What I find funny is that one reviewed claimed that it was too short at 144 minutes.
I haven't seen it yet, but if it has the same problems as the first two films, it will be that film stretches out the wrong parts, while still giving short shrift to interesting scenes. Why was most of the Mirkwood journey cut out? Why was much of the interactions with Beorn cut? They spend a whole chapter in Rivendell, and are in and out in ten movie minutes. Hell, I would even have liked to hear Gandalf's conversations with the eagles (who do speak..).
New TVs that do interpolation between frames create a different uncanny valley effect when they attempt to create motion blur by morphing between frames that don't contain motion blur. Pay special attention to brow wrinkles, crows feet and mouth creases with the "dejudder" set to max.
Which is why almost every home theater designer/installer knows to turn that "feature" off of TVs.
Transformers was where I found this most obvious, they had to do all the transformations in slowmo for you to actually catch what was going on, and even then it was still too overwhelming to catch without the extra frames
I think part of that problem was the design of the transformers themselves. Way too much going on to make individual sense, and part of one transformer tends to look like any other part of the same robot (or any other robot, for that matter). I don't think it was the 24fps that made it such a visual mess, Michael Bay literally said "put more stuff on the stuff" when he was shown robot designs. I wish I was making that quote up.
* during the first movie, they set the lighting for filming in 24fps, forgetting / not realizing that with double the framerate, comes double the lighting. Hence the lighting looks off, noticeable during the plate-tossing scene in Bilbo Baggins' house.
A big part of that is because it was really intended to be HFR 3D. If you're not watching it in HFR 3D, then you're not watching it as it was intended when filmed, and you're right, the lighting is critical. 3D sucks on a number of levels, one of the biggest being that it cuts way down on the brightness. I saw the first Hobbit in HFR 3D, and it was first 3D movie I had ever seen where I thought the colors, the lighting, everything just looked right.
Specifically, if a movie is in 3D but not HFR, it's not worth it, I see it in 2D instead.
I would say Slashdot is discussion media. Social media is focused on exposing every detail about yourself, that's the social part of social media. Slashdot is simply the successor to serious Usenet newsgroups, social media is a bit more like IRC with multimedia and permanence.
It doesn't by definition. But I fail to see how 24 fps is aesthetically better
In general, it's not. However, the lighting and HFR sometimes reveals a bit too much flaws in the sets. The look of film can take you into the scene, but if the motion/lighting/etc is hyper real, then that illusion can be broken.
I still feel HFR is the future of film, but it still has a little ways to go.
I have a vague, uncertain recollection that Scouring of the Shire was one of the scenes that Tolkien said he would understand could be left out of adaptations.
Honestly, the overall story pretty much ends with the destruction of the ring. The Scouring sequence would not have worked narratively in the film -- there's just too much stuff to pack in after the movie's climax. The movie did a decent enough job explaining Frodo's hurt and how some injuries cannot be healed.
I'm fine with leaving the extra part as a gem in the books. That's the medium to explore all the detail.
At least the new Star Trek films seem to be having fun (the first, at least. The second was a bit of a letdown). I can't say the same about the Hobbit films, unless you count artificially forced fun.
He did it in LotR too - the Ents for example, decide (eventually) to fight out of responsibility. But in the film, they instantly change their mind in a simple, emotionally-crippled act of revenge
To build on what the other responder mentioned, the motivations were the same in the book and the movie (the books go into far more detail at the intense hatred and thirst for revenge that the Huorns have). The difference was that Treebeard knew the death toll during Entmoot, which influences that decision, but in the movies, he's not aware of the cost of the clear-cutting until he sees it.
To be fair, while the adventures in the books were amazing and even fun, Bilbo never felt that way. He was in over his head from the start, and immediately regretted not staying home.
Even Boromir was nigh-on unkillable at Amon Hen and only died because Tolkien needed him to. The book has him "pierced by many arrows" and the heroes there had a kill-ratio of at least 10-1. More if you discount the hobbits.
