|
Just got back from this. It was great. The internet is dumb and has adventure-hating frigid babby hearts. Easily the best dwarf adventure movie since Willow.
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:In the books it was mostly Fixed that. Well up to the point we are in the movie, at least
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
Stormageddon posted:Oh, and the digital effects studio involved in making the movie what it was? Remind me again? Reminds me that I was watching Adventures of Tintin the other day, and even though I knew that it was a joint project between Spielberg and Jackson (  ), it was pretty drat amusing seeing "Second Unit Director: Peter Jackson" in the credits. Nice of Spielberg to give this upcoming young kid a shot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 02:08
|
|
|
I saw the movie again last night, this time with in 3D/48fps. Yes, it looks incredibly weird when you first see old Bilbo walking around his house. I'm glad I first saw the movie in 2D/24fps, otherwise the HFR may have distracted me too much. But it's also true that you get used to it and I didn't have any problems once they left the Shire. Now some new thoughts about the movie itself, now that I've seen it twice: -Yep, I still can't help but feel that the prologue with Old Bilbo and Frodo was totally unnecessary. The very beginning where it shows Old Bilbo reminiscing is fine, but the stuff with him and Frodo really needed to be cut. In my opinion, once the prologue showing Erebor/Smaug/Thorin was done, it should've gone straight to young Bilbo at Bag End. Having Old Bilbo saying "And that's where I come in..." would've been the perfect segue. -The Radagast stuff with the spiders probably should've been saved for the second movie. Not to be a nerd but how the hell did he get over the Misty Mountains? He should've showed up in the beginning of Part 2 to foreshadow the giant spiders of Mirkwood. -The White Council scene put way too much emphasis on the Necromancer/Sauron, and not enough on Smaug. Yeah, I know that in the Tolkien-verse Smaug isn't as big a deal as Sauron, but that's kind of the problem with turning The Hobbit into a prequel for LoTR. Smaug should be the focus of these movies. It's not that I don't like the Necromancer/Sauron foreshadowing, but there was too much of it. Most of the conversation should've been about how worried they were that the dwarves might awaken Smaug and piss him off, and THAT'S why they don't condone the quest. -I like how the movie ended. I thought it was cool how they were standing on the Carrock (I'm assuming that was the Carrock), looking out across the Wilderland at the Lonely Mountain beyond, and with the thrush knocking on the stone and waking up Smaug. Smaug looked cool by the way (what little we saw of him, anyway: just his nose and eye). Don't know what everyone is talking about when they say he looked terrible.  All in all, I'd give the movie 4 out of 5, maybe 8 out of 10, whatever. Very good but flawed, like I said originally. I still don't like the Azog stuff because I think he was a lame villain.. I also don't like how much this movie tries to foreshadow The Lord of the Rings, instead of just being a movie (or movies) about a hobbit who helps a bunch of dwarves reclaim their lost kingdom from a mean ol' dragon. My opinion might change depending on how Parts 2 and 3 turn out. Maybe it'll all play out much better when we see the trilogy as a whole. I admit I'm intrigued by the speculation about Azog and the Necromancer. But as of right now, I think the Azog stuff could've been left out, and the Radagast stuff left for Part 2.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 02:46
|
|
|
The five wizards travel at exactly the speed of plot. how did he get there? On a goddamn rabbit sled, shut up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 03:41
|
|
|
The prologue with old Bilbo is going to tie all 6 movies together really well when this series finally concludes. When Frodo leaves in The Hobbit he is literally going to meet Gandalf when he jumps into his wagon in Fellowship. Assuming you watch all 6 movies in order, when you finally get to Fellowship and you see Frodo jump into Gandalf's wagon, you know that moments before he was with Bilbo as he wrote down the "movies" you just watched. Old Bilbo is planning his disappearance in the first LOTR movie at the beginning of The Hobbit. I think stylistically it works pretty well for uniting all 6 films. I thought The Hobbit was pretty good. Definitely a bit sillier than the LOTR trilogy, but whatever. It wasn't perfect, but again, The Hobbit is a much different book with a pretty different story and tone. This film will probably improve as the other 2 movies are released and you have the whole adventure available to watch and understand.
