|
Saw it at midnight in 2D/24 fps, so last night was the "control" viewing. My friends and I are going to hit up a 3D/48 fps showing this weekend, but I'm glad I got to experience the film without the more experimental technology first. Looking forward to the long scrolling shots without the stutter, though. We all had a really great time, but I went in knowing the common complaints and additions, so having the expectation of flaws probably helped me enjoy the film even more rather than allow myself to be distracted. I was relieved to see that, despite how Fili and Kili are played up as the "sexy dwarves" in promotional material, they came across more like Pippen and Merry in their actual characterization: the young, earnest guys who are still a little goofy and don't always take things seriously, and they end up with most of the grunt work. Not remotely dark and brooding -- that's all Thorin. Azog didn't put me off either. I can see how some people might view him as over-animated, but the expressiveness of his face and overall design was kind of mesmerizing to me, especially after the limited mobility of the Uruk-hai's prosthetics in LotR. The subtle redesign of the wargs and everything about the goblins was fantastically gross and creepy. Success is all in the details, from the screwed-up proportions on the goblins and the King's huge fatty goiter, to Ghostbuster's hell hound look on the wargs. I think it's been mentioned a few times before, but the Goblin King ruled. He was another example of the mix of humor and drama that made the movie a satisfying adaptation for me: it was very much in the flavor of the Lord of the Rings, but nudged a bit farther up the light-hearted scale. Thranduil riding a motherfucking Megaloceros was amazing.
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
gohmak posted:It looks infinitely times better than Experience Bij http://spoonyexperiment.com/2012/12/10/experience-bij-5/#disqus_thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:55
|
|
|
Captain Foxy posted:Really, only 65%? That seems too low for me, but I'm still in the honeymoon afterglow stage. I'll have to re-assess once I see it again because clearly I'm gonna see it again The mindset was apparently they'd be the euro equivalent (a 'secret' language they speak in private, respected for their skills but a lot of humans are suspicious about them, and the whole diaspora thing). You could probably read some negative stereotypes into it concerning money (though compared to how *power*-hungry characters act, dorfs fussing over gold is eventually treated as quaint) but then 1940 happened and Tolkein was a lot more firm in his positivity because All Of Europe. Rad is awesome and while he's a weird character (those of you looking for a Bombadill, this is as close as you'll get) I think people forget the popular perception of Gandalf around anyone not educated in-universe is a grouchy smoking hobo who makes cool toys. keet fucked around with this message at 20:59 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:56
|
|
|
Hatter106 posted:Although I did suffer the misfortune of being in a theatre packed full of Gollum fangirls Wait, what? That's a thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:59
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Rotten Tomatoes has never been useful for determining if a movie is any good. An ok movie everyone agrees is fairly decent is going to get a high RT rating, a great movie that divides critics is going to get a poo poo rating. The tomatometer will always be on the low end in the case of polarizing film because it's a binary system. A movie is either fresh or rotten and they use a 4 point decimal system so rotten can mean "average" and fresh can mean "barely above average." The only number you should pay attention to if you actually care about these things is the "average rating" which is 6.5. Toy Story 2 is the highest rated movie on RT and it has a rating of 8.6 so the hobbit is a solid C/C+ by that scale which is what I would honestly give it. al-azad fucked around with this message at 21:06 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:01
|
|
|
If you're going by pace and thematic elements, I would rank the Hobbit on par with FotR, which was (imo) the weakest of the trilogy. However, with nostalgia from childhood in play, I rank it much higher. That's probably the key here. penguinmambo posted:The mindset was apparently they'd be the euro equivalent (a 'secret' language they speak in private, respected for their skills but a lot of humans are suspicious about them, and the whole diaspora thing). You could probably read some negative stereotypes into it concerning money (though compared to how *power*-hungry characters act, dorfs fussing over gold is eventually treated as quaint) but then 1940 happened and Tolkein was a lot more firm in his positivity because All Of Europe. That's really neat to know, thanks. I'm taking no negative stereotypes from it, no worries, especially since the gold greed has been a common dwarvish characteristic since the 'Ring of the Nibelung', afaik, and it is pretty quaint and cute. They're dwarves and it's a fantasy. I was moved by the description of Thorin's party having to become nomadic and scrape a living from others who prize their skill. You can easily see the parallels there. Just don't turn Erebor into modern-day Israel, okay Thorin? Captain Foxy fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:07
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:Jesus, 65% on RT. Is this movie really that bad? Given 90% plus for the LOTR movies, I feel 65% for Hobbit is perfectly accurate. Everything considered it's a good movie worth watching, but barely so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:10
