The Hobbit

Grimmlokk_sl said:

My favorite scene.

Click to expand...

lolllllll

I've already posted in this thread about having seen the movie, saw it in 2D conventional. To explain further, I think that 3D movies are a soon to be over gimmick.

There are multiple cons against 3D, ie: the flicker in 24fps 3D, editing between shots of different visual depth, and importantly the physical side - the non-intuitive act of having your eyes converge at different depths while your eye focal distance doesn't match. (to explain, the screen is 60 feet awaylets sayso your eye focal depth is set at 60 feet, but your eyes converge, fix on items that are anywhere from 2 feet to 2000 feet away and you're needing to change back and forth rapidly many times)

TL;DR it makes your brain hurt.

Now we've got movies with silly 'objects in your face' moments that look silly/confusing in 2D. You have that split second of wondering why that happened. Then realise that it was done for the 3D.

Having said that . . . I Just checked and there is a cinema in my local area that has HFR 3D. So I am thinking I will go, just as a tech nerd I 'spose and experience what it's like. It's like when a local theme park puts in a new roller-coaster, you go just for the experience. Will post my views at a later time.

Gamma Rays_sl said:

I've already posted in this thread about having seen the movie, saw it in 2D conventional. To explain further, I think that 3D movies are a soon to be over gimmick.

There are multiple cons against 3D, ie: the flicker in 24fps 3D, editing between shots of different visual depth, and importantly the physical side - the non-intuitive act of having your eyes converge at different depths while your eye focal distance doesn't match. (to explain, the screen is 60 feet awaylets sayso your eye focal depth is set at 60 feet, but your eyes converge, fix on items that are anywhere from 2 feet to 2000 feet away and you're needing to change back and forth rapidly many times)

TL;DR it makes your brain hurt.

Now we've got movies with silly 'objects in your face' moments that look silly/confusing in 2D. You have that split second of wondering why that happened. Then realise that it was done for the 3D.

Having said that . . . I Just checked and there is a cinema in my local area that has HFR 3D. So I am thinking I will go, just as a tech nerd I 'spose and experience what it's like. It's like when a local theme park puts in a new roller-coaster, you go just for the experience. Will post my views at a later time.

Click to expand...

You are 100% right. 3D movies are shit and just a way to get extra money. The problem is now so many movies adjust to throwing stuff at the screen to make it look cool and worry more about that than a story line or anything else in the fucking movie. I hope it dies out soon. I saw Hobbit in 3d and sat on the side and it was awful. I still loved the movie but sitting on an angle with 3D makes a movie blurry and unenjoyable and just annoying. Any other movie I would of left

The Hobbit is no where near as good as the LotR movies. My expectations were pretty high.

velk_sl said:

It's a kids book - pretty much all the "humor" was direct from the source material, the darker tone was mostly in bits they added for the movie. You can at least be relieved that they didn't include *all* of the singing.

Click to expand...

Not nearly enough singing IMO. Hopefully the next two are full on musicals.

If I had to watch every movies i hate 3 times like you did for the hobbit, id crawl in a corner and suck my thumb.

The last few posts in this thread are actually surprising to me. The book to movies adaptation will always raise debate. That said, am glad Jackson took liberties with the stories. Being forced to watch an hour long description of the grass in the shire wouldnt sit good at the box office... The one critic i can agree with, the rock giants. It wasnt jarjar bad but, man i was hoping the scene would end sooner.

I went into it yesterday with a preconceived notion that it would be shite. I thought it would be shit from seeing the first trailer, yet, I was still hoping for something of substance.

It was bad. As other posters have mentioned, full on action scene the entire time with no sense of danger, mixed in with retarded one-liners and over the top stupidity. Not to mention shit that completely pulls away from immersion in the film like the EPIC music every other fucking scene and the chase scenes that would begin in one place and then wind up going through 3-4 different terrain types in a matter of minutes. Ie, when dwarves are running from the worgs. Oh hey look, a tunnel, of hey look we are in Rivendell, what?

It's been a long time since I read The Hobbit, but fuck me, the movie was dumb. Even worse because I dragged my wife to it and then when I started bitching about how bad it was she commented, well hey you brought me to it.


Oh, and the finale of fucking tardation at the beginning. The fucking stupid plates and dishes being thrown and bounced and ricocheted into place made me literally cringe in the film. Like really, has PJ become addled in the brain? Did anyone stop and say, "Woah, wtf are we making?"

I realize I am ranting.

Shit was stupid.

Saw this yesterday. Went into it with lower expectations, and came out of it indifferently I guess. This had nowhere...nowhere near the effect Fellowship of the Ring had on me. Yes, it's a different story, but still, I felt very indifferent toward pretty much all the characters. There were some things still beautifully done, like Gollum's scene. But overall I feel like the magic we got from LoTR is something we won't get again from Peter Jackson.

On the note of heavy-handed score, yes, it ruined a lot of scenes for me. I remember thinking at the beginning of the film "I hope we get a few throwbacks to LotR," and by the time the eagles came and their theme chimed in, I was like "OK ENOUGH ALREADY." I appreciate trying to tie some things in with LotR, but it just felt lazy that we hear SO MANY musical themes of the trilogy mixed in with this film. The eagle's scene in particular just almost had me rolling my eyes when you hear the music and see the butterfly just seconds before they come.... because this SAME EXACT thing happened at the Battle of the Black Gates. You KNEW exactly what was going to happen before it's shown. It just ruins any suspense or surprise... you hear the Eagle's theme, and you know they are going to come swooping in, basically ruining any element of surprise that we sort of had in Return of the King. Yes, even then we knew they'd show up as book readers back in 2003 for Return of the King, but it's not like we had a carbon copy of the music / butterfly combination before that film to show us they were about to swoop in. Same can sort of be said when they see Rivendel. I just wasn't a fan of sort of hearing these exact same themes every time we see a place or a character make an appearance. What is this, the WWE?

