Loved the movie, think that it can easily fill 3 movies at this rate, but wouldn't watch 48 fps again. Feel like I am watching a soap opera.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The Hobbit 2012,2013,2014
- Thread starter Huntn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I wouldn't compare the HP last book in two parts to the Hobbit. The HP last book itself was uneven and really did need at least two movies to get most of the story in. The last book was long and odious.
As for the Hobbit, I am not happy about 3 movies, but if they are faithful to the original I can live with that. My gripe is the aftermath of studio double and triple dipping into our pockets with DVD, DVD extended, Blu-Ray, Blu-Ray extended, collectors editions et cetera. LOTR fans know exactly what I am talking about. This is the real money rip off of the stuidos verses dividing the intricate story into three movies. I'll wait for the extended Blu-Ray movies and most likely will skip the theater experience. (Perhaps when it goes to rental late next year, I'll rent the first of the three movies).
The amount of whining in this thread is unreal. Its three movies, I'm sure its not going to be full of nothing.
If any of you watched the preproduction videos you'd see that they split it into three to fit more of the story since two movies left them needing to cut out a lot of side stories and appendices.
Sheesh, if you want to see it go watch it and enjoy it. Not everything out there is made to rob and steal your money.
If any of you watched the preproduction videos you'd see that they split it into three to fit more of the story since two movies left them needing to cut out a lot of side stories and appendices.
Sheesh, if you want to see it go watch it and enjoy it. Not everything out there is made to rob and steal your money.
LOTR was originally going to be 2 films. One of the problems they had was trying to decide where to split it in 2 [story structures make it easier to split in 3]. If I remember correctly, they were going to split it where the Nazgul [?] on the flying creature went after Frodo in that rubble city [sorry don't know the story well enough to use proper names]
Eventually the studio said to make it 3. Then later they released extended versions that are 3 1/2hrs each. I haven't seen the Hobbit yet, but I think that they are the type of stories where more can actually be better. Yes, I know that The Hobbit was only one book, but there is a whole lot of other stuff connected to it, that can be included. Extended version of the HObbit might be a bit much though
Last edited:
Some of you sound like you would have preferred they only made one movie, just released it straight to DVD and skipped the theater ticket costs... and animated it to boot, well you should have just stuck with this version and skipped the new Peter Jackson trilogy.
I for one, like the idea of 3 movies, because I never want them to end... Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, et. al.
I always want more, another movie, the story to continue
I don't think in terms of "damn, another movie ticket price, money grubbing bastards", I think of wow, I get to go to another movie and see more... cause if I don't want to spend the money, I don't go to see it, or I wait for it come to Netflix. But some things I want to see on the big screen.
As far as the movie is concerned, I liked it a lot
Sure, I had a few moments of "hmmmmmm" but not too many
They added a story line or two that was not from the book, but that's Ok, it provides more depth and backstory
My biggest complaint would be some of the silliness that is found in the movie that wasn't as prevalent in LOTR... some of the one liners, childish banter, sort of the catering to the kids (like later Star Wars)
Examples would be the troll scene roasting the dwarves and the banter
Or the goblin under the mountain and his confrontation with Gandalf
All in all... did not have the epic quality of LOTR, but was still pretty awesome
I for one, like the idea of 3 movies, because I never want them to end... Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, et. al.
I always want more, another movie, the story to continue
I don't think in terms of "damn, another movie ticket price, money grubbing bastards", I think of wow, I get to go to another movie and see more... cause if I don't want to spend the money, I don't go to see it, or I wait for it come to Netflix. But some things I want to see on the big screen.
As far as the movie is concerned, I liked it a lot
Sure, I had a few moments of "hmmmmmm" but not too many
They added a story line or two that was not from the book, but that's Ok, it provides more depth and backstory
My biggest complaint would be some of the silliness that is found in the movie that wasn't as prevalent in LOTR... some of the one liners, childish banter, sort of the catering to the kids (like later Star Wars)
Examples would be the troll scene roasting the dwarves and the banter
Or the goblin under the mountain and his confrontation with Gandalf
All in all... did not have the epic quality of LOTR, but was still pretty awesome
Huh? You mean the trilogy that came out oh what 6 years ago? I don't think this is a new gen
I grew up with the crazy Hobbit cartoon. I'm tempted to go see the Hobbit but it is nearly 3 hours long and I don't have the patience to sit in a theater that long. I'll wait for DVD.
Already posted in one thread but a regurgitation:
I loved it. Watched the 48fps 3D IMAX one and it looked incredible. I'll definitely be watching the rest in this format, and I can't wait. I'm also glad they turned it into a trilogy. It guarantees a good film every year for the next two years.
Like MacDawg I don't want these to end.
I loved it. Watched the 48fps 3D IMAX one and it looked incredible. I'll definitely be watching the rest in this format, and I can't wait. I'm also glad they turned it into a trilogy. It guarantees a good film every year for the next two years
.Like MacDawg I don't want these to end.
Oh yeah. I was so bummed they didn't finish it. The battle is freaking killer and pretty bloody too! Even for a cartoon style movie from the 70's.
Are you speaking of a visual quality, because I remember that "real" look soaps have as compared to most movies.
LOTR was originally going to be 2 films. One of the problems they had was trying to decide where to split it in 2 [story structures make it easier to split in 3]. If I remember correctly, they were going to split it where the Nazgul [?] on the flying creature went after Frodo in that rubble city [sorry don't know the story well enough to use proper names]
Eventually the studio said to make it 3. Then later they released extended versions that are 3 1/2hrs each. I haven't seen the Hobbit yet, but I think that they are the type of stories where more can actually be better. Yes, I know that The Hobbit was only one book, but there is a whole lot of other stuff connected to it, that can be included. Extended version of the HObbit might be a bit much though
In its defense, there were 3 books in that case, not 1 as in the Hobbit's case. I would not have wanted them to fit the 3 books into one movie.
saw The Hobbit on friday. was really impressed
I'm suspecting I will break down and see this in the theater. If you want 48fps, does it have to be 3D?
I saw The Hobbit at an Emagine DBOX Dolby Atmos 3D Theater projected at 48fps. Seats were $12.50.
At first the motion almost looked as if it was sped up. It kind of looked like something broadcast in PAL 50p. It took a few minutes to get used to but I ended up liking it. A few time it looked as if I was watching a stage play. The digital characters, such as the white goblin king look extremely life like. However at other times the quality of projection was so high that the visual effects didn't stand up to it. Like a few times while Radagast was running from the Warg Riders, it just looked like bad TV effects. Sometimes the camera movement was a little bumpy and distracting.
Overall once they get all the kinks worked out this will be a nice addition to the movie experience.
At first the motion almost looked as if it was sped up. It kind of looked like something broadcast in PAL 50p. It took a few minutes to get used to but I ended up liking it. A few time it looked as if I was watching a stage play. The digital characters, such as the white goblin king look extremely life like. However at other times the quality of projection was so high that the visual effects didn't stand up to it. Like a few times while Radagast was running from the Warg Riders, it just looked like bad TV effects. Sometimes the camera movement was a little bumpy and distracting.
Overall once they get all the kinks worked out this will be a nice addition to the movie experience.
To be honest, I'm not sure that it is 'whining' per se, (and most certainly, it is not a feeling that someone is out to 'rob' or 'steal' my money - if I think something is worth seeing or reading, I'll happily pay for it); rather, it is a feeling that the book may not have enough material or depth to sustain a narrative arc over three movies. As it happened, I really liked the book, and if he pulls it off as a three movie adaptation, good luck to him.
TLOTR was a massive, epic, tome that spread over three long books, and readily lent itself to a break down into three movies - this split already existed in the books, which had created a world in incredible detail, and was reproduced extremely well in the movies.
