The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I'm pretty sure liquid gold really looks like that... Like fake poor quality water...

Camera changes during the barrel-in-the-river scene are too obvious too, imo...

  On 12/22/2013 at 7:48 PM, Pennywise said:

I'm a bit fed up with these new visually stunning but crap everything else movies coming out.

edit : I don't think it's new though

Went to see it with my dad and thought it was better than the first Hobbit. Somehow the action didn't tire me the same way as in the first. Looked better also and the HFR thing (first time seeing something in HFR) didn't bother me one bit. Expected it to be much more distracting from all the griping about it here, but it barely registered with me, other than everything being way smoother. The Sauron reveal was neat with the infinite zoom into the eye. The whole Gandalf thing at Dol Guldur was neat and was cool to see him showing his power. The disorienting Mirkwood was also well done. And yes, Evangeline Lilly was very pretty as an elf. Orlando Bloom on the other hand has let himself go. The end came as a surprise but was at a good place.

Just released: (haven't seen it, so cant comment on it)

Haven't seen it yet but dreamed that Laurence Fishburne was the antagonist in this movie and wanted to steal the ring from the dwarfs in a ran down mansion standing atop a waterfall that looked like the Paperstreet-House from Fight Club.

I watched this in 3D imax, at Waterloo. The 3D (which i've always had the sneaky suspicion is a plie of gimicky horseshit) was dreadful, I tell you now im not the most clued up with fiilm technology etc, neither am I one to come onto watmm and start bleating about my sob stories but huge parts of the film was out of focus. After a while is was so obvious I started to rate how awful it was just to amuse myself. Sometimes huge swathes of the screen was just a blur. It was seriously piss poor. Weird thing is that I actually forgot to say anything when I left as I fancied a refund. I forgot because my legs were in serious agony and at one point I had to do some ninja movements to relieve a fucking serious bout of cramp 5 mins from the end. I was just relieved to get the fuck out the theatre.

The film itself was really good (a solid 7.5 out of 10) but all the bullshit piled on top (to get nearly 20 quid out of me) was a farce. I wish I'd just waited for the blu-ray and sat at home with a few Belgium beers and a bag of pistachios, and not paranoid about the need for a piss coming on, and getting cramp. And watching bluuuuuurrs. Not good enough by a long shot. But the film (Evangeline Lilly in particular lol) is worth your time.

Thats my review.

Well if you had problems with the Imax 3D being blurry, either they messed up the projection at points or, you should have seen the HFR 3D (High Frame Rate), HFR has zero blurriness and almost everything constantly looks almost perfectly in focus.

I would never want to see a drama or a comedy etc. in HFR but for this I thought it worked. Yes it definitely doesn't look much like a "film" anymore. There were times where the green screening or CGI looked pretty dumb, like Legalos on the bridge, don't know if they looked less dumb in 2D with 24fps. I would not want to see the movie in 24f3D at this point. I practically don't think any CGI animated movies should ever be done in 24fps again, it makes most crazy CGI look really cool.

  On 12/23/2013 at 10:36 PM, beerwolf said:

I watched this in 3D imax, at Waterloo. The 3D (which i've always had the sneaky suspicion is a plie of gimicky horseshit) was dreadful, I tell you now im not the most clued up with fiilm technology etc, neither am I one to come onto watmm and start bleating about my sob stories but huge parts of the film was out of focus. After a while is was so obvious I started to rate how awful it was just to amuse myself. Sometimes huge swathes of the screen was just a blur. It was seriously piss poor.

sounds like they gave you the wrong glasses - happened to me when I went, but I quickly realised during the 3D trailers that something was wrong and went to demand answers from the dude out the front. stupid cunt had given me the big imax 3D glasses instead of the Real3D ones (even though it was shown on an imax screen, apparently the imax glasses were incorrect. did you notice what glasses everyone else was wearing - did they look like the ones you had?)...soon as I got the right glasses and got back into the theatre it was clear and sharp as fuck. it looked truly stunning. when I had the wrong glasses though, it was indeed all blurry.

