You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.
Oh god... I always mock that part because it's just so absurdly over the top emotions. (Clearly we should never sit next to each other during ROTK.) I also usually make an alter boy joke somewhere along the moment when everyone kneels to the hobbits.
heck, I'd go with you.
I'm going alone too, but to a Friday afternoon showing instead. I just don't feel like staying up until 4am to get to work on Friday, even going in late. And I figure the midnight showing might be more packed than the Friday afternoon one.
In other news, I'm thinking people ain't feeling the love no more. Jackson's apparently burned whatever capital he had, at least among the reviewers; none seem inclined to show him any mercy. The reviews just get harsher and harsher. It's almost like payback for the over-hype of LotR, even though it's been finished for how many years now? (Don't remember)
Yeah, I'm seeing the HFR 3D bullshit too. Stephen Colbert is the hugest LotR fan I know and he raved about it. I doubt it will be the same as LotR (which I loved) but it's always nice to see some more Tolkien-verse. One thing in the movie's favor is that I haven't read the book in several years, so I'm not going to scrutinizing every ridiculous adaptation away from the book.
It took me about 20 minutes to get used to the hfr 3d. On the whole I liked it and thought it made the big Panoramic scenes really beautiful even if some some of the fast action scenes were a little too fast for my eyes. I was fairly pleased with the story and what Jackson added and kept. I only had one major complaint about the plot, but then my expectations weren't very high.
I know they needed more conflict to spread the story out. Making Thorin uninterested in going to rivendell makes sense. However, the fact that they aren't going to rivendell and yet they end up there after a detour that seems like only a mile or two at best just seemed silly and destroyed the sense of scale in middle earth.
I did like the introduction of the pale rider and emphasis on the necromancer. By adding those very dark characters Jackson was able to maintain the goofiness of the trolls and the goblin king from the book without destroying the sense of danger.
I'm seeing it tonight! Trying to keep my expectations low, but I can't imagine it'll be that bad.
The hobbit was actually the first fantasy book I read (assigned reading in grade 7!) and opened that world for me so I have a certain fondness for it, although the plot would probably be pretty simplistic reading it again now. So I'm a little nervous about how that will translate to the ridiculous amount of movie footage they seem to have made.
Well, I saw this in Hi-Res IMAX today at the Columbia AMC.
I bought the tickets in advance and was frustrated that it took me about 15 minutes to find a parking space in the mall area, apparently the entire world took off today to shop at the Columbia Mall, and about ten times I was the SECOND vehicle in line for a particular spot someone was pulling out of. DOH!
But not to worry: I got into the theater complex with 40 minutes to go until showtime, and I was still only the 15th person waiting to get in, and even when we all got inside, it was still pretty sparse overall -- I don't even know if 25% of the seats were filled, especially with people scattered everywhere. I suspect that all the diehard Tolkien nuts went to the midnight and morning showing, and I hit the afternoon lull, as the early evening showing had a line that was twice as long again.
First things first:
The trailers were pretty impressive. I did see the Star Trek prelude; some of it was kind of cliche banter based on the characters, but I still found it powerful and ominous -- especially a shot of Uhura and Kirk together, but no Spock. I have no idea what exactly is going on in this movie, but Cumberbatch is not Kahn as far as I can tell. It's visually beautiful. And I'm interested to see how it plays out.
I also saw the trailer for Man of Steel. I have some hopes for this movie, as while Zack Synder can sometimes be a train wreck with his story, he's usually damned good with visuals... and I think this is why the movie company essentially forced him to work with Chris Nolan and David Goyer and a few other experienced character-focused writers in the industry. I'm hoping that a solid story, if handed to him, can be brought to stunning visual life... and from the trailer it seemed like that could be a possibility. I got chills watching Supes launch himself into space for the first real time... it's about time he got to be a badass instead of just a boy scout.
The third trailer showing was "Jack the Giant Killer." Not sure what to make of it; it could be a dud, or it could be pretty good. It looked pretty, though; I'm going to keep my eye on this one.
And finally, Oz gets an expanded trailer. Again, another movie I'm unsure about, although I think my range of expectation is now ranging from half-decent movie with a few large flaws to pretty great movie. it looks to have been cast well, I totally buy the presentation of James Franco as the Wizard, and it looks awesome in 3D -- from black and white into the tornado (which felt pretty horrific in 3D) and then into the blazing beauty of OZ. There are three witches, and I'm not sure which witch is going to be which, and which one (if any) will become the Witch that we all know by heart. It looks like there's the possibility that they'll jerk it around a few times in the movie, with the various witches lying and it being unclear who is good or bad per se.
All in all a pretty good round of trailers. Now, as for the Hobbit:
Let's talk about Hi-Res. I think the reviewers are just being creeps about it. It wasn't nearly as bad as these guys are making it out to be. It looked fine, I think, except for the early Smaug sequence --there, perhaps because of the lighting, it looked less like a movie and more like some kind of TV dramatization. But otherwise? I liked seeing the detail, and it didn't detract from the movie IMO.
