The Hobbit

[areaseven]

He really is, even when I don't agree with his opinion he always gives enough of a description for why he did or did not like a film for me to decide if I would like it or not. Other reviewers, not so much.

Only exception was the time he went off the deep end about something - I don't even remember what it was, perhaps he was on some kind of medication at the time and needed his dosage changed.

Maybe it was when he gave Speed 2: Cruise Control a "thumbs up".

[azrael]

The common complaint I'm hearing is this film is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too long. Hopefully PJ won't release Extended Editions since he got 3 movies out of a single/lone book + short notes.

[jvmacross]

So a few months after the last theatrical film version is released on Bluray....we'll get the "shortened edition" bundle pack?

[Duke Togo]

The common complaint I'm hearing is this film is wayyyyyyyyyyyyy too long. Hopefully PJ won't release Extended Editions since he got 3 movies out of a single/lone book + short notes.

He is, it is already being worked on, and will be about 25 min longer (heard him say it in an interview).

All reports say to not see this movie in its 48FPS form.

[derex3592]

I just got back from seeing it. Went to the 11:50AM showing and had less than 10 ppl in the theater..NICE! I saw it in normal Real3D. Now I'm NOT a fan of any 3D, but I will say this...I didn't have a headache this time. (the first and only other time I tried it was way back on Toy Story 3). The 3D was cool i guess, but I guess I'm old school and frankly I think it is distracting from trying to watch and really get into the movie. Whatever.. Here's my .02. As a huge fan of the LOTR trilogy..extended cuts..(only way to go..) I think in a nutshell it is a good film. Not great, but good. It is long, but honestly, I didn't feel it dragged at any point really. Could it have been 20 or 30 minutes shorter?? Sure. But hey..it's PJ's movie so whatever. It has about the same pacing as Fellowship in my opinion. I'll say this...if you enjoyed the old trilogy, you'll enjoy this. More of the same. Some good back story to Fellowship as well. I'll go see the next one in the theater as well.

[peter]

I just got back from seeing it. Went to the 11:50AM showing and had less than 10 ppl in the theater..NICE! I saw it in normal Real3D. Now I'm NOT a fan of any 3D, but I will say this...I didn't have a headache this time. (the first and only other time I tried it was way back on Toy Story 3). The 3D was cool i guess, but I guess I'm old school and frankly I think it is distracting from trying to watch and really get into the movie. Whatever.. Here's my .02. As a huge fan of the LOTR trilogy..extended cuts..(only way to go..) I think in a nutshell it is a good film. Not great, but good. It is long, but honestly, I didn't feel it dragged at any point really. Could it have been 20 or 30 minutes shorter?? Sure. But hey..it's PJ's movie so whatever. It has about the same pacing as Fellowship in my opinion. I'll say this...if you enjoyed the old trilogy, you'll enjoy this. More of the same. Some good back story to Fellowship as well. I'll go see the next one in the theater as well.

it's nice to hear a positive review about this film. I really wanted to see it as well, but had second thoughts when I heard all the hate posts. I guess I'll go see what it's all about. I liked the book, how bad can a movie be?

[Duke Togo]

it's nice to hear a positive review about this film. I really wanted to see it as well, but had second thoughts when I heard all the hate posts. I guess I'll go see what it's all about. I liked the book, how bad can a movie be?

I'm not sure why you call them hate posts. I want the movie to be everything one could hope it could be. By all accounts, it was a bridge too far for Peter Jackson. That said, I will be seeing it on Sunday.

[anime52k8]

I'm about 90% certain I'm never going to watch these ever because I just don't feel like subjecting myself to another 9 hours of movies. I even like the hobbit more than lord of the rings, but I think the 70's cartoon will be more than enough for me.

[Shaorin]

Maybe it was when he gave Speed 2: Cruise Control a "thumbs up".

GOD, THAT "FILM" WAS AWFUL. first one was GREAT though, IMHO.

hell, pretty much anything with ♥Sandra Bullock♥ in it is usually quite alright in my book, but this...

well, let's just say it defines the meaning of "Sequel Syndrome"

Edited December 15, 2012 by Shaorin

[Twoducks]

Just came back from seeing it. I’ve read all the books back in the day (even read the Silmarillion and loved it) and I like the LOTR trilogy but don’t have any need to resee any of the tree movies any time soon (can rewatch a bit but sitting though one feels like a chore). I didn’t have any type of expectations for this one, I liked the different dwarf designs but I didn’t follow beyond that.

