It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)Opinions on The Hobbit?(69 posts)(69 posts)
(69 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Posted December 15, 2012
Oh, and ALL 3D movies should use 48 FPS.

The biggest problem with 3D is the 3D glasses makes the movie screen darker and dimmer. The 48 FPS actually makes a movie brighter, the colors are crisper, richer, more vibrant and has more depths and shades. The superior resolution and colors cancel out the negative dimming effect of 3D. 48 FPS is the solution to the 3D problem of dimming a movie.
Post edited December 16, 2012 by ktchong
Posted December 15, 2012
avatar
stonebro: What, this is going to be a trilogy. Not sure on that to be honest. The whole book of The Hobbit is ... about a third to a half of that of a single book from the LOTR trilogy, and on top of that it's meant to be more of a children's story. It lacks the big world view and the complexity of the LOTR story.

I loved the movie, with the possible exception of the stone giants part, but I'm concerned that dividing this story in three rather than two will really feel too drawn out. Like, uh, butter spread over too much bread.
Dude we all know the Hobbit was meant to be a childrens adventure book, what did you expect.

If you want thematic complexity and big view of the world than hope Jackson adapts the Silmarillion as a movie.
Posted December 15, 2012
There is no feasable explanation for making this more than 4 hours. If the 3 movies are 80 minutes each, It would make sense. But they atre not. They are 3 hours each, and the inevitable extended efitions woill balloon them to a bloated four hours each.
Posted December 15, 2012
I'm seeing a bunch of people say they see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as closer to the book than the LOTR movies were. This makes no sense in my mind. Of course I'm willing to believe that people see it this way - but I just don't at all. For me, what makes a movie "close" to the book is not only the inclusion of every single scene and detail (and that is not the most important thing), but the transfer of the overall mood and tone of the plot of the book.

I think The Hobbit fails miserably in this regard. Yes, there is a ton of lore stuff thrown in there (which isn't terribly well done in my mind, but regardless...) and references to the Lord of the Rings movies, which is appealing to fans. But I am coming from a place where I literally last read The Hobbit in September, because I read it and LOTR every year in the fall.

The movie feels, to me, like a completely different story: the focus is different (much more on Thorin than Bilbo, more action than adventure, and, as I said before, and I stand by, a weird middle ground between too childish and too mature). The book is a classic and I am able to read it every year because it is a tiny story set in a huge world. The world is huge not because it is spelled out for the reader - when Gandalf mentions that Glamdring, Orcrist, and Sting are from Gondolin there is no explanation there, and that is fine: the world seems real when there are things not explained. The backstory battles of the dwarves and orcs, while interesting, and important to the story the movie is telling, is part of the background of the story the book tells. And it is important as background - a fuzzy shape in the distance that adds character and depth, but not the details of the main story. And that is the story of "There and Back Again" by Bilbo Baggins. It is light hearted and fun - but scary and intense when necessary. It is intelligent and quick, but knows that its main audience is at the oldest young adults.

I don't mind when a movie has to sometimes play scenes differently, or take out characters (Tom Bombodil for example in LOTR), but when the story is claimed to be the same, but is fundamentally changed I cannot accept it as valid.
Posted December 15, 2012
avatar
anjohl: There is no feasable explanation for making this more than 4 hours. If the 3 movies are 80 minutes each, It would make sense. But they atre not. They are 3 hours each, and the inevitable extended efitions woill balloon them to a bloated four hours each.
Drumroll, its not just 'The Hobbit'.
Posted December 16, 2012
This is not my own i'm just copying another review that I liked, that including the extra lore though different from the book, helps the viewers who will never read the books know some lore behind the film. Also I read somewhere that the film is similar to how it would have been wrote if Tolkien wrote it AFTER Lord of The Rings, though the film is light-hearted there is a sense of upcoming dread hinting at the War of the Ring.
Post edited December 16, 2012 by McDon
Posted December 16, 2012
avatar
anjohl: There is no feasable explanation for making this more than 4 hours. If the 3 movies are 80 minutes each, It would make sense. But they atre not. They are 3 hours each, and the inevitable extended efitions woill balloon them to a bloated four hours each.
avatar
Elenarie: Drumroll, its not just 'The Hobbit'.
I said "this movie", not "The Hobbit". I am well aware Jackson has inlcuded elements from the very short appendices. That justification would work perhaps, if the movie did not astray from the lore.