Well the Hobbit was a children's book, It's been a long time since I read the book, but I think the kind of stuff you are complaining about was in the book.
Personally I wasn't sure if there would be enough to make it worth 3 movies, but after seeing this first one I think there will be. The movie was excellent, even though I had to see it in 3d. I usually dislike 3d, but it was ok here, still wouldn't have paid the extra money if the theatre had been showing it in 2d, but I didn't have that option.
It's bee a while for me too, since I read it, but I remember the trolls being a bit silly, arguing with each other and such.
So I take it there is no 2D HFR option?
I didn't see that being offered at my movie theater. FWIW, I thought the 3D was more or less superfluous. It wasn't overly used (a good thing) but I didn't see the benefit in this movie. Maybe in the subsequent Hobbit movies but for this one it seemed unnecessary
I've read that the human brain turns a 2D movie into 3D anyway, although what you see in the movie tends to be an exaggeration. The only 3D movie I've liked the 3D was Avatar on iMax. It was incredible.
Last edited:
I didn't see that in 3D but I saw Disney's animated Christmas carol in 3D. Not only was that the closet movie to Dicken's book, the 3D was done in such a way that it enhanced the experience. I like most other folks have gone to movies where it was over done and I don't like the releases of movies with them only adding 3D like Star Wars. Back to the Hobbit it was done with such a light hand that I felt that it wasn't worth it.
I broke down and saw the Hobbit today in 2D...A disappointing experience.
There is no way this story should be 3 movies. You ever watch one of those director's cut movies where all the missing scenes are added and you prefer the original because the editing is tight? This is how I felt, although in this case it's the original story I miss. I feel that the story was diluted by the extra material and it was negatively impacted. I also felt that Peter Jackson tied the story too much into Lord of the Rings, the same music, extra LOTR characters that were not in The Hobbit, and the same treatment of action and what I consider to be over-the-top action sequences as applied to this story. Technically it was adequate, but I expected something with a different feel from LOTR, just because the book feels very much different than the LOTR series. It (The Hobbit) is much lighter in nature. I wish Del Toro had directed it because he might have come closer to achieving the book experience.
Prepare yourself for my rambling... I really did not like the ending because of it's significant divergence from the story, where the troupe was trapped in the tree tops. In the story, there was no fighting between the dwarves and the orcs, especially on Bilbo's part. And although you can call it artistic license, the fighting of the mountain giants, threatening to knock them off the mountain, and the finale suspense of them being stuck in the tree tops and the trees being knocked over and all of them threatened with going over the cliff was evidence of over-the-top treatment.
You really don't need to see a long sequence with the Brown Wizard. A couple of sentences would have covered what was happening in Mirkwood. It did nothing for the core story. I was disappointed in the Mountain Troll scene, which I remember as being more humorous in the book than as portrayed in the movie. Biblo got them into such a discussion about how best to cook dwarves, they got to arguing and forgot all about time. This scene did not succeed to such an extent that Gandalf was necessary to appear and knock down some rocks so the rising sun would shine on them. We can't have them crossing the mountains and hiding in a cave to get out of the rain. We need this humongous fight between towering rock giants, crumbling the mountain around them. We can't have a door at the back of a cave open, allowing the goblins to capture the dwarves, no the floor has to be a gaint trap door. Instead of living in a plain hole as I pictured it, the Goblins had all sorts of elevated walkways constructed just like the Orcs did in LOTR. We just can't have the group trapped in the tree tops and rescued, no that would be too boring and this is the end of the movie, add some action! They have to nearly go over the edge and then fight the Orcs, which unless I'm remembering it wrong, none of that happened...
I forget exactly what Bilbo did, if it was his handling of the Mountain Trolls or something in the caverns under the Misty Mountains, but Thorin Oakinshield did not decide he liked Bilbo after Bilbo attacked a warg in his defense. Bilbo was prized because of his stealthy nature, you know, being a burglar, and getting the group out of trouble, multiple times.
