5punk

Oh maaaaaaaaaaaaaan

Oh yeah, looking forward to that.

Moreso than I was as I've been playing Dwarf Fortress again recently.

Legolas schmegolas, I want to have hot elf sex with Evangeline Lilly. WOOF!

I was under the impression that the first one was a tedious exercise in procrastination to squeeze more money out of the franchise. From the reviews of other people - I can't get to the cinema to watch films these days. Does that not put a dampener on peoples' enthusiasm?

Not really. It's a Peter Jackson fantasy film and it has good actors in it.
I don't mind if he wants £18~ of my money for 9 hours of entertainment.

Did you enjoy the first one?


(I have no hidden motive here by the way, I'm interested in how 5punkers felt about the first one and how that affects their reception of the second, because I really want to like the series but haven't been inspired to watch it by what I've heard).

I too haven't mustered up the courage to see it due to mixed reviews. I wouldn't normally be swayed and just go ahead and watch something if I thought it'd be decent enough, but with LotR being so good and The Hobbit being another hallowed IP I really don't want it to be shit.

Re: staying true to the book - I'm happy for it to encompass stuff outside of the book as Tolkien detailed parallel plots fairly extensively and I think they'd be worthy additions.

Dog Pants wrote:Did you enjoy the first one?

I did.

While I think three films might be stretching it, it does allow Jackson to stay very close to the book, and not skim over stuff or cut scenes out. Which is quite nice.

Then again, I prefer the Directors Cut version of the LoTR films, each film having roughly 45-60 mins extra to it, and still prefer the Fellowship as it's not all out action.

Yeah it was great fun, not as much depth as LoTR but then it's a short kids book and my expectations were lower.
3 films might be stretching it but apparently the filler is from Tolkien's other work so meh.

Not read the Hobbit anyway so can't get on my high horse about it being non-canon.
Only criticism is the 3D, I'd have preferred to see a non-3D high framerate version. Not that it was bad it just didn't add much for me.

I'm waiting for the box set

mrbobbins wrote:Only criticism is the 3D, I'd have preferred to see a non-3D high framerate version. Not that it was bad it just didn't add much for me.

The frame-rate was very nice and I think it should be standard, but the 3D at best is quite impressive on just a few occasions. Not worth the bother of having to wear the glasses.

Third and final part of the cornetto trilogy.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQUiKwF5oUw[/media]

ooh. Want.

Grimmie wrote:Third and final part of the cornetto trilogy.

I have seen the first two, but I never heard them called that.

Dr. kitteny berk wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Flav ... to_trilogy

I imagined it was a joke referring to those poncy Tri-Colour films, but that wiki description comes across almost as poncy.

Alan Partridge Alpha Papa - I like the look of this
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRivx-wEaiE[/media]

Also out soon:

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zqy21Z29ps[/media]

Alan Partridge: yes please!

300: I don't care much for that.

Riddick

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzZRvkOjwO4[/media]