The Hobbit

[Anew Leaf]

I saw The Hobbit last night at a late showing after spending 6 hours watching part of the original trilogy before hand with friends.

Overall, I didn't like it.

Some factors that contributed to this:

1. I needed to pee about 20 minutes into the movie and spent the next however many hours agonizing over how I would climb over my friends in order to get to the exit.
2. The person in charge chose the 3d, high res version. I hate 3d to begin with as it gives me a headache. The High res looked horrifically cheap... which is astonishing given how this set of movies probably cost more than God to make.
3. There was too much of an abyss between the ultra silly moments and the overly serious moments. It didn't flow naturally for me.
4. So. Many. Dwarves. I couldn't keep track. All I knew was there that was an attractive one, the leader who was also attractive, one with white hair, one who was fat, and then a mass of miscellaneous ones with Epic Beards of Germany on display.
5. The film is far too aware of What Comes Later And Makes Sure You All Know There Are More Movies In Case You Were Living On Venus Being Crushed To Death and Missed the LOTR Memo That Got Sent Out.
6. I did NOT like that Bilbo killed that orc/goblin thing. I felt it detracted too much from who/what he is.
7. There Are TOO MANY SCENES PULLED STRAIGHT FROM THE LOTR TRILOGY. ARGGGGGGGG. I actually made a bet before the movie on whether there would be a dwarf tossing scene. >.> It will probably be in the next movie.

Things I DID like:

1. The opening sequence explaining the backstory to Smaug and the dwarves was very well done in many many ways. I especially liked that the dragon wasn't shown yet.
2. The riddle sequence with bilbo and gollum was actually quite exciting to watch.
3. The scene where Bilbo is hidden and could kill Gollum, was done amazingly well. I really enjoyed the tension.
4. The ponies were pretty.

I will end up seeing the next two, simply because I have a group of friends to go with and that will be my big draw versus seeing the actual movie... Well, except that I reaLLY want to see the dragon.

 

[Randomnity]

This movie reinforced that I will never again see a 3D movie if I can help it. It was an accident this time (pre-arranged tickets, which apparently you can only get in 3d), or I wouldn't have gone. A whole movie of awful blurriness (HD IMAX my ass) with the glasses getting more and more greasy and painful, completely distracting me from the movie.....blehh. And completely, utterly unnecessary too. I was FAR more "immersed" in the LOTR movies because they didn't try to distract you with shit like sparks in 3D for no reason. Gimmicky.

The actual movie was ok, it was hard to really get interested in it but I'm not sure if that was because it was so drawn out or because of the 3D, or both. I might download the other 2 movies, but doubt I'll see them in theatre. I was really disappointed that I spent 17$ on it, although I know that was my dumb mistake for accidentally going to the 3D - I'm sure it would have been much better without it. Also thought there were a lot of cheesy moments that could have been done better (goblin king, "NOOOOOO", etc).

On the plus side, I loved the star trek trailer and will definitely be seeing that (in non-3d, of course).

 

[Totenkindly]

This movie reinforced that I will never again see a 3D movie if I can help it. It was an accident this time (pre-arranged tickets, which apparently you can only get in 3d), or I wouldn't have gone. A whole movie of awful blurriness (HD IMAX my ass) with the glasses getting more and more greasy and painful, completely distracting me from the movie.....blehh. And completely, utterly unnecessary too. I was FAR more "immersed" in the LOTR movies because they didn't try to distract you with shit like sparks in 3D for no reason. Gimmicky.

I think it's funny how people are having entirely different reactions to 3D and the Hi-Res. I actually thought the 3D in this movie was much better than the 3D in some other movies, like Harry Potter, where it kind of washed out the entire picture brightness-wise, and I enjoyed it here. I also didn't mind hi-Res at all after the Smaug scene, where the lighting made everything look fake.

I wonder why that is. I know I don't naturally focus on detail, I'm focusing on the overall picture, and I had to force myself to look at detail in the movie consciously, just to take advantage of it. I wonder if you naturally focus on detail and so it can be distracting.

The actual movie was ok, it was hard to really get interested in it but I'm not sure if that was because it was so drawn out or because of the 3D, or both. I might download the other 2 movies, but doubt I'll see them in theatre. I was really disappointed that I spent 17$ on it, although I know that was my dumb mistake for accidentally going to the 3D - I'm sure it would have been much better without it. Also thought there were a lot of cheesy moments that could have been done better (goblin king, "NOOOOOO", etc).

Where did you end up seeing it at? (What city?)

I paid $14 in Columbia, MD, USA.

On the plus side, I loved the star trek trailer and will definitely be seeing that (in non-3d, of course).

I'm pretty excited about ST.
[MENTION=13402]Saturned[/MENTION]: You forgot the dwarf with the axe sticking out of his head!