All that said I must say I really enjoyed it. Effects are fantastic. A lot better than on the trilogy. Huge mob fights (for a film about a “small” adventure you get lots of those) have way better effects. Bodies don’t seem so much like copy pasted rag dolls in this one.

Some backdrops might feel reused.

Yes, it is a long film but it doesn’t feel stretched. I found that the travelling montage even felt short.

Came out happy I went to see it.

Might not spoil or maybe yes:

Almost from the beginning there is a cameo set at a certain time that shows that they are aiming to make this more than the Hobbit. You can now consider the LOTR trilogy chapters 4, 5 and 6. The added stuff form Tolkien’s other writings is there to tie the adventure to the bigger picture that is the return of evil to the lands.

Spoilers

- Rise and fall of Erebor. Great. Smaug is just teased. Some legs and the tail.

- Douchy elves are douches.

- Fast forward to when Bilbo is writing his book about his adventure and is in the middle of planning his disappearance from the Shire. Elijah Wood/Fordo is there. Nice to see him.

- Young Bilbo is nice. Awkward Englishman type of comedy with him. Grows a pair way faster than in the book (pretty much a full character evolution story arc for him). Some may not like this. Feel like he should be fatter (my idea of him comes from the old cartoon movie).

- Really liked the dinner scene. Maybe their showing off of their scale effects with Gandalf is overdone. Looks great in my book.

- Good comedy with the dwarfs. The stuff that is not from the book goes from good gags to overdone simple jokes. Some have bigger roles others feel more like background characters. Maybe they ran out of stereotypes for all.

- Really like all the designs associated with the dwarf clothes, weapons and armor.

-There is an albino Orc leader that is after Thorin. He is like the “bad guy” of the movie. Don’t thing he was in the book. His name does ring a bell.

- Jackson likes to use flashbacks.

- Thought that the part with the trolls was going to be better. Dwarf sacrifice for Bilbo feels kinda stupid.

- The Radagast(?)/Brown wizard part is new as is the parts with Gandal, Galadriel, Saruman and Elrond in Rivendel. All set up for the whole “Necromancer” war that they just teased at in the book. Found Radgast to be a bit overacted.

- Saruman, we know you are evil, don’t try to use your perfect sounding logic on us.

- Gandalf is not just there for an adventure but is on to something much more bigger and important.

- Goblin town part is great. Liked their designs more than the orcs. There is even room for some kookyness.

- GOLLUM STEALS THE SHOW. Looks great.

- Bilbo’s mercy (which is pretty much the foundation of the good guys winning in LOTR) is set up, continued with Galadriel and delivered in a nice and tight way. Remember, this is LOTR Chapter I now.

- BTW, Gandalf is WAAAAAY more wizardflashy than in the book. Don’t know if some will like that.

- The escape of Goblin town reminds me of the Moria one but this one has more action and different colors. Drags a bit. No way in hell can they all escape from all that alive…

- Orc boss is mixed with the wargs from the book. Scene drags a bit to make it the last stand type of movie ending.

- Bilbo saves the day (and with no ring)!! Some may not like the Hollywood-ish style it is done in.

- Pinecone fire (now that is the crappy wizard I remember!) and eagles. “Why didn’t they take them all the way?” F* it, that joke is old and this time the story does need them to walk.

- Teaser image of Smaug’s eye opening. To be continued…

Some people were… “where is the rest?” Have to pay two more times for that boys and girls hahahaha.

Saw it in 2D

Edited December 15, 2012 by Twoducks

[myk]

I need to see it in HFR. I fell asleep during the first 20 minutes but managed to rouse myself for the next 2+ hours. Any complaints about this movie lacking in originality or not presenting anything substantial when compared to the LOTR needs to go sit on a broadsword; it's a prequel for the aforementioned movies, for Sauron's sake...

[Kanedas Bike]

Saw it earlier and I really enjoyed it, a lot more than what I thought I would. I had an expectation that maybe I'd suffer a little from LOTR exhaustion, but I didn't. I was also concerned about all of the too-high-a-frame-rate issues but I saw it in IMAX 3D and didn't have any headaches or other issues.

Never read The Hobbit and I won't read it (and then Lord of the Rings again) until after this trilogy is done, it'll help with any of those pesky preconceived notions.

Also, I agree with most of Twoducks' feedback above. I'd recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the Lord of the Ring films.

-b.

[Twoducks]

Question:

While really epic, are the rock giants from the book? Don't remember them. With a dozen of those Sauron could pretty much win any war.

[eriku]

Question:

While really epic, are the rock giants from the book? Don't remember them. With a dozen of those Sauron could pretty much win any war.