Yes, but in the books, Aragorn was not in on the fighting in Amon Hen. He had gone in a different direction to search for Frodo, heard Boromir's horn, and arrived after all the orcs had gone. The Hobbits were not harmed because all the orcs were given explicit instructions to capture every hobbit "alive and unspoiled."
And Gandalf *knows* that the Necromancer is Sauron, then does nothing about it for decades and forgets until Bilbo's 111th Birthday Party. W. T. F.
Well. Uhh... in the books that's sort of the case anyway. In fact, Gandalf knew -before- the Quest for Erebor that the Necromancer was Sauron, which is why he objects so strongly at the unexpected party in Bilbo's house when Thorin casually mentions that the dwarves should pay back the Necromancer. "Don't be absurd, the Necromancer is a power greater than that of all the dwarves put together. The dragon and the mountain are more than enough for you." When Gandalf leaves the dwarves in Mirkwood, it's to head south to meet with Galadrial and assault Dol Guldur. They worried that Sauron and Smaug would provide mutual aid if only one of them were attacked (though Sauron aiding Smaug was far more likely than the reverse).
Gandalf's problem was with the White Council. He wanted to act, but Sarumon overruled him, saying the One Ring was lost forever, and it was better to watch Sauron and figure out what he was doing than to drive him into complete hiding. Gandalf did not realize that Saruman was blocking action because he thought that, with its master searching for it, the One Ring would make itself known. Saruman already desired the One for himself. So while Gandalf pushed to take action against Sauron, his hands were tied. While the dwarves take on Smaug, Sauron leaves Dol Guldur for good, setting up shop permanently in Mordor again. Just ten years after the Battle of the Five Armies, Sauron declares himself openly again.
But what was the big change? It's on Bilbo's 111th that he finally realizes Bilbo's ring is a ring of power. He had suspicions, but nothing confirmed. It's on his journeys after the party that he realizes Bilbo's ring was the One. That put everything in motion.
So while I can blame the movie series for a number of inaccuracies, it errs in that it shortens the time between when Gandalf discovers the Necromancer's identity and when Frodo sets off on the quest.
Not just that, you have to look at TLotR and realize that Jackson is very good at what he does.
The fact that The Hobbit is so much worse point to one thing: Someone told him that it had to make a lot of money.
Well, New Line was on shaky ground in the late 90s, and they gave Jackson a third of a billion dollars to make the Lord of the Rings. I think there was quite a bit of pressure to come up with money-making movies.
I would agree with AC -- the animated Hobbit is better than the new trilogy, and even more impressive when given the time constraints they had to work with.
I don't think Hobbit 1 was a great movie, but it had a fantastic ending -- from when Bilbo meets Gollum until the end of the movie is great -- as good as Lord of the Rings, which is my gold standard. It also started out decently in Hobbiton; I was fine with the slow pace of the unexpected party. That's sweet. But all the movie between those two points... it was dreck. There's no getting around it.
I felt the second Hobbit movie was just horribly bland. None of the highs that the first had, but it didn't have anything quite as bad as shit-covered Radagast or the theme-park-ride chase under the mountains.
Jackson has gotten into a bad habit -- he doesn't know when to end a scene or a sequence anymore. He will let things go on and on and on far past the point where it should have ended up. It worked extremely well in Lord of the Rings, mostly because the two extended battle scenes, Helm's Deep and and the battle at Minas Tirith, deserved a big treatment.. and they didn't go on endlessly. Everything had a purpose. However, King Kong was a movie with eeeeeendless chases. So many damned chases. I left the movie confused. It was an action movie where I liked the non-action scenes far more than the action scenes. How often does that happen? Then comes the Hobbit..
The interesting park is Tolkien really did intend to rewrite the Hobbit, make it a bit less of a childrens' book and try to make it fit in his greater middle earth pantheon. But he never quite finished that pantheon, and never got around to revisiting the Hobbit.
The barrel scene is exemplary of something even worse (at least for me) and that is the tendency for directors like Jackson and George Lucas before him to think that it's a great idea to construct 'theme park ride' set pieces.
Oh God, I had forgotten for a time about the horrid theme park ride that the escape from the orcs under the mountains was in the first Hobbit movie. Blllaaarrrggh. Thanks for bringing that memory up again.
I will say though, I think the last 45 minutes of the first Hobbit movie is brilliant -- equally as good as the Lord of the Rings. The Gollum riddle, the dwarves being rescued by the eagles, the flight to the Carrock. All just because, and the flight has some of the "natural beauty of the world" mystique that the first movie trilogy had and the current movies are mostly bereft of. I would say the highs of the first movie are great, but the lows are abysmal. The second movie is so bland throughout it made no impact.
I suppose they could have gotten Paul Verhoeven to do it. He could have managed it worse. I guess.
Possibly, he certainly has had a... mixed record since coming to America. I love his Starship Troopers adaptation, but mostly because I think its intentional parody is the sort of treatment that Heinlein's work deserved.
But you're right, and it's something I started to feel in King Kong and am now convinced of: Peter Jackson has gone full-on George Lucas. I don't think the producers are doing a good job reigning him in (he needs reigning in, and the production team in the Hobbit movies are not the same production team as was on Lord of the Rings). Even in LoTR, you could tell that while dialog lifted from the books was usually excellent, some of the original lines were.. trite and forced. Well, now that the story has expanded so much, most of the dialogue (especially Tauriel's) is trite. I think only Bandersnatch Cumberbund as Smaug is having a good time. I know poor Ian McKellen broke down on set, he didn't have much fun making the Hobbit movies.
Served no purpose? He gave them weapons from the Barrow Downs.
There are far better ways to do that as well than introduce a character who flounces around for two chapters and doesn't serve to move the story along.
I like Tom, but he's better cut out of movie adaptions. Removing him from adaptations was even a recommendation from Tolkien himself, as the character serves little purpose (on Tolkien's admission) than to add flavor and introduce a wild force that has no explanation. Even now no one really knows of Tom was a Maiar, Valar, Illuvatar himself, or something totally unique.
I expect a barrel-riding scene that exemplifies the resourcefulness of Bilbo and rewards him with what he desires: relaxation.
Well he certainly didn't get it in the book. The barrel-riding scene was thoroughly miserable, and it's a misery that is just exceeded by the dwarves packed in the barrels. Bilbo doesn't get much relaxation in Lake Town (he's the only unhappy one, seemingly), and of course we know he doesn't have the grandest time in the mountain. I don't think it's until after the Battle of the Five Armies that Bilbo finally relaxes.
I also don't expect Legolas, since he isn't even mentioned in the Hobbit.
The appearance of Legolas is not unreasonable as he was around the area at the time. Tolkien just hadn't conceived of him as a character yet.
if Legolas did half of the things he did in the movie version of the Battle of Five Armies, all of Middle Earth would have suggested he walk into Mordor with a retinue of quiver carrying hirelings and clean the place out before Sauron even reformed.
Strangely, I don't think he's overstated (disclaimer, haven't seen the new Hobbit movie). But the elves are supposed to be bad-ass, better than the best warriors of men. However, they are also small in number (and getting smaller).
I think the barrel scene is exemplary of a bigger problem that plagues the Hobbit movies: orcs. Orcs EVERYWHERE. Here an orc, there an orc, everywhere an orc orc. Orcs on the Running River. Orcs in Lake Town. I'm surprised there wasn't an orc hiding under the Arkenstone waiting to stab Bilbo. The omnipresence of the orcish threat was ridiculous. Even in Lord of the Rings, where there are supposedly more orcs than in the time period of the Hobbit, they aren't as always-threatening.
And isn't it strange, given the movies' love of drawn-out action set pieces, that the spiders in Mirkwood are almost glossed over?
So it's like the 2008 financial crisis. We peasants have to pay the big bonuses of our banking overlords and never question our supreme ruler of the day. Obama, our dear leader.
Obama entered office in 2009. I'm not sure you can blame him for the 2008 banking collapse.
... is that the US president thinks this is of such importance to address this in a speech. It clearly shows, IMHO, how much influence a media company has.
