Author Topic: The Hobbit (Read 15145 times)

Kaos Arcanna · « **on:** December 03, 2012, 03:12:09 AM »

I was dreading the arrival of 11/30, but now that the worst has hit us I'm looking forward to seeing The Hobbit.

Anyone else looking forward to it?

FatherXmas · « **Reply #1 on:** December 03, 2012, 05:49:57 AM »

Yes but still probably not going to see it in 3D or IMax or Imax 3D or any other way they can stick a surcharge on top of the high cost of tickets already.

I'm betting a good number of 3D systems in theaters don't quite work right with the new 48FPS 3D recording.

JWBullfrog · « **Reply #2 on:** December 03, 2012, 05:58:40 AM »

A long time ago, my single most persistant hobby began with the words...

In a hole in the ground, lived a Hobbit...

I probably won't pay out the ludicrous sums of money for 3D or any of that nonsense but I do have every intention of seeing this film.

Tenzhi · « **Reply #3 on:** December 04, 2012, 07:52:54 AM »

I'm looking forward to this movie, but I find it strange that they made one movie per book for The Lord of the Rings and yet they're dividing The Hobbit - which is shorter on its own than any one of the Lord of the Rings books - into three separate movies. Even with adding in the stuff with the Necromancer that seems crazy to me.

There's been a fair amount of speculation between me and my friends about where they'll be dividing the movies. I'm personally hoping the first one ends with the eagles, with the second one opening with the recap to Beorn. The second movie, then, might end at the fall of Smaug.

Kaos Arcanna · « **Reply #4 on:** December 04, 2012, 11:55:31 AM »

My guess is the first movie will end with them arriving at Laketown. The second one will be about Gandalf fighting the Necromancer. The third will deal with Smaug.

pewlagon · « **Reply #5 on:** December 04, 2012, 03:59:25 PM »

The third will deal with Thorin's greed and the battle at the Lonely mountain. Thanks to Rankin a lot of people forget that after Smaug is actually fairly detailed and leads to a rather epic fight. Thank goodness Mr. Jackson wanted to see Beorn wae into that battle as much as the rest of us else he might have been written out of the movie like he was the cartoon.

Mental Maden · « **Reply #6 on:** December 04, 2012, 10:24:05 PM »

3D makes me feel like I have a red hot ice pick inserted into an eyeball and sticking out the back of my head.

Really looking forward to this though.

Portland Underground · « **Reply #7 on:** December 05, 2012, 07:09:38 PM »

I am so looking forward to it! Doing the midnight showing. I'm also hoping for either a Star Trek or new Iron Man trailer. Oh...and a Man of Steel!

Ahhhhhh, holiday nerdtastic nerdawesomeness.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #8 on:** December 05, 2012, 07:41:01 PM »

This article highlights the perceived problems with the new 48fps version.

Have we've been conditioned on a subconscious level to separate "quality" by frame rate? Most of the negative comments deal with how it 48fps makes it look like a hidef TV program or home video. It makes the film look too real so the viewer can't escape into the fantasy where the slower 24fps allows the viewer to suspend disbelief easier. Or it's just the bunch of movie snobs who feel this way and the masses won't even notice? We'll see.

fdbryant3 · « **Reply #9 on:** December 06, 2012, 01:45:52 AM »

I'm betting that the first film will end shortly after Bilbo's encounter with Gollum. The second film will end after the defeat of Smaug and the siege of the Lonely Mountain. The third film will cover the Battle of the Five Armies plus whatever bridge they will be building to the Lord of the Ring.

Vasarto · « **Reply #10 on:** December 06, 2012, 05:16:57 AM »

I am really looking forward to watching this in theaters. Dunno when I am gonna go see it though.

Maressa · « **Reply #11 on:** December 14, 2012, 12:41:58 AM »

So....

I just saw the movie. I promise, I won't spoil anything for a few days at least. I'm not a fan of 3d in movies but I have to say it was really well done. No cheesy gimmicks of things popping out of the screen. Instead it gave the movie a depth. It made it feel more like you were actually there in New Zealand...I mean Middle Earth. I did get a small headache, especially during fighting scenes. But it wasn't all that bad really.

I will say, that I didn't enjoy it. I walked out feeling the most disappointed in seeing a movie that I ever have. I'm not a fan of the books, I've not read any of the Lord of the Rings books. I did enjoy the movies. But this movie to me had a lot of problems. As promised I won't give away plot or even talk about my issues with the movie in relation to anything but the cinematography.

90% of the time it felt like I was watching a cheap, poorly done documentary that insisted on being "edgy and cool" by having 3d CG. It's really the only way I can think of to describe it. 48fps was the wrong way to go.

Other than that though, I can't wait to see what other people think of the movie. But if the theater attendant was anything to go off...I don't think it will get many favorable reviews.

Tenzhi · « **Reply #12 on:** December 14, 2012, 04:37:53 AM »

I don't think you need to worry too much about spoilers. This is a 70+ year old, widely read story.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #13 on:** December 14, 2012, 09:17:38 AM »

Just got back from my midnight showing. Simple 2D. It seems that if you went all out with the IMAX 3D or HFR 3D, you got a nifty poster at the door.

On one level, it feels like (and I'll going to get flack about this description) Peter Jackson's Phantom Menace. Yes The Hobbit is a children's story so I can see why a times it went for the cheap tween/pre-tween gag. On another level it feels like a reunion show (Return to Middle Earth). Look it's old Bilbo and Frodo. Look it Elron, Galadriel and Saruman. Then there's the sight seeing tour of some of the old haunts (look it's Rivendell ... shh, it's only a model). Toss in twenty minutes of far shots of real people walking on real landscapes and CGI people walking on CGI landscapes another twenty minutes of history lessons, the addition of The Doctor # 7 ... OK Radagast the Brown sequence with a hedgehog, well the movie drags at places. However the last half an hour or so is very exciting and somewhat intense for young ones.

Then you have the cast of Dwarves. Sorry as hard as I try it's to easy to remember some of them by only their signature characteristic. The Leader Thorin, the youngest one, the one with the fluffy white beard, the deaf one, the bowman, the bald one, the fat one , etc. Too many names, too much alike. At least with the 9 in LotR there was enough uniqueness to remember everyone, plus they were introduced at a much slower pace.

The movie ends BTW just after the eagles rescues everyone from the orcs.

Overall it was an OK film. Even though some of the humor I feel is directed at tweens and pre-tweens, the orc sequences are vary violent and potentially very scary for the young. That and the run time of 2 hours 40 minutes excluding the end credits isn't for the young set either.

Tenzhi · « **Reply #14 on:** December 14, 2012, 09:35:05 AM »

Quote from: FatherXmas on December 14, 2012, 09:17:38 AM

Then you have the cast of Dwarves. Sorry as hard as I try it's to easy to remember some of them by only their signature characteristic. The Leader Thorin, the youngest one, the one with the fluffy white beard, the deaf one, the bowman, the bald one, the fat one , etc. Too many names, too much alike. At least with the 9 in LotR there was enough uniqueness to remember everyone, plus they were introduced at a much slower pace.

This makes me wonder if you've read the book, as the dwarves are distinguishable in much the same manner therein, with perhaps the addition of variously coloured hoods to help out.

Off the top of my head, the names I can remember are: Thorin, Oin, Gloin, Bifur, Bofur, Bombur, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, and Kili... which leaves me three dwarves shy. I suppose that's not bad for having not read the book in roughly 10 years (alas, I fell out of the habit of reading the Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings at least once a year).

Hyperstrike · « **Reply #15 on:** December 14, 2012, 10:21:35 AM »

Okay. Went and saw it this morning in the high framerate 3D.

The HF version DOES have a different visual quality to it. Until I see it again in its regular format, I won't really be able to draw a comparison.

I will say, the 3D in the HF version was VERY unobtrusive No "and now THREE DEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!" moments that break up the flow of the film. This is the first 3D show I've ever walked out of without a headache.

There's some expansion (and incorporation of ancillary material) to stretch the film. And doing so does remove some of the mystery of just who some of these people are. However, it does help people who aren't necessarily steeped in the lore of Middle Earth. That and a straight retelling of the story would have resulted in a single movie. Which probably wouldn't have had the leisure of time to do the story justice.

Spoiler for Hidden:

FatherXmas · « **Reply #16 on:** December 14, 2012, 10:23:28 AM »

1) It's been a long, long time since I read the book.

B) A movie goer shouldn't have too.

III) The movie at times makes it seem that Gandalf has a problem putting their names to their faces.

Plus you are talking to the guy who remembers the primary cast names on Revolution as Uncle Scrapper, Katniss Clone, Google and (the somewhat lengthy) "we couldn't get Michelle Rodriguez for this part". :p

Tenzhi · « **Reply #17 on:** December 14, 2012, 01:52:50 PM »

Quote from: FatherXmas on December 14, 2012, 10:23:28 AM

1) It's been a long, long time since I read the book.

B) A movie goer shouldn't have too.

Reading the book wouldn't necessarily help one keep them sorted any better, I was saying that they're equally confussable in the book. And that the book thus makes ample use of those traits you mention to help tell them apart. If that's how you're keeping up with them in the movie it is a positive trait.

FatherXmas · « **Reply #18 on:** December 14, 2012, 06:28:29 PM »

Ah, my bad.

Vasarto · « **Reply #19 on:** December 14, 2012, 08:42:38 PM »

I kinda want to go see it but I do not have the money for it right now.

Tubbius · « **Reply #20 on:** December 14, 2012, 11:32:10 PM »

Going to see it with a lot of the folks from the local comic shop tomorrow night.

Hope to enjoy it!

And stopping at the eagles makes sense. The soundtrack cds seem to imply their getting to the edge of the woods where the spiders are.

houtex · « **Reply #21 on:** December 15, 2012, 01:55:16 AM »

I'm just replyin' to the 'are you gonna go?!' bits. Don't mind me...

---
I didn't watch the LOTR series in the movies, as I missed the first one, so I wound up with the Extended Director Cut 4 disc books, of which two discs were the movie. After I got the first one as a present, I intentionally did NOT go see the other two. When I had them all Gathered, I watched the 15 hours of LOTR and I tell you, it is the only way to watch them, ya ask me. They were glorious, and I had an uninterrupted 'view' of the whole thing.

I also somehow didn't get any spoilers for them, and I'm not gonna now, I hope. I had read The Hobbit, Fellowship, and halfway through the Two Towers. Never read the Return of the King. So I was completely unaware how it would go.

I therefore will abstain from these two in the theatres (and I am completely disinterested in 3D movies) and await both Hobbit EDC4D books, and watch what I'm sure is another 10 hours of win.

/Y'all have fun with watchin' them. La la la, can't hear you *fingers in ears...*

Samuraiko · « **Reply #22 on:** December 15, 2012, 07:55:20 AM »

Saw it (regular, not 3d, IMAX, or 48fps) and enjoyed it immensely. (Saw it with two other Hobbit/LOTR enthusiasts.)

I suppose it really is a matter of "Your Mileage May Vary", but I didn't have any problems with it. I never felt like it dragged (I can ALWAYS tell when that happens because that is when John, Chris, and I start snarking about the film), and I personally didn't have a problem with what else went in. So far, so good, inasmuch as my opinion counts for anything.

Michelle
aka
Samuraiko/Dark_Respite

Kaos Arcanna · « **Reply #23 on:** December 15, 2012, 11:36:37 PM »

I really enjoyed it myself. Did not feel long at all.

pewlagon · « **Reply #24 on:** December 16, 2012, 01:44:21 AM »

As a huge Tolkein fan I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and was pleased I predicted the cutoff point. Now this is coming from someone who also listened to the old KUSC radio dramatization. The movie was great, but I did go to see it with someone who detests the Lord of The Rings and wouldn't shut up. Had him pay for my second viewing it was so bad with him. HINT: Don't be that guy. If you're going in hyper critical based on a rivalry with another franchise then don't go see a movie with those that are excited about it.

Mental Maden · « **Reply #25 on:** December 17, 2012, 06:53:24 PM »

Saw it (2D) on Friday and enjoyed it. Probably my 4th favorite of them so far, it very well could end up climbing the list over time.

I enjoyed the extra bits they threw in. As a reader of the series (Hobbit and LOTR), I can see where they were going with them. As a viewer I will admit the beginning did drag a little when it got exposition heavy. But it was enjoyable enough.

My only real "problem" with it was what I have a problem with a lot of big budget movies (especially sequals, prequals and other follow ups to successful franchises): the desire to go one step bigger. The movie I saw in my head when reading was so much smaller than the visuals that Jackson put on the screen. The Goblin King sequence is the prime example. It was just too over the top. Too many enemies and some of the weakest CGI (and overly obvious bad physics) in the franchise. I'm afraid by the end of this trilogy it's going to dwarf (hehe) the action of the LOTR movies and that as a whole will come off odd to me. I get all the reasons why it is this way, especially given that the LOTR came first in the theaters, I just personally wished Jackson would have pulled back a little.

For those unfamiliar with my personal tastes, this is also my problem with The Dark Knight. What could have been a fantastic thriller involving the Ledger Joker was ruined (in my opinion) with the need to make the movie "bigger" than Batman Begins. And so we got Bat Cellphone radar for some "cool" action sequences that took away what made the movie great. Go to the Dark Knight Rises and you really see what I'm talking about. One upmanship made an overly bloated movie that didn't work.

Sometimes less really is more. But it's only a minor nitpick and one of personal preference and probably not possible in the high pressure world of big budget Hollywood. I enjoyed it, will buy it on DVD and definitely watch it again.

Tenzhi · « **Reply #26 on:** December 22, 2012, 07:28:55 PM »

Doctor Who in a sled puled by rabbits. That is all.

Aggelakis · « **Reply #27 on:** December 22, 2012, 09:36:08 PM »

Saw it last night at butt o'clock. The previews blew my eardrums out (SO LOUD!!!) so the first ten to fifteen minutes are kind of a blur because I was recovering my hearing. After that, I thoroughly enjoyed myself and ended up with a bit of a crush on Thorin. :p

Hyperstrike · « **Reply #28 on:** December 23, 2012, 02:42:29 AM »

Quote from: Mental Maden on December 17, 2012, 06:53:24 PM

I'm afraid by the end of this trilogy it's going to dwarf (hehe) the action of the LOTR movies and that as a whole will come off odd to me.

Uhm. Not to put TOO fine a point on it (since there's technically too), BUUUUT:

Spoiler for Hidden:

Mental Maden · « **Reply #29 on:** December 23, 2012, 07:09:04 AM »

Quote from: Hyperstrike on December 23, 2012, 02:42:29 AM

Uhm. Not to put TOO fine a point on it (since there's technically too), BUUUUT:

Spoiler for Hidden:
Uhm. BIG FRACKING DRAGON DIES!

Also.

The Battle of FIVE FRACKIN ARMIES!

No no, I understand that. But LOTR is about a threat to the entire world. So dragon or not, the Hobbit shouldn't come off "bigger". That's all I'm saying.

Victoria Victrix · « **Reply #30 on:** December 23, 2012, 07:34:21 AM »

Well we were very much looking forward to this because Larry (husband) is partly responsible for the Great Eagles.

You see, there are no eagles in New Zealand, not even in zoos. There are no Golden Eagles in Australia, not even in zoos. So WETA had no references.

We found this out when we were the Guests of Honor to the New Zealand national SF Convention when Lord of the Rings was in poss-and-CG mode, and we got a tour of WETA conducted by Richard Taylor himself (which was only supposed to be 30 minutes until he realized how much of this stuff we "got", how much we already knew about effects...and how much we loved old cars). We got into the CG studio and to the artist responsible for the Great Eagles and Larry asked him what he was using as a reference, and he got this panicked look on his face....whereupon we volunteered that we know a Cherokee Elder who stores her stuffed Golden Eagle (sent to her by the BIA Feather Bank) in Larry's studio, so we had a reference right there.

Short story and about 40g of hi-res photos later, you had the Great Eagles in LotR.

Fast forward to about a year ago, and Larry gets an email from Gino at WETA. Seems they had somehow deleted the archive and anyway, they were working in higher res now. Would he be willing to reshoot?

Not only did we, but we found one of the two falconers in Oklahoma who flies a Golden, and got multi-cam hi res video from multiple angles, but MOSTLY the view you will never get in documentaries of birds of prey--from the talon section looking up. "Hobbit's and dwarf eye view," so to speak.

So what you will be watching are "Tweetie" (the stuffed bird) and "Mina" (the live one). We should be getting our crew hats and other swag any day now.

Tenzhi · « **Reply #31 on:** December 23, 2012, 10:19:32 AM »

Quote from: Mental Maden on December 23, 2012, 07:09:04 AM

No no, I understand that. But LOTR is about a threat to the entire world. So dragon or not, the Hobbit shouldn't come off "bigger". That's all I'm saying.

Well, so far it's not really "bigger" (save, perhaps, in overall physical size of enemies encountered). It has the feel of an adventure rather than an epic.

Atlantea · « **Reply #32 on:** December 23, 2012, 11:47:17 AM »

Quote from: Victoria Victrix on December 23, 2012, 07:34:21 AM

Well we were very much looking forward to this because Larry (husband) is partly responsible for the Great Eagles.

You see, there are no eagles in New Zealand, not even in zoos. There are no Golden Eagles in Australia, not even in zoos. So WETA had no references.

We found this out when we were the Guests of Honor to the New Zealand national SF Convention when Lord of the Rings was in poss-and-CG mode, and we got a tour of WETA conducted by Richard Taylor himself (which was only supposed to be 30 minutes until he realized how much of this stuff we "got", how much we already knew about effects...and how much we loved old cars). We got into the CG studio and to the artist responsible for the Great Eagles and Larry asked him what he was using as a reference, and he got this panicked look on his face....whereupon we volunteered that we know a Cherokee Elder who stores her stuffed Golden Eagle (sent to her by the BIA Feather Bank) in Larry's studio, so we had a reference right there.

Short story and about 40g of hi-res photos later, you had the Great Eagles in LotR.

Fast forward to about a year ago, and Larry gets an email from Gino at WETA. Seems they had somehow deleted the archive and anyway, they were working in higher res now. Would he be willing to reshoot?

Not only did we, but we found one of the two falconers in Oklahoma who flies a Golden, and got multi-cam hi res video from multiple angles, but MOSTLY the view you will never get in documentaries of birds of prey--from the talon section looking up. "Hobbit's and dwarf eye view," so to speak.

So what you will be watching are "Tweetie" (the stuffed bird) and "Mina" (the live one). We should be getting our crew hats and other swag any day now.

WOW!!! AWESOME!

Hyperstrike · « **Reply #33 on:** December 23, 2012, 09:54:24 PM »

Quote from: Victoria Victrix on December 23, 2012, 07:34:21 AM

Well we were very much looking forward to this because Larry (husband) is partly responsible for the Great Eagles.

You see, there are no eagles in New Zealand, not even in zoos. There are no Golden Eagles in Australia, not even in zoos. So WETA had no references.

We found this out when we were the Guests of Honor to the New Zealand national SF Convention when Lord of the Rings was in poss-and-CG mode, and we got a tour of WETA conducted by Richard Taylor himself (which was only supposed to be 30 minutes until he realized how much of this stuff we "got", how much we already knew about effects...and how much we loved old cars). We got into the CG studio and to the artist responsible for the Great Eagles and Larry asked him what he was using as a reference, and he got this panicked look on his face....whereupon we volunteered that we know a Cherokee Elder who stores her stuffed Golden Eagle (sent to her by the BIA Feather Bank) in Larry's studio, so we had a reference right there.

Short story and about 40g of hi-res photos later, you had the Great Eagles in LotR.

Fast forward to about a year ago, and Larry gets an email from Gino at WETA. Seems they had somehow deleted the archive and anyway, they were working in higher res now. Would he be willing to reshoot?

Not only did we, but we found one of the two falconers in Oklahoma who flies a Golden, and got multi-cam hi res video from multiple angles, but MOSTLY the view you will never get in documentaries of birds of prey--from the talon section looking up. "Hobbit's and dwarf eye view," so to speak.

So what you will be watching are "Tweetie" (the stuffed bird) and "Mina" (the live one). We should be getting our crew hats and other swag any day now.

Tolkien-nerd Hyper is SO JEALOUS!

Kaos Arcanna · « **Reply #34 on:** December 23, 2012, 10:33:02 PM »

*is all impressed!*

Mental Maden · « **Reply #35 on:** December 23, 2012, 11:41:49 PM »

Quote from: Tenzhi on December 23, 2012, 10:19:32 AM

Well, so far it's not really "bigger" (save, perhaps, in overall physical size of enemies encountered). It has the feel of an adventure rather than an epic.

Personally I pictured all the stuff shown in the Hobbit so far on a much much smaller scale. The overly used (and bad) CGI + physics and size of the battle with the Goblin King was too big in my opinion.

Victoria Victrix · « **Reply #36 on:** December 24, 2012, 01:58:29 AM »

Bear in mind that The Hobbit was written as a children's story--literally by Tolkien for his kids. LotR was written as serious adult mythic literature, for other literary professionals (his fellow academics and writers, the Inklings). In order to NOT make a Rankin/Bass children's piece, Jackson has opted to do the adult version of the kid's story. In doing so, he's going to annoy-to-enrage some people. Personally, even without the Great Eagle connection, I like it. There are a lot of callbacks to the first trilogy. There's a lot of "and this was going on offscreen in the book" stuff that I also like. I adore seeing more of Radagast the Brown, who is my favorite among the Wizards (and a SERIOUS callback to the "bravery is found more in the small and quiet than the Great and Imposing" theme in the books and the first trilogy).

Tenzhi · « **Reply #37 on:** December 24, 2012, 04:52:49 AM »

Quote from: Mental Maden on December 23, 2012, 11:41:49 PM

Personally I pictured all the stuff shown in the Hobbit so far on a much much smaller scale. The overly used (and bad) CGI + physics and size of the battle with the Goblin King was too big in my opinion.

I think the Goblin King himself was too big, but the fight itself was okay (and I didn't have a problem with any of the CGI). It was smaller than the Moria swarm, at least. My main issue with it - a matter of scale for me, too, which was undoubtedly changed for ease of filming - is that I always pictured it happening in dark claustrophobic tunnels rather than a huge well-lit cavern with catwalks all over. I enjoyed the sequence of events as presented, though. And it bothered me less than the elves being at Helm's Deep or the shenanigans with Faramir or those ridiculous stone giants (I think that would have worked better as Fili and Kili having more fun with Bilbo over some falling rocks, but that's just me).

Mental Maden · « **Reply #38 on:** December 24, 2012, 06:36:03 AM »

Quote from: Tenzhi on December 24, 2012, 04:52:49 AM

I- is that I always pictured it happening in dark claustrophobic tunnels rather than a huge well-lit cavern with catwalks all over.

Agreed with that. Exactly what I was getting at.

And don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie. I'll own it. I'll watch it many times over the years. I'm just giving my nitpicks.

Tenzhi · « **Reply #39 on:** December 24, 2012, 06:48:18 AM »

Quote from: Mental Maden on December 24, 2012, 06:36:03 AM

And don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie. I'll own it. I'll watch it many times over the years. I'm just giving my nitpicks.

Indeed. I did the same with the Lord of the Rings movies. I enjoy them overall (particularly the extended editions), but there are some things in them (or not in them, as the case may be) that bugged me.

Oh, and I gotta say that the 3D seemed slightly wonky to me. There were several occasions where it seemed out of focus in the parts of the screen I was focused on - particularly with moving/falling shots. It wasn't extremely bad, but I was left with a slight headache and 3D doesn't usually bother me.

Mental Maden · « **Reply #40 on:** December 24, 2012, 07:47:24 AM »

The biggest travesty in the LOTR movies was not including the Scouring of the Shire. In my opinion it's the core.....the keystone plot point of the story.

News:

Author Topic: The Hobbit (Read 15145 times)