Again, the complete Hobbit cannot with any integrity be more than a 4 hour movie. It's a basic childrens fable, not an epic 15 hour film trilogy.
Posted December 16, 2012
avatar
SheBear: awesome post is awesome
I agree completely. I'm sure they'll all be super-mega-blockbusters, but I'm almost dreading the others.
Posted December 16, 2012
I saw it today. It was excellent. The only downside is that I have to wait 2 more years to see the rest of the film.
Post edited December 16, 2012 by oldschool
Posted December 16, 2012
So I went to the midnight opening of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on Thursday night. While I was sitting in the theater waiting for the movie to start and watching previews for next year's movies: Iron Man 3, World War Z, The Lone Ranger, Oblivion, Star Trek INto The Darkness, Man of Steel, Pacific Rim, etc. It was a series of the most amazing trailers evar.

A guy who was sitting near me was getting impatient. He was fidgeting in his seat and kept saying, "c'mon," "hurry up already," "start the movie already." Which was really pissing me off.

So between previews, I yelled at him, "What are you complaining about?!? Just look at all the trailers. They are all for GUYS MOVIES! Next year GUYS MOVIE S are gonna rule the box office! We won't have to put up with any more Twilight bullshit!"

And all the guys in the theater was cheering. And all the chicks looked pissed and turned around to stare at me with the "what a jerk" look. {smilie}

True story.
Posted December 16, 2012
I agree with much of what SheBear said.

While I didn't hate the movie, as I'm pretty tolerant of directors taking artistic license when adapting books to film, I also wasn't blown away by it. Surprisingly, the 3D didn't bother me in this one at all. For me, this movie was just okay. I'm glad I saw it, but I'm certainly not in the least tempted to go see it again and it certainly didn't leave me with the feeling that "I can't wait for the next one". Maybe I expected too much of it. Definitely not my choice for 'movie of the year', sadly.
Posted December 16, 2012
avatar
SheBear: I'm seeing a bunch of people say they see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as closer to the book than the LOTR movies were. This makes no sense in my mind. Of course I'm willing to believe that people see it this way - but I just don't at all. For me, what makes a movie "close" to the book is not only the inclusion of every single scene and detail (and that is not the most important thing), but the transfer of the overall mood and tone of the plot of the book.

I think The Hobbit fails miserably in this regard. Yes, there is a ton of lore stuff thrown in there (which isn't terribly well done in my mind, but regardless...) and references to the Lord of the Rings movies, which is appealing to fans. But I am coming from a place where I literally last read The Hobbit in September, because I read it and LOTR every year in the fall.

The movie feels, to me, like a completely different story: the focus is different (much more on Thorin than Bilbo, more action than adventure, and, as I said before, and I stand by, a weird middle ground between too childish and too mature). The book is a classic and I am able to read it every year because it is a tiny story set in a huge world. The world is huge not because it is spelled out for the reader - when Gandalf mentions that Glamdring, Orcrist, and Sting are from Gondolin there is no explanation there, and that is fine: the world seems real when there are things not explained. The backstory battles of the dwarves and orcs, while interesting, and important to the story the movie is telling, is part of the background of the story the book tells. And it is important as background - a fuzzy shape in the distance that adds character and depth, but not the details of the main story. And that is the story of "There and Back Again" by Bilbo Baggins. It is light hearted and fun - but scary and intense when necessary. It is intelligent and quick, but knows that its main audience is at the oldest young adults.

I don't mind when a movie has to sometimes play scenes differently, or take out characters (Tom Bombodil for example in LOTR), but when the story is claimed to be the same, but is fundamentally changed I cannot accept it as valid.
A lot of what you say IS valid but i think it is a mood point (not all though, some of your critic is completely right). As a big fan of the books (not as big as you but i tend to read them in 3 year cycles, since i read load of other books too and my time for reading is short enough as it is), I really enjoyed the hobbit and found the story closer to the book. How it feels is ( i think) a matter of opinion since everybody looks at a movie and reads a book differently.

