The Hobbit

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by patteeu

For me, not dying wasn't a problem, but how they didn't die was a little troublesome. It's like someone decided that if an exciting action sequence is good, an over-the-top, jarringly-anti-realistic action sequence must be better. I realize this is a fantasy movie with magic and mythical creatures and that it requires a fundamental suspension of disbelief from the get go, but it just seemed a little unnecessary to me. Not a major problem at all, but just something I think could have been better.

I could've done without the "great slide", myself, to be honest.

[Gravedigger]

Originally Posted by Pestilence

Did you read the ****ing book? Did you bitch about the dwarves not dying then as well?

No I didn't read the books. Any of them, but I have a hard time seeing how that has anything to do with a criticism of the film. If that was exactly how the books had it going then yes, I think that a handful of dwarves that can beat any obstacle without dying is a little far fetched. It's a minor complaint, nothing more and nothing less. The only thing I really "bitched" about was the frame rate. That was the only thing I didn't like about the movie. But I didn't honestly see how a bridge falling down a large cave with 13 people on it wouldn't shatter but instead stay together while everything around it falls to pieces. I can say that I was entertained but thinking about it afterwards it does raise a question or two.

[QuikSsurfer]

Saw it last night in 2d -- loved it. Fantastic movie and well worth the wait.

Only complaint.... THERE WAS NO MAN OF STEEL TRAILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ****!!!

[keg in kc]

Originally Posted by QuikSsurfer

Saw it last night in 2d -- loved it. Fantastic movie and well worth the wait.

Only complaint.... THERE WAS NO MAN OF STEEL TRAILER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ****!!!

And no 9 minutes of star trek into darkness. Back to see it in IMAX i go.

Pacific Rim trailer looked amazing on the big screen.

[Fish]

Saw it. Loved it. Really loved it.

Saw it in 2D. Was surprised to find some fast motion scenes still looked a little blurred. They had both a Man of Steel trailer and a Star Trek trailer. But it wasn't the 9 minute Trek trailer that was evidently shown in IMAX.

Pluses:
Bilbo was played well.
They nailed the dwarves. Well done with that.
Radagast was hilarious. Down to the creepy mold stuff growing on his head. Gandalf giving him a toke of smoke to calm him down.. LOL. Shroom abuser..
Excellent job mixing traditional Hobbit book with explanatory back stories from Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales.
Weapons were awesome.
Thorin. Nicely done showing his asshole side converting to less asshole side.

Negatives:
Goblin King scenes. Rushed, poorly explained. Silly scenes. They either needed to expand that greatly, or completely cut it out.
3 Trolls. Was disappointed with how they handled that. Would've liked to see something closer to the book.
More Smaug...

[wilas101]

Originally Posted by Fish

Saw it. Loved it. Really loved it.

Saw it in 2D. Was surprised to find some fast motion scenes still looked a little blurred. They had both a Man of Steel trailer and a Star Trek trailer. But it wasn't the 9 minute Trek trailer that was evidently shown in IMAX.

Pluses:
Bilbo was played well.
They nailed the dwarves. Well done with that.
Radagast was hilarious. Down to the creepy mold stuff growing on his head. Gandalf giving him a toke of smoke to calm him down.. LOL. Shroom abuser..
Excellent job mixing traditional Hobbit book with explanatory back stories from Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales.
Weapons were awesome.
Thorin. Nicely done showing his asshole side converting to less asshole side.

Negatives:
Goblin King scenes. Rushed, poorly explained. Silly scenes. They either needed to expand that greatly, or completely cut it out.
3 Trolls. Was disappointed with how they handled that. Would've liked to see something closer to the book.
More Smaug...

I think that was actually bird shit from the two birds living in the nest under his hat.

[hometeam]

Originally Posted by wilas101

I think that was actually bird shit from the two birds living in the nest under his hat.

Yes this is right.

Movie was good, but was struggling to stay awake a lot of the time so it was hard to fully enjoy~

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by wilas101

I think that was actually bird shit from the two birds living in the nest under his hat.

Yep.

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by Fish

Saw it. Loved it. Really loved it.

Saw it in 2D. Was surprised to find some fast motion scenes still looked a little blurred. They had both a Man of Steel trailer and a Star Trek trailer. But it wasn't the 9 minute Trek trailer that was evidently shown in IMAX.

Saw it in 3d (IMAX). It was well worth the extra bucks. It really looked great.

Negatives:
Goblin King scenes. Rushed, poorly explained. Silly scenes. They either needed to expand that greatly, or completely cut it out.
3 Trolls. Was disappointed with how they handled that. Would've liked to see something closer to the book.
More Smaug...

I didn't have a problem with much of any of it. On the more Smaug, you saying you WANTED more Smaug? I was actually discussing this with my buddy before the movie and we damn well knew we'd only get a glimpse of parts of him. No way they reveal that this movie. That's for later. Standard movie making procedure 101.

