Stubby Member
Emulating it over a one-book, one-movie system is one thing. Doing the same thing for the Hobbit is a weird judgement call is all I'm saying man. I question if he would have done this three-film idea years ago when he might not have been able to on a basis of how much directorial power he had. Still, not a bad thing because as i said, to those Tolkien fans watching it...they probably would not want to have had it any other way.Originally Posted by Wretchedest
Active Member
Just got back from seeing this in the IMAX and it was amazing. I don't understand how people have a problem with the 48 fps, I thought it looked amazing. Except for avatar this was the best looking 3D movie I've ever seen. I didn't feel like they stretched out the material at all, there is still a ton of book left for the last two movies especially since they're throwing in stuff from the appendixes. Couldn't be happier with how this turned out.
Throbbing Member
Just got back from seeing this in 3D. I'm not normally into the 3D stuff, but this was great. While the pace was a bit on the slower side to begin with, I didn't really mind at all. In fact, I loved the Bag End/Shire stuff and all the set up. While I understand the 'seems like deleted scenes' feeling from people, I didn't really mind that either. Peter Jackson can throw in as much stuff from the appendixes as he wants if he makes it all look as pretty as this first movie. This movie was so damn gorgeous that it actually FELT like a shorter film. Seriously one of the most gorgeous movies I have ever seen. Everything was an absolute treat to look at.
Loved the riddle scene with Bilbo/Gollum. Such a classic moment, and I felt they did a pretty damn good job with it.
Stubby Member
In my opinion,the best movie of the year.It's so beautiful and with a lot of rhythm.
Throbbing Member
Watched it again, in 3D this time with the upped frame rate and in a less than state of the art theatre, and didn't experience any headaches or forms of nausea or whatever. Which is remarkeable, because Avatar gave me two days worth of headaches.
Also, how fucking brilliant is Martin Freeman?
Balls in Your Mouth
This was... not great. I went into the theater with pretty low expectations and was disappointed to find my thoughts of the film after seeing it worse than I had held out for.
A good chunk of what I think ruined it for me was that I had read the book, and this film felt like a different story than what I knew of. For some book to film conversions, changing things for the good of film storytelling is acceptable - however - setting that aspect aside - it just really wasn't a great film in and of itself. Character development and interactions felt stilted and questionable. Dialogue was... awkward (Jackson has never been great at this, but it was even more so blatant in this film). The pacing of the film was just plain terrible. Some scenes were inserted into the film that could have easily been truncated or left out.
A list of some things that bothered me:
SPOILERS
Spoiler:
- The 'Pale Orc' felt like a made up villain only really present to be a "villain." Since they chose to stretch this book out, they needed to come up with some unnecessary antagonist for the first film.
- The terrible climax of the goblin king's death. Holy shit - you're going to end that stand off with a few quick swipes from Gandalf and the line "that'll do it"? Who writes that and thinks that's ok?
- Thorin's unfounded anger at Bilbo - where does this come from? It feels a bit forced and only serves as a superficial sub-plot to help make Bilbo a hero in the end when he "gains" Thorin's trust.
- Thorin's STUPID rush toward the pale orc after the tree they are on falls to dangle over the cliffside. Seriously, what the fuck?
- Bilbo's character development. Jackson felt it necessary to make Bilbo out to be a hero and a lot braver than his character was ever portrayed as in the books. Although I respect that angle, his sudden bout of courage along the journey seems to come out of nowhere. (This is not an attack on Martin Freeman - he did fantastic acting as Bilbo).
- That Sting was given to Bilbo by Gandalf and that he didn't find it himself. Although a small quip, I always liked that he was the one who picked the sword out for himself.
- Radagast. Seriously - this guy shouldn't have even been in this film.
- Radagast's bunny sleigh. Fuck you, Peter Jackson.
- A strange hole in the ground that magically leads to Rivendell.
- Thorin being molded into a dwarven Aragorn. Also, I'm confused on whether dwarves are supposed to be attractive or not since there seems to be a large disparity in looks between some of them.
- Flashbacks. Flashbacks everywhere.
- That Gandalf opens up a rock to defeat the trolls. I missed that moment in the book where Gandalf confuses the trolls by imitating their voices.
- The dwarves seem really ungrateful for Gandalf's presence. "Oh - where's Gandalf? - The response is "Ehh, he abandoned us" or "He does what he wants so let him leave," not "holy shit, where the fuck is this wizard that can help us because he has magical fucking powers and has saved us several times already."
- The bizarre, unfunny, slapstick humor is painful
- Galadriel and Gandalf's weird onscreen romantic chemistry or whatever you would call that...
- Saruman's random appearance.
- The "in your face" amount of fan service.
For the most part - I agree with this review of the film and like this article that mentions a lot of the changes between the books and the films.
Don't get me wrong - it was nice to be able to visit Middle Earth again and the action/scenery was stunning, but as far as everything else goes, this was the best horribly written film I've ever seen.
Last edited by Torgo; 12-16-2012 at 06:20 PM.
The Enhancer
I'm gonna try and split the difference between John's raving review and yours, but those points you listed make me sad.
Throbbing Member
Actually this review reminded me of something. It is indeed a very curious decision that they didn't portray the finding of the Ring exactly as they did in LOTR. Why create a disparity when it need not exist?
Throbbing Member
Okay, just for balance, I'm going to really passionately disagree with most of Torgo's points.
Well, you know, you read the book. Tolkien wasn't very good at dialogue and pacing either.
SPOILERS
Spoiler:
The 'Pale Orc' felt like a made up villain only really present to be a "villain." Since they chose to stretch this book out, they needed to come up with some unnecessary antagonist for the first film.
I'm a bit on the fence about Azog the Defiler, for now, because I'm not exactly sure how they're going to handle his character in light of the Battle of the Five Armies and what happens there. However, it's a nice nod to the incredibly detailed backstory Tolkien provided for the Dwarves of Erebor, and it makes a whole lot more sense than the insertion of 'Lurtz' in LOTR: FOTR.
It also provides Thorin with a bit of an arc, but I'm going to come back to that.
The terrible climax of the goblin king's death. Holy shit - you're going to end that stand off with a few quick swipes from Gandalf and the line "that'll do it"? Who writes that and thinks that's ok?
I saw it twice now, and twice a room full of people laughed at that moment. Also, I LOVED the Goblin King. I thought he was superbly done, quite repulsive and at the same time intelligent enough to actually be convincing as the king of the goblins. I also like that the goblins were so tonally different from the Orcs accompanying Azog - Azog is obviously a ty-ing with the Battle and LOTR, and a much more familiar sight to the movie fans, but at the same time the whimsy of the goblins (who are basically just Orcs before Tolkien decided to write LOTR) was very true to the book. So I felt that was a very nice compromise.
Thorin's unfounded anger at Bilbo - where does this come from? It feels a bit forced and only serves as a superficial sub-plot to help make Bilbo a hero in the end when he "gains" Thorin's trust.
Thorin's a bit of a shit though, and he's going to become increasingly unlikeable. He also was the one Dwarf who was least in favour of Bilbo tagging along (on account, mostly, of Bilbo not being a Dwarf - yes, aside from being a bit of a shit, Thorin was also a bit of a racist) so it makes perfect sense for Thorin to be quite demonstrably opposed to Bilbo.
Boyens and Walsh used the same method in LOTR:FOTR with Boromir: a lot of what the character about is quiet and left unspoken, but they brought all that to the foreground and made a lot of what is implicit in the books (and some things that Tolkien himself seems to be unaware about in the character) very explicit in the movie. And that did help the movie and the character. I think they tried something similar here...
Thorin's STUPID rush toward the pale orc after the tree they are on falls to dangle over the cliffside. Seriously, what the fuck?
Tolkien describes Thorin explicitely as driven by revenge. He's portrayed as a great leader, but after Mirkwood his private desires and motives take over and he transforms into a lot of a shit. Again, it makes perfect sense within the character. Yes, it's also clearly the emotional catalyst in the final act so storywise it's not difficult to tell why it was there, but it's not out of character at all.
Bilbo's character development. Jackson felt it necessary to make Bilbo out to be a hero and a lot braver than his character was ever portrayed as in the books. Although I respect that angle, his sudden bout of courage along the journey seems to come out of nowhere. (This is not an attack on Martin Freeman - he did fantastic acting as Bilbo).
HOW FUKCING BRILLIANT WAS MARTIN FREEMAN?
I get what you're saying here, but at the same time I thought it made sense in how they'd written out Thorin's arc and his problems with Bilbo. So unless he starts winning the Battle of the Five Armies single handedly, I don't mind much.
Also, Bilbo's pretty brave in the books if you ask me. One of Tolkien's favourite concepts is that of 'simple courage' as opposed to 'heroic courage'. You can contrast Rings' Frodo and Aragorn in that light, but you can do very much the same for Bilbo and Thorin: Bilbo's courage starts with the simple fact that he goes along on the journey.
Bilbo's effort to save Thorin also shows where his courage comes from: he doesn't enjoy fighting, he's not particularly goal-oriented, he doesn't want the treasure... he's just a very good person, and he has a very brave heart. That's the quintessential Tolkien hero for you. So again, I don't think that strays very far from the character or indeed Tolkien's writings.
- That Sting was given to Bilbo by Gandalf and that he didn't find it himself. Although a small quip, I always liked that he was the one who picked the sword out for himself.
This, I completely and utterly agree with.
- Radagast. Seriously - this guy shouldn't have even been in this film.
- Radagast's bunny sleigh. Fuck you, Peter Jackson.
I LOVED RADAGAST! I loved his whimsy and his cute hedgehogs and bunnies. Radagast, to me, embodies the spirit of The Hobbit and - more importantly - the concept of the Istari perfectly. He's whimsical and a bit silly, but at the same time he does know magic - and not cheap Gandalf magic, which I was also pretty annoyed by, but a Tolkienesque magic of enhanced understanding of the natural world. The fact that we see Saruman, with his mind of metal and wheels scorn Radagast was a delightful addition, because of course Saruman wouldn't understand a fellow Maia so deeply entwined with nature that he has birds living in his hair.
I found Radagast breath taking and brilliant an he more than made up for all the silliness that was cut out of LOTR: FOTR. And I loved that he was portrayed as a real protector and guardian of Middle Earth.
BRILLIANT!
A strange hole in the ground that magically leads to Rivendell.
Well, it didn't magically lead anywhere - Gandalf was obviously guiding the party towards an entrance to Imladris, and it is hidden in a deep crack so it's not that difficult to imagine there'd be secret passages to a largely secret keep, I think.
- Thorin being molded into a dwarven Aragorn. Also, I'm confused on whether dwarves are supposed to be attractive or not since there seems to be a large disparity in looks between some of them.
Yeah, the second comment makes no sense, because Tolkien makes no comment on the relative attractiveness on any species, accept Elves, who are all fair and glowy and stuff. Humans vary in attractiveness, why not Dwarves? As long as there are no beardless female Dwarves popping up anywhere, I'm largely happy with how they were portrayed.
I can see the comment about Thorin being a lot like Aragorn, but Thorin is a lot like Aragorn. That is: Book Thorin and Book Aragorn are quite similar, in that they are both very proud (bordering on arrogant) leaders, but they are also both driven by private and selfish reasons. Their heroism doesn't stem from nobility, but from a very private desire. For Thorin it's the Arkenstone and revenge, for Aragorn it's simply marrying Arwen.
I'm still upset at how Boyens and Walsh fucked over Aragorn and Arwen for the movie trilogy, but I'm pleased with Thorin so far. I don't think Tolkien liked Thorin very much
Cut in two because apparently it was too long
Throbbing Member
Spoiler: - Flashbacks. Flashbacks everywhere.
Where? The Hobbit 1 has the same structure as the trilogy, which refers back to the defeat of Sauron in the Prologue (here the taking of Erebor by Smaug), then shows us old Bilbo and Frodo (here also old Bilbo and Frodo) and then introduces Gandalf. The fact that it then flashes back into time is a reference to the Red Book which was also featured prominently in the FOTR EE, so it ties in with the movie AND the books.
Other than that, I don't recall any flashbacks other than to introduce Azog, which makes sense.
- That Gandalf opens up a rock to defeat the trolls. I missed that moment in the book where Gandalf confuses the trolls by imitating their voices.
FUCK magicky Gandalf. The whole spiel in Bag End where he suddenly inflates with a dark cloud also pissed me off.µ
- The dwarves seem really ungrateful for Gandalf's presence. "Oh - where's Gandalf? - The response is "Ehh, he abandoned us" or "He does what he wants so let him leave," not "holy shit, where the fuck is this wizard that can help us because he has magical fucking powers and has saved us several times already."
Yeah, well, that's very, very true to the book - Gandalf is caleld Tharkûn in Dwarvish (yes, I'm that nerdy) which refers to his staff: he's seen by the Dwarves as a wandering wizzard, so they're not too bothered by him wandering off.
- The bizarre, unfunny, slapstick humor is painful
You said you read the book, right? Because The Hobbit is full of little slapsticky moments, most of them revolving around Bombur or some version of Fili, Kili and Oin.
- Galadriel and Gandalf's weird onscreen romantic chemistry or whatever you would call that...
I'm majorly in love with Cate Blanchett, but I wasn't very keen on how she was portrayed here. She can't just disappear, for starters. Also: the slow thing. The slow thing makes sense in Lothlórien, where the influence of Nenya means time actually goes slower, but it shouldn't work outside of Lothlórien OR the influence of Nenya should make everyone slower. Which it didn't, because Elrond seemed quite energetic.
- Saruman's random appearance.
THE WHITE COUNCIL! I'm sorry, but as a bookie, that was fan orgasm time. They promised bits and pieces of The Unfinished Tales, but I never thought they'd bring ol' Sharkey back in to actually film The White Council. And given that the Necromancer still needs to be dealt with, I'm hoping he'll appear again.
- The "in your face" amount of fan service.
Oh pish, now you're just nitpicking. I really loved the appearance of Lindir/Figwit, the little throw-forwards to Rings (like how the Trolls freeze in the exact position we see them in in LOTR: FOTR) and all the bookie references.
Sorry about the length
Throbbing Member
No it's not. Tolkien himself explained the tonal differences between The Hobbit and LOTR through their 'authors': The Hobbit is Bilbo's account of his adventures; LOTR is Frodo's account of his adventures. Bilbo's book is meant for Frodo, Frodo's book is meant for Sam. So it makes perfect sense that Frodo's account of the finding of the Ring in LOTR would differ from Bilbo's account.
Heh. Sorry to go all meta.
Throbbing Member
Yeeeaah ok...but this will completely fly over the head of most of the audience. For me this was a nice chance for a very tangible tie-in.
Throbbing Member
Well, to be honest, I hadn't even noticed the first time round
Throbbing Member
Oh, one other thing. I don't know, maybe this question is better suited for the Random Tech Questions thread, but it's more movie related so what the heck: I've seen the Hobbit in 24fps 3D and I'm planning to see it again in 48fps 3D. The thing is, I've heard there are two types of 3D: RealD and Dolby Digital. Both are available in different cinemas. The version I saw was RealD. Is there any difference in quality between the two? Can somebody explain in qualitative rather than technical terms? Should I definitely choose one over the other?
Throbbing Member
There's little appreciable difference between the two: maybe slightly better convergence on the Dolby version (less ghosting), slightly better handling of light as a result of silver screens in RealD, slightly better color for Dolby due to the way it corrects both for the color distortion of the glasses and for the differences with each eye, and Dolby has more uncomfortable (and also expensive) glasses.
God is an American
I just saw it in RealD (paid for an IMAX 3D ticket but walked out and exchanged my ticket when it became clear they couldn't get the sound to sync properly with the picture... the image looked really lovely that large, but c'mon, that's elementary stuff and they really have no excuse to not have their shit together). Loved it. Would be interested to watch again at the HFR and even 2D formats just to see how they compare.
Guys — spoiler tags? The book has been out longer than any of us have been alive. Movie's not that different... yes, there are embellishments (RADAGAST FTW) but if you've read it you're not in for any surprises.
Last edited by botley; 12-17-2012 at 05:12 PM.
Administrator
Saw it tonight in IMAX 3D and I loved it. I might see it again in just 2D or 48 fps-we'll see. I actually teared up a bit when The Hobbit title scene came up.
Highlights:
-the prologue showing the Kingdom Under the Mountain: really nice to see the Dwarvish Kingdom in all its glory and gives you a glimpse of what Moria once looked like.
-Bag End! I knew Elijah Wood was in the movie, but I didn't realize Ian Holm would reprise his role of Bilbo. Such a delight
-Introduction of the dwarves and Bilbo's contract
-Trolls and Gandalf being a motherfucking badass
-Introduction of Glamdring and Sting
-Dol Guldur
-Motherfucking Figwit, aka Bret McKenzie
-the Stone Giants
-Gollum, Gollum, Gollum!
-Gwaihir!!!!!!
-the teaser for Smaug at the end
I don't have any complaints about watching in 3D. I know some people have complained that it made the sets look "cheap" but I couldn't disagree more. Also, I may be in the minority but I loved Radagast, you hedgehog loving wizard! I'd read some people comparing him to Jar Jar Binks?! Seriously? Maybe Sylvester McCoy was their least favorite Doctor?
The one thing that did bother a little was the sampling of music from LOTR. I know it was intentional and worked for the most part, like the Hobbit theme, but there were a couple of instances where it just felt lazy.
The Enhancer
Just got to the part in The Silmarillion about the awakening of the Dwarves in early Middle-Earth!
"Themselves they named Khazad, but the Sindar called them the Naugrim, the Stunted People, and Gonnhirrim, Masters of Stone."
Vertiginous Member
Love the Silmarillion, but it does become rather tricky going when it's following a hundred things with four or five names, all of which are used.
The Enhancer
Very true...
Active Member
The Silmarillion is such a tough read, but it's pretty awesome once you can keep everything strait in your head.
