The Hobbit discussion thread (May become spoilery)

Marathon

Well I liked it, although I thought there was a lot of buildup before they set off. I wish they'd shown a good clean shot of Smaug in action, rather than hiding him behind smoke etc.

What I was really interested in was the HFR experience. I'm still not sure, but leaning towards liking it. At first I thought it gave the film a video/television quality to the image, but as I got used to it, it showed off the visual effects and the 3D to a greater degree than the standard image. For the four films I've bothered to see in 3D (Avatar, Prometheus, Dredd) this was the best use of it.

What did everyone else think?

Greg

I loved it! Didn't see it in 3D but I am seeing it again this weekend hopefully at the Imax. I too wanted to see Smaug in action and hopefully the wait won't lead me to being disappointed. The goblins were just plain awesome.

Chuck_Melville

I just now came back from seeing the 3D version, and I also loved it. There were some changes and tweaks, as well as some new business here and there, but nothing that hurt it. I've seen some complaints of slowness, but it didn't feel that way to me; if anything, I kinda wish it had been a little slower here and there, but that may be just me rather than any flaw in the film. I'll be curious to see if there's an expanded version when it comes out on DVD, like there was with the LOTR films.

WetRats

Loved it.

I was quite pleased with the way Smaug was felt, rather than seen. The revelation of his full magnificence needs to be a major payoff in the story, not a flashback.

I thought the strengthening of the characters of Bilbo and Thorin was very well done.

And pulling Azog out of the appendices and building him up as a major villain is brilliant! There will be nothing anticlimactic about this Battle of Five Armies!

I would have happily spent the whole movie in Bag End with the boisterous dwarves. What fun! And I'm so glad we got them singing "That's what Bilbo Baggins hates!"

The trolls... perfect!

The Great Goblin... genuinely revolting and hilarious!

Saruman was a happy surprise. I had not heard Lee was back,

Chuck_Melville

For the first time I begin to see that it just might be possible to fill out three movies after all; I was forgetting that there was some history of Smaug in the Silmarillion and appendices as well, so it's possible they might just slip that in as well.

John_Steed

Chuck_Melville said:

For the first time I begin to see that it just might be possible to fill out three movies after all; I was forgetting that there was some history of Smaug in the Silmarillion and appendices as well, so it's possible they might just slip that in as well.

That's exactly what they do. As Jackson has confirmed in many interviews.

kgforce

Hope to see it this weekend!

ctowner1

So it's amazing how many different ways there are to see this movie.

I just bought tickets to see this on Friday in HFR(48fps), IMAX, 3D.

I didn't want 3D, but that was the only way to see it in HFR.

Plus, a movie buff friend of mine says the theater i'm seeing it at doesn't really have IMAX, they just say they do, b/c the IMAX brand has been bastardized, and evidently, they can call it IMAX, even if it's not one of the giant IMAXscreens. I called the theater, and they claim it's an imax screen. So will see if that's the case on Friday.

Otherwise, you can see it in regular, regular IMAX, regular 3D, IMAX 3D, HFR 3D. nutty!!

e
L nny

John_Steed

@ctowner1 : that cracked me up. But it's true: going to the movies these days is a science....

Chuck_Melville

John_Steed said:

Chuck_Melville said:

For the first time I begin to see that it just might be possible to fill out three movies after all; I was forgetting that there was some history of Smaug in the Silmarillion and appendices as well, so it's possible they might just slip that in as well.

That's exactly what they do. As Jackson has confirmed in many interviews.

I was not aware of that. I knew that they were going to expand upon the White Council investigating the Necromancer and discovering that it was actually Sauron, again taking from the Silmarillion and the appendices, but not about Smaug. That being so, I could see it filling out three movies easily.

John_Steed

agreed ;)

Marathon

ctowner1 said:

So it's amazing how many different ways there are to see this movie.

I just bought tickets to see this on Friday in HFR(48fps), IMAX, 3D.

I didn't want 3D, but that was the only way to see it in HFR.

e
L nny

You made the right choice, in my opinion. The 3D is great, but the standout thing for me was the HFR, truly a leap forward, once you get used to it (and once the film moves out of Bag End). Of course, the effect works well with a spectacular film like this, I don't think it's all that necessary for your basic rom-com or oscar-baiting drama.

ctowner1

Marathon said:

ctowner1 said:

So it's amazing how many different ways there are to see this movie.

I just bought tickets to see this on Friday in HFR(48fps), IMAX, 3D.

I didn't want 3D, but that was the only way to see it in HFR.

e
L nny

You made the right choice, in my opinion. The 3D is great, but the standout thing for me was the HFR, truly a leap forward, once you get used to it (and once the film moves out of Bag End). Of course, the effect works well with a spectacular film like this, I don't think it's all that necessary for your basic rom-com or oscar-baiting drama.

