So where to begin it. I enjoyed it. It wasn't too cringe-worthy.
That being said, it had a bit of that Lucas vibe to it, as in being the first movie of a dumbed down pre-quel trilogy for kids.
I know it is a children book but Jackson made too many easy choices, downgrading the entire experience in a way. Only Azog seemed like the real "adult" villain - both the trolls and the goblin king seemed like something out of a fairytale for kids.
Plus too many dei ex machinae - again, probably Tolkien's fault (I read the book so long ago I don't remember details anymore) but having Gandalf save the day time after time got boring rather fast. At least on two occasions (the trolls and the goblins), Bilbo was in a position to do it on his own (with trolls just waiting for normal sunrise to turn them to stone and with goblins because he already had the ring so freeing the dwarves from some prison or something would have worked, story-wise) and it would make for a better story, imo.
I am also not sure about the music - it seemed they took an easy route and reused a lot of the original soundtrack from LOTR. Which is fine as a way to underline continuity and remind people of places they visited with Frodo, but they could have done some variation on the original themes, rather than just reusing them largely unchanged.
I actually liked the scenes that weren't in the original book - i.e. the ones with Radagast and Saruman - the most.
Btw, 3D technology sucks.
I can't tell if you're trolling.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 25, 2012, 02:44:25 PM
I can't tell if you're trolling.
I'm not. Why would I be?
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2012, 02:37:59 PM
but having Gandalf save the day time after time got boring rather fast.
What else is the point of having a wizard around? About time he started using that shit more often.
Sounds like I might as well wait until it turns up on tv.
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
I'm not. Why would I be?
A lot of your complaints are that a children's book seems like a children's book.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 25, 2012, 03:02:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2012, 02:37:59 PM
but having Gandalf save the day time after time got boring rather fast.
What else is the point of having a wizard around? About time he started using that shit more often.
Based solely on the ring movies, he was a sucky ass wizard.
Martinus and I discussed this earlier.
My main gripes are:
1) It will be extraordinarily difficult to balance out so many characters. It was rather easy in LOTR because each character was so distinctively different. The exception might be Merry and Pippin. I had trouble telling them apart at first. In the Hobbit, so many of the dwarves are the same character, and their names all rhyming doesn't help. Ultimately, I don't think it will matter because most of these dwarves don't serve a significant role in the book either. They're just filler characters that are impossible to be attached to.
2) The dwarves are either exaggerated conceptions typical fantasy Dwarfs, or appear VERY human. Unlike Gimli, who while serving as comedy relief was still a believable character, I find it hard to think this company could make it out of the Shire, much less back to the Lonely Mountain. Thorin reminds me too much of Aragorn.
3) Although based on a children's book, the problem I had was having been through the mostly serious telling of Lord of the Rings, it is hard to see many of the same characters now engaged in a much lighter tale. For me, the introduction of these elements is similar to the debut of the Ewoks.
4) I somewhat agree with Martinus on the music, but I think it is a nice touch. It made me a bit nostalgic and will be a great element to tie the movies together when people inevitably watch the Hobbit + LOTR back to back. It makes them feel like part of the same series.
5) I felt the pacing was just a bit off. There was a lot in the movie that could have waited for the second or third film. I don't think the characters at this point have even come close to Mirkwood, so it seems odd to begin foreshadowing spiders or Dol Guldur so early. It would have been like showing the orcs in Minas Morgul preparing for war in Fellowship of the Ring.
I would have to say it is mostly enjoyable. I feel like these are mostly small nitpicks that relate more about the artistic direction of the film than the quality of the finished product.
Quote from: 11B4V on December 25, 2012, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on December 25, 2012, 03:02:18 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2012, 02:37:59 PM
but having Gandalf save the day time after time got boring rather fast.
What else is the point of having a wizard around? About time he started using that shit more often.
Based solely on the ring movies, he was a sucky ass wizard.
"Wizard fights" often look pretty stupid, and I think are hard to do real well. The one from Lord of the Rings where Gandalf and Saramaun flung each other around with invisible force felt like a cheap cat-fight with long beards.
Hell, I think the best movie wizard fight I can recall off the top of my head is probably Lo Pan vs. Egg Chen.
I liked Gandalf throwing fireballs though. :P
I don't remember that part. When did he do that?
Quote from: Jaron on December 26, 2012, 01:28:38 AM
I don't remember that part. When did he do that?
When he started to put these big pine cones on fire and throwing them at Azog and his band.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 25, 2012, 03:38:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
I'm not. Why would I be?
A lot of your complaints are that a children's book seems like a children's book.
This is a bullshit comment. These films were never a 100% faithful rendition of the books, and Jackson deliberately took a decision to "adult them up" (like Tolkien wanted, but did not finish, by the way) by injecting scenes from unfinished tales and LOTR footnotes. Doing this, but depicting the troll and goblin sequences in a very child book like manner felt somewhat jarring.
For the record, I couldn't care less for the films being faithful to the original books, just that they are fun to watch. Having LOTR done first and then coming up with a childish Hobbit trilogy with no effort to rewrite some plots to make them more on par with LOTR makes this a Lucas-like experience for the viewers.
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?
Quote from: Ideologue on December 26, 2012, 02:28:06 AM
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?
This is Poland, they only get four to eight frames per second.
Polish IMAX involves flipping through an extra big notebook.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 26, 2012, 02:28:06 AM
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.
Quote from: Kleves on December 26, 2012, 02:47:09 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 26, 2012, 02:28:06 AM
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.
It worked really well for me in the beginning up till when the party sets forth. The cheap TV effect was strongest for me in the Goblin king bits. I also thought it made the pure CGI scenes look even more CGI-y, like the orcs+wargs at night. On the other hand I thought it greatly improved the 3D performance for me. It's the first movie that made me involuntarily blink a few times when stuff was quickly flying towards the camera. In two or three of the slow landscape camera sweeps I was so into the movie it briefly felt like the theater was moving.
Still, I think I should enjoy the movie more in 2D.
Well I watched it in normal 3D which was crap (my choice was dictated by what was available at the hour I chose to go to the cinema). A lot of screenings were dubbed so the choice was slimmer than usual. If I had a complete choice, I'd go 2D subtitled but there were those available only in the evening.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 26, 2012, 02:28:06 AM
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?
Oh sorry, I saw the old-fashioned version. I didn't want to wade through the people dressed up as hobbits.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 26, 2012, 02:36:32 AM
Polish IMAX involves flipping through an extra big notebook.
3D Viewmasters, and click
really fast.
Personally I thought it was pretty decent, but there were way too many action scenes.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 25, 2012, 03:38:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
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 :mellow:
Yeah... the deus ex machina was fine, and so were all the "children's book" bits, IMO. I didn't mind the extra bits of back story with Galadriel and all that. It was the excess of "Hollywood action" bits that were too much; that and Radagast. Didn't like him at all.
Quote from: Syt on December 26, 2012, 03:01:39 AM
Quote from: Kleves on December 26, 2012, 02:47:09 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 26, 2012, 02:28:06 AM
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.
It worked really well for me in the beginning up till when the party sets forth. The cheap TV effect was strongest for me in the Goblin king bits. I also thought it made the pure CGI scenes look even more CGI-y, like the orcs+wargs at night. On the other hand I thought it greatly improved the 3D performance for me. It's the first movie that made me involuntarily blink a few times when stuff was quickly flying towards the camera. In two or three of the slow landscape camera sweeps I was so into the movie it briefly felt like the theater was moving.
Still, I think I should enjoy the movie more in 2D.
So there's an even chance that 48FPS will make me throw up. : /
If it really does make things look like they're shot on VHS, I'm not too into it. The other day I saw Dark Knight Rises played on a store TV where they've hooked shit up wrong or fucked up the settings, so the brightness seemed much higher and the movement on the screen seemed off too, and that looked shot on VHS. Maybe the ugliest footage I've ever seen; Batman and Bane looked like Christian Bale and Tom Hardy in Batman and Bane Halloween costumes. In a way it looked more "realistic," but "realistic" in the sense it looked like I was standing on the actual set, i.e. it looked garbage. And I've seen that movie, it looks fine.
I mention this because it seems to be similar to what a lot of people are describing with 48FPS. I sorta hope not. I'm still more than curious about the technique, but I'm probably going to wind up waiting for a movie I'm at least curious about in the first place to see it. I wonder if there's another one in the pipeline?
I heard opinions that the problem with 48 FPS is that captures the film with an accuracy that is higher than that of a naked eye - which makes it look weird, as in reality we view everything in a more inaccurate, somewhat blurred way. Which makes the film captured in 48FPS look "antiseptic".
Quote from: Ideologue on December 26, 2012, 02:28:06 AM
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 have no idea wich one I saw. It wasn't specified anything but "3D". It was ok, like the Avengers, I'd say.
The UK reviews all say it sometimes ends up looking a lot like a TV show with very high production values.
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.
Quote from: Benedict Arnold on December 27, 2012, 04:17:21 PM
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!
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 26, 2012, 10:43:02 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 25, 2012, 03:38:47 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 25, 2012, 02:47:39 PM
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 :mellow:
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.
So your complaint is that Jackson didn't rewrite the Hobbit enough.
Jackson can't make movies. It is known.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 28, 2012, 06:37:44 AM
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.
Quote from: Kleves on December 26, 2012, 02:47:09 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 26, 2012, 02:28:06 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Caliga on December 30, 2012, 08:31:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2012, 03:14:57 PM
The Hobbit lacks Frodo whining through Mordor.
Whining was more Sam's deal. Frodo's schtick was moaning and spacing out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2012, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2012, 03:14:57 PM
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..
Quote from: Caliga on December 30, 2012, 08:31:39 AM
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 :mmm:
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).
I thought the 48 frames looked wonderful until the camera started moving rapidly. Then it got blurry a bit. Looked great otherwise.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 30, 2012, 06:16:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Viking on December 30, 2012, 04:41:06 PM
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? :lol:
P.S. Brain, Dead Alive was pretty rad, and King Kong's enjoyable if you have a day and a half to kill.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2012, 03:39:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 30, 2012, 03:14:57 PM
The Hobbit lacks Frodo whining through Mordor.
