|
Loved it. Martin freeman is a great bilbo. They did a good job of finding a stopping point. Also did well in introducing the new material.
|
I am still undecided whether I want to see this in 3D or not.
|
I saw it in non 3d standard (Honestly most 3D films I feel are a waste) and I was unsure on the new format.
It was amazing looking. Now I wish I had done standard 3D as I think it would have really been worth it. Im thinking of seeing it again in 3D... |
I quite enjoyed The Hobbit. I've got a full review of it here, if you like, but the short version is that while it's not as good as LotR, I still had fun with it.
|
The past trilogy is so special to me I'm just happy to be able to go back into that universe with new movies.
|
is this as painfully boring and long as the Lord Of The Rings movies?
|
It's from the exact same production team. If the last trilogy didn't impress you, don't look for this to sway you.
|
and no Viggo Mortensen either
|
i thought it was too short. i honestly could have sat there for another 2 hours
|
Quote:
Don't get me wrong, loved it. But it wasn't exactly like it was Avatar, where it was expressly meant to be seen in 3D. But there was one part where a chunk of derbris got me to flinch, so it wasn't attrocious. My problem with judging this is the fact that when I lived in KS, I got spoiled by being in proximity to a fairly new IMAX theatre that Warren pumped a bunch of money into. Regular-ass theatre 3D isn't as wow-worthy up against that. I'm spoiled forever. So, take my assessment for what it's worth. Also, it didn't matter to me if it was 3D or not. I just wanted to see the damn movie... and all the late shows were 3D only, so there wasn't much of a choice for the group of us that went. |
Quote:
|
This is not going to be one of those long reviews, consisting of detailed writings about what was good or wrong, that is for you to decide, once it hits the cinemas. All i am saying to you, is that you should definitely find some time and read the book before you go and see the movie. Book is very complex, sometimes hard to keep up with, but has a bit more ambient depth into it, while the movie offers you all the eye-candy that even your imagination wouldn't be able to conjure. The movie is pretty, well acted and has a good script, that sticks to what was in the book, BUT, much less detailed (well, it is a movie, so that's normal). This movie is not enough to understand everything behind The Hobbit and the story behind it, but it does give a nice illustrative try to simplify things.
|
Quote:
|
The Hobbit is the worst of the four books. Fitting that the movie is the worst of the four. Still pretty good though.
|
STD, you do realize LOTR is 6 books and this movie is just 1 of 3 in total, correct?
P.S. There are many more books on middle earth about the whole saga. You should go read them before declaring The Hobbit as the worst. |
Quote:
|
Saw The Hobbit today. In 3D. Should have gone with 2D. I was totally "distracted" by the 3D, and couldn't appreciate the "mise-en-scène", or really notice too much the 48frame thing because my eyes were too busy being slightly strained. Also I don't like how the 3D glasses kill some of the color out of a film.
Anyways... it was alright. SPOILER: show |
Quote:
I'm pretty sure if WB made a new Harry Potter not based on any novel, Potter fans wouldn't rage at the idea. After a little while the studio side gets a sort of authority with the movie universe and they should be allowed to further interpret things. This includes a new movie. |
The Hobbit was pretty good. I enjoyed it well enough. Didn't seem ike 3 hours which is a good indication that the pace was alright.
I enjoyed the early Frodo cameo. This is a movie, not the book, so to bemoan that point seems forced. |
Quote:
|
I'd think the reason not to like the 3-split is pretty obvious. As ECG said, it stinks of money-grubbing. I'll see the fucking things, but I'm less likely to rave about them since I now have to wait years before finishing the stupid things.
|
Quote:
But after seeing part 1 so far I wasn't "let down". Felt they did a good job of making it a good flick and 3 parts so if the next two are as good I think it's just as greats a trilogy as Lotr |
Quote:
As for Potter the story is over unless J.K. Rowling says it isn't. It wouldn't be a studio choice at all. Fans would be pissed if they had another Potter without her involvement since she's still alive. She'd also probably retro-actively give that power to her next of kin also. |
I'll just wait to see the other 2 parts before I complain about it being padded for cash. The cameos weren't 100% out of sorts when you think about the fact that this is a full-on blockbuster movie franchise that isn't just being populated by Tolken nerds.
