The Hobbit (no spoilers)

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:17 am

Just thought I'd mention. Saw the Hobbit this weekend. Was pretty good. Been a while since I read the book, but as far as I could tell the movie was quite faithful to it. Although I do get the feeling alot of scenes were much more embellished than they needed to be... A bit of filler and scenes dragging on a bit. Peter Jackson is after all trying to turn one third of the book into a 3 hour movie... I also thought PJ tried too hard to make a few things way overly epic, compared to how it was portrayed in the book, but meh.

All in all, was pretty fun, battle of five armies is gonna be sweet in the third movie.

Oh and 3D was lame. See the 2D version on the brighter screen.

Nemon · Post by **Nemon** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:56 am

See it in 3d 48fps, and join my level of coolness. Lets put the outdated frame rates to death and shape a sharp future, movie by movie.

gro-Dhal · Post by **gro-Dhal** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 12:12 pm

I think i've seen both versions and I couldn't tell the difference. I like the bits with the dwarves whenever the theme music kicks in and they run at the bad guys. That happens 3-4 times, which is cool.

Katze · Post by **Katze** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:43 pm

I never got how movies have managed to stay in 24FPS for so long and how people say it looks weird, when games are always aiming for 60+ FPS.

I'd be happy to see film brought up to modern standards too. Also if I go watch it I won't be bothering with 3D, all it generally does is give me a headache D:

Tyrant · Post by **Tyrant** » Wed Dec 26, 2012 3:22 am

For some reason the 48fps somewhat reminded me of those old still-camera british sit coms... But thats just me... It was very noticeable.

Post by **Haplo** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 3:42 am

I didn't notice any difference with the framerate versus the traditional framerate. The 3D is done flawlessly, so it's only a plus, never a minus. Unfortunately, there was one scene where the camera was diving deep underground to show a Dwarven settlement where everything was blurred. This was the case in both 3D and 2D; it pissed me off, because everything was CG in those scenes (AFAIK there are no ancient Dwarven settlements underground IRL), so there's no reason why they can't have been focused. That blur gave me a bit of a headache, but luckily that shot only lasted about five or ten seconds.

Thrignar Fraxix · Post by **Thrignar Fraxix** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:46 am

Most theaters aren't actually equipped to show it at 48 fps so if you haven't noticed anything different you probably didn't actually see it like that. (I still haven't seen it at 48fps either, I just know few are equipped properly)

Post by **Haplo** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 7:51 am

I saw it in IMAX 3D so I imagine it was equipped for proper frame rates...

Yeti · Post by **Yeti** » Thu Dec 27, 2012 4:47 pm

I've heard that the first Hobbit movie drags out the book material a lot. Did anyone notice that when they saw it?

Terrifying Daedric Foe · Fri Dec 28, 2012 9:48 am

They add several subplots that were either buried deep in the background in the book or were entirely absent. They have to, or the film wouldn't be long enough. But I didn't notice the film dragging on after they left Bag End (the Bag End scene lasts forever).

I saw it in 3D and super-duper-frame-rate-thing. The 3D was very good, although as always with 3D I would have enjoyed the film equally as much if it wasn't there. I didn't notice any difference with the frame-rate, although maybe if I went and saw it in a different cinema using 24 fps I would. Although one strange thing, during the flashback at the beginning it looked like the dwarfs were walking slightly more quickly than I would expect them to, a bit like when you watch a piece of film from the 1910s or 20s. Perhaps that was something to do with the 48 fps not being done quite right? Or maybe it was just me...

Matin Sanguine · Post by **Matin Sanguine** » Fri Dec 28, 2012 3:12 pm

Terrifying Daedric Foe wrote:They add several subplots that were either buried deep in the background in the book or were entirely absent. They have to, or the film wouldn't be long enough. But I didn't notice the film dragging on after they left Bag End (the Bag End scene lasts forever).

Tyrant wrote:Although I do get the feeling alot of scenes were much more embellished than they needed to be... A bit of filler and scenes dragging on a bit. Peter Jackson is after all trying to turn one third of the book into a 3 hour movie... I also thought PJ tried too hard to make a few things way overly epic, compared to how it was portrayed in the book, but meh.

I agree with this sentiment as well, some subplots or barely mentioned parts of the book were fleshed out in the movie alongside parts which were added to the movie and parts of the book which were changed (though not all to bad effect), These are not really noticeable or glaring to you unless you have read the book. All in all it feels like the Director's Cut of The Lord of the Rings; the movie is still very good but some parts are drawn out or can definitely be done without. And I agree with Tyrant's comment, there were certainly parts that were made overly epic and stretched out with filler due to the book being adapted into 3 movies.

I didn't get a chance to experience 48 frames per second because the cinema I went to projected it in 24 frames per second (which was unfortunate, because the day after I watched it I ended up going to another city which had a properly equipped cinema, ah well). 3-D was used decently in this film, but I don't really feel that it is necessary to enjoy the film (getting used to it is a little irritating). for me all it really did was make certain parts pop out (sometimes annoyingly), and I probably would not have watched it in 3-D had not my friend been particularly persistent about it (otherwise I avoid 3-D like the plague).

