|
So I watched it and I must say that reading A song of ice and fire has spoiled me greatly, if I was 15 years old again I would probably thought that the movie was awesome but alas  !
My main gripe is + Show Spoiler + how untouchable the main characters are, I mean seriously, they fight through wargs, orcs, a HORDE of goblins and not a single scratch was taken and then at the very end when you just might feel that some sort of mortality will be shown, NO, Gandalf heals the guy back up
The + Show Spoiler + comedy parts were poor taste in my opinion, the amount of time the audience laughed made it seem like it is a comedy
Gollum parts were great, the voice actor did a great job at bringing the character to life but that would have to be the highlight of the movie for me, I guess I went in expecting more....brutal fantasy setting but that was my own fault as I should have known it would cater to a different audience.
|
In my country. I had to go see both the normal one (at premier) and the 3d one with my best-man. let me just say this: the 3d was crap as hell. really dissapointed in it.
|
On December 26 2012 20:14 Gerlan wrote:So I watched it and I must say that reading A song of ice and fire has spoiled me greatly, if I was 15 years old again I would probably thought that the movie was awesome but alas ! My main gripe is + Show Spoiler + how untouchable the main characters are, I mean seriously, they fight through wargs, orcs, a HORDE of goblins and not a single scratch was taken and then at the very end when you just might feel that some sort of mortality will be shown, NO, Gandalf heals the guy back up The + Show Spoiler + comedy parts were poor taste in my opinion, the amount of time the audience laughed made it seem like it is a comedy Gollum parts were great, the voice actor did a great job at bringing the character to life but that would have to be the highlight of the movie for me, I guess I went in expecting more....brutal fantasy setting but that was my own fault as I should have known it would cater to a different audience. ASOIAF is a different genre. I enjoy both.
And really, the dwarves didn't take damage in the books as well, how would they explain having a dwarf die or be injured in the movies?
The Hobbit is a children's book. They already darkened the movie a lot to make it connect more with the LotR movies.
|
quote from the Silmarillion about the Dwarves:
Aule made the Dwarves strong to endure. Therefore they are stone-hard, stubborn, fast in friendship and in enmity, and they suffer toil and hanger and hurt of body more hardily than all other speaking peoples; and they live long, far beyond the span of Men, yet not for ever.
|
Absoutely loved it, only had 3 gripes, and one personally. I wish I didn't se it in 3D. Normally I don't mind 3D, and it wasn't that The Hobbit's 3D was poorly done, but no being able to really look around and take in the landscape or details in the world because they've forced perspective onto a character was something I didn't think of. On the plus side, I was a tad worried about how much CGI was used when watching the trailers, it looked nice but LotR accomplished something amazing with how little CGI they used. This wasn't really the case I felt, and it actually came out spectacular. Realllllly can't wait to see the extended edition.
+ Show Spoiler +
Screen time for the dwarves wasn't really fairly split. They barely introduced some of them, and put the focus on others. It might be a movie thing, where each movie gives a bit more spotlight to different dwarves. I probably wouldn't have noticed it as much if they didn't hype up how they made every dwarf recognizable and noticeable and made each one very unique.
I wasn't a fan of the changes they made to the hiding in tree's scene. I was really hoping it would stay close to the original, and the whole Bilbo completely saving Thorin felt really forced. Other tiny things I guess would be how obvious they play Saruman as evil, I felt the same way in LotR though.
|
On December 26 2012 20:23 Thorakh wrote:
The Hobbit is a children's book. They already darkened the movie a lot to make it connect more with the LotR movies.
A children's book with a lot of suffering and death in it.
At no point does 'children's book' = witty jokes that are out of place and nobody getting hurt in ridiculous fashion.
|
On December 26 2012 18:33 Frieder wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 17:32 xccam wrote:On December 26 2012 05:58 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote:
Azog is one bad motherfucker. How could they make Azog so cool and they made the goblin king such a fat pussy. Seeing as he was dead before the timeline of the Hobbit, they can do what they like with him, as he isn't in the story. Yes. And therefore they can't do what they like with him. He isn't in the story! His stupid introduction totally changes the character of the story.