Whining was more Sam's deal. Frodo's schtick was moaning and spacing out.
Whatever, I just remember those sections of the book really fucking dragged.
I saw it and loved it. Can't wait for the inevitable extended version.
When I bought the ticket, I did notice the words "high frame rate". I didn't know what it meant and I didn't notice any difference :blush:
Quote from: The Brain on December 28, 2012, 06:40:11 AM
Jackson can't make movies. It is known.
Meet the Feebles was a masterpiece.
Quote from: Monoriu on December 30, 2012, 09:23:48 PM
I saw it and loved it. Can't wait for the inevitable extended version.
Yeah me to :blush:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 30, 2012, 07:46:06 PMBoy, real sex must be a total bummer, then, huh? :lol:
Sex is a poor substitute for masturbation. :yes:
Being gay must suck. :console:
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 31, 2012, 03:21:27 AM
Being gay must suck. :console:
Sometimes it probably also blows.
What's with the Radagast hate? I thought he was great, exactly how Radagast would be. Not every wizard is super-serious.
Quote from: Solmyr on December 31, 2012, 07:50:17 AM
What's with the Radagast hate? I thought he was great, exactly how Radagast would be. Not every wizard is super-serious.
Gandalf is a pot smokin' hippie, Radagast is a cross between a hoarder and a cat lady only with birdshit in his hair and Saruman is cool but evil.
My Radagast hate is primarily centered on HIM NOT BEING IN THE BOOK (apart from being referred to in third person).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 30, 2012, 06:16:45 PM
I thought the 48 frames looked wonderful until the camera started moving rapidly. Then it got blurry a bit. Looked great otherwise.
Bring an upgraded GPU to the theater.
Quote from: Viking on December 31, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 31, 2012, 07:50:17 AM
What's with the Radagast hate? I thought he was great, exactly how Radagast would be. Not every wizard is super-serious.
Gandalf is a pot smokin' hippie, Radagast is a cross between a hoarder and a cat lady only with birdshit in his hair and Saruman is cool but evil.
My Radagast hate is primarily centered on HIM NOT BEING IN THE BOOK (apart from being referred to in third person).
There are a ton of things in the movies that were not in the book, that's been known for some time now and was the stated intention.
Quote from: Solmyr on January 01, 2013, 06:31:10 AM
Quote from: Viking on December 31, 2012, 09:08:15 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on December 31, 2012, 07:50:17 AM
What's with the Radagast hate? I thought he was great, exactly how Radagast would be. Not every wizard is super-serious.
Gandalf is a pot smokin' hippie, Radagast is a cross between a hoarder and a cat lady only with birdshit in his hair and Saruman is cool but evil.
My Radagast hate is primarily centered on HIM NOT BEING IN THE BOOK (apart from being referred to in third person).
There are a ton of things in the movies that were not in the book, that's been known for some time now and was the stated intention.
I hate all that shit since it is pete and pippa being self important. I'm tempted to think that the entire point of the extra stuff was to make a trilogy which could make 3 billion dollars rather than a single movie which made 1 billion.
Who cares if it was in the Hobbit itself?
It was in the back story, and those changes that weren't were well done. It all wove together and made sense, that's what is important.
Quote from: Viking on January 01, 2013, 06:58:09 AM
I hate all that shit since it is pete and pippa being self important. I'm tempted to think that the entire point of the extra stuff was to make a trilogy which could make 3 billion dollars rather than a single movie which made 1 billion.
Well duh. :lol:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 01, 2013, 07:20:41 AM
Who cares if it was in the Hobbit itself?
It was in the back story, and those changes that weren't were well done. It all wove together and made sense, that's what is important.
While true, I didn't like most of the Radagast inclusions. They just seemed like filler to me, which wasn't really necessary in a movie that long.
Quote from: Caliga on January 01, 2013, 08:35:25 AM
They just seemed like filler to me, which wasn't really necessary in a movie that long.
:wacko:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 01, 2013, 07:20:41 AM
Who cares if it was in the Hobbit itself?
It was in the back story, and those changes that weren't were well done. It all wove together and made sense, that's what is important.
The changes were necessary but they weren't well done. It was pretty much turned into a generic hollywood script.
Quote from: Caliga on January 01, 2013, 08:35:25 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 01, 2013, 07:20:41 AM
Who cares if it was in the Hobbit itself?
It was in the back story, and those changes that weren't were well done. It all wove together and made sense, that's what is important.
While true, I didn't like most of the Radagast inclusions. They just seemed like filler to me, which wasn't really necessary in a movie that long.
Agreed. The necromancer/Dol Guldur parts aren't important til later. The only reason to include them I can think of is they wanted to be like 'HEY NAZGUL! This is a LOTR prequel! *cue LOTR scary Mordor music*'
I agree. Radagast is part of the backstory, but there is no reason for him to appear in the fist movie, and go stumbling into the dwarf expedition, other than to set up the sequels.
I liked Radagast, although I think they really shoehorned him in.