I'll reemphasize my complaints...OVER THE TOP and lack of fidelity to the story. LOTR was a different story and Jackson did a magnificent job with it. But the Hobbit is very different than LOTR with a magnificent narrative that is COMPLETELY eroded in the movie especially with all the filler material that has been added. The Hobbit is really not LOTR Part 1. It needed a different treatment as an incredibly well written stand alone story, with a very unique and different feel from LOTR. If you've never read the Hobbit, or it's been a long time since you've read the Hobbit, go back and read it. Just sample one chapter, "Over Hill and Under Hill" and I suggest that the stark difference in mood and style might astound you at how much more atmospheric the story is and how lost it is in the movie...
There is no way this story should be 3 movies. You ever watch one of those director's cut movies where all the missing scenes are added and you prefer the original because the editing is tight? This is how I felt, although in this case it's the original story I miss. I feel that the story was diluted by the extra material and it was negatively impacted. I also felt that Peter Jackson tied the story too much into Lord of the Rings, the same music, extra LOTR characters that were not in The Hobbit, and the same treatment of action and what I consider to be over-the-top action sequences as applied to this story. Technically it was adequate, but I expected something with a different feel from LOTR, just because the book feels very much different than the LOTR series. It (The Hobbit) is much lighter in nature. I wish Del Toro had directed it because he might have come closer to achieving the book experience.
Spoilers, Proceed if you dare!
Prepare yourself for my rambling...
I really did not like the ending because of it's significant divergence from the story, where the troupe was trapped in the tree tops. In the story, there was no fighting between the dwarves and the orcs, especially on Bilbo's part. And although you can call it artistic license, the fighting of the mountain giants, threatening to knock them off the mountain, and the finale suspense of them being stuck in the tree tops and the trees being knocked over and all of them threatened with going over the cliff was evidence of over-the-top treatment.You really don't need to see a long sequence with the Brown Wizard. A couple of sentences would have covered what was happening in Mirkwood. It did nothing for the core story. I was disappointed in the Mountain Troll scene, which I remember as being more humorous in the book than as portrayed in the movie. Biblo got them into such a discussion about how best to cook dwarves, they got to arguing and forgot all about time. This scene did not succeed to such an extent that Gandalf was necessary to appear and knock down some rocks so the rising sun would shine on them. We can't have them crossing the mountains and hiding in a cave to get out of the rain. We need this humongous fight between towering rock giants, crumbling the mountain around them. We can't have a door at the back of a cave open, allowing the goblins to capture the dwarves, no the floor has to be a gaint trap door. Instead of living in a plain hole as I pictured it, the Goblins had all sorts of elevated walkways constructed just like the Orcs did in LOTR. We just can't have the group trapped in the tree tops and rescued, no that would be too boring and this is the end of the movie, add some action! They have to nearly go over the edge and then fight the Orcs, which unless I'm remembering it wrong, none of that happened...
I forget exactly what Bilbo did, if it was his handling of the Mountain Trolls or something in the caverns under the Misty Mountains, but Thorin Oakinshield did not decide he liked Bilbo after Bilbo attacked a warg in his defense. Bilbo was prized because of his stealthy nature, you know, being a burglar, and getting the group out of trouble, multiple times.
I'll reemphasize my complaints...OVER THE TOP and lack of fidelity to the story. LOTR was a different story and Jackson did a magnificent job with it. But the Hobbit is very different than LOTR with a magnificent narrative that is COMPLETELY eroded in the movie especially with all the filler material that has been added. The Hobbit is really not LOTR Part 1. It needed a different treatment as an incredibly well written stand alone story, with a very unique and different feel from LOTR. If you've never read the Hobbit, or it's been a long time since you've read the Hobbit, go back and read it. Just sample one chapter, "Over Hill and Under Hill" and I suggest that the stark difference in mood and style might astound you at how much more atmospheric the story is and how lost it is in the movie...
Last edited: