Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 9

[Doctor Jones]

Yeah, Boromir was indeed one of the best things in the entire trilogy among many, many others.

I think he should have been nominated for Best Supporting Actor. His scene with Aragorn in Lothlorian is so wonderfully acted.

 

[DarkKnight88]

I think he meant to say a critical failure.

Even that would be a bogus statement considering it was one of the best reviewed blockbusters of the year. 87% on Rotten Tomatoes.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I think he meant to say a critical failure.

Wut...

 

[Slushy]

Even that would be a bogus statement considering it was one of the best reviewed blockbusters of the year. 87% on Rotten Tomatoes.

That's because fans of the film fail to see or choose to ignore the sh**ty writing.

Wut...

Movies can make a lot of money, but still be critically panned (Transformers sequels, Matrix sequels, Godzilla '98, Planet of The Apes remake, Spider-Man 3.) and if they're bad enough despite being financial successes, either no sequels or it gets a reboot like Superman Returns.

 

[Venomfan]

so there was a huge Beorn easter egg in the hobbit, i didn't see it but someone on theonering.net pointed it out. the place the eagles drop them off is shaped like a bear

http://newboards.theonering.net/for...st=547493;sb=post_time;so=DESC;guest=60831995

 

[Brother Jack]

My favorite dwarf in the movie was probably Balin. He had one of the best designs and was performed very well.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

That's because fans of the film fail to see or choose to ignore the sh**ty writing.

What does this have to with TDKR not being critically panned?

Movies can make a lot of money, but still be critically panned (Transformers sequels, Matrix sequels, Godzilla '98, Planet of The Apes remake, Spider-Man 3.) and if they're bad enough despite being financial successes, either no sequels or it gets a reboot like Superman Returns.

Those movies were indeed critically panned, most having a T-meter south of 65. But, again, TDKR has a T-meter of 87% with an average rating of 8.2. That is emphatically not critically panned.

 

[Frodo]

To me the Hobbit is a decent and solid film ,but I do find it laughable when people try to tear down the original films in order to prop up the Hobbit. I haven't seen that here , but I have seen it other places. For me the film just wasnt as good as the first three, for a variety of reasons.

I can't say I was disappointed, because I wasn't. I felt that it was a solid film which could have been a great film . I put the Hobbit on the level of ASM and TDKR. All three are decent films which kinda miss the mark for me. At the same time, I respect what they attempted to do , and I know hat any sequels will learn from previous mistakes.

By the same token , my hope is that Jackson will be alot more hard-nosed in editing the second one, and that he'll keep the stuff that truely is crucial for our characters and their journey and development . I am looking forward to the sequel because alot of the really good stuff in the story is in the second half of the book.

 

[jmc]

I plan to see this in 48fps but will see it in 24fps first due to the reviews. I don't want my opinion of the film made worse by new technology.

 

[TheIrishAvenger]

 

[regwec]

Right, finally got to see it. I'm sorry that I have missed so many of your reflections on it, but I have wanted to avoid spoilers for the last couple of weeks, and it's a bit late to catch up.

Overall, I enjoyed it. The sense of spectacle was well realised, and if there is a difference in aesthertic between PJ's LOTR and his Hobbit, then I would cautiously say that I prefer the slightly more fairytale look of the latter. The set-pieces, I thought, were all very well realised: the trolls' and Gollum's scenes were perhaps the strongest in the movie, where it really hit the right magical/playful/threatening tone.

Martin Freeman was even better than I hoped, and has become my favorite Hobbit so far to appear on film.

The pacing...I was willing to forgive, knowing that it would be only a few- or ten- minutes before we got going again. But, there is plenty that probably should have been cut, even allowing enough to link this film in with the others. The Ian Holme/Elijah Wood scene was dispensable, and got the whole thing off to a stuttering start. Galadriel seemed to have the Elven/Jedi power to stop the movie dead in its tracks. I noticed the audience get a bit restless during the White Council scene, and I have to reflect that the conversation between Radagast and Gandalf probably told us everything we really needed to know already.