Majority of moviegoers haven't actually READ the books. They've only seen the 3 Rings movies. Maybe even the animated version of The Hobbit (that's where I started, honestly), but that's it. Their only point of reference IS the other trilogy. Tying the old Bilbo to the young Bilbo by way of a couple extra scenes makes it seem like a tie-in instead of a total recast (you know, like the "sudden" change in Rhodie in the Iron Man flicks). It's like that disconnect in the Star Wars franchise where a lot of people coming up now only know the "chronological order" way, and don't see the shoehorning of Hayden Christainsen at the end of Jedi as a piss in the face... they see it as a callback to "the first three"* movies. Also, I thought part of the reason was that they were adding elements of the Simillarion? I dunno. Never read it. *"The first three" takes on a different meaning in that age disconnect I was talking about. People my age think from New Hope to Jedi, while younger folks associate that same phrase with Episode I-III" |
Saw this today. Was never a big fan of the LOTR. Probably because I was young and didn't appreciate them properly. Might go back and watch them now to see if my opinion changes. But yeah, this was great. Loved the 3D.
|
I really don't give a fuck how much money they try and grab, as long as the movies are good.
If they decided to make it 3 movies just as a cash grab,and then made one of the movies 3 hours of Gandalf taking a shit, then sure. I'd be upset too. But these movies are going to be amazing. I just got back from the first one, and I loved it. Plus, while I'm not doubting that money was a definite factor in extending it, I think it's unfair to label it solely as a cash grab. A lot of love goes into making these movies, and I have no doubt that they genuinely want to tell more of the story. I mean, I get people making comments about it being a cash grab, but to be so offended that you refuse to see it, is rather silly. |
it's not even a long book
one movie would be fine |
You're right. It would.
But I don't see the problem with making 3 either. Do you need a limit on fun and excitement or something? |
Also, for the last god damn time, the movies aren't solely based on The Hobbit.
|
I find it so strange that people would have a problem with more of the LotR universe. The guys who did the first three movies, potentially the greatest trilogy I've ever seen, are doing these three movies. You think they're gonna suddenly suck at this? You know how much entertainment is created completely for revenue reasons but that doesn't harm the quality - because the people in charge actually give a damn.
I've seen all the vid-docs Peter Jackson released in the last year. I simply can't look at him and think, "Look at that hack just cashing a paycheck." This guy gives a fuck. His whole crew gives a fuck. The studio may want more money, or Peter felt he had enough room for a trilogy, maybe it's both. I don't care, I have three new Middle-Earth movies to watch and love. |
Yeah, from what it sounds like, it wasn't the studio pressuring him to make three movies.... because it was only supposed to be two until a few months ago.
Sounds to me like it was probably more a case of Jackson not wanting to cut anything out, and realizing he had enough for a third movie. Then going to the studio and telling them this, and the studio celebrating because they know it will just mean more money for them. |
Quote:
Only thing I liked about the LotR movies were the battle scenes, other than that it was awfully boring to me. I'll probably check out The Hobbit, but it's not like I'm expecting anything great. Just not my cup of tea. |
Just like a boring old cup of tea you can spice it up with whiskey. Go see the hobbit drunk.
|
Quote:
It's just that some make me laugh histerically and some make me pass out. Hell, LotR made me pass out sober. |
The Hobbit is a lot more fast paced, once it gets past the intro bit and they actually start their "quest".
|
Screener is out.
|
I love awards season. Screeners of Cloud Atlas, Lincoln, The Hobbit, Flight, Skyfall, and the Perks of Being a Wallflower all floating around.
|
Saw it yesterday, it was pretty good.
Not LOTR good, but a fun movie nonetheless. The 3D was serviceable, but I don't think it makes or breaks the experience. My only real gripe I had was that the CG was a bit much at times - I kept wondering to myself why they didn't use an actual actor and practical effects for Azog like they did for Lurtz and the Uruk-hai in LOTR. Seems to me they hit the Uncanny Valley with Azog, he looked good...but not good enough, and it took me out of the movie every time he was on screen. |
I haven't read the book since I was about 12 was there many times that the movie strayed from the source material? I did really enjoy it by the way probably would have liked it even more if it had been released prior to the LoTR. After the quest to destroy the one ring and all evil in Middle Earth a movie about Dwarves looking to reclaim their treasure seemed like a step down in importance...
|
Since the Hobbit came out after the original trilogy that's all it ever was meant to be.
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:47 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin®