|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Dec 19, 2012 19:04:09 GMT -6
Ha! Love The Onion! The boys and I plan to see it on Christmas Eve with all the bells and whistles. I expect to be entertained, not to see my beloved book from childhood be presented in faithfulness. Heck, even Clint Eastwood isn't presented in any of his movies as he was originally written.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 19, 2012 19:16:04 GMT -6
I saw the 3-D HFR version today and really enjoyed it.
|
|
|
Post by havard on Jan 2, 2013 10:11:42 GMT -6
I thought it was great. There were a few elements I didn't care too much for, but overall I loved it. I am very happy that it kept the style/atmosphere of the LotR movies.
-Havard
|
|
|
Post by Sean Michael Kelly on Jan 2, 2013 12:03:33 GMT -6
I would say that The Hobbit, met or exceeded my expectations. We saw it on Christmas Eve in 3D HFR, and quite frankly, I'm not sure what all the hullabaloo is about regarding the HFR. The movie was fun, at times disappointing, but other times breathtaking and a lot of fun. I plan to see it again, but it won't be in 3D-HFR.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jan 2, 2013 12:33:13 GMT -6
Ditto Sean. I saw it in 2D, actually, and thought it was awesome. As a bonus, my 8 year-old went with me, loved it, and immediately wanted to watch the LotR films...
|
|
|
Post by doctorx on Jan 2, 2013 14:41:21 GMT -6
Okay, I was really excited about this, but the more I heard, the more concerned I became, especially when I heard two films were turning into three. (The jury's still out on this for me...) So I finally went to see it yesterday, very much wanting to like it, but fearing it might prove otherwise... And I am delighted to report that I REALLY ENJOYED IT! It wasn't perfect, by any means. There were a few 'get on with it' moments, (though nowhere near as many as I'd heard) and I think Jackson's becoming overly-reliant on CGI, which I don't think is quite as clever as he seems to. (Azog, in particular, I found very bland and unconvincing, lacking in individuality and real menace - a Big Orc, nothing more. I thought the Great Goblin was much better!) But this was more than made up for for me by some fantastic performances! I thought Martin Freeman was superb as Bilbo, (the highlight of the movie for me was the riddle contest with Serkis' amazing Gollum -a brilliantly put together sequence). I very much liked Richard Armitage's Thorin - got just the right mix of arrogance, heroism, nobility and greed - and Sir Ian McKellen was imperious once again as Gandalf. Even Sylvester McCoy as Radagast was nowhere near as irritating as I feared he was going to be - I thought he brought a surprising degree of depth to a part that could so easily have tipped into farce. And I loved his chariot! So I'm with SMKSensei - met or exceeded my expectations! Which was a HUGE relief! Bring on Part Two!
|
|
arcadayn
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by arcadayn on Jan 3, 2013 10:15:18 GMT -6
I really enjoyed the film, and have seen it twice now - once in 3d hfr and once in normal 2d. I thought the hfr 3d was very cool. I felt that it gave he movie more of a fairy tale sheen (if that makes sense). I agree that the white orc was totally lame, and the goblin scene was over the top. However, if you pay attention to the goblin battle scenes, it's only the warrior dwarves who do the ass kicking. Nevertheless, it was still pretty over the top. I especially chaffed at how characters could fall hundreds of feet and not be even slightly injured.
Aside from that, I really enjoyed myself, and might even rank it above TTT and RoTK.
|
|
arcadayn
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 236
|
Post by arcadayn on Jan 3, 2013 10:18:11 GMT -6
Oh yeah, and the orcs continuously referring to the dwarves as "dwarf scum" reminded me way too much of crappy George Lucas dialog.
