|
Just got back from a 48 FPS showing as well. I actually think the prologue worked in the sense that I was able to get used to seeing the new framerate, letting me jump right in when Gandalf showed up. I really don't know what else I can say that hasn't already be said, but I do think that the timing for Radagast was odd. I don't know where else it could have been, but it was at a fairly jarring for me. I didn't have a problem with Azog, considering that I can see him popping back up in the future. He'll definitely be a major figure in the Battle of Five Armies, and the whole Necromancer theory that popped up is something I never considered. For somebody who can't handle 3D at all (and I wear glasses, so it's a huge pain anyways), I think that the HFR helped out with 3D. I usually get headaches after a short time, but I only had some sore eyes after nearly 3 hours
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
What I've always loved about The Hobbit is how gently it leads you into Tolkien's world. On the outside, it's an adventure story with some pretty simple morals at its heart: don't be greedy; mercy is courageous; home is where the heart is; negotiate a contract, etc. It doesn't require knowlege of Tolkien lore at all not only because it's a children's story but because it came first. Much later, we realize these events will also play the opening act of a world-defining epic. But the fact that we (theoretically) don't know as much going in is kinda essential to the spirit of the thing. That's what I think PJ got confused. Bilbo's journey changes his life forever. And it also changes the fate of Middle Earth. But if Bilbo had been aware of what was at stake, he might never have stepped out the door. Right, we know the story and we're anticipating our favorite bits. But I don't really want a director to rely on my previous knowledge to provide emotional resonance. I want to be invited into the magic as if for the first time, to be so engrossed in the story that I forget my own preconceptions. I think a really great adaptation can do that. LoTR did that. This movie did not do that. Dolphin posted:I don't think that the movie was awful or anything, but I think Peter Jackson should have held back on all the tech gimmicks and focused more on making a great movie...There was too much talking when it was unnecessary, and not enough when it was necessary. I agree with almost everything in this post. The thing that really disappoints is that I think it could have been an excellent single film. It's a pretty simple story, with natural tension, built-in scenes, an awesome (and very cinematic) villain, and beyond "In a hole in the ground..." it doesn't require much exposition. It could be a seriously great ride. And making one film would have forced PJ to control himself. No frenetic intro to Dwarves, the Universe, & Everything, no Azog, no need for Radagast to resuscitate a CG hedgehog or for Thorin to slow motion march down a flaming tree trunk. Sure some of that was fun, but I think it came at the expense of the heart that is required for real investment and particularly for this story. And this isn't about faithfulness to the plot, and anyone who thinks it is misses the point. I love the trilogy to the point of foolishness, e.g. I only watch the extended eds (they're better movies) and to make matters worse TTT is my favorite. So I really wanted to love this, and length isn't a problem for me if it's in service to the story. But you could argue that literal interpretation actually detracted in this case. The only time I felt even a hint of what this could have been was during the unexpected party & Over the Misty Mountains Cold. That was the only time when I felt the dwarves' longing, and like there might be something lived-in and tenuous and important underneath all the poo poo. dream owl fucked around with this message at 07:54 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:51
|
|
|
Regarding Azog If he has been raised by the Necromancer, I could see Thorin doing him in again, this time for good, only to have his son Bolg step in and fight in his honor in the Five Armies battle. That way they get their tie into their filler material AND follow what happens in the book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
I said come in! posted: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. Um. No. Warner Brothers, MGM, and New Line didn't sink a billion dollars into a franchise because of a vocal minority. It's made for "People who went to see Lord of the Rings" which is far bigger than "Nerds who Like Lore"
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 08:20
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Um. No. Then they would have just made it a 2 hour movie because that would have given people the exact same thing. They didn't need to make this for the general movie going audience this time, just slapping the Hobbit on it and advertising that it had to do with Lord of the Rings was enough to make the trillion dollars this movie is going to make. I said come in! fucked around with this message at 08:30 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 08:26
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Then they would have just made it a 2 hour movie because that would have given people the exact same thing. Fortunately studio executives do not make movies themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 08:34
|
|
|
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. Also, that dude's nose was fuckin' HUGE
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 08:51
|
|
|
I'm not entirely sure how they could've made this into a single movie and keep it under, say, three hours. I was dubious about Jackson turning this into three movies myself, but I didn't have a huge problem back when everyone thought it was going to be two movies. If you were going to make it into only one movie, how would you do it? You'd have to cut at least one chapter, and that'd piss people off no matter which one it was. And I wouldn't blame them. Personally, I want to see the trolls AND Beorn AND the spiders AND the Battle of Five Armies, and it'd be hard to have all of that in one movie. Unless you want to move at a breakneck pace and have each "chapter" last only about ten minutes on screen, but that'd be lame. Naw, I'm fine with multiple movies, because I want to see everything and I want the film(s) to take its time. What I don't like is bringing in too much material that is only tangentally related to the main story and diluted the central conflict and adventure. I don't want to see too much emphasis on the Necromancer/Sauron at the expense of Smaug. I don't want to see too much foreshadowing of the War of the Ring at the expense of the Quest for Erebor. I want each film to be coherent and to not rely on too much knowledge of the Appendices. I want the story to be perfectly straight forward. I'm worried that, with all the Azog stuff and Necromancer stuff, it won't be coherent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 09:07
|
|
|
Did anyone else notice that the outcrop the Eagles dropped them off at is literally a giant bear head with a cave in its mouth? Seems pretty obvious who we will be meeting next.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 09:09
|
|
|
Just saw the movie. First, I can definitely see and understand what people are talking about when they say the movie a bit drawn out. But here's the thing. I DO NOT CARE, gimme more Hobbit, mmmmm Middle Earth lore delicious! But of course I know that's not everyone's cup of tea. I'm happy with pretty much everything in the movie. I know there were a few things that I thought were odd choices, but they're so small that I have no recollection what they were. I'd have to watch the movie one or two more times to pick them out. The one thing that really sticks out at me that I wasn't onboard with was the opening with Frodo. Around the time it showed him getting the mail I thought "Hmm I see he's getting the mail okay so when are we getting to the story of the Hobbit?" I have no idea what an earlier poster was talking about concerning Radagast besting the Witch King. He made it sound like he beat him in a straight up fight when really he parried him, took his blade and got the hell out of there, he was clearly terrified and acting in a panic. So yeah, I had no problems with that. One thing that I really noticed is that coming straight from the Lord of the Rings movies, there's a biiig tonal shift. This movie was a lot more whimsical, which I actually appreciated. I mean c'mon, it's the Hobbit. The only criticism I have for that is that at times the movie's tone seemed a bit at odds with itself. Not a big deal though, to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 11:16
|
|
|
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? They're pretty dickish, don't want to get involved with the quest, Smaug or the Men that live further down. They only helped out because they owed Gandalf a favour. And they needed to have that lingering shot of what the whole drat film and trilogy is about. Like you got with Mount Doom in Lord of the Rings. Also landscape shots are win win. 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. This is Jackson's fault for portraying them as dumb beasts that appear whenever Gandalf whispers sexually into a butterfly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 12:08
|
|
|
dream owl posted:Right, we know the story and we're anticipating our favorite bits. But I don't really want a director to rely on my previous knowledge to provide emotional resonance. I want to be invited into the magic as if for the first time, to be so engrossed in the story that I forget my own preconceptions. I think a really great adaptation can do that. LoTR did that. This movie did not do that. That's very odd, because to me, this movie DID exactly that. I grew up on this book and watched the Rankin/Bass cartoon all of my life so I had Biiiiig preconceived notions and expectations. I was pleasantly surprised by this interpretation. The new things it brought into the story, well, invited me in as if for the first time. I loved it despite the fact that I've been following this thread all year and was really expecting a disappointing piece of crap. I'm very confused why the internet hates this movie so much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 12:13
|
|
|
Ape Gone Insane posted:They're pretty dickish, don't want to get involved with the quest, Smaug or the Men that live further down. They only helped out because they owed Gandalf a favour. One of my biggest issues with all of PJ's LOTR films is that his eagles were all mute. Every single issue anyone has with them could've been solved had the eagles spoke.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 12:17
|
|
|
Ape Gone Insane posted:They're pretty dickish, don't want to get involved with the quest, Smaug or the Men that live further down. They only helped out because they owed Gandalf a favour. What would be interesting; if memory serves, by the end of the Hobbit, The eagles comes to lend a hand at the battle of the five armies. However, even in the book, it mentions this was not enough and they were being driven back - it's only until Beorn shows up doing some serious rear end-kicking that the tide is turned. Jackson might very well show us that Eagles are not impervious to arrows, and that hanging around orc or goblin archers is a pretty bad thing. It might also quell the whole "why didn't they just fly into Mordor" argument.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 13:55
|
|
|
Regarding the Undead Azog theory, I thought the only undead Sauron rose were the witch kings. Is there any evidence from the books that he rose other things too? Saying that he rose some random orc in addition to the Ancient Kings of Men seems a little far-fetched.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 15:21
|
|
|
Ape Gone Insane posted:This is Jackson's fault for portraying them as dumb beasts that appear whenever Gandalf whispers sexually into a butterfly. Thank you, someone finally gets it. I couldn't believe 3 people in a row failed to understand that before. That's what I was getting at. It really needed to be explained in the movie in the same way it was in the book. And besides the eagles were really cool in the book and pretty interesting. In the movies they are just plot devices.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
Ignitus posted:My biggest gripe was that they used the Nazgul music for Thorin's fight against Azog. Why! It's already been answered (earlier in the thread, even, with a quotation on "why we did that") but I'd like to comment on my favorite aural Easter egg -- after Our Heroes<tm> slid down the stone cleft before entering Rivendell, we heard a very distinctive horn and fifteen (FIFTEEN!) notes of musc that we heard only once before: when the elves marched into the Hornburg. The camera cuts were rapid and chaotic, and people new to the material would have had no idea for another fifteen minutes about what was happening.... but those of us who saw The Two Towers knew EXACTLY what was happening to the orcs.  As to all those musical callbacks.... are you not familiar with the concept of leitmotif? Every character (or idea) has it's own musical theme, and that music (as in the dwarve's "Misty Mountain" leitmotif) serves to keep identifying or referencing the subject. That's why there was that fifteen note "Elvish warrior" piece from TT when Elrond and his sons attacked the orcs, that's why there was that little flutey piece every time the shire is evoked, and that's why the Sauron-ish theme (not a strictly Nazgûl theme) hinted at Azog's other-worldly connections. Effingham fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Dec 18, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Effingham posted:It's already been answered (earlier in the thread, even, with a quotation on "why we did that") but I'd like to comment on my favorite aural Easter egg -- after Our Heroes<tm> slid down the stone cleft before entering Rivendell, we heard a very distinctive horn and fifteen (FIFTEEN!) notes of musc that we heard only once before: when the elves marched into the Hornburg. The camera cuts were rapid and chaotic, and people new to the material would have had no idea for another fifteen minutes about what was happening.... but those of us who saw The Two Towers knew EXACTLY what was happening to the orcs. Or you know, when Thorin picks up an arrow an says "Elvish" they might catch on. Even before that you have Thorin and Gandalf arguing twice about going to see Elrond and then a "Where are you leading us..." line. It was pretty obvious where they are going to be honest. Even if this was the first LotR film you've seen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:01
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Its more a conundrum in FotR since thats a big deal quest, but this one, yeah, not a taxi service for some wayward drawves. It's not more of a conundrum. The Lonely Mountain has a fire breathing dragon. Mordor has possibly dozens of flying hellbeasts patrolling the skies. Yes, in the books the eagles have even more personal reasons for not being a Taxi service, but I think the movies give you a good reason they don't want to go anywhere near the dangerous endpoints. If you needed further explanation than that, I don't know what to tell you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:10
|
|
|
rypakal posted:It's not more of a conundrum. The Lonely Mountain has a fire breathing dragon. Mordor has possibly dozens of flying hellbeasts patrolling the skies. Yes, in the books the eagles have even more personal reasons for not being a Taxi service, but I think the movies give you a good reason they don't want to go anywhere near the dangerous endpoints. If you needed further explanation than that, I don't know what to tell you. I meant more like, in FOTR its a matter of Sauron taking over all middle earth and destroying everyone and everything, which the Eagles have a vested interest in. They gain the world not being destroyed. Here, in the hobbit, they have no interest in helping the dwarves. It gains them nothing. So its more a conundrum because "They dont want to" is a valid reason for not helping in Hobbit, not so much in LotR Also as of the set out of the quest in FotR the audience has no idea there are flying mounts for the 9, so again, PJ didnt address the obvious question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:17
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Also as of the set out of the quest in FotR the audience has no idea there are flying mounts for the 9, so again, PJ didnt address the obvious question.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:24
|
|
|
computer parts posted:I don't think Isengard had really militarized at that point so it's not that far fetched to say that Eagles can "get wizard off of the top of a large building" but can't fight a dude with an enormous army. Its not, nobodies saying that here. The problem is nobody said it in the movie. There are people in pop culture and even people coming into this thread asking why the Eagles didnt take them. This is happening because the movies didnt address it. Its a recurring thing that could have been taken care of at the council of Elrond 4 drat movies ago. Sam: Can't the Eagles take us  Elrond: Mordor has great beasts patrolling its skies, you would not slip through unseen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
macnbc posted:Return of the King won 11 academy awards, tieing the record with Ben Hur and Titanic. It won all categories it was nominated for. Also it was the first fantasy film to ever do so. (Still waiting on a science fiction film making it over the line.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:39
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:
But there's no way Sam could have known about the Eagles. Gandalf's whole shtick is not telling people how he did a trick and unless he told Sam there's no way that he would have known.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 16:58
|
|
|
I said come in! posted: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. See, here's the thing - I'm CRAZY about the lore, and I still thought this movie was seriously flawed. I was excited to hear that elements like the Necromancer were going to be added, but when it actually came down to implementing them, I felt they could have done a much, much better job. As it was, those scenes stuck out like sore thumbs from the rest of the film, in terms of content as well as tone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:01
|
|
|