 

[Randomnity]

I think it's funny how people are having entirely different reactions to 3D and the Hi-Res. I actually thought the 3D in this movie was much better than the 3D in some other movies, like Harry Potter, where it kind of washed out the entire picture brightness-wise, and I enjoyed it here. I also didn't mind hi-Res at all after the Smaug scene, where the lighting made everything look fake.

I wonder why that is. I know I don't naturally focus on detail, I'm focusing on the overall picture, and I had to force myself to look at detail in the movie consciously, just to take advantage of it. I wonder if you naturally focus on detail and so it can be distracting.

The only movie I liked it in was Avatar, and that was probably partially because it was new, partially because it tied in with the story line ("virtual reality" etc) and partially because it seemed "real" in a way that no other movie has done since. I really resent that they only make one thing non-blurry (the thing they want you to focus on) and even that isn't as clear as a normal movie. But if you want to look at anything other than the main person's eyes or something, you're completely SOL. I'm not sure that it's a focusing on details thing because the whole movie looks blurry to me which is annoying in the days of high def everything. It might be different if I were more used to watching TV with shittier graphics, but I never really watched much TV or movies before high def came out (still don't, but I guess it's become something I'm used to now).

Where did you end up seeing it at? (What city?)

I paid $14 in Columbia, MD, USA.

Oh, everything's more expensive here, even with the equal dollar (mind you, not having to pay for health insurance more than makes up for it). I saw it in Ottawa. Normal non-imax 3D movies are more like 10-12$ though.

And I had no idea one of the dwarves had an axe in his head? wtf? Must have been one of the ones in the blurry background....

 

[The Ü™]

1. I wouldn't wish "Becoming the next George Lucas" on anyone.
2. The Lovely Bones was a shame -- it was beautifully rendered in terms of cinematography but flawed.

1. Well, I wasn't wishing it...just making an observation.
2. The Lovely Bones was more interesting when it didn't follow the girl in her Super Mario Galaxy afterlife (which just seemed to be an excuse to show off CGI), although it's been a while since I saw it. I seem to recall the heaven sequences being the most lifeless parts of the movie (heh heh).
   1. Another part about The Lovely Bones that I remember is when
      the killer is caught and is destroying the evidence by getting the safe with the girl's dead body in it...I assume he got the safe up the stairs by himself, but why did he need the guy to help him push it down into the sinkhole?

The only movie I liked it in was Avatar, and that was probably partially because it was new, partially because it tied in with the story line ("virtual reality" etc) and partially because it seemed "real" in a way that no other movie has done since. I really resent that they only make one thing non-blurry (the thing they want you to focus on) and even that isn't as clear as a normal movie. But if you want to look at anything other than the main person's eyes or something, you're completely SOL. I'm not sure that it's a focusing on details thing because the whole movie looks blurry to me which is annoying in the days of high def everything. It might be different if I were more used to watching TV with shittier graphics, but I never really watched much TV or movies before high def came out (still don't, but I guess it's become something I'm used to now).

You clearly haven't seen Life of Pi or Hugo in 3D, have you?

 

[Anew Leaf]

[MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION]... I totally missed that guy.

I also forgot a few bits in my "didn't like" pile:

1. Radagast the Brown was ghastly. UGH. It was so utterly ridiculous. That entire helpless forest animals bit. And his sled was pulled by bunnies? Ridiculous. (Yes, I realize that I am saying this.)
2. The scene where RTB tries to outrun the orcs... ugh, I got motion sick from it.

Something I DID like:

1. Seeing that ghost try to attack Radagast was actually pretty cool, and I liked the idea that the actions about to follow are what help awaken the Nine or whatever. (I know nothing of the lore of LOTR AT ALL so I am just making guesses here. For all I know the Nine had spent the past 3 million years playing strip poker back on Mt Doom.)

 

[Totenkindly]

The whole Radagast thing, I figured people would either be fine with or have big problems with.

he seemed played more for comic relief and or whimsy, than treated seriously like the other Istari

I'll have to say in the book Radagast isn't discussed much. Saruman has contempt for him; Gandalf seems himself as good-natured and confers with him, but doesn't really depend on him or expect him to help. Radagast comes off as ISFP in the text, I think, and is more wrapped up in the daily plight of nature (it seems) rather than the overall fate of middle Earth. It's not really clear how Tolkien feels about him; the Istari were Maiar specifically sent to Middle Earth by the Valar to inspire and encourage the inhabitants to resist evil and Sauron; they were not supposed to dominate men or wield power to accomplish their goals (a rule that Saruman broke and eventually was cast out of the Order).

