actually yeah. i didnt get to catch any of the game last night.

saw the hobbit.
- stayinthefnnet

What you think? of the hobbit

Im guessing the whole team is like "(frank) it, we definitely have no chance now"

Im guessing the whole team is like "(frank) it, we definitely have no chance now"
- GOA88

Except for Read. He says "I'm going out and playing hard next game just for you, GOA88!"

What you think? of the hobbit
- NickTheKid87

i thought it was pretty good. i liked the second one better, just because it was more smaug-centric, and he is a pretty short lived character in the third one.

but overall, pretty well done. its different evaluating a movie based off of something you already know. i have a tendency to be more critical since i already have a preconceived notion in my head.

but it was enjoyable, and definitely filled with action/conflict scenes.

i thought it was pretty good. i liked the second one better, just because it was more smaug-centric, and he is a pretty short lived character in the third one.

but overall, pretty well done. its different evaluating a movie based off of something you already know. i have a tendency to be more critical since i already have a preconceived notion in my head.

but it was enjoyable, and definitely filled with action/conflict scenes.
- stayinthefnnet

That's exactly why I try to clear my mind before going to see a movie that I've read the book/comic on. I tell myself, this isn't the book... don't expect it to be like the book.. appreciate it for what it is..

Nice to know though.. so many people rip it just because it ISN'T like the book... my wife and I are going to see it this week, and I'm really looking forward to it!

i thought it was pretty good. i liked the second one better, just because it was more smaug-centric, and he is a pretty short lived character in the third one.

but overall, pretty well done. its different evaluating a movie based off of something you already know. i have a tendency to be more critical since i already have a preconceived notion in my head.

but it was enjoyable, and definitely filled with action/conflict scenes.
- stayinthefnnet

This Hobbit trilogy sort of reminds me of the Star Wars prequel triology: both didn't come close to living up to the original trilogies and they never could.

actually yeah. i didnt get to catch any of the game last night.

saw the hobbit.
- stayinthefnnet

going tonight, how was it?

never mind, leight(on) again

This Hobbit trilogy sort of reminds me of the Star Wars prequel triology: both didn't come close to living up to the original trilogies and they never could.
- NickTheKid87

i understand.

the star wars ones that came out were hard for me to separate. they were just very different, and just seemed very detached to me. probably due to being made so far apart in time. i had a hard time appreciating them as stand alone products. the whole time, it was just like wtf is this.

the hobbit, to me anyway, does a good job of at least remaining consistent in overall flavor and feel. yeah the actual story itself offers much less in terms of substance than the actual LOTR trilogy, but based on what they had to work with, i think they did a good job and put forth something that i found very enjoyable.

This Hobbit trilogy sort of reminds me of the Star Wars prequel triology: both didn't come close to living up to the original trilogies and they never could.
- NickTheKid87

I think I said it yesterday.. but the one thing that irks me more about the Hobbit, is the overuse of CGI.. I don't mind CGI, and I think it was very well done in things like the LOTR... but the Hobbit seemed to just get sloppy with it. Like the way Bolg and Azog are 100% CGI'd.. In the LOTR, most of the Orcs and Urakhai were actors with just good makeup on them. But in the Hobbit, a lot of them are CGI'd.. I mean, that's fine for the extras, but ESPECIALLY in the case of Azog and Bolg, who get regular close-ups, they should have used regular actors... jmo. There's other things I think they overdid in the Hobbit too...

I still greatly enjoy all of them both.. LOTR and Hobbit (minus the current one)... but I just think PJ could have toned down the CGI just a little bit..

That's exactly why I try to clear my mind before going to see a movie that I've read the book/comic on. I tell myself, this isn't the book... don't expect it to be like the book.. appreciate it for what it is..

Nice to know though.. so many people rip it just because it ISN'T like the book... my wife and I are going to see it this week, and I'm really looking forward to it!
- WarriorHockey21

yeah i think thats a good way to approach it. i dont think youll come out of it thinking it changed your life.

but i dont think youll come out disappointed either. it hits all the necessary notes, doesnt take a lot of liberties, and just generally does what its supposed to do. im not a huge movie goer any more, (but thats probably due largely to the crappy theatres in our area), but overall im glad i went.

I think I said it yesterday.. but the one thing that irks me more about the Hobbit, is the overuse of CGI.. I don't mind CGI, and I think it was very well done in things like the LOTR... but the Hobbit seemed to just get sloppy with it. Like the way Bolg and Azog are 100% CGI'd.. In the LOTR, most of the Orcs and Urakhai were actors with just good makeup on them. But in the Hobbit, a lot of them are CGI'd.. I mean, that's fine for the extras, but ESPECIALLY in the case of Azog and Bolg, who get regular close-ups, they should have used regular actors... jmo. There's other things I think they overdid in the Hobbit too...

I still greatly enjoy all of them both.. LOTR and Hobbit (minus the current one)... but I just think PJ could have toned down the CGI just a little bit..
- WarriorHockey21

this is definitely a valid point.

but smaug was done largely via CGI, and i thought he was hit out of the park. could be i just really like the character though. and the voice was better than i could have hoped.

this is definitely a valid point.

but smaug was done largely via CGI, and i thought he was hit out of the park. could be i just really like the character though. and the voice was better than i could have hoped.
- stayinthefnnet

Cumberbatch kills it.

