The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

  On 12/30/2013 at 11:35 PM, kokoon said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 9:51 PM, Joyrex said:

... apparently they're doing something right considering the billions it's grossed ...

 

What exactly is so "wrong" about these movies? Are they an affront to the original works in your eyes?

No he means that profit shouldn't be a metric by which you measure a movie's worthiness.

  On 12/30/2013 at 10:19 PM, goDel said:

has anyone noticed the peter jackson cameo in one of the very first scenes?

yeah I noticed this

  On 12/30/2013 at 10:09 PM, chenGOD said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 7:47 PM, disparaissant said:

im about to go see this

 

then i will read mein kampf as well as a selection of literature penned by holocaust survivors

 

will report back with final verdict re: peter jackson vs. hitler

 

I expect a 40 page report on the patriarchy and resultant psycho-sexual fetishization of the phallus inherent in the film.

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 8:16 PM, Phoenix said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 8:36 AM, azatoth said:

I am not saying the Hobbit is that great of a movie, but I think some of you just love to complain and make an effort to hate any movie with mainstream appeal. I don't think there ever will be a movie made that you will like. So why not just stop watching movies if they are so horrible. And walking out of movies, I don't get it, you already gave them your money.

 

That's not true. There are certain movies I do like. I am not going to deny that I'm somewhat of a mainstream hater, but as I said, that's probably my own short coming.

 

Just gotta let the pleb enjoy their goodies.

 

Bread and games etc etc

 

 

Bread and circuses actually, but who cares, right - being correct in quoting is such a pleb idea.

 

Oh jolly good. Entertain me!

{English ain't my native language; I translated it from my native language}

i could see people describing the Transformers movies or say a movie like Prince of Persia the way kokoon has as being the 'lowest of the low' but I see the Hobbit and LOTR movies, regardless of their mainstream appeal or tropes are in many ways genuinely creatively ambitious films. Practically nobody else making these shitty big budget movies is pushing the envelope in the same way Peter Jackson is besides maybe James Cameron or Alfonso Cuaron. And yeah their movies all have flaws and are too broadly appealing for me for the most part, but i don't think it can be denied that they aren't just making bread and circuses films for profit.

Trip report: 1/3 of the way in, had a large soda so had to pee. Also, I am bored of this movie already. I think you could make the argument that Peter Jackson did some interesting things in the Lotr movies but this just feels phoned in. And yeah that cameo at the beginning was hella tacky.

  On 12/31/2013 at 12:06 AM, 2WV said:

 

  On 12/30/2013 at 10:19 PM, goDel said:

has anyone noticed the peter jackson cameo in one of the very first scenes?

yeah I noticed this

 

He's literally the first bloke on screen, I'm fairly sure that's his daughter as the barmaid in the pub too.

Yeah, it's almost as awkward as those scenes in the barrel chase with the DV cam. He walks almost in front of the scene, looking into the audience, and passes by...WTF!? Good way to destroy my immersion, dude!

*pretends like PJ actually reads this thread*

yeah so all told i really didn't care for anything about that flick.

though i can't say it compared in any meaningful way to the orchestrator of the largest single act of genocide in the history of the world, or anything.

like srsly though i'm all about balancing out tolkien's decidedly old-fashioned views on women and all, and tauriel was a p great character but why on earth did they have to shoehorn in the most generic and perplexing love triangle ever

there wasn't even a reason for it she's just like "oh hey sup killi i think ur hot but also legolas!" and that was it. it was fucking stuuuupid.

That love triangle? Was there even such a thing in tolkiens work? It might be PJ getting high on the George Lucas fever.

I cannot wait for the new season of GOT. :D

  On 12/31/2013 at 2:32 AM, disparaissant said:

yeah so all told i really didn't care for anything about that flick.

 

though i can't say it compared in any meaningful way to the orchestrator of the largest single act of genocide in the history of the world, or anything.

like srsly though i'm all about balancing out tolkien's decidedly old-fashioned views on women and all, and tauriel was a p great character but why on earth did they have to shoehorn in the most generic and perplexing love triangle ever

 

there wasn't even a reason for it she's just like "oh hey sup killi i think ur hot but also legolas!" and that was it. it was fucking stuuuupid.

because women.

  On 12/31/2013 at 3:06 AM, goDel said:

That love triangle? Was there even such a thing in tolkiens work? It might be PJ getting high on the George Lucas fever.

 

 

I cannot wait for the new season of GOT. :D

that character was made up by peter jackson, as was the whole love triangle thing. definitely high on lucas-grass.

well whatever the case is, the stash he gave to peter jackson has a lot more thc in it than whatever lucas was smoking.

counterpoint: jar jar binks.

Stop dissing jackson yo. He's my next-door neighbour

haven't seen "Smauuuuug" yet, but gotta agree with John. As many faults as can be found with Jackson's Tolkien adaptations, they aren't totally half-assed/blatant soulless cash grabs.

