This evening I went to see what has been one of the most highly anticipated films in a long time. Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit", part of a franchise that is as widely known and respected as the likes of Star Wars (original trilogy) for it's technical and story telling prowess. It is an exquisitely designed film, with loving detail crafted in to even the smallest items. The cast and crew is littered with Academy and BAFTA award winning members, notably for direction, production design, cinematography, editing, the list goes on. The composer alone, Howard Shore, has three Academy awards. A technical marvel, shot at 48 frames a second (though also available at 24 in both 2D and 3D) on Red Epic cameras. These are one of the very latest available digital cameras, capable of shooting up to 5K resolution (to put that in perspective, crystal clear HD TV is 1920 pixels wide, by 1080 pixels high. 5K is 5120 by 2700..) at 96 frames a second. The latest hardware and software was used to create the stunning visual effects and atmospheric grading. Great care was taken to scout some of the most scenic locations in New Zealand to shoot the gorgeous vistas. The trailers I've seen on the internet were gorgeously lit and grades shots, with such clarity to the images. Every shot, every frame a stunning work of art in its own right. I was thus looking forward to at least enjoying the visual feast that lay before me. the sound would also be something to look forward to, with more award winning people in charge of a sumptuous Dolby audio track. I ran into a friend of ours at the theatre who was one of the lucky folks that get to put 'sculptor on The Hobbit'. I was really hoping to see her name in the credits and have a good chat afterwards. In total several tens of thousands of combined man hours by her and a huge dedicated crew went into making this, and I was eagerly awaiting to see what my R50 had bought us (excluding the R35 box of smarties my girlfriend bought).
And man, was I utterly, utterly disappointed.. Now I know that South African cinema's aren't going to be at the forefront of movie going prowess, but what I saw this evening was so incredibly dire that it beggars belief. It started ominously with a trailer that was pretty out of focus. I jokingly said to my girlfriend that I hoped the next one would be in focus. The next thing up was the main feature. And it wasn't looking good. The first few opening credits came up a bit soft. I figured it would get better once the projectionist could tear him/herself away from facebooking on their phone. But no. The entire duration of the film the projector's focus was set to the 'meh-it'll-do' setting. And if that wasn't bad enough, the sound went from very loud too much treble through speakers so far past their prime that they have to go back several pages in the map book to find the suburb it was last spotted in, to a weird 3/4 volume with a high pitched whine. A once off I can live with, but this happened intermittent throughout the entire movie. If I were to directly compare this experience to anything, it would be watching it on the back of the seat in front of you on a long-haul flight, listening to it through those cheap headphones they give you. The ones that rip your ears clean off your skull when you forget to take them off to go to the loo. I've seen better prints of movies with another audience in them and dodgy Asian subtitles. I'd expect to see visual quality as mediocre as that on a low budget indie movie shot on free film stock the local art college had lying around since Mandela was up for parole, but on something that used the cutting edge in technology certainly deserved better treatment. It was opening night, for crying out loud! It was showing at two screens at the V&A Waterfront NuMetro, so you'd expect to be wowed. I was wowed all right. But in the completely opposite direction. We couldn't believe the utterly shoddy show.
Now, you ask, then why did I not walk out or complain? Well, I personally have never walked out on a movie. We paid good money for that. I also didn't complain because this rarely has any effect what-so-ever. My girlfriend is a bit of a stickler for movies, and has complained numerous occasions that something was going utterly pear shaped. And generally to no avail. Why would they start listening now? What irks me is that the V&A Waterfront is billed as one of Cape Town's big tourist attractions, mainly aimed at the folks that come swaggering in with dollars (US, not Zim..) and pounds. You'd think that they would therefor up their game a little with this specific theatre, try to pull it at least on par with something that the UK or US has to offer. It's a chain of theatres, raking in millions from their horrendously overpriced and under choiced, if there's such a word, compulsory concessions. It's widely known that they apparantly don't actually make that much on ticket sales, which goes to the distributors (wait a mo.. A quick Google reveals.. Hmm..), but they're not exactly paupers now, are they? Not with sold out screenings of the latest international blockbuster. Are they even considering digital projection? This looked very much like a reel of film, possibly smeared in places with the projectionists Steers sauce from his dinner. It's not like we're looking at whether or not to roll out digital TV because Mavis in her RDP house might not be able to receive it, we're looking at movie theatres where people spend a lot of money to watch the latest that Hollywood et al has to offer. I was wondering why DSTV (SA equivolent of Sky) was advertising so much before the movie started. I noticed at least two advertisements. Basically even NuMetro's own advertisement placement department is sending a passive message to the audience, saying: "Don't bother, rent it instead.. We did.."
One thing I noticed when I was in the UK last year, was that when I went to the movies there (notably Cardiff's Odeon at the Red Dragon centre), every single staff member had their favourite movie on their name badge. Everyone was passionate, or at least interested, in the product they are selling. Movies. Why can't I expect the same here in SA? There is literally no reason why that cannot be the case. None. And that's where the big difference comes in. Instead of someone who tweaks the focus to be just so, or a popcorn vendor asking what you're going to go watch with genuine interest, we get people who just show up for a pay cheque. Which is essentially why we all show up for work, but why should we suffer if they really don't care? Why do we have to settle for it'll do when going to watch a movie? Granted, South Africa has bigger problems than having projectors focussed by someone who really needs a new prescription, but that's why we go to the movies! To get away from the awfulness that is the outside world, even if it is just for two hours. That's why it's called entertainment! What I witnessed tonight wasn't Cirque du Soleil, it was a blatantly drunk pseudo homeless guy who smells vaguely of urine in a half-arsed clown costume juggling two balls, dropping one and muttering: "meh, whatya gonna do about it?" Clearly nothing, because I didn't notice anyone else say or do anything about it, they just accepted it as the norm because clearly mediocre is about as good as they can expect. My girlfriend's sister complained to the manager, to the point of having to stop herself from shouting. Complaints were taken down along with contact details and, presumably, filed in the out box under the desk marked 'recycling only'. She was offered a free ticket. She counter offered them to stick it.
I'll tell you what I'm gonna do about it, though. NuMetro, specifically V&A Waterfront, may take their movies and place them where their unfocussed projectors don't shine. I'll take their own advice and watch it on DSTV instead.
Impassioned and heart-felt, in a way only someone with inside knowledge and love of the medium could put forward.
Me, I'm not going to see it because I can't be arsed with the local neds chomping popcorn, the inability to pause for a wee (even after a bazillion gallon coke) and the inevitable extended edition.
I really want to see this film. I loved the book as a child and read it loads, more so than LOTR simply because it was more accessible. But I'll wait and save the over-priced admission to buy the boxed edition that I can watch on Blu Ray in peace.
Im really looking forward to seeing this. Im not a big cinema goer, used to be years ago but life gets in the way, your post is a great read Michaelvk, stuff you notice would go straight ove my head
Kat has read the book and is rereading it as prepartion for the film and has told Brendan the story, so the three of us are looking forward to seeing it all together, there hasnt been this much excitment in this house since the last issue of the Dandy!!
After all that I completely forgot to mention that it's a cracking movie too. Gollum's looking better than ever.
It is indeed a cracking movie.
Gollum was superb and time flew by. It really didn't seem as long as it was.
My wife HATED the first film in the LoTR trilogy she refused to see the others, yet she is quite keen to watch this one. I haven't the heart to tell her it's not a one-off...
Went to see this today and bloody loved it
Anyone see it in 48fps 3D?
I haven't seen the movie yet, hopefully going on Saturday (2D), but if I like it enough I plan on catching it a second time over the holidays - this time in 3D HFR.
I am really curious to see what all the fuss is about. Pretty sure I'll hate it though (the HFR, not the film itself).
If anyone is curious, there's a comprehensive list of all cinemas showing it in the various different formats here: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/11/21/64780-complete-listing-of-theaters-showing-hobbit-hfr-3d-imax-3d-imax-dolby-atmos/ (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/11/21/64780-complete-listing-of-theaters-showing-hobbit-hfr-3d-imax-3d-imax-dolby-atmos/)
Quote from: radiator on 18 December, 2012, 05:01:12 PM
If anyone is curious, there's a comprehensive list of all cinemas showing it in the various different formats here: http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/11/21/64780-complete-listing-of-theaters-showing-hobbit-hfr-3d-imax-3d-imax-dolby-atmos/ (http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/11/21/64780-complete-listing-of-theaters-showing-hobbit-hfr-3d-imax-3d-imax-dolby-atmos/)
The UK section of that seems pretty lacking. Cineworld, who barely appear at all, have a list up of all their HFR screenings: http://www.cineworldnet.com/hobbit-info.pdf
I was thinking of seing botth 2D and 3D to compare, but having seen the 2d version last night I don't think I have the stamina for a second helping.
It isn't bad, perfectly enjoyable but by God it goes on.. and on.. and on. Loads of new scenes, new characters, extended action sequences and ponderous musical let's-gawp-at-the-lovely-landscape scenes.
Part 1 seemed to contain most of what I can remember from the book, so God knows what they'll use to pad out the remaining 6 hours worth. With tighter editting I'm certain you could have done it in one movie without losing much.
Martin Freeman is excellent, and the Gollum scenes are the highlight of the movie. The trolls are also very good, but I thought Barry Humphreys' Goblin King was a bit OTT. [spoiler]Some of the action scenes, such as the fight between the storm giants (was that in the book?) and when the scaffold in the Goblin cave collapses are just daft - everybody implausibly survives on both occasions.
I don't remember the 'pale orc' character at all - he's either been invented, or his role masively beefed up, to give the movies an ongoing villain. I didn't care for all the foreshadowing too - too many knowing nods and glances about the ring for example. All the Radagast stuff was new too, but very enjoyable.[/spoiler]
Oh and Jimmy bloody Nesbitt.
Overall, not bad but horribly over indulgent.
Quotemusical let's-gawp-at-the-lovely-landscape scenes
I like these. When everybody else complained that LOTR was just 9 hours of people walking I was thinking how lush it all looked.
Dandontdare - oh thank God, I thought it was just me! I found it arse numbingly long and the best bits were the bits I remember from the book. I thought the book was a kids book but this seems very definitely aimed at Middle Earth fans - fans of the previous films rather than the book. It was enjoyable but not what I wanted for The Hobbit
Those mind numbingly boring bits remind me of when I went to see Fellowship of the Ring with my now ex-partner. It got to the end, the bit where Sam goes under the water and Frodo pulls him out onto the boat - at that point the ex burst into tears. Thinking she was overwhelmed by the emotion, I leaned over and quietly asked 'Are you ok?!?'
'How much more of this bloody film is there?' she said, weeping quietly. I always thought this was a figure of speech, but she was actually bored to tears!!! She thought she was going to have to sit through another 30 mins of it, and couldn't take it anymore!! :lol:
Saw it today. I kinda liked but man, it's overdone. Over-egged pudding sums it up - there's about three overblown cgi set pieces too many - really lacks the grit and (relative) realism of the previous films - it's sadly more King Kong than Fellowship.
Some very questionable design and script choices too. Hmm. There's a good film buried somewhere in there, under all the unnessesary cgi and forced expository dialogue and awkward fan-service, but I think it's going to take a pretty judicious fan edit to excavate it. :(
I'll watch the next two, but don't think I can sit through this one again any time soon, which shows what I thought of it really. I saw all the other multiple times at the cinema, then many more times on DVD.
I thought the film was far too long. It seems they've gone for a 'lord of the rings' prequel, rather than tell the the story of the Hobbit. A lot of the dialogue seems unnecessary, and there's far too many shots of 'epic running across mountain tops'.
Some good visual effects but on the whole not a great film!
Cheers
Clan Tips gave it a unanimous thumbs up despite many big flaws. I'd resigned myself to it bearing little resemblance to the book and wasnt disappointed.
Everybody also thought it took an age to get going. It takes one chapter of the book to set up everything but over a third of the film. Or it felt like it.
Also felt much more disjointed than the other LOTR films. Diving off to see what Radagast was up to then flashbacks about Moria and flashbacks about Dol gudur.
No excuse for ten minutes of Frodo and elderly Bilbo or for Galadriel and Saruman. Both utterly redundant scenes.
Nice to see Gene The Hackman as a lead Orc. And those Wargs looked exactly like Steve Dillon werewolves from the undercity. Disappointed with Erebor. It didnt look right in exactly the same way that Moria did.
Worst thing for me were the unfeasible falls from great heights. Does gravity work different in Middle Earth?
3d was good.
Undecided on HFR though. Everything was crystal clear but also gave a plastic feel to some elements.
Better stop typing now before I convince myself it was shite.
Did anyone else think they really dropped the ball regarding the relative scales of human/hobbit/dwarf this time round? Just looked totally off to me, especially in the Bag End scenes, where Gandalf looked bloody MASSIVE compared to everyone else (not just taller, but actually bigger, as in head size etc), and wildly inconsistent from scene to scene. Seemed really sloppy, they should have put more effort into that aspect rather than the ludicrously OTT cgi theme park ride bits.
I liked the dwarf characters in general and thought they did a good job characterising them, but I've just worked out what was bugging me about the second in command (Balin?) - he was giving me flashbacks to Gwyldor from the Master of the Universe movie!
Well, I made a cock-up going to see this. I chose a screening that was close-captioned by mistake. At first it was a little distracting, but actually turned out to be quite good. During battle scenes or when dwarves were japing in the background just out if earshot the close-captioning told you what they were saying, and some if it was very funny!
I thought the whole film was really good, despite a few unnecessary scenes, and deviating wildly from the source material! I did a double take when I recognised that woodland wizard was Dr Who! Great to see him getting some well paid work.
I enjoyed it, bloated and overlong as it was. I'm glad I re-read the book before going to see it, partly to refresh my memory, partly to prove a point. Yes, it is quicker to read the book than watch the film (which is part of a trilogy).
SOMEBODY CALL THE POLICE! GOLLUM STOLE THE SHOW! It's a shame that that's the last we'll ever see of the little guy(s), but it was a good send-off. I just hope Jackson doesn't try to shoe-horn him into some later part of the story. Although in the books, Gandalf does mention meeting him(them) between the two books and wringing his(their) story out of him (them). But then again we already know his back story from the other movies. Anyway, I digress.
The stuff with old Bilbo and Frodo at the start was completely unnecessary, and it didn't really grab your attention, although all the stuff about the fall of Erebor was cool (Yes, Azog is in the book. There's a whole sentence devoted to him), and at one point I thought to myself; 'So THAT's why they call him Oakenshield!'. I had always thought that was a bit of a silly name, but it totally makes sense now.
The unexpected party and roast mutton bits were great, a bit rejigged, but in a sensible way. My one complaint was the bit where Gandalf said something about sparing a life being more courageous than taking one. It gives the impression that that's the reason Bilbo spares Gollum, because of what Gandalf said, not because he's just a decent oul skin.*
I'm not sure what to make of Radagast. Excellent portrayal by Sylvestor McCoy, but I wonder if he's going to feature heavily in the future, or if he was just there to let Gandalf know there's trouble at mill.
As much as I love Christopher Lee, him and the hippy chick had no place in this movie. They basically just reiterated what we already knew from the Radagast scenes.
The bit in the mountains was silly**. It was good to see this film taking a lighter tone with more fun and hi-jinx ([spoiler]even though it was being undermined with all the drawn out foreboding talk about necromancers and witch kings[/spoiler]). I think Jackson was channeling the whole Terry Pratchett bit about smaller creatures being less prone to gravity than the big folk. Making it so the party is [spoiler]actually walking ON one of the stone giants[/spoiler] was a fun change. And Barry Humphries was great as the Goblin King. I loved the way his big fat chin looked like a beard.
I felt the final action scene was a bit drawn out and padded.[spoiler]First it looks like Thorin is lost, then Bilbo saves him, then it looks like they're BOTH lost, but the rest of the dwarves step in, then it looks like EVERYONE is gonna die, and the eagles come and save the day. Personally I would have gone straight to the Eagles, but then you wouldn't have the whole Thorin (who is an asshole) gaining respect for Bilbo bit, and I'll admit that knowing the Eagles were coming slightly ruined the tension.[/spoiler]
I'm annoyed we didn't get to see Beorn, I'm pretty sure I saw a big ass bear in the trailer. As it stands [spoiler]they're left on a big ass rock in the middle of nowhere[/spoiler] until next Christmas. [spoiler]A better ending would have seen them find a proper sanctuary.[/spoiler] But then again most of the Beorn chapter (and I'm not using spoiler bars for a 70 year old book, if you haven't read it by now then you must have no interest, in which case you won't read this, or you must be illiterate and can't read this anyway) concerns Gandalf being worried that Beorn won't be happy seeing 13 dwarves and a hobbit rocking up looking for dinner. So Gandalf recounts the tale so far and introduces them in pairs, which would be a good way of kicking off the second film.
The 3D was ok, I only really noticed it about 3 times, but the higher framerate was a bit odd. It looked TOO real, in fact it looked realler than real, especially when things were moving fast. It's hard to describe, but it did break my immersion occasionally.
Will I go see the other 2? Well I'm back in the family home for Christmas and my Dad (who gave me the book when I was 10 and has already been to the movie twice), offered to take me ( I got the popcorn). The same thing will probably happen for the next two Christmasses, so yes, I probably will. But if I had to pay myself? Then no.
Overall, I would recommend going to see this, and then you can make up your mind about the rest of the trilogy yourself, but the best advice I can give is this; go read the book. It's short and sweet, just like the titular character.
*Edit: thinking about it now, I think that line is taken from LOTR, when Gandalf is recounting the events of the Hobbit to Frodo and Frodo asks why Bilbo didn't kill Gollum. In that context Gandalf was giving Bilbo praise(i.e. he's calling him courageous) instead of advice (i.e. telling him not to kill people)
** That's not meant in an insulting way, with me it's the highest compliment I can give a piece of entertainment.
QuoteYes, Azog is in the book. There's a whole sentence devoted to him
Similar to Radagast then. Whereabouts?
Just in case we are keeping count like we did for Dredd, the showing I was at (2000 on Saturday night) was practically empty. About 50 people max. One of the Odeoneers said that Hobbit had been really quiet and wasn't doing the business they had hoped (unlike, say, Skyfall which was mental and full for about a month).
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 24 December, 2012, 12:35:50 PM
QuoteYes, Azog is in the book. There's a whole sentence devoted to him
Similar to Radagast then. Whereabouts?
He's mentioned during the Battle of Five Armies. During my re-read, I took a mental note of
anyone that was mentioned by name, based on the assumption that they'd probably play a major role in this trilogy
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 24 December, 2012, 12:35:50 PMJust in case we are keeping count like we did for Dredd, the showing I was at (2000 on Saturday night) was practically empty. About 50 people max. One of the Odeoneers said that Hobbit had been really quiet and wasn't doing the business they had hoped (unlike, say, Skyfall which was mental and full for about a month).
Hmm, opening weekend was record-breakingly huge but I predict massiveley reduced numbers for parts 2 & 3
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 24 December, 2012, 12:35:50 PM
QuoteYes, Azog is in the book. There's a whole sentence devoted to him
Similar to Radagast then. Whereabouts?
Just in case we are keeping count like we did for Dredd, the showing I was at (2000 on Saturday night) was practically empty. About 50 people max. One of the Odeoneers said that Hobbit had been really quiet and wasn't doing the business they had hoped (unlike, say, Skyfall which was mental and full for about a month).
It's done huge numbers here and in the US
I have my doubts about the trilogy's performance vs LOTR though, given the fact that The Hobbit cannot support three films and should have been done in one.
But we all knew that anyway.
I wonder if the weird-looking format will put some people off. It takes some getting used to.
I was hoping to go and see this with a friend before Christmas day. Unfortunately (well not for her, she could use the money. Mustn't be selfish.), she's working right up to today inclusive. She suggested the new year but with all the best intentions, prior experience suggests it'll be postponed although we usually meet up eventually, albeit by then it might be finished and we'll be watching something else. (Probably unlikely in this case as I'm sure The Hobbit will stick around around for a while yet.)
So, I'm seriously considering watching it by myself tonight at the local. It'll be a nice Christmas Eve treat. If I do, I'll probably opt for the 2d showing. I like 3d, but I'm not that fussed by it and usually stop noticing it after a while anyway. Besides, if she's still up for it in the new year, I'll watch it again and she'll want to see it with all the trimmings.
I don't normally watch the same film twice in the cinema, but I've been looking forward to this all year.
These things always seem to peak in popularity just after they have peaked creatively. I suspect parts two and three will drop off significantly, as unlike Lotr, the quality isn't there for this trilogy.
I watched it. While I understand people's comments concerning padding, I really enjoyed it.
I have mixed feelings concerning other bits where they deviated, but felt it was pretty faithful, considering.
I'm not sure of them [spoiler] bringing in Azog as a major antagonist this early, but understand the reason for doing so.
[/spoiler]
I do have a small issue, which might come across as strange. [spoiler] The two leader orcs are too large. To start with, I thought, it might be just a perspective thing, after all it's easy to forget that most of the characters in this story are short. In the case of Azog this might be the case. However the leader of the mountain orcs towers over Gandalf too. He isn't much smaller than a troll.
I don't think a large or should be larger than a man, at least in height. The Uruk-hai of the other films are pretty big by orc standards.[/spoiler]And they should have kept to actors in make-up rather than CGI, for those characters leaving CGI for things like crowds and animals and trolls.
Oh and I think I prefer the wargs of this film. More like evil looking wolves than then hyena looking creatures cof the other films, good though they looked.
Quote from: Mardroid on 25 December, 2012, 01:22:32 AM
And they should have kept to actors in make-up rather than CGI, for those characters leaving CGI for things like crowds and animals and trolls.
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/6884879104/h3F6119CD/)
I think the CGI characters must have been a nightmare for Jackson when trying to work out scale and perspective
Quote from: Mardroid on 25 December, 2012, 01:22:32 AM
I don't think a large or should be larger than a man, at least in height.
Okay, this should read "I don't think a large orc should be bigger than a man, at least in height."
I wrote the above post on my new Nexus 7 tablet. While it's a great bit of kit, (it really is. Good for reading digital comics by the way,) it's a tad fiddly when typing and editing. Not really a fault of the tablet itself, just what comes with the medium I guess. There's nothing quite like a proper computer keyboard for this sort of thing.
Oh, the bit above was in the spoiler section, but it's not really that big a spoiler so I'll let it stand.
I'll be seeing this tomorrow.
Saw this yesterday and hmmmm. It wasn't bad but it really feels its length in a way the LotRs didn't. Like others I'd been considering seeing it in both formats but probably wont bother now. Even most of the stuff cut from the initial releases of the others felt like it added to the story but here 25-30 minutes could've been dropped without any impact on the narrative.
