Brace yourselves.

Most of it apparently feels like Peter Jackson's "Slow Boat to Skull Island".

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59869

Hmmm ... considering Im a fanboi of anything LOTR, I will enjoy the movie nonetheless. Though I wasnt expecting a trilogy (a truly boneheaded cash grabbin move) I still will enjoy it for the simple fact it brings to an end a cycle of movies dedicated to the works of Tolkien.

But deep down, I know that what is to blame is the high expectations people have for the film. The Hobbit story is much simpler, almost "classical". I remember reading it to kids at the hospital and mostly to make them sleep.

If people are expecting this to be an action no holds barred full contact epic fest, they wont find it in the first movie anyway.

Perhaps the Battle of the Five Armies will be depicted in gruesome detail and make the trilogy worth it, and for me, Im still waiting to see the friendly Beorn in the "flesh" , always loved the big werebear , even if his part was minuscule.

So, yeah I feel from the movie (part one at least) it will be aimed mostly at the people that decried the inaccurateness of some parts in the first trilogy.

If the reviewer feels Bilbo (and the actor) a bit overacting, trust me, he hit it spot on. Now, if this will be a mainstream appeal film, dont know, too early to tell.

My only fear is if the movie flunks, if they will have enough money to finish the other two.

I REALLY REALLY want to see Beorn and his friends ripping warg, bat and goblin flesh :) (specially big bad nasty putrid Beolg)

Ahhh, started with a bit of worry, but then ... left with high hopes. If its so accurate its almost reading the book slowly, I will enjoy it!

Apparently, nobody will say "No, bad idea" to Peter Jackson any longer, ala George Lucas.

Now that you talk about that I was watching some of the HD trailers ... I was noticing everything looked a bit too fake too ... that dreaded moment when realism destroys imagination by pretending to make imagination more realist.

Ugh ...

Film (as in Cinema) needs a kind of 'fog', or the unreality of the reality (does that make sense) allows for no suspension of disbelief. It all goes out the window.

I knew this would be the public response.

A friend nay-sayed me back in ihe summer. I am now owed $100 on a bet.

I still will enjoy it for the simple fact it brings to an end a cycle of movies dedicated to the works of Tolkien !

This is why I cant watch a lot of movies on HD TV's, they look like documentaries, it feels wrong. And yeah, stringing out the book into 3 movies def smacks of blatant cash grab.

The Silmarillion -only if it were made into a movie ...or better yet an animation (not 3D).

This is why I cant watch a lot of movies on HD TV's, they look like documentaries, it feels wrong. And yeah, stringing out the book into 3 movies def smacks of blatant cash grab.

The Silmarillion -only if it were made into a movie ...or better yet an animation (not 3D).

sensorial overload due to the massive ammount of data needed to process. no, really the book is awesome, but extremely complex.

Silmarillion would make a great, really stylized mini-series.

The Silmarillion is just epic and a lot moreso than LotR. However I cannot see how that one can be made into a movie ore even a multitude of movies without completly losing that epicness.
Also, the vast majority of people would not understand it and the hardcore fans on the other hand are probably mostly purists and would not accept a watered-down version.

So no, that is most likely never going to happen.


Though Jude Law as Sauron before his fall would be awesome...

I'm sure you don't have to watch it in 3D...

We were discussing 48 FPS, not 3D.

My point is relevant to the discussion: people are bitching about the fps and 3D combined, outside this thread of course, because no one here has seen it.

IF you want to have a discussion about 48 fps in cinema, open a new thread and I'll specifically chime accordingly, but for now...

AK

I see no complaining about 3D at all, but plenty for the few of us that have experienced 48 fps.

My first time was actually a film at Disney World and that was in 1978 so it's already an ancient technology.....with many reasons why it didn't fly. (It's so realistic and the brain takes in so much more visual information it feels like some kind of weird 'slow motion').

And sure enough at the preview footage last April the awfulness of the process overrode any rational discussion of what was actually seen in the trailer.

Big mistake Mr. Jackson. I'll see it at 24/sec thank you.

sensorial overload due to the massive ammount of data needed to process. no, really the book is awesome, but extremely complex.

Critics and thier opinions are over-rated.

Not gonna be a problem, seeing how only 5% of screens actually have the power, capability and know-how to be able to project an image at an advanced frame rate.

My monitor is 60 fps, doesn't feel like it is going in slow motion to me, in fact, I kinda wish it were double that for bunny-hop, bunny-hop, kapow, pew pew gaming.

The more frames per second the better, sorry. And...isn't reality at an unlimited frame rate already? and it's in 3D as well?

AK

Oh as for this movie, slow boat and all, not all adventures are jam packed full of action. Isn't that sort of how the hobbit was anyway? Less sword battles and more thinking I thought. I mean there were battles, but it didn't seem to engulf the plot as much like in lotr.

It has indeed a different effect in computer games in that the images are digitally created and already have a sense of unreality about them that acts as that 'cinematic fog'. Also, the videos and movies you watch are not filmed at 48 or 60 fps either, so a video card displaying at 60 will make no difference there.

Now, go watch a documentary film shot at that rate, and I'll buy you some aspirin for afterwords.

Yeah that's why I'd go with animated, would seem easier to produce compared to live actor film. It would be rather lengthy, not just a single 2 hr movie. I really like the animated movies of the hobbit and lotr (decades old), more the style but maybe higher detail. In any case, in that form, the animation work would be a lot easier compared to the older animated movies, all the hand work to produce those compared to today's computer animation tools. Not sure why EEEEeeeverything needs to be 3D these days though (CG and live), ...hehe much like happened in the late 70's for a few years and then died. Old cel animations still look awesome, have artistic style.

That entire sequence in "King Kong" was so long in the tooth, I could not finish the movie in one sitting.

I found the entire film a dull bore, even though 'slow' rarely turns me off. I'm one who can sit endlessly through "Tree of Life" and "Koyaanisqatsi" (not even any dialogue or characters for that matter).

It's clumsy slowness I am talking about here, and with King Kong, Peter Jackson proved himself a master at that.

But Disney already made a failed attempt in the 60's and Bakshi's and Rankin/Bass LOTR were god awful.

er the movie is usually in the top ten list of the year. IMDB has it at #3 after Star Wars and Batman. This movie was fail? It's on about every top ten list for 2005, and there were many big movies in 2005...


uh-huh... that's why they still sell them at Best Buy, horrible horrible movies... lol
I have all the animated Tolkien movies, they're all good. Part of my collection, including first edition books I've had since long before the blockbuster movies and the recent craze they brought. But the cartoons were awesome, I highly recommend them to any that haven't seen them yet.

People complaining it is "too good" quality wise, with nice crisp pictures and good FPS is just absurd. Get your head out of your nostalgia ass, or go back to watching black and white ****** quality.

What it really boils down to is that people is afraid of change.

As for the movie itself, I like long slow movies, far too few of them these days. I am really sick of the 1-2 hour bullshit that Hollywood spews out regulatory that is just action scene after action scene.

This seems to tie in to this issue as well. Scorsese and his editor Thelma Schoonmaker talk digital drawbacks: link

The only thorny issue is really for the audiences who have consistently paid more for watching a film, even though the all of the costs of film distribution have dropped to practically zero. Previously a single print would cost a disty $2k. Multiply that by the amount of screens in N.America (35,000) and you get a figure of roughly $70 mill.

They've saved, we've paid.

AK

And still many of the productions move overseas (from the US). It even effects TV shows, where once good series were made, it's cheaper to make a reality show (e.g sY-fY ch.). Production, taxes, all the piles of cost here now. Not that this was ever a production here, but would be more costly if it were, and maybe never made.

Haha, just saw you gave me a bounty kristal while I was reading this thread.

I did disagree with you about the anime hobit, but hadn't even posted it yet. Didn't know that show was so touchy.

So its unpopular to give Goons reach arounds now?

Oh well, was just curious.

Cleaned the thread of some off topic posts. Please continue on.

Movie looks pretty good by the way.

I don't have any major gripes about it, but there are some scenes where I groaned. It has got a few of those Peter Jackson over the top dramatic action scenes, where things cross over from intense to silly.

That happened in his early 'horror' films too.

Do not speak ill of Brain Dead! It has kung fu fighting priests.

Also going to see this on friday. Looking forwards to it even though i hate lines.

now he must make a movie of The Silmarillion

I find it outrageous that no midgets were actually harmed in the filming of this movie.

Brace yourselves.

Most of it apparently feels like Peter Jackson's "Slow Boat to Skull Island".

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59869

This review is full of ****. Pure utter ****. I just returned from the midnight release and (yes even as a nasty Pirate) I teared up several times. I'm a major lotr fan and Tolkien was my childhood growing up. My grandmother turned me to the Hobbit as a book when I was very young so naturally it's something kind of sacred.

The movie doesn't disappoint in the least. I would however recommend to NOT see it in 3D and rather just traditionally. I personally find 3D to be a gimmick and takes away from the quality and detailing of the film so I saw it in 2D. The sets are gorgeous. I was literally blown away by Eredor and the detailing of the Lonely Mountain. It was about on par with Minas Tirith and that's saying something.

The movie is NOT Lord Of The Rings. Those going in expecting massive battles or a dark determined plot are going to be disappointed. However those whom have read the book will be thoroughly pleased. Jackson does an amazing and I mean AMAZING job of tying in the little details such as Dol Guldur and the "Necromancer."

The reasoning why these critics are giving it such crap is because Jackson is building upon the tensions leading up to the War Of The Ring. he is revealing Saurons growing power, The White Council, Gandalf's concern over a growing darkness where as Sauraman see's nothing.

I'm certain we will see the development of Aragorn as a young man and even Denethor and Gondor's early struggles to set the stage probably at the end film of this trilogy.

This film also gives definition to characters and added depth that enriches them in LOTR such as Sauraman The White or Elrond. You see personality and yes even Gandalf has added depth especially in one particular scene where I don't think there was a dry eye in the theater. I won't spoil it but let's just say it has to do with a simple question as to why Bilbo was chosen to go on the quest.

Thorin Oakenshield and Bilbo as characters are portrayed wonderfully and I was very surprised at the level of depth shown in Thorin.

Don't let these snobby prudes deter you. It was a wonderful film and one everyone who has read the book NEEDS to see. If you go in expecting the Hobbit that is what you will get. A film with emotion and character development that I could only put on par with that of Lincoln for films of 2012.

Please go see it.

This.

Id like to add that the 3d is really only good in parts so i share the sentiments. For me until we have full holographic 3d, 3d on a 2d screen is a gimmick.

This film doesnt just nail the hobbit book it nails the spirit and surrounding story. Jackson has done an amazing job and yes, this is not LOTR.

Well, movie bob liked it, and he usually hits my staste, so...

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/6620-The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey?utm_source=videos&utm_medium=index_carousel&utm_campaign=all

went to watch it this weekend and i was impressed

starts a bit slow if you never read the book but picks up space quickly afterwards
only wish i could see the rest now and not having yo wait another year for the rest

I deleted a bit of spam from this thread.

I saw it saturday and really liked it but i would second not seeing it in 3d. Apparently a lot of the camera tricks they use to make people different sizes onscreen dont mesh well with the 3d and it also gives everything a fake looking plastic sheen.

as for my particular impressions of the film itself

- lots of stuff from the extended timeline was integrated into the story and I think it made things flow a lot better.
- they did very well in making each dwarf distinct as a character despite it being a group of thirteen short blokes with beards and armour.
- I loved how Bilbo started his story with the line about holes from the beginning of the book, in fact the dialogue overall was very impressive.
- Gollum manages the difficult feat of being both funny and terrifying at the same time not once but multiple times.

Anyway I would highly recommend it but only if you go see it in 2D.