For me, the LOTR movies were never too long, i pretty much always watch the extended editions and even then i never got bored. If "The Hobbit" is similar to that, i probably will not have any problems. I honestly do not know the difference between 48fps and 24fps though, i mean what it stands for but i can not estimate the effects of it on screen.
The Hobbit movies
-
-
I've pretty much adopted the mentality that I'll be going to see part of a TV miniseries. Like seeing 2-3 episodes of Game of Thrones in a row.
-
Can't wait to see the premiere this friday! :happy:
-
Well for me the more Middle Earth content the better
-
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.
Neither did I. In fact, I think out of the Extended Cuts, it's the best overall film, and the pacing is even slower. For that reason I was shocked at how much the pacing bothered me in The Hobbit. It felt like by the end of it, very little had happened over the course of nearly 3 hours.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
I honestly do not know the difference between 48fps and 24fps though, i mean what it stands for but i can not estimate the effects of it on screen.
At the most simple level, 48fps is a much sharper image that 24fps. Everything is much more clean and distinct.
The real issue lies in that you've never seen a movie in this format before, and, at this point, your brain has a preconceived notion of what movies should look like, so the whole time something just feels off, even if you don't know why.
It's almost like a live action 'Uncanny Valley.' At least, that's the best way I can describe it.However, it should be noted that a lot of TV is actually filmed at 48fps (especially soap operas) which is why TV has its own distinct look that you wouldn't confuse for being a "movie look."
-
Thanks for the review Nex. It was pretty insightful. I think I will sit this one out and wait until it comes out for bluray. If it's a chore to sit through and watch, I would rather do it in the comfort of my own home with an alcoholic beverage.
48fps sounds like it will work better on the television too instead of a big projector (probably easier on the eyes).
-
guess who gets to see the hobbit tonight
-
Man, I hope it's good. Not sure if I should watch it in 48 fps or 24 fps. I don't know if I could not stop noticing the change if I watched it in 48 fps.
-
It was good
! necromancer is peepee scary
! I don't know what I expected from radaghast… But that was not it
! gollum<3
! frooodoooo<3
! if you were expecting lotr, you might be disappointed cuz this movie is way more light hearted. I kind of wish it was a bit more serious.
! Also gosh wow tone down the CGI, you did just fine without this much on the last film -
i'm actually scared of watching it and then thinking it was just a waste of money.
the nearest cinema has The Hobbit only in 3D and its expensive. -
This post is deleted!
-
69% on Rotten Tomatoes?
I understand that critics are not always the best source to go off of (Hell they've given my beloved Jumanji a 50% - a score that still baffles my mind O_O); however, in most cases they are right on the money. Many people had really high expectations for this film. High expectation may have equated to the 69% given to the movie.
I can excuse a grade within a 70% range, but a 60? Some of the complaints were pacing. Now LOTR had it's abnormal slow pacing in the Fellowship, but it worked for me and I'm sure it worked for many others, but that does not seem to be the case for The Hobbit.
Needless to say, I no longer have any intentions of seeing this movie in the theaters. Thank god for Django… this movie season isn't through yet!!!
LA LA LAAAAAA. LA LA LA LA!(-Dearly Beloved)
-
-
^^^ This
EDIT: Wow, that really doesn't work.
-
If it's true that one character alone destroys an entire (long ass) movie, than that means the other parts of the movie weren't even enough to make up for such an error. That's just sad
LA LA LAAAAAA. LA LA LA LA!(-Dearly Beloved)
-
I am actually surprised that Jackson and his staff of writers (which includes Guillermo del Toro by the way) decided to include Radagast in The Hobbit whereas he decided against it in the LOTR.
-
If it's true that one character alone destroys an entire (long ass) movie, than that means the other parts of the movie weren't even enough to make up for such an error. That's just sad
! i wish it was JUST radaghast but like
! 90% of the orcs looked like gross CGI rabbit people. the fat one was just like.. REALLY IS THIS REALLY THE BEST YOU COULD DO
! the main cast was all great as well as the elves (gandalf and the lady of the wood was really great moment)
! idk it just felt like they went out of their way to make it quirky and a lot of the seriousness or solemnity you might have expected from watching LOTR really wasnt there
! it was really like watching a young adult novelization of the Hobbit if that makes sense
  -
! Fuck the critics he's not even in the movie that long. Thats a bullshit score, this movie is awesome, if you loved LOTR then you will love this guaranteed. The slow pacing is bullshit aswell, Fellowship was incredibly slow at times….but those slow parts are the moments that engross you more into the world of middle earth, rich with detail and charter development. Its the same thing here with The Hobbit. Like I said if you loved LOTR you will love this.