I completely agree, he shouldnt have been there I think it's silly.
|
On December 27 2012 02:22 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 20:23 Thorakh wrote:
The Hobbit is a children's book. They already darkened the movie a lot to make it connect more with the LotR movies. A children's book with a lot of suffering and death in it. At no point does 'children's book' = witty jokes that are out of place and nobody getting hurt in ridiculous fashion.
Children probably enjoy the jokes and such. And yes, the hobbit was actually a children's book with lots of suffering and death.
|
On December 27 2012 02:38 FeUerFlieGe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 02:22 Dfgj wrote:On December 26 2012 20:23 Thorakh wrote:
The Hobbit is a children's book. They already darkened the movie a lot to make it connect more with the LotR movies. A children's book with a lot of suffering and death in it. At no point does 'children's book' = witty jokes that are out of place and nobody getting hurt in ridiculous fashion. Children probably enjoy the jokes and such. And yes, the hobbit was actually a children's book with lots of suffering and death.
Children would enjoy it if Barney the Dinosaur showed up halfway, for all that means. It's absurd to think the main audience for this movie is children.
My point is you can have a movie that tells a simple, childish story, without being ridiculous or relying on cheap humor. While I generally enjoyed the movie, parts of it were cringeworthy to me
|
On December 27 2012 08:26 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 02:38 FeUerFlieGe wrote:On December 27 2012 02:22 Dfgj wrote:On December 26 2012 20:23 Thorakh wrote:
The Hobbit is a children's book. They already darkened the movie a lot to make it connect more with the LotR movies. A children's book with a lot of suffering and death in it. At no point does 'children's book' = witty jokes that are out of place and nobody getting hurt in ridiculous fashion. Children probably enjoy the jokes and such. And yes, the hobbit was actually a children's book with lots of suffering and death. Children would enjoy it if Barney the Dinosaur showed up halfway, for all that means. It's absurd to think the main audience for this movie is children.
Think you completely misunderstood what he said. He never said the movie was a children's movie, he said the book is a children's book which it is.
|
On December 27 2012 08:27 Numy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 27 2012 08:26 Dfgj wrote:On December 27 2012 02:38 FeUerFlieGe wrote:On December 27 2012 02:22 Dfgj wrote:On December 26 2012 20:23 Thorakh wrote:
The Hobbit is a children's book. They already darkened the movie a lot to make it connect more with the LotR movies. A children's book with a lot of suffering and death in it. At no point does 'children's book' = witty jokes that are out of place and nobody getting hurt in ridiculous fashion. Children probably enjoy the jokes and such. And yes, the hobbit was actually a children's book with lots of suffering and death. Children would enjoy it if Barney the Dinosaur showed up halfway, for all that means. It's absurd to think the main audience for this movie is children. Think you completely misunderstood what he said. He never said the movie was a children's movie, he said the book is a children's book which it is.
And he was quoting me, where I said the same thing. He added that children probably enjoy the jokes that the movie contained, hence my response that I don't find that meaningful of anythng.
I'm saying that 'it's a children's book therefore the movie should/can be childish' means nothing, which is a different point.
|
I was all prepared to dislike the movie with all the 'its to long, and 48fps sucks' commentary out there. I loved the movie. I have not read the Hobbit in 30 years, but after the good show, I plan to visit it again.
|
Okay I admit that going into the theater, I was a bit hesitant, especially with my great dislike of 3D, and the not ridiculous oscar level ratings it got from RT (yes, I do let those reviews influence me at times). But the LOTR fan in me needed to see and review the movie for itself.
I can say I loved it 100%. Yes the pacing was a bit slow at the beginning during the introduction, but as soon as Bilbo left the Shire, I immediately felt the magic of LOTR: that feeling where you are about to go on an epic adventure in distant fantasy lands with a group of comrades! Movie was so good that time flew for me. Didn't realize how short a movie nearly 3 hours long could feel.
That being said, people going in thinking the Hobbit is going to be like LOTR will be a bit disappointed. Even though it's pretty much the same setting and same characters showing up, the Hobbit is not nearly as dark as the LOTR trilogy. You can tell by the dwarves, and the ridiculous nature of some of the other characters (the funny dwarf druid guy who has rabbits pull his sled xD) that the Hobbit is lighter in nature. Another thing that I would point out is the CGI. Seems like all the orcs are now done by CGI. I personally got past that, but it does change the feel a bit.
Overall, great movie, amazing settings that take your breathe away, and the 3D is done very well. And of course, you gotta love some of the old LOTR cast returning to make the adventure truly superb!
9/10
|
Out of curiosity why is it 48fps so bad for movies?
To me it would seem like more fps the better but I hear you don't want that necessarily? Like what is the technicality behind this reasoning
|
On December 27 2012 10:17 heroyi wrote:
Out of curiosity why is it 48fps so bad for movies?
To me it would seem like more fps the better but I hear you don't want that necessarily? Like what is the technicality behind this reasoning
More FPS makes for clearer footage and more fluid animations, which makes everything seem more detailed and real.
This is a good thing for sports footage, documentaries and reality-based movies like End of Watch for instance.
But, such high realism in a fantasy movie is counter-productive (imo). I feel it's silly when you make a movie about dwarves and dragons to make your footage look like documentary.
Also, this is just my opinion, but I feel that water in movement looks prettier when it's a little blurred rather than sharp. There are many otherwise beautiful landscape shots with waterfalls that are ruined by the water being too sharp.
|
I actually enjoyed this movie more than all 3 parts of the LOTR trilogy.
|
My foremost complaint is the re-use of filming locations (from Lord of the Rings) for scenes set in different parts of Middle-Earth.
The first time the company is chased by wargs as filmed in the same place as north-east Rohan was in Two Towers, and this was very apparent and very jarring to me. Did they teleport a thousand miles south for that one scene? WTF. Really disliked that part.
|
I liked the movie--it had its comical side and a lot of the moments made me think of the original cartoon.
The issue I had with the movie are the repeated scenes. The parts that just did not feel very original. Like, the ring falling on the finger. Or, when the hot-hot-hot-hot'ness chatting up gandulf and they repeated that closeup *stare*. It was awesome the first... 20 times.
There was less variation of music than I expected, I sort of imagined more but there was a lot less types sadly.
Oh and the *walking across hill* that was done so often in lotr was abused here. They did it way too often. Normally I like it since it shows a sort of adventure likeness to it. But they were too far off and felt like the characters were irrelevant, it was just showing off the scenery.
Other than those, I still liked the movie. Wish the ending was a little more subtle and not so blatant with it stopping but can't be helped. Also, Azog... that was just... forced upon and felt sort of lame.
|
Die hard LotR fanboy here....
absolutely LOVED the movie. My friend i dragged along said it was ok, but had a lot of slow parts.
As a reader and an AVID story person, I absolutely loved it. They are trying really hard to give as much story and detail as possible into this. So I Absolutely loved every second of it. Ya it was not as dark as the rest of the trilogy, there were a LOT of hilarious parts and witty dialogue.
I loved it completely though. It just makes you love the characters a little bit more. Yes its true that its a bit ridiculous how much they go through and survive unscathed...but its LotR... i doubt the same people complained about legolas, gimli, and aragon slaying 10000000000000000 orcs/uruks in the trilogy and never suffering any major injuries.
Idk its definitely a little bit lighter than the trilogy, but I still absolutely loved it. It gives you a SHITload of history from the LotR universe which i REALLY enjoyed. So this one is much more of a story than an action i guess, but i like that. I thought it was nice to get so much dwarven histories since you see so little of them in the LotR movies.
Ive read the books, and loved the movies. And was not disappointed at all.
Only Gripe was just editing decisions for instance:
+ Show Spoiler +I didnt think it was completely necessary to spend so much time in the beginning with Bilbo and Frodo. Like seriously we spend 15 minutes in a time, that we have already been. I get it, you want this movie to start at the EXACT same point as the LotR trilogy did...but we spent WAY too much time there. and WAY too much time with bilbo and frodo. Like honestly would have been happier with Bilbo just at the desk writing, a small cameo from Frodo..and then we move on... that part was dragged on soooooo unncessarily (and this is from someone who refuses to watch the theatrical versions of LotR..and will only watch extended cuts)
|
Loved the movie overall, would watch again, how they portrayed radagast was really witty, my only complaint would be that some scenes were really hard to believe like bilbo crouching and going by unnoticed or that giant goblin falling down into the abyss after getting parried by a dwarf, but that's hardly new when it comes to LOTR movies, I also really disliked how human-like fili, kili and Thorin looked
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