Yeah, there are a couple of sentences about the rock giants being out and throwing boulders at each other. It's embellished in the movie of course, but most things are.

I saw it tonight and loved every minute. I thoroughly enjoyed Radagast, even though his part wasn't in the book. Overall I thought it was too short if anything. A local paper here praised the old animated version for covering the whole book in such a short amount of time. Well yeah, you could sum up the whole story, and any story, in thirty seconds of animation if you had to. I guess more and more people are developing short attention spans these days.

Anyway, looking forward to the next three (so happy there is a third!) and their extended editions.

[Old_Nash]

Question:

While really epic, are the rock giants from the book? Don't remember them. With a dozen of those Sauron could pretty much win any war.

The Rock Giants in the book was mountain giants common, not rock golens.

They make them because, the "grandiosity" of the scene.

Edited December 16, 2012 by Old_Nash

[Duke Togo]

Every bit that Peter Jackson added to connect it to the LotR trilogy was so grossly out of place it was distracting. The Hobbit is not a prequel, and he shouldn't have treated it as such. I am not asking him to ignore the connection, I am asking him to not beat us over the head with it. Cutting out those unecessary scenes could have saved a half hour of running time.

That said, I believe this is the second best of the four existing Tolkien movies Jackson has made. I really enjoyed it, and may come to like it more than The Two Towers over time. My friend who I saw it with felt that she was totally game to watch even more of the story; I completely agree with her--running time was not an issue.

Thumbs up from the skepitc.

[eriku]

The Rock Giants in the book was mountain giants common, not rock golens.

They make them because, the "grandiosity" of the scene.

Was it mentioned in some other Tolkien text that they were common mountain giants? This is the part as it appears in The Hobbit (the book):

"When he peeped out in the lightning flashes, he saw that across the valley the stone giants were out and were hurling rocks at one another for a game, and catching them, and tossing them down into the darkness where they smashed among the trees far below, or splintered into little bits with a bang."

and later,

"they could hear the giants guffawing and shouting all over the mountainsides."

"This wont do at all," said Thorin, "...we shall be picked up by some giant and kicked sky high for a football."

"Well, if you know of anywhere better, take us there!" Said Gandalf, who was feeling very grumpy and was far from happy about the giants himself."

I don't see how Jackson's interpretation of the giants is very far off from what's in the book. It's obvious in the book that the giants are very large and that they are all aware that they are in very real danger from them.

[renegadeleader1]

Just got done watching and thoroughly enjoyed it. I just got two questions...

Do I really have to wait another year for this to continue?

How the bloody hell do they get down from where they end up at the films end?

[myk]

As I was leaving the theater some really young kid asks his parents "why didn't they get a ride from the birds to the mountain?" Lol...

[Duke Togo]

How the bloody hell do they get down from where they end up at the films end?

The steps

[renegadeleader1]

The steps

I didn't see any stairs, then again I saw it in 3-D so often anything outside of where the characters were was a little blurry, like out of focus.

[Keith]

Awesome movie....and the 2 year wait for all this to wrap up begins agian....

[Duke Togo]

I didn't see any stairs, then again I saw it in 3-D so often anything outside of where the characters were was a little blurry, like out of focus.

I saw it in 2D, because I heard the picture in the non-48 FPS 3D was overly dark. There were steps.

As I was leaving the theater some really young kid asks his parents "why didn't they get a ride from the birds to the mountain?" Lol...

What, you didn't think the same thing?

[peter]

I need to see it in HFR. I fell asleep during the first 20 minutes but managed to rouse myself for the next 2+ hours. Any complaints about this movie lacking in originality or not presenting anything substantial when compared to the LOTR needs to go sit on a broadsword; it's a prequel for the aforementioned movies, for Sauron's sake...

Call me old fashioned but I didn't like the high frame rate at all. I was thinking about walking out right at the beginning, but decided to stay and watch the story. It looked like everything was in fast forward, and added a quality to the film that made it look like a cheap PBS documentary.

I liked the movie enough to want to watch it again in regular 2D or maybe 3D IMAX, but watching it in 3D High Frame Rate UltraAVX really sucked Saruman's old-man-balls for me.

[Hoptimus]

I saw it in 2d. I despise 3d movies...

Anyway I loved it. I have read the book and the others that Tolkien and his son have done.

I love that Jackson is making this the extended lets throw everything in from the extra books and make it the history of the Ring 6 part deluxe.

[myk]

What, you didn't think the same thing?

