The Hobbit movies

Silverblade

Trailer. Armitage's narration. Radagast's hedgehogs. Rock giants. Hype. The usual.

And do yourself a favor, Lion-kun, read the books, if you claim that you like the story is true. Just take notice that before anything else, Tolkien is a scholar and world builder, and only then a story teller. Not today, and not tommorow, but do read them one day. Appendices, Silmarillion, 12 tomes of HoME and Unfinished Tales are optional.

@Thousand:

The steward was a terrible, two-dimensional character and everytime we focused on him and his inane antics, it felt like filler. Faramir felt wasted(this is really disappointing because they're relatives of effin' Boromir).

Denethor is great, what are you talking about. First of all, he is a ruler of a nation hopelessly defending against Mordor's onslaught who is aware of theirs struggle's hopelessness. Second, as a ruler in his right, he is facing the fact an outsider is pushing his own shady foreign candidate on the throne of Gondor. Third, he is a father who lost (almost) both of his sons. Frodo aside, who else is carrying a burden as heavy.

@Thousand:

The Elven race felt wasted in the movie (Elrond just fixed a sword, yes in the scope of the movie it saved the day but…they just fixed a sword, Arwyn and Galadriel did jack-shit).

"For the time comes of the Dominion of Men, and the Elder Kindred shall fade or depart."

The Third Age of Middle-earth, or the Fading Years. Elves, dwarves and other, stranger creatures have already played their role, and the destruction of One Ring marks the beginning of their fading from this world, literal or otherwise.

It's the very idea of Tolkien's world that Elves are the firstborn, and humans came after.

@Thousand:

At least for me. But maybe I'm just being a grouchy hobbit.

It would be a waste not to be one.

Nex 0

@TheCrystalShip:

Pretty sure this is the most common gripe with the movie. If you're gonna include the Dead Men of Dunharrow , more time should be spent focusing on them and their allegiance to Aragorn. It is supposed to be his movie, after all.

Also, you're right, the way they swept Pelennor was deus ex machina 101.

To be fair, the extended editions did just what you wish. Them showing up feels much more earned.

Though, I really feel like this conversation (all of it, not just this part) has happened before.

Anyway, as a filmmaker I practically worship these films. From a technical side, everything is perfect (especially that score – favorite of all time? I think yes) and I only have a few minor complaints about the story as a whole, and that all stems from the source material.

On the whole Return of the King (talking extended editions here) probably is the weakest, whereas Fellowship is the most complete, but Two Towers will always be my favorite, and that's all beacuse of Sam's little speech at the end.

Also, yes, I do like the movies better than the books.

Anyway, the new trailers were great. Any word on if they're still going with 48 FPS as the main viewing format?

Robby

@Nex:

Anyway, the new trailers were great. Any word on if they're still going with 48 FPS as the main viewing format?

Due to the early negative reaction, 24 frames is going to be the standard, you'll have to go out of your way to find a 48 fps screening.

Nex 0

@RobbyBevard:

Due to the early negative reaction, 24 frames is going to be the standard, you'll have to go out of your way to find a 48 fps screening.

That's disappointing. Even though I was very vocally against it, I wish they'd stuck to their guns. Especially since they claimed we'd get used to it overall.

Leon

I suppose Hobbit is more light hearted and comedy oriented than Lord Of the Rings. Many are speculating that it will never achieve what LOTR has achieved.

LUFFY1fan

@Nex:

That's disappointing. Even though I was very vocally against it, I wish they'd stuck to their guns. Especially since they claimed we'd get used to it overall.

It's probably for the better, from what people said it really looks bad, like a 60's Doctor Who special.

Robby

@LUFFY#1:

It's probably for the better, from what people said it really looks bad, like a 60's Doctor Who special.

Of course, they were watching basically raw, non color-graded footage.

NOT the best way to premier the new thing.

Sakonosolo

@RobbyBevard:

Due to the early negative reaction, 24 frames is going to be the standard, you'll have to go out of your way to find a 48 fps screening.

You've gotta be kidding me. Is it still being filmed by default at 48 fps and is just going to be difficult to find a theatre playing it? Or have they dropped native 48 fps altogether?