Rombo_sl said:

If I had to watch every movies i hate 3 times like you did for the hobbit, id crawl in a corner and suck my thumb.

The last few posts in this thread are actually surprising to me. The book to movies adaptation will always raise debate. That said, am glad Jackson took liberties with the stories. Being forced to watch an hour long description of the grass in the shire wouldnt sit good at the box office... The one critic i can agree with, the rock giants. It wasnt jarjar bad but, man i was hoping the scene would end sooner.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is, Jackson didn't take as many liberties with the story as people think he did.

i thoroughly enjoyed it. I enjoyed MOST of the liberties taken... i thought a couple were a little goofy (the ONLY path we can take is the one over a storm giant's knee... LET'S HOPE HE DOESN'T GET IN A FIGHT!!), but overall i enjoyed it. I thought all the extra scenes weren't so much PJ adding and changing just for the sake of making HIS version... but more for the sake of getting all the little bits of lore and story from the silmarillian and appendices that we otherwise wouldn't get to see on screen.

was radaghast in the book? not that i remember, if he did it was, what... 2 sentances? but i'm telling you i giggled like a school girl when i saw him on screen. and he was exactly how i pictured him. as saruman so quaintly said it, "Addled by all the mushrooms he eats." the eagles have been discussed enough... when i saw it, i imagined the company being dropped off and looking into the distance saying to each other, "is that what i think it is?" "where? i don't see anything. OH. you mean that mountain that's 4000 miles away? no. i can't see it because it's 4000 miles away. Thanks kindly eagle friends for the buzzkill. not only do we have to WALK all that way... but you dropped us off on a fricken mountain. we have to climb DOWN this thing before we can even START our 2 month walk. thanks."

and i read the books, so i know WHY the eagles dropped them off there. i just thought it was humorous how it was protrayed in the movie. honestly, though? i just remember thinking during the credits how good it was to see all those names up on the screen again working on the same movie.

He wasn't in The Hobbit no.

The problem with Jackson is that he made none of the actions scenes believable. 10,000 goblins lose against a dozen rag tag of dwarves?

chaos_sl said:

You need to reread the book. Your memory is not accurate.

Click to expand...

i've read the hobbit 6 times in my life. my point isn't that there wasn't singing and some humor in the book, my point is that the humor wasn't there in the book when they were in danger. the danger in the book felt real and prevalent, especially when they were trying to escape from the goblins and when bilbo first meets gollum. there are of course several more confrontations coming up in the next 2 movies, so i'll be interested to see how they deal with those encounters, but it wasn't the same as it was in the LOTR movies, especially the fellowship. i don't know, maybe it was that the acting was just better in the LOTR, or the characters were given much more depth, but even though i knew what was going to happen when i watched the LOTR movies, it still felt suspenseful to me, it felt more epic. this movie with the cheesy one liners (like when ghaldalf slices the goblin king's stomach and throat) just seemed to take away from the suspense of the movie for me. don't get me wrong, i still thought it was a good movie, i just didn't find it nearly as unforgettable as the fellowship was to me.

I actually went to see this for a third time this weekend since my wife surprisingly wanted to catch it before it left the theatre. I am still a little miffed at the negative criticism. Maybe I went in with different expectations. I cannot count the times I have read The Hobbit, maybe more to my son, than I have for personal leisure. I went in without any tie or connection to the other films (I will maybe on the third Hobbit) because the story is so different and came at very different times and a writing perspective. I've read reviews that missed the childhood feel, humor, etc. and I felt some of that... I also noticed that some of PJ's liberties were a little out of context but this is what I think... I really think you had a guy that was put in a situation (PJ) who was going to try to make a movie, true to its source, but not make it so vastly different in terms of a feel, that it would be impossible to connect to the LoTR. In the end, someone is going to market this as a massive 6 volume set and I think they did very well keeping the important elements of The Hobbit in tact while making me feel i'm watching something that will eventually be part of something bigger. Is that fair to "The Hobbit" probably not, it probably could have been made into its own movie without any desire to tie it into the LotR but that wasn't the decision.

Even after the third time I still found myself smiling during Bilbo and Gandalf's "Good Morning" conversation and other moments that reminded me of my childhood with the book and reading it to my own. I enjoyed the Necromancer (taken from the appendix if my memory serves me) and a few other nuances that were added to the film. My wife even made the comment that some of the liberties help her understand the movie a little better as she had not read The Hobbit since she was in Elementary school.

My biggest disappointments were the trolls just because I liked the book version better, the stone giants were a little much I thought, and I really hate the left you out to dry on the eagles. I hope they recover in the second movie.

I felt the movie was light hearted, had some fun, and to spend such little time on each dwarf, i felt like I knew each one (especially Bofur).

Our Literature & Fine Arts teacher was commenting on the movie today during lunch and said that in college they described The Hobbit as an adventure where Tollkein intended LotR to be an epic. I think by making a 3 movie Hobbit, it really set up people for an epic-sized movie to the standards of LotR but it's not. It's still just an adventure that's being forced a bit into an epic.

I think it comes down to taste and how you feel The Hobbit should be portrayed or interpreted from the book. Regardless, I think its a good film and sets up a solid trilogy. After 3 viewings and reading the story numerous times, I give it a B only because LotR would be an A. More precise rating.... 88 out of 100.

Grimmlokk_sl said:

My favorite scene.

Click to expand...

This is freaking hilarious.... btw