They definitely could have kept this to two movies, except I think Jackson badly wanted to take the opportunity to shoot any Tolkien sequences he happens to be fond of. I will describe the added historical information here in Spoiler #1:
Jackson has presented some of the appendix history info, including material about Thror's (Thorin's grandfather) demise at the hands of Azog, the leader of the orcs who were controlling Moria at the time. Jackson merged Thror's death with the battle at which Thorin acquired the name "Oakenshield" and allowed Azog to lead the battle, to eventually become the head of the Warg-riding orc patrol that chases the dwarves in The Hobbit. I suspect Azog will continue to be a foil for Thorin until the end of Movie #3 and the Battle of the Five Armies.
Also, as anticipated, Jackson has worked Radagast into the plot in a few spots, including scouting out Dol Guldor and bringing news of the Necromancer to Gandalf, as well as acting as a decoy so Thorin and Co can escape. There is also a meeting of the White Council at Rivendell, including Saruman (who is rather cynical and arrogant, but not yet "evil") We're definitely going to see a raid on Dol Guldor by the White Council.
Jackson also, as in LotR, has made some alterations to scenes that might or might not please purists. I actually understand his reasoning for much of these alterations, I simply don't know yet how I feel about a few of them. The biggest problem with adapting something like The Hobbit is that it is a book that some people know SO well (like me) that they can actually quote bits of dialogue and know when even a single word has been dropped or changed. Most of the changes were either to (1) add some action to the plot, or more importantly, (2) try to give Bilbo some more influence in the story. These attempts ranged in success from "well-meant but badly fumbled" to "understandable, but potentially character-conflicting." I don't know if any of the alterations were actually necessary ones, although Jackson had set up a dynamic in the story where Thorin didn't want Bilbo along, and so there's a point where Bilbo has to prove to Thorin that he truly was worth bringing with him and a scene was greatly altered to accommodate that.
I'll list a few here in Spoiler #2:
As far as events go, the entire insertion of Azog seems unnecessary, but fine. The battle of the stone giants is completely unnecessary and thus very boring to watch -- you know how it's going to end, and so you're just watching characters dodge rocks and try not to fall off the cliff, and move on to the next part; Tolkien includes it mostly as an aside. The death of the Great Goblin is kind of overdone, and also done in the wrong tone. And there are alterations to the "Fifteen Birds" fun right before the eagles snatch the dwarves; in the process of trying to make things more exciting, they kind of make it all less so.
As far as Bilbo's character, our intrepid hobbit makes the choice to go along on the adventure and runs after the dwarves, rather than Gandalf kind of sending him off running after the dwarves. Bilbo tries to outwit the trolls after the dwarves have all been captured, because he knows Gandalf is nearby and he wants to stall them. Bilbo actually saves Thorin from being beheaded by an orc by tackling the orc and then stabbing him repeatedly -- although Bilbo is basically a pacifist in the book and only really kills the Mirkwood spiders, which aren't humanoid, and maybe a few things in the very last battle. This last item is most troublesome.
The movie ends with them arriving at Mirkwood, and then a little bit of an interesting sequence to tie it back to Smaug, which I thought was good.
Jackson did nail at least a few things, and I'll mention those openly because we're already aware they are in the story and the movie. One is the flashback of Smaug taking Erebor. Nicely done.
I thought the party at Bag-End with the dwarves was pretty much par for course, even if the dwarves might be played a little too much for laughs; Fili and Kili do look satisfyingly young AND 'pretty', and Bombur is definitely fat, and they all definitely empty poor Bilbo's larder... AND they do toss all the plates around without breaking any!
Sting glows like a blue badass when goblins/orcs are around. I don't think it glowed so prettily in LotR, but it gave me chills here, it was truly ominous and heroic.
And... as you might have guessed... Gollum and the riddle game. Not 100% totally handled the way I had imagined, I would have handled a riddle or two differently, but it was easily the best done sequence from the book. Gollum was pitch-perfect and scary as hell, to be honest. And I actually got teary when Gollum first appears to Bilbo and speaks, it's just so perfect; I have that response when seeing something on screen that perfectly captures the source. They've got Gollum down pat.
And there's the beautiful scene at the end of the sequence when Bilbo can cut Gollum's throat to escape -- he's invisible, you know -- but Gollum is looking right at him, broken up and lost and confused after losing his Ring, and he looks so vulnerable and human, and Bilbo just can't do it. With the blade barely a whisper away from Gollum's throat, Bilbo spares Gollum's life out of pity and mercy, with results that he could not have possibly anticipated, and thus eventually ensures the downfall of Sauron. It's a pretty amazing sequence.
So for Part #2, I'm expecting (1) The Bear Facts with Beorn, (2) Adventures in Spidersitting [in Mirkwood], (3) escaping from Thranduil's hall, and there is definitely no love lost between the elf king and Thorin and Co. So that they will arrive at Erebor by movie's end, and maybe even open the secret door -- that would probably be a great ending, where Bilbo steps into the secret passage and/or steps out of it into the throne room and then sees Smaug and .... boom. End of movie #2.
Not sure whether the attack of Dol Guldor will occur in movie 2 or 3.