The returning characters I found to be the most impressive, however the amount of Dwarf supporting characters don't really allow for a large amount of character development for them (the Dwarves) unfortunately.

All in all, it's decent movie, but as a Tolkien fan I haven't fully made up my mind on how I feel about the content, but it's still a good movie nonetheless.

Rienieboy · Post by **Rienieboy** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:16 am

I heard that Peter jackson's vision on the three films was to not only incorporate the story of Bilbo and the dwarves but also the tales surrounding Gandalf (why he helped the dwarves) and other things that were happening at that time (I suspect we're going to see that visit of the ringwraits at Erebor)to beter flesh out the situation and the build up to the war of the ring. This could mainly be the reason why he wants to do 3 films and why "background" plots are adressed here more properly.

Myzel · Post by **Myzel** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:33 am

Call me cynical, but I think the main reason there will be 3 movies is money.

If it was a creative decision, it was in my opinion a wrong one. Fleshed out background plots and slow, detailed buildups are better left for novels, where they might actually work. A movie very much benifits from a tight, well constructed plot that actually goes somewhere in a 3 hour span. Suffice to say I was less than impressed by Peter Jackson's Bilbo and the Thirteen Dwarves.

Andres Indoril · Post by **Andres Indoril** » Sat Dec 29, 2012 4:48 pm

I must say I enjoyed the movie.

My favourite character was Sebastian.

Yeti · Post by **Yeti** » Sun Dec 30, 2012 3:17 am

Out of curiosity, is anyone else familiar with the 1977 Rankin/Bass The Hobbit animated movie?

[img]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bT2CzLtfRJ8/SDDYIwEFhdI/AAAAAAAAAIE/bBW_hMuY11o/s320/Gandalf%2BRankin%2BBass%2BHobbit.jpg[/img]

It's actually a pretty good adaptation of the book. A real classic, in my opinion. I also just learned its from the same stuido that made the Rudolph the Red nosed Reindeer holiday Special.

Post by **Haplo** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:07 am

I remember watching the 70s animated movies of the four books; they were pretty good. And if anyone here is thinking the way the movies were done was too embellishing or due to desires of money, you don't know Tolkien, and you don't know PJ. He is a fan boy among fan boys, and is drawing information from not only The Hobbit, but also The Silmarillion and The Lost Tales to describe the world, characters, and story lines of The Hobbit. ~10 hours is how Tolkien would have wanted it.

Terrifying Daedric Foe · Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:30 am

Iirc, he sold the film rights for LotR for a pittance because he thought that any film(s) made of it would have to be so long that no film company would be willing to risk making it.

Katze · Post by **Katze** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 1:40 pm

I'm going to see this movie tonight, and as it turns out I will be seeing it in 3D, because that was the only screening at a time we could all manage D:

I'll probably say what I thought of it when I return this evening.

gro-Dhal · Post by **gro-Dhal** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 2:16 pm

I look forward to the epic three part adaptation of Farmer Giles of Ham

Andres Indoril · Post by **Andres Indoril** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 6:40 pm

There should totally be a series about Tom Bombadili or whatever he was called.

It would be absolutely adoring a musical.

Post by **Haplo** » Mon Dec 31, 2012 9:49 pm

I for one wouldn't be upset if they did a short film to include the Hobbits' return to the Shire after the end of The Return of The King. Peter Jackson will forever have that mark of wrongness about him for thinking that that part of the books was "stupid" and therefore he wasn't going to include it.

Why · Post by **Why** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 8:03 pm

Wasn't that included in the extended edition?

Post by **Haplo** » Tue Jan 01, 2013 11:24 pm

To be clear, I am referring to the Scouring of the Shire. According to Wikipedia, the EE of RoTK shows Wormtongue stabbing Saruman in the back (in the book, he slits his throat), and he is shot by an arrow from Legolas (in the book it is Hobbits that shoot him) and killed. This takes place at Isengard (in the book it takes place at Bag End). So unfortunately it seems it isn't in the EE :-/ BUT, I have only seen the extended edition of The Two Towers... I need to get the extend Fellowship and Return sets!

100hugo · Post by **100hugo** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:34 am

I remember a mention of a necromancer in the book but i don't remember him being as significant/important as he was in the movie... maybe i need to re-read the book

Terrifying Daedric Foe · Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:25 am

It's important in the LotR appendices, but no spoilers.

roerich · Post by **roerich** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 12:00 pm

100hugo wrote:I remember a mention of a necromancer in the book but i don't remember him being as significant/important as he was in the movie... maybe i need to re-read the book

If anything you need to read The Silmarillion.

Post by **Haplo** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:32 pm

roerich wrote:
100hugo wrote:I remember a mention of a necromancer in the book but i don't remember him being as significant/important as he was in the movie... maybe i need to re-read the book
If anything you need to read The Silmarillion.

Yes... see you in four years when you finish

Yeti · Post by **Yeti** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:41 pm

I read The Silmarillion. Only took me about a month to get through it, iirc

roerich · Post by **roerich** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 10:47 pm

I read most of it during a one-week vacation.. It's really, really captivating and beautifully written.

100hugo · Post by **100hugo** » Wed Jan 02, 2013 11:24 pm

omg i thought i had all of tolkiens books! i'd better start searching for it!