THE HOBBIT

[checkeredhat]

It's 2am so I'll use point form cause I need to get to bed

• Overall, loved it. Was smiling the whole time, left with a giant smile. But analytically, there is a mixed bag of contradictions involved.
• Some of the liberties taken were mind boggling and made me kind of mad
• Some of the liberties taken were AWESOME and made me giddy. DWARVES FIGHTING THINGS. YES.
• Takes a while to get used to the 48fps. Beginning of the movie made me uncomfortable because of the uncanny valleyness of it, and the lighting used didn't help.
• 48fps worked INSANELY well in some parts (1/6), was completely unnoticeable in others (about 2/3), and looked like shit in some (the other 1/6)
• Picture is freaking CRYSTAL CLEAR, but that doesn't always work for the best
• Martin Freeman as Bilbo warrants mention for how awesome he was
• Same with Radagast the Brown. Hope we see more of him in part two.
• I LOVED the dwarves escape from the Misty Mountains, was disappointed in Bilbo's (They changed a lot from the book, and I can't figure out why, storywise, they did so).

 

[IronBrig4]

I saw it today, during my last full day in Qatar. It had Arabic subtitles but the IMAX 3D experience was awesome. And I'm seeing it again, Stateside, with a date on Monday. *SQUEE*

 

[figmentPez]

One of my favorite cosplayers made the very good point that The Hobbit is being told by Bilbo, as a story for the children of Hobbiton, and thus has a very different style than The Lord of the Rings, which is told by Frodo to a different audience. See her review here:


Which seems to be something even hardcore geeks seem to be completely missing out on. Take Jill Pantozzi, for instance, she's a really brilliant geek girl who writes for several geek outlets and whom I highly respect, but she tweeted this about The Hobbit:

"So...The Hobbit...was not great. :/
"And I don't recommend the 48 fps. Makes the movie feel cheap
"And instead of an extended edition dvd release, I hope they cut it down instead.
"There were bits that were very good but overall it just had terrible pacing and a story that goes nowhere."

Not unreasonable arguments up to that point. Many people agree with her about 48 fps, though I strongly disagree, and it is a long and sometimes rambling film, however she then says this:

"I almost feel like The Hobbit should have been covered within The Lord of the Rings trilogy. They are just 2 different animals."
"Basically, know going in it will be nothing like LOTR."

YES, it's supposed to be nothing like LOTR! If you've read the books you know that the Hobbit is very different, stylistically, from LOTR. The Hobbit is more light-hearted, a grand adventure centering on Bilbo that left him changed but still very much a light-hearted Hobbit, though a little more Took than Baggins by the end. LOTR was a much more serious tale, a story that follows multiple parties, including some sections that center on non-Hobbits pretty heavily. Frodo returns not just changed, but gravely injured and weary of this world. The two novels are not the same type of stories, and it's ridiculous to expect the movies to be the same.

 

[checkeredhat]

One of my favorite cosplayers made the very good point that The Hobbit is being told by Bilbo, as a story for the children of Hobbiton, and thus has a very different style than The Lord of the Rings, which is told by Frodo to a different audience. See her review here:


Which seems to be something even hardcore geeks seem to be completely missing out on. Take Jill Pantozzi, for instance, she's a really brilliant geek girl who writes for several geek outlets and whom I highly respect, but she tweeted this about The Hobbit:

"So...The Hobbit...was not great. :/
"And I don't recommend the 48 fps. Makes the movie feel cheap
"And instead of an extended edition dvd release, I hope they cut it down instead.
"There were bits that were very good but overall it just had terrible pacing and a story that goes nowhere."

Not unreasonable arguments up to that point. Many people agree with her about 48 fps, though I strongly disagree, and it is a long and sometimes rambling film, however she then says this:

"I almost feel like The Hobbit should have been covered within The Lord of the Rings trilogy. They are just 2 different animals."
"Basically, know going in it will be nothing like LOTR."

YES, it's supposed to be nothing like LOTR! If you've read the books you know that the Hobbit is very different, stylistically, from LOTR. The Hobbit is more light-hearted, a grand adventure centering on Bilbo that left him changed but still very much a light-hearted Hobbit, though a little more Took than Baggins by the end. LOTR was a much more serious tale, a story that follows multiple parties, including some sections that center on non-Hobbits pretty heavily. Frodo returns not just changed, but gravely injured and weary of this world. The two novels are not the same type of stories, and it's ridiculous to expect the movies to be the same.

That was one of my biggest gripes with most of the negative reviews I saw. "It's nothing like LOTR! It's like it's for children!" Yeah. It is. That's good. And I also had that thought regarding Bilbo telling the story. Actually, I use that to kind of justify some of the changes between the movie and the book.
In my mind, the book is what happened. The movie is what Bilbo tells Frodo happened. That's why in the movie,

Spoiler

it's Bilbo who stalls the trolls, not Gandalf. And Bilbo doesn't need to be pushed out the door by Gandalf, he makes up his mind on his own. And why he has the courage to tackle Azog's lieutenant to save Thorin, and can climb trees on his own. He makes himself appear that much more an adventurer in his own telling, and embelishes the story for Frodo, because as Gandalf tells Bilbo during the unexpected party:

"All good stories deserve a little embellishment."

 

[Espy]

48fps/3D was awesome. I am now a believer. People who think otherwise are fools and will be tossed into a pit of suffering.

 

[figmentPez]

It strikes me that the same people who think higher frame rates look cheap are possibly in the same mentality that think that plastic is cheap. Yes, some plastic is cheap, bendy or brittle, but there's also some really advanced plastic that's strong, light and better suited to a situation than wood or metal. Plastic isn't all bakelite anymore.

I'll admit that even I have a prejudice against certain types of plastic. I still assume that clear plastics are brittle, because that was the case when I was growing up. The lesson I learned, and am having to overcome, is "don't buy anything transparent because it'll crack easier than the opaque version." That kind of gets thrown out of the window when the salt grinder I just bought is made out of transparent plastic. Sure it'll only last marginally longer than the supply of salt inside, but it's not going to crack at the first sign of stress like the transparent plastics of my youth.

That's the thing with this new high framerate tech. Yeah, it does have some visual similarity with old "shot on shitteo", in that the motion of fabrics and other objects appear similar, but the amount of detail visible is something that low resolution interlaced video never had. Just because it has some aspects that appear similar doesn't make it cheap and it's your own prejudice if you chose to think that it looks "worse" because you can't see the benefit of more detail. Just as it would be my own prejudice if I assumed that some modern plastic container from Oxo is going to break as easily as the transparent plastic in toys did when I was a kid.

 

[Bowielee]

That was one of my biggest gripes with most of the negative reviews I saw. "It's nothing like LOTR! It's like it's for children!" Yeah. It is. That's good. And I also had that thought regarding Bilbo telling the story. Actually, I use that to kind of justify some of the changes between the movie and the book.
In my mind, the book is what happened. The movie is what Bilbo tells Frodo happened. That's why in the movie,

Spoiler

it's Bilbo who stalls the trolls, not Gandalf. And Bilbo doesn't need to be pushed out the door by Gandalf, he makes up his mind on his own. And why he has the courage to tackle Azog's lieutenant to save Thorin, and can climb trees on his own. He makes himself appear that much more an adventurer in his own telling, and embelishes the story for Frodo, because as Gandalf tells Bilbo during the unexpected party:

"All good stories deserve a little embellishment."

The argument that it's more a kids movie really shows an ignorance of the source material. It was always a more lighthearted book and obviously geared towards a younger audience.

That being said, however, I can't really blame people who are totally ignorant of Tolkein's other works who are going simply off the LOTR movies. The tonal shift could be really jarring.

 

[HowDroll]

I loved it, but I might need to go see it again in 48FPS when I'm sober.

 

[Jay]

Watched it, it was everything I hoped for and more. It's been YEARS since I enjoyed a movie this much.

Some people seem to dislike the movie and that's their problem. 128 1/4 bit encryption, true 3d max pro was fantastic and I highly recommend it to people without issues like blindness or trolololoitis.

The first 20 minutes just BLEW MY MIND.

Oh and the singing? And that theme every time it came on? WOW.. SHIVERS UP MY SPINE!!!!

When the fuck is the next movie coming?

OH and also...

Fantastic movie.

 

[Hailey Knight]

Books: I prefer The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings. That it's a children's story helps get away from Tolken's problems of going on too long. I'm a firm believer in brevity being the soul of wit.

Which comes to the movie--you do not make a movie for kids nearly 3 hours long and you don't rate it PG-13. I'm not surprised that people thought it was going to have the same gravity as the LOTR trilogy for just those reasons. That said, I love The Hobbit and I'm likely going to love the movie. I'm sure it will have pacing issues, but whatever.

Kind of surprised there's even an option for non-48 FPS; not sure how they could downgrade without messing something up. My theater is doing 48 FPS and their listings only mention high frame rate for one of the six screens showing the movie. I'd go for that, except it's in 3D and I'm not wasting my money. So we'll see it on the normal screen and I'm guessing I'll be able to tell whether it's 48 FPS or standard.