Balqis posted:See, here's the thing - I'm CRAZY about the lore, and I still thought this movie was seriously flawed. I was excited to hear that elements like the Necromancer were going to be added, but when it actually came down to implementing them, I felt they could have done a much, much better job. As it was, those scenes stuck out like sore thumbs from the rest of the film, in terms of content as well as tone. Totally, I can agree with you there, I still loved the movie, but I admit it had some serious flaws. I think you can still really enjoy a movie while admitting it has some things that are wrong with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:04
|
|
|
Bombadilillo posted:Its not, nobodies saying that here. The problem is nobody said it in the movie. There are people in pop culture and even people coming into this thread asking why the Eagles didnt take them. This is happening because the movies didnt address it. There are always questions that a movie cannot answer because then the whole movie would be a Q&A session. You know how many people actually had LotR ruined by the eagles question? Not enough to justify another 10 seconds of exposition.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:There are always questions that a movie cannot answer because then the whole movie would be a Q&A session. You know how many people actually had LotR ruined by the eagles question? Not enough to justify another 10 seconds of exposition. It depends, not everything in a movie has to be verbally explained to the audience by a character (I wish Christopher Nolan would understand this). It could be something visually too, like a character takes an object with them that you see first, and then later in the movie it is used in some way. That said, a verbal explanation is the only thing I can think of to make the eagles actually make sense beyond just being a plot device in the movie. A well made movie helps the audience connect dots to explain things without the audience even realizing its being done, or the verbal explanations are appropriate because the characters don't understand it either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
I said come in! posted: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. http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/24/ :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
The time spent to satisfactorily explain the eagles, and why they won't just taxi everybody around isn't worth the time. Ultimately it's minutia that is unrelated to the narrative.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
I was waiting for someone to post that. I loved that comic strip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
computer parts posted:But there's no way Sam could have known about the Eagles. Gandalf's whole shtick is not telling people how he did a trick and unless he told Sam there's no way that he would have known. Bilbo could've told him about the eagles? After all, Sam knew about Mr Bilbo's trolls. I figure Bilbo's wacky adventures must've been well known amongst the younger hobbits, who were always excited to hear them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:15
|
|
|
What about a catapult?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:18
|
|
|
Wasn't the whole point of the Dwarf adventure that the dragon had been missing for ages? Surely the eagles wouldn't really see it as any sort of big risk to drop them off then.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:40
|
|
|
MrBling posted:Wasn't the whole point of the Dwarf adventure that the dragon had been missing for ages? Surely the eagles wouldn't really see it as any sort of big risk to drop them off then. Perhaps, but while they are happy to save their friend Gandalf they don't really have any reason to take time out of their busy schedule of doing whatever giant eagles do to give a bunch of dwarves a lift. This wouldn't be a problem if Peter Jackson had the eagles talk like in the book, but I think more movie watchers would be put off by talking eagles than by these kind of questions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Crackbone posted:The time spent to satisfactorily explain the eagles, and why they won't just taxi everybody around isn't worth the time. Ultimately it's minutia that is unrelated to the narrative. Also, I think when that felbeast comes flying over the Dead Marshes, that's all the explanation you need.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 17:55
|
|
|
Smuckles posted:I have a question regarding HFR. Bombadilillo posted:
Bombadilillo has it right. There's a number of peculiarities with HFR but for certain it is most pronounced in close ups. If you were physically looking at something that close, there's a degree of blur in motion that your eyes/brain expect to see which HFR eliminates, and that gets interpreted very bizarrely, as if the object is moving more quickly than it is, which sounds counter intuitive but thats just what happens when the eyes are forced to deal with something unnatural. If you want a very specific theory for why it is interpreted by the brain this way, my best guess is that the absence of blur makes you reevaluate your sense of perspective: if the image of a moving hand which looks close up doesn't behave like it should, then it must be further away and larger, and if the hand is infact huge and far away, we expect it to move more ponderously, so when it moves at a natural speed it FEELS sped up, even though we can measure it as being the correct speed. See how important a little motion blur and stutter can be?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 18:37
|
|
|
People saying is is for serious middle earth fanatics and not regular people are naive. I'm a huge fan of everything Tolkien put out, and slogged through the silmarillion twice. This movies first two hours were more boring than the silmarillion because you could tell how padded it all was. Erebor was gorgeous. I think there were things pj could have done to make more effective use of the time he was given.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I was waiting for someone to post that. I loved that comic strip. I'm not sure you understood it, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:38 |
|
|
Blenheim posted:I'm not sure you understood it, though. Ooh I did, I just don't care.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 19:11
|
|