I'd been planning to reread the book when I was back at my mum's over Christmas but we couldn't find it anywhere, so any errors in comparison are down to my failing memory. Conversely, I've seen Fellowship twice in the last ten days so that is pretty fresh in my mind.
One of my biggest reservations before seeing the film was that it appeared to be another Lord of the Rings rather than a separate Hobbit. It was interesting to see that, while the visual aesthetic was the same right down to almost identical shots at points, there was a clear effort to have a lighter tone. Stuff like the dwarves clearing up after the party or the silliness of Radagast and his rabbit-drawn sledge would never have made it into the earlier films. I think I'd include the ludicrous sliding-down-a-massive-hole-on-the-fallen-bridge in this category too and I think the problem with that kind of action is that it's sitting cheek by jowl with more "realistic" scenes like the battle outside Moria.
On the other hand it seems like they've deliberately reframed Thorin as the Aragorn of this series - giving him a vengeful nemesis and so forth - whose quest to regain his kingdom will be a bigger focus as we go on. Perhaps a requirement to have more than a single focus for such a long enterprise so we'll see how that goes. Or maybe I'm wrong and it was Bilbo's story but never a story about Bilbo.
Stuff I liked: the eagles, riddles in the dark, Galadriel.
Stuff I wasn't keen on: Boss Nas as goblin king, sledge chase scene seemingly included so it can be a level in the computer game, bloody singing.
Stuff I wondered about and bigger Tolkein geeks than me may be able to answer. The scene with Galadriel and Gandalf includes a close up on their hands in which neither of them appear to be wearing rings. What is the significance of this?
I'm also worried that the introduction of Radagast and his affinity with nature might be used to justify excising Beorn from the story. Although I guess they're stretching out as much as possible from the book to frame the additional stuff. Anyone know if that's on the cards?
Crowd watch. I went to an afternoon HFR 3D showing yesterday and a reasonably large screen was around a third full if I'm being generous. Interestingly, the next two standard 2D showings were already sold out when I got my ticket
Loved it. Wonderful, just like the LOTR trilogy. However, it was a bit too LOTRingy, so much so it felt a bit like watching bits of the trilogy all jiggled about and put in a new film. Gandalf turns up at Bag End, eagles save the day, bad guy gets hand cut off, peril on a mountain ledge, underground goblins, chased across the plains, gandalf appears and saves the day - twice, here's Rivendale, here's some refugees trapping across moors, and lots more...I've seen it all before, done perfectly in the LOTR.
Should have made a single Hobbit film and focused on stuff we've never seen before in Middle Earth.
I actually loved the Misty Mountains song - highlight of the film for me (though I must say I preferred how it was cut in the trailer as opposed to the film itself).
Everyone keeps saying how the beginning of the film is really slow and it picks up after that but I actually thought the opposite - the Bag End scenes didn't drag for me at all and the first hour felt by far the most consistent in tone - I felt as soon as they left the Shire things went a bit all over the place and cgi set piece fatigue soon set in.
Other things that irked me:
So much effort to maintain consistency with the Lotr trilogy, and yet for some reason no attempt whatsoever to recreate the 'Bilbo finding the ring' shot from the Fellowship prologue.
McKellen, Holm and especially Lee looking distractingly old. Obviously not much can be done about McKellen, but particularly irksome because Lee and Holm's role were entirely redundant and there was no news to have them in the film.
Giant characters like the ogres and goblin king who spoke with normal voices - caused a real audio/visual disconnect and really took me out of the film. Could they not have digitally lowered them or something, a la Treebeard? Or cast actors with naturally baritone voices?
Using cgi to portray animals that EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. One of my absolute pet-hates with recent movies, always reeks of laziness to me.
Completely uneven tone - whimsical and lighthearted one minute, portentous foreshadowing and decapitations galore the next. Weird.
Bilbo Baggins being relegated to ensemble cast member in what should be his own film.
Certain (quite basic) special effects looking shit and cheap - like Bilbo riding a blatantly fake pony, and loads of really terrible compositing characters onto obviously fake, shit-looking backgrounds (what was up with the night skies and sunsets? They looked awful). Overall the film felt far more soundstagey and looked cheaper to me than Lotr.
An I'm talking about the 2D, 24fps version here.
Quote from: The Cosh on 29 December, 2012, 04:25:02 PM
Stuff I wondered about and bigger Tolkein geeks than me may be able to answer. The scene with Galadriel and Gandalf includes a close up on their hands in which neither of them appear to be wearing rings. What is the significance of this?
I don't think there's any significance to that. Although Gandalf is a ring bearer he doesn't wear it most of the time. As for Galadriel, while she probably wears hers more often (as seen in Fellowship of the Ring) she probably doesn't see a need to wear it that much either.
QuoteI'm also worried that the introduction of Radagast and his affinity with nature might be used to justify excising Beorn from the story.Although I guess they're stretching out as much as possible from the book to frame the additional stuff. Anyone know if that's on the cards?
I'm sure Beorn will appear in the second film. [spoiler]I seem to remember a publicity picture of Gandalf and a bear...[/spoiler]
QuoteLoved it. Wonderful, just like the LOTR trilogy. However, it was a bit too LOTRingy, so much so it felt a bit like watching bits of the trilogy all jiggled about and put in a new film. Gandalf turns up at Bag End, eagles save the day, bad guy gets hand cut off, peril on a mountain ledge, underground goblins, chased across the plains, gandalf appears and saves the day - twice, here's Rivendale, here's some refugees trapping across moors, and lots more...I've seen it all before, done perfectly in the LOTR.
A lot of that stuff does happen in the Hobbit novel as well!
QuoteUsing cgi to portray animals that EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD.
I actually didn't have an issue where animals are concerned since, well, it's difficult to get real animals to do what you want. I didn't think Thranduil's stag looked particularly real mind you, although it didn't bother me.
As I said earlier, my main issue with the CGI was the man sized creatures like orcs. I'm really curious why they didn't stick to made up human actors lie they did in Lord of the Rings. Maybe they believed CGI has improved that much, but if anything I thought it looked worse in this film. At least the version I saw. Maybe the 3D 24FPS looked better, but if anything I'd think that would look worse.
None of these things took me out of the film though. It was good enough to tell the story and I just let my imagination do the rest. (Not that I'm accusing those of you who were affected of having little imagination. I can understand why it would bother people, and I really wish they'd stuck more with real live human actors.)
Another point, prob related to the frame rate, the start seemed really blurry in places, some pan shots were impossible to focus on. Odd.
Still loved it though. Watching Return of the King on Tv right now!
Just seen it.
Bilbo was great & Gollum was awesome. The eagles were cool, & the rock-giants.
Yeh, a lot of it rocked.
& u're right Tiplodocus, i was trying to think who that guy reminded me of,
Gene the Hackman it is!
Chi
Cross-posting this from the 'Last Movie Watched' thread, because I'd forgotten this thread existed...
What a very, very strange film that was. Essentially a kids' movie that goes out of its way to not be for kids, and I'm very glad the wife and I left them with their uncle for an early morning 3D 48fps Hi-Def viewing.
Now I love The Hobbit and LotR and I love (most of) the LotR films, and I'm a fan of Jackson as a helm as well, and I enjoyed this long cinema outing very much. Even so I was gobsmacked by a slew of almost unforgivable flaws, almost of all of which can be summarised as unspeakably lazy filmmaking. Acres of the film were ludicrously, pointlessly flabby, almost as if nobody could be bothered editing it or indeed adapting it and just cut a full-length reading of the book with some OTT action scenes and some heavy talky prequelism.
I was absolutely delighted to see so much the whimsy and charm of the book represented on screen, with faithful delivery of lines and representations of some of the sillier characters and situations - Barry Humphey's Great Goblin was just spellbinding, the Trolls were suitably amusing and the Dali-like realisation of the mountain Giants was very impressive. The dwarves' singing and washing-up routines were beautifully executed, and Ken Stott's wonderful Balin sold the whole group perfectly. Similar in tone if not in source Sylvester McCoy's Radagast and his furry/feathered chums were scene-stealers. I was also pleased to see that Thorin's company weren't all tooled-up Warhammer warriors, but were well-leavened with doddery largely harmless folk. A very pleasant divergence from the grim doom-laden atmosphere of LotR, and a very solid children's film.
Unfortunately this rather fine work was interspersed with incredibly long repetitive (if impressive) action sequences, rendered almost indecipherable by having no less than 14 heroes to keep track of amidst hundreds of foes. Why did we need to see [spoiler]Radagast and the wargs swooping past the company four times[/spoiler]? How many collapsing/swinging walkways can you fit into one sequence? How many different ways can dwarves get knocked aside by trolls? Any of the action sequences could have been halved in length and been better for it. The hopelessly contrived almost-risible conclusion-a-third-of-the-way-through-the-book was actually the action scene that worked best, because it kept most of the characters out of the way and you could actually see some motivation and resolution rather than endless running-and-swinging.
And then there's the overindulgent nonsense, long sequences of mindless relentless exposition, a reprehensibly unnecessary scene with Frodo that derailed the opening completely, a 'Riddles in the Dark' scene that seems to be the full text of that chapter delivered slowly and ponderously... someone in authority needs to realise that is is a film, not a 20-part radio serial or 60 hour audio book. I just can't imagine my kids sitting through this, which is a shame, because there's so much that's worth their time.
As to the look of the thing, well wow. The 3D was truly excellent for a change, adding depth and even texture with no obvious loss of clarity of movement or darkening of lighting, or even inducing of headaches, and after a few double-takes the 48fps really seemed to infuse everything with an almost shocking realism - I thought it supported the merging of CGI and real/model elements brilliantly. Some odd sped-up-movement effects when viewed out of the corner of my eyes, and a bit of a shock at the start, but on the whole I thought it worked great. I loved Erebor, I loved Radagast's home, I loved Hobbiton and Rivendell all over again, I even loved the insanity of Goblin Town The New Zealand Tourist Board ad breaks every half hour or so were as wonderful as ever.
When this film was being itself, it was superb. When it was trying to be Temple of Doom, The Mummy or Lord of the Rings Extended Edition, it was deeply frustrating. If Jackson can spare some time to actually edit the next two instalments into actual films I have very high hopes, and I'll be first in the queue regardless.
I think the bit you've spoilered out happened so many times because it was meant to be a joke. No matter which way they went etc. A bit like "Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb".
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 30 December, 2012, 11:16:01 AM
I think the bit you've spoilered out happened so many times because it was meant to be a joke. No matter which way they went etc. A bit like "Some days, you just can't get rid of a bomb".
Yeah, I did get that, and it was funny the first few times as well - I'm just questioning whether you have the luxury to let gags run long when you're looking at 3 hours and by no means done with running-away-from-wargs as an element. I also liked that they'd set it in the same/similar location to the flight-to-the-ford sequence in
Fellowship.
Reading that review back it seems very negative - but I genuinely enjoyed the film hugely, I just found it frustrating because it could have been a truly
great 2.5hr family film, and far from losing anything would have gained a bit more focus. Many of my concerns about casting were hit on the head, Freeman was a very convincing and likeable Bilbo who delivered some clever Holmisms to seal the deal, and the dwarves were almost universally excellent, even the too pretty and/or too gross ones - why, even the dreaded Nesbitt wasn't
too awful. And it can't be said enough, Radagast (and Sebastian) was
superb. The [spoiler]slick of guano down one side of his face[/spoiler] made me grin every time I saw it,
My big problem right now is that I desperately want to see it again, but now can't imagine foregoing the 48fps to find a cheap showing. It really was something new under the sun, and made a huge impact on me - so painfully
real. For the benefit of my Irish chums, we saw it in Screen 1 in Dundrum, a cinema I normally loathe but had a voucher for, and it was by far the best 3D experience I've ever had, and one of the clearest most in-focus cinema visits I can remember. It would have been nicer still if they'd thought to clean the bloody screen of the yogurt and fruit splats that dominated the middle, but I suppose those high-def projectors don't leave much in the budget for stepladders.
Do
not leave this one for home video, peeps.
EDIT: Oooh, one niggle. By having Bilbo
see [spoiler]Gollum dropping the ring, he becomes an out-and-out thief, rather than just indulging the self-deception he allows himself in the book. I can see how it forwards the theme of the corrupting influence of the ring, but it does change Bilbo's character quite a bit, especially with respect to what he does later at Erebor[/spoiler].
Quote from: Big Barry PengeBack on 30 December, 2012, 12:46:56 PM
EDIT: Oooh, one niggle. By having Bilbo see [spoiler]Gollum dropping the ring, he becomes an out-and-out thief, rather than just indulging the self-deception he allows himself in the book. I can see how it forwards the theme of the corrupting influence of the ring, but it does change Bilbo's character quite a bit, especially with respect to what he does later at Erebor[/spoiler].
You're not the first poster I've come across to mention this. The only thing is, I don't, think he does see [spoiler]Gollum dropping the ring. He was aware of the scuffle, but the sight of the ring flying through the air was for our benefit. I don't think he saw that from where he was hiding. Look at how he reacts when he sees the ring on the ground. It's as though he saw it for the first time. Obviously he becomes aware when Gollum start screaming for his Precious, but wisely he wasn't about to hand it over then. [/spoiler]
As a few people interpreted the scene the same as you, (and I wondered too until I saw Bilbo's later reaction) I think that maybe that scene should have been depicted differently. [spoiler]I'd have liked to have seen him find it as depicted in the flashback in Fellowship of the Ring, [/spoiler] although I can see why they wanted to make things more explicit. It just seemed to confuse the issue instead.
Saw it, loved it. No complaints.
Quote from: Mardroid on 29 December, 2012, 10:34:43 PM
Quote from: The Cosh on 29 December, 2012, 04:25:02 PM
Stuff I wondered about and bigger Tolkein geeks than me may be able to answer. The scene with Galadriel and Gandalf includes a close up on their hands in which neither of them appear to be wearing rings. What is the significance of this?
I don't think there's any significance to that. Although Gandalf is a ring bearer he doesn't wear it most of the time. As for Galadriel, while she probably wears hers more often (as seen in Fellowship of the Ring) she probably doesn't see a need to wear it that much either.
Probably down to photogenic fingers!
Mind you, I seem to recall that the Elven rings can't be worn whilst Sauron's about, so maybe the fact that Galadriel and Gandalf have de-ringed indicates that they are already pretty sure he's back in town.
Quote from: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 30 December, 2012, 10:19:21 PM
Mind you, I seem to recall that the Elven rings can't be worn whilst Sauron's about, so maybe the fact that Galadriel and Gandalf have de-ringed indicates that they are already pretty sure he's back in town.
I don't think Gandalf
ever wears 'his' ring (Narya?) in the books. He's pretty much just keeping it safe. Galadriel and Elrond on the other hand definitely do - their power is what maintains the ageless beauty of Lorien and Imladris even in the dimming light of the Third Age - but maybe they
only wear them in those places? I think they can still wear them right up to through the War of the Ring since (obviously) Sauron doesn't actually
have the Ruling Ring anymore - Galadriel is certainly wearing hers when Frodo first meets her.
Gandalf puts his ring on after Sauron is defeated, at the end of LOTR.
Sauron can also control the Ring Wraiths, so presumably he has some influence over the other ring-bearers even without his own ring.
Quote from: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 31 December, 2012, 01:34:29 PM
Sauron can also control the Ring Wraiths, so presumably he has some influence over the other ring-bearers even without his own ring.
That's true. Sauron was instrumental in the creation of seventeen of the rings. He co-created sixteen rings with the elves in his guise of Annatar. Among those are the nine given to men, who became the Nazgul, and the seven given to the Dwarf-lords. And then of course there's the One ring that he created himself in secret. So yes, even without the One he still has influence over the others due to the fact some of his power went into their creation.
The three rings given to elves, which includes Gandalf's ring, are a bit of an exception in that Sauron had no part in their creation so his influence over them is far less. The elves created them alone. That being said the three ultimately come under the power of the One Ring but a person with enough power like Galadriel can hold their own. It still makes them vulnerable, so no doubt Gandalf felt it best to fight in other ways. He's all about influence and guidance rather than a raw show of power.
Quote from: Jimmy Baker's Assistant on 31 December, 2012, 01:34:29 PM
Gandalf puts his ring on after Sauron is defeated, at the end of LOTR.
Ooh good catch, I don't think I ever noticed that! Was that right after Sauron's defeat, or was it when he eventually took ship for Valinor? Does he give a reason for wearing/using it? As to the Nine, they had already come completely under Sauron's dominion before his fall, which I suspect we'll see more of in future instalments.
Quote from: Mardroid on 31 December, 2012, 02:03:10 PM[Gandalf]'s all about influence and guidance rather than a raw show of power.
Yes, and I'd forgotten that nice little line he has to Galadriel in the current film about how he thinks evil can best be fought - it's a nice commentary on his Dr.Who-like obsession with Hobbits.
Waiting for resident Tolkienista Joe Soap to weigh in here...
Quote from: Big Barry PengeBack on 31 December, 2012, 03:06:14 PM
Ooh good catch, I don't think I ever noticed that! Was that right after Sauron's defeat, or was it when he eventually took ship for Valinor?
It was in getting resized for old-man sausage fingers.
Quote from: Mardroid on 31 December, 2012, 02:03:10 PM
Waiting for resident Tolkienista Joe Soap to weigh in here...
Ain't had a chance to see the Hobbit yet. Hopefully this week.
Still can't fi d Azog in the book. There's a goblin leader called BoLG though. Have they merged another character with Azog or made somebody up. I think Lurtz was a version for Fellowship.
I heard Bolg is being introduced either in part two or three - and istr hearing he is Azog's father or son or something.
I saw this on the 30th (coincidentally my 30th; pleased to resurrect the family tradition of having a LotR film to go and see on my birthday). Saw it in standard 2D, since Dredd was my one and only experience with a 3D film and it made me so ill that I shudder to think what it would be like to sit through three hours of it. Found the motion shots in particular a bit blurry in 2D, though that may have been partly to do with us grabbing the last available seats right in the front row.
I enjoyed both the whimsical small-scale adventure and the epic sweeping world-changing drama, though I'm not sure they sat very easily in the same film. I felt like it could have been cut down half an hour if not more without losing much, but I still enjoyed it as it was; the only part that felt really egregious was the stuff with old Bilbo and Frodo, though some of the action sequences dragged on a tad too long.
Interestingly, my dad, who hasn't read the book for forty or fifty years (he basicially summed up his entire memory of it as "hobbit, riddles, dragon"; I'm not sure he even remembered there were dwarves) enjoyed the whole thing tremendously and appreciated the degree to which it tied in to the previous films. So I'd be curious to see how it played to people who'd seen the previous films but never read the book. But I don't think I actually know anybody who meets that description.
Quote from: radiator on 02 January, 2013, 05:32:13 PM
I heard Bolg is being introduced either in part two or three - and istr hearing he is Azog's father or son or something.
Bolg, son of Azog. Although I only know this because I play Angband. :D In fact, several things that popped up in this film were more familiar to me from playing Tolkien-based roguelikes than from my memories of the book, which was disconcerting. (Although, come to think of it, I don't think I've read it for nearly fifteen years, either.)
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 02 January, 2013, 05:14:24 PM
Still can't fi d Azog in the book. There's a goblin leader called BoLG though. Have they merged another character with Azog or made somebody up. I think Lurtz was a version for Fellowship.
Azog is a character taken from the LotR appendices. Yes, he is the father of Bolg.
Spoilers bellow for the appendices not the films:
[spoiler]He killed Thorin's father Thror which started off a war between Orcs and Dwarves.
He was actually slain later by Dain (this is after Azog later killed his father Nain) - the leader of the Iron Hills Dwarves - making his son Bolg one of the antagonists in The Hobbit novel.[/spoiler]
I'd recommend reading that story actually as it's more involved than what I've described, and rather nasty.
In the film they decided have Azog [spoiler]survive the war[/spoiler] and have him as the major antagonist for Thorin.
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 02 January, 2013, 05:14:24 PM
Still can't fi d Azog in the book. There's a goblin leader called BoLG though. Have they merged another character with Azog or made somebody up. I think Lurtz was a version for Fellowship.
It's at the end of the first chapter when Gandalf's explaining where he got the map and the key. Slightly differs from what Mardroid said as it was Thorin's grandfather Thror who Azog killed. Not sure if that's a difference in the books or in remembering.
Anyway, Gandalf also says that he found Thrain, Thorin's father, in the necromancer's dungeons. I imagine this will be messed around with somehow so we see him in the next installment.
Quote from: The Cosh on 02 January, 2013, 11:19:57 PM
Anyway, Gandalf also says that he found Thrain, Thorin's father, in the necromancer's dungeons. I imagine this will be messed around with somehow so we see him in the next installment.
My shaky memory of what was said in the flashback sequence in the film (which I really do have to watch again
soon) was that [spoiler]Grampy Thror (loved his beard BTW) was beheaded in the assault on Moria, and Pappy Thrain had been captured/was missing, which I took to mean that Thrain would indeed turn up in Dol Guldur, if a bit later than scheduled[/spoiler].
I've went to see it twice.
First time I thought it was too long and self-indulgent.
Second time I thought it rocked along at quite a fast pace and I left wanting to see it again.
Make of that what you will.
It was a frustrating experience for me - there was a hell of a lot about An Unexpected Journey I found irritating and downright problematic, and there were moments with real promise, that hinted at the old magic. Similar to how I felt about The Dark Knight Rises, really. Both films just felt decidedly 'off' to me, and felt like inferior facsimiles of what we've already seen - as well as feeling too long and convoluted - and I'm still not sure whether I'd ever sit through either film again.
I think there was a definite lack of restraint on show, that extended to the script as well as the visuals. It seemed a little careless and lacking in subtlety - even the Riddles in the Dark scene felt overegged to me (Gollum's introduction felt poorly handled, in the way that a young audience - who this film should have been aimed at - could be forgiven for thinking Gollum was just another goblin), and overall it lacked a lot of the little understated character moments that really made the LotR trilogy work.
I'm pretty sure that fan editors are going to go to town on these movies - with all three Extended versions at their disposable there's going to be a great wealth of material to work with - I for one would love to see a version of the film that is purely built around Bilbo's journey - which feels really sidelined in the film we currently have - as he should be the POV character of the entire film imo. There is a great deal that could be trimmed straight off the bat - Gandalf's various excursions and subplots, the entire Erebor prologue, Frodo and old Bilbo. I'd even say the entire Azog subplot could go, and I'd seriously curtail the silly, excessive cgi theme park ride segments that spoilt much of the film for me.
Out of interest, did anyone else encounter the same problem I did with the relative scales of Gandalf and the Dwarves? I haven't seen any other mention of it anywhere, but it really bugged me in a way that the previous trilogy didn't.
I wasn't expecting to like it as I found the LOTR films a bit of a drag and this sounded even more drawn out, but I actually found it very enjoyable and the time just flew past. I think it probably helps if you are not a fan of the books or previous films.
Quote from: radiator on 03 January, 2013, 12:30:43 PM
Out of interest, did anyone else encounter the same problem I did with the relative scales of Gandalf and the Dwarves? I haven't seen any other mention of it anywhere, but it really bugged me in a way that the previous trilogy didn't.
I certainly
noticed the height differences as more striking than in
LotR, particularly between Thorin and Gandalf and Elrond at Rivendell, but I'm not sure they were actually
wrong. To me it seemed to be more noticeable because Thorin in particular has very human proportions and features, whereas we're used to Gimli's extreme stockiness and the Hobbits' cherubic frames playing against slender elves and towering warriors. Actually thought the sequence in Bagend with the three scales (Hobbit, Dwarf and Wizard) was very cleverly done. When you think about it, the kind of perspective tricks they pulled in LotR must have been near-impossible in 3D.
QuoteWhen you think about it, the kind of perspective tricks they pulled in LotR must have been near-impossible in 3D.
Ha, yeah I didn't think about that.
I'd need to see the film again, but it seemed to me like the scales were very inconsistent from scene to scene - Gandalf looked like a giant in the Bag End scene for instance. And I also had an issue with the size of the dwarves - in LotR, they aren't smaller than men, just shorter - in The Hobbit, ISTR they were actually miniature people like - and scarcely bigger than - hobbits.
Perhaps it's because they draw your attention to the height thing in a way they didn't in LotR?
QuoteTo me it seemed to be more noticeable because Thorin in particular has very human proportions and features, whereas we're used to Gimli's extreme stockiness and the Hobbits' cherubic frames playing against slender elves and towering warriors.
Another reason to not cast prettyboys as dwarves in the first place?
Quote from: radiator on 03 January, 2013, 09:10:59 PM
Another reason to not cast prettyboys as dwarves in the first place?
SPOILER FOR THE BOOK: [spoiler]Ehhn, they get theirs in the end.[/spoiler]
Seen it six times now. Three of which were in 48fps 3D.
I had no problems with the pacing of the film or the way they added in extra scenes that weren't from The Hobbit story in the first place.
Favorite scenes were:
-[spoiler]The prologue at Erebor and Dale.[/spoiler]
-[spoiler]Gandalf opening dailoge to Bilbo[/spoiler]
-[spoiler]Various Dwarves making their entrances at Bagend.[/spoiler]
-[spoiler]Dwarven singing at Bagend.[/spoiler]
-[spoiler]Seeing more of the Shire when Bilbo went running off to catch up with Gandalf and the Dwarves.[/spoiler]
-[spoiler]Azog's prologue.[/spoiler]
-[spoiler]Gandalf rescueing the Dwarves and Bilbo from the three trolls.[/spoiler]
-[spoiler]Bilbo's reaction to first seeing Rivendell and seeing more of it.[/spoiler]
-[spoiler]Gandalf's rescueing the Dwarves from Goblin town.[/spoiler]
-[spoiler]The great Eagles rescuing the Dwarves, Gandalf, and Bilbo from the tree at the end.[/spoiler]
I can barely wait for the Desolation of Smaug.
Oh, I forgot to add that I liked [spoiler]Riddles in the Dark[/spoiler] as well.
I watched the movie this past weekend. I was surprised with some of the things they introduced into the plot, but I saw it coming with the trailer they'd put a higher emphasis on Gandalf and the Necromancer storyline than the book did to connect it better to LotR. I think some of the plot stuff around Azog seeming unnecessary, but I guess they're trying to set it up for their version of the Battle of Five Armies ([spoiler]I thought at first they merged Azog with his son who pops up at the end of the book leading the Orc/Goblin horde at the Battle of Five Armies, but Bolg is supposed to be in the movie too. So I'm confused as to what they'll do here)[/spoiler].
That being said I was able to enjoy it. Much more light hearted like the book was, and I really liked the way they made Erebor look like in the beginning. I could see why people were angry at the pacing as I felt it was off at times (but I did enjoy how they tried to bring things in from the lore, even if it was botched at some points), but seeing that it came up so often in reviews here (and I guess for you guys in the UK too), I would guess that Jackson might end up having the remaining two movies edited more heavily.
I suspect - just my opinion, mind, that the remaining two films are just going to get more and more OTT from here on out, and more and more people will gradually take against them as a result. It's a given that the Battle of Five Armies is going to be completely fucking ridiculous and Jackson is going to go all out to try and top Helm's Deep/Minas Tirith, which would be a huge mistake for what should be a more personal, smaller story. It could potentially be fascinating to follow (part of) a massive battle purely from Bilbo's POV, but I suspect what we'll get is lots of moments like Legolas sliding on shields - and, rumour has it, [spoiler]Sauron and the Nazgul turning up at the battle[/spoiler]...
As someone who saw Fellowship twice, Two Towers thrice and Return King four times at the pics I thought it was rubbish. Dreadfull pacing, all the padding out with new scenes, it felt like I was watching the version with all the deleted scenes left in. And Thorin is now an overly agressive Boromir-esque dick. Only thing I was pleased with was Riddles in the Dark being left in almost verbatim. The special effects are second to none but that goes without saying when you talk about Weta's stuff.
I couldn't wait for the next LOTR movie coming out the next year but don't think I'll bother seeing Hobbit part deux.
Quote from: sheldipez on 07 January, 2013, 08:10:41 PM
The special effects are second to none but that goes without saying when you talk about Weta's stuff.
While I will agree that the special effects were good. I didn't think the dwarven ponies looked quite right.
Glad you enjoyed the film, Thryllseekyr, I'm envious of your multiple viewings!
As to the ponies... I thought they looked great, as did my pony-bothering better half, especially as they were generally just real horses with practical 'shaggy fur suit' make-up. This is one of those double-edged sword things, I suppose - we all love traditional SFX, but sometimes aren't sure about the results, even more so when using real animals came with the deaths of several during filming (unrelated to the make-up, mind). CGI Sebastian was good too, of course.
For myself, I'm just sorry that they couldn't find a real entirely-unsuitable-for-the-woodland-realm Megaloceros for Thranduil to ride.
He has the trees next to the paths around his halls cut to a certain height to make it easy to ride. Don't you know anything :S
I finally got around to watching it on Sunday. I had some misgivings. The runtime seemed massively long for the material and I sat through King Kong so I know how badly Jackson can make a perfectly reasonable film last twice as long as it needs too. Also I'd just come from the gym so I'd drunk way to much water to be sitting for 3 hours. (I always get paranoid I'm going to need a wee half way through a film at the best of times)
As for the film I loved it. The time just flew. I had no problems with pacing at all. The goblin town scene was silly but there were some breathtaking shots too so I'll forgive it. I did prepare myself for some righteous indignation at a couple of point, such as when [spoiler]Galadriel and Saruman turn up[/spoiler]. But thinking on it, the meeting of the white council is mentioned in the book so I forgave it. I agree with MercZ that the [spoiler]addition of Azog[/spoiler] was an odd one, especially with [spoiler]Bolg, who I assumed he was replacing[/spoiler] being in the third. Why not just have [spoiler]Bolg hunting them in retaliation for the death of his father (OK so Dain killed Azog but it still makes more sense)[/spoiler]. I'm sure all will become clear. The only problem I had with the film was a nagging feeling I'd seen it before. I guess locations, and several actors already being associated with characters in a book I knew well I was kind of ticking off events as the happened. Don't remember that happening with LotR.
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 08 January, 2013, 06:25:05 AM
Quote from: sheldipez on 07 January, 2013, 08:10:41 PM
The special effects are second to none but that goes without saying when you talk about Weta's stuff.
While I will agree that the special effects were good. I didn't think the dwarven ponies looked quite right.
I thought the only weak point was the Wargs chase accross the plains in day light looked a bit fake; the CGI didn't really mesh agains the real world backdrop but the rest looked really great. Top notch stuff, you can't argue that Jackson doesn't get every single penny spent up there on show.
Quote from: TotalHack on 08 January, 2013, 08:02:28 AM
Glad you enjoyed the film, Thryllseekyr, I'm envious of your multiple viewings!
I've now seen it eight times. I really love this film.
Quote from: TotalHack on 08 January, 2013, 08:02:28 AM
As to the ponies... I thought they looked great, as did my pony-bothering better half, especially as they were generally just real horses with practical 'shaggy fur suit' make-up. This is one of those double-edged sword things, I suppose - we all love traditional SFX, but sometimes aren't sure about the results, even more so when using real animals came with the deaths of several during filming (unrelated to the make-up, mind). CGI Sebastian was good too, of course.
I thought ponies were supposed to smaller than regular horses. Not more than 13 or 14 hand high. These were regular horses in pony suits. No doubt that it was for the effect of scale with the hobbits and dwarves. Yet they appear the same height as Gandalfs Horse spoiling it all. If I had been in Peter Jackson shoes I would have had the scaled downed stunt doubles for the dwarves and Bilbo riding or standing next to
REAL ponies for the long distance shots and the real actors riding or standing next to fake ponies ( Real horses in Pony fur.) for absolute close ups where they wouldn't be in the same frame as Gandalf's horse.
Anyway, it's just a small thing and didn't ruin the movie too much.
I thought there were a few scenes where it was painfully obvious people were riding anamatronic horses and being bobbed up and down.
At the time I felt The Hobbit seemed a bit sloppy regarding visual effects compared to Lotr, but I now suspect its a combination of seeing this one with older eyes and noticing the visual shortcomings more as I wasn't as engaged in the story.
Overall I though the effects were a real mixed bag. Gollum looked jaw-droppingly good, probably the most impressively realised cgi work ive ever seen, whereas other things looked terrible. I thought the skies looked so oversaturated and distractingly fake, like the rear-projected skies out of The Mighty Boosh.
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 08 January, 2013, 10:24:34 AM
I thought ponies were supposed to smaller than regular horses. Not more than 13 or 14 hand high. These were regular horses in pony suits. No doubt that it was for the effect of scale with the hobbits and dwarves. Yet they appear the same height as Gandalfs Horse spoiling it all. If I had been in Peter Jackson shoes I would have had the scaled downed stunt doubles for the dwarves and Bilbo riding or standing next to REAL ponies for the long distance shots and the real actors riding or standing next to fake ponies ( Real horses in Pony fur.) for absolute close ups where they wouldn't be in the same frame as Gandalf's horse.
I bow to your superior observation, analysis and workable solution!
Preferred this second time around. Its still a mess but plenty to admire and a great uncutesy central performance from Freeman.
I think I actually saw Bolg this time or what looks like him according to Tiny Tips' Hobbit calendar.
I dont recall from the book if the spiders were explicitly linked to the Necromancer. I think it works. They did a similar thing in Two Towers when they made it an explicit alliance between Saruman and Sauron.
Also lost count of the decapitations in the Goblin caves. Amazed they got away with it in a 12.
Quote from: Tiplodocus on 14 January, 2013, 07:42:51 PM
I dont recall from the book if the spiders were explicitly linked to the Necromancer. I think it works.
They're not mentioned as being so in the novel itself. I think there is an arbitrary link in that evil creatures are drawn to evil places/beings. II.e. I don't think the Greenwood had giant spiders. I think they only were only drawn there when it became corrupted by the presence of the necromancer. But I think they only served themselves and their appetites.
Much like the Balrog was awakened by the rising power of Sauron but I don't think he actually served him although they might have become allies if they met.
In the film it seems to make the connection between The Necromancer and the spiders more explicit but I guess he still haven't had any real proof that they actively serve him directly although they probably serve his purpose, which isn't quite the same thing. Much like their old mother Shelob for that matter, although she didn't live directly in Sauron's Tower, she was close enough.
If you ever read the Silmarillion check out that weird relationship between Morgoth and Ungoliant... I think for the spiders it comes down to eating, and the Dark Lords provide a lot of grub if not always intentional.
Watch this second trailer for The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxvEHrVHEKE) and enjoy.
It has a hint of Beorning (Were-Bear) and some Dragon-Flame as well.
It is a very yummy trailer. Only the prospect of the extended edition of Part 1 next month keeps me from cursing the 10-week wait.
This thread is probably a good place to note that I have now watched Unexpected Journey four times on Netflix, and I like it more each time. I still feel most of the action sequences could be halved in length and their video gamishness dialed down, but I'm now sold on most of the other choices, and I've thoroughly warmed to all the characters. With about 20 characters vying for screen space there's actually an awful lot going in a film that is ostensibly padded, and it rewards repeat viewing.
I still think Sylvester McCoy, Barry Humphries and Ken Stott totally steal the show, but Christopher Lee's supercilious Saruman is creeping up on the inside. His delivery of 'he is a foolish fellow' is magnificent. McKellan and Serkis's stellar work goes without saying at this point.
Quote from: TordelBack on 06 October, 2013, 05:34:41 PM
It is a very yummy trailer. Only the prospect of the extended edition of Part 1 next month keeps me from cursing the 10-week wait.
I believe the Extended-Edition is out now on
DVD and
Blu-RaeQuote from: TordelBack on 06 October, 2013, 05:34:41 PM
This thread is probably a good place to note that I have now watched Unexpected Journey four times on Netflix, and I like it more each time.
I've now seen it fifteen times, that was thirteen times at the cinemas and twice at home on
Blu-Rae.It's also been shown on the telly. One of the Cable-Movie channels just recently.
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 06 October, 2013, 06:20:14 PM
I've now seen it fifteen times, that was thirteen times at the cinemas and twice at home on Blu-Rae.
You're like a god to me, TS. Your devotion to things Slainish and Hobbity are an inspiration. And make me feel slightly less insane into the bargain.
You sure about that Extended Edition being out? I can't find anywhere offering the physical DVD soon than November.
Just check Ebay, although I'm not sure of your region.
Your in Scotland, right.
Look here (http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-3D-Extended-Edition-Limited-Edition-Steelb-/171105021162?pt=AU_DVDsBlurayDiscs&hash=item27d6a76cea)
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 10 October, 2013, 03:12:35 PM
Your in Scotland, right.
Soggy and windy, riddled with sectarianism and alcoholism, contributing disproportionate numbers of boarders... no, I'm from Ireland.
Another look at eBay suggests the Region 2 (wot we are) extended editions won't ship until Nov. I'm sure there are ways and means, but I'm not amenable.
Quote from: TordelBack on 10 October, 2013, 05:14:20 PM
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 10 October, 2013, 03:12:35 PM
Your in Scotland, right.
Soggy and windy, riddled with sectarianism and alcoholism, contributing disproportionate numbers of boarders... no, I'm from Ireland.
You left out
skint (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/skint).
Quote from: TordelBack on 10 October, 2013, 05:14:20 PM
Quote from: ThryllSeekyr on 10 October, 2013, 03:12:35 PM
Your in Scotland, right.
Soggy and windy, riddled with sectarianism and alcoholism, contributing disproportionate numbers of boarders... no, I'm from Ireland.
Oh really, I thought you were from or lived in
Scotland. I thought you wrote it somewhere on this board in the past. So, you your from
Ireland., interesting, actual home of
Slaine and do you still live there?
Ah sure the Scottish Scots Scotch are just paddies with funny accents, dodgy spelling and marginally more deep-fat friers per capita.
I see there's a small patch of water between both places, but that's only since Slough-Feg melted the icecaps.