|
This new attempt to cash in on TLotR film trilogy is the softest, wettest fart You can tell that lots of money went into them (I've only watched the first one and ended up doing something else while it was on after 30 minutes), but they're just terrible and feel like cos-plays of the first 3 movies, which I haven't watched since they came out.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 13:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
OP, I really liked the movie and in the future will see more Peter Jackson movies with my family because I am a big fan of his. Sorry it made you so mad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 13:36
|
|
|
Professor Shark posted:This new attempt to cash in on TLotR film trilogy is the softest, wettest fart
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 13:38
|
|
|
Greed is eternal posted:My mom enjoyed it. same TBH it seems that people who don't watch TV/movies all the time like spectacular CGI films more than people who do watch loads of TV/movies, maybe you're just spoiled OP
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:07
|
|
|
KiddieGrinder posted:I'll be waiting for a good fan edit for the condensed version of all three films, with all the bullshit taken out. Should have a 30 minute run time by then. People keep talking about fan edits but it's not something I've heard of until recently. Is that something people do with a lot of movies? also iirc Jackson didn't even want to do The Hobbit. The job was going to go to Guillermo del Toro and he was just going to do 2 movies but then he backed down and they hired Jackson. Maybe that's why it feels phoned in
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:14
|
|
|
this christmas movie for families erased many of the mature themes and plot devices present in the hobbit a book for children
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 15:53
|
|
|
I really liked Bilbo, throughout all three movies. Probably more than I liked Frodo in the original trilogy. Also, Evangeline Lilly! What a woman!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
radagast with all that birdshit on his head made me think about my deceased parrot and i had a panic attack ok they should put trigger warnings up wtf yo
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:The guy who played Thorin owned that role, he deserved to be in a better movie martin freeman also played the role as bilbo incredibly well, but it doesnt matter because it was a poo poo movie
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
i havent watched any of them. i was invited last week but i sadly informed them i havent seen the other (two? one?). really i just didnt want to go at all too because it looks boring and stupid
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:04
|
|
|
scottish dwarf riding a pig owned
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
only stupid idiots go see theatrical releases and expect anything but garbage sorry about ur babydick, OP
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:26
|
|
|
duh...
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
I saw the new hobbit and it was short
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:28
|
|
|
echronorian posted:How many hours did you have to put in at Suncoast to afford those 3d tickets I haven't been to a mall in years. Does Suncoast still actually exist?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
There definitely seemed to be a few issues with pacing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:38
|
|
|
just as a counterpoint, i hated the original LOTR movies because they were slow paced and gay. i didn't see the first two hobbit movies because i found it hard to believe that they somehow made that book into three whole movies, but i got dragged along to see this one, and i actually liked it. my suspicion is that this movie contains the only part of the book worth filming. i'm not seeing the first two unless someone takes the three movies and edits it down to like two hours though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
i think smaug looks cool and i liked watching him coil around in the second one. i will wait until netflix to watch this one though, OP, because i feel obligated to finish it. it is my journey to mordor
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:43
|
|
|
i liked it but i forgot why the dwarves and bilbo were on the trip in the first place its not like they had some mega specific mission like in lord of the rings right??