You don't think a media company is as important as another company of similar size/revenue/employee count? If another nation does as much catastrophic damage to an American company (it is an American subsidiary of a Japanese corporation), yes, it's the President's job to address it. Why would you think this isn't important?
They are the new feudal lords and do not produce anything palpable
You may have noticed that the media companies are one of the very very few American sectors that produce works that are in great demand and sold abroad. That's the government will bend over for them. They're one of the most important sectors of the economy.
I'll be frank -- OtherOS sucked. It always sucked. Anyone who actually tried to use it found out it sucked. It had all of one useful ability -- a low-cost number-cruncher, and the usefulness of that was quickly eclipsed by PCs again. In nearly every other application, the console was intentionally crippled because Sony was so scared it could be used to run home-brew games, pirated games, game emulators, or anything else they didn't approve of. It sucked because Sony made it that way.
Most of us who tried OtherOS weren't REALLY sad when it disappeared. We tried it, we found out it was useless, curiosity satisfied even if we were disappointed in the thing. Sure, it sucks to have a feature removed, but if it was a feature you weren't using and wouldn't use again, it didn't really matter.
Annnnnd.... they simply didn't upgrade. The PS3's OtherOS feature still works just fine with an older BIOS. Sure, they might not be able to play the newest PS3 games and Blu-Rays, but that's not what those devices are used for anyway, is it?
Then again, the PS3 cluster was something that was useful in a small number of applications for a short period of time, and that short period of time isn't related to the OtherOS removal.
When I heard our great leader say Sony should have asked him first what they should do, it reminded me of the type of guy who says "if I was there, I would've kicked their ass", whose friends look awkwardly at each other, sure thing Barry, sure thing.
Or maybe because relations with foreign powers, particularly hostile governments, is actually the President's job. But sure, keep up with the Barry nonsense.
Slashdot Mirror
What I find funny is that one reviewed claimed that it was too short at 144 minutes.
I haven't seen it yet, but if it has the same problems as the first two films, it will be that film stretches out the wrong parts, while still giving short shrift to interesting scenes. Why was most of the Mirkwood journey cut out? Why was much of the interactions with Beorn cut? They spend a whole chapter in Rivendell, and are in and out in ten movie minutes. Hell, I would even have liked to hear Gandalf's conversations with the eagles (who do speak..).
New TVs that do interpolation between frames create a different uncanny valley effect when they attempt to create motion blur by morphing between frames that don't contain motion blur. Pay special attention to brow wrinkles, crows feet and mouth creases with the "dejudder" set to max.
Which is why almost every home theater designer/installer knows to turn that "feature" off of TVs.
Transformers was where I found this most obvious, they had to do all the transformations in slowmo for you to actually catch what was going on, and even then it was still too overwhelming to catch without the extra frames
I think part of that problem was the design of the transformers themselves. Way too much going on to make individual sense, and part of one transformer tends to look like any other part of the same robot (or any other robot, for that matter). I don't think it was the 24fps that made it such a visual mess, Michael Bay literally said "put more stuff on the stuff" when he was shown robot designs. I wish I was making that quote up.
* during the first movie, they set the lighting for filming in 24fps, forgetting / not realizing that with double the framerate, comes double the lighting. Hence the lighting looks off, noticeable during the plate-tossing scene in Bilbo Baggins' house.
A big part of that is because it was really intended to be HFR 3D. If you're not watching it in HFR 3D, then you're not watching it as it was intended when filmed, and you're right, the lighting is critical. 3D sucks on a number of levels, one of the biggest being that it cuts way down on the brightness. I saw the first Hobbit in HFR 3D, and it was first 3D movie I had ever seen where I thought the colors, the lighting, everything just looked right.
Specifically, if a movie is in 3D but not HFR, it's not worth it, I see it in 2D instead.
Lens flare doesn't enhance anything. It certainly didn't in the older days -- showing lens flare meant you sucked as a cinematographer and got fired.
Motion blur, on the other hand.. well it's been added digitally for decades. Toy Story, for instance, has motion blur before 24 fps needs it.
I would say Slashdot is discussion media. Social media is focused on exposing every detail about yourself, that's the social part of social media. Slashdot is simply the successor to serious Usenet newsgroups, social media is a bit more like IRC with multimedia and permanence.
