Re: Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS

by Sinister71 Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:28 am

Like the work of Lucas, the Hobbit films have lost sight of what made the originals work as they drown in computer graphics. The tactile world of Middle Earth has become a cartoon; there’s a scene in Desolation of Smaug where one dumb looking CGI superorc is talking to another dumb looking CGI superorc in what appears to be either a CGI room or a space so color corrected as to be essentially painted and I wondered why the hell I was even looking at this cartoon. I felt like I could go to Middle Earth when I watched Lord of the Rings; maybe I could plug in a controller and play The Hobbit, but it would likely be the kind of game where I button-mashed my way through the cut scenes because, honestly, who gives a shit about the story? Not the people who made it.

Exactly how I feel at this point

by Radaghast Tue Dec 10, 2013 1:32 am

Another "rotten" one:

http://www.metro.us/newyork/entertainment/movies-entertainment/2013/12/08/the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-will-give-you-stockholm-syndrome/

by Beleg Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:04 am

Mrs Figg wrote:Radio Times review.
The Hobbit: the Desolation of Smaug review - "a film of great moments rather than a great film"

''Bilbo’s back, but he’s still got a long, long (long…) way to go in The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.
Director Peter Jackson
continues to drag out a great story to the point of being quite good with Martin Freeman getting nudged ever further into a supporting role, despite having the title role. And more’s the pity because this part fits him like a glove.
Richard Armitage muscled in on the action in the first instalment as Thorin Oakenshield, the kickass dwarf who seeks to reclaim his homeland from a certain Necromancer, but even his boundless passion gets glossed over. For the first hour or so, there’s so much going on it’s difficult for any of the characters to find their footing and Freeman’s boggled expression would seem to reflect that.
Lost star Evangeline Lilly comes to the franchise bringing a little more heart and courage as the elvish warrior Tauriel with Orlando Bloom at her side, reprising his role as Legolas. It’s a gift for Bloom, not only because it’s the part that made him a star, but because his scenes with Lilly add another dimension to the steely-eyed hero – a softer side, though he’s loathe to show it. He throws wistful glances her way and a few warning ones in the direction of Aidan Turner (of Being Human fame) as the cheeky dwarf Kili who threatens to steal her heart. Legolas sets his jaw just that little bit firmer when Tauriel muses, “He’s quite tall, for a dwarf, don’t you think?”

I'm surprised nobody has taken exception with this. I wonder if it was a simple typo or blunder by the writer or if this is another "spoiler" that PJ is further screwing up this story?

by Forest Shepherd Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:41 am

bungobaggins wrote:Great review from Forbes. (And by great I mean that he explains the problems with these Hobbit movies very well.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/12/09/review-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-is-better-without-being-good/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Ha, found this in the comments section:

Random Fanboy wrote:
Okay man, your article sucks, and let me tell you why. First of all, do not try and convince people that you know anything about cinema by comparing The Hobbit prequels to the Star Wars prequels. It makes you sound completely idiotic as the CGI, set design, costumes and acting are all far better in The Hobbit, and that is a uncontested fact. Secondly, no character development and no real danger to the characters? I’m taking it you’ve never read The Hobbit, and if you have, than your ignorance cannot be defended. He has included 10 times more character development and suspense in his films to make it worthy of the big screen. Doing any more than that would stray too far from the books and doing any less would fail to please idiots like you. I didn’t even bother reading on as your article is quite flawed and overall, just like every other article I read on this website, is critical without providing proper criticism. I haven’t even seen the second installment yet and I already know how biased and inadequate your opinion is. Get another job.

It's like a big dose of anti-crabbit, but mean-spirited.

by Radaghast Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:49 am

Also from that page:

Peter Jackson is an idiot-savant, minus the savant. For this film to be anything but terrible, he’d have to not be involved.

by bungobaggins Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:50 am

Radaghast wrote:This pic was on that page, btw:

Rather odd way to hold a sword.

He looks like Vana White holding Sting! Laughing

Or anyone on the Home Shopping Network.

Now here we have this wonderful elvish blade, forged in Gondolin. You can own this wonderful letter opener for only 99.99 pieces of mithril!

by bungobaggins Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:51 am

Forest Shepherd wrote:
bungobaggins wrote:Great review from Forbes. (And by great I mean that he explains the problems with these Hobbit movies very well.)

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/12/09/review-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug-is-better-without-being-good/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Ha, found this in the comments section:
Random Fanboy wrote:
Okay man, your article sucks, and let me tell you why. First of all, do not try and convince people that you know anything about cinema by comparing The Hobbit prequels to the Star Wars prequels. It makes you sound completely idiotic as the CGI, set design, costumes and acting are all far better in The Hobbit, and that is a uncontested fact. Secondly, no character development and no real danger to the characters? I’m taking it you’ve never read The Hobbit, and if you have, than your ignorance cannot be defended. He has included 10 times more character development and suspense in his films to make it worthy of the big screen. Doing any more than that would stray too far from the books and doing any less would fail to please idiots like you. I didn’t even bother reading on as your article is quite flawed and overall, just like every other article I read on this website, is critical without providing proper criticism. I haven’t even seen the second installment yet and I already know how biased and inadequate your opinion is. Get another job.
It's like a big dose of anti-crabbit, but mean-spirited.

YES! THE BUTTHURT HAS ARRIVED! I REVEL IN IT!!!!!! Twisted Evil

by Radaghast Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:54 am

Thorin Oakenshield, the kickass dwarf who seeks to reclaim his homeland from a certain Necromancer

Oh, jeez... I just noticed this... :facepalm:

by Radaghast Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:55 am

bungobaggins wrote:Now here we have this wonderful elvish blade, forged in Gondolin. You can own this wonderful letter opener for only 99.99 pieces of mithril!