 

[Sparhawk]

5:10 today, wife and myself, Hobbit, matinee pricing. We've got three more years of celebrating near our anniversary with Tolkien.

 

[checkeredhat]

5:10 today, wife and myself, Hobbit, matinee pricing. We've got three more years of celebrating near our anniversary with Tolkien.

Actually, the third movie won't be a December release, it's July 2014.

 

[Far]

Books: I prefer The Hobbit to The Lord of the Rings. That it's a children's story helps get away from Tolken's problems of going on too long. I'm a firm believer in brevity being the soul of wit.

Which comes to the movie--you do not make a movie for kids nearly 3 hours long and you don't rate it PG-13. I'm not surprised that people thought it was going to have the same gravity as the LOTR trilogy for just those reasons. That said, I love The Hobbit and I'm likely going to love the movie. I'm sure it will have pacing issues, but whatever.

Kind of surprised there's even an option for non-48 FPS; not sure how they could downgrade without messing something up. My theater is doing 48 FPS and their listings only mention high frame rate for one of the six screens showing the movie. I'd go for that, except it's in 3D and I'm not wasting my money. So we'll see it on the normal screen and I'm guessing I'll be able to tell whether it's 48 FPS or standard.

The HFR can only be done in 3D at our theatre, and only run through our highest quality projector, which needed a firmware upgrade, as well as some other things, in order to be able to handle it. Our info package regarding it doesn't go into how the 24 fps version was made.

I felt the HFR and the 3D was justified. This is coming from someone who generally doesn't like 3D at all, especially hokey stuff. While there was a fair share of that here, objects being framed so they pop out at you, it was never done in such a way as to draw attention to it, if that makes sense. Those things happening were never the focus of the scene, just done to enhance the atmosphere. Other times it was used either to convey a cramped cave or vast open fields, a much better use of the tech, I think . I haven't seen much of the standard 3D or 2D version to say wihich is better, but I'll pop in tonight while I'm there and see if I can't see if it impacts it, either positively or negetively, too much, though I think I'd have to sit through the whole thing again in 2D/sans HFR to get an accurate opinion either way. Since I already have plans to see the HFR version again tomorrow, that's going to have to wait.

I always feel like I should mention that I don't pay to see movies, so don't have as hard of a time justifying between 3D and 2D, and I don't seem to suffer any ill effects from it like some people do, but your milage may vary.

 

[Espy]

I'm going to smack the next person I meet who say, "Aw man, I heard it looked like soap opera and makes you sick"

 

[Telephius]

While I haven't really watched a soap opera in ahwile, what I recall is lighting and they way they frame a scene is more impactful on what makes a soap operea look like a sopa opera. Wearing my homemade Rorschach mask that had a black screen mesh fabric which cause anything that was a light source to have a bloom effect made me feel like I was in a soap opera, but not The Hobbit.

 

[Espy]

It's just a terrible thing to try to compare it to. If anything it looks like the difference between a DVD and a Blu-Ray. Much brighter, cleaner and crisper image. It makes the 3D way better as well. I'm not saying the 3D is needed really but... eh, it looks good here for sure.

 

[CynicismKills]

Hopefully going to see this Monday. Waiting is killing me.

 

[North_Ranger]

Had to postpone my going to the movies. Chemo pains are a bitch.

Picking up the group's tickets tomorrow, will go solo once I'm no longer in need of painkillers. Nothing serious, just a pain in the ass. Figuratively speaking.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I kind of hope they release a special edition whereupon they keep elements from only the book. Honestly, I hate the fact that they're splitting into three movies. Three 3-hour long movies for three very thick books? Understandable. Three 3-hour long movies for a very short book in comparison? No.

I'm not going to bother seeing this.

 

[Jay]

Three 3-hour long movies for a very short book in comparison? No.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

*shrug* I'll deal with it by not seeing it. It just feels like Hollywood bleeding fans dry by doing this, not to mention the fan service in bringing back characters not even mentioned in the book.

 

[Jay]

 

[Far]

I'm not too familliar with the source, and while it is called The Hobbit, doesn't it include other works?

This felt like the quickest 3 hr movie I've ever seen, and I started watching at 2:15 am so I was ready for a slog knowing it wouldn't be done until 5. Also, this one didn't feel very padded, save for maybe one scene,but again, I don't know what they added over the original source.

 

[Jay]

They added Dwarves.

 

[Espy]

I keep seeing people on FB post about how it "wasn't exactly like the book" or "they changed stuff" or "they added stuff" BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.
Books. Do. Not. Translate. Directly. To. Other. Mediums.

Stop wanting them to. This is a different medium. Judge the film on THE FILM. Not what you wanted the movie to be. It's someone else's vision and they are translating it to another medium. It doesn't mean it will work. It doesn't even mean you have to like it. But don't automatically dislike it because it's not what you wanted it to be.

 

[ThatNickGuy]

I would judge the film on the film...if it wasn't THREE FLIPPING MOVIES. I was hesitant enough to see it when I heard they were making it two movies.

 

[Reverent-one]

I keep seeing people on FB post about how it "wasn't exactly like the book" or "they changed stuff" or "they added stuff" BLAHBLAHBLAHBLAH.
Books. Do. Not. Translate. Directly. To. Other. Mediums.

This. Take for example (Spoiler for later events in the Hobbit for those of you that haven't read it):

Spoiler

Smaug's attack on Lake-town.

It takes about 2 pages in the book, while the encounter with the trolls takes up 8. But do you really think that they can do that scene justice in a visual medium like a movie with such a limited about of time?

Further spoilers:

Spoiler

Another example would be the Battle of 5 armies, which takes up about 6 pages and happens mostly off-screen. Major characters die here, I can't imagine them fading out like the book does when Bilbo falls unconscious and just hearing about the Battle once it's over.

Then there's how the army of Orcs and Wargs just show up at the Battle with basically no setup. In the first movie, they have added a subplot including orcs that is almost certainly going to end up with them arriving at the Battle. Are they wrong for setting up this plot-thread ahead of time instead of just throwing it in at the climax? Could you really call the latter an example of good cinema?

 

[Espy]

I would judge the film on the film...if it wasn't THREE FLIPPING MOVIES. I was hesitant enough to see it when I heard they were making it two movies.

Chances are if you are this upset about it you won't enjoy it no matter how great a movie it is so it's probably the right call.

 

[Krisken]

Loved it. Better than the LOTR movies, by far.

If you didn't see it, you really have no leg to stand on in criticizing it and don't be surprised no one is going to take your complaints seriously. I saw it at a normal theater with no 3d and thought it was great. Only rarely was I taken out of the movie, and that was mostly because of assholes in the audience (one phone twit, another chatterbox answering the riddles, etc).

I won't give anything away for those who have yet to see it. I went in with an open mind and came out very pleased.

 

[Jay]

Chances are if you are this upset about it you won't enjoy it no matter how great a movie it is so it's probably the right call.

 

[Silent Bob]

48fps/3D was awesome. I am now a believer. People who think otherwise are fools and will be tossed into a pit of suffering.

I saw it in 48fps 3d and I too thought it was amazing. The film was great. I have no idea what people are talking about in terms of length and being drawn out. It ended and I was still totally craving more.

 

[Jay]

I saw it in 48fps 3d and I too thought it was amazing. The film was great. I have no idea what people are talking about in terms of length and being drawn out. It ended and I was still totally craving more.

Dude, I can't wait till Hobbit 2 comes out. then Bobbit 3.

 

[Silent Bob]

I'm not too familliar with the source, and while it is called The Hobbit, doesn't it include other works?

This felt like the quickest 3 hr movie I've ever seen, and I started watching at 2:15 am so I was ready for a slog knowing it wouldn't be done until 5. Also, this one didn't feel very padded, save for maybe one scene,but again, I don't know what they added over the original source.

Same here. I didn't feel any padded moments at all. Anyone refusing to see this movie is really doing themselves a disservice.[DOUBLEPOST=1355709769][/DOUBLEPOST]

I would judge the film on the film...if it wasn't THREE FLIPPING MOVIES. I was hesitant enough to see it when I heard they were making it two movies.

It is not drawn out. I'm telling you the pace is perfect for a Tolkien fan or anyone who enjoyed Peter Jackson's first three movies.

The opening Shire scenes are breathtakingly gorgeous, the story already adds to the richness of the original trilogy by leading some parts in to the events of the Fellowship. The scenes in Erebor elaborating on the Dwarven city in its glory are short of amazing.

Overall this movie really adds to the Tolkien universe.

 

[Krisken]

Well said. At no point did I feel the movie had unnecessary bits included to make it longer.

 

[Silent Bob]

Well said. At no point did I feel the movie had unnecessary bits included to make it longer.

Honestly, people are saying that the Bag-End scene is drawn out? To me that's one of the scene's that probably is word for word from the book. You just can't please some people.