Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[HowardStark]

I didn't like the songs myself, but that had to do more with the melodies than the words. But its a matter of taste though , as you pointed out. I'm the opposite on the travelling and walking parts given that New Zealand looks so lovely. The original films have tons of walking and travelling in them so I didn't have an issue there.

The way I see it , the only thing that really matters is whether or not one enjoys the experience and likes the film. What others think is interesting in that you get a different perspective on something but ultimately whether the individual viewer had a good time and liked it is really all that matters in the end imo.

I thought the dwarfs singing about Smaug and the quest was nailed perfectly and it kinda seemed a sad moment and it ultimately made Bilbo change his mind.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Do we already KNOW there will be an extended cut?

I'm pretty sure I read that the extended is over three hours or something long. That's ten added minutes right there at the minimum. There's also been talk already of material cut and this is Peter Jackson we're talking about - even King Kong had one lol.

-----

Although this is 24 vs. 60 and maybe the only observant eye can catch this check it out:

24 frames

60 frames

To me after seeing the 60, it looks like the 24 keeps on stopping and going. You can tell that there are frames obviously missing. While the 60 may seem faster, you can also tell that it captures the full movement and for me at least it has an accompanying "wow!" effect at the stunt performed that the 24 didn't quite capture. You can sense the danger.

To me this highlights partly what captured my interest in higher frame rate. While some people might like the 24 because it's more classic, others would love the 60 because it seems to capture full movement and place you fully there as a spectator almost watching the stunt get pulled off.

 

[HowardStark]

My hope is some of the extended will be Bilbo viewing Rivendale as the council is having there meeting and before the dwarfs leave.

 

[The Squirrel]

I liked the film, the parts I do remember from the book were there. I'm still wary about this being stretched out into three films though. 8/10

 

[redhawk23]

I've been thinking about how the film would have been had they kept the original split after the barrels scene.

Would the film have featured the Company being captured within another race's city and escaping twice, once from the goblin city and later from the elves, or would the Goblin city have been downplayed, somewhat? I don't think they could have excised either.

That at the very least is a way the split may benefit the films.

 

[HowardStark]

A certain eye opening up and to be fair Hobbit 1 did end at a pretty good place really. But if they do Meet Smaug they are gonna have to cover allot more ground in the 2nd movie.

 

[redhawk23]

As you said, 3D rarely works for you in any case around it. Perhaps you can't easily see depth perception on a screen? You don't sound like the kind of person that would think 3D = pop ups. So perhaps that has something to do with it. That would also possibly have something to do here. The 24 fr looked like a lot of other 3D films that I have already seen in the masses, it looked no better nor worse than the rest.

I have never seen this level of detail in any film. I'm someone who went in expecting to hate it, then found myself amazed by it. And while an LOTR fan, not a die-hard so there's no bias there either. I just noticed a greater amount of detail in even the more minute things that I've never seen before. As said - the smallest textures even on a rock. It was the textures of objects really that impressed me the most and showed off how much detail was there in comparison to other films.

In 'masses' I have yet to hear one negative word about it off the internet and not from film critics. Also if you include the internet, you're one of the few here Hawk who doesn't like it. It was the numerous posters here that did like that made me give it a shot. Where exactly are you getting luke warm from, except from the critics? Who, as I said, would be banned from test screenings due to their "eyes" being differently adjusted - industry reason given.



To quote another member's post:

There have been many people in this thread who disliked the format. I myself am quite indifferent to it.

Do I really have to compile all the posts of people expressing this opinion? Please just look through the pages from the past week. Most of the people that saw it before it came out here in the states recommended sing it in 24fps the first time if one planned to try the new format at all.

Please find me a source that shows that people are loving this format.

You keep talking about the masses, but from where are you hearing their opinion, since apparently you don't count people on the internet? The cinescore questions don't ask about anything pertaining to framerates, so the A score in that regard is not evidence.

Also, with it only playing on a few hundred screens THE MASSES you keep touting aren't even seeing the film in the new format.

 

[moviedoors]

It's part of the whole plot though. Thorin is skeptical at first, accepts Bilbo, and then eventually something that is foreshadowed in the prologue comes up and he's a d-bag again. It's part of his arc, as much as it is Bilbo's.

Tolkien isn't untouchable, but why would the criticism of something that's part of a character's arc through the entirety of a book be ejected because you think it "didn't work." It didn't work for you, how many more did it work for?

Because it's part of the book. This is the movie. No audience member is under any obligation to give a free pass because it was "in the book." All that matters is how it plays on screen, and in my estimation, it played rather one note.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I can see me calling you an irregular person truly bothered you lol. All critics hated it. More online in comparison liked it.

http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/12/16/t...er-second-are-you-recommending-it-to-friends/

Looking at it that way critics would notice more, people on forums would notice more, then regular internet casual browsers, then more of the masses.

And going off of a round of applause afterwards at the 48 fp and taking into account the only things I noticed and took me out of it I doubt would effect the average film goer. For example some caverns I didn't see enough detail and knew it was styrofoam or some other set building material from that. While, using my mom as a 'sample' of masses who knew nothing but seeing a movie didn't sense anything that different just a clearer picture - which, except for a few spots on a sound stage, it was.

You said you won't go pages back, but if you do - you're likely to see the same or similar ratio online as E! My point is the thought that people "hate it" are kind of the same thing as people whining online "no more 3D!!!! NO MORE!!!!" yet 3D showings keep on bringing in the most money in from the masses.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

‘The Hobbit’ Breaks Records Around Globe: $84.7M Weekend In U.S.-Canada For All-Time Christmas Release; #1 Overseas With $57M
http://www.deadline.com/2012/12/the...dnight-u-s-canada-opening-sets-december-mark/

So I was reading some stuff on the BO at Mojo, and apparently this came in disappointing. In terms of ticket sales it was behind RotK and I Am Legend by a bit. It basically took the record do to inflation and 3D.

 

[mclay18]

I'm also puzzled at why some people thought a few of the returning characters like Galadriel, Elrond, and Saruman would have a lot more screentime. They all essentially had the same amount of screentime in the theatrical cut of FOTR.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm also puzzled at why some people thought a few of the returning characters like Galadriel, Elrond, and Saruman would have a lot more screentime. They all essentially had the same amount of screentime in the theatrical cut of FOTR.

Saruman had a lot of screentime in FotR. Much more then in The Hobbit.

Considering how they used Galadriel in the promotional material, I understand expectations.

 

[moviedoors]

All critics hated it.

That's simply not true.

 

[redhawk23]

Again Ultimatehero, even at that EW link you posted its about evenly split between people liking it (most with reservations) or hating it.

Like I said, at best the reception has been lukewarm.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Alright, lukewarm but not 'bad' or 'negatively.'

-----

And there are critics who liked it? All the reviews I've read trashed it then said the film was good. Kinda what took posters to sway my decision to give it a shot.

 

[Frodo]

I thought the dwarfs singing about Smaug and the quest was nailed perfectly and it kinda seemed a sad moment and it ultimately made Bilbo change his mind.

Well it certainly sounded somber but , in a strange way ,Freeman was almost too skepitical for me to believe that he would actually go on the quest given all of the downsides.Lol. I guess that's a testiment to his acting , because I found it hard to believe that his version of Biblo would just go for it with very little guarentee.

I could buy Ian Holm's version, just because he played the character much more extroverted than Freeman does imo. But , his explanation to Thorin sheds light on why he would do it despite his reservations.

 

[Marvolo]

Exclusive: Hobbit Deleted Scenes Info as revealed by McKellen and Jackson...

.​

Confirmation Jackson has already finished the Extended Cut of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

 

[mclay18]

Saruman had a lot of screentime in FotR. Much more then in The Hobbit.

Considering how they used Galadriel in the promotional material, I understand expectations.

Not that much.

 

[Kane52630]

Exclusive: Hobbit Deleted Scenes Info as revealed by McKellen and Jackson...

.​

Confirmation Jackson has already finished the Extended Cut of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

Awesome, can't wait for that.

 

[HowardStark]

Didn't FOTR kinda make the same money as The Hobbit Opening weekend. People also need to consider the run time of the Hobbit is almost double other movies. so 84 Million Is pretty good.

 

[Showtime]

Didn't FOTR kinda make the same money as The Hobbit Opening weekend. People also need to consider the run time of the Hobbit is almost double other movies. so 84 Million Is pretty good.

The Hobbit made 7 million + more than I Am Legend; 5 years later with higher ticket prices, 400 + more theaters, and 3D. Not sure how good that actually is.

 

[HowardStark]

People also need to realize that people have lost more jobs since then as well. Cost of living has changed whats important so some people wait for dvd or illegally download films. I think it will make more money up till Christmas is done.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The inflation thing can practically be said and applied for EVERY film under the sun, I have no idea why people are making such a big deal about it for the first time.

 

[HowardStark]

Also You can wager that if it was a summer release when had a four day weekend that some of the summer BO make big bucks off of. I am sure The Hobbit 3 will likely score bigger then in the winter months. Look at the Transformer Sequels. Now I liked the First fine. But the Transformers Sequels made killings and its not as good as what I saw and the Critics hated those. I say you just cannot challenge Summer Money to Winter.

 

[redhawk23]

Didn't FOTR kinda make the same money as The Hobbit Opening weekend. People also need to consider the run time of the Hobbit is almost double other movies. so 84 Million Is pretty good.

The first hobbit film is actually 10 minutes shorter than the theatrical cut of Fellowship of the Ring. Also, we're talking about a 3d film in 2012 that is the followup to one of the most successful and popular franchies of all time vs a 2d film in 2001.

I certainly wouldn't call its gross a disappointment necessarily but it is by no means a greater success so far than Fellowship.