The Hobbit Thread.
- Thread starter Loopz
- Start date
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 26,964
I would have been slightly tempted to see it, because at least there's no Elijah fucking Wood in the movie. So it has that going for it. But they stretched the story across two movies... then dared to pad it even further to three movies.. despite the fact that all three LotR books -- each of which are more pages than The Hobbit -- were able to be adapted into single movies... and... forget it.
I can reread the book if I feel like revisiting the story. I'm not going to sit through a 9 hour Hobbit movie trilogy.
I can reread the book if I feel like revisiting the story. I'm not going to sit through a 9 hour Hobbit movie trilogy.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2001
- Posts
- 19,316
Peter Jackson just wanted to make sure you had enough time to enjoy all the Enya on the soundtrack
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2011
- Posts
- 590
Word is that the HFR version kills the element of childhood fantasy we are looking to find by over-detailing the flaws
Moon Jump
Alfred Garcia's Butler
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2003
- Posts
- 5,904
I had heard when they watched the HFR version when they were filming it the thought it looked bad. All the reviews I've read about the HFR version say it shows off way too much and when they run it looks like something out of a silent movie, like Keystone Cops. As much as I want to see it I agree with STK that I hate they stretched it into three movies. I really want to see what Smaug is going to look and sound like, but I don't want to have to wait another year to see it.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 26,964
There's not really Enya on the soundtrack, is there?!
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Posts
- 23,254
Mendel
Vanessa's Drinking Buddy
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Posts
- 1,187
I think they will go for 8 hobbits to make a hobbyte.
Ukee
Geese's Thug
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2011
- Posts
- 279
I lost all interest of this movie ever since I heard that Peter Jackson was going to film it after all and not Guillermo del Toro. I would of much rather seen his version of Gollum over Jackson's, I hated the LotR movie Gollum.
Long live the animated The Hobbit!
Long live the animated The Hobbit!
Well, lotr was fine cinema but i thought they kind of butchered the story. And, i really hate to jump on this band wagon, but the frodo and sam scenes were borderline homoerotic.
At least with it spanning across three movies im certain theyll get the story right, and im praying theres no dwarf on dwarf action in this movie. But for the average movie goer thats not a middle earth fan...i dont expect them to appreciate this relatively short book being stretched across 9 hours of cinema. And as a middle earth fan, im not even sure i think the book needs this much.
Burglar edit: No midnight showing here, but im not sure id go anyways. I get tired and fall asleep by 11pm these days. Fucking old age. But ill try and get seats for the first showing tomorrow.
At least with it spanning across three movies im certain theyll get the story right, and im praying theres no dwarf on dwarf action in this movie. But for the average movie goer thats not a middle earth fan...i dont expect them to appreciate this relatively short book being stretched across 9 hours of cinema. And as a middle earth fan, im not even sure i think the book needs this much.
Burglar edit: No midnight showing here, but im not sure id go anyways. I get tired and fall asleep by 11pm these days. Fucking old age. But ill try and get seats for the first showing tomorrow.
Last edited:
aria
Former Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 4, 1977
- Posts
- 39,546
I'm seeing it this morning. I may have time to post about it before catching up on work.
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2000
- Posts
- 11,103
Saw it at midnight. I thought it was great. I like long ass movies like this.
I was actually surprised how far they went in the story for the first movie, but I guess you need to get him the ring.
Some of the combat scenes are gritty and great, and some of them are kinda slapstick. I think that will be a big complaint among viewers.
It also suffers from key plot problem from LOTR movies.
I was actually surprised how far they went in the story for the first movie, but I guess you need to get him the ring.
Some of the combat scenes are gritty and great, and some of them are kinda slapstick. I think that will be a big complaint among viewers.
It also suffers from key plot problem from LOTR movies.
Spoiler:
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 13,156
It could be argued, regarding the eagles in LOTR, that
So I've never really agreed with the argument that they made the journey irrelevant.
I'm seeing this tomorrow morning and am looking forward to it. Just seeing the standard 2D version. I don't need all that extra 3D and stuff.
One thing I will say I've come to HATE about the LOTR trilogy is the action scenes. When the Fellowship is fighting, I hate that slow motion choppy camera thing Jackson does. It's just fucking irritating, and shitty filmmaking, IMO. Every time I see it now, I wonder who's leeching my bandwidth or what is running in the background. Hopefully, the Hobbit doesn't have any of that bullshit in it.
Spoiler:
So I've never really agreed with the argument that they made the journey irrelevant.
I'm seeing this tomorrow morning and am looking forward to it. Just seeing the standard 2D version. I don't need all that extra 3D and stuff.
One thing I will say I've come to HATE about the LOTR trilogy is the action scenes. When the Fellowship is fighting, I hate that slow motion choppy camera thing Jackson does. It's just fucking irritating, and shitty filmmaking, IMO. Every time I see it now, I wonder who's leeching my bandwidth or what is running in the background. Hopefully, the Hobbit doesn't have any of that bullshit in it.
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2000
- Posts
- 13,156
In North America, it's showing in 48 FPS on about 450 screens, according to the CNN review for the film.
Fandangos
Hardened Shock Trooper
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2011
- Posts
- 429
dam.. only 25 screens will have it here... >/
aria
Former Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 4, 1977
- Posts
- 39,546
Saw it this morning.
Ummm... yeah.
Pacing a complete mess. The first two hours feel like they're four hours. The last 45 move along briskly. It does get better: first hour is the worst. Just getting out of Bilbo's house is a painful affair. The movie as a whole is pretty decent, but the word here is "indulgent", as in indulgent of all of Peter Jackson's whims. Maybe he's just being too reverential to the material now ("ooo, this should be a long scene! And this too!!!"), but I can safely say this isn't Phantom-Menace-bad, it just feels like--with all his success--no one was willing to tell Jackson "hey, this scene isn't paced right" in the editing room (or even better "why is this scene here?"). If anything, the editors of the LOTR movies are now all the more evident. Do you remember that bizarre and utterly useless scene in King Kong where the bugs attack? That's what entire stretches of this film feel like. If you're enjoying the ride, then you can relax and go along with it--but it's not well paced in any stretch. The material, for the most part, seems to surpass this problem.
The combat is lackluster and had a very rated-PG feeling. This is obviously the more kiddie-book of the series, so I supposed that explains some of it, and some obvious but not too irritating pandering to the kids was sprinkled throughout.
The HFR 3D isn't bad, but it is strange on the big screen: cinema has traditionally had a lower frame rate than TV, which is how you can tell the two apart so easily. With the nearly-double framerate, the movie looks at times like a TV show or a very seamless video game cut-scene. The 3D is much easier on the eyes overall, but I don't know what to think of it. About 45 minutes of Bilbo's house was enough to get me used to it. In a way it's like how HD doesn't make all movies "better", in fact it sometimes makes things "too sharp".
EDIT: If there's an extended version of this film, I'm not interested. And I loved the extended LOTR cuts. But that was trying to cram three books into three movies rather than spread one book over three movies.
Ummm... yeah.
Pacing a complete mess. The first two hours feel like they're four hours. The last 45 move along briskly. It does get better: first hour is the worst. Just getting out of Bilbo's house is a painful affair. The movie as a whole is pretty decent, but the word here is "indulgent", as in indulgent of all of Peter Jackson's whims. Maybe he's just being too reverential to the material now ("ooo, this should be a long scene! And this too!!!"), but I can safely say this isn't Phantom-Menace-bad, it just feels like--with all his success--no one was willing to tell Jackson "hey, this scene isn't paced right" in the editing room (or even better "why is this scene here?"). If anything, the editors of the LOTR movies are now all the more evident. Do you remember that bizarre and utterly useless scene in King Kong where the bugs attack? That's what entire stretches of this film feel like. If you're enjoying the ride, then you can relax and go along with it--but it's not well paced in any stretch. The material, for the most part, seems to surpass this problem.
The combat is lackluster and had a very rated-PG feeling. This is obviously the more kiddie-book of the series, so I supposed that explains some of it, and some obvious but not too irritating pandering to the kids was sprinkled throughout.
The HFR 3D isn't bad, but it is strange on the big screen: cinema has traditionally had a lower frame rate than TV, which is how you can tell the two apart so easily. With the nearly-double framerate, the movie looks at times like a TV show or a very seamless video game cut-scene. The 3D is much easier on the eyes overall, but I don't know what to think of it. About 45 minutes of Bilbo's house was enough to get me used to it. In a way it's like how HD doesn't make all movies "better", in fact it sometimes makes things "too sharp".
EDIT: If there's an extended version of this film, I'm not interested. And I loved the extended LOTR cuts. But that was trying to cram three books into three movies rather than spread one book over three movies.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 26,964
To which, he would reply, "Hey, I have to fill three fucking movies here, somehow."
aria
Former Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 4, 1977
- Posts
- 39,546
This is what I think happened: Jackson submitted a nearly 9 hour rough cut. Instead of the studio saying, as they always say, "hey, cut this into two 3-hour movies like we planned", they said "excellent, now we can make this three films!"
EDIT:
I remember Jackson was able to use his post-LOTR clout to push the long cut of King Kong into theaters, and that's how I think it played into this. The whole time I was watching I kept thinking back to how seemingly over-reverential the cast and crew seemed in the "making of" promotional videos of The Hobbit... now I see how that turned out on screen.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 26,964
I have absolutely nothing to back my agreement up with since I haven't even watched the movie, but that is pretty much exactly what I imagine happened.
aria
Former Moderator
- Joined
- Dec 4, 1977
- Posts
- 39,546
The animated Gollum (well, the one from the Hobbit not LOTR), definitely had the more demented version of reading his riddles--I couldn't help but compare the two when I saw the film today. I loved that version of that particular scene. Still, to be fair, the Gollum does breathe life into the film; Andy Serkis can make a scene.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 26,964
The thing I hated about the Jackson Gollum is that he looked like a cartoon. WTF. Everybody knows he is a Hobbit who has really let himself go, so why does he look nothing like the actor Hobbits? He had those ridiculous big saucer pan eyes, and body proportions completely different than Frodo, Sam, and whoever. Yeah, he's supposed to be creepy and pale and super-skinny and whatnot, but Jackson Gollum looked like a completely different kind of creature. And he was about as believable as Roger Rabbit. Horrible.