|
|
|
I do have to say I appreciated some of the foreshadowing here particularly in the beginning when Thorin watches his grandfather go mad in the treasure room because he becomes exactly that in the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:13
|
|
|
pigdog posted:Given 90% plus for the LOTR movies, I feel 65% for Hobbit is perfectly accurate. Consider this - it's currently at a lower rating than the last two Star Wars films. I'd love to see someone argue that that's fair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:14
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Consider this - it's currently at a lower rating than the last two Star Wars films. I'd love to see someone argue that that's fair. I'd put it about on par with Phantom Menace, so there you go.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Did anyone like this one more than the Lord of the Rings films? Personally, I think it was best of all of them. The characters were more relateable, it didn't suffer from the whole "too many badasses" syndrome that the original trilogy did. Bilbo, in particular, just seemed like a real person I could relate to, as did all of the dwarves, and even Gandalf the grey (who is far better than Gandalf the white imo). Not to say the the LOTR characters were bad, but I just liked these characters better, and there was a lot more humor in this, which is a plus in my book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Dolphin posted:Because you loved it so much the first time... Yeah, that looks like a terrible movie but the trailer hardly lives up to the hype. It's probably a bad thing, though, that I'm tempted to watch it just because it seems to have Jeremy Irons in a fairly major role... The Hobbit was great, by the way. HFR was kind of a mixed bag, it certainly made the 3d way more bearable, but some stuff just looked weird, like the film was sped up. I was actually wondering if it would help the HFR look if the actors were playing it a bit lethargic... verybad fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:18
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:http://londoncitynights.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey-2012.html I'm not sure why someone else called you a troll for this. Your review actually seemed really spot on for me and brought up some good points.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Gandalf was impressed by Bilbo's mother, Belladonna Took. It's one of the few times in the canon ladies come up just because of a throw away line that Gandalf is seen as responsible for sending boy AND girl hobbits off on adventures. I just assumed Gandalf had helped an adventurous Bell Took in the past. (Then again, I always took the elves noticing Frodo's "fey" quality in LOTR and how Tooks are the most elfish of hobbits in behavior and education as a hint the original joke about Tooks having "fairies" (elf) in their blood may not be just a joke...)
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Did anyone like this one more than the Lord of the Rings films? I definitely liked it more than Two Towers. I'm the weirdo who likes adventure stories, I guess, so the first parts of trilogies are almost always my favorite. The Hobbit is a simplistic story and as some people have pointed out it's the prototypical D&D adventuring party. The campfire songs, the cool locations, the party dynamic, traps and treasure... that's why I liked Fellowship more than all of them even if it's not as refined as the rest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
poop posted:I'm not sure why someone else called you a troll for this. Your review actually seemed really spot on for me and brought up some good points. I think it was the bit about some of the dwarves being women, which I read as kind of a joke anyway, so yeah, I didn't see him as a troll.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:Did anyone like this one more than the Lord of the Rings films? Tough to answer - I think this film felt more fun to watch than any of the LotR films, whilst the LotR films felt more awe-inspiring. It's as good, but in a different way I guess.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:30
|
|
|
oswald ownenstein posted:Jesus, 65% on RT. Is this movie really that bad? Definitely not. It's a good movie and an enjoyable experience. But it doesn't clear the bar set by the LOTR films.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:45
|
|
|
I had mixed feelings with the high framerate. On the one hand, it looked gorgeous, the panning scenes in particular, everything moved so smoothly, and the 3D definitely benefited from it. On the other, I couldn't help but feel it looked like a home video. We've grown so accustomed to 24 fps in films, and tend to associate higher framerates with home videos and low budget television shows that are recorded to tape (since VHS uses a higher framerate than film). Also, a higher framerate makes it easier to spot imperfections in the CGI and effects, although the effects were so good in this film I don't think that was a problem.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:49
|
|
|