  On 12/24/2013 at 12:10 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

I would never want to see a drama or a comedy etc. in HFR but for this I thought it worked. Yes it definitely doesn't look much like a "film" anymore. There were times where the green screening or CGI looked pretty dumb, like Legalos on the bridge, don't know if they looked less dumb in 2D with 24fps. I would not want to see the movie in 24f3D at this point. I practically don't think any CGI animated movies should ever be done in 24fps again, it makes most crazy CGI look really cool.

i'm surprised they are still pumping out so many kids CGI movies in 24fps, it really doesn't make any sense at this point, unless i guess for rendering times which probably increase the budget. 3d doubles it, 48fps quadruples it.

That barrel part had me rolling.

after seeing this it makes me wonder how much PJ had direct involvement in the Tin Tin movie. There was one amazing chase sequence in that movie that reminded me al ot of the barrel chase. Either way clearly Peter Jackson is influenced by Spielberg's Indiana Jones movie action sequences.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yZOLx_GWVbg

all done as one continuous shot, with an impending flood which starts pushing the buildings off their foundations as they travel to the shoreline. to bad it's shit quality, this scene is one of the most beautiful examples of cgi i've seen in recent memory

Overall an enjoyable experience for someone that isn't really into the Hobbit stuff.

From the beginning I loved the fat dude with the huge beard, and I kept saying to my gf that he was gonna do something awesome.

THEN HE DID I <3 BARREL ROLLS

The dragon looked pretty cool and not too ridiculously fake, and whoever manipulated Cumberbenchs voice did a great job. Its creepy.

But tbh, and I may have mentioned this before,

Actually, only three trolls survive of the pack, so you'll be happy

Guys, why ... after like 20 posts saying that this one was way better than the first one, I kind of believed it. But this one was probably even worse. This isn't a movie, this is a CGI-Showreel. The exposition bit of the first movie, the one bit that I liked, is gone, so only action sequences remain.

On the one hand it's too dark to be a kids movie, yet it's too dumb to be a film for grown-ups. I've heard people talk about "great performances", I don't know what they were seeing there, but I even felt embarrassed for the actors at some points, especially the ones who played all the no-character dwarfs. Just because they're doing a fantasy movie doesn't mean they have to over-act everything like the movie was some kind of learning help for slow children. "Hurr durr look there its the barrel oh no is spiders danger fast look" jesus christ come on ... I know they're dwarfs and they're supposed to be stubborn and not the brightest but Gimly was believable at least and didn't make me feel ashamed for the actor who played him. The only real actors in this film, Freeman and McKellen, didn't have any space to unfold anyway, so it didn't matter. Yes the spiders were super-neat looking, and yes Smaug was nicely done and his voice was cool and all, but where is the story, where are the characters, where's the movie? None of the cgi served any purpose other than to show off the cgi. The whole experience felt like watching a 3 hour video game cutscene.

Why am I going to the cinema to watch a fantasy movie and then complain about it being too dumb, not serious enough, too silly? Because the same man who made this one made a proper adaption of the other LOTR books just about ten years ago, what's happened? Does he really think this is an improvement or does he cry himself to sleep at night, knowing he just sold out, faceplaming himself over the people who prefer this render-farm-demo over the actual films he did? Also, how is the quality in mainstream cinema dropping so fast? Is this what tickles movie-goers brains these days? Where are the people who went to mainstream cinemas to watch The Shining or something worthwhile? There was an audience for that back then, where did it go? Is this just our generation? Is this really what films have to be like these days? Soulless, rendered to death banality? Or am I just that much of a movie-snob? And if so, how can I be the only movie-snob on a forum full of music-snobs?!

