The Hobbit

[peter]

Is it still showing the 9 min preview? I'm thinking about going to watch it again, but this time in just regular 2d or imax 3d. Definitely not the HFR version.

[azrael]

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?

Read this post in the Star Trek thread: http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=36464&view=findpost&p=1007605

[Kelsain]

I just saw it the other day in 2D. I can see that Jackson's visual style does lend itself well to 3D, so fortunately the film was consistent with the others. There were several scenes that I thought would've been cool in 3D instead, but I'm in glasses for now.

Great film, loved the tie ins to the first trilogy, but bringing back the old music cues got a little jumbled around Rivendell.

Oh, and yay, more Bret!

(null)

[Uxi]

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...

That's fairly easy to answer with the restrictions the eagle mentions to Gandalf: they won't go near populated areas because they'll be shot at with bows (since they usually WOULD be going after their sheep). Fairly obvious they would be even less inclined to go to the dragon. Besides which Gandalf can't really summon them whenever he wants.

[PetarB]

I saw it in 2D yesterday.

I was everything I hope it would be - a good time at the cinema!

To be honest, I think it was a tad too long. They could have trimmed a bit from the first hour quite easily. I hope the next two are a lot tighter.

'm still curious as to where the next one will finish in the overall tale - I'm guessing with the attack on a certain town by the lake, since the name of the next one is 'The Desolation of Smaug'. But this would mean that number 3 would be very padded out in my opinion. But then again, I never could have imagined this one would go for over 2.5hours! Still some of the elements not in the book worked very well. I particularly enjoyed Radagast's hare-sled.

This one finished exactly where I thought it would.

Not sure if I will see it in 3D. I am very curious about the 48fps though!

[Jefuemon]

Just got back from seeing it in glorious 2D. I liked it. I had reread the series (Hobbit and LOTR) a few months ago, so everything is still pretty fresh in my mind, and I never once said "Hey, why did he do that?", like so many other book movies I've seen.

Of course, your results may vary.

[peter]

Well, there's once scene (there are probably more) that sort of bothers me and that's how Bilbo comes across the ring. In the book, he's sort of stumbling around in the dark and sort of just feels it in his hands as he's crawling around in the dark. In LOTR Fellowship, they sort of depict that. But then in The Hobbit film, it's different. Just a little lack of continuity that sort of irks me, but meh, nothing's ever perfect. Still loved the movie and I'm planning on seeing it again, this time minus the HFR.

[Uxi]

Went out and saw it tonight. Regular 2D presentation. Lke the 'larger' tie in to LOTR (since it's stuff Gandalf doing "off camera" anyway and most of it seems pretty plausible, if not taken word for word from the apendices). Can definitely live with Radaghast, etc but scratching my head at rather... odd deviations from the book that just didn't seem necessary, especially Azog. I can live with Thrain disappearing at the battle (did they even show Thrain in the flashback?) but find Thorin's angst over the 'betrayal' of Thranduil another "WTF they did need to do that?", to say nothing of tying that in to Elrond, as well as making Erebor something all the Wise would have been interested in, instead of just Gandalf.

[renegadeleader1]

I've thought about this for a while, but does anybody else think now that the fellowship of the ring had it easier, even though by their time 60 years later Mordor was on the brink of destroying everything?

[sketchley]

I've thought about this for a while, but does anybody else think now that the fellowship of the ring had it easier, even though by their time 60 years later Mordor was on the brink of destroying everything?

I think that's just the focus of the narrative in the books. LotR was all about going here and there and visiting places. The Hobbit was more action-adventure from the get-go.

That, or the fellowship deliberately stayed off the beaten path and avoided as many encounters as possible, where as the dwarfs et al deliberately set out to make trouble and get into the thick of things?

[Kelsain]

Also that Thorin doesn't seem to have aged at all since Smaug took over. Clouds the time perception a bit.

(null)

[azrael]

Also that Thorin doesn't seem to have aged at all since Smaug took over. Clouds the time perception a bit.

Dwarves live long lives. As much as 300+ years. Thorin was only middle 195 years old. There were some bits of white on his head and beard.

[Uxi]

I've thought about this for a while, but does anybody else think now that the fellowship of the ring had it easier, even though by their time 60 years later Mordor was on the brink of destroying everything?