But, overall, better than I expected. I suppose what I really want is, rather than an extended cut, a special "abridged cut" that confines the scope of the movie to its strongest set pieces, in a tighter structure.

The poll has closed, but I give it a 7.

I should add that I saw this the old fashioned way- 2D, 24fps. So I have no cause for complaint there.

 

[Infinity9999x]

Right, finally got to see it. I'm sorry that I have missed so many of your reflections on it, but I have wanted to avoid spoilers for the last couple of weeks, and it's a bit late to catch up.

Overall, I enjoyed it. The sense of spectacle was well realised, and if there is a difference in aesthertic between PJ's LOTR and his Hobbit, then I would cautiously say that I prefer the slightly more fairytale look of the latter. The set-pieces, I thought, were all very well realised: the trolls' and Gollum's scenes were perhaps the strongest in the movie, where it really hit the right magical/playful/threatening tone.

Martin Freeman was even better than I hoped, and has become my favorite Hobbit so far to appear on film.

The pacing...I was willing to forgive, knowing that it would be only a few- or ten- minutes before we got going again. But, there is plenty that probably should have been cut, even allowing enough to link this film in with the others. The Ian Holme/Elijah Wood scene was dispensable, and got the whole thing off to a stuttering start. Galadriel seemed to have the Elven/Jedi power to stop the movie dead in its tracks. I noticed the audience get a bit restless during the White Council scene, and I have to reflect that the conversation between Radagast and Gandalf probably told us everything we really needed to know already.

But, overall, better than I expected. I suppose what I really want is, rather than an extended cut, a special "abridged cut" that confines the scope of the movie to its strongest set pieces, in a tighter structure.

The poll has closed, but I give it a 7.

I should add that I saw this the old fashioned way- 2D, 24fps. So I have no cause for complaint there.

That's more or less how I feel. I do think the movie dragged in parts, but being a fan of the book I didn't mind because it was enjoyable to see certain things brought to the screen.

And I actually didn't mind the white council bit. The look on Gandalf's face when Galadriel mentally asks him "you knew?" was priceless. Mckellen in general was wonderful in this film.

The one thing I did find a *bit* distracting, (and only a bit) was that the white orc was CGI, when I thought he easily could have been practical.

 

[terry78]

I didn't even recognize Pace as Thandruil until after the fact. He looked that otherwordly.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Why is the poll closed? I only just saw the movie yesterday evening... :-(

 

[C. Lee]

Why is the poll closed? I only just saw the movie yesterday evening... :-(

I'm not sure...according to it's settings, it should still be open. It might have something to do with thread manager.

 

[A&W]

I plan to see this in 48fps but will see it in 24fps first due to the reviews. I don't want my opinion of the film made worse by new technology.

people are exaggerating the difference. It's not hyper realistic or unlike a traditional movie. It's simply a clearer picture with less eye strain. It's simply easier to focus which helps because when watching a 3d movie some people have trouble focusing their eyes at certain moments.
it's basically just a better picture quality. The complaints are somewhat baffling. Part way through the movie you don't even notice anymore. It's cmparible to watching a non HD movie verses watching a 1280 picture. Who would complain about a sharper picture?

 

[Dugath]

people are exaggerating the difference. It's not hyper realistic or unlike a traditional movie. It's simply a clearer picture with less eye strain. It's simply easier to focus which helps because when watching a 3d movie some people have trouble focusing their eyes at certain moments.
it's basically just a better picture quality. The complaints are somewhat baffling. Part way through the movie you don't even notice anymore. It's cmparible to watching a non HD movie verses watching a 1280 picture. Who would complain about a sharper picture?

In my case I have to disagree

48 Frames.. It is hard for me to explain.
To me it seemed like I Was either watching someone who recorded something on a Video camera.. or your watching some sort of stage play.