Jabbu fucked around with this message at 03:53 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 03:48
|
|
|
Azog's face reminded me of the zombie-things from I Am Legend. Especially when he yelled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:27
|
|
|
Does the book explain why the eagles left them on top of a huge rock that will probably suck to get down, other then, you know, on the ground, even better at the Lonely Mountain? Dunno if it's actually like that in the book, or was done for cinema reasons. ddiddles fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:30
|
|
|
blackmanjew posted:Does the book explain why the eagles left them on top of a huge rock that will probably suck to get down, other then, you know, on the ground, even better at the Lonely Mountain? In the book the Eagles take them to their roost, have an extended chat. Then take them a bit farther along their way and drop them off. I think on top of the rock was just there in the movie so they could see the Lonley Mountain in the distance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
limeincoke posted:Azog's face reminded me of the zombie-things from I Am Legend. Especially when he yelled. Thank you! I was trying to place this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:33
|
|
|
Was Azog's character design completed under Guillermo Del Toro? It's dripping with his style.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:34
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Was Azog's character design completed under Guillermo Del Toro? Good catch - seems likely. I had no idea he was CGI until I read this thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:39
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:Good catch - seems likely. Yeah, I was kinda shocked to find out he was all CGI, and that people thought it was bad CGI to boot. It's not just online either, I saw it with a friend and it was one of the (few) things he found wrong with the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:41
|
|
|
Saw this today. Thoroughly enjoyed it. It's been a while since I read the book but was the movie supposed to be so... violent early on? I mean it's pretty much Happy Hobbit Paradise one second and gruesome battle for Moria, completey with decapitated dwarf next. Jeez.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:44
|
|
|
Jerusalem posted:Yeah, I was kinda shocked to find out he was all CGI, and that people thought it was bad CGI to boot. It's not just online either, I saw it with a friend and it was one of the (few) things he found wrong with the movie. Picking "bad" CGI is like hearing mp3 artifacts in high bit-rate soundfiles. No-one can ever call you on it and it lets you be all  . That said, I thought the rabbitsled/warg chase looked a little ropey. E: ^^ It's pretty much straight from the book, there's decapitations and exploded goblins and stuff in there too, it's just not dwelt on ^^
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:47
|
|
|
Stormageddon posted:The five wizards travel at exactly the speed of plot. how did he get there? On a goddamn rabbit sled, shut up. You might say he arrived precisely when he meant to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:52
|
|
|
blackmanjew posted:Does the book explain why the eagles left them on top of a huge rock that will probably suck to get down, other then, you know, on the ground, even better at the Lonely Mountain? I couldn't help but question the entire time why the eagles didn't just fly them over to the mountain they wanted to be at. I know the book explains this but it doesn't work in the movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 04:59
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I couldn't help but question the entire time why the eagles didn't just fly them over to the mountain they wanted to be at. I know the book explains this but it doesn't work in the movie. Gandalf basically explains this when he explains why he chose Bilbo for the quest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I couldn't help but question the entire time why the eagles didn't just fly them over to the mountain they wanted to be at. I know the book explains this but it doesn't work in the movie. You mean the mountain with the fire breathing dragon? That mountain? I think it's sort of implied that the Eagles would prefer not to be cooked in mid-air.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I couldn't help but question the entire time why the eagles didn't just fly them over to the mountain they wanted to be at. I know the book explains this but it doesn't work in the movie. Cause the Eagles are a sentient race, not a loving taxi service. They helped them to not die but they aren't going to fly them across the continent cause it would be quicker. Also they've been poaching some human's sheep and the humans shoot arrows at them, yada yada yada, they don't go near human settlements. Its more a conundrum in FotR since thats a big deal quest, but this one, yeah, not a taxi service for some wayward drawves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 05:11
|
|
|