|
|
|
Post by doctorx on Jan 3, 2013 16:24:35 GMT -6
I think I should see it again before I make any final judgements, but my immediate reaction would be to rank it above TTT. That remains the one Peter Jackson Middle-Earth movie I've exited shaking my head and muttering Dwarvishly. That skateboarding elf moment still rankles... ( ;D)
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 3, 2013 23:16:11 GMT -6
My ranking of PJ's Middle-earth films, from favorite to least:
1. FOTR: I loved it in the theatre, and I still like to watch it (though I skip over some parts).
2. TTT and ROTK (tie): I loved these in the theatre, but they didn't hold up for me. I don't watch them anymore.
3. The Hobbit: I watched this once in the theatre, and I didn't care for it.
|
|
bat
Level 4 Theurgist
Mostly Chaotic
Posts: 144
|
Post by bat on Jan 4, 2013 3:34:01 GMT -6
I thought I was on mushrooms for a lot of that movie, it was so completely odd. I love the book and always will, but the movie was really an odd trip. I did think that Freeman was an excellent Bilbo Baggins, he was just getting bogged down in all that other stuff. And while a lot of people hit the nail on the head with their problems with it, what really got me was....
I will toss in a spoiler line for the heck of it....
Thorin accepting Bilbo. He thought he was useless for the most part until Thorin was dying. Maybe a little thing, but it will lessen the impact of Thorin's death scene (unless he becomes a Transformer or a vampire dwarf like Blade or something, you never know).
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 4, 2013 9:02:02 GMT -6
You know, my wife did complain about cutting out the bit where the dwarves order breakfast from Bilbo.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jan 4, 2013 11:42:07 GMT -6
The wife and I went to see this Wednesday as our Christmas present to each other. We were not able to see the 3D version of the film due to it being shown later so watched the 2D. Overall, we were blown away and really enjoyed it. Had we the time or money we would have turned around and watched it again.
I liked how the gaps between the Hobbit ad LOTR were handled and, if they are continued, will form a great bridge between the two tales. The addition of Radigast was a nice touch as he was left out of LOTR and I found myself loving the character. I will say that this characterization is different than I imagined him but was a fun take on him.
I only have a minor quibble with the movie as a whole which deals with Azog. I found that the CG used made him look not quite real enough and more like something out of a painting or illustration. While I did not hate it, I did find it distracting. I wish they had done a costume like they did with Lurtz in Fellowship rather than full on CG.
|
|
bat
Level 4 Theurgist
Mostly Chaotic
Posts: 144
|
Post by bat on Jan 4, 2013 14:15:59 GMT -6
True, Azog did look like the typical cookie-cutter computer illustration.
|
|
|
Post by Vile Traveller on Jan 4, 2013 22:43:59 GMT -6
I'll third that opinion - I don't know why they didn't use more make-up a la LotR, Saruman's Uruk-hai were one of my favourite bits. Wasn't the Weta Workshop involved in this one?
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jan 5, 2013 12:07:44 GMT -6
Weta was involved and I think they did a great job overall. They made Gollum look much better this time around which shows that the technology is getting better. Not that Gollum looked bad before, they just improved on what they had done. I would also say that they kept up their stellar standards for Middle-Earth.
I would also to go as far to say that Weta has become this century's Lucasfilm and Henson Company. I say this with due respect as they were pioneers of the day and did some great things in film. Weta stands to inherit that legacy and, given what they have been involved in, has proven they are up to it.
That all said, Azog was possibly their weakest decision/effect. While I don't dislike the use of CG or newer effect styles I think they went too far with him. Now to be fair, he was impressive and I have seen paintings with similar characters that were equally impressive. Unfortunately Azog looked too much like a painting than he did a real character which surprises me that Weta would do something like this.
I am withholding final judgement on this move until the extended edition comes. Given that the extended versions of LOTR went into the whys and wherefores of the film-making process I want to see why they chose what they did with Azog.
Again though, I thought the film was great and would see it again.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 5, 2013 18:18:53 GMT -6
I am withholding final judgement on this move until the extended edition comes. Are they going to have an extended version of this? By all the orbital gods...
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jan 6, 2013 14:49:42 GMT -6
Already in the pipe. I wouldn't be surprised as they released extended versions of LOTR.
|
|
|
Post by kent on Jan 6, 2013 23:50:37 GMT -6
Are they going to have an extended version of this? By all the orbital gods... Apparently the producers are releasing a 'Big Brother' edition of The Hobbit which you can watch live, 24 hours a day. No way. Count me out.
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Jan 7, 2013 0:10:54 GMT -6
Weellll...