PS: Speaking of CGI ... some of it was the usual brain-numbing groundbreaking next-level infinite polygon shit that you'd expect these days, but I could swear there were bits that looked worse than in LOTR. The molten gold splashing towards the camera had some rendering-errors that seemed very familiar from the RealFlow-plugin, and they were included in the film. Like drops of water disappearing from one frame to the next and the anti-aliasing spazing out big time. I mean Lawnmower Man level of bad. Also, during that barrel scene (which was one of the worst, most insulting scenes imo), did they really include shots from a Go-Pro camera for the POV perspective? It looked almost like DV-footage that was upscaled, with chromatic aberration all over the place and the edges looking like a poorly feathered alpha-map. What the hell? This wouldn't be a surprise in a Danny Boyle movie, but the Hobbit isn't exactly "daring" regarding its cinematography, so how is there no quality control on something that basically is just a rendered movie?

Anyway, I think The Hobbit 2 just might have done it, I'm done spending money shit films, on 3D, on HFR that looks like on-set-footage from The King of Queens. I'm done.

That concludes my rant. Thank you!

Tldt I liked it

PS I've said this before and I'll say it again, the fact that they didn't use real dwarves in the film made it less believable for me.

2nd one was better than the first. but the ending was pretty shitty.

;D

i'm kinda itching to see it in all its glory with all the frames and 4dhd-x-treme and shit instead of waiting for blu ray rip to show up at tpb, but all my friends are academic hipsters so this film is beneath them, is it too embarrassing to go see it alone (i'm 30) ?

  On 12/29/2013 at 5:59 PM, Terpentintollwut said:

Also, how is the quality in mainstream cinema dropping so fast? Is this what tickles movie-goers brains these days? Where are the people who went to mainstream cinemas to watch The Shining or something worthwhile? There was an audience for that back then, where did it go? Is this just our generation? Is this really what films have to be like these days? Soulless, rendered to death banality? Or am I just that much of a movie-snob? And if so, how can I be the only movie-snob on a forum full of music-snobs?!

 

I gave up on seeing blockbusters in theater ages ago, and even then i wasn't impressed by LOTR (the last part) at all. But i spent some time on researching box offices for movies at past decades and no, little changed for the type of The Shining. Good movies still have decent amount of audience from time to time. It's just escalated budgets for blockbusters which distort the overview. Also some decades were naturally more productive, when cinema was the ultimate artform for a lot of talented people. Today TV shows and videogames and whatnot use mainstream cinema aesthetics with much success.

  On 12/29/2013 at 5:59 PM, Terpentintollwut said:

Guys, why ... after like 20 posts saying that this one was way better than the first one, I kind of believed it. But this one was probably even worse. This isn't a movie, this is a CGI-Showreel. The exposition bit of the first movie, the one bit that I liked, is gone, so only action sequences remain.

On the one hand it's too dark to be a kids movie, yet it's too dumb to be a film for grown-ups. I've heard people talk about "great performances", I don't know what they were seeing there, but I even felt embarrassed for the actors at some points, especially the ones who played all the no-character dwarfs. Just because they're doing a fantasy movie doesn't mean they have to over-act everything like the movie was some kind of learning help for slow children. "Hurr durr look there its the barrel oh no is spiders danger fast look" jesus christ come on ... I know they're dwarfs and they're supposed to be stubborn and not the brightest but Gimly was believable at least and didn't make me feel ashamed for the actor who played him. The only real actors in this film, Freeman and McKellen, didn't have any space to unfold anyway, so it didn't matter. Yes the spiders were super-neat looking, and yes Smaug was nicely done and his voice was cool and all, but where is the story, where are the characters, where's the movie? None of the cgi served any purpose other than to show off the cgi. The whole experience felt like watching a 3 hour video game cutscene.

