SubJeff on 17/12/2012 at 00:34

---

Ignore them, but going knowing that is The Hobbit and not The Lord of the Rings. The book is a children's book unlike LotR and the film reflects that.

Ok, postmortem.

Liked
The cast - Bilbo is great, Gandalf is Gandalf, most of the Dwarves are very good but some of them are a little too silly for my taste.
3D 48fps. It's odd at first and it does alter the perception of some scenes, especially the CGI stuff (more on that later) and the crowds in towns. I think some new set-ups, layering or panning techniques are going to be needed and it feels like it exposes some of the CGI as CGI and makes it a bit cartoonish. Conversely some of the CGI seems better, and the very last seconds of the final scene looked, imho, fantastic. I'd go so far as to say it stood out as being some of the best CGI of its type (avoiding spoilers here) I've seen and if they can pull it off in the same way in the next films it'll be awesome.
The humour. It was pretty amusing with a lot of slapstick that worked for me (and the rest of the theatre).
Gollum. Gollom vs Bilbo in riddle town was the best scene. At this point in the story you don't know how tragic Gollum's tale is and he's really amusing. I was slightly disappointed that he didn't finish his final riddle as up until then it was going spot on but then I'm a massive Hobbit/LotR nerd.
Scenery was amazing as you'd expect and I found that I preferred it in 48fps because it felt more real to me.


Disliked
Too. Much. CGI. Why oh why have GCI orcs and goblins? The makeup in LotR was amazing and the orcs and uruks were top quality. I don't see why they had mixed makeup, which was just as good as in LotR, with CGI - especially as the CGI wasn't all up to scratch for the 48fps.
Radagast. Its not his inclusion I dislike, its the way they've made him appear... dumb. He's like some comedy capering fool of a wizard and it was just a shade too far on the silly side.
Over extended action. Ok, it was okay but some scenes just went on too long and did seem a little filler like despite being full of stuff.


Overall I really enjoyed it, in quite a different way to LotR. Its kind of easier to watch since there isn't so much slow motion staring and mugging for the camera whilst Elven homomusic tugs at your heartstrings in the background.

Stitch on 17/12/2012 at 19:39

---

Sometimes I think you're the only champion still keeping the old TTLG alive, bud :cool:

So yeah, I'm pretty disappointed that this film--err, set of films--appears to be fulfilling every creeping fear I've been attempting to drown out via loud renditions of goblin marching songs. There really is no reason these movies couldn't have been anything less than one slam dunk after another, except for the fact that apparently nobody tells Peter Jackson "no."

I was one of the few who wasn't skeptical of the decision to split the book, as The Hobbit easily has enough story to sustain two full films. The book may be a light and quick read, but a lot still happens, and doing justice to most of it would take serious screen time. Even if you cut out some of the chapters that aren't really crucial to the plot--like Beorn and his parade of table-setting animals--you still have a lot to contend with. The battle of the five armies alone could easily eat up 45 minutes, for example, despite its text counterpart being something you could knock out while perched upon the toilet.

That being said, nodding agreement turned to mild skepticism when two films became three, and now I'm suddenly tasked with my own unexpected journey of trying to sell this film as a reasonable date night selection to my wife ("You hated Lord of the Rings? Well good news, this movie is apparently worse!")

SPECIAL PETER JACKSON EXTENDED EDITION OF THIS POST:

So, were I a movie-making motherfucker slinging out the genre hits with the greatest of ease, I would have divided up The Hobbit as follows (mild spoilers):

Two films, of course.

First film:
Act One: Establish Bilbo's comfort zone and then shatter it with the unexpected party, leading up to and peaking with the troll scene
Act Two: Rivendell, Misty Mountains, Riddles in the Dark
Act Three: Warg chase and eagles, Beorn, Mirkwood spider scene where Bilbo comes into his own

Second film:
Act One: Elven imprisonment, escape via barrels, arrival and celebration in Laketown
Act Two: Lonely Mountain arrival, a visit with Smaug, Bard takes him down
Act Three: Mounting treasure tension, the Battle of Five Armies, epilogue

Note: the films don't split cleanly, especially due to most of the memorable setpieces occurring during the first half of the book. I'd also consider moving Beorn and Mirkwood to film two, but that might overstuff it slightly. It's a pointless thing to ponder, but the nerd in me loves this kind of shit.

june gloom on 17/12/2012 at 20:12

---

After careful consideration of everything that's been discussed in this thread, I'm going to go see if Wreck-It Ralph is still showing.

Fafhrd on 18/12/2012 at 02:42

---

I quite liked this. I was fully expecting it to feel over-bloated, and it does suffer some bloat, but it's paced roughly the same as Fellowship of the Ring: long intro in the Shire, series of minor perils until reaching Rivendell, rapid series of escalating perils after leaving Rivendell, Big Hero Moment, End Credits.

I'm hopeful that the next two will be able to retain the same pace, but since they're clearly laying a lot groundwork in this one for Gandalf and the White Council dealing with the Necromancer in Part 2, I worry that the split in the narrative when Gandalf leaves the company at the edge of Mirkwood will bog down the pace a bit.

I think they mostly nailed the tone, though it does shift a bit. The stuff that's from the book feels like the folk-tale that the book was meant to be, but then it shifts gears when it goes to flashbacks that were taken from the LotR Appendices. And Guillermo del Toro's fingerprints are all over it from his time in pre-production (especially the Great Goblin).

Kuuso on 20/12/2012 at 18:20

---

Saw The Hobbit. Here's my thoughts on the 3D and the 48fps.

The 3D in this film is amazing. It's use is most often than not subtle and just there to add depth. When Bilbo's at his house and you see Gandalf through the window, you really notice the space he travels to the frontdoor. It doesn't sound impressive like this, but it really adds to the illusion of a real world playing on that screen. Jackson's signature heli-shots of people walking in the wilderness are fucking amazing: the depth 3D adds to these outside shots is just beautiful and in no way illusion-breaking. Sure, the movie has it's share of stuff flying at you or clearly apart from the rest of the action, which is always shit, but hopefully this kind of stuff will disappear from high-profile stuff once the initial charm of the tech is gone.

The 48FPS thing was intriguing. At first everything seemed to move at 1,25x or 1,5x speed. This was very apparent, when there was only one actor moving. Also when an actor was making slow or normal (in other words, not fast) motions, it almost seemed like it was glitching somehow, it's hard to describe. The 48FPS really works in big shots with lots of stuff happening, in other words battles and aforementioned wilderness shots, which brings me to my biggest conclusion: I really really really want to see nature documentaries in this kind of 3D and 48FPS. Water looked fucking amazing and the movement of the grass and the trees is just mindblowing.

The movie itself is shit, Jackson is basically remaking LOTR, but this time with worse humour, worse one-liners and "comical" yet brutal violence. There's not enough character interaction, they're just running from place to place fighting and getting into stupidly overblown situations.

Edit: oh and the CGI is awesome, yet childish and bad. The masked orcs of LOTR are so much better than the CGI ones here. This goes for everything but Gollum, who is really amazing.