My wife went with me to see it today, and said, and I quote, 'It was wonderful, I was entranced from the beginning, all the way to the end'.
She's normally pretty ambivalent about fantasy, and in particular doesn't like long movies.
I noticed it has pretty good legs, third week at no. 1 I believe.
I watched Azog more carefully this time, and I don't have a problem with the CGI. The movies have portrayed goblins as having great variety of appearance from the beginning anyway, and his movement and facial expressions were more than good enough to keep me engaged.
My only criticisms of the movie are the portrayal of Radagast, and addition of the stone giants...overall I think it's the least flawed in the series. My ranking...
1) The Hobbit 2) Fellowship 3) Two Towers 4) Return
That's not to say I don't love each and every one. I am very pleased with the continuity.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 7, 2013 10:35:18 GMT -6
Are they going to have an extended version of this? By all the orbital gods... Apparently the producers are releasing a 'Big Brother' edition of The Hobbit which you can watch live, 24 hours a day. No way. Count me out. I'm with you. The film already felt bloated. Even more? That's way, way too much for me. I think this could have been a fine 3-hour film that covered the entirety of The Hobbit. Then they could have added 30 minutes or so for an Extended Edition DVD release, and that still could have been cool. But a 9-hour Hobbit? Then, with the Extended Editions, an 11-hour Hobbit? Like you said, count me out. I caught a matinee showing of the Hobbit, and I'll do the same for the next two out of sheer curiousity if nothing else. But I will certainly not buy the DVD of the first one, and I doubt if I will be interested in the DVDs of the second or third.
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jan 7, 2013 18:34:37 GMT -6
Geoffrey, I've read your opinions about the movie with interest, so please take me at my word that the following is not a rhetorical question: In what sense are three films "way, way too much" for you if you saw the first and already have plans to see the second and third? They may be "way, way too much for you" as a person who cultivates informed opinions in the garden of your mind, but they must not be "way, way too much for you" as a consumer. Am I wrong to say that fifty years ago (twenty-five, even) this is a distinction we, as cultural participants, wouldn't have made? (Is this also the fertile soil from which hate-watching [q.v. www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/12/28/_2012_word_of_the_year_hate_watching_is_the_best_choice.html] sprouts?)
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Jan 7, 2013 23:44:37 GMT -6
I like the idea of an extended version...I'll bet there would be a great deal more of the dwarf's byplay, for one thing. And little things like ordering breakfast that might be worth a chuckle...and the New Zealand cinematography.
Me, if I have severe criticisms of a movie I don't bother going to see another one in the series...such as every super hero thingy coming out over the past years and forseeable future. No Avengers, Cap America, Spidey, Stuporman, Thor, etc, ad nauseum infinitum. Or stuff like Transformers, or any more shoot 'em ups, although I may break that one for the father-son element of the upcoming Die Hard movie. Ugh, they simply don't have me. I won't complain about something and then indulge in it anyway. Don't see the point.
|
|
|
Post by garham on Jan 9, 2013 12:24:39 GMT -6
I rather liked it. Went in with some serious reservations about padding and the addition of Azog.
Was the Azog bit a tad annoying? Yes. Was it padded? In my opinion yes. Could I have done without all of the references to LOTR and appendix material that was added? Most definitely. But was I entertained? You betcha.
People are certainly entitled to love or hate the film. As far as purism goes I think a lot of people are simply expecting too much from a hollywood movie. I think that complaints about the length of the film are quite valid.
It would be interesting to see when the DVDs are released if any fan cuts will show up on the interwebs. I'd love to watch these movies without all of the LOTR and appendix material.
