The Hobbit...are you going to see it?

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by Qixote (10808 posts) -

Watched it this afternoon, HFR version. I loved it and I left so confused about all the harsh criticisms it's been getting. It's pretty much all consistent with what we would expect, except with the story of The Hobbit instead of LotR. Just remember they are different stories. But all the expected elements are there. The HFR I hardly noticed; didn't seem much different than any other decent 3D movie I have seen in recent years. The HFR definitely does not take anything away or "cheapen" the visuals; those are from unfounded criticisms. And while it is another long Jackson movie, once again it doesn't feel it. The pacing is fine. To me PJ hit all the marks and got the job done.

I never say this, but I will now. Just ignore the critics. I don't know what they were smoking when they watched it. Or perhaps they were all cranky for staying up so late to see the midnight viewing.

#102 Posted by brucewayne69 (2864 posts) -
Someone please help meh!
#103 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

since i didnt enjoy both tdkr and skyfall, i probably going to give this a miss

TheShadowLord07
What the hell do you like then?
#104 Posted by konvikt_17 (22378 posts) -

Everybody who hasn't seen this yet, don't look! [...] It's so EPIC! Please!brucewayne69

use spoiler tags to hide spoilers.

[*spoiler] text here [*/spoiler]

just remove the asterisks(*)

#105 Posted by Lief_Ericson (7082 posts) -
[QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

since i didnt enjoy both tdkr and skyfall, i probably going to give this a miss

mitu123
What the hell do you like then?

Seriously, do you hate good cinema?
#106 Posted by VendettaRed07 (14012 posts) -

[QUOTE="mitu123"][QUOTE="TheShadowLord07"]

since i didnt enjoy both tdkr and skyfall, i probably going to give this a miss

Lief_Ericson

What the hell do you like then?

Seriously, do you hate good cinema?

I dunno, Skyfall was pretty good but I can understand not liking TDKR

#107 Posted by Postal_Guy (2643 posts) -

Just came back from it.

I loved it, it kinda got off to a slow start but after that it was amazing

#108 Posted by brucewayne69 (2864 posts) -
Help me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#109 Posted by psdsoldier25 (242 posts) -

Can not wait to see The Hobbit. I am a pretty big fan but my step-father is a huge fan. He has every tolkein book out there. His birthday was coming up so i thought i would treat him to the movie....

#110 Posted by Ernesto_basic (2123 posts) -

I'm looking forward to seeing it sometime soon. Out of morbid curiosity, I'm leaning towards seeing the 48fps (rather than the traditional 28fps) version to see what a lot of people are complaining about (there are many reports of it looking like a BBC soap opera) - something I've noticed in movies that run on TVs that run at higher frame rates (they just look... fake and as if you're watching the "making-of," rather than the actual theatrical release of the movie).

#111 Posted by Rattlesnake_8 (18430 posts) -
I'll watch it when its out at the video store or when its on tv.. not in a rush to see it, and even if I was I don't have time to go to the cinemas these days.
#112 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -
I'm about to see the HFR 3D version.
#113 Posted by klusps (10385 posts) -

I just saw it in HFR 48 frames in 3D and I thought the movie was incredibl but one of the huge negative is diffidently the 48 frames which didn't add anything special to the movie. There were some scenes in the movie that looked awkward, unnatural, and it seems like the characters are being fast forward. Although I forgot about the 48 frames about half way through the movie I stillit find it to be really distracting and it totally breaks the immersion factor of the movie. I recommend seeing it in 24 frames but if you're really curios about watching in 48 frames then go ahead. I might re-watch it in 24 frames and despite me not liking 3D, the 3D honestly didn't bothered me in the movie.

The other negative about the movie is the heavy use of CGI, especially with the orcs and goblins. I understand using CGI on scenes for huge number of people on screen but there were some scenes where I thought they could've achieved greater results with an actor with make-up and costume on. Many of the enemies movie felt fake, platic, unrealistic, and in my head I knew I was clearly looking at a CGI character. Despite this, the CGI for Gollum actually looked breathtakingly real and there were still a lot of real scenery, props, and stages.

Overall I thought the acting for all the dwarves were all really good, I didn't find an issue with the pacing like some critics claimed, and the story felt a little bit more light hearted which isn't a bad thing. All the orcs seemed a little bit more "goofy", the movie is little bit more children friendly but despite that the movie still has some disturbing imagery involving decapitation, gruesome battle scenes, and some haunting imagery. I will scale this maybe a little bit lower or maybe equal to the Two Towers and I personally think I would've enjoy it more if I saw it in 24 frames.

#114 Posted by fueled-system (6358 posts) -
I loved the movie, but they really could of probably cut 20 minutes of the first hour, it just felt dull and drawn out at times. Other then that great movie
#115 Posted by PonchoTaco (2772 posts) -
I just got back from the movie. Very good! Not as epic as LOTR, but neither was the book.
#116 Posted by aaronmullan (33413 posts) -
I don't get the criticisms at all. 48 fps is ****ing brilliant. I literally couldn't find a single flaw throughout the film. Pretty sure it's the best movie I've seen this year. Haters legit gonna hate.
#117 Posted by waterproof9 (403 posts) -

Yes I want to go see this movie. I really enjoyed LOTR. Hope this is not a bust.

#118 Posted by MacBoomStick (1822 posts) -

I saw it a second time in 24 fps instead of 48fps. I can say that the 48 fps is sooooo much better. There are lots of fast moving scenes and it makes things so much smoother. One thing I can think of is when arrows fly at the screen you can actually see them in 48 fps and when the dwarf swings the stick above his head and hits a bunch of goblins with it you can actually see the stick instead of it being a blur. The only downside to 48 fps is some deliberate movements that characters do like Bilbo sucking on his pipe and when he is walking around funny after the dwarves leave, in those moments it looks fastforeward.

#119 Posted by PhazonBlazer (11994 posts) -

I don't think my theatre even offered a 48 fps version.

#120 Posted by Marksman2200 (23037 posts) -
I've heard conflicting reviews regarding the movie. Some are good, some are bad. I'm going to wait to hear from a few friends first before going to see the movie personally.
#121 Posted by MetroidPrimePwn (12399 posts) -

Not a fan of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy or Peter Jackson's movies in general, so even though I liked the book I'm not going to see it.

Hope everyone who's excited for it enjoys it. :)

#122 Posted by SAGE_OF_FIRE (15590 posts) -
It really feels it's length.
#123 Posted by GameGuy642003 (1769 posts) -
HECK YA im gonna see it. It's gonna be awwwwesooomee
#124 Posted by soulless4now (41382 posts) -

I keep trying to forget that movie exists.

#125 Posted by Laihendi (5834 posts) -

The most disappointing movie I have ever seen. More disappointing than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. More disappointing than Episode I even. I am absolutely disgusted. My reactions while watching this movie were denial, followed by anger, and finally sadness. The story was completely butchered. The orcs and trolls looked fake. The acting from whoever did the orc king was terrible. His was easily the worst performance I've seen in a major movie in years. Not even remotely convincing. Most of the movie felt like a stupid cartoon, and those who wrote the screenplay should be ashamed.

The dialogue was a bunch of sentimental kitsch. The business with Azog and Thorin had no business in this movie. It contributed nothing and distracted from the purpose of the journey. All it added was kitsch as well, thinly veiled as drama and heroism. I am stunned by how less realistic the orcs looked in this movie than in LOTR. It's like Jackson is another George Lucas, and decided CGI is the answer to everything. And the decision to depict Radagast as a blithering idiot is a disgrace. They completely soiled that character. I cannot even express how disgusted I am.

The movie was scattered with contrived superficial similarities to try to tie it in with the LOTR movies, such as the ring falling on Bilbo's finger. This movie is garbage compared to those. It is an insult to their legacy. And really contrivance and kitsch are the two pillars that this movie is built on. It's just one convenient coincidence after another in an attempt to keep the plot going. It's as if Jackson never even considered the possibility that the plot was fine in the book and didn't need him screwing it up with pointless fight scenes and pathetic attempts at creating drama/conflict.

And the prologue was just stupid. It was like something out of a mediocre video game. I'd say the worst line was when Bilbo blabbered about coming back out of sympathy for the dwarves having no home. What a joke. Bilbo didn't care about that at all in the book.

It's astounding that the people making these movies had the audacity to follow Return of the King, possibly the greatest film of all time, with this travesty after 9 years of anticipation. I am still going to watch it again at least 3 more times over winter break, but frankly that is more to see Elijah Wood than anything else. I have no complaints with the movie as it relates to him.

#126 Posted by Meeeper282 (1597 posts) -

skyfall crushes this movie in everyway

Box office sales

reviews

And it's watchable.

#127 Posted by poptart (6951 posts) -

SH!T MY PANTS YES.

#128 Posted by arlen2411 (40 posts) -
Of course!
#129 Posted by sune_Gem (12463 posts) -

The most disappointing movie I have ever seen. More disappointing than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. More disappointing than Episode I even. I am absolutely disgusted. My reactions while watching this movie were denial, followed by anger, and finally sadness. The story was completely butchered. The orcs and trolls looked fake. The acting from whoever did the orc king was terrible. His was easily the worst performance I've seen in a major movie in years. Not even remotely convincing. Most of the movie felt like a stupid cartoon, and those who wrote the screenplay should be ashamed.

The dialogue was a bunch of sentimental kitsch. The business with Azog and Thorin had no business in this movie. It contributed nothing and distracted from the purpose of the journey. All it added was kitsch as well, thinly veiled as drama and heroism. I am stunned by how less realistic the orcs looked in this movie than in LOTR. It's like Jackson is another George Lucas, and decided CGI is the answer to everything. And the decision to depict Radagast as a blithering idiot is a disgrace. They completely soiled that character. I cannot even express how disgusted I am.

The movie was scattered with contrived superficial similarities to try to tie it in with the LOTR movies, such as the ring falling on Bilbo's finger. This movie is garbage compared to those. It is an insult to their legacy. And really contrivance and kitsch are the two pillars that this movie is built on. It's just one convenient coincidence after another in an attempt to keep the plot going. It's as if Jackson never even considered the possibility that the plot was fine in the book and didn't need him screwing it up with pointless fight scenes and pathetic attempts at creating drama/conflict.

And the prologue was just stupid. It was like something out of a mediocre video game. I'd say the worst line was when Bilbo blabbered about coming back out of sympathy for the dwarves having no home. What a joke. Bilbo didn't care about that at all in the book.

It's astounding that the people making these movies had the audacity to follow Return of the King, possibly the greatest film of all time, with this travesty after 9 years of anticipation. I am still going to watch it again at least 3 more times over winter break, but frankly that is more to see Elijah Wood than anything else. I have no complaints with the movie as it relates to him.

Laihendi

Ouch...

Any hope for the sequels?

#130 Posted by brucewayne69 (2864 posts) -
Someone help me! Please, what is it?
#131 Posted by dodgerblue13 (20845 posts) -
Laihendi
***SPOILERS*** ***You've been warned*** It's not as though the novel's dialogue had no sentiment. Why can't Jackson accentuate Thorin's struggle to highlight his importance? It made Thorin far more personable than did the book, and the purpose of the journey for the Dwarves (especially Thorin) is to regain what they've lost (particularly the Arkenstone, an ode to Thorin's line). If you missed Thorin's urge to recover the Arkenstone in the book, then I fear you've misread Thorin, and if you cannot respect Thorin's past, then you will never see his struggle as dramatic or heroic. I do agree that the orcs in the trilogy were better made. I would not call him George Lucas, for emotion exists in The Hobbit. I don't care for how Radagast was portrayed, but he uncovers a critical secret regarding Angmar and helps bring it to the attention of the council in Rivendell. To say he was completely soiled is to overlook what he actually provided to the plot even if his queer personality is emphasized. Jackson wants this trilogy to be a seamless prequel to the LotR trilogy, so there will be tie-ins. It's not garbage, you're just hypercritical. The happenings in the movie are not too far off from the book, but there are innovative ways to get to the events in the book; I admit to that, but isn't a good bit of what happens in the book coincidence to keep the plot going (e.g. the Eagles)? The events comprised of the "Out of the Frying-Pan into the Fire" chapter were something about which I was curious because to film them verbatim would not properly replicate the tension that Tolkien could manipulate through language, so I'm actually glad Jackson added to it (especially to stress Thorin's arc). Again, for Jackson to tie these movies to the trilogy, some innovative framework is necessary (i.e. the prologue). Bilbo's speech regarding his purpose on the journey stems directly from Jackson's decision to draw attention to Thorin's pain and the importance of the journey to him. It's not like it was just added mindlessly and purposelessly. Thorin's a more central character in the movie than in the book, and so Bilbo has to work harder in the movie to prove his worth; it's as simple as that. It's not a travesty, and I hope you see that on your next few viewings. Forget what you know about the book, and view it for the plot as if it's an independent movie. I bet you'll enjoy it far more than you do now.
#132 Posted by Qixote (10808 posts) -

I just saw it in HFR 48 frames . .and it seems like the characters are being fast forward.

klusps

I've seen so many critics say that (I think they are just quoting each other and have no idea what they are talking about). It makes zero sense. All versions of the movie are 169 minutes. Nothing looks fast forwarded; because they are not being fast forwarded, hence the same running time. So while it make look different, choosing the words "looks fast forwarded" are poorly chosen. Although frankly I have no idea what the critics are trying to convey with that remark. I saw it yesterday, and saw nothing that vaguely resembled fast forward motion.

#133 Posted by aaronmullan (33413 posts) -

[QUOTE="klusps"]

I just saw it in HFR 48 frames . .and it seems like the characters are being fast forward.

Qixote

I've seen so many critics say that (I think they are just quoting each other and have no idea what they are talking about). It makes zero sense. All versions of the movie are 169 minutes. Nothing looks fast forwarded; because they are not being fast forwarded, hence the same running time. So while it make look different, choosing the words "looks fast forwarded" are poorly chosen. Although frankly I have no idea what the critics are trying to convey with that remark. I saw it yesterday, and saw nothing that vaguely resembled fast forward motion.

Agreed. They're just being nitpicky, especially when they review the 48 frames rather than the film itself.
#134 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26733 posts) -
Being dragged to see it today in RPX/Real3D/HFR...really hope it is good. Nearly 3 hours of HFR and 3D on a big screen will be the death of me.
#135 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28343 posts) -
Seeing it in a couple of hours. I won't be seeing it in HFR, seeing how I haven't heard a single good thing about it (same goes for the 3D).
#136 Posted by -Tish- (3621 posts) -

The most disappointing movie I have ever seen. More disappointing than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. More disappointing than Episode I even. I am absolutely disgusted. My reactions while watching this movie were denial, followed by anger, and finally sadness. The story was completely butchered. The orcs and trolls looked fake. The acting from whoever did the orc king was terrible. His was easily the worst performance I've seen in a major movie in years. Not even remotely convincing. Most of the movie felt like a stupid cartoon, and those who wrote the screenplay should be ashamed.

The dialogue was a bunch of sentimental kitsch. The business with Azog and Thorin had no business in this movie. It contributed nothing and distracted from the purpose of the journey. All it added was kitsch as well, thinly veiled as drama and heroism. I am stunned by how less realistic the orcs looked in this movie than in LOTR. It's like Jackson is another George Lucas, and decided CGI is the answer to everything. And the decision to depict Radagast as a blithering idiot is a disgrace. They completely soiled that character. I cannot even express how disgusted I am.

The movie was scattered with contrived superficial similarities to try to tie it in with the LOTR movies, such as the ring falling on Bilbo's finger. This movie is garbage compared to those. It is an insult to their legacy. And really contrivance and kitsch are the two pillars that this movie is built on. It's just one convenient coincidence after another in an attempt to keep the plot going. It's as if Jackson never even considered the possibility that the plot was fine in the book and didn't need him screwing it up with pointless fight scenes and pathetic attempts at creating drama/conflict.

And the prologue was just stupid. It was like something out of a mediocre video game. I'd say the worst line was when Bilbo blabbered about coming back out of sympathy for the dwarves having no home. What a joke. Bilbo didn't care about that at all in the book.

It's astounding that the people making these movies had the audacity to follow Return of the King, possibly the greatest film of all time, with this travesty after 9 years of anticipation. I am still going to watch it again at least 3 more times over winter break, but frankly that is more to see Elijah Wood than anything else. I have no complaints with the movie as it relates to him.

Laihendi

lol

#137 Posted by Qixote (10808 posts) -

Seeing it in a couple of hours. I won't be seeing it in HFR, seeing how I haven't heard a single good thing about it (same goes for the 3D).sammyjenkis898
There are plenty of good things being said about the HFR and the 3D. You're just focused on the negative ones. I'm shocked that people place zero faith in Peter Jackson with the technology. In the theater yesterday, I heard nobody saying anything bad about it.

I think critics built their own expectations so high on this movie, where they expected to be the same or surpass Return of the King and be Oscar worthy for best picture. So even though it is not best picture material, when they realized this they began nitpicking the hell out of it. And making things up. . .

#138 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28343 posts) -

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]Seeing it in a couple of hours. I won't be seeing it in HFR, seeing how I haven't heard a single good thing about it (same goes for the 3D).Qixote

There are plenty of good things being said about the HFR and the 3D. You're just focused on the negative ones. I'm shocked that people place zero faith in Peter Jackson with the technology. In the theater yesterday, I heard nobody saying anything bad about it.

I think critics built their own expectations so high on this movie, where they expected to be the same or surpass Return of the King and be Oscar worthy for best picture. So even though it is not best picture material, when they realized this they began nitpicking the hell out of it. And making things up. . .

I was exagerrating, but for the most part the overall reaction, especially from people I tend to agree with, is negative. I don't have much of a desire to see it in HFR (might sneak in to see what it looks like.)

Plus I'd rather not pay an additional fee for 3D when I hear it's take it or leave it.

#139 Posted by Qixote (10808 posts) -

Plus I'd rather not pay an additional fee for 3D when I hear it's take it or leave it.

sammyjenkis898

Lol. An extra buck or two. You'll go on for the rest of your life wondering how different it looked without ever knowing or seeing for yourself. I am fairly certain you will not find out when it comes out on DVD/Blu-ray. Whereas the regular 2D version you want to go see you will be able to see on DVD. . .

#140 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28343 posts) -

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]

Plus I'd rather not pay an additional fee for 3D when I hear it's take it or leave it.

Qixote

Lol. An extra buck or two. You'll go on for the rest of your life wondering how different it looked without ever knowing or seeing for yourself. I am fairly certain you will not find out when it comes out on DVD/Blu-ray. Whereas the regular 2D version you want to go see you will be able to see on DVD. . .

Go on for the rest of my life? Because this is the only film that will use this technology. And yes, an extra buck or two. I've only seen one film where I've felt that the 3D actually benefited the film. I doubt that this will be the second film. I really won't. As much as it seems to bother you, I don't have much of a desire to see it in HFR.
#141 Posted by Ernesto_basic (2123 posts) -

If I could, I'd pay to stream it to my 92" 3D HDTV. I think part of the reason why I haven't seen it yet, is because I don't want to go to the theater. I'm sure I'm going to enjoy the movie, but I just don't feel compelled to go see it at this point.

#142 Posted by Qixote (10808 posts) -

As much as it seems to bother you, sammyjenkis898

I really don't care what you do. I've already seen it. You are the one who seems bothered about which version to see, which is why you are spending the time with this conversation. You said yourself you might "take a peek", so obviously it's still nagging at you.

But by all means, just go see the movie in whatever format. It really is much better than "professional" critics have suggested, who have short-attention spans. The user rating at IMDB is 8.7. The ratings for Fellowship, Two Towers, and RotK were 8.8, 8.7, 8.9 respectively. So the ordinary Joe generally seems to regard this movie as well as the LotR trilogy. Similar story with Metacritic. User rating is 8.5 over the critic metarating of 5.8.

#143 Posted by sammyjenkis898 (28343 posts) -

I really don't care what you do. I've already seen it. You are the one who seems bothered about which version to see, which is why you are spending the time with this conversation. You said yourself you might "take a peek", so obviously it's still nagging at you.

Qixote

Nagging at me? Huh? You got that from me sneaking into a theater for five seconds? Er.. okay?

But by all means, just go see the movie in whatever format. It really is much better than "professional" critics have suggested, who have short-attention spans. The user rating at IMDB is 8.7. The ratings for Fellowship, Two Towers, and RotK were 8.8, 8.7, 8.9 respectively. So the ordinary Joe generally seems to regard this movie as well as the LotR trilogy. Similar story with Metacritic. User rating is 8.5 over the critic metarating of 5.8.

Qixote

As always with new blockbuster releases, it will drop.

#144 Posted by SaintLeonidas (26733 posts) -

[QUOTE="sammyjenkis898"]

As much as it seems to bother you, Qixote

I really don't care what you do.

...you clearly do.

#145 Posted by mitu123 (154668 posts) -

Saw it today and I actually liked it, humor, action, characters and such were really good!

#146 Posted by TheFallenDemon (13933 posts) -

imdb rating lol

#147 Posted by Mrcod11 (3059 posts) -

I was a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy but I'm just not excited for this film for some reason. I'll see it if I get invited or else just watch it on blu-ray down the road.

#148 Posted by vfibsux (4393 posts) -
[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="SaintLeonidas"]Probably be dragged to it by friends, but really being dragged is the only way I'll end up going. No interest in it. Actually just bought the blu-ray extended editions, and would rather watch those again for the 100th time before seeing 'The Hobbit'.SaintLeonidas
Why are you not even interested in giving The Hobbit a chance if you like LOTR?

Because nothing I've read or seen from it makes me think it will be as good as those films. It being a prequel doesn't mean I'm rushing to theaters to see it. Especially if I end up hating it, because it would probably ruin my love for the original trilogy.

No it won't dude. I loved the first ones and think this new one came in short, doesn't change how I feel about them. If it weren't for them I would not have like this one at all, see it and you will know why.
#149 Posted by Qixote (10808 posts) -

imdb rating lol

TheFallenDemon

IMDB user rating. Big difference. By about 40,000 people.

#150 Posted by brucewayne69 (2864 posts) -
PLEASE! SOMEONE AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE ME