beschizza at October 1st, 2013 10:20 — #1
asdadsas at October 1st, 2013 10:53 — #2
The first installment was really a disappointment. Too much flash and not enough substance.
ryjkyj at October 1st, 2013 11:06 — #3
I agree but I still liked it. It was still a fun movie to watch.
This next one should be even better though as we'll be treated to an actual three-dimensional representation of New Zealand's trade unions and worker's rights burning in the fire of Smaug.
revtrader at October 1st, 2013 11:53 — #4
I think you meant "the next 10 exciting minutes with 190 filler minutes".
csmcdonald at October 1st, 2013 12:21 — #5
I'm not sure a trailer is supposed to make me go "Eh, I'll wait for the Bluray" - too much padding, too much stuff not in the book, too dark and dreary looking when compared to the tone of the book.
martin_greve at October 1st, 2013 12:29 — #6
I'm still hoping for the "director's cut" that will halve the playing time of these.
solstone at October 1st, 2013 12:29 — #7
If they are still planning on this being 3 movies (3 loooong and dull and over-padded movies) then I am not going to bother to watch the next two. I gave the first one a shot, and was sorely disappointed. It made all the mistakes they had so successfully avoided with LOTR. The special effects were obvious and garish, often looking like video game cutscenes. Way too much CG, instead of the great mix of CG and handmade models, etc. And all the padding... ludicrous.
I hope when all 3 are done that Jackson releases a director's cut version that is one movie. That might be worth watching...
(Although I will likely watch if there are Rifftrax done for them, as Mike, Bill and Kevin are capable of making even the worst films enjoyable.)
mrmark at October 1st, 2013 12:48 — #8
The next movie will be "The Dwarven Hoard and Out of Control Inflation in the Dwarf Economy"
andrew_tubbiolo at October 1st, 2013 12:57 — #9
I like this version of the movie better.
crashproof at October 1st, 2013 16:11 — #10
Just to be contrary: though I agree that the Hobbit shouldn't have been turned into 3 movies, and some of the (weirdly bloodless) CGI was not up to snuff at all, and I still don't think I like the extra-goofified Radagast...
I enjoyed the first movie. It more or less follows bits from appendices and whatnot, instead of being made up completely by PJ. And there was lots of stuff there to feed LOTR nerdery.
And while I'm had it, I don't like Breaking Bad and am tired of hearing about it, and your favorite band sucks. So there. /grump
brainspore at October 1st, 2013 16:16 — #11
$150 million and they still can't find a set designer who knows what a safety handrail is.
ocker3 at October 2nd, 2013 10:08 — #12
My only complaint about the first Hobbit film was that some scenes seemed to play at 1.5 to 2x the expected speed, but it didn't feel like they were supposed to. I mean, it wasn't written, directed by or star Benny Hill...
drawnonglass at October 2nd, 2013 10:23 — #13
"Smowg"? Is that really right?
beschizza at October 6th, 2013 10:20 — #14
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.