The Battle of Five Armies did much to alleviate the threat on the eastern theater, as it were: it severely weakened the Orcs of the Misty Mountains as well as removing the threat of Smaug and additionally put up a fortress at Erebor that the Easterlings besieged, diverting them from what would otherwise have been an attack on Rivendell.

[Marzan]

Finally had a chance to watch the film. I'm a big Tolkien fan so I was very surprised to see all the extra material that made into the film that wasn't in the book. The changes were fine by me. Overall a very exciting yarn and I thought they really did good job of making 2 hours and 50 minutes not seem so long.

My one beef though was the 48 frame 3D. While I recognize that it makes movements more fluid, sometimes I felt I was watching stuff in fast forward and the level of fine detail gave some of it a "documentary" look that lessened my experience a bit. Unfortunately my local cinemas make it very hard to catch the 2D version (only in one screen and during working hours!) so I'm gonna have to travel a bit to catch in that format. Or wait for the BD.

[peter]

I wonder how they're going to tackle some of the characters in the next film. Beorn is suppsed to be some sort of man/bear and his servants are creatures of the woods....are they going to have horses, ponies and sheep waiting on them during dinner or will they skip over that part?

I noticed that the Eagles, Wargs, and Shelob don't talk, but in the book they sort of do. Makes me wonder if the giant Spiders in Mirkwood will talk. Will Smaug talK? I think he's gotta be able to talk.

[azrael]

Will Smaug talK? I think he's gotta be able to talk.

The ever talented Sherlock Holmes of Sherlock, Benedict Cumberbatch, is voicing Smaug and the Necromancer in this film series. That answer your question?

[peter]

The ever talented Sherlock Holmes of Sherlock, Benedict Cumberbatch, is voicing Smaug and the Necromancer in this film series. That answer your question?

One of many, haha!

[azrael]

Blu-ray/DVD news:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will be out on DVD/Blu-ray combo pack on March 19, 2013. Digital downloads will be released on March 12. The Extended Edition will appear around the holidays.

PJ is also live-hosting an early look for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug on March 24, 2013 at 3:00PM EST/noon PST for those who have the UltraViolet code that comes with the DVD/Blu-ray. The online hosting will be edited and archived on the official site afterwards.

Details here: http://www.thehobbit.com/sneak/

[taksraven]

Does anybody know if the 48fps will be available on the blu-ray version or is the technology only compatible with the cinema version?

[Rabidweezil]

For those waiting for an extended Blu-Ray version of "The Hobbit: An unexpected journey", apparently there will be one. But not until December 2013 right before The Desolation of Smaug hits theatres. I read elsewhere the extra run-time will be between 30 to 50 minutes longer then the theatrical version.

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/hobbit-blu-ray-release-march-19-wont-have-extended-edition/#/0

[Uxi]

This time, I'll wait for the trilogy set

[Kelsain]

For those waiting for an extended Blu-Ray version of "The Hobbit: An unexpected journey", apparently there will be one. But not until December 2013 right before The Desolation of Smaug hits theatres. I read elsewhere the extra run-time will be between 30 to 50 minutes longer then the theatrical version. http://herocomplex.latimes.com/movies/hobbit-blu-ray-release-march-19-wont-have-extended-edition/#/0

Ugh, how many more times will we have to listen to Thorin berate Bilbo for not being brave enough? I bet they'll put the "15 Birds" song in there, though.

[PetarB]

I wonder how they're going to tackle some of the characters in the next film. Beorn is suppsed to be some sort of man/bear and his servants are creatures of the woods....are they going to have horses, ponies and sheep waiting on them during dinner or will they skip over that part?

I noticed that the Eagles, Wargs, and Shelob don't talk, but in the book they sort of do. Makes me wonder if the giant Spiders in Mirkwood will talk. Will Smaug talK? I think he's gotta be able to talk.

I don't recall Shelob talking in the book. She only ever had an internal thought process, from memory. And did the Wargs ever talk in the books? I didn't think they did.

As for Smaug, the conversations between him and the hobbit are iconic and form a central part of the encounter. I can't wait to hear them... but we've got a couple more years, sadly!

[Dynaman]

I thought the second film was going to be the battle with Smaug, and the third film filler between "The Hobbit" and LOTR. (and battle of five armies? I forget that part of the Hobbit, can't remember if I read it in the book or just heard about it elsewhere)

[peter]

I don't recall Shelob talking in the book. She only ever had an internal thought process, from memory. And did the Wargs ever talk in the books? I didn't think they did.