On the other hand even though i feel that the Hobbit movies is closer to the book, I do feel that the changes he did make were worse then the changes he made in the LorR films (some of those changes actually improved the story a lot in movie terms).
Posted December 16, 2012
avatar
SheBear: I'm seeing a bunch of people say they see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as closer to the book than the LOTR movies were. This makes no sense in my mind. Of course I'm willing to believe that people see it this way - but I just don't at all. For me, what makes a movie "close" to the book is not only the inclusion of every single scene and detail (and that is not the most important thing), but the transfer of the overall mood and tone of the plot of the book.

I think The Hobbit fails miserably in this regard. Yes, there is a ton of lore stuff thrown in there (which isn't terribly well done in my mind, but regardless...) and references to the Lord of the Rings movies, which is appealing to fans. But I am coming from a place where I literally last read The Hobbit in September, because I read it and LOTR every year in the fall.

The movie feels, to me, like a completely different story: the focus is different (much more on Thorin than Bilbo, more action than adventure, and, as I said before, and I stand by, a weird middle ground between too childish and too mature). The book is a classic and I am able to read it every year because it is a tiny story set in a huge world. The world is huge not because it is spelled out for the reader - when Gandalf mentions that Glamdring, Orcrist, and Sting are from Gondolin there is no explanation there, and that is fine: the world seems real when there are things not explained. The backstory battles of the dwarves and orcs, while interesting, and important to the story the movie is telling, is part of the background of the story the book tells. And it is important as background - a fuzzy shape in the distance that adds character and depth, but not the details of the main story. And that is the story of "There and Back Again" by Bilbo Baggins. It is light hearted and fun - but scary and intense when necessary. It is intelligent and quick, but knows that its main audience is at the oldest young adults.

I don't mind when a movie has to sometimes play scenes differently, or take out characters (Tom Bombodil for example in LOTR), but when the story is claimed to be the same, but is fundamentally changed I cannot accept it as valid.
avatar
xxxIndyxxx: A lot of what you say IS valid but i think it is a mood point (not all though, some of your critic is completely right). As a big fan of the books (not as big as you but i tend to read them in 3 year cycles, since i read load of other books too and my time for reading is short enough as it is), I really enjoyed the hobbit and found the story closer to the book. How it feels is ( i think) a matter of opinion since everybody looks at a movie and reads a book differently.

On the other hand even though i feel that the Hobbit movies is closer to the book, I do feel that the changes he did make were worse then the changes he made in the LorR films (some of those changes actually improved the story a lot in movie terms).
Why did he change the creature designs from LotRs films, I preferred most of the LotR designs especially the Goblins but that's just my personal opinion. I liked the Warg changes though and the Pale Orc looked decent.

I was wondering what was different and then my friend said there was less CGI and more costumes in LotRs, probably why the enemies seemed more real, so why all the changes in the Hobbit?
Posted December 16, 2012
I, like many other people who have posted here and other places, loved a lot of things and hated just as many. The book is a little juvenile, especially when compared to the succeeding trilogy, and the movie did seem to capture this tone but they threw in a few things from the lore that were a lot more mature. It also didn't feel like we were meeting the characters, more-so the environment and the history with a few exceptions. This was supposed to be Bilbo's story but he didn't connect, Gandalf and Thorin were always at the centre of attention. The story is supposed to be about how Hobbits are so often overlooked but it just didn't seem like Jackson was making an effort go against that. Bilbo is just there and even though the story is told through his point of view we really don't know who he is or what he is thinking from the film.
And the Dwarfs are damned annoying, even Thorin has the character of a plank of wood and sometimes they didn't scale the environments properly which made them seem more like annoying humans. It's becoming apparent why there are going to be three movies, so we can watch Gandalf defeat the Necromancer. This really was Gandalf's big story and he came off the best out of all the characters and he was always at the forefront of the action. So long as Ian McKellen is prominently featured in the next two movies then this series will be exceptional. Peter Jackson had better pray that he stays healthy otherwise he will have to depend on one of the other characters and, aside from Andy Serkis or Barry Humphries, no other main characters stood out (and so long as he follows the story we won't be seeing (hearing) those two again).
I just saw it yesterday and I already want to see it again so that says something about the impact of the film but that doesn't necessarily make it good. It's intriguing, informative and epic in scale but it's a film that was made for sequels and it is therefore inconclusive and unsatisfying.
Posted December 16, 2012
Spambots really like it.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)Opinions on The Hobbit?(69 posts)(69 posts)
(69 posts)