I don't get how everyone keeps pointing out how The Hobbit is supposed to have a lighter tone and use this as an excuse to not compare it to LotR. I saw it as just the opposite; the tone was too schizophrenic, and the more serious LotR-style scenes that were incorporated into the movie detracted from everything involving Bilbo and the dwarves, especially after they got to Rivendell. I mean, I was really excited for all the additional stuff to be incorporated into the movie, but the way those things were handled just seemed to throw everything out of whack to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 05:24
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Was Azog's character design completed under Guillermo Del Toro? I mean, I'm sure its come up before, but I saw Del Toros fingerprints all over the whole Goblin-town sequence. In other words, it was all great. edit: I'm intrigued by the idea mentioned earlier in the page where the intro to the Hobbit is more fitting if you consider the idea of someday watching all six films in order. I guess mostly because that's something that I will inevitably one day do. Chewbacca fucked around with this message at 05:36 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 05:25
|
|
|
I have a question regarding HFR. I saw it in HFR 3D and thought it was amazing. It would be a mistake, though, to claim that there isn't an "adjustment" period in the beginning of the film. Things look like they're moving too quickly and that's most easily noticed with close-ups of hands, as pointed out by another poster a couple pages back. My question is, well, why it looks that way? It's my understanding that the human eye experiences framerates much higher than 48p. Yet, watching Bilbo sign his name in the beginning looked like it was too fast. After adjusting to this new framerate, though, the film looked closer to true life than 24 fps. It became easier to see it as though we were looking through a window instead of at a screen. Macintosh HD fucked around with this message at 05:48 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 05:45
|
|
|
I also think the Stone Giants is a Guillermo touch. I mean, extending it as much as it was. It screams Guillermo. I bet he pitched it during a screenwriting session, and PJ fell in love with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 05:52
|
|
|
Smuckles posted:I have a question regarding HFR. Nobodies 100% on this. The best hypotheses I've seen is this. Your eyes bounce around when they are tracking things. This is at odd with a movie where you're eyes focus on one spot and the movement happens for you. 24 'mimics' the bouncing of your eyes around. This would also account for why the speed up optical illusion happens less at far distance shots. Your eyes in real life can track someone waving their hand 20 feet away from you smoothly so the 48 looks natural. At close up, or what your brain precieves as just a few feet away, the smoothness at which your eyes track the motion is unnatural and it plays tricks on your brain. Your brain is used to filling in the gaps of you vision when your eyes move in real life. You get more visual information then your brain expects and it interprets this as speed. Its really odd. Some people seem to see it at distance shots, the 'Benny Hill' chase scenes. I only got it during the hand shots or other closeups. Even then it was gone my the end of the move, and I didnt notice it during Riddles in the Dark which had plenty of close hand shots, splashing and whatnot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:05
|
|
|
I know the Hobbit is a great book, but I can't say I enjoyed this as a film. After a certain point I simply couldn't care about the characters being in danger, because they had the finest Plot Armor in all of Middle Earth. I get it's for kids and all, and it's not bad on that note, but by the end of the goblin king chase I wanted to take a nap. That and the CG for the Pale Orc was pretty eh, his scars just really stuck out to me. I mean, it's fine, just the film isn't for me. Also why is Benedict Cumberbatch in the credits when Smaug doesn't have a line in the film?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:22
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:I know the Hobbit is a great book, but I can't say I enjoyed this as a film. After a certain point I simply couldn't care about the characters being in danger, because they had the finest Plot Armor in all of Middle Earth. I get it's for kids and all, and it's not bad on that note, but by the end of the goblin king chase I wanted to take a nap. That and the CG for the Pale Orc was pretty eh, his scars just really stuck out to me. I believe he is also the Necromancer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:26
|
|
|
Jefferoo posted:Also why is Benedict Cumberbatch in the credits when Smaug doesn't have a line in the film? They recorded the sound of the fire be breathed out of his mouth.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:27
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:I believe he is also the Necromancer. He did the motion capture for it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:29
|
|
|
