Peter Jackson's Hobbit - The Critique

[Ideologue]

Ide, I saw the 48 fps and seem to have similar issues with motion movies/games as per your past descriptions, and I felt fine the whole time.  I wouldn't be overly concerned.

Cool.

Come on, Avatar 2!  Avatar 1 told me how I should feel about a five year old war, now I want to know James Cameron's opinions about the housing crisis!

[Martinus]

I'm not. Why would I be?

A lot of your complaints are that a children's book seems like a children's book.

Yeah and from my memory of reading the Hobbit I think the deus ex machina is just being true to the book

That's correct but I was reviewing the movie as a standalone piece, not as a book adaptation. As I said, I read the book maybe 20 years ago and already forgot most of it, and I suspect most of the viewers would be either like that or have never read it at all in the first place. From that perspective, "Hobbit" is a prequel to the "Lord of the Rings" movie trilogy (which was more adult/dark) and I don't think there is anything wrong in reviewing it that way, with all the expectations this entails.

It is clear that Peter Jackson was aware of that, because he injected a lot of stuff in the movie that wasn't there in the book and which made the movie more mature/serious. However, I think that he did not do enough (probably, because he was afraid of offending the niche group of idiot purists who would hate him for changing the plot) and by trying to please both crowds, the movie straddles somewhere in the middle and does not quite achieve either goal.

[Faeelin]

So your complaint is that Jackson didn't rewrite the Hobbit enough.

[The Brain]

Jackson can't make movies. It is known.

[Martinus]

So your complaint is that Jackson didn't rewrite the Hobbit enough.

Yes. He should have either made a short (one-part) children's movie depicting the book, or rewrite the story completely into a three-part epic.

[jimmy olsen]

I tried to obliquely ask this in the other thread, but neither Faeelin nor anyone else answered, so since there's another thread about this stupid movie, HOW IS THE FORTY-EIGHT FRAMES PER SECOND?

I thought it looked good during the action scenes. During some of the slower scenes, it looked like a BBC production from before BBC productions stopped looking like shit.

Just saw this today and some of the weapons and stuff did look rather fake.

However I enjoyed it, but I always did like the Hobbit more than the Trilogy.

[Caliga]

Saw it yesterday and loved it, but I was confused by all the stuff in there that wasn't in the book, especially since it's been like 20 years since I read the book.  Probably time to re-read it, actually.  I agree with Tim that The Hobbit is a better story than LOTR.

[Razgovory]

Saw it yesterday and loved it, but I was confused by all the stuff in there that wasn't in the book, especially since it's been like 20 years since I read the book.  Probably time to re-read it, actually.  I agree with Tim that The Hobbit is a better story than LOTR.

The Hobbit lacks Frodo whining through Mordor.

[Admiral Yi]

The Hobbit lacks Frodo whining through Mordor.

Whining was more Sam's deal.  Frodo's schtick was moaning and spacing out.

[CountDeMoney]

The Hobbit lacks Frodo whining through Mordor.

Whining was more Sam's deal.  Frodo's schtick was moaning and spacing out.

Either way, it resembled a Martinus romantic relationship far too much..

[Valmy]

Saw it yesterday and loved it, but I was confused by all the stuff in there that wasn't in the book, especially since it's been like 20 years since I read the book.  Probably time to re-read it, actually.  I agree with Tim that The Hobbit is a better story than LOTR.

Yeah it was what I wanted: a Jackson LOTR-ish movie.  Looking forward to the next one.  Myrkwood

[Viking]

I saw it in a theatre with a big screen and apart from the plot murder (hey, lets bring weaving blanchette and lee and invent some dialogue which is obviously not tolkienesque) and jar-jar binks the brown it was fun. It reminded me that The Hobbit was not a super serious book, it is an adventure story with the Hobbit standing in for the kid that saves the day with the magic ring.

I don't know it if was just me or my theater or something else, but there was something annoying about some of the cgi sequnces, especially the dwarf opening sequences and the cgi dwarves. It seemed like they were operating at a lower pixellation rate than the rest of the screen. I don't know if this was just my theater or the 48 frames per second. I don't think I like 48 frames per second, it just gives too much detail. It's the same reason that I don't like high def porn, you can either see their birth marks and non-perfect skin or you can see the make-up (which you could also see on Martin Freeman).

[MadImmortalMan]

I thought the 48 frames looked wonderful until the camera started moving rapidly. Then it got blurry a bit. Looked great otherwise.

[jimmy olsen]

I thought the 48 frames looked wonderful until the camera started moving rapidly. Then it got blurry a bit. Looked great otherwise.

I noticed the blur as well.

[Ideologue]

It's the same reason that I don't like high def porn, you can either see their birth marks and non-perfect skin or you can see the make-up

Boy, real sex must be a total bummer, then, huh?

P.S. Brain, Dead Alive was pretty rad, and King Kong's enjoyable if you have a day and a half to kill.