I think Thorin is a little more likeable and accessible in the movie here than in the book. he comes across as an ESTJ; the problem here is that he too much is channeling the movie Aragon's sensibilities, rather than being a less likeable, more stubborn dwarf king. I also think Bilbo is a bit flat and boring; even the "nice guy" routine, which is true to the book, is handled in such a way sometimes that he's just not interesting, at least not until he realizes his one big connection with the plight of the dwarves.
Personally, overall, I find this the second most palatable Jackson spin on Tolkien that I've seen. My favorite is The Fellowship of the Ring; I can't really watch the second and third LotR movies, but I could watch this again.
As far as time goes: The previews started at 2:40pm, and I was walking out after the credits finished at about 6pm.
Just saw it. LOVED IT!! It dragged a bit here and there but otherwise I thought it was a very good movie, very much looking forward to the next two films
Well, I saw this in Hi-Res IMAX today at the Columbia AMC.
I bought the tickets in advance and was frustrated that it took me about 15 minutes to find a parking space in the mall area, apparently the entire world took off today to shop at the Columbia Mall, and about ten times I was the SECOND vehicle in line for a particular spot someone was pulling out of. DOH!
You ain't kidding. That parking lot is Hell on Earth--I don't even want to know what it is like during a Holiday/Major Release. Still worth it--AMC is my favorite theater in the area.
Eventually, I'm going to see it mostly for the Star Trek: British-guy-who-ain't-really-Khan-references-Moby Dick teaser. 3 hour long segments of Hobbits and fairies walking around quit being cool by 2003 as far as I'm concerned.
You ain't kidding. That parking lot is Hell on Earth--I don't even want to know what it is like during a Holiday/Major Release. Still worth it--AMC is my favorite theater in the area.
There is a reason why I still drive down there after moving up to Catonsville. I'm not about to go to the Security Mall theater, for example, and Arundel's (Egyptian 24, I think) a bit of a hike and lots of people, and the other Columbia theater (I think it's a UA/Regal) sucks. I do hope to get back to the inner harbor one at some point, though.
Ironically, I only found a spot as soon as I tried to actually park in front of the theater, the huge lot where Uno and Cheesecake factory and the AMC is. I figured that would be the last place I'd get a spot, but finally someone pulled out in the second row as I was going up. Woo hoo! And it was the crappy Nordstrom lots and surrounding lots that sucked. like I said, wth was the Nordstrom lot doing being full at 2pm on a Friday afternoon while everyone's still at school/work? Yeesh.
How do I describe this movie? In five words: WAY TOO FUCKING DRAWN OUT.
I understood why they drew the original trilogy out (the books were long), but The Hobbit was one book and only a fraction of the size of any one of the three LOTR books. At least an hour and a half of The Hobbit seemed like needless filler to stretch it into another trilogy, three hours each, to milk money from.
The production values remain impressive. The time between 2001-2003 and now has allowed the vfx technology to be perfected, but there really isn't a feel of newness in the fx work, art direction, or cinematography -- everything is just more detailed, but not particularly exciting. At least the Star Wars prequels, while abusing the technology, made the audience feel, "This is something I've never seen before."
Speaking of which, I see Peter Jackson becoming the next George Lucas, and The Hobbit is his prequel trilogy. But at least it wasn't The Lovely Bones.
And I would've rather seen the Pacific Rim trailer again than the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer. Guillermo Del Toro is such a bad-ass, except for Pan's Labyrinth and his share of the writing credits for The Hobbit.
I thought it was pure win. I don't think I saw it in 48 fps 3D as the 3D in my view was slightly inferior to Avatars, it lacked a certain refinement though as the movie went on this became far less of a concern. However I care more about the story to be honest and it majorly excelled in that department. Plus the epicness really hammered the movie into my skull. "Just like old times!" was what I remembered the most when watching it.
How do I describe this movie? In five words: WAY TOO FUCKING DRAWN OUT.
I understood why they drew the original trilogy out (the books were long), but The Hobbit was one book and only a fraction of the size of any one of the three LOTR books. At least an hour and a half of The Hobbit seemed like needless filler to stretch it into another trilogy, three hours each, to milk money from.
The production values remain impressive. The time between 2001-2003 and now has allowed the vfx technology to be perfected, but there really isn't a feel of newness in the fx work, art direction, or cinematography -- everything is just more detailed, but not particularly exciting. At least the Star Wars prequels, while abusing the technology, made the audience feel, "This is something I've never seen before."
Speaking of which, I see Peter Jackson becoming the next George Lucas, and The Hobbit is his prequel trilogy. But at least it wasn't The Lovely Bones.
And I would've rather seen the Pacific Rim trailer again than the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer. Guillermo Del Toro is such a bad-ass, except for Pan's Labyrinth and his share of the writing credits for The Hobbit.
I agree with the gist of your review -- it's horrendously padded.
But I have to say:
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.
3. It's funny, the only movie of Toro's I actually liked enough to rewatch (over and over) was PL, and it's on my Top Ten Movie list of all time.
Saw it yesterday. Yes, it's padded. But it's padded with material from Silmarillion that is relevant to the Rings trilogy. I have a hard time getting too upset about that. So far, I'm pretty happy with it. It helps that I love me some Martin Freeman.