Escape to the Movies: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Thyunda:

A couple of things - the conversation between Gandalf and Radaghast felt like two 'divine' beings meeting on a rare occasion.

*Awoooga-Awoooga-Awoooga! Geek moment Alert! Geek moment Alert*

In fact Gandalf, Saruman, and Radaghast--all the wizards--are Maia--lesser 'gods' (angels, really) who vary in power. Sauron was a Maia, as were all the Balrogs. The Valar, ie Tolkien's equivalent to Arch-Angels, were above the Maia, and the original Lord of Darkness Melkor, named Morgoth by the High Elf Feanor--who forged the Silmarils--was the first and (originally) the mightiest of Valar. Tolkien's equivalent to Lucifer.

Thyunda:
Maybe because there are just five wizards. Or were. I forget. But there was most definitely that.

There were 3 others wizards--the blue wizards--all of whom are unnamed. All that is mentioned of them is that they went into the East (Sauron's direction) and were never seen or heard of again.

Sugarman101:

HBaskerville:
The only reason to add 2 movies worth of extraneous material is to get more cash.

Or you know, because he actually wanted to see the other material on screen. It's easy to accuse someone of money grubbing, but unless you're friends with Jackson and he told you that he was only in it for the cash, it's just baseless accusations.

The extra material (Erebor) that Jackson has used was actually from Tolkein reworking the story into more epic saga to go along side the Lord of the Rings, he viewed the original version of the Hobbit as someone taking an epic tale and turning it into a children's story, so one could take the view that this is the intended version.

I for one am happy that he took the opportunity to put it all up on the screen, it's the only way we're going to see it.

Edit: Bob, it was so nice to see a review that focused on the film itself, rather than the technology behind it. So far it's been a game of 'see how long the reviewer can go before turning the article into a 48fps rant.'

Jackson loved the opportunity to return to Middle Earth and do the Hobbit. He's a FAN!!!

For the cynics here's how it went down: They had originally planned on making the Hobbit a 2 part series, but the story and film he and his wrote and made was way too long for two movies, but too short for 3 movies. Eventually the decision was to go into all the cut scenes and "pad it out" to 3 movies.

I agree that it's nice to hear Bob call out a 'thumbs up'. Today I listened to the NPR movie reviewer give The Hobbit a shining review as well.

Frankly I suspect that the Star Wars Prequels have left all of Hollywood and "Movie Reviewer-dom" predisposed to group-pounce on The Hobbit or any other such 'prequels'.

Seriously--the fact that Bob has to go on for 2 minutes to make it clear that he's viewing The Hobbit as a movie in its own right rather than holding it up to LotR for comparison serves as confirmation to me that many if not most reviewers were poised to pounce.

"Gollum's voice sounds slightly different!!! Peter Jackson--YOU'VE DESTROYED MY CHILDHOOD!!!" *waaaaahhhhh*

That sort of thing.

*sigh*

Just got back from seeing the midnight premier at my theater and I loved it. The acting is great, the action is great, the comedy is pretty good. Radagast The Brown was funny. I can't wait to see it again later today with a friend of mine.

HBaskerville:

chozo_hybrid:

Shameless money grubbing? The film is not just the Hobbit, The reason it's over three films is that they are covering other events that go on at the same time, so more then one story in a sense. See it for yourself and you will know what I mean.

Adding material from other books to extend the length of the story to three movies is a money grab. The story of the Hobbit is complete and could be artfully done in one long film. The new fashion of drawing out movies to multiple parts (Potter, Twilight, etc) is nothing but a way to wring more dough from people pockets. Apologize for Jackson all you want, but the book is the book. Jackson shoving more stuff in from other sources just because he can is blatant. The only reason to add 2 movies worth of extraneous material is to get more cash.

I'm not apologizing for anyone. I'm just saying there is more purpose here then your usual quick cash grab. Sounds like you have an axe to grind for what ever reason. At least what is being included will add substance, not just faff about doing nothing half a film like some others do just to stretch it out.

The movie is one I liked, I'll probably like the others, if you don't, you don't.

erttheking:
THIRTEEN DWARFS! There are thirteen Dwarfs MovieBob, not twelve, thirteen. I haven't read the book in years and I know that, they always go on about how Bilbo ups the Dwarfs from thirteen to fourteen in order to avoid the unlucky number.

Also, you're worried about them running out of action for the next two movies? Five words. The Battle of Five Armies.

Ugh, nerd bitching aside, I'm glad to hear that the movie is actually pretty good.

Actually, the number of dwarfs and the pace and plot points changes depending on which version of the book you read, you see because the book "there and back again (the hobbit)" was written before Tolkien made "The Lord of The Rings" and he then made revisions to "there and back again (the hobbit)" to include more shit that is relevant to "The Lord of The Rings". Things such as instead of Bilbo being the only hobbit, hobbits then became an entire race of there own. So Nerd Rage all you like, but the story changes dependant on which revision of book you've read or which revision of wikipedia article you've dissected.

I don't remember the whole upping the dwarf count due to an unlucky number though, when I read the book I had total hotness for Smaug so I may have expunged that information out of my mind because I don't give a shit about the luck of a number (also I'm born on the 13th of may, like my father so I consider 13 to be an awesome number).

I went to see The Hobbit a few days ago, the only reason I went to see it is because my 16 year old cousin didn't want to go on his own, now I've read two versions of The Hobbit and I wasn't interested in this movie because its Peter Jackson (more on that later) and I thought it would be A FILM not A TRILOGY OF FILMS so I was dismayed that Smaug and a fight with him doesn't factor into it.

Also at the start of the film, Smaug is Red, at the end... he's blue... and next up is in spoilertastic spoiler quote tags just in case I spoil the next movie for people

I found this film to be total Peter Jackson in Tolkien mode, mountains... as far as the eye can see... for about 20 minutes

Listen Peter Jackson, going "hey look at this mountain range covered in grass and moss and now look at this mountain range covered in snow and now look at that mountain range at the edge of the horizon that glows because its got dwarf gold in it" is not really exposition, its just a lot of mountains.

So after that wall of text, the film is OK, its not great, its watchable.

I'm not sure how I feel about the technology. The opening scene was kind of disappointing for how blurry it was and it was everything I hate about shaky cam, and I much preferred the stuntmen Uruk-Hai to the CGI goblins. Otherwise, the 3D was gorgeous.

In other news, I'm really glad they decided to include the Dol Guldur stuff. It makes sense, considering they are happening at the same time, and it definitely gives a lot more weight and perspective to the story as a whole.

I agree that it kind of suffers because there's not as much of a sense of things being at stake, and it relies a lot on people knowing the appendices, etc.

For the record the blue wizards were named Alatar and Pallando in Valinor, we don't know their other names, and they kind of wander off and do their own thing. When Gandalf says "I don't even remember their names" in the movie I got a good laugh out of that.

HBaskerville:

chozo_hybrid:

Shameless money grubbing? The film is not just the Hobbit, The reason it's over three films is that they are covering other events that go on at the same time, so more then one story in a sense. See it for yourself and you will know what I mean.

Adding material from other books to extend the length of the story to three movies is a money grab. The story of the Hobbit is complete and could be artfully done in one long film. The new fashion of drawing out movies to multiple parts (Potter, Twilight, etc) is nothing but a way to wring more dough from people pockets. Apologize for Jackson all you want, but the book is the book. Jackson shoving more stuff in from other sources just because he can is blatant. The only reason to add 2 movies worth of extraneous material is to get more cash.

You have read the book right?

You didn't question where Gandalf went? Or who the Necromancer was if he was defeated? Or why Bolg son of Azog was a bitter enemy of the dwarves?

The book while good skimped out alot of the world and various events to focus on Bilbo's adventure. Several of the examples I mentioned got maybe one or two sentences near the end of the story which really annoyed me when I was little.

Reducing the story to just one movie would cut out most of the world and leave a bare bones story, doing a massive dis-service to the world Tolkien created.

Bat Vader:
Just got back from seeing the midnight premier at my theater and I loved it. The acting is great, the action is great, the comedy is pretty good. Radagast The Brown was funny. I can't wait to see it again later today with a friend of mine.

Same good movie and Bob nailed it. Its not as good as Lord of the Rings, but its still a great movie. My only complain is it becomes real evident that they used CGI in some scenes, but thats a very old complaint for a multitude of movies... aka just deal with it.

I can't be the only one who doesn't think "huge epic story" means better. I vastly prefer the smaller more focused story of The Hobbit(I haven't seen the new movie) to Lord of the Rings. I just like smaller stories that aren't about saving the world.

JaredXE:
I hope you don't mean Les Miserables was too damn long, Bob. I think a two and a half hour musical is perfectly fine, especially if you're a theatre watcher like me.

Just what I was thinking. Les Mis is a long ass musical based on a long ass book, so two and half hours for the film seems ideal. Then again, there's no way of telling if this is what he's talking about (have they even started screening Les Mis to critics?), but that comment really left me scratching my head, trying to figure out what movie he could be talking about? Django perhaps? Maybe a movie from earlier in the year he plans to cover in a retrospective?

Saw this last night (midnight showing) and just woke up. Over all it was pretty good. Much more intimate than LoTR somehow. I think the 48 fps adds to that somehow.

Tumedus:
Even with a decent review, I just cannot muster up any desire to see this. The melodrama toward the end of Return of the King really got on my nerves and some of the liberties he took with the characters really started to grate on me (Aragorn, Faramir, and Legolas in particular). So his added exposition, even if it holds relatively true to the lore, just doesn't sit well with me.

Oh, and overly long in a couple of weeks made me think he is talking Les Miserable.

I'm sorry, but anyone that sports a Rosario + Vampire avatar is automatically marked off of my list of people I should listen to.

Aaaah, so that's why it felt like all wide shots were moving way too fast - 48 frames.

Ed130:

You didn't question where Gandalf went? Or who the Necromancer was if he was defeated? Or why Bolg son of Azog was a bitter enemy of the dwarves?

The book while good skimped out alot of the world and various events to focus on Bilbo's adventure. Several of the examples I mentioned got maybe one or two sentences near the end of the story which really annoyed me when I was little.

The book IS Bilbo's adventure. It's not about the whole world. It's purposely not Lord of the Rings. Making into another history book like LotR misses Tolkein's point. If you don't like that, fine. But that is what the book is. I'm sure many people will love all the extra stuff that gets added into this story. Nothing wrong with liking stuff.

Saw it yesterday morning. (at the lower framerate) It was fantastic. Gonna go see it again. And seriously I did not mind the 3D in this at all either, really worked well. :)

Saw it a few days ago, it truly was amazing. Ofcourse it would not top LOTR but it knows that and stands firmly on its own feet in the franchise.

And the "Riddles in the Dark" segment was just the best scene of the year for me. Andy Serkis should atleast get nominated for an Oscar for his role as Gollum.

For once I've managed to see a movie before a MovieBob review, and I must say, that it was sweet. Did not expect so many action scenes.
The "prove himself" angle got a bit old really fast, but everything else that was happening compensated. Gandalf was hella-cool, busting caps left and right and AOE-ing left and right. Radagast got a damned big part that was awesome, Frodo was in it, Galadriel was there, Saruman too!
It felt a lot like a Lord of the Rings prequel, rather than a straight up adaptation of the book. Though they did keep the songs, and they were great. Sadly, no dwarves tied up by spiders yet, though I may be remembering the story in the wrong order, and sadly, the guy that turns into a bear wasn't in it.
At three hours long, I'm still itching to see the extended version, because bits from the trailer aren't in this.

Also, had no idea what framerate the movie was, since it's the first time I've seen a movie in 3D that isn't red/cyan, but during fast paced action scenes, things got a little blurry, though it could have been the glasses fogging up. Also, could have used a bit more light.

Strange experience, amazing movie. Saw it in 48fps, stereoscopic shutterglass 3d, dolby atmos and it was one of the most entralling experiences ever, but there is something very jarring about 48fps in that every kind of camera move provides a different feel. Static shots looks like the most amazing 3d high definition version of a movie, huge sweeping shots from helicopters feel hyperrealistic and grand, but anything with a quick camera move, or worse a handheld move starts standing out as different. To me it feels like cheap productions shot on video, so it's probably only baggage brought along by me. Someone who grows up with this movie style would definitely see it differently, but by the end I started to ignore it a bit. It all has to do with motion blur, the more the camera moves, the more my brain missed the motion blur that is no longer there, so you get to see a tremendous amount of detail at all times so it feels less ethereal and more real real. I was absolutely spellbound though, but I think the medium has some work to do to figure out how to mix the camera moves to better smooth out that jarring effect of missing the expected motion blur, or wait for us to be replaced by young people who don't know better. But i'm spoiled and saw it the best of theaters. (Some people had bought collectors 3d glasses, but in a shutterglass theater they were useless!) CG artists are really going to have to step up their game, anytime they cheat with vertical acceleration to make things looks more dramatic, 48fps makes them look really cartoony now. We'll see what is done with the tech.

I really really hope the too long comment at the end wasn't pointed at Les Miserables.

I so want that movie to be good, but I'm just really worried about it, especially when a lot of the commercials for it don't involve any singing. I'll just keep telling myself that's because the marketers feel that musicals don't sell as well as huge drams and not because the whole live singing thing wasn't a good gamble.

RaikuFA:
Gonna skip out on this one. Was bored out of my mind with the first two films. Didn't bother with the third.

I did see all the action in all the trailors and I bet it's all cut from the film and it's all walking and talking.

I can't help but be slightly sad at reading your post while noticing your Regular Show icon. Does it help to think of it as a stand-alone movie instead of "just another LotR movie"?

OT: Good to know he liked it; I know critics were all over the place when reviewing it, and I saw it last night, REALLY glad that it was much better than even I expected, and I had high expectations. I think it's because I didn't compare it to LotR; it's not. It's a great movie by itself with some familiar characters~

I saw it at IMAX last night, and I absolutely loved it.
The movie was 2 hours and 50 minutes long, but I have -never- been as heartbroken that a movie was ending so soon as I was last night when the credits started rolling, but I suppose that's good for the first movie in a trilogy.

Yes, the first bit in the shire is rather slow - but it has to be. There are going to be a lot of people who watch this movie who haven't read the book, and they need to spell everything out.

But once they left the shire, it was amazing, super fast pace, a lot of battles, and I loved the Dol Goldur related scenes.

I didn't mind the 48fps, it was a bit off for the first 5ish minutes, but I guess I adjusted and it didn't give me more problems after that.

My only visual complaint with the movie (other than the goblin kings pus and pimples being really gross), is Bilbo's feet. They seemed like they were at least two times larger than any of the hobbit feet from LoTR.

I'll see your "movie running too long", and raise you The Thin Red Line.

There literally was no contribution to the story from before George Clooney's 30-second appearance that still somehow earned him title billing.

I just got back from seeing the movie! It was really awesome!

You know what I love about these kind of movies, specifically Peter Jackson's Tolkien films? It actually feels like your on a adventure, as if you are there with the characters experiencing and feeling with them every step of the way. The world of Peter Jackson created to reflect Tolkien's world is so damn convincing every one of his Tolkien movies sucks me into his world and never lets me go. The Hobbit was no exception to that. Really, no one can capture my imagination like Jackson can. It is a shame there are so few movies that can capture that magical feeling. I eagerly await the next Hobbit film.

Saw it last night, it was OK not too bad. However, the Tolkien nerd in me was disappointed (once again) at the amount of dramatic license taken with parts of the material. In some cases I sort of get it, and the inclusion of material outside The Hobbit is cool, but other times I'm just left wondering why.

-Setting up an enmity between Thranduil and the dwarves of Erebor - Yes they didn't like each other but it was for reasons far older than that depicted in the movie, but I guess they needed a reason within the scope of the movies for why Thorin dislikes elves so much and why Thranduil is going to be so grumpy later on.

- They fiddled with the troll scene - Not that much, not really a big deal

- Radagast never meets Bilbo or the Dwarves - I knew he was going to be in the movie and that's fine, but I was surprised Jackson had them meet up like this.

- They fiddled with Thorin's back story and the War of Dwarves and Orcs - Not a huge deal, but cutting out Thrain and Dain Ironfoot is a little annoying

- Not everybody knows this, and I'll concede it's easy to confuse without extra reading, but goblins and orcs are the same thing. Goblins was just another name applied to the race of Orcs, "Orc" being there proper name. It's why they couldn't go out in the sun, orcs hate that shit (and Sauron wasn't back to his full power). Goblins MIGHT be a name applied to a smaller breed of Orc, but that's debatable.

- The big change, Azog - Azog was dead before The Hobbit ever happened! It was Azog's son Bolg who was the secondary antagonist of The Hobbit and he doesn't actually show up until the end of the story, at the battle of five armies. Having this new Azog antagonist guy around threw me off every time he showed up.

There is more stuff (the wargs and pine trees scene, Riddles in the Dark wasn't dark) but they aren't a huge deal either. I still liked the movie, I just don't get why Peter Jackson had to frig around with some parts that didn't really need altering seemingly just to pad the running time.

McShizzle:
-snip-

This is a discussion I would like to have, and I wish more of my friends were as into Tolkien lore as I was.

Do you think that these alterations were to the detriment of the material, or do you think that they actually made the story feel a bit more "complete"?

Now, I generally didn't like the prologue at all. It was too succinct, and did not allow for enough exploration of the character of Thorin. You never get to discover why he is so disdainful of non-dwarves because the film just straight tells you in the first ten minutes. Another very minor nitpick: Thorin was, according to some of Tolkien's notes, "too young to bear arms" during the sacking of Erebor.

The troll scene bugged me as well. Why not have the dwarves get captured initially? Why did there have to be a fight scene? That bothers me. Is it because Bilbo couldn't "prove his worth" until the climax?

Finally, one you didn't touch on that really bugged me. Why did Gandalf seem to understand the importance of the ring? When Bilbo is about to pull it out, Gandalf gets his "concerned face" on and changes the subject suddenly. Now, I haven't read the book in a while (yeeears!), but I don't recall that bit at all. I recall Gandalf assuming that it was one of the minor rings forged as a sort of practice in the craft taught by Annatar. I understand why the movie had to recognize the importance of the ring, but why did Gandalf?

The change with Azog I can understand. A movie needs a driving antagonist more than a book does. There needs to be palpable tension, and Azog fills that gap. It would have been more accurate if it had been Bolg, but then you couldn't have had Thorin get all uptight about killing him. Then Bilbo could not have "proved himself" right at the climax. It would not have fit the extremely rigid structure that movies are almost always forced to adhere to. I don't like it, but I understand how it came to be.

Ed130:
You have read the book right?

You didn't question where Gandalf went? Or who the Necromancer was if he was defeated? Or why Bolg son of Azog was a bitter enemy of the dwarves?

The book while good skimped out alot of the world and various events to focus on Bilbo's adventure. Several of the examples I mentioned got maybe one or two sentences near the end of the story which really annoyed me when I was little.

Reducing the story to just one movie would cut out most of the world and leave a bare bones story, doing a massive dis-service to the world Tolkien created.

You know, I found all of those questions you are left with make the book better and the overall story better. They give the story reality and depth. To be fully immersed in Bilbo's tale it helps to understand things in the same way as Bilbo does (which is to say he doesn't a lot of the time) and to keep things scaled towards Bilbo's interaction in the world. As Bob eluded to in the video, and in other reviews I have seen, the exposition of other events makes Bilbo's adventure look almost inconsequential and small with the possible exception of his acquisition of the ring.

It's cool to look at the histories after the fact and go "whoa, thats what that was all about". But at the time, it just weakens the primary tale we are being told.

I hate to bring it up in a thread like this, but its very much like Star Wars. One of the reasons the originals were so much better than the prequels was, perhaps by lucky accident, all the detail we didn't have about the history. We heard about things like the Clone Wars, and Luke's father, and Ben's fall from grace but didn't know the details. Han's criminal past and relationship w/ Chewbacca was intriguing. Boba Fett was cool because he had no backstory. We found out so much, but it left us with so many quesionts. It gave the story depth.

The prequels basically tried to tie everything up, and in so doing, came across and very shallow and small (amongst many other problems, of course).

tehpiemaker:
I'm sorry, but anyone that sports a Rosario + Vampire avatar is automatically marked off of my list of people I should listen to.

I just changed it a couple of days ago and already its working! Awesome!

I'd heard that this movie is a bit of a drag and that the low fps is off putting, but my god, how wrong those people were. This is easily my film of the year. It had everything I've come to want in an action movie. And the tie-ins are just the icing on the cake.

RaikuFA:
Gonna skip out on this one. Was bored out of my mind with the first two films. Didn't bother with the third.

I did see all the action in all the trailers and I bet it's all cut from the film and it's all walking and talking.

Nope :)

There is so much action the characters even address it at one point.

Also, the third one is the most actiony film in the trilogy.

I'll admit that I was a wee bit worried if they could effectively work in the extra material. Thankfully it worked out rather well so the story gets expanded beyond the view of Bilbo. Throw in some changes from the book to make the pacing work better and I'd say I'm about as happy as I could get for a movie adaptation of one of my favorite books as a child. Doesn't really hurt that some of the action reminded me of the fast paced fun of things like the good Indiana Jones movies.

Now that Superman trailer, ugh they are really going to have to do something different to get me excited about that movie.

The_State:

McShizzle:
-snip-

This is a discussion I would like to have, and I wish more of my friends were as into Tolkien lore as I was.

Do you think that these alterations were to the detriment of the material, or do you think that they actually made the story feel a bit more "complete"?

A good question, I know the writings so well, and am such a big fan of Tolkien, that I may have lost the ability to be objective on the subject. The alterations I guess help to tell the story of "Peter Jackson's: The Hobbit". Peter Jackson's story is more like "The stuff that happens just before The Lord of the Rings, involving some dwarves, specifically one named Thorin (Also, a hobbit named Bilbo Baggins was along)". In my opinion the story as Tolkien wrote it was about a funny little hobbit named Bilbo who comes out of his small world and grows to be the hero of the story. The focus of the story is the character of Bilbo (as per the title "The Hobbit"), not a struggle against a single adversary (that's Sauron's job later on) which is part of the reason why the whole new Azog thing bugs me.

As for the Gandalf spying the ring thing, well I don't think it hurt's things too much. In the book, I'd say that Gandalf didn't know Bilbo had a ring, but Gandalf being wise, knew Bilbo wasn't telling the whole truth about how he got away from Gollum and past the goblins. He of course didn't know Bilbo had "The One Ring" until much later on. The movie I guess is setting up that Gandalf knows Bilbo has a ring, to tie into the Lord of the Rings movies.

I was twelve and in tears when i first watched the ending of the "The Fellowship",
Course 9 years later "The Hobbit" can't compete with all that nostalgia and childhood love developed afterwards.
But it sure as hell made me developed one thing... Respect for Peter Jackson.

This film, is honestly, the best prequel ever made, it all makes sense!
The tone is more lighthearted (as bob mentiond) wich adds up, since there's no mayor invasion goinge down jet.
Motivation Frodo for having trust in Smeagollum has more clearity (wich i felt was needed)
There are little winks to the fanboys who enjoyed the previous films or the books.
The extra stuff that was added was sometimes kinda ludicrous, but i can imagine that if you have a giant walking tree in your first movies
you could ask yourself the question; why not a giant walking moutain in de next one?!!!
O and it was all extremly well paced.

there only but one thing that i can't wrap my head around,
WHY THE CGI ORK?!

kinda poor badguy but besides that, WHY CGI ?!
you've got the minions wearing orc suits so why not their cheff?
any whats up with the (in my situation 48FPS) 10 seconds, full close up shot, of this white out of tune medieval version of walking dead's Merle?!!!!!

Btw, is it just me? or did PJ realy just say FUCK YOU! to all the peeps who kept whining about that eagle plot-hole thingy, at the end of the movie?

I thought The Hobbit was better than any of the LotR-movies. Peter Jackson has cut down on the "useless facial closeup of actor gazing dumbly"-per minute. The lighter mood also fit the movie well, as did the acting of Martin Freeman. And I didn't need a Tolkien-Nerd explain the movie to me afterwards, like with Fellowship, where all the made up words gave me a buzzing sensation. Another plus was the minimal time spend having creepy elves on screen. That weirdo Galadriel is having a scene, but at least it's not as tedious as all the slo-mo elf acting of Liv Tyler. And there's no Elijah Wood, so +2 for that alone.

I also find "Helping the dwarves to recapture their mountain from a mighty dragon" a much more personable quest than "Here's a ring that binds other rings and will be used by a powerful wizard to destroy all nice things. And although the ring didn't do him any good the first time around, go ahead and throw it in a lava pit as a precaution. Also, the lava pit is in the evil dude's backyard. Don't ask!"

This will be the first time ever I'm gonna go see a movie a second time in theater.

I wish I could watch the video, bc I really wanted to see the review of it; but it won't load. The annoying advertisement of WOW has no problem, loading. Bummer.

EDIT: I was able to watch a quarter of the video before it freaked out, and stopped. And it wasn't a loading issue. It almost looked at if the video was suddenly corrupted, because it freaks out at the same stop each time.
At about 1:49 into the video it freaks out every time. Am I alone in this? Did something happen?

Holy s**t!, just got back from seeing the movie and it absolutely blew my mind. The whole 3D/48 frames is without a doubt the most awesome thing I have ever seen in a cinema, the smoothness and overall quality in the film is like nothing I have ever seen. Compared to the other lord of the rings movies I think the Hobbit is yet again the beginning of another amazing trilogy.

The movie felt very personal, heartwarming and in some parts tragic because of what we know will happen. Martin Freeman did an amazing job as Bilbo Baggins and the whole scene with him and Gollum is easily going to be in my top ten for most chilling scenes of all time, Seriously why hasn't Andy Serkis received an Oscar yet?

Overall I came away from the movie in awe and can't wait to see the next one. I really hope other directors continue using 48 frame movies and don't write it off as a gimmick because I think it has serious potential to change the way we view movies.

Saw it today, was really good. But note, as Bob stated, the 3 movies aren't just the Hobbit, Jackson improvised a bit, and took from other books. All the better. I don't want to wait a year.. dang it!

Personally, I absolutely loved the movie, it gave Lotr universe a more quaint feel to it that I felt was absent in the trilogy. There's no ...end of the world, war to end all wars grandioso showcasing in this movie, so even though we were getting less, I personally felt like like I got more of what I would want from it.

It was something different, not a matter of being better or worse, and it expanded on the universe that I already cared about.

To compare this to the trilogy I honestly feel would be a bit unfair and uncalled for. So I'm not even going to do that in my thoughts in the slightest.

:)

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here