–- Update From New Post Merge ---

@LUFFY#1:

It's probably for the better, from what people said it really looks bad, like a 60's Doctor Who special.

So we're going to be stuck with 24 fps for another hundred years just because 100 years of film has conditioned people that it's somehow better? Since this is primarily 3D (which is a lot more fucking useless than 48 fps and yet every single person is jumping on that bandwagon) the higher framerate would have helped IMMENSELY with how well it would look. Not to mention, like Robby said, it was unfinished when they screened it.

Robby

@Sakonosolo:

You've gotta be kidding me. Is it still being filmed by default at 48 fps and is just going to be difficult to find a theatre playing it?

Pretty much.

No idea how the dvds will deal with it.

CosmicDebris

They're going to show 48 fps in special theaters and in 3D. People are already getting used to the high fps look with their fancy new tvs, so I would expect a 48 fps blue ray release.

Sonic Youth

This is not the change I voted for.
But seriously, 24 fps is find by me. I don't need neither 3D or 48 fps.

Hinscher

I hope the movies are in 24 fps. Only because I want the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit to look the same.

If every movie made in the future is made in 48 fps, fantastic. Well who knows, haven't seen what that looks like. BUT i want these 5 movies to seem seamless with each other. I want to be able to watch all 5 and not think "wow the hobbit looks so much more technically advanced ect." Thus why i want these in the same 24 as the others were.

Same reason that no matter what I will not be getting these two movies in 3D, even if they are something insane like Avatar. Not unless the original trilogy gets the same amazing treatment and looks as good.

LUFFY1fan

@Hinscher:

I hope the movies are in 24 fps. Only because I want the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Hobbit to look the same.

If every movie made in the future is made in 48 fps, fantastic. Well who knows, haven't seen what that looks like. BUT i want these 5 movies to seem seamless with each other. I want to be able to watch all 5 and not think "wow the hobbit looks so much more technically advanced ect." Thus why i want these in the same 24 as the others were.

Same reason that no matter what I will not be getting these two movies in 3D, even if they are something insane like Avatar. Not unless the original trilogy gets the same amazing treatment and looks as good.

Not 5 anymore, The Hobbit is a trilogy now(with the 3rd adapting material from other middle earth books.)

Robby

@Hinscher:

I want to be able to watch all 5 and not think "wow the hobbit looks so much more technically advanced ect." Thus why i want these in the same 24 as the others were.

6 movies.

And Hobbit is going to look different regardless, the CG has advanced by 10 years and its being filmed for 3D. Its unavoidable that its going to look different.

Besides, 48 fps looks better, we're just trained for the inferior rate.

@LUFFY#1:

Not 5 anymore, The Hobbit is a trilogy now(with the 3rd adapting material from other middle earth books.)

Not quite. All three are from the Hobbit… and some of the appendicies of LotR dealing with the necromancer filling out the middle. Thats all they have the rights to. There is no "bridge" film, that was a concept from nearly two years ago.

First one is the journey, second is Smaug, third is battle of the five armies... more or less.

Shandian

They could make film adaptions of Silmarillion becasue it was most epic time in Tolkiens world, War of the ring was a mere bar brawl compared to those battles fought at Beleriand.

But Silmarillion main story spans for over 500 years so it would be quite a mess unless they would make a story revolving around Turin and others but all those storys has a sad endings and silmarillion is very unknown story compared to Lotr books.

Robby

@Shandian:

They could make film adaptions of Silmarillion becasue it was most epic time in Tolkiens world, War of the ring was a mere bar brawl compared to those battles fought at Beleriand.

No, they can't. They don't have the rights. J.R.R. Tolkien sold the movie rights to Hobbit and LotR decades ago to pay off some tax debt (or something) since they were unfilmable. Christopher Tolkien, currently in charge of the estate, absolutely hates whats appeared on-screen and won't give the rights to anything else.

And, being a 500 year chronicle with little overarching narrative, it would be even more impossible to adapt.

Cyan D. Funk

Silmarillion would work much better as a series of short animated films than what Jackson's doing, anyway.

MagiciteKefka

Is this the time where I have to crawl out of the woodwork and admit that I've never been able to read Silmarillion?

I think I've started reading it a dozen times, but I've just never been able to complete it. Sure, it's interesting, but it's so… factual, it just feels like I'm getting a lecture from a boring teacher while reading it. And I absolutely adore Middle-Earth.

Something must be wrong with me.

CosmicDebris

No, you're not the only one. I've read bits and pieces of it, but I can never just sit down and read the whole book from start to finish.

ps lol @ the books being "unfilmable". Curses, foiled again!

Robby

Nah, silmarillion is a hard, boring fact filled read. Its a history, not really a story. (That even contradicts itself in some places.) Cool stuff goes on in it, but its lots and lots of begatitng and "this son of so and so who descended from this and that" . Kinda like the bible or Three Kingdoms that way.

I mean, it wasn't even meant to be published as is, it was just sort of compiled from Tolkien's notes by his son after he died. Its kind of like an entire giant novel of appendix information to a real book that was never written.

@CosmicDebris:

ps lol @ the books being "unfilmable". Curses, foiled again!

Well, back in the 70's, they were. Animation was able to do it… sort of. But even that had a really hard time with the scope.

CosmicDebris

Oh, but they tried. John Boorman had a script and even started production on one in the early 70s, but it just fell apart for a lot of reasons. They should have figured someone would eventually be able to do it, all I'm saying. :)

Robby

@CosmicDebris:

Oh, but they tried. John Boorman had a script and even started production on one in the early 70s, but it just fell apart for a lot of reasons. They should have figured someone would eventually be able to do it, all I'm saying. :)

How could anyone in the 70's have predicted
a)the advancement of CGI
b)the willingness of a studio to throw HUNDREDS of milions of dollars at the property?
c)a willingness to film THREE movies at once?

Hell, even when it was actually done it was pretty much unprecedented… and very few have done anything like it since. Sure, studios have started with intent of making trilogies, or filmed parts 2 and 3 together after a successful part 1... but to attempt the scale of the Hobbit right out of the box? (Harry Potter actually has more movies, but they left room for the actors to age over 9 years and filmed them all seperately... I guess Twilight was basically all filmed at once.)

And the books as is are pretty unfilmable. Jackson did a ton of stuff to move them around and make them suitable for the screen in terms of information dropping and pacing... which are the exact reasons Tolkien's son hates them so.

Mugiwara_no_Ice

@RPGJay:

The movies didn't have Tom Bombadil. Which is the greatest decision ever made by Jackson and Co.

What? Why would anyone think that, I loved the portion of the story with Tom.

MagiciteKefka

@Mugiwara_no_Ice:

What? Why would anyone think that, I loved the portion of the story with Tom.

The reason Jackson gave as to why Bombadil wasn't in the movie is pretty accurate. If Bombadil would be included it would really slow down the pacing of the movie, and it would serve close to no purpose whatsoever. I agree that Bombadil is awesome, he might even be one of my favorite characters in the book series. It would be cool to just see him on the big screen, but it would be pointless.

CosmicDebris

@RobbyBevard:

How could anyone in the 70's have predicted
a)the advancement of CGI
b)the willingness of a studio to throw HUNDREDS of milions of dollars at the property?
c)a willingness to film THREE movies at once?

It could have been done without all of that…it just wouldn't have been very good. It would have been all practical effects and extremely cut down the most basic parts.

And the books as is are pretty unfilmable. Jackson did a ton of stuff to move them around and make them suitable for the screen in terms of information dropping and pacing…

That's how it goes for most books that get made into films. :P Saying a book that has been successfully made a film is unfilmable is kind of silly.

Robby

@Mugiwara_no_Ice:

What? Why would anyone think that, I loved the portion of the story with Tom.

Because it would have ground the movie to a halt for 20 minutes, taken all the tension right out of it as soon as it started up, and totally devalued the threat of the ring. Plus, Bombadill goes unexplained and doesn't appear anywhere else in the story… it would basically introducing a new pair of god mode characters that add nothing else to the narrative.

Similarly, taking out eh scouring of the shire (but still having most of the pertinent material at the START of RotK) was a wise choice.