-
Wasn't Radagast's entire role in the Fellowship of the Ring?
-
Err essentially Radagast's role in FOR was to get Gandalf into Orthanc (spelling?) and help him get out (kinda). He was ONLY mentioned in Hobbit, but for some odd reason, they decide to show case him in this movie instead of FOR. Maybe they needed to flesh out some plot holes so they included his character? I have no idea since I have yet to see it (and probably WON'T see it until it comes out in a nice bluray package).
From what I read, it seems they took some creative liberties with this character in the Hobbit.
Tumblr: https://www.tumblr.com/blog/pomeranianhero
deviantart: http://pomeranianhero.deviantart.com/
-
Just think, people complaining about the pacing… the extended cut is going to be 20 minutes longer.
(But then, if there's going to be an extended cut anyway, maybe the movie shoulda been trimmed down for a faster pace, since that seems to be a big complaint? Its fine if the theatrical is 2 hours and the extended is 3 hours. Same dif as if the theatrical is 2 hours 40 minutes and extended is 3 hours...)
Err essentially Radagast's role in FOR was to get Gandalf into Orthanc (spelling?) and help him get out (kinda). He was ONLY mentioned in Hobbit, but for some odd reason, they decide to show case him in this movie instead of FOR.
Because LotR was trying to condense three lengthy books and there wasn't the clout then to film unlimited extra footage… it was still a huge risk. Cuts were made and pacing was confined.
The exact opposite is going on here where one book is being expanded crazily.
Anyway, seeing the movie tomorrow with the office. I'm fairly sure I'll like it regardless of the complaints.
-
! i wish it was JUST radaghast but like
! 90% of the orcs looked like gross CGI rabbit people. the fat one was just like.. REALLY IS THIS REALLY THE BEST YOU COULD DO
! the main cast was all great as well as the elves (gandalf and the lady of the wood was really great moment)
! idk it just felt like they went out of their way to make it quirky and a lot of the seriousness or solemnity you might have expected from watching LOTR really wasnt there
! it was really like watching a young adult novelization of the Hobbit if that makes senseI feel a little enstranged by that kind of criticism all around the place, still have to see it, but for now it really sounds like people are disappointed that the hobbit isn't like LoTR which is ok but to be honest anyone knowing the book shouldn't expect that.
The hobbit is written in a totally different style very much akin to a childrens story so lighter tones and silliness are to be expected.
About the cgi I've heard very varying things, like it being really bad if coupled with hfr but being a nonissue for 24 frames. Really lookin forward to find out myself if it's really too much or too obvious.
-
Yeah, they replaced Radagast with a moth in the movie version of FotR.
Strange that they would have him as an actual character in the Hobbit. Are they perhaps expanding the Dol Guldur plotline?
-
Also yeah pretty much feeling like this right now
-
I thought this article pegged the movie pretty well
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8743459/unexpected-journey
-
Are they perhaps expanding the Dol Guldur plotline?
Yeah, thats been a known factor for a while. We'll see what Gandalf is up to whenever he leaves the group randomly.
-
The hobbit is written in a totally different style very much akin to a childrens story so lighter tones and silliness are to be
yeah I've read the hobbit so I knew to expect a light tone. You sure as hell got your lighter tone
I thought this article pegged the movie pretty well
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8743459/unexpected-journey
yea this is really accurate except I think the 'litch' on Rad's face was just bird shit
-
Well, it should transition darker as they deal with the necromancer, Smaug, and the battle of five armies and the fallout from that.
-
Yeah, the tone of FOTR v. ROTK is distinctly different.
But this is not LOTR. The Hobbit is the Hobbit, it's a fun, light-hearted adventure, always has been - no matter what they do, it won't match the epic, emotional weight of the LOTR because it's just not there in the text, although there are some heavier moments towards the end.