As for Smaug, the conversations between him and the hobbit are iconic and form a central part of the encounter. I can't wait to hear them... but we've got a couple more years, sadly!

Hmmm...maybe you're right and I remembered wrong, could have been internal thought processes, I'll have to read the books again.

There's a thread here about the talking animals in LOTR and Hobbit though:

http://the-hobbit-movie.com/forum/topic/beorn-in-the-movies/page/3

And the consensus seems to imply that some of these animals talked in the books....

[Uxi]

I think it was bestial growling/barking and Bilbo and the dwarves couldn't understand the specifics or something like that. Book wise, it left the rails with Azog still running around unclad with mail and equpment, much less also as an albino aboriginal orc.

[azrael]

Those of you going to see Man of Steel:

Exclusive: First Trailer From The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug Will Be Attached To Man Of Steel

[Duke Togo]

And we'll all get to see the new Elf character Jackson created and jammed into the movie to diversify the group.

[Dynaman]

And we'll all get to see the new Elf character Jackson created and jammed into the movie to diversify the group.

Considering JRR didn't seem to know what a woman was, let alone how to write one, I don't consider this a problem. (sorry guys but as literature LotR is downright boring - then again, the first Hobbit film certainly dragged along too)

[Mommar]

Considering JRR didn't seem to know what a woman was, let alone how to write one, I don't consider this a problem. (sorry guys but as literature LotR is downright boring - then again, the first Hobbit film certainly dragged along too)

LotR and The Hobbit are two different series.

[PetarB]

Considering JRR didn't seem to know what a woman was, let alone how to write one, I don't consider this a problem. (sorry guys but as literature LotR is downright boring - then again, the first Hobbit film certainly dragged along too)

Eowyn was a great, strong female character but I take your point that more females could have been written in. As for LotR being 'downright boring'? Huh? I'm going to have to let the continuous book sales over the past few decades speak for themselves.

[Dynaman]

LotR and The Hobbit are two different series.

And in neither one did women make much of an appearance. Window dressing at best. The Hobbit was certainly a better read then LotR. As for sales being an indicator of the book being boring or not - I said boring, not non-innovative. Good old Tolkien loved to go on for pages on end about some knot on a tree BORING! Just like Lucas he is remembered more for the vision then the execution of his work.

[Duke Togo]

And in neither one did women make much of an appearance. Window dressing at best. The Hobbit was certainly a better read then LotR. As for sales being an indicator of the book being boring or not - I said boring, not non-innovative. Good old Tolkien loved to go on for pages on end about some knot on a tree BORING! Just like Lucas he is remembered more for the vision then the execution of his work.

Which is irrelevant to the point being made. Every addition Jackson has made to these stories has fallen flat on its face.

[Mommar]

And in neither one did women make much of an appearance. Window dressing at best. The Hobbit was certainly a better read then LotR. As for sales being an indicator of the book being boring or not - I said boring, not non-innovative. Good old Tolkien loved to go on for pages on end about some knot on a tree BORING! Just like Lucas he is remembered more for the vision then the execution of his work.

Considering you 1) compared LotR books to The Hobbit movie, which are two completely mediums and 2) compared the LotR books to The Hobbit which, while sharing characters and settings, are different stories with different audiences your response about neither having women makes no sense. Drawing comparisons between a second series of books (which I also found boring to read) and a Movie based on a book that isn't even part of LotR and is made by a Film Maker who is known for blowing stories up to ridiculous proportions (King Kong should NEVER be three hours) your original comparison is out of context.

Yeah, there aren't many women in the books. There doesn't always have to be women in every story though.

[Gakken85]

I enjoyed the hobbit a lot. I actually prefer it to 1 and 3 movie wise.

The character of Bilbo is more an "Everman" action hero type. He has a job to do and he's set to do it. The hobbits in LOTRs are always crying about something and generally moaning on. When I go back and watch LOTRs the over emotional delivery and constant pontificating about the shire grates on my nerves. Especially, toward the end of the film.

I think it's a real weak spot in the trilogy. It's not as bad in the Two Towers, as there is so much going on, but damn.

I actually watched the Hobbit twice after I saw it in the theater. I understand people think it might be too long, but that's the movie business. They can make a lot more money on 3 than 1. I, personally, have no problems hanging out in Tolkien's world and extra 6 hours. I enjoyed just about all of the extra scenes. I thought the rabbits pulling the sleigh was a bit silly, but whatever.