No, I kept thinking how simple this would all be with a couple of well optioned Range Rovers, or something.

As for the HFR, I'm not sure if the "soap opera" effect will induce nausea or not, but I'd like to experience it just once. As usual, my eyes forgot the film was supposed to be in 3D, the same thing happened for me in Avengers and other 3D movies. For some odd reason the only movies that impressed me with 3D were Corraline and Monsters Vs. Aliens...

Edited December 17, 2012 by myk

[peter]

http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/17/3776250/reactions-to-the-hobbit-in-HFR-3d-48fps

http://movieline.com/2012/12/14/hobbit-high-frame-rate-science-48-frames-per-second/

[Arthurius]

What's the point of 3D if it is not IMAX 3D??? Not sure why people bother going to 3d regular (the 3D in it has never been wowy), instead of 2D, when it is not Imax 3D. Anyways, saw it in Imax 3D last night, of course, and yea, great movie / story, and really liked how it linked to the LOTR, seemed so much better visually than the LOTR now, but that is to be expected. I was thinking it could have been LONGER, yea that's right, not shorter, but LONGER. I dont understand why people would want it to be shorter by half an hour, unless they were bored out of their minds, or dont truly enjoy the little details and want the sumary in 1 hour so they can go do other things.... that's not me, and feel that because it is well made, it gives better value to the money spent (if it was a crappy movie though, with just special affects, like Battleship, one of the worst movies, yea rap it up in half an hour), !!! Anyways, agree with SMS, and will have to see the proper extended versions when they come out. I know for me, it makes all the difference. I didnt like the Two Towers so much before seing the extended version, after which, it became one of my favorates, and I can never go back regular, but i guess we are forced to have it in the movies for the washroom break and make more viewers happy.

So if you liked / worshiped the LOTR, go see the Hobbit in 2D or Imax 3D now you silly!!!!

[Mommar]

What's the point of 3D if it is not IMAX 3D??? Not sure why people bother going to 3d regular (the 3D in it has never been wowy), instead of 2D, when it is not Imax 3D.

What's the difference? You're still wearing goofy glasses either way. Though a reason I can think of in New Mexico is that we don't have an IMAX theater so your only option is regular 3D or 2D.

[Arthurius]

I have seen a few movies in both normal 3D and Imax 3D, and the 3D in the normal screen just doesnt come out as well, or dont see the 3d well at all, and feel blah, thinking i overpaid for 3D. The Imax 3D (or even 2D) has a much bigger screen and better sound, thus you feel much more part of the movie. Trust me, once you try Imax movie, it is hard to go back to regular screen, even for 2D. Watching Avatar in Imax 3D, it felt like on your right side and left side, the grass / background was there, and you were really in the movie, and you didnt have to tilt to see your sides, but you could feel it. I have to say Avatar was the most amazing in terms of 3D at Imax, as you felt the background was sometimes around you, or that the forground went deep into the screen.

I also recently went to Kennedy Space Center in Florida, and they had 2 Imax movie, both in Imax 3D, and it was nice, and though sometimes it did blurr a bit, most of the time, you felt like you were in the back of the astraunots, or in the internation space centre, and i guess its the closest feeling to being actually there with relatively low cost.

Also, at some of the imax (not all), the glasses are much bigger / better viewing than the regular cheap ones from normal 3d cinema, again helping with the experience.

I hear for this movie specially, you should avoid the regular 3D, and go either 2D or if you can find an Imax 3D, then do that instead. I went on a tuesday, so i saved some on the admission.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Arthurius

[derex3592]

I will vouch for the sound being absolutley incredible at an IMAX movie. I saw the 3rd Matrix in IMAX the first time and the sound quality blew me away..(and I'm a picky sound guy who does pro sound for a living so I can tell when theaters suck and when they don't). I haven't tried an IMAX 3D movie yet...maybe I'll try the AOTC 3D re-release and see if I like it. The main reason is there isn't one anywhere remotely close to me either...which sucks.

[peter]

Well, maybe I should re-think it and watch it in 3D IMAX without the HFR. Has anyone seen it in both?

[505thAirborne]

Just got back from seeing The Hobbit. I truly enjoyed this movie and am looking forward to the next 2 films. Smaug, for what we see of him.... Loved it!!

[Omega Prime]

Also saw it today in IMAX at the Metreon in San Francisco, it was pretty good.

But not to mix threads, I thought they would have the first 9 minutes of Star Trek attached to the IMAX 3D version of the Hobbit?

[Arthurius]

i read that not all the imax were gonna show the Star Trek 9 min preview.