Think I'm going to try and get my parents to go see this in the IMAX again when they're down here for some days around New Years. Shit looked so good in 3D HFR and I'd really like to see it again.
she/her/hers
my girlfriend and i could not stop cracking up every time bret was on screen because he looked so pretty (but silly) without a beard and shaggy hair. i don't know...it was just too funny, to me. but it was nice to see him.
i thought radagast was great (other than the bird poo running down the side of his face) and i liked his god damn bunny sled. I WANT A BUNNY SLED.
Bored
That would be Academy Award winner Bret McKenzie if you please!
I haven't seen it yet; why haven't I seen it yet? I can't explain it myself. But I love the fact that my theater is showing it in 2d, in French and in 3D in English only.
Administrator
He had a line in ROTK and his father played Elendil.
she/her/hers
that i knew, but he wasn't nearly as pretty.
Active Member
God is an American
^WTF.
I just saw it again in HFR IMAX 3D. Way better sound presentation in the theatre this time: deeper bass when called for, subtler nuances in the dialogue track, great musical clarity as well as more immersive surround effects compared to a standard theatre. When my Canadian compatriots get it right, they really get it right! Dolby ATMOS is probably just a more gimmicky way of accomplishing what those super high-end IMAX amplifiers and speakers buy you.
Theatre was really packed, so I wasn't in an ideal place to judge the picture properly, but the HFR took a while for my eyes to get used to following. There was even a little preamble title card in the LOTR font saying 'expect the unexpected' or something like that — it does catch you flat-footed. Yes, that "HDTV in Best Buy with motion effects on at 120hz" feel is a little distracting, and I don't think it was working quite as intended for sudden closeup motion. For sweeping balletic backdrops it is STARTLINGLY beautiful; you are 100% there in Middle Earth/New Zealand. When there is up-close action, you are back to watching a 3D movie — albeit a wonderfully composed one.
Like Torgo, I was not particularly tickled by some of the humour (though certain jokes taken directly from the book they absolutely NAILED) or overt Hollywoodized character arcs, but you can't deny that big crowds of people watching in a theatre eat that shit up and it contributes to the shared experience. This was never going to be an arthouse intellectual treatment. I still disagree with you on these points:
I just pictured him saying "Hello, my name is Thorin Oakenshield. You killed my father. Prepare to die." That's what was going through his head, anyway.
Of course. It is an Elvish citadel as well as temple and centre of government, last of its kind in Middle Earth. They are bound to have a tunnel like that as an escape/secret passage. Gandalf knew it was there all along.
Like, uh, people? Thorin is like Aragorn because they are both rightful kings who must reclaim their kingdoms. While the book underplays this angle, it's certainly there.
I don't think Gandalf's motivations for helping Thorin's party are ever fully explained; he is not mentioned in the Dwarves' contract and so therefore the expectation is he will come and go as he pleases. He clearly wants to fulfill some part of a promise made to Thorin's grandfather, but with the ulterior motive of making the Dwarvish race strong again to aid in the war for the Ring that he must sense is coming. He hears about the Necromancer, sees Bilbo pocket the ring, it's just a matter of time before all that shit blows up. Best to get more good guys lined up with a steady stronghold so they have more to fight with — and fight for — against evil.
Active Member
I agree with some of Torgo's points, but I thought the movie was funny. I didn't take it too seriously, maybe that's why.
Throbbing Member
Just saw it in 48fps after having already seen it in 24fps. HFR is indeed a strange deal and I can see why it is so polarising. For my part, I thought it was mostly AMAZING, the image clarity is unreal and everything just looked more beautiful, be it a cramped room sequence or a sweeping landscape shot. In addition, I found the CGI to be much more seamless and good-looking in 48fps, I could really tell the difference.
Having said that, the HFR version does look like it's a staged play. Now, I thought this would ruin the fantastical setting for me but, curiously enough, it didn't. In some cases it conveyed it even better! (e.g. Erebor opening sequence) I can see how this breaks the immersion for some people, maybe it's a very personal thing with me because I have some very fond memories of theatrical-plays-made-for-TV as a kid and what I saw now may have taken me back to those times. Also, about the faster-than-normal speed, I only noticed it in the beginning at Bag End, in the movements of Ian Holm. It was so jarring that I became extremely worried, but I never really noticed it again, maybe it just takes some getting used to (which can obviously vary from person to person). All in all, a very positive experience for me and I think I will be going directly to the HFR versions in the following movies.
Administrator
Seen it yesterday. Massive disappointment. I agree with every point in Torgo's post above.
Likes: 
Faceplams: 
Reply With Quote