Chewbacca posted:I mean, I'm sure its come up before, but I saw Del Toros fingerprints all over the whole Goblin-town sequence. In other words, it was all great. I think it would be kind of awful in some of the ways the prequels aren't great ways to precede the Star Wars OT. The prequels in both instances are (in my opinion) way too comfortable letting the OTs introduce elements and instead focus their time on what they're bringing "new" to the table. It would make for some different viewing but only after you've seen them in release date order. Otherwise, it would be all upside down. Orcs and Goblins are matter of factly presented in the Hobbit while they have nice horror style build up in Fellowship, just like Jedi are mysterious and somewhat mythical in the OT while the prequels have them both common and introduction of them is a given. Just imagine if your very first introduction to the light sabre wasn't Obi Wan explaining it to Luke but rather the complete lack of discussion about it in the prequels. This isn't a knock against either set of prequels. If they'd spent due time reintroducing light sabres and orcs, they would have earned some criticism that people already knew about them and they should get on with things. But it would have made chronological viewing more cohesive and satisfying. Just imagine how bizarre the discussion would be of the Mordor blade without any real introduction of what a Mordor even is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:35
|
|
|
Saw it in HFR 3D. Loved it. Probably a movie I'd watch in the background a dozen times when it comes out on disc. Had no problems with HFR but some of the scenes trying to show rapidness looked sort of slow (Radagast through the woods). It all looked beautiful and real. The editing in this movie felt rushed. The writing was probably the worst from the series and the pacing was noticeably slow. I feel most of the movie could have been handled or imagined better. The exposition sort of seemed haphazard and I thought the dwarf dinner intro could have used some ingenuity to make it shorter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:44
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Quick reactions (no idea what the spoilering rules are here, so forgive me if I give something away): Addressing the last part: It was turned into a gauntlet. You can see the mailing on the inside when he drops it at the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
Did Peter Jackson take any inspiration from World of Warcraft or other fantasy videogames in the design of Erebor? I don't think Tolkien drew any detailed pictures of the place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:57
|
|
|
Baron Bifford posted:Did Peter Jackson take any inspiration from World of Warcraft or other fantasy videogames in the design of Erebor? I don't think Tolkien drew any detailed pictures of the place. It seemed pretty inspired by modern designs on the fantasy genre for sure. I loved the statues outside the gate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
Ape Agitator posted:Just imagine how bizarre the discussion would be of the Mordor blade without any real introduction of what a Mordor even is. What are Mordors? We just don't know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
Well, there was a bunch of dwarven armor/architecture designed already from the Fellowship of the Ring, it's just that they were all...y'know, dead or dilapidated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Well, there was a bunch of dwarven armor/architecture designed already from the Fellowship of the Ring, it's just that they were all...y'know, dead or dilapidated. I did notice that what you can see of Moria in the background during the flashback to that battle, is accurate to Fellowship's Moria, just newer looking. Erebor shared some of the same design elements (angular sculpting/carving) but was far more grand and elegant. For all the poo poo the Elves give Dwarves, their cities are far more awe-inspiring. One of my favorite little things in Erebor? The dwarf who find the Arkenstone having a candle as part of his helmet. That's awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:22
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:One of my favorite little things in Erebor? The dwarf who find the Arkenstone having a candle as part of his helmet. That's awesome. This was really awesome to me as well. The backstory to Erebor was beautifully done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
I can't understand anyone who didn't like the Erebor intro. Aside from depicting, well, the actual plot of the film, I could simply watch the dwarves all day.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
BrianWilly posted:I can't understand anyone who didn't like the Erebor intro. Aside from depicting, well, the actual plot of the film, I could simply watch the dwarves all day. This is why i'm convinced the Hobbit isn't a mass appeal movie. It's made entirely just for people who love Middle Earth lore. The critics giving it a bad review don't understand that the movie isn't for them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:34
|
|