[The_Doctor10]

Saw it last night in 3D, and this was the second film I've seen in 2 weeks where the 3D didn't bug the crap outta me. It's very good for giving shots depth and exploring more of the scope of what's on screen (that New Zealand countryside sure looks gorgeous).

As a movie, it's trying too hard. There's a ton of superfluous stuff which was sold as 'we're expanding the story based on other source material'. Shut up. The Hobbit works because it's a straightforward classic adventure tale. Every other scene seemed to contain a reference to something that will happen in Lord of the Rings. Which is great, except we've already seen Lord of the Rings. We're not going to the Hobbit to have the table set for movies we watched ten years ago and really enjoyed. The mere appearance of Frodo should be all the hinting we need about the events to come. Instead, we get a reminder every five minutes for the next three hours.

Next, Radagast. Holy Christ. There's a reason he's mentioned for all of a paragraph in the Hobbit/LOTR books. Because he's boring and adds nothing to the plot. And he's whipping around on a sled pulled by rabbits in a scene that adds nothing, wasn't in the book, and is utterly tensionless. **** off.

There's also a general overall lack of tone; the film tries to be too serious in parts, and then other times goes for nonsense (goblin king, looking at you...). BTW what was the point of that scene? And for that matter, the pale orc? Because the dude says "Send word we have Thorin' and the next scene, Gandalf shows up out of nowhere. Was the plan for them to just sit there for two days until the Orc showed up? Because the Dwarves didn't appear to be the greatest at figuring out a plan of escape. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a single moment of peril which isn't resolved by the actions of Gandalf or Bilbo.

My only conclusion about the pale orc is that he is there to give Thorin something to do. To give his character some conflict. But when your third (Or second, depending) lead needs to have a manufactured conflict to keep him interesting, that's a sign.

We have two more movies coming over the next two years. That's ridiculous. I understand splitting up the movie so you can tell a more complete story and so you can make another billion dollars. Three is over-indulgent. Someone needed to tell Peter Jackson 'no' to a few things. Conflict breeds great film-making.

Remember how both the theatrical and extended addition featured no trace of Tom Bombadil because he's a stupid useless asshole character who could save everyone but just doesn't feel like leaving his bitch for a week? The Hobbit has done the opposite. Let's put in EVERYTHING WE CAN, regardless of whether or not it helps the story or makes the movie better. Because Tolkien was a genius, and certainly didn't write anything that wasn't beyond reproach or didn't need to be filmed.

On the positive side... Very pretty film. Bilbo is very well-acted, and Riddles in the Dark, the one scene they had to ace, is pretty much perfect.

Could've been a lot better, it's trying way too hard.

Oh, and nice to see that Peter Jackson saw Clerks 2 and raised Kevin Smith walking mountains. Which also weren't in the Hobbit.

[Hammock Parties]

Originally Posted by The_Doctor10

Saw it last night in 3D, and this was the second film I've seen in 2 weeks where the 3D didn't bug the crap outta me. It's very good for giving shots depth and exploring more of the scope of what's on screen (that New Zealand countryside sure looks gorgeous).

As a movie, it's trying too hard. There's a ton of superfluous stuff which was sold as 'we're expanding the story based on other source material'. Shut up. The Hobbit works because it's a straightforward classic adventure tale. Every other scene seemed to contain a reference to something that will happen in Lord of the Rings. Which is great, except we've already seen Lord of the Rings. We're not going to the Hobbit to have the table set for movies we watched ten years ago and really enjoyed. The mere appearance of Frodo should be all the hinting we need about the events to come. Instead, we get a reminder every five minutes for the next three hours.

Next, Radagast. Holy Christ. There's a reason he's mentioned for all of a paragraph in the Hobbit/LOTR books. Because he's boring and adds nothing to the plot. And he's whipping around on a sled pulled by rabbits in a scene that adds nothing, wasn't in the book, and is utterly tensionless. **** off.

There's also a general overall lack of tone; the film tries to be too serious in parts, and then other times goes for nonsense (goblin king, looking at you...). BTW what was the point of that scene? And for that matter, the pale orc? Because the dude says "Send word we have Thorin' and the next scene, Gandalf shows up out of nowhere. Was the plan for them to just sit there for two days until the Orc showed up? Because the Dwarves didn't appear to be the greatest at figuring out a plan of escape. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a single moment of peril which isn't resolved by the actions of Gandalf or Bilbo.

My only conclusion about the pale orc is that he is there to give Thorin something to do. To give his character some conflict. But when your third (Or second, depending) lead needs to have a manufactured conflict to keep him interesting, that's a sign.

We have two more movies coming over the next two years. That's ridiculous. I understand splitting up the movie so you can tell a more complete story and so you can make another billion dollars. Three is over-indulgent. Someone needed to tell Peter Jackson 'no' to a few things. Conflict breeds great film-making.

Remember how both the theatrical and extended addition featured no trace of Tom Bombadil because he's a stupid useless asshole character who could save everyone but just doesn't feel like leaving his bitch for a week? The Hobbit has done the opposite. Let's put in EVERYTHING WE CAN, regardless of whether or not it helps the story or makes the movie better. Because Tolkien was a genius, and certainly didn't write anything that wasn't beyond reproach or didn't need to be filmed.

On the positive side... Very pretty film. Bilbo is very well-acted, and Riddles in the Dark, the one scene they had to ace, is pretty much perfect.

Could've been a lot better, it's trying way too hard.

Oh, and nice to see that Peter Jackson saw Clerks 2 and raised Kevin Smith walking mountains. Which also weren't in the Hobbit.

This whole post is ****ing bullshit.

Peter Jackson made a great movie that is making Tolkien fans fapjizz the world over.

So **** off.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by The_Doctor10

Saw it last night in 3D, and this was the second film I've seen in 2 weeks where the 3D didn't bug the crap outta me. It's very good for giving shots depth and exploring more of the scope of what's on screen (that New Zealand countryside sure looks gorgeous).

As a movie, it's trying too hard. There's a ton of superfluous stuff which was sold as 'we're expanding the story based on other source material'. Shut up. The Hobbit works because it's a straightforward classic adventure tale. Every other scene seemed to contain a reference to something that will happen in Lord of the Rings. Which is great, except we've already seen Lord of the Rings. We're not going to the Hobbit to have the table set for movies we watched ten years ago and really enjoyed. The mere appearance of Frodo should be all the hinting we need about the events to come. Instead, we get a reminder every five minutes for the next three hours.

Next, Radagast. Holy Christ. There's a reason he's mentioned for all of a paragraph in the Hobbit/LOTR books. Because he's boring and adds nothing to the plot. And he's whipping around on a sled pulled by rabbits in a scene that adds nothing, wasn't in the book, and is utterly tensionless. **** off.

There's also a general overall lack of tone; the film tries to be too serious in parts, and then other times goes for nonsense (goblin king, looking at you...). BTW what was the point of that scene? And for that matter, the pale orc? Because the dude says "Send word we have Thorin' and the next scene, Gandalf shows up out of nowhere. Was the plan for them to just sit there for two days until the Orc showed up? Because the Dwarves didn't appear to be the greatest at figuring out a plan of escape. In fact, there doesn't seem to be a single moment of peril which isn't resolved by the actions of Gandalf or Bilbo.

My only conclusion about the pale orc is that he is there to give Thorin something to do. To give his character some conflict. But when your third (Or second, depending) lead needs to have a manufactured conflict to keep him interesting, that's a sign.

We have two more movies coming over the next two years. That's ridiculous. I understand splitting up the movie so you can tell a more complete story and so you can make another billion dollars. Three is over-indulgent. Someone needed to tell Peter Jackson 'no' to a few things. Conflict breeds great film-making.

Remember how both the theatrical and extended addition featured no trace of Tom Bombadil because he's a stupid useless asshole character who could save everyone but just doesn't feel like leaving his bitch for a week? The Hobbit has done the opposite. Let's put in EVERYTHING WE CAN, regardless of whether or not it helps the story or makes the movie better. Because Tolkien was a genius, and certainly didn't write anything that wasn't beyond reproach or didn't need to be filmed.

On the positive side... Very pretty film. Bilbo is very well-acted, and Riddles in the Dark, the one scene they had to ace, is pretty much perfect.

Could've been a lot better, it's trying way too hard.

Oh, and nice to see that Peter Jackson saw Clerks 2 and raised Kevin Smith walking mountains. Which also weren't in the Hobbit.

[KCWolfman]

Originally Posted by The_Doctor10

My only conclusion about the pale orc is that he is there to give Thorin something to do. To give his character some conflict. But when your third (Or second, depending) lead needs to have a manufactured conflict to keep him interesting, that's a sign.

I think this was actual crucial if you want to consider the dwarves as beings you can relate to. In the novel, they are after gold, that is all. No home, no revenge (although both are mentioned, the focus is their treasure, period). Fighting an old enemy who stole your family and then set up for the ultimate fight against the enemy that stole your home is making them more human (for lack of a better phrase).

If they were doing one movie, you could get away with removing Azog entirely (as he was already dead before the first word of the novel was written). Doing three, you need heroes, not money grubbers.

[mr. tegu]

Can I see it in IMAX without the high frame rate?

[Amnorix]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Can I see it in IMAX without the high frame rate?

Yes (at least in Massachusetts. Your local mileage may vary. )