Robby

The run time for the first film has been announced to be 2 hours, 40 minutes

We can probably expect the other two to be about the same length, about three hours apiece.

(So I assume Jackson was sitting on 8 hours of movie by the time they announced the decision to make it 3 and add another 2 months of shooting.)

So, that question answered, it leaves only "will there be even further extended cuts for the dvds"?

Monkey King

Man, I'm really leery of this working with that sort of length. We'll see..

Nex 0

Holy shit. That is ridiculous.

Way too long. In fact I'm pretty sure that alone tops Return of the Kings extended cut run time.

Robby

Yeah… I was totally cool with the combined movies coming out to about 6 hours... (two 3 hour movies... or three 2 hour movies) with some extended stuff later to expand it to 7.

Knowing its probably going to clock at over 9 for just the theatrical cuts is crazy. Is that just a result of giving all the 13 dwarves something to do?

@Nex:

Holy shit. That is ridiculous.

Way too long. In fact I'm oretty sure that alone tops Return of the Kings extended cut run time.

It's about as long as RotK was theatrical. RotK was just short of 4 and a half hours in the extended cut. And the blu-ray release is apparently 15 minutes longer than that.

Nex 0

@RobbyBevard:

Yeah… I was totally cool with the combined movies coming out to about 6 hours... (two 3 hour movies... or three 2 hour movies) with some extended stuff later to expand it to 7.

Knowing its probably going to clock at over 9 for just the theatrical cuts is crazy. Is that just a result of giving all the 13 dwarves something to do?

It's about as long as RotK was theatrical. RotK was just short of 4 and a half hours in the extended cut. And the blu-ray release is apparently 15 minutes longer than that.

Oh duh. I can't believe I made that mistake. The whole trilogy extended on blu-ray takes 12 hours to marathon.

Mog

The run time for the first film has been announced to be 3 hours, 15 minutes.

Where did you get that number? Peter Jackson just came out saying the film is going to be 2 hours, 40 minutes, easily shorter than any LotR movie. That's a pretty big gap there.

CosmicDebris

Yeah, this is the latest news that I heard, just released today [http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/10/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-is-peter-jacksons-shortest-lord-of-the-rings-movie.html

M](http://blog.zap2it.com/pop2it/2012/10/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-is-peter-jacksons-shortest-lord-of-the-rings-movie.html)aybe that number is for the extended edition? Source?

Robby

@Mog:

Where did you get that number?

I heard that the hobbit runtime had been announced. I googled "hobbit movie run time"and this was the only thing that turned up.

http://www.wildaboutmovies.com/images_5/TheHobbitMovies-TheHobbitTrailer-PeterJackson.php

However, two hours later, google "hobbit movie length" and about 20 other things pop up, that seem more official and posted within the last couple hours.

So shorter but still close enough to three hours per movie to be worrisome.

Leon

Around 2:15 to 2:45 hours including extended scenes is what i was expecting.

Tijnn.

Exactly one month to go!

Also, the full soundtrack got released. It's amazing.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757

Nex 0

@Tijnn.:

Exactly one month to go!

Also, the full soundtrack got released. It's amazing.
http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35757

Finally got around to listening to it. Twas indeed fantastic.

Bought my midnight premiere ticket today, as well as a ticket for the LotR event. My hype level has exceeded super and gone to haudhfukb.jzxbvu.

Robby

Production diary #9!

Only a couple more weeks to go!

http://www.thehobbitblog.com/

Pochipochi

For some reason I'm starting to actually get excited

I suppose because The Hobbit was the first really big book (for a kid) that I read when I was like 8 or whatever and I'm starting to be interested in it again.

Lord of the Rings I was never big on, though appreciative, but thiiiiis looks good . . .

MiyamotoMusashi

I think this is the first prequel i am really excited about, probably because i read the books and also have complete faith in Jackson.

CosmicDebris

The Beard Capture technology is impressive :)

CosmicDebris

Opening day is coming fast, and I've decided 1) I'm not doing a midnight viewing this time. Must be getting old… 2) I want to see it in old fashioned 2D first, then I'm going to see it in the super 48 fps 3D theater so I can compare.

The Laughing Man

Everyone be be warned: Apparently the 48 fps is making some people quite sick; headaches, nausea, and even vomiting. (It also isn't doing the greatest right now, as early reviews are flowing in (6.7/10 according to Rotten Tomatoes); but your personal review is all that matters, and this is a story for a different time).

Demon Rin

I'm suddenly worried. According to reviews, it has exactly the problem I thought it might. It apparently feels too bloated and full of story. According to said reviews, it takes them an hour just to set out and begin the actual quest. Even the prologue with Old Bilbo starting to tell the story to Frodo takes 10-15 minutes… This doesn't bode well...

The Laughing Man

@Demon:

I'm suddenly worried. According to reviews, it has exactly the problem I thought it might. It apparently feels too bloated and full of story. According to said reviews, it takes them an hour just to set out and begin the actual quest. Even the prologue with Old Bilbo starting to tell the story to Frodo takes 10-15 minutes… This doesn't bode well...

I felt the same way about The Fellowship of the Ring to be honest. It felt…like it took FOREVER for The Fellowship to actually form, and set off from Rivendell. (A reason why it's my least favorite movie out of The Lord of the Rings).

valiantt

Sounds like Jackson is going out of his way to detail every single little thing that happened in the book (plus more). That's the only way I can see them taking one hour before actually going out in the journey. It felt pretty quick in the book though.

CosmicDebris

@The:

Everyone be be warned: Apparently the 48 fps is making some people quite sick; headaches, nausea, and even vomiting. (It also isn't doing the greatest right now, as early reviews are flowing in (6.7/10 according to Rotten Tomatoes); but your personal review is all that matters, and this is a story for a different time).

Most theaters are not showing it in 48 fps. Only a select few.

And yeah….initially a lot of the reviews for FOTR weren't very good, they got better over time, and the full critical acclaim didn't really come until ROTK. Much of the same complaints were made about LOTR (too bloated, too long and drawn out) Also, pretty much up until the opening weekend, there were a lot of reputable news sources predicting LOTR would be a massive commercial failure.

Oksa

Saw this last night. The HFR wasn't bad, only different. And for the first time the 3D really worked and looked somewhat natural. And the movie is certainly unlike the book, but I can't decide if that's a bad or a good thing.

Nex 0

For one of my jobs I got to see it at a recent press screening, so here are my spoiler-free thoughts:

[hide]
Sadly, it was alright. Let me preface this by saying that I love the LotR movies. A lot. I think they're some of the best movies ever made and I marathon them quite often (just went to the huge marathon last weekend actually.) Needless to say I have been incredibly excited for The Hobbit since it was announced. When i finally got to see it I don't think I could have been more hyped.

I ended up having to see it in 48fps and 3D. The 3D was decent (didn't add anything), but I just couldn't get used to 48FPS. And I think there's a legitimate reason why that I'll get to momentarily.

Now for the pros of film: The acting was fantastic, as to be expected, no one disappointed. The music was exactly what you'd expect it to be; Shore's done it again. The look overall was pretty good.

The cons: Oh my God that pacing. If you thought Fellowship was slow, you're going to hate this. It got to the point where it kind of felt like a chore at times, and yes, a lot of it is because of "expanded content" as I'm going to call it. And this is really where I think the 48fps is a problem. For action sequences it can be pretty great, and I'm sure it'll look a lot better in "The Desolation of Smaug," but here, where nothing is happening, it just becomes so obvious and it never goes away.

Overall though it's a solid film. I do expect for parts 2 and 3 to be better pacing wise, now that he's got all his exposition out of the way.

RECOMMENDATIONS: See it in 24fps, and without 3D, and, if you really want to see it in theaters, go at the MATINEE price.

RATING: 6.5/10 [/hide]

baby-boo

Haven't seen it but, yeah, sort of what I was expecting. The book is not that long that it deserves three movies, nor as deep as LOTR in it's content, even if he is pulling out information from other books - which I've never stood for. Lord of the Rings cut out anything that felt unessessary. Here it seems like they're just including everything.

Didn't really think that FOTR was slow. I felt like the beginning displayed what a good place the Shire is how it is worth saving and all.