It doesn't by definition. But I fail to see how 24 fps is aesthetically better
In general, it's not. However, the lighting and HFR sometimes reveals a bit too much flaws in the sets. The look of film can take you into the scene, but if the motion/lighting/etc is hyper real, then that illusion can be broken.
I still feel HFR is the future of film, but it still has a little ways to go.
I have a vague, uncertain recollection that Scouring of the Shire was one of the scenes that Tolkien said he would understand could be left out of adaptations.
Honestly, the overall story pretty much ends with the destruction of the ring. The Scouring sequence would not have worked narratively in the film -- there's just too much stuff to pack in after the movie's climax. The movie did a decent enough job explaining Frodo's hurt and how some injuries cannot be healed.
I'm fine with leaving the extra part as a gem in the books. That's the medium to explore all the detail.
it's like the new Star Trek films all over again
At least the new Star Trek films seem to be having fun (the first, at least. The second was a bit of a letdown). I can't say the same about the Hobbit films, unless you count artificially forced fun.
He did it in LotR too - the Ents for example, decide (eventually) to fight out of responsibility. But in the film, they instantly change their mind in a simple, emotionally-crippled act of revenge
To build on what the other responder mentioned, the motivations were the same in the book and the movie (the books go into far more detail at the intense hatred and thirst for revenge that the Huorns have). The difference was that Treebeard knew the death toll during Entmoot, which influences that decision, but in the movies, he's not aware of the cost of the clear-cutting until he sees it.
To be fair, while the adventures in the books were amazing and even fun, Bilbo never felt that way. He was in over his head from the start, and immediately regretted not staying home.
Even Boromir was nigh-on unkillable at Amon Hen and only died because Tolkien needed him to. The book has him "pierced by many arrows" and the heroes there had a kill-ratio of at least 10-1. More if you discount the hobbits.
Yes, but in the books, Aragorn was not in on the fighting in Amon Hen. He had gone in a different direction to search for Frodo, heard Boromir's horn, and arrived after all the orcs had gone.
The Hobbits were not harmed because all the orcs were given explicit instructions to capture every hobbit "alive and unspoiled."
And Gandalf *knows* that the Necromancer is Sauron, then does nothing about it for decades and forgets until Bilbo's 111th Birthday Party. W. T. F.
Well. Uhh... in the books that's sort of the case anyway. In fact, Gandalf knew -before- the Quest for Erebor that the Necromancer was Sauron, which is why he objects so strongly at the unexpected party in Bilbo's house when Thorin casually mentions that the dwarves should pay back the Necromancer. "Don't be absurd, the Necromancer is a power greater than that of all the dwarves put together. The dragon and the mountain are more than enough for you." When Gandalf leaves the dwarves in Mirkwood, it's to head south to meet with Galadrial and assault Dol Guldur. They worried that Sauron and Smaug would provide mutual aid if only one of them were attacked (though Sauron aiding Smaug was far more likely than the reverse).
Gandalf's problem was with the White Council. He wanted to act, but Sarumon overruled him, saying the One Ring was lost forever, and it was better to watch Sauron and figure out what he was doing than to drive him into complete hiding. Gandalf did not realize that Saruman was blocking action because he thought that, with its master searching for it, the One Ring would make itself known. Saruman already desired the One for himself. So while Gandalf pushed to take action against Sauron, his hands were tied. While the dwarves take on Smaug, Sauron leaves Dol Guldur for good, setting up shop permanently in Mordor again. Just ten years after the Battle of the Five Armies, Sauron declares himself openly again.
But what was the big change? It's on Bilbo's 111th that he finally realizes Bilbo's ring is a ring of power. He had suspicions, but nothing confirmed. It's on his journeys after the party that he realizes Bilbo's ring was the One. That put everything in motion.
So while I can blame the movie series for a number of inaccuracies, it errs in that it shortens the time between when Gandalf discovers the Necromancer's identity and when Frodo sets off on the quest.
Not just that, you have to look at TLotR and realize that Jackson is very good at what he does.