Son of a (frank)ing female dog.

Back spasms. Out of all things.

Unless its from curling up into the fetal position too much after games, I don't like that.

Cumberbatch kills it.

- MBFlyerfan

ive heard that name a lot, especially recently. he is referenced in almost every other facebook post from a large number of the TV Film type girls that went to my college.

never really knew who he was.

but in that voice. ugh. love it.

does he do it totally unedited? that would be ridiculous.

this is definitely a valid point.

but smaug was done largely via CGI, and i thought he was hit out of the park. could be i just really like the character though. and the voice was better than i could have hoped.
- stayinthefnnet

Nope, I agree... I was actually going to make that stipulation in my previous post. I think they did a pretty incredible job on Smaug, to be honest! And BC was a perfect voice for him.

This Hobbit trilogy sort of reminds me of the Star Wars prequel triology: both didn't come close to living up to the original trilogies and they never could.
- NickTheKid87

Going this eve. Imax 3D, as not one show isn't without that 3D crap.

Gives me a headache after 30 minutes of watching but what can you do. Last farewell to middle earth, have to see that poop.

ive heard that name a lot, especially recently. he is referenced in almost every other facebook post from a large number of the TV Film type girls that went to my college.

never really knew who he was.

but in that voice. ugh. love it.

does he do it totally unedited? that would be ridiculous.
- stayinthefnnet

If you're into Star Trek, he was Khan on the new(second) movie as well. He's been a BBC star for awhile, but I think he started gaining notoriety in the US a few years ago.. and then he was in Star Trek...

Going this eve. Imax 3D, as not one show isn't without that 3D crap.

Gives me a headache after 30 minutes of watching but what can you do. Last farewell to middle earth, have to see that poop.
- flyer_nutter

I personally dislike 3D theaters... I went to see a few movies in 3D and they didn't impress, to say the least. Definitely not worth the $15+ per ticket... Give me the classic theater for the still inflated price of $8, and I'm happy(er)!

ill see your tank and raise you a tanker


- PhillaBully

Hextall is paying mason to have "Back Spasms"....He wants Macdavid bad

i understand.

the star wars ones that came out were hard for me to separate. they were just very different, and just seemed very detached to me. probably due to being made so far apart in time. i had a hard time appreciating them as stand alone products. the whole time, it was just like wtf is this.

the hobbit, to me anyway, does a good job of at least remaining consistent in overall flavor and feel. yeah the actual story itself offers much less in terms of substance than the actual LOTR trilogy, but based on what they had to work with, i think they did a good job and put forth something that i found very enjoyable.
- stayinthefnnet

I hear ya. LOTR takes place awhile after the events of the Hobbit and they're really not that connected in terms of story aside from the ring. The Star Wars prequels were just the beginning of the same story as the original 3 so separating them would sort of undermine their purpose.

I think if they did the Hobbit in one or two movies, it would have been more clear and enjoyable for me. I felt like they stretched the story so thin and added so much that it muddled the actual plot.

Hextall is paying mason to have "Back Spasms"....He wants Macdavid bad
- PhillaBully

Kind of like throwing a fight? Yes! Mason is a true team player.

I personally dislike 3D theaters... I went to see a few movies in 3D and they didn't impress, to say the least. Definitely not worth the $15+ per ticket... Give me the classic theater for the still inflated price of $8, and I'm happy(er)!
- WarriorHockey21

i HATE 3d theatres. not worth the price. not even enjoyable. and the dopey glasses. whole thing just sucks.


and even 8 bucks is cheap if you can find it. was 10 and change yesterday for like a 430 showing at neshaminy.

I personally dislike 3D theaters... I went to see a few movies in 3D and they didn't impress, to say the least. Definitely not worth the $15+ per ticket... Give me the classic theater for the still inflated price of $8, and I'm happy(er)!
- WarriorHockey21

Its about the moooney homeslice. Never was a fan of 3D but the good one's in Winnipeg, its only in 3D.

Just have to make sure I don't drop a tear, LOTR was THE movie of my nerdy teen years. At the ripe old age of 24 as of dec 18, the age factor is sinking in.

I think I said it yesterday.. but the one thing that irks me more about the Hobbit, is the overuse of CGI.. I don't mind CGI, and I think it was very well done in things like the LOTR... but the Hobbit seemed to just get sloppy with it. Like the way Bolg and Azog are 100% CGI'd.. In the LOTR, most of the Orcs and Urakhai were actors with just good makeup on them. But in the Hobbit, a lot of them are CGI'd.. I mean, that's fine for the extras, but ESPECIALLY in the case of Azog and Bolg, who get regular close-ups, they should have used regular actors... jmo. There's other things I think they overdid in the Hobbit too...

I still greatly enjoy all of them both.. LOTR and Hobbit (minus the current one)... but I just think PJ could have toned down the CGI just a little bit..
- WarriorHockey21

I agree on the CGI. They went nuts in the Hobbit. It's as if they just discovered it. CGI is a great tool but part of what made LOTR great was the cinematography which involved more real stuff and that was lacking in the Hobbit, IMO.