Heh. It even looks like Bilbo is modeling it. He certainly can't expect to be fighting with it.

by Forest Shepherd Tue Dec 10, 2013 2:58 am

I found this particularly amusing:

User #1, quoting someone else's response: " '...would put it [AUJ] above The Fellowship of the Ring.' Wait what? Not even being snarky, but seriously how does that happen?"

User #2: "Eh.. To each their own, but it makes him a bad person."

(Users 3 and 4 enter into long-winded debate over the validity of opinions)

User #5: "Um, even as a defender of AUJ, this comment is bogus. Better than Fellowship of the Ring? You've had too much longbottom leaf...."

User #6: "His love of the love of the halfings' leaf has clearly slowed his mind..."

by bungobaggins Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:02 am

Oh, my word. I soooo want to see DOS go rotten on RT, solely for the fact that I can see the fandom explode in the biggest temper tantrum known to all man-kind! Twisted Evil

[[[[[but I don't think that will happen Evil or Very Mad

]]]]]

by Beleg Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:23 am

Radaghast wrote:This pic was on that page, btw:

Rather odd way to hold a sword.

I can't tell what he's doing with his right hand. Unless that was taken just as he was shifting his grip, I have no idea...and even with that it looks remarkably like a baseball hitters stance.

by Eldorion Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:26 am

bungobaggins wrote:He looks like Vana White holding Sting! Or anyone on the Home Shopping Network.

Now here we have this wonderful elvish blade, forged in Gondolin. You can own this wonderful letter opener for only 99.99 pieces of mithril!

They actually are selling letter openers that are scaled down models of the swords from the film. It makes me wonder if they got that idea before or after Balin's line about letter openers in AUJ was written and shot. Razz

by Eldorion Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:27 am

Also, while it's fun to laugh at the really negative reviews, it's worth pointing out that so far DOS has received a greater share of positive reviews than AUJ did. That may change though. Shrugging

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_the_desolation_of_smaug/

by bungobaggins Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:28 am

Got a lot of reviews to go though, 270 for AUJ! affraid

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

(But I think that after this sampling we've seen, it will probably remain about where it is on the "tomatometer."

by Radaghast Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:30 am

Are they selling any Peter Jackson openers? Critics review 'Desolation of Smaug' | POSSIBLE SPOILERS - Page 13 Icon_paranoid

by Forest Shepherd Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:32 am

Eldorion wrote:
bungobaggins wrote:He looks like Vana White holding Sting! Or anyone on the Home Shopping Network.

Now here we have this wonderful elvish blade, forged in Gondolin. You can own this wonderful letter opener for only 99.99 pieces of mithril!

They actually are selling letter openers that are scaled down models of the swords from the film. It makes me wonder if they got that idea before or after Balin's line about letter openers in AUJ was written and shot.

Rather the opposite I would think, as I remember seeing said letter openers in LotR merchandise many years ago. Balin's comment may be subtle marketing!

by bungobaggins Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:35 am

Yeah, I remember seeing them years ago, too. I remember they had Glamdring and Anduril, as well. If I am remembering correctly.

by bungobaggins Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:38 am

The other hobbit girl posted her review to torn.

Normally I wouldn't give this the time of day, but seeing as the other reviews were being posted here, I might as well.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/12/09/84348-filis-review-of-the-hobbit-the-desolation-of-smaug/

So it's essentially the ravings of squealing fan-girl.

This part stuck out at me while I was skimming.

Yes, the barrel scene is expanded like crazy and quite frankly, better than it was in the book. Who wants to watch a bunch of capped barrels float down a river for an hour?

Uh. Only a true PJ fan would use such hyperbole to dissuade having the barrel scene closer to the book. But wait, aren't these the same people that would watch anything PJ churns out? One hour of barrels floating down a calm river sounds right up their alley.

And, blah blah blah. This isn't a review. It's a commercial.

by Radaghast Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:44 am

I agree, bungo. They're not looking it objectively at all. PJ cannot do wrong in their eyes.

For the other review, one commenter suggests that Tauriel doesn't fall for Kili because of his looks. A couple of other comments called bullshit, including one by me that asked if she doesn't fall for him because of his looks, why doesn't he look like a dwarf. The author, "Kili", chimed in saying she would say something if she knew what a dwarf was supposed to look like. Odd statement by one who's claimed to read the book.

by Eldorion Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:44 am

Well at least she's honest.

If you’re expecting an articulate review of the film, stop now and read the reviews from other staffers instead! I’m not the best at that type of writing, so what is below is simply what I loved about the film. That simple. You know how us fair haired dwarves are!

*backs away slowly*

by bungobaggins Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:46 am

I am convinced Turdysmell has a dwarf fetish.

by Radaghast Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:46 am

Another utterly vapid comment from that article:

No, this doesn’t happen in the book, but in the book 90% of the dwarves are just names anyway with no heart, so the writers took a chance to create more story and pulled it off great.

They're basically PJ groupies.

by Eldorion Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:47 am

It's not like she's wrong that the Dwarves all blend together in the book. Though I'm not expecting great characterization of them in DOS.

by Radaghast Tue Dec 10, 2013 4:51 am

Eldorion wrote:It's not like she's wrong that the Dwarves all blend together in the book. Though I'm not expecting great characterization of them in DOS.

True and, frankly, I don't mind. The book is about 300 pages long. There wasn't enough room in it to get into every dwarf's head, nor do I have any great need to. Even in the movie, only a handful of the dwarves are getting the spotlight.