The things that did not disappoint me, however, were the things most people expected to dislike.The running time was fine. The fact that it didn't match the book properly made sense, and the things that were added flowed very well and added some depth to the story, so I understand why it was more than one film.The CGI, acting, and awkward humor/editing is what absolutely killed this movie.I'll give props to Ian Mckellan and the dude who played Bilbo. They did fine.In fact most of the actors did fine, I'd say the script and CGI are what murdered this movie, which is a shame since the director did a fine job with the main concerns of the movie, but seemed to forget that the devils in the details.I'm pretty disappointed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nosaj Thing Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I didn't like it. Man, that was a disappointment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tater Totts Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm too drunk to search for Miser's Hobbit thread.But I want to say that the film was a collasal disappointment.The things that did not disappoint me, however, were the things most people expected to dislike.The running time was fine. The fact that it didn't match the book properly made sense, and the things that were added flowed very well and added some depth to the story, so I understand why it was more than one film.The CGI, acting, and awkward humor/editing is what absolutely killed this movie.I'll give props to Ian Mckellan and the dude who played Bilbo. They did fine.In fact most of the actors did fine, I'd say the script and CGI are what murdered this movie, which is a shame since the director did a fine job with the main concerns of the movie, but seemed to forget that the devils in the details.I'm pretty disappointed.I haven't seen it yet but I expect this one to be the worst of the three, much like how Fellowship was the worst of the LOTR films. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Should things in here be spoiler tagged from now? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tater Totts Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I guess so incase anyone comes in here that hasn't read the book or seen the film yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan H. Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Well, I didn't post any plot spoilers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tater Totts Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 I'm sure Sandy didn't mean you specifically, just that if people are gonna post major spoilers they should be tagged. Like you said none of the stuff you posted was a spoiler. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sandman Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Yeah, just generally - I've read it, but I'd rather not just have to avoid general discussion prior to viewing. Spoiler tags are just considerate - but I appreciate this is a future consideration! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tater Totts Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Yeah, just generally - I've read it, but I'd rather not just have to avoid general discussion prior to viewing. Spoiler tags are just considerate - but I appreciate this is a future consideration!SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luciusfunk Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Yeah, just generally - I've read it, but I'd rather not just have to avoid general discussion prior to viewing. Spoiler tags are just considerate - but I appreciate this is a future consideration!SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDORE!Spoilers, asshole! I haven't gotten that far yet! Edited December 14, 2012 by luciusfunk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerage5 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I'm too drunk to search for Miser's Hobbit thread.But I want to say that the film was a collasal disappointment.The things that did not disappoint me, however, were the things most people expected to dislike.The running time was fine. The fact that it didn't match the book properly made sense, and the things that were added flowed very well and added some depth to the story, so I understand why it was more than one film.The CGI, acting, and awkward humor/editing is what absolutely killed this movie.I'll give props to Ian Mckellan and the dude who played Bilbo. They did fine.In fact most of the actors did fine, I'd say the script and CGI are what murdered this movie, which is a shame since the director did a fine job with the main concerns of the movie, but seemed to forget that the devils in the details.I'm pretty disappointed.I haven't seen it yet but I expect this one to be the worst of the three, much like how Fellowship was the worst of the LOTR films.Disagree. I'd take Fellowship over Two Towers any day.Just got back from seeing it in IMAx...loved it! Thought it flowed very well with an end point that made a lot of sense (One of my biggest concerns). It's a much more faithful adaptation than LOTR, which is nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tater Totts Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I'm too drunk to search for Miser's Hobbit thread.But I want to say that the film was a collasal disappointment.The things that did not disappoint me, however, were the things most people expected to dislike.The running time was fine. The fact that it didn't match the book properly made sense, and the things that were added flowed very well and added some depth to the story, so I understand why it was more than one film.The CGI, acting, and awkward humor/editing is what absolutely killed this movie.I'll give props to Ian Mckellan and the dude who played Bilbo. They did fine.In fact most of the actors did fine, I'd say the script and CGI are what murdered this movie, which is a shame since the director did a fine job with the main concerns of the movie, but seemed to forget that the devils in the details.I'm pretty disappointed.I haven't seen it yet but I expect this one to be the worst of the three, much like how Fellowship was the worst of the LOTR films.Disagree. I'd take Fellowship over Two Towers any day.Just got back from seeing it in IMAx...loved it! Thought it flowed very well with an end point that made a lot of sense (One of my biggest concerns). It's a much more faithful adaptation than LOTR, which is nice.I dunno man, I like all the LOTR films but personally I find Fellowship the hardest to make it through, especially the extended cut where as I can happily go back and watch Two Towers or Return of the King multiple times very easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Powerage5 Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I'm too drunk to search for Miser's Hobbit thread.But I want to say that the film was a collasal disappointment.The things that did not disappoint me, however, were the things most people expected to dislike.The running time was fine. The fact that it didn't match the book properly made sense, and the things that were added flowed very well and added some depth to the story, so I understand why it was more than one film.The CGI, acting, and awkward humor/editing is what absolutely killed this movie.I'll give props to Ian Mckellan and the dude who played Bilbo. They did fine.In fact most of the actors did fine, I'd say the script and CGI are what murdered this movie, which is a shame since the director did a fine job with the main concerns of the movie, but seemed to forget that the devils in the details.I'm pretty disappointed.I haven't seen it yet but I expect this one to be the worst of the three, much like how Fellowship was the worst of the LOTR films.Disagree. I'd take Fellowship over Two Towers any day.Just got back from seeing it in IMAx...loved it! Thought it flowed very well with an end point that made a lot of sense (One of my biggest concerns). It's a much more faithful adaptation than LOTR, which is nice.I dunno man, I like all the LOTR films but personally I find Fellowship the hardest to make it through, especially the extended cut where as I can happily go back and watch Two Towers or Return of the King multiple times very easily.I did forget to mention that Two Towers is my least favorite of the books as well though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luciusfunk Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 When I saw The Two Towers in theaters I nearly cried when they ended before Frodo and Sam got to Shelob's lair, I was so pissed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tater Totts Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 When I saw The Two Towers in theaters I nearly cried when they ended before Frodo and Sam got to Shelob's lair, I was so pissed.I can kind of understand why, but the books aren't written chronoligically as such. Frodo and Sam's journey is very much presented separately from Aragon, Legolas and Gimli's, as a result while Shelob does occur in the Two Towers book, if you place it all on one big timeline is matches up with the events of Return of the King. Specifically Shelob's lair matches up on the timeline to Aragon's entry to the Path of the Dead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luciusfunk Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Yeah, but I didn't understand at the time. I'd only read the books once and hadn't read the appendices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.