Why am I going to the cinema to watch a fantasy movie and then complain about it being too dumb, not serious enough, too silly? Because the same man who made this one made a proper adaption of the other LOTR books just about ten years ago, what's happened? Does he really think this is an improvement or does he cry himself to sleep at night, knowing he just sold out, faceplaming himself over the people who prefer this render-farm-demo over the actual films he did? Also, how is the quality in mainstream cinema dropping so fast? Is this what tickles movie-goers brains these days? Where are the people who went to mainstream cinemas to watch The Shining or something worthwhile? There was an audience for that back then, where did it go? Is this just our generation? Is this really what films have to be like these days? Soulless, rendered to death banality? Or am I just that much of a movie-snob? And if so, how can I be the only movie-snob on a forum full of music-snobs?!

 

PS: Speaking of CGI ... some of it was the usual brain-numbing groundbreaking next-level infinite polygon shit that you'd expect these days, but I could swear there were bits that looked worse than in LOTR. The molten gold splashing towards the camera had some rendering-errors that seemed very familiar from the RealFlow-plugin, and they were included in the film. Like drops of water disappearing from one frame to the next and the anti-aliasing spazing out big time. I mean Lawnmower Man level of bad. Also, during that barrel scene (which was one of the worst, most insulting scenes imo), did they really include shots from a Go-Pro camera for the POV perspective? It looked almost like DV-footage that was upscaled, with chromatic aberration all over the place and the edges looking like a poorly feathered alpha-map. What the hell? This wouldn't be a surprise in a Danny Boyle movie, but the Hobbit isn't exactly "daring" regarding its cinematography, so how is there no quality control on something that basically is just a rendered movie?

 

Anyway, I think The Hobbit 2 just might have done it, I'm done spending money shit films, on 3D, on HFR that looks like on-set-footage from The King of Queens. I'm done.

 

That concludes my rant. Thank you!

You're not alone. I, too, am seriously appaled by Hollywood output. It churns me cortex in a bad way. I walked out of Gravity about a month ago just feeling "seriously, why is everyone so goddamn happy with this movie?". CGI should be a prop to the story, and not the other way around. Sadly, most people just want their imagery trickled, and when they see pretty images, they can't be arsed to be deeply intrigued or moved by any story.

Hollywood is fucking done in terms of intelligent output.

  On 12/29/2013 at 6:49 PM, Amen Lare said:

Today TV shows and videogames and whatnot use mainstream cinema aesthetics with much success.

 

That actually makes a lot of sense.

  On 12/29/2013 at 6:57 PM, Phoenix said:

You're not alone. I, too, am seriously appaled by Hollywood output. It churns me cortex in a bad way. I walked out of Gravity about a month ago just feeling "seriously, why is everyone so goddamn happy with this movie?". CGI should be a prop to the story, and not the other way around. Sadly, most people just want their imagery trickled, and when they see pretty images, they can't be arsed to be deeply intrigued or moved by any story.

 

Hollywood is fucking done in terms of intelligent output.

 

This helps.

I totally agree, even though I kinda liked Gravity, to be honest. Surely, most of the things I criticized on The Hobbit are present in Gravity, too. The characters are super flat and it's mostly show-off and everything, but in a way, it grabbed me. Probably because the camera doesn't cut away during action sequences all the time, and it didn't have Disney-Physics and such (for the most part, at least). I went in expecting something like a theme park ride "space simulator" and it delivered in that way. As for The Hobbit, I expected Peter Jackson to continue carry out his "vision" but I got a film that felt like it was written and directed by marketing analysts who calculated the box office down to the last penny.

But my opinion on Gravity might be a little biased since I am a bit of a space-nerd and am always happy when there's something set in space that is somewhat scientifically correct. Of course, Europa Report, this year's much better space film, will never get this much attention, and that's sad.

I'm just ranting about something I used to base a lot of my identity on.

I guess that's my own short coming.

If you went to see it for other reasons than 3d effects, stupid action and Tauriel's cuteness, it's your own fault!

I can't wait to see this. I'm sure it will be the worst movie I've ever seen.