-
yeah i know i read it
idk, if you like it you like it. it was mostly good, just some really bizarre choices were made by directors
-
I'm concerned, honestly. I'm just glad that I opted to not re-read the books recently so I don't have my brain expecting things to happen a certain way. That gave me major issues with FOTR the first time.
-
Came back from the premiere, folks nothing to worry about here. The film was amazing. So much fun to watch, is it lighter than LOTR…yes but it absolutely works being lighter, funnier and honestly dare I say more enjoyable. LOTR has set the bar VERY high and will never be met. So if you compare it to that yes it's not as good but if you judge it on it's own its easily one of the best films of the year, certainly one of the most enjoyable. With regards to the pacing...its fine, you get more a sense of Middle Earth as its expanded upon and is rich with detail so in my opinion it doesn't really bog the movie down. It really pisses me off when people confuse character development and story progression for slow pacing...if you want non-stop action go watch Transformers!
Freeman as Bilbo...God bless the man he was perfect, great casting. The dwarves each had their own distinct personalities, some shined more than others but as a whole they were handled extremely well. So the acting was great, even Radagast..he is not as bad as people are making him out to be...he is a little quirky but he is NOT Jar Jar Binks rest assured. Besides he's hardly in it at all. The cinematography was breathtaking, the scenery was beautiful really there is nothing to complain about with this film you just have to remember that this is The Hobbit not LOTR and you should love it. Oh and watch it in 24fps.
To anyone on the fence about watching it...come on now this is Peter Jackson and Tolkien do yourself a favour and go see it, and make sure to thank me when you get back
--- Update From New Post Merge ---
Oh and by the way the entire audience in the theatre got on their feet and started clapping during the credits, I kid you not, a good 30 seconds of a standing ovation. Don't listen to the critics.
Oh and that 9 minute Stark Trek preview O.O
-
Ok, Saw it, Loved it, but it wasn't perfect.
Basically, once they left Bag End, it felt like everything from there on was great, but it just… took WAY too long to get there... It was like 10 minutes of Bilbo talking and telling the story of how Smaug took the mountain in the first place, then 40-50 minutes, no fooling, of the Dwarves meeting at Bag End. That whole bit could have easily been condensed, about 20-30 minutes total out of that hour could have been easily cut. A few minor cuts in the rest of the film would have benefited it, but for the most part once they left Bag End, the following hour and 40 minutes was wonderful.
Also, I saw it in 24 fps. I've yet to see a single review that doesn't react negatively to the 48, so I steered clear of it, and the CGI and everything looked fine. Maybe seeing it in 48 is what's making everyone go "It's like a Video Game", because I certainly didn't get that feeling from it.
I'd probably give it a 7.5 our of 10. There's a 10 movie in there, they just need to remove about 45 minutes, and it'd be perfect.
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
-
This post is deleted!
-
Loved it.
Saw it in 48fps, took my eyes literally no more than 2 minutes to adjust and I thought it looked gorgeous.
Yes, there were bits I thought could be improved: to completely oppose anyone thinking it's "too light-hearted" I actually think it took itself a little too serious here and there. Not in any way that majorly impacted the story, just in some very obvious attempts at tonal and visual throwbacks to LotR.
A lot of the action scenes were kind of exacerbated, but not to any distraction except for the madness that was like the half hour mountain goblins circus ride. Sure it was fun, but it was an over the top action set piece that really didn't aide the tension in the film that much and kind of made the rest of the more toned-down action scenes seem less impactful by comparison.
Also Azog looked stupid
But honestly, compare that to any number of issues I found with any of the original trilogy and these are actuallyless severe. Really just the lack of Arwen and all the overblown unnecessary melodrama (in spite of which I loved the trilogy) actually ends up boosting the film ahead of the original films for me. The characters are awesome fun, the adventure more joyous and personal and the sets, costumes and landscapes look even more spectacular than ever. I can ask no more than that.
-
I am actually surprised that Jackson and his staff of writers (which includes Guillermo del Toro by the way) decided to include Radagast in The Hobbit whereas he decided against it in the LOTR.