|
|
|
Post by geoffrey on Jan 9, 2013 15:06:08 GMT -6
Geoffrey, I've read your opinions about the movie with interest, so please take me at my word that the following is not a rhetorical question: In what sense are three films "way, way too much" for you if you saw the first and already have plans to see the second and third? They may be "way, way too much for you" as a person who cultivates informed opinions in the garden of your mind, but they must not be "way, way too much for you" as a consumer. Am I wrong to say that fifty years ago (twenty-five, even) this is a distinction we, as cultural participants, wouldn't have made? (Is this also the fertile soil from which hate-watching [q.v. www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/12/28/_2012_word_of_the_year_hate_watching_is_the_best_choice.html] sprouts?) A matinee showing were I live costs only $5.50. In 2012 (a typical year), I went to the movies only three times (Avengers [yeah!], Batman [meh], and The Hobbit [meh]). Thus my cinema costs for an entire year were a mere $16.50. Add to that the fact that I never buy soda, popcorn, or candy at the theatre, and I quite literally have change left over from a $20 bill after an entire year's worth of movie-going. Thus we're talking about a small amount of money here. Because I enjoyed all three LotR films in the theatre (though the latter two don't hold up for me), and because I enjoy the book of The Hobbit so much, I am naturally curious about the next two film installments of The Hobbit. Sheer curiousity leads me to plan to spend $11 more over the next two years on this film series. I'm poor, but not THAT poor. ;D (That said, I would refuse to pay full-ticket price to see the sequels.) The film didn't offend me, or disgust me, or bore me to tears. (If it had done any of those things, then I wouldn't see its sequels.) It was just disappointing. It had its moments. It wasn't a total wash. I didn't walk out angry about paying $5.50 for the film. It was just...meh. Perhaps most importantly, when I really like a book or a film, I buy it and re-read or re-watch it. C. S. Lewis said that the mark of a book lover is he who re-reads books. That's how I feel about films. If I watch it once, and only once, it almost doesn't count. If I had really liked The Hobbit film, I would have seen it 2 or 3 times in the theatre, and I would buy the DVD when it was released. Let's crunch the numbers: Seeing each Hobbit film 2.5 times at $5.50/ticket comes to $41.25. Add to that $10/DVD for three DVDs, and we have a grand total of $71.25. So if I liked these films, I'd spend about $71.25 total. Instead, I plan to spend $16.50 total. So these films aren't worthless to me. They're worth $16.50 spread over three years. Contrast that to, say, a typical chick flick which I wouldn't see for free (much less for $5.50). Hope that made some sense. ;D
|
|
zeraser
Level 4 Theurgist
Posts: 184
|
Post by zeraser on Jan 9, 2013 19:22:22 GMT -6
That actually made a lot of sense - thanks for the breakdown.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Darke on Jan 11, 2013 14:02:42 GMT -6
There are very few movies that I would honestly say that I hated. Among them are Fantastic Planet, Eregon, and Alien vs. Predator:Requiem. There have been several that I have been disappointed with like Bram Stoker's Dracula, D&D Book of Vile Darkness and most of the Next Generation Star Trek films.
For the most part I will give a film a chance and take it on it's own merits with the final verdict being based on whether or not I was entertained for a couple or three hours. This has led me to being able to enjoy some films that others consider really bad.
I think the big thing for me is trying not to form any expectations of a film before watching it. I have found that by setting high expectations for anything leads to disappointment and a lack of enjoyment of most things.
As for The Hobbit and LOTR, I grew up with the Rankin/Bass versions of the story and enjoyed them. I also enjoyed the Peter Jackson versions and both will be on my shelf once everything is released.
The only version that I really did not care for was the Bakshi version of LOTR. I found the animation creepy, the characterizations odd and the whole thing felt more like 60's and 70's drug cinema than fantasy. That said, it sits on my shelf with the other animated versions and I try to watch it from time to time.
In the end I see no reason why one cannot enjoy both the film and book versions of the story. Neither do I understand all the hatred for the film version especially the purist and near elitist comments that have been made.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jan 13, 2013 0:35:20 GMT -6
In the end I see no reason why one cannot enjoy both the film and book versions of the story. Neither do I understand all the hatred for the film version especially the purist and near elitist comments that have been made. No no no no no no no no. Criticizing some flick is totally cool behavior. Calling fellow posters “elitist purists” is totally not cool behavior.
|
|
|
Post by famouswolf on Jan 13, 2013 13:27:17 GMT -6
Unless it's a 'crappy flick' you like, eh?
Besides, I've noticed that most who post on these boards ARE elitist purists. Or something like that.
Who need to grow up.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jan 13, 2013 19:49:01 GMT -6
Play nice, folks. Some of us happen to like the movie and there's no point in name calling.
|
|