This is a great film, but I like it less than Fellowship for the sole reason that there's only one hobbit and a good deal of what made Fellowship good was the hobbits. Martin Freeman is brilliant but he doesn't have any characters to play off of so he just can't be as great as Elijah Wood and Sean Astin. It's unfortunate that this film didn't get made first, because LOTR set the bar way too high and no matter how much they add to this story, it's still not going to be about the destruction of the One Ring. LOTR just makes a better epic quest movie, that's all. I think if people go into it expecting a great treatment of The Hobbit, they'll be perfectly happy. If they want more LOTR, maybe not. As for the HFR, I get eyestrain from watching 3D and the HFR really seems to prevent that. It was weird for a while but then I got used to it. I don't know if it adds anything to the movie or not but I'll probably go see a 2D Imax version for comparison's sake. If they make more Tolkien films I want to see a parallel story where Radagast the Brown leads a much more bumbling expedition for some useless artifact. His scenes were brilliant in every sense and I hope they find reasons to cram him into the sequels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:If they make more Tolkien films I want to see a parallel story where Radagast the Brown leads a much more bumbling expedition for some useless artifact. His scenes were brilliant in every sense and I hope they find reasons to cram him into the sequels. Well making GBS threads on authors graves has always made money in the past, so I'm sure that your wishes will come to fruition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 21:59
|
|
|
Rime posted:Well making GBS threads on authors graves has always made money in the past, so I'm sure that your wishes will come to fruition. Are you Christopher Tolkien?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:01
|
|
|
Rime posted:Well making GBS threads on authors graves has always made money in the past, so I'm sure that your wishes will come to fruition. Oh my god. Can you just bugger off?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:02
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:If they make more Tolkien films I want to see a parallel story where Radagast the Brown leads a much more bumbling expedition for some useless artifact. His scenes were brilliant in every sense and I hope they find reasons to cram him into the sequels. He's pretty much the main guy in the necromancer plotline at this point and it's all going to go down right in his yard, so I expect he'll be involved there. I also expect Beorn will have a similar role in the next film as Radagast had in this, to appear for a half-hour as a memorable character, so the two of them dramatically showing up at the battle of five armies will be a nice satisfying moment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:05
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Are you Christopher Tolkien? His treatment of his dad's work has been pretty respectful. Christopher has published just about every scrap of paper that JRR ever scribbled a note on, but that's not a bad thing. It's not like he's hired Kevin J. Anderson to write a dozen sequels and prequels.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:11
|
|
|
Captain von Trapp posted:His treatment of his dad's work has been pretty respectful. Christopher has published just about every scrap of paper that JRR ever scribbled a note on, but that's not a bad thing. It's not like he's hired Kevin J. Anderson to write a dozen sequels and prequels. No, I think he meant that Christopher Tolkien treats his fathers work like it was the word of god. Its all the way at the other end of the spectrum from Dune, where he is Christopher is arguably over protective of it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:19
|
|
|
Yes, I meant that Christopher Tolkien really hates the movies, even disowning his son for supporting the LOTR movies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:24
|
|
|
rypakal posted:We spoil the weirdest things in this thread. I know, I know. It does seem weird. But I'm getting used to it. Gianthogweed posted:Experience Bij ¡Madre de DIOS!
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 22:27
|
|
|
Saw a midnight showing of it and loved it. Its fantasy, but its awesome fairly lighthearted and silly fantasy. I found it much more enjoyable and easy to watch than LotR, which I like too, but admitted it feels like a slog trying to watch the movies sometimes. I read the Hobbit, but I don't remember much about it so I don't recall if this was all in the book, but one of the things I liked best about this movie was that a lot of the enemies the group ran into were also just kind of... people. They spoke, they had personalities. But that was the thing that my friends who saw it with me said they liked the least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:07
|
|
|
I'm one of the people that the high frame-rate did not work for; it made the film very jarring for me. I would sort of relax into the film during talking sequences, then get jarred again during action sequences. The movements of the characters seemed too smooth- it's hard to explain. I had the experience of feeling like it was sped up as well. I want to see it again in non-3D so I can relax and be immersed in the film. I think people are going to be disappointed if they want another LOTR. The Hobbit is more light-hearted and this movie has more humor. I sort of laughed at the visual references they pulled from the other movies such as: Elrond's horses circling the Dwarves as the Rohan riders did in The Two Towers, the Ring landing on Bilbo's finger, and the Dwarves huddling against the stone while the orc is looking for them like the Hobbits hiding from the Ring Wraith. I had to laugh at how poncy the Rivendell elves were though. e: Can someone here explain Gandalf's reference to "The two blue wizards whose names I can never remember". Where are they in lore?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:09
|
|
|