They are overdone and facepalmy in many ways, but that over-the-top-ness has always been part of the PJ MO IMO. They make sense for me in the context of his other work as a director.

  On 12/31/2013 at 4:17 AM, lumpenprol said:

haven't seen "Smauuuuug" yet, but gotta agree with John. As many faults as can be found with Jackson's Tolkien adaptations, they aren't totally half-assed/blatant soulless cash grabs.

 

They are overdone and facepalmy in many ways, but that over-the-top-ness has always been part of the PJ MO IMO. They make sense for me in the context of his other work as a director.

this, unlike Lucas who seems to have fundamentally transformed from being an artistic man who was passionate about his craft to the owner of a toy empire, PJ seems to still be very passionate about his films not much different than his passion during his oldies like Dead Alive and Meet the Feebles.

i honestly believe the george lucas we see now is the real lucas. if you look at star wars as a kind of found pop art object then it's actually a fairly experimental film, as is everything he's done, including the prequels. there's no denying that he's become a mogul, but i don't really believe that the prequels are any less artistically valid than his early films. they're just shit.

i think my big probalo with smaug was that the passion seemed to be quite lacking. it seemed like it was in a hurry to just get it all over with. it jumped from plot point to plot point without much regard for what was actually going on. felt very much like CAN WE JUST BE DONE ALREADY?!

i disagree. the last half hour was the most exhilarating thing i've seen in a theater this year. as good as anything in the original lord of the rings.

  On 12/31/2013 at 4:41 AM, zaphod said:

i honestly believe the george lucas we see now is the real lucas. if you look at star wars as a kind of found pop art object then it's actually a fairly experimental film, as is everything he's done, including the prequels. there's no denying that he's become a mogul, but i don't really believe that the prequels are any less artistically valid than his early films. they're just shit.

Took me a while to get my head around this, so in other words the Star Wars prequels are the visual equivalent of Tomorrow's Harvest?

  On 12/31/2013 at 4:49 AM, zaphod said:

i disagree. the last half hour was the most exhilarating thing i've seen in a theater this year. as good as anything in the original lord of the rings.

sure, the last half hour was fine, but the ~2 hours prior to that was basically just an exercise in trying to get to the last half hour as fast as possible.

  On 12/31/2013 at 5:03 AM, lumpenprol said:

 

  On 12/31/2013 at 4:41 AM, zaphod said:

i honestly believe the george lucas we see now is the real lucas. if you look at star wars as a kind of found pop art object then it's actually a fairly experimental film, as is everything he's done, including the prequels. there's no denying that he's become a mogul, but i don't really believe that the prequels are any less artistically valid than his early films. they're just shit.

Took me a while to get my head around this, so in other words the Star Wars prequels are the visual equivalent of Tomorrow's Harvest?

 

well, you know i don't agree with that, but yes, if tomorrow's harvest is a nostalgic simulacrum of "the boc sound" then the prequels are sort of like this for star wars. except the prequels are tonally completely different from the original trilogy, to the point that i don't think someone unfamiliar with the context of them could even identify them as star wars movies. i think they're attempting something similar though. in the prequel case it's to construct a kind of heightened science fantasy stage play with lots of intrigue and a central tragedy, to use the latest (at the time) technology to do this. lucas just lost his touch (or maybe his luck) and made a pile of shit. if you've read his original treatments for star wars they're probably the most absurd, out there films possible. he's lucky he didn't have full creative control and deferred to his collaborators. i think his intentions as a filmmmaker come primarily from capturing his nostalgia for the past in a kind of boc-like fake pop artifact. so maybe your comparison is apt. lucas is also a shrewd businessman, and this is a weird mix.

hehe, I was just trying to wind you up, but your reply makes sense and is more than my bullshit deserved :-)

yeah, I don't know what Lucas' original treatments were like. I was just very surprised and appalled that he seemed to have become so tone deaf regarding, well, everything - the original mythology, normal human interactions, good acting, good 3d, any sense of restraint, the fundamentals of storytelling and filmmaking, etc.

For someone who seemed to understand the whole Campbell-ian "Hero with 1000 faces" thing, he certainly lost touch with how to tell a compelling archetypal story, even.

oh, i mean his original treatments for the original trilogy. maybe that's not clear in my post. there's actually a graphic novel series out now based on that. it's insane. he's insane. someone managed to reign him in on those three films, be it by having different writers doing the screenplay or different directors. and then ILM coming into its own probably helped matters. the prequels are probably closer to how lucas really makes films and sees filmmaking than the original trilogy. although i am beginning to think he's just trolling his fanbase at this point.

i generally agree with you guys regarding jackson, though i think he's simply a better filmmaker than george lucas could ever hope to be. still not a very good one though, but as far as major commercial directors who make effects movies go, he's one of the best out there.