The Hobbit

I disagree the story should be told properly and if one can not concentrate for that length of time (and lets face it many can't conce... - er, what was I saying. ??) then buy the DVD and watch it in 45 minute segments, it will make complete sense then.
 
It COULD be just one movie, but then it'd be even further from the books than ever. I agree they should pander somewhat to the people who have read the novels, but the constrains of film making mean even in 9 hours you cannot tell the whole story, you certainly couldnt fit all the deleted parts in the 12 hours of the extended version of LOTR, and there's a lot of sections cut out from the book.

The more LOTR movie fluff there is the better i say, the rights to the rest of the works aren't given up by the family so this is about all we get theater wise, so i welcome more, (of course, not at the expense of story telling).
 
The Tolkien heirs have been a bit of a spoilsport anyway. First they were reluctant towards the LOTR movies, say that they didn't do the work of J.R.R. Tolkien justice. Then - as more and more money came pouring in - they suddenly discovered, that it isn't such a good idea anyway and sued New Line Cinema for a bigger piece of the cake. And then the legal fight over The Hobbit.

Seriously, though: Every author in the world would be happy, if their books were put to film in such a manner. J.K. Rowling for example has completely detached herself from the movies - which is probably best, because otherwise she would go nuts about what film makers did to her novels.

And if I were Stephen King, I'd ask Peter Jackson to maybe take look at The Dark Tower... just in case.
 
Last edited:
It would be really cool if they put together all of the LoTR films(with extended/deleted scenes) into a DVD set segmented into ~1hr "episodes". That way people would be able to see everything in a more digestible manner, which would also mean people like me would finally be able to get people like my girlfriend to watch it.
 
I think it should be the other way around. I saw it yesterday and they had a 15 minute break after 90 minutes, which totally ruined the pacing and immersion. At least they did it at the end of a scene. I've heard stories of movies being paused in the middle of a sentence and, even worse, resumed at the start of the next scene so you have no idea WTF you missed. o_O
 
Well, it's not as though you wouldn't be able to just sit and watch all of it straight through. I imagine it would be something where, while there are those little recap things, they're only used if you jump to an episode, but they're skipped if you continue on from one to the next. I know part of the reason is just that she isn't all that interested, but "I don't think I could stay awake for any 3 hour movie" is used a lot, and there's no way she's the only person that says this. If Game of Thrones had come out as a series of huge, epic movies, I doubt we would've seen it, but instead it's one of our favorite shows(being topped only by Doctor Who).
 
Just saw the regular 2D version. It was okay...

However, not being a huge fan of LOTR (although I have seen each movie a couple of times), I didn't think it was anything special. Good, captivating story, a bit too long at times. You say, that's how it's in the book? Okay, well in that case I demand they make Atlas Shrugged in 10 parts of 3 hours each in order to retell the story in full.

Some scenes could have been cut a lot shorter.

Also, sort of a stupid question:

What was the point of the stone giants? Why the hell were they fighting against each other, and how the hell did they decide to do that when the heroes are climbing the pass? Or was it done just to justify using 3D technology.
 
Watched it today, absolutely loved the movie itself. I made it my first 3D movie and I was sorely disappointed. First of all, I can't stand the 48fps look. It just looks "off" to me. It doesn't have that movie quality. Everything looks like it's sped up.
The 3D itself was pretty cool but I didn't feel it added that much to the movie. My eyes spent most of the time just trying to focus properly and I ended up with a headache by the end of the 3 hours we spent there. Needless to say, I will be seeing part II and III in good ol' traditional 2D, 24fps. Not my cuppa tea.
 
Strange, because I get a bit dizzy with 24 fps, because the 3D effects are shaking widely and camera pans are jerky.

But it is known, that some people react sensitive to 3D. As some people get seasick in 1st person ego shooter games. I suppose it's all up to differences in people :)

I'm glad I could enjoy The Hobbit in 48 fps. Yes, the look is strange at first, so clear, so crisp, so real. Like a window into Middle Earth. But that's only because we are used to grainy, flickering 2D movies as standard.
 
Are they doing non 3D 48fps anywhere? will it be anything better than 24 in a non 3D environment?
 
It took me about a hour to get used to the 48 FPS but after I did it got much easier to follow.
 
I've seen it last night in 3D HFR or 48fps. It does look a bit strange for a while, but I got used to it. The action scenes, especially battles with flyovers definitely benefit from the higher frame rate as it diminished motion blur and you can clearly see what is going on. That being said, it looks weird for interior shots and close-ups of actors. I think the filmmakers will have to adjust they way they film these kinds of scenes in 48fps, especially the "shaky-cam" action shots look very bad in 48fps. So for me, it doesn't look worse, it is just different and in a lot of cases much better than the good old 24fps even if that offers a more "cinematic" look.

With regards to the film itself, I liked it, but it felt too much like milking the cow to its last drop. I read Hobbit as a book as well as the Lord of the Rings books a long time ago, well before filming of the first LoTR movie started. I think they should have made the Hobbit into two movies instead of three. That way they would have used as much source material as possible, but it would improve pacing of the overall story. The story didn't advance much in this first movie and there's still a ton of stuff that needs to happen. For example the beginning scenes at Bilbo's house took way too long, while I appreciate that they incorporated Tolkien's songs from the book, the whole thing could have been wrapped up in 10 or 15 minutes instead of an hour.
 
_HighVoltage_ said:
Also, sort of a stupid question:

What was the point of the stone giants? Why the hell were they fighting against each other, and how the hell did they decide to do that when the heroes are climbing the pass? Or was it done just to justify using 3D technology.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure it's in the book?
 
The only problems I had were with the troll fight, which somehow looked faker in the higher frame rate, and the matte painting of Rivendell, which was so obviously a matte painting. Other than that I enjoyed it enough to want to see the next two.
 
Going to see it again in 2D tomorrow, this time with my parents. They both wear glasses and can't really stand 3D.
 
I have a coworker who got an eye removed 6 months ago...guess which "D" she went to go see?
 
Maybe it's worse if you have far sight (disclaimer: I don't wear glasses, so I don't really know)? My dad is short sighted and told me he had no issues watching the 3D. Heck, he even claimed that it felt easier than normal to see the screen in 3D...
 
I wear glasses and have no problem with 3D. However, I do tend to put on my contacts for the occasion, since wearing 2 pairs of glasses at once is dorky and uncomfortable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top