/ The Hobbit
I'm sure I'll eventually watch the Hobbit films, but I'll probably wait until they are out on DVD.
It didn't feel long to me but the 48fps 3d was a bit off-putting.
+1,actualy burn him twice, just to make sure like.
I'd say SPOILERS, but it was first published in 1937!
It was amazing.
At first I was really sceptical about it being made it to 3 films. I left it completely converted. The more the better, hell, if he wanted to make it in 5 films. Go for it. As long as the quality is high, what does it matter how long it's stretched out for? I think it's better they tell the story in detail rather than cram it into a short film.
Best film of 2012.
I watched it in 2d. Out of choice ;)
Well go ahead and waste your money then. It really was a rip off of the Lord of the Rings. Totally.
PS I've never been a Tolkein fan.
> PS I've never been a Tolkein fan.
So why sit through 4 films?
I'd say it narrowly beat James Bond for my most entertaining film of the year.
But maybe, being a fan of the books, I was easily pleased and just happy to be back in Middle Earth.
im upset its 3 parts long. for me the beauty of the hobbit was it didnt have all the over-complicated, boring, protracted twaddle of lord of the rings (both books and films).
whats next?? the silmarillion in fifteen episodes? its starting to feel like a made-for-dvd series.
1. It's too long...
2. It's too boring...
3. Unbelievable escapes (even for a fantasy film)...
4. Gandalf is a crap wizard (Harry Potter could easily beat him)...
5. No one dies...
6. Why didn't the eagles drop them off closer to the mountain...
7. What are they trying to do?...
8. Gollum is class...
9. Looks like a video game...
10. Glad I didn't waste money on 3D...
Do you think it may be a prequel of some sort?
> So why sit through 4 films?
Who said anything about sitting through 4 films? Seeing one of them was bad enough. I can at least said I've seen it, followed by "it was very poor"
P.S. Ive only just noticed the other thread on this. Apologies
Its got a load of the back stories you can read in the appendices at the end of the 3rd lord of the rings book incorporated in it as well. I though it was ruddy fantastic, cant wait til the 2nd and 3rd ones come out. The extra fps and 3d were a nice extra feature for those that wanted it but it still makes a great watch even without them (but i watched it with them first time, of course!). Its a bit more light-hearted than LotR, but then if you read the books then The Hobbit is the more light-hearted one anyway.
A brilliant film, best of the year IMO.
Found it pretty tedious. Start quest, fight trolls, run from orcs, fight orcs, run from orcs, fight orcs, run from orcs, fight orcs, fly from orcs... I haven't got much hope for the other two if this is it. Normally I would want to see the next instalment, but this time I am glad there's a break of 12mth.
First off the Lord of the Rings (book and films) is one of my all time favourites. I have the extended versions and have sat through them all back to back twice so far and constantly find new things to surprise me. In my opinion Jackson does LotR more than justice.
That being said well...I was a little disappointed in the Hobbit. Although there was much I liked the caverns of the Goblins/orcs, the exchange with Gollum, the dwarves song/lament it all some how lacked substance. In part I think this is down to an uncertainty about its audience. The Hobbit is far more a childrens book than LotR and the film seemed uncertain to go for laughs or gravitas. The result I felt was a film stretched thin like butter over too much toast. It was all walk, fight, run, fight with little character developement and little in the way of significant dialoge, fine for a short kids film but a little uneasy in a prequel to LotR. It had its moments but they were islands in an overlong whole.
But my biggest grip was the 3D. It was odd but far from bringing the film to life it actually stopped me from entering into the film. For one it kept reminding me I was watching a film, for another it was too "shiney" and another when the characters were speaking it some how felt like I was watching an episode of Emmerdale on the TV, it just looked like "acting". When I go to watch a film I like to feel immersed in it and enter into the world it portrays with this I just felt I was watching a construct.
I do have to wonder if you were never a Tolkien fan why you bothered to go and see it in the first place knowing that you wouldn't like it?
> im upset its 3 parts long. for me the beauty of the hobbit was it didnt have all the over-complicated, boring, protracted twaddle of lord of the rings (both books and films).
I completely agree. In both film making and novel writing there is great skill to being concise, which does not necessarily mean being "short".
In my opinion, the book of The Hobbit was concise whereas those of LOTR weren't, and had too many parts which no one really cared about. The films are the exact opposite way around; I was never bored watching LOTR, but I found myself wandering why certain parts of The Hobbit were even in the film. It felt far too padded.
Overall, I enjoyed it but it almost felt unnecessary as it was like I was just watching Fellowship again (it seems to pan out in almost exactly the same way); it just didn't seem to bring anything new to the franchise. I also can't see where three films are coming from as most of the events that I remember from the Hobbit have now happened!
The best thing about the film for me is Martin Freeman's performance as Bilbo; a much more likeable character than Frodo ever was.
I would agree there.
I saw the hobbit over Xmas and I thought it was fantastic.
I too came at it rather sceptically as I couldn't see how you could pad it out into 3 long films. However, when it came to actually seeing it, I didn't think it dragged, it was pretty much non stop action, it gave a lot more detail on Middle Earth, great photography, was somewhat lighter hearted than LOTR, some very good acting and characterisations and linked up really well with the LOTR trilogy.
Having seen it, I am genuinely surprised by how negative the reaction has been. I did see it on 3D imax which maybe added something, I don't know. I'm certainly glad i saw it in 3D - one of those films which does benefit from it maybe.
There were some negatives of course. There were perhaps one or two fantastical escapes (with no one hurt) too many - but maybe that's in keeping with what is in essence a children's story. There was also a 'chase' sequence with Radagast on a sled pulled by rabbits - trying to outrun some orcs - which did make me laugh but looked very ropey and low budget (part of this was probably down to my next point..)
My main criticism, however, was that - for me - the 48 frames per second thing didn't smooth it out but made the action sequences seem really jerky. I'm not sure why, that seems counter-intuitive as you would think doubling the frames per second would smooth it out. However, it was a bit distracting and was my biggest problem with the film. In other respects the 3D and HD image quality was fantastic. Some people have said the 48fps worked outside but not indoors - however for me it worked until the v fast action sequences.
Anyway, if you are a fan of Tolkien and Middle Earth I fail to see how you can't love this film. Even if you aren't, I still think it's of the best films I've seen this year.
Elsewhere on the site
This streamlined, midweight thermal layer has an incredibly speedy moisture wicking ability and dries ultra fast if it gets... Read more
October 21, 2014 – Textile Exchange, a global nonprofit dedicated to sustainability in the apparel and textile industry,... Read more
Climbing as a discipline offers plentiful metaphors for tackling life's obstacles - bravery, courage, climbing to... Read more
In tonight's Friday Night Video, we see Alex Honnold soloing Heaven 5.12d in Yosemite Valley. The route starts 3000ft above the... Read more
The B.D.V. — short for Black Diamond Vertical — jacket and pants are Black Diamond’s most versatile climbing... Read more