The woman compared it to a cheap British TV show.

I am not saying it was bad quality. It is because of what I am used to.
40 years of watching 24 frames makes my mind just associate movie "quality" with 24 Frames.

Seeing 48 frames even though I know it is "better quality" just registers in my brain as "no production value" as i said to me it looks like some guy grabbed his camera and filmed a bunch of short guys walking around outside. (no production value)

Then there were parts of the movie that really stood out as "fake" mostly background (Ie When Gandalf was talking to Bilbo, and the camera was aimed up.. the sky looked horribly fake)

Do not get me wrong, it is clear, crisp, and things look VERY real, as in looking out a wondow (but it goes back to what my brain tells me)

There were times when I forgot about it but for most of the film the 48 Frames pulled me out of the movie and made me think about how it looked instead of enjoying the movie.
This happened the entire movie.. from start to finnish

For that reason I can not really say I enjoyed the movie, I will see the 24 Frame version later, I have a feel for me that it will be more enjoyable

Could I get used to it if every movie from here on out did 48 frames, sure.
But I do not see many Films adopting this.

But what do I know

30 years from not people could be looking back on 24fps saying "wow this sucks"

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Why is the poll closed? I only just saw the movie yesterday evening... :-(

They close when thread manager reboots the thread.

 

[jmc]

people are exaggerating the difference. It's not hyper realistic or unlike a traditional movie. It's simply a clearer picture with less eye strain. It's simply easier to focus which helps because when watching a 3d movie some people have trouble focusing their eyes at certain moments.
it's basically just a better picture quality. The complaints are somewhat baffling. Part way through the movie you don't even notice anymore. It's cmparible to watching a non HD movie verses watching a 1280 picture. Who would complain about a sharper picture?

That doesn't seem to be the issue, the issues seems to be it's breaking the illusion of film. HD is a sharper quality of image, it's still 24fps however and the illusion isn't being ruined. I don't want to risk my viewing of the film being corrupted by a new technology so I'm playing it safe and watching the 24fps version first.

 

[Tony Stark]

I saw the film in both 24 and 48 fps, and I can't stand the 48fps. It's like watching a movie through a fish bowl, distorted and unnatural. I could care less if it helps you focus more, it just doesn't look good. For those that saw in 48fps, I can understand their disappointment.

 

[jmc]

^ Which did you see first?

 

[craigdbfan]

Watching it in 24fps Real D 3D was the best option I think. It's the only format I've seen the movie in and it looked completely gorgeous without the possible distractions of 48fps.

I still need to watch it in 3D 48fps at some point next week or the week after (if I get the chance) just out of curiosity sake.

 

[ThePhantasm]

I'm not sure...according to it's settings, it should still be open. It might have something to do with thread manager.

Thread managerrrrrrr!!!

 

[combocaz]

I dont watch 3d because im not use to wearing the glasses so i just watch it in 2d, I never found the movie too long like others have said, it felt like i needed to see more so thats a good thing for me. I cant wait to watch the next story.

 

[ThePhantasm]

Well, I'd rate the film about an 8/10 I think. Fellowship and TTT would be 10/10, ROTK a 9.

Thoroughly loved the film except for a few parts. I thought the opening bit about the Sackville-Bagginses was a bit over indulgent and distracting, faithful though it be to LOTR.

The world seems a lot smaller in the Hobbit film. I think it was because of the awkward pacing - much time is spent in the Shire, but everything moves quickly from there. A minor grumble.

Another minor one: the CGI on Azog looked fake. Something about the pink scars just did not look real. Wasn't nearly as menacing as Lurtz.

And a minor annoyance:

Spoiler

When Thorin approaches Azog down the tree, the film plays the leitmotif for... the Nazgul? Why? That theme was never used for anyone but the Nazgul in LOTR, but here Thorin gets it. It was a bit distracting.