The fact that The Hobbit is so much worse point to one thing: Someone told him that it had to make a lot of money.
Well, New Line was on shaky ground in the late 90s, and they gave Jackson a third of a billion dollars to make the Lord of the Rings. I think there was quite a bit of pressure to come up with money-making movies.
I would agree with AC -- the animated Hobbit is better than the new trilogy, and even more impressive when given the time constraints they had to work with.
I don't think Hobbit 1 was a great movie, but it had a fantastic ending -- from when Bilbo meets Gollum until the end of the movie is great -- as good as Lord of the Rings, which is my gold standard. It also started out decently in Hobbiton; I was fine with the slow pace of the unexpected party. That's sweet. But all the movie between those two points... it was dreck. There's no getting around it.
I felt the second Hobbit movie was just horribly bland. None of the highs that the first had, but it didn't have anything quite as bad as shit-covered Radagast or the theme-park-ride chase under the mountains.
Jackson has gotten into a bad habit -- he doesn't know when to end a scene or a sequence anymore. He will let things go on and on and on far past the point where it should have ended up. It worked extremely well in Lord of the Rings, mostly because the two extended battle scenes, Helm's Deep and and the battle at Minas Tirith, deserved a big treatment.. and they didn't go on endlessly. Everything had a purpose. However, King Kong was a movie with eeeeeendless chases. So many damned chases. I left the movie confused. It was an action movie where I liked the non-action scenes far more than the action scenes. How often does that happen? Then comes the Hobbit..
The interesting park is Tolkien really did intend to rewrite the Hobbit, make it a bit less of a childrens' book and try to make it fit in his greater middle earth pantheon. But he never quite finished that pantheon, and never got around to revisiting the Hobbit.
The barrel scene is exemplary of something even worse (at least for me) and that is the tendency for directors like Jackson and George Lucas before him to think that it's a great idea to construct 'theme park ride' set pieces.
Oh God, I had forgotten for a time about the horrid theme park ride that the escape from the orcs under the mountains was in the first Hobbit movie. Blllaaarrrggh. Thanks for bringing that memory up again.
I will say though, I think the last 45 minutes of the first Hobbit movie is brilliant -- equally as good as the Lord of the Rings. The Gollum riddle, the dwarves being rescued by the eagles, the flight to the Carrock. All just because, and the flight has some of the "natural beauty of the world" mystique that the first movie trilogy had and the current movies are mostly bereft of. I would say the highs of the first movie are great, but the lows are abysmal. The second movie is so bland throughout it made no impact.
I suppose they could have gotten Paul Verhoeven to do it. He could have managed it worse. I guess.
Possibly, he certainly has had a... mixed record since coming to America. I love his Starship Troopers adaptation, but mostly because I think its intentional parody is the sort of treatment that Heinlein's work deserved.
But you're right, and it's something I started to feel in King Kong and am now convinced of: Peter Jackson has gone full-on George Lucas. I don't think the producers are doing a good job reigning him in (he needs reigning in, and the production team in the Hobbit movies are not the same production team as was on Lord of the Rings). Even in LoTR, you could tell that while dialog lifted from the books was usually excellent, some of the original lines were.. trite and forced. Well, now that the story has expanded so much, most of the dialogue (especially Tauriel's) is trite. I think only Bandersnatch Cumberbund as Smaug is having a good time. I know poor Ian McKellen broke down on set, he didn't have much fun making the Hobbit movies.
Served no purpose? He gave them weapons from the Barrow Downs.
There are far better ways to do that as well than introduce a character who flounces around for two chapters and doesn't serve to move the story along.
I like Tom, but he's better cut out of movie adaptions. Removing him from adaptations was even a recommendation from Tolkien himself, as the character serves little purpose (on Tolkien's admission) than to add flavor and introduce a wild force that has no explanation. Even now no one really knows of Tom was a Maiar, Valar, Illuvatar himself, or something totally unique.
I expect a barrel-riding scene that exemplifies the resourcefulness of Bilbo and rewards him with what he desires: relaxation.
