The Hobbit

[Udog]

Interesting read:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012...a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/

PS: I haven't seen the movie yet, and may not for a couple of weeks. Based on that article though, I think I'll see the 2d version first, and then the HFS 3D afterward for curiosity's sake.

 

[Totenkindly]

[MENTION=4722]Udog[/MENTION]: Great article.

I didn't have nearly as bad a reaction to the 3D HiRes that he did, although I didn't do any comparison shopping at this point yet. But I think he raises a number of good points; and it's not just in regards to cinema, it filters over into art forms as we utilize more and more technology. I think the same kinds of arguments were being made when CDs and digital recording first popped on the market, compared to analog...

 

[RaptorWizard]

Attention NERDS!

Learn how to become an epically awesome gangster wizard player, lord of the rings style!

 

[Randomnity]

Interesting read:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012...a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/

PS: I haven't seen the movie yet, and may not for a couple of weeks. Based on that article though, I think I'll see the 2d version first, and then the HFS 3D afterward for curiosity's sake.

From the article:

One of my main problems with 3D has always been that the director (with the use of convergence) forces you to look in one specific spot – looking elsewhere in the frame can actually be painful to your eyes. When I see a 2D image I have the choice of where I can let my eye wander – and I find that relaxing and it allows me to get lost in the film much more quickly.

EXACTLY. I knew I wasn't crazy.

I don't really have the ability to compare since I didn't see it in 2D, but everything he said rings true, other than that the 3D for me was the exact opposite of being immersive. Same sense of near-painful repulsion though. I might see the next movie and 2D and see if there's a noticeable difference.

Not sure whether I saw the HFR version or not. Whatever the default IMAX 3D is, I guess - the tickets didn't specify.

 

[Anew Leaf]

Interesting read:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012...a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/

PS: I haven't seen the movie yet, and may not for a couple of weeks. Based on that article though, I think I'll see the 2d version first, and then the HFS 3D afterward for curiosity's sake.

Great article!! I may see it in two d now and see if I like it better

 

[Ivy]

I don't do 3D. I always leave with a headache.

 

[Udog]

I didn't have nearly as bad a reaction to the 3D HiRes that he did, although I didn't do any comparison shopping at this point yet. But I think he raises a number of good points; and it's not just in regards to cinema, it filters over into art forms as we utilize more and more technology. I think the same kinds of arguments were being made when CDs and digital recording first popped on the market, compared to analog...

Ah, good point. New technology tends to have a gimmicky element to it when it's first applied to art. Eventually, people begin to figure out how to make the technology serve the story, but usually, it's the opposite way around at first.

One exception that I always found to be interesting was Computer Animated movies. The early ones, like Toy Story and Shrek, were significantly better than the traditionally animated movies at the time. It actually took quite some time before the first true stinker was released. My guess on that is simply that they had to be. When it takes 24 hours of computer processing time to render a single frame, not counting the work required to create the models/animations/textures/etc, you better make sure that frame is worth rendering.

Not sure whether I saw the HFR version or not. Whatever the default IMAX 3D is, I guess - the tickets didn't specify.

Pretty sure IMAX theaters are playing the HF 3D version.

Great article!! I may see it in two d now and see if I like it better

Yeah. It sounds like the 2D makes for the better movie, while the HR 3D version makes for a neat technological oddity.

 

[SilkRoad]

Interesting/fun to read everyone's comments now that I've seen it (in 2D...wasn't interested in 3D, knew I'd find it distracting at best).

I'd give it about 3 out of 5 stars; in some ways 3.5 or even 4, in other ways 2 or 2.5. Way too drawn out and a lot of the battle/action stuff looked like video games... I felt they over-used CGI, which was also one of my criticisms of the Star Wars prequels (which I didn't hate nearly as much as some people did.) But the LOTR films looked much more historical/real to me, on the whole.

A lot of it felt badly paced/stretched. And Radagast...oh man...he is like the Jar Jar Binks of this franchise now. That whole sequence (rabbit sled!!) was really lame.

But. I generally liked the dwarves, though I wasn't sure it was appropriate for at least two of them to be, well, pretty hot. I still adore Ian McKellen, Martin Freeman as Bilbo was generally excellent and the Riddles sequence was great. Loved Gollum. I thought the most moving moment was definitely when Bilbo decided not to kill Gollum. I didn't find overall it moved me emotionally that much though, not like the LOTR films. But to be honest, I preferred all of those films the second or third time around, maybe I was in critical mode the first time. Might be the case with this too.

I think [MENTION=7]Jennifer[/MENTION] said it seemed like LOTR lite in some ways. I would definitely agree with that overall. And really the Hobbit is a very different type of book, and I think they mostly missed that in terms of tone/atmosphere. It felt more like...sophisticated out-takes from LOTR, in a lot of ways. And too many bits which were basically direct rehashes of LOTR.

But I'll have to see how I feel when I see it again, whether that's in the cinema or on DVD. Despite all those criticism I enjoyed it overall. Oh, it was nice to see Frodo/Elijah Wood, too. He looked great!

 

[SilkRoad]

Just to add: in one way it felt totally utterly different from LOTR. When I watched the first LOTR film I was like...ok, I can understand they dropped Tom Bombadil etc (though I always liked those sections), but it felt SO fast and compressed. It was like, bam bam bam they're out of the Shire, bam they're in Bree and meet Aragorn, etc. Perhaps here and there, there were sequences that felt protracted (some of the battles were just too long) but overall, fast-paced, if anything, I felt they left a lot out...perhaps sometimes that was better for the pacing.

Whereas this, knowing that the book is so much shorter (though tbh I don't know the Hobbit as well as LOTR, haven't read it as many times and not as recently - though I used to know it quite well) it felt SO stretched in a lot of ways.

 

[Aesthete]

Attention NERDS!

Learn how to become an epically awesome gangster wizard player, lord of the rings style!

Damn it! I'll never look at Gandalf in the same way again!

 

[highlander]

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.

Considering this was my favorite book for many years, I guess it's natural that my expectations would be inflated. The fundamental problem is that it shouldn't be in three parts. That initial scene which is the most boring chapter in the whole book seemed to go on forever. It seemed like it was an hour long.

 

[highlander]

Interesting read:

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012...a-reaffirmation-of-what-makes-cinema-magical/

PS: I haven't seen the movie yet, and may not for a couple of weeks. Based on that article though, I think I'll see the 2d version first, and then the HFS 3D afterward for curiosity's sake.

I really like 3d but it didn't work too well for this movie. It just felt blurry.

 

[Orangey]

I enjoyed all of the exposition. And I thought that the tone was sufficiently different from LOTR...much less serious, but still with enough seriousness to sort of set up the importance of the connection between all of that lore + the dwarves' mission + the more serious events that eventually follow.

The only annoying thing was seeing Frodo again, but that's because every time I see him I kinda get the urge to punch him on his curly head.

Also, I didn't mind Radagast. The aesthetic that they gave to Rhosgobel was something that is rarely seen outside of fantasy video games, and I got the feeling that Peter Jackson regretted not being able to include Radagast's meeting with Gandalf in The Fellowship, so he rearranged things such that Radagast could conveniently fit in here, since they decided not to include the bit about Thrain being detained and tortured in Dol Goldur/Gandalf finding out about Dol Goldur himself.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

Just got back from seeing it.

Not a disappointment per se, but, uh...yeah. It pisses in the face of Tolkien. In fact, the only thing this movie really has going for it is the "Riddles In The Dark" sequence. Everything else was too drawn out. The Hobbit is a short story. There was no reason to extend this to three movies. It is an absolutely shameless cash grab and my respect for Jackson went out the window with that decision.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Travel to mountain, kill dragon, fight army of orcs, return home.
What's so goddamn difficult about that? Two movie plot at most.

And WTF was up with that Radagast guy? He's the Jar Jar Binks of Middle-Earth.
I hope some trolls find him and rip off his arms and leave him to die in a ditch somewhere.

 

[Totenkindly]

...he rearranged things such that Radagast could conveniently fit in here, since they decided not to include the bit about Thrain being detained and tortured in Dol Goldur/Gandalf finding out about Dol Goldur himself.

Which is too bad, because I always thought stuff like that was eerily cool, such as Gandalf finding Thrain detained and getting the map/key from him. (Thrain had had one of the seven Rings, I think, but it was taken from him under torment.)

 

[swordpath]

Saw it tonight, finally. Wanted to love it going in, but left only liking it.

 

[Poindexter Arachnid]

Something else I forgot to mention:

Jackson wanted to play with his new digital toys and went full GEORGE LUCAS.
Not only does Jackson completely undermine the integrity of one of the greatest stories ever told, he also misses the point.

Rule #1 of ANY adaptation: The ESSENCE of a tale MUST remain intact.

Like that dickcheese Nolan and his "Dark Knight Rises", the filmmaker gets too full of himself and tells the story HE wants to tell while removing the essence of the story.

This isn't a precursor to Lord of the Rings. When Tolkien penned this book, he didn't give a shit about the politics of the War of the Ring. Despite the obsessive detail, he didn't even seem to give too much of a shit about Middle-Earth for that matter. It was acceptable (even welcome) in Lord of the Rings because there was a lot at stake. It was immediately relevant to the plot. Here? Not so much. The extended "White Council" sequence was just...I don't know. It was like I was watching an episode of Deep Space Nine. I never much cared for that show.

Christ...Didn't Jackson watch The Phantom Menace? In that, we had Jedi Knights with lightsabers and we get a "political" drama about trade disputes. In The Hobbit, we have a motley crue of surly dwarves setting out on a fantastical journey to slay a goddamn dragon and reclaim their homeland. Now if that ain't an "epic" story, I don't know what is.

Brown wizards with hedgehogs and bunny sleds? Ancient ghouls with Morgul blades? Fuck it. Leave it for the extended edition.

The Hobbit is a children's book about self-discovery and personal worth. The world is a big place filled with wonder beyond our reckoning and we may not always fit in, but through adversity and will we'll prove ourselves. Was this even hinted at in An Unexpected Journey? Not really.

LOTR, on the other hand, was about the dynamics of war on a micro and macro level and how a soldier can never really return home once he has left. Jackson went against the Hollywood grain by including this theme at the finale of ROTK. People may bitch about the multiple endings, but it is the REASON the story exists. The spectacle may have overshadowed the idea, but it was still there nonetheless. And Jackson proved his worth as a filmmaker by refusing to eject it.

Well, there went that.

My point is...

...Was the character "Bilbo" even IN this movie?
The question is not rhetorical.

 

[Tigerlily]

Brilliant! I have zero complaints. If you're a true Tolkien lover, you'll love this film too. Had to bite my tongue at the end, as the sitting in front of me said she thought it "sucked."

Also, no 3D for me. And while I loved the entire cast, I thoroughly enjoyed watching Sir Ian!

 

[Mal12345]

The book was good, but not great. So two hour tv movie at best.

 

[Cellmold]

I enjoyed it. But ill admit some elements got on my nerves.

A certain line by the Goblin King

upon his death...the "that'll do it' line

annoyed me to no end...I just couldn't justify it's inclusion. Also the rabbit sled.....once again I wasn't sure, but it wasn't quite as bad as I had feared.

I understood why they did the troll scene the way they did and in fact the decision to put a bit of a fight in wasn't such a bad idea. I was a bit irritated by them changing how the trolls were delayed in cooking the dwarfs but....I suppose it worked in terms of the development of the Bilbo-Thorin love tension.

Also I disliked the overuse of CGI, which is such a cliche gripe, but applicable here. Why was Azog ENTIRELY CGI based exactly? He looked like an undercooked gingerbread man with scars on.

I also found that scene where he and Thorin finally have their face-off to be very cringe-worthy. Not to mention the music at that scene.....it just tries too hard. But this might have more to do with me struggling to get into the mood of the film this time round.

The 'Riddles In The Dark' scene was superb.

So overall: mixed feelings. I could go into much more detail on the changes to the story and dialogue, but since I actually understand and somewhat agree with why they did what they did, it wouldn't be much of a criticism.

After all you go from a story with almost too much detail, to one that is almost devoid of it and you will have to embellish a bit.

I'm extremely interested in how they will handle Smaug. In Tolkein's world dragons are highly intelligent creatures who don't really ally to anyone. They are a bit 'voice of Saruman' as well in their ability to mislead and employ double-speak. Not to mention hypnotise people, although this last point is somewhat questionable given that Tolkein's idea of magic is....quite subtle and he rarely directly mentions the term or even gives much description of spells apart from a few Gandalf employs.

But more importantly I am interested to see how they physically present him on screen....a shed-load of CGI would perhaps be a bit much for me, but a mixture could work. So far they have alluded to him well and handled it in a nicely mysterious way.