Could be - but I've yet to see a 3D movie where I thought the 3D added to the movie, rather than detracted from it. And that includes Avatar, which is generally, I think, considered the best of the bunch.

e
L nny

kiwijase

Just saw "The Hobbit". Decided to see it in 2D, as I've heard too many bad reports about the 48 fps 3D format. It was fine. Big and Grand and messy, but with an inevitable sense of deja vu. I suspect some improvement as the series progresses, but I can't help but wonder if The enterprise might have been served better by one film. Peter Jackson thinks big, and I'm sure most of us wouldn't want a shrinking violet to make these films, but he often fails to modulate the material, and this film tends to feel overstuffed with incident and undernourished with story. For all the visual pyrotechniques, the film is carried by it's three leading men, although the men in question is a hobbit, a dwarf, and a wizard. Ian McKellen returns as Gandalf the Grey and appears to be relishing the opportunity. Richard Armitage actually manages to match Viggio Mortenson for sensual smolder. And the icing on the cake is Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins, a much more convincing hobbit than Elijah Wood, and a more active participant too.

Chuck_Melville

Frankly, I go out of my way to see a film in 3D, as I enjoy the 3D experience. The results are generally mixed -- some make better use, some go overboard, some use a system that's somehow lacking in quality -- but, in general, I still enjoy it. The one thing I don't enjoy is the extra three or four bucks I have to pay for the pleasure of the experience.

Fade2Black

I saw it in the HFR format, and regret that decision.
Sometime 3D works for me, other times it feels tacked on. The problem I had with the HFR 3D was that the picture was so clear that everything looked in focus. Here's my theory as to why that bothered me. When I look at any given focal point, I fixate on whatever it is I'm looking at and my brain sort of turns off everything else. I guess the best way to visualize this is to look at something that's close, then quickly look at something afar. There's a brief period where the eyes have to adjust. With HFR 3D, sans a few scenes (which I'll get to in a minute) everything looked in focus. The 3D glasses did their job, i.e. give the illusion of depth, but because everything on screen was so vividly clear, the 3D illusion was at odds with my mind which is accustomed to making on-the-fly focal point adjustments. The end result was, no matter how well the 3D illusion was, whatever was on the screen felt as if it was all originating from a singular focal point. In other words, I could perceive depth, but my mind didn't register it as such. After a while, I became accustomed to what I was seeing, but initially the look was very jarring. The sweeping panoramic outdoor shots were a notable exception. I think my mind was able to register the depth of these, or perhaps it was because a different camera was employed. Whatever the reason, those shots looked natural. I'm definitely going to have catch this one again in 2D.

As for the movie itself, I felt it dragged at times. It has a much different tone than its sequel predecessors. Flatulence jokes in movies rarely work for me, and the Hobbit was no exception. The final third of the movie was really its saving grace. Overall, I'd give The Hobbit three out of five stars. I did have high hopes for this movie going in, and perhaps that's tainted my review, but the bottom line was I left the theater feeling disappointed.

Mr_Cosmic

My wife and I just got back from seeing it this afternoon in 2D. I really enjoyed it. It does have a lighter tone, despite some of the events that take place, and it should. The book is much more a children's book than is LotR. I realize Peter Jackson is proud of New Zealand but seeing his actors walk across rocky ridges does get old after four movies. I thought the white Orc was interesting and the Goblin's were better than I could have hoped.

Smaug. Wow, the best Dragon attack on film and you barely saw the beast. You could just feel his power and see the awe-struck terror on the soldiers' faces. I'm glad they held off on the big reveal and it should be a good pay off. Although, the ending was a bit cliche with the eye popping up at the end...as soon as we returned to the hall of gold I knew what was coming.

Decent start and it has me jazzed for what comes next.

kgforce

My son and I just saw it in 2D this evening. Like many have said, the first part dragged on... the last half was awesome.

Chuck_Melville

Did people really feel that the movie dragged in places? I never got that impression at all. It had a slower pace, but it was that kind of a story. But I never felt that it dragged.

ctowner1

I saw it twice - once in 3D, HFR, IMAX (lie-Max) and once in regular 2D, 24fps, no-max.

First off, LOVED the movie - it was just a fund ride - I totally can't understand why it's been called slow. this move breezed through the 2:45 easily - both times - w/o seeming slow at all. Just a fun movie - the dwarves were great - the Bilbo/Gollum riddle scene was great. Loved the movie.

As for the HFR, it IS impressive. Not sure why some people are saying it looks muddy - it's crystal sharp. If it seemed dark to anyone, I think it was dark b/c of the 3D - that's one of my main complaints about 3D in general - everything's too dark. It also, ironically, takes away from the 3-dimensionality aspect to me - b/c many times it looked like I was seeing 2D images held at various distances to me. Yes - some images are closer - but it highlighted that these were 2D. But the main reason I don't like the 3D is that I'm simply too aware of it, and it takes away from being lost in the movie. That's why I enjoyed the 2D movie better (and, adding insult to injury, b/c they give the best/largest screen to the 3D version, I had to see it on a less than spectacularly sized screen, even though its a new movie that's raking in $$$.

e
L nny

danGP

Saw it in IMAX 3D last week and loved it. At 2:45 I can understand why some feel it's too long but I love Jackson's vision of Middle-Earth so I didn't want it to end. Off to see it again this afternoon with the girlfriend in HFR. Really interested to see how it looks.

Steeven

Saw the movie last night with my son.

Loved it!

Right from the get go I was smiling ... It really felt good to be back in Middle Earth.