Emberlei posted:e: Can someone here explain Gandalf's reference to "The two blue wizards whose names I can never remember". Where are they in lore? They barely exist in lore and I think Tolkien only ever had the foggiest idea of what they were to have done and if they were successful or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
marktheando posted:Rotten Tomatoes has never been useful for determining if a movie is any good. An ok movie everyone agrees is fairly decent is going to get a high RT rating, a great movie that divides critics is going to get a poo poo rating. The Tomatometer is normally a bad metric for anything because of the binary, as you say, but in the case of The Hobbit, even the POSITIVE rated reviews are negatively-mixed, meaning that it's actually accurate for critical consensus in this rare case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
Emberlei posted:e: Can someone here explain Gandalf's reference to "The two blue wizards whose names I can never remember". Where are they in lore? Alatar and Pallando were sent to the eastern lands beyond Harad, but it is said in the appendices and the extended works that nothing more was heard from them after their arrival and their fate is unknown. Some papers written just before Tolkiens death imply that they may have been very successful in their mission, which may have involved the War of the Last Alliance, but because they were beyond the known borders of Middle Earth their feats were not recorded.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:26
|
|
|
TracyFentonHS posted:Saw a midnight showing of it and loved it. Its fantasy, but its awesome fairly lighthearted and silly fantasy. I found it much more enjoyable and easy to watch than LotR, which I like too, but admitted it feels like a slog trying to watch the movies sometimes. I read the Hobbit, but I don't remember much about it so I don't recall if this was all in the book, but one of the things I liked best about this movie was that a lot of the enemies the group ran into were also just kind of... people. They spoke, they had personalities. But that was the thing that my friends who saw it with me said they liked the least. Every scene in the book is covered almost to the letter and then they shovel a second and third helping of stuff that never happened. I'm actually looking forward to a fan attempt to remove all the "extras" because I think they can make a perfect adaption of the book in 3 hours total (assuming about 90 minutes of content from the first two movies if the second film ends after the battle of five armies).
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:34
|
|
|
api call girl posted:They barely exist in lore and I think Tolkien only ever had the foggiest idea of what they were to have done and if they were successful or not. Its an in-joke; Tolkien himself forgot what names he'd given them IIRC. Edit: ^^ or maybe not. Might have been this thread i read that in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:49
|
|
|
Wow - I have to admit, I am having mixed feelings about this movie. I have not seen the Hobbit yet, and my wife has not read the book (although she is the one much more excited to see the movie) - but we are seeing a lot of negative reviews from some 'Top' critics; such as 1 out of 5 stars from Washington Post... and yet, the user reviews seems to suggest the movie garners a 4 out of 5. Is the movie *that* bad? 1 out of 5? Like Pihranna 3D bad? I would have to say I am a bit frustrated as I go through some of these reviews, as they seem to either fall into two camps of "I don't like the new 48 FPS technology" or, the "It's not Return-of-the king quality"... Is the acting any good? Is the cinematography any good? Is the makeup and visual effects good? Does the story make sense and does it have a good flow? Is the movie entertaining? I haven't found a good movie review that seems to address these things that movies are rated on when it comes Oscar time... I mean, isn't that what a film critic is supposed to do - to help consumers make an educated choice on whether to see a film or not based on the film's merits? Maybe I'm just old fashioned. At any rate, looking forward to somethingawful's official review of the movie to decide. Guigui fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
Hah, Film Critics actually reviewing a movie in something close to a vacuum. That's a good one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 23:54
|
|
|
pospysyl posted:Guys, guys. Can we talk about how the Great Goblin is the coolest? Because he is. Barry Humphries is amazing. Everything in Goblin Town is just "Am I seeing this!? Is this for real?!" in the best possible way. I love how deliberate the movie is in not taking itself seriously at all. This is completely and totally inaccurate, by the way. The coolest is clearly The Great Goblin's personal scribe - that insane little dude with withered legs who eagerly scribbles down everything The Great Goblin says and travels around on a little pulley system  Seriously, I love that hosed up little thing so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 00:00
|
|
|
Just watch it - it's way, way better than RT would have you believe. The 48fps has utterly hosed the RT score in the arse. Catch it in 24fps just to be sure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:57 |
|
|
Guigui posted:Wow - I have to admit, I am having mixed feelings about this movie. Most of the reviews, positive and negative say the main complaint is that the film is overly, and transparently bloated and drawn out, making it a chore to watch, overall. It's not "all bad"; it's just not very good, with a few bright spots - is the common consensus. Comments are filled with fans of properties such as this. The Star Wars comments on their mixed reviews were overly positive as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 00:10
|
|