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:47
|
|
|
i heard one of the old fairies that plays gandalf or whatever actually broke down in tears because of too many green screens
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
rear end cobra posted:i liked it but i forgot why the dwarves and bilbo were on the trip in the first place its not like they had some mega specific mission like in lord of the rings right?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZfyrIPw3wY i just wanna know where the golds at give me the gold
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
rear end cobra posted:i liked it but i forgot why the dwarves and bilbo were on the trip in the first place its not like they had some mega specific mission like in lord of the rings right?? they were supposed to steal the arkenstone without Smaug noticing
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
You idiot, it was literally a 2 hour awesome battle scene
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
My mouth tastes of good beer gone bad and my stomach hurts also movie was bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
tolkien got owned
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:02
|
|
|
I was having a conversation with my cousin about why the Hobbit movies were bad but the LOTR movies were good. Basically, it's because it looks fake as poo poo. In LOTR the orcs were humans with make up and prosthetics and they looks fantastic and real. With CGI they look real... enough. They don't quite look as good as the real thing. And in 25 years LOTR will still look good and the Hobbit will look dated and lovely like how we look back at Toy Story now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
a lot of nerds are mad about this so i went to the theater and bought a ticket. i didnt watch it, but i felt i had to give back in some way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
To dissimulate is to pretend not to have what one has. To simulate is to feign to have what one doesn't have. One implies a presence, the other an absence. But it is more complicated than that because simulating is not pretending: "Whoever fakes an illness can simply stay in bed and make everyone believe he is ill. Whoever simulates an illness produces in himself some of the symptoms" (Littré). Therefore, pretending, or dissimulating, leaves the principle of reality intact: the difference is always clear, it is simply masked, whereas simulation threatens the difference between the "true" and the "false," the "real" and the "imaginary." Is the simulator sick or not, given that he produces "true" symptoms? Objectively one cannot treat him as being either ill or not ill. Psychology and medicine stop at this point, forestalled by the illness's henceforth undiscoverable truth. For if any symptom can be "produced," and can no longer be taken as a fact of nature, then every illness can be considered as simulatable and simulated, and medicine loses its meaning since it only knows how to treat "real" illnesses according to their objective causes. Psychosomatics evolves in a dubious manner at the borders of the principle of illness. As to psychoanalysis, it transfers the symptom of the organic order to the unconscious order: the latter is new and taken for "real" more real than the other - but why would simulation be at the gates of the unconscious? Why couldn't the "work" of the unconscious be "produced" in the same way as any old symptom of classical medicine? Dreams already are. Certainly, the psychiatrist purports that "for every form of mental alienation there is a particular order in the succession of symptoms of which the simulator is ignorant and in the absence of which the psychiatrist would not be deceived." This (which dates from 1865) in order to safeguard the principle of a truth at all costs and to escape the interrogation posed by simulation - the knowledge that truth, reference, objective cause have ceased to exist. Now, what can medicine do with what floats on either side of illness, on either side of health, with the duplication of illness in a discourse that is no longer either true or false? What can psychoanalysis do with the duplication of the discourse of the unconscious in the discourse of simulation that can never again be unmasked, since it is not false either? What can the army do about simulators? Traditionally it unmasks them and punishes them, according to a clear principle of identification. Today it can discharge a very good simulator as exactly equivalent to a "real" homosexual, a heart patient, or a madman. Even military psychology draws back from Cartesian certainties and hesitates to make the distinction between true and false, between the "produced" and the authentic symptom. "If he is this good at acting crazy, it's because he is." Nor is military psychology mistaken in this regard: in this sense, all crazy people simulate, and this lack of distinction is the worst kind of subversion. It is against this lack of distinction that classical reason armed itself in all its categories. But it is what today again outflanks them, submerging the principle of truth. Beyond medicine and the army favored terrains of simulation, the question returns to religion and the simulacrum of divinity: "I forbade that there be any simulacra in the temples because the divinity that animates nature can never be represented." Indeed it can be. But what becomes of the divinity when it reveals itself in icons, when it is multiplied in simulacra? Does it remain the supreme power that is simply incarnated in images as a visible theology? Or does it volatilize itself in the simulacra that, alone, deploy their power and pomp of fascination - the visible machinery of icons substituted for the pure and intelligible Idea of God? This is precisely what was feared by Iconoclasts, whose millennial quarrel is still with us today.*3 This is precisely because they predicted this omnipotence of simulacra, the faculty simulacra have of effacing God from the conscience of man, and the destructive, annihilating truth that they allow to appear - that deep down God never existed, that only the simulacrum ever existed, even that God himself was never anything but his own simulacrum - from this came their urge to destroy the images. If they could have believed that these images only obfuscated or masked the Platonic Idea of God, there would have been no reason to destroy them. One can live with the idea of distorted truth. But their metaphysical despair came from the idea that the image didn't conceal anything at all, and that these images were in essence not images, such as an original model would have made them, but perfect simulacra, forever radiant with their own fascination. Thus this death of the divine referential must be exorcised at all costs. One can see that the iconoclasts, whom one accuses of disdaining and negating images, were those who accorded them their true value, in contrast to the iconolaters who only saw reflections in them and were content to venerate a filigree God. On the other hand, one can say that the icon worshipers were the most modern minds, the most adventurous, because, in the guise of having God become apparent in the mirror of images, they were already enacting his death and his disappearance in the epiphany of his representations (which, perhaps, they already knew no longer represented anything, that they were purely a game, but that it was therein the great game lay - knowing also that it is dangerous to unmask images, since they dissimulate the fact that there is nothing behind them). This was the approach of the Jesuits, who founded their politics on the virtual disappearance of God and on the worldly and spectacular manipulation of consciences - the evanescence of God in the epiphany of power - the end of transcendence, which now only serves as an alibi for a strategy altogether free of influences and signs. Behind the baroqueness of images hides the éminence grise of politics. This way the stake will always have been the murderous power of images, murderers of the real, murderers of their own model, as the Byzantine icons could be those of divine identity. To this murderous power is opposed that of representations as a dialectical power, the visible and intelligible mediation of the Real. All Western faith and good faith became engaged in this wager on representation: that a sign could refer to the depth of meaning, that a sign could be exchanged for meaning and that something could guarantee this exchange - God of course. But what if God himself can be simulated, that is to say can be reduced to the signs that constitute faith? Then the whole system becomes weightless, it is no longer itself anything but a gigantic simulacrum - not unreal, but a simulacrum, that is to say never exchanged for the real, but exchanged for itself, in an uninterrupted circuit without reference or circumference. Such is simulation, insofar as it is opposed to representation. Representation stems from the principle of the equivalence of the sign and of the real (even if this equivalence is Utopian, it is a fundamental axiom). Simulation, on the contrary, stems from the Utopia of the principle of equivalence, from the radical negation of the sign as value, from the sign as the reversion and death sentence of every reference. Whereas representation attempts to absorb simulation by interpreting it as a false representation, simulation envelops the whole edifice of representation itself as a simulacrum. Such would be the successive phases of the image: it is the reflection of a profound reality; it masks and denatures a profound reality; it masks the absence of a profound reality; it has no relation to any reality whatsoever; it is its own pure simulacrum. In the first case, the image is a good appearance - representation is of the sacramental order. In the second, it is an evil appearance - it is of the order of maleficence. In the third, it plays at being an appearance - it is of the order of sorcery. In the fourth, it is no longer of the order of appearances, but of simulation. The transition from signs that dissimulate something to signs that dissimulate that there is nothing marks a decisive turning point. The first reflects a theology of truth and secrecy (to which the notion of ideology still belongs). The second inaugurates the era of simulacra and of simulation, in which there is no longer a God to recognize his own, no longer a Last Judgment to separate the false from the true, the real from its artificial resurrection, as everything is already dead and resurrected in advance. When the real is no longer what it was, nostalgia assumes its full meaning. There is a plethora of myths of origin and of signs of reality - a plethora of truth, of secondary objectivity, and authenticity. Escalation of the true, of lived experience, resurrection of the figurative where the object and substance have disappeared. Panic-stricken production of the real and of the referential, parallel to and greater than the panic of material production: this is how simulation appears in the phase that concerns us - a strategy of the real, of the neoreal and the hyperreal that everywhere is the double of a strategy of deterrence. tl;dr: The Hobbit is bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:19
|
|
|
There's a lot of CGI in the return of the king. However for the most part it was used well. Peter Jackson went full George Lucas with the Hobbit movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:I was having a conversation with my cousin about why the Hobbit movies were bad but the LOTR movies were good. Basically, it's because it looks fake as poo poo. In LOTR the orcs were humans with make up and prosthetics and they looks fantastic and real. With CGI they look real... enough. They don't quite look as good as the real thing. And in 25 years LOTR will still look good and the Hobbit will look dated and lovely like how we look back at Toy Story now. Pretty much---these types of movies (fantasy and sci fi) live and die on the backs of the set designers/sculptors, costumers and prop men--the world of the film has to feel absolutely real, lived -in and evocative or it's camp at best and most lilely a total waste of time Also my everything really hurts I am loving done with alcohol do you hear
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
cast a fuckin spell gandalf, you idiot wizard loser - me, yelling at the theatre screen
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
Harime Nui posted:Pretty much---these types of movies (fantasy and sci fi) live and die on the backs of the set designers/sculptors, costumers and prop men--the world of the film has to feel absolutely real, lived -in and evocative or it's camp at best and most lilely a total waste of time Good, I'm glad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
hahahahaha 
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:27
|
|
|
I wish the hobbit movies had completely bombed so Peter Jackson would be forced to work on a lower budget and maybe make something good again
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Being a conservative is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:28
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:Being a conservative is wrong. Wrong, libtard
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
  
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
I liked it when the elf guy picked up a bunch of orks on his moose horns and cut all their heads off in one sweep, that was cool. I liked it when Gandalf sits down next to Thousand-Yard Stare Bilbo and just starts cleaning out his pipe like whatever poo poo happens let's get high my nigga
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 18, 2024 09:31 |
|
|
Lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2014 21:32
|
|