EPTRegarding the technical stuff, I saw it in IMAX HFR 3D and it was awesome. I'm glad I took the risk to go for it, I had a horrible experience with TDKR in IMAX last year and was really afraid to have the Hobbit ruined as well, but no, it was great.
[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 53
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Matoo-
Canada1397 Posts
Regarding the technical stuff, I saw it in IMAX HFR 3D and it was awesome. I'm glad I took the risk to go for it, I had a horrible experience with TDKR in IMAX last year and was really afraid to have the Hobbit ruined as well, but no, it was great. | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On January 01 2013 06:24 MrHoon wrote: Great movie, saw it a bit late but enjoyed it alot. (critis are too harsh but the movie isnt perfect) One thing I will say If we are comparing The Unexpected Journey to The Fellowship of the Ring, the Unexpected Journey does not match up to Fellowship of the Ring's epicness and characters. Not saying the dwarves were terrible actors, but there just isnt enough time to get everyone acquainted with 13 dwarves in 1 movie despite it being 169 minutes long. I think the 2nd and 3rd movies will be amazing. Probably necromancer for 2nd movie and 5 Army Battle for 3rd Also I sat through the previews and there are like 20 movies that are Twilight ripoffs coming out. The fuck man. No. Most of us are comparing The Unexpected Journey to The Hobbit, the book. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9419 Posts
As it is right now, it was kinda average. | ||
|
Supamang
United States2298 Posts
On December 31 2012 21:34 Dracolich70 wrote: Yeah, you are right. The book makes you aware that you tried to manipulate your mind into forcibly like the movie. That is pretty crazy. Its amazing how some people can't possibly comprehend that others can have a different opinion and have different tastes than they do. Personally, I thought the movie was decent. Coulda done without stone giants, coulda done without the cheesy goblin king one-liner, coulda done without cartoony Radagast, coulda done without spontaneous song and dance. Even with that though I thought it as good and I dont regret spending money to watch it. I didn't read the Hobbit, I didn't try to manipulate my mind into doing anything. That is my honest opinion, go ahead and continue judging me and countless others for not agreeing with your opinion. | ||
|
Deimos0
Poland277 Posts
| ||
|
Jsqrde
United Kingdom3 Posts
I thought it was okay and fun, and strangely unstretched for how long it actually was. I thought it would decent and if I believed that opinions could be accurately displayed with numbers, then I would give it a 3/5. But of course I don't. Because those are stupid. | ||
|
Madkipz
Norway1643 Posts
On December 31 2012 22:51 J1.au wrote: The lacks of deaths only looks strange because Peter Jackson has ramped up the "epicness" of the plot. The book is a lot more tame, and is frankly better for it. I think the movie would've been better served by a more, not less, childish production. And that is mostly because this is the initial movie. They had to go through the whole Shire, building Bilbo, Thorin, and gandalf up, while also setting up some action in with the whole exposition thing. Because deaths they be coming in the next parts. Poor Dwarves man. <,< The hobbit is a solid movie from book adaptation. | ||
|
TigerKarl
1757 Posts
On January 02 2013 17:07 Hider wrote: Had they removed the "childish" stuff and replaced it with some awesomeness instead + increased the paceness in the beginning (though I just skipped that), it would have been really awesome and close to on level with LOTR. As it is right now, it was kinda average. The movie isn't more childish than Lord of the Rings Trilogy. You've just grown older and don't see them old movies for what they are. Hobbit is a solid 7,5/10 | ||
|
bgx
Poland6595 Posts
If Fellowship of the Ring never came out i would be gladly happy about this movie, probably but what is there more to say when there is a movie which is way better than this and depicts the universe in a much broader yet more interesting way? | ||
|
FireSA
Australia555 Posts
| ||
|
igotmyown
United States4291 Posts
On January 01 2013 06:24 MrHoon wrote: Great movie, saw it a bit late but enjoyed it alot. (critis are too harsh but the movie isnt perfect) One thing I will say If we are comparing The Unexpected Journey to The Fellowship of the Ring, the Unexpected Journey does not match up to Fellowship of the Ring's epicness and characters. Not saying the dwarves were terrible actors, but there just isnt enough time to get everyone acquainted with 13 dwarves in 1 movie despite it being 169 minutes long. I think the 2nd and 3rd movies will be amazing. Probably necromancer for 2nd movie and 5 Army Battle for 3rd Also I sat through the previews and there are like 20 movies that are Twilight ripoffs coming out. The fuck man. I always thought the fellowship movie best captured the nostalgic/insignificant people caught up on an adventure (anti-epic) feeling of the Hobbit. At least the first half, until the balrog. So from that point of view the "epicness" of the fellowship of the rings is a weakness and detracts from the movie. | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On January 02 2013 21:07 TigerKarl wrote: The movie isn't more childish than Lord of the Rings Trilogy. You've just grown older and don't see them old movies for what they are. Hobbit is a solid 7,5/10 I'm going to have to disagree with that entirely. | ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
I went into the movie expecting something somewhat light and fun, and that's what I got. Definitely worth it. | ||
Whitewing
United States7483 Posts
On January 02 2013 17:07 Hider wrote: Had they removed the "childish" stuff and replaced it with some awesomeness instead + increased the paceness in the beginning (though I just skipped that), it would have been really awesome and close to on level with LOTR. As it is right now, it was kinda average. It's SUPPOSED to be more childish than LOTR you dolt. -_- | ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On January 03 2013 01:59 Whitewing wrote: It's SUPPOSED to be more childish than LOTR you dolt. -_- That doesn't make that aspect a good aspect of it. Something that is supposed to be bad is still bad. The Hobbit is not bad, but the extremely childish scenes didn't fit in well. | ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
Diehard fans of the book are upset because Peter Jackson made changes/additions that tie in with the original trilogy. These additions largely reflect the more epic scope of the Lord of the Rings, and end up being out of place in a more childish tale. However, without these changes the people who have never read any of the books and only know Tolkien through the recent movies would be confused by the dramatic shift in tone. People who've only seen the original trilogy are, despite the changes, still somewhat put off by the periodic bursts of whimsy and the general disjointedness of a children's story. I've seen a lot of people who never read the books, and even some who did, assume the stone giants were an addition by Peter Jackson. Compared to the Lord of the Rings much of what happens in the Hobbit is very random and odd, and that's confusing despite everything Jackson did to cover it up. Combine that with the 2D vs 3D vs 3D HFR gobbledegook and you have a film that was destined to be controversial. The vast majority of opinions I've read involve criticisms, even those that glowingly praise the film. It's simply a film that tried to meet the expectations of two demanding yet diametrically opposed groups as best it could, and managed to do a good enough job of it that its reviews from both camps have been generally favorable (though laced with complaints). I think the one thing we can all agree on, however, is that the pale orc's CG was bad and they should have stuck with less expressive makeup because at the end of the day a badass orc needs only one expression to be effective. | ||
|
bo1b
Australia12814 Posts
| ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
| ||
|
Seuss
United States10536 Posts
On January 03 2013 04:06 UdderChaos wrote: A good guys head gets chopped off, waved around and then thrown toward his son after about 10 minutes into the film, and there's another scene where golem beats an orc to death with his bear hands on screen for a minute or so. How is this a child's film? What version of finding nemo were you watching where this is commonplace? It's not a children's film, but the novel it's based on is a children's novel. Both of the scenes you mention, and practically anything similar you might dig up, are not in the Hobbit. Pretty much all of the aspects of the film which are not suitable for a children's film come from supplementary materials (Tolkien's notes, appendixes, unfinished tales etc.) or Jackson himself. This is where the divide I highlighted happens. If a movie or set of movies were made based purely on the Hobbit, it would end up being a lot more like Disney's the Sword in the Stone than anything else. While the Dwarves constantly run into danger, it is all temporary, transient, and ultimately solved by luck, magic, or both without even a tip of the hat to reason or believability. However, such a film would be so different from the previous trilogy that anyone unfamiliar with the source material (a great many more people than some diehard fans realize) would be incredibly confused by the dramatic shift in tone and scope. So Jackson made additions, based on Tolkien's other works and sources, to bring it more in line with his original trilogy, and as a result you have a film that lacks consistent tone. | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
On January 03 2013 01:59 Whitewing wrote: It's SUPPOSED to be more childish than LOTR you dolt. -_- that isn't an excuse for the worst parts of the movie, namely radagast and the cartoony singing/dancing. They had the right idea making it less intense than LOTR but they way they did it seriously distracts you from the storyline. | ||
| ||