That's what happens when you take a book shorter than any of the LotR books and make it into three fucking movies.
-
That's what happens when you take a book shorter than any of the LotR books and make it into three fucking movies.
This is one of the silliest times to raise that complaint possible. It makes perfect structural sense for Radagast to be in the Hobbit, and Jackson would've put him in regardless of the number of films.
-
@Mog:
This is one of the silliest times to raise that complaint possible. It makes perfect structural sense for Radagast to be in the Hobbit, and Jackson would've put him in regardless of the number of films.
For a director that often attempts to follow the book, Radagast's inclusion seems unnecessary outside of an attempt to stretch the movie longer (note: I have yet to see it, but I have read the book and some reviews of the film). From what I recall, he was only referred to rather than actually doing anything explicitly like what he should have done in the FOTR.
-
Honestly Radagast tied into the story very well. It didn't feel out of place and set up bigger things that have yet to take place, I'm sure you guys know what I'm talking about.
–- Update From New Post Merge ---
@Mog:
Also Azog looked stupid
My only complaint of the film. A little too much CGI…but thats just me nitpicking.
-
i just figured rad and the necromancer were gonna be put in as part of the simarillion junk that's rumored to be included (cuz i haven't read the simarillion)
  -
@Mog:
The characters are awesome fun, the adventure more joyous and personal and the sets, costumes and landscapes look even more spectacular than ever. I can ask no more than that.
I think you summed it up very well here. Just a great fun movie.
-
That's what happens when you take a book shorter than any of the LotR books and make it into three fucking movies.
Well, the LOTR movies were ingenious but they still left out many things the books had, i guess Hobbit will include more things from the book which explains the length of it.
-
i just figured rad and the necromancer were gonna be put in as part of the simarillion junk that's rumored to be included (cuz i haven't read the simarillion)
Nope there isn't really anything about the hobbit in the silmarillion (at least in my print).
All the stories in it happen at a time far earlier to any of the more known stories of tolkien.I'm curious from which appendices he's supposedly pulling from.
I suppose there is some stuff pulled from the unfinished tales but I really don't think that would be enough to make 3 movies so long. -
For a director that often attempts to follow the book
Here I'd stress the word ''often''. Radagast in the film was really only a minor structural diversion, especially compared to the myriad of much more excessive changes that permeate both this film and the LotR trilogy. It seems really odd to single him out for that reason, especially when the arguments for his inclusion (as both a treat for fans and the fact they missed putting him in the original) are much less feeble.
I do think it would've made sense to put him in the Fellowship, but there could be tons of reasons they didn't for all I know, and even so that point has no bearing on this film whatsoever.
-
Honestly I had no problem with the pacing. I enjoyed the movie a lot. All I can say.
-
The Lord of the Rings books all come with appendices at the end that flesh out the universe and help to explain the events of both the LotR books and The Hobbit, and especially help bridge the two together. There are relevant appendices in all 3 books, but the majority of the ones pertaining to The Hobbit are in RotK
Switch Friend Code: SW-1795-2519-1884 • Click Here to check out my Twitch Channel
-
Well, the LOTR movies were ingenious but they still left out many things the books had, i guess Hobbit will include more things from the book which explains the length of it.
Yes but there is a big difference between a long book made into one movie, and a short book made into three movies. If they made the The Fellowship of the Ring movie's length proportional to the length of the Hobbit trilogy, you would have a 12 hour movie. Does that sound appealing to you?
-
The Lord of the Rings books all come with appendices at the end that flesh out the universe and help to explain the events of both the LotR books and The Hobbit, and especially help bridge the two together. There are relevant appendices in all 3 books, but the majority of the ones pertaining to The Hobbit are in RotK
thx, damn I have to buy a different print of the lotr then. Those appendixes are totally missing from the german translated version I got…
-
It's at 65% now. Well at least the movie goers seem to enjoy it.
-
A 12 hour movie not sounding appealing has little to nothing to do with the stretching out of source material.
It has to do with being a goddamn 12 hour movie. What kind of stupid question is that. Ask if someone would find the comparable idea of turning Fellowship of the Ring into a 12-episode miniseries to be appealing and you vastly change the sweep of the question. (and it would be a far fairer analogy to boot)