Well he certainly didn't get it in the book. The barrel-riding scene was thoroughly miserable, and it's a misery that is just exceeded by the dwarves packed in the barrels. Bilbo doesn't get much relaxation in Lake Town (he's the only unhappy one, seemingly), and of course we know he doesn't have the grandest time in the mountain. I don't think it's until after the Battle of the Five Armies that Bilbo finally relaxes.
I also don't expect Legolas, since he isn't even mentioned in the Hobbit.
The appearance of Legolas is not unreasonable as he was around the area at the time. Tolkien just hadn't conceived of him as a character yet.
if Legolas did half of the things he did in the movie version of the Battle of Five Armies, all of Middle Earth would have suggested he walk into Mordor with a retinue of quiver carrying hirelings and clean the place out before Sauron even reformed.
Strangely, I don't think he's overstated (disclaimer, haven't seen the new Hobbit movie). But the elves are supposed to be bad-ass, better than the best warriors of men. However, they are also small in number (and getting smaller).
I think the barrel scene is exemplary of a bigger problem that plagues the Hobbit movies: orcs. Orcs EVERYWHERE. Here an orc, there an orc, everywhere an orc orc. Orcs on the Running River. Orcs in Lake Town. I'm surprised there wasn't an orc hiding under the Arkenstone waiting to stab Bilbo. The omnipresence of the orcish threat was ridiculous. Even in Lord of the Rings, where there are supposedly more orcs than in the time period of the Hobbit, they aren't as always-threatening.
And isn't it strange, given the movies' love of drawn-out action set pieces, that the spiders in Mirkwood are almost glossed over?
So it's like the 2008 financial crisis. We peasants have to pay the big bonuses of our banking overlords and never question our supreme ruler of the day. Obama, our dear leader.
Obama entered office in 2009. I'm not sure you can blame him for the 2008 banking collapse.
... is that the US president thinks this is of such importance to address this in a speech. It clearly shows, IMHO, how much influence a media company has.
You don't think a media company is as important as another company of similar size/revenue/employee count? If another nation does as much catastrophic damage to an American company (it is an American subsidiary of a Japanese corporation), yes, it's the President's job to address it. Why would you think this isn't important?
They are the new feudal lords and do not produce anything palpable
You may have noticed that the media companies are one of the very very few American sectors that produce works that are in great demand and sold abroad. That's the government will bend over for them. They're one of the most important sectors of the economy.
I'll be frank -- OtherOS sucked. It always sucked. Anyone who actually tried to use it found out it sucked. It had all of one useful ability -- a low-cost number-cruncher, and the usefulness of that was quickly eclipsed by PCs again. In nearly every other application, the console was intentionally crippled because Sony was so scared it could be used to run home-brew games, pirated games, game emulators, or anything else they didn't approve of. It sucked because Sony made it that way.
Most of us who tried OtherOS weren't REALLY sad when it disappeared. We tried it, we found out it was useless, curiosity satisfied even if we were disappointed in the thing. Sure, it sucks to have a feature removed, but if it was a feature you weren't using and wouldn't use again, it didn't really matter.
You really have no clue how many PS3 were used for clustered processing? US Air Force had a very large one.
I'll just leave this here for you to peruse, it's an interesting read:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
Annnnnd.... they simply didn't upgrade. The PS3's OtherOS feature still works just fine with an older BIOS. Sure, they might not be able to play the newest PS3 games and Blu-Rays, but that's not what those devices are used for anyway, is it?
Then again, the PS3 cluster was something that was useful in a small number of applications for a short period of time, and that short period of time isn't related to the OtherOS removal.
Except for a privileged few, North Koreans are completely blocked off from the outside world
Which is a pretty good reason why if a hacking attempt originated in North Korea, it would be state-run or at least state-sponsored.
When I heard our great leader say Sony should have asked him first what they should do, it reminded me of the type of guy who says "if I was there, I would've kicked their ass", whose friends look awkwardly at each other, sure thing Barry, sure thing.
Or maybe because relations with foreign powers, particularly hostile governments, is actually the President's job. But sure, keep up with the Barry nonsense.