All that is to say I'm not even sure if Radagast accomplished his purpose for being sent to Middle-Earth. He wasn't malevolent, but was kind of irrelevant.

It's been awhile since I've read through the histories, but I don't recall the appearance of the Nine being "triggered" by a specific event. It's more that Sauron's slow regain of power finally allowed the reappearance of the Nine as well; after all, their power (based on the Rings) derives from Sauron. It was more that the powerful denizens of Middle-earth realized the Nine were abroad again, as the Riders.

[MENTION=294]The Ü[/MENTION]: For the spoiler, that part's right out of the book. So they probably just ripped it straight out.

Hugo was wonderful in 3D.

 

[Randomnity]

You clearly haven't seen Life of Pi or Hugo in 3D, have you?

No, and I don't plan to. I liked the Life of Pi book though, if the movie's decent I might see it in non-3D.

 

[The Ü™]

[MENTION=294]The Ü[/MENTION]: For the spoiler, that part's right out of the book. So they probably just ripped it straight out.

From what I've heard, the book is about as sloppy as the movie.

 

[Orangey]

WTF? Critics are on crack. I thought it was pretty amazing.

 

[Totenkindly]

WTF? Critics are on crack. I thought it was pretty amazing.

Yeah, I can only guess a lot of the bitching was just backlash from the overhype of LotR. I'd give a positive over all despite any criticisms I had.

 

[Ivy]

I would watch Martin Freeman pick his nose for three hours, though.

 

[cafe]

I would watch Martin Freeman pick his nose for three hours, though.

There's that. My two girls were discussing all the likely 'ships before we even left the theater. Thank God it seemed to sail over my mom's head.

I drove five of us 30 miles to see the movie for $3/ticket. It wasn't 3D or anything. I wouldn't have minded seeing it in 3D and may still if I get the chance, but it's just too close to Christmas for the expense.

Overall I liked it. I was a bit disappointed that they tried to make it into some kind of overarching epic tale when it really isn't, IMO. I thought some of the costumes were over the top. How can anyone maintain those crazy beard and hairstyles when they're camping and being rained on all the time?

Stil, I look forward to seeing the second and third parts.

 

[The Ü™]

You know, the strange thing with Peter Jackson's fetish for three-hour movies is that I was never bothered by the length and drawn-out-ness of King Kong. (The only problem I had with that movie was Weta Digital's reputation for poor compositing.) The first Lord of the Rings was probably his worst example, not necessarily because it was long and boring, but because the "ending" really pissed me off (there was not even an exciting climax to close up the film), The Hobbit at least had the decency to give itself some sort of closure in addition to the cliffhanger.

 

[Totenkindly]

I would watch Martin Freeman pick his nose for three hours, though.

You know, picking your nose is ANOTHER bad hobbit to have.

 

[Totenkindly]

You know, the strange thing with Peter Jackson's fetish for three-hour movies is that I was never bothered by the length and drawn-out-ness of King Kong. (The only problem I had with that movie was Weta Digital's reputation for poor compositing.)

Kong is probably my favorite Jackson picture. It was perfect for him too -- most of the "creepy" stuff actually fit the tone of the picture, I thought the score actually added some transcendent magic/depth to the movie, and the original source was thin to begin with -- he could layer in whatever he wanted and make it his own, without clashing with any of the source.

The running time didn't bother me either. I watch the expanded version.

 

[typologywhore]

k so The Hobbit was the first book i absolutely fell in love with as a child when my dad read it to me when i was like 5 so i have serious feels about this ok so this isn't a calm and unbiased view, but uh, sorry not sorry lol [Slight Disclaimer: it should probably not be taken super-seriously however, as i'll admit am an outrageous perfectionist when it comes to films, even moreso when theyre adaptations of books, & have little patience for directorial misjudgements (in tone, portrayal of key scenes, plot sequencing etc.)]

and wow. [imo/coming from that perspective] the film was CRAP. i do not know what i was expecting but i did not expect it to be THAT BAD ahahaha it was such a fail

y did Jackson try to make it epic like LotR was epic it was NEVER GOING TO WORK, The Hobbit is a little story and that is its charm and its brilliance ok it is NOT about Thorins angst about his dead ancestors OR about foreshadowing LotR IT IS ABOUT BILBO AND ABOUT THE BRILLIANCE OF THE INDIVIDUAL SEQUENCES (the dwarves' arrival at Bilbo's, the trolls, Bilbo & Gollum &the exchange of riddles, climbing trees to escape the orcs &then setting it on fire &then the eagles, Murkwood, etc: the first two of these were quite good, the - more important - riddles and forest-fire scenes were poorly focused, the action poorly directed, and the enchanting, almost hypnotic atmosphere of the orginal scenes consequently lost altogether)

>Martin Freeman's a good actor, for sure; but the thing about him is that he's a very naturalistic actor. unlike EVERYONE else involved in this film. and so, set against them, not to MENTION against Jackson's ridiculously overblown direction, his understated performance, & his Bilbo's very English combination of common-sense, a certain dryness, & an ironical self-depreciation, had the unfortunate side-effect of undercutting the attempted "epicness" of everything around him, so it all just looked a bit over-the-top &rather hammy. multiple time this had me laughing out loud - but laughing AT the rest of the film, which is probably not the response Jackson was hoping for.

>YYYYY did Jackson MAKE IT SO. SLOW. PACED I THINK I NEARLY DIED OF BOREDOM WHEN IT WAS LIKE HOURS IN AND THEYD ONLY JUST GOT TO RIVENDELL OH MY GOD
>WHAT WAS THAT SHIT WITH RADAGAST Y DID U ADD THAT IN THAT CONTRIBUTED LITERALLY NOTHING TO THE FILM. TOLKEIN NEEDS EDITING, NOT ADDING TO. I THOUGHT U GOT THAT WITH LOTR BUT APPARENTLY NO....oh no wait that's right youre just spinning it out needlessly so u can milk the LotR franchise for all it's worth and rake in more money for yourself & the studios, sorry, i forgot.

>WHY did they keep playing that fucking terrible sentimental music over like SO MANY SCENES. seriously, there were so many moments when the acting would have been engaging IF NOT FOR THAT DAMN MUSIC; eg, that scene where Bilbo's deciding whether to stay/leave the company, there would have been a sense of tension and uncertainty if Jackson just fucking LET US CONCENTRATE ON THE PERFORMANCES, BUT NOPE, HE DECIDES IT NEEDS THAT SHITTY SENTIMENTAL THEME OVER THE TOP. WAY TO MAKE THE ENTIRE MOVIE EMOTIONALLY ONE-DIMENSIONAL.

>...&srsly, were u actually STRIVING for self-parody or something??? like that moment in the mines when the dwarves&Gandalf were not only successfully fighting off about 3 billion goblins but then the bridge-thing they were standing on broke&they ACTUALLY ALL PLUMMETED HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF FEET AND LANDED ON THE STONE FLOOR of the crevasse/whateveritwas AND THEY WERE ALL. STILL. ALIVE LOLWHAT. WELL, LOOKS LIKE I DONT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THE DWARVES ANYMORE BC JACKSON HAS APPARENTLY MADE THEM IMMORTAL JOLLY GOOD

>AND THT BIT AT THE END WHERE IT CUT BETWEEN SHOTS OF THORIN &THE PALE-ORC-DUDE FOR LIKE RIDICULOUSLY LONG. YES WE GET THAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER and then how he tried to make Thorin walking along the tree-trunk all epic when it just wasnt, AND that little string of dwarves were clinging onto the tree for forever & jst handily none of them fell ..&the whole sequence was jst so ridiculous i legit actually collapsed in my seat in hysterics

>also can i just say, why at the end were they actually standing on Pride Rock i mean srsly, that's like Simba's palace balcony man have some respect

 

[Totenkindly]

Well, that was among some of my complaints, with the action sequences -- it was like LotR Lite. You know, we get more combat with badass orcs like with the Urakhai in Fellowship of the Ring, and another Mines of Moria-esque scene (although the fighting was kind of interesting and had some neat prop tricks), etc. A bunch of that stuff. I felt like I had seen a lot of the movie before, but I forced myself to step back and judge it on its own merits as if I had not seen the other movies.

Jackson did try to give Bilbo more influence in some of the outcomes that he did not get in the Hobbit (like with the trolls) but it came off as a bit forced to me. yet without that, the movie quickly became "The Dwarves" rather than "The Hobbit." It reminds me faintly of a far worse movie, the third Batman movie, where Tommy Lee Jones (normally a decent actor) was forced to make Two-Face completely over the top and play him for insane laughs because otherwise he would have been invisible compared to Jim Carrey, who was just chewing up scenery as The Riddler; in this case, I enjoyed the scenes where Bilbo was alone because his understated performance was given room to grow, rather than being overshadowed by the dwarves who naturally were more vocal and overstated.

 

[Ism]

I just finished watching the trilogy for the first time, so I can't wait to watch this ten years from now!

 

[Totenkindly]

My 17-year-old INTP kid texted me his review of the Hobbit this afternoon:

Honestly, I didn't mind a lot of the "extra" stuff they added. The movie was freaking long though, and that scene with the goblins in the mountain was ridiculous. Way too overdone. And gollum was more funny than scary. Thorin's fight with the white orc at the end was kinda unneeded. I did like it overall.

There were way too many references to Lord of the Rings. It wasn't its own story.