Reply With Quote
Not seeing where people were coming from calling the story too long; seemed like lots of great action and some pretty amazing wide shots. Glad I saw it on the bigscreen instead of waiting for DVD.
I loved it but as expected it's not on the level of LotR. The only complaints I had was the time around the troll scene including the troll scene itself and how lame Azog looked. Radagast was easily my favorite character
Tolkien wrote PLENTY for there to be 3 movies. The appendices at the end of TLotR are helping to fill in. It's not as if Jackson decided to add on with his own material
Not seeing where people were coming from calling the story too long; seemed like lots of great action and some pretty amazing wide shots. Glad I saw it on the bigscreen instead of waiting for DVD.
Was good overall. If theres one knock, its that it was lacking that "epic" feel. To me it had more the feel of a childrens tale (as the Hobbit was...I know). But I still took a greater liking to the darker delivery that Jackson used in LoTR. At times, I found myself thinking that some characters acted too corny and not serious enough (Radagast and the Goblin King come to mind). I was also taken by surprise at Elronds demeanor as he came in for the first time. It was almost like he had a six pack on board.
That said, I'm already lined up to see it again this weekend.Perhaps some of those things will make more sense to me on the second go round.
Good Movie.....8.5/10....
Good movie.
I liked it. It's not as good as LOTR but it would be tough to top LOTR. The beginning was a little slow but as soon as Bilbo left The Shire, it picked and was very entertaining. I was a little surprised when it was over. When it ended, I was like "it's over?". Seeing the characters of LOTR in it was sweet. I loved the dwarf chant. Some people are ting on the movie but they're either haters, didn't like LOTR, or think they're too good to like The Hobbit.
I can't wait for the extended edition tbh..they better have an extended edition eventually.
If there was any chance I could watch the movie in the same quality alone on my tv instead of the big screen I wouldn't even consider the theater. Just like with LotR it's unbelievable how many people misread Gollum. Of course there are parts with him that are supposed to be humorous but not every ing line. I just hate hearing other's reactions to things all together. Seeing a movie alone is so much more personal
It is the first of 3 tho. I'm really optimistic that, to put it simply, this is just laying the foundation for a couple movies that will flow almost as beautifully fast and hard as the LotR movies.Was good overall. If theres one knock, its that it was lacking that "epic" feel. To me it had more the feel of a childrens tale (as the Hobbit was...I know). But I still took a greater liking to the darker delivery that Jackson used in LoTR. At times, I found myself thinking that some characters acted too corny and not serious enough (Radagast and the Goblin King come to mind). I was also taken by surprise at Elronds demeanor as he came in for the first time. It was almost like he had a six pack on board.
That said, I'm already lined up to see it again this weekend.
They still should've done without Azog living tbh. He should've been beheaded in the backstory. If that meant they would've only had enough material for 2 movies then oh well
Did you not see the LotR trilogy? It was a better ending then any of them tbh. At least it was a cliffhanger. Maybe not better than Two Towers just cause of the feel from the music and the sight of Mordor.
Or didn't know what to expect. It's bound not to be as good as LotR just cause it's not about the potential end of the world and the last fight between good and evil! At the very LEAST it was a respectable movie. I did worry about a potential George Lucas second Star Wars trilogy situation
Havent seen it yet, but a lot of reviews say that there is too much walking in the movie
Great video about the locations they shot in. You can go to Hobbiton on the North Island and that entire area around Paradise is incredible: very very little development (in fact, almost everything past Glenorchy is dirt roads)
I would love to visit all the filming sights but unfortunately they're in the middle of nowhere. And before you can do that you have to get to New Zealand which is in the middle of nowhere itself
Nah, you can drive to Paradise in a couple of hours max from Queenstown. You can either hike to or take a helicopter tour up to Earnslaw Burn, which is the place with all the glaciers in the video. Driving to Mount Cook is easy, though that side they shot from you seemingly never get to see it because of the weather (it's easier to see Mount Cook from Fox Glacier on the other side of the Southern Alps). They have Lord of the Rings tours in a few places there. The alpine levels there are really low too... like 3000-4000 feet, so it's a lot easier to walk to them than to equivalent alpine areas in the US that would be 10000-12000 feet.
if I was in New Zealand I'd definitely make the effort, but again it's all by itself in the ocean. Beautiful scenery and LotR tours aren't enough to go that far
I didn't feel like the movie was too slow or long, but TBH I started to get tired of the action by the end of the movie. It was just too much. Starting with the rock giants and ending with the eagles, everything was just so over-the-top. It's impossible to believe that the entire company walked away unharmed.
Yeah. I'm on the fence about Azog. Good backstory, I'm just not sold on the idea that he has to hang around into the second movie. IMO they should have had his head off at the end of the first. Perhaps having Gwaihir rip his head off in dramatic fashion would have worked (since the eagle were there anyway).
I think that Smaug will make or break this for me. Most of the key characters from the movie just haven't been portrayed in a serious enough fashion IMO. I was expecting epic, but got something bordering on a dramatic comedy. Dunno, we shall see.
Great movie, a lot of critics and reviewers say it was too detailed and long, which I find puzzling because that's what made LOTR so successful. Jackson is probably the greatest director when it comes to sheer detail. The man knows how to tell a story. I do however concur on the fact that Azog is an unworthy antagonist. He should have been similar to Lurtz in the fact that yeah he's a worthy foe, but no need to overstretch his role.
I think the Hobbit is one of the few movies that are as detailed as the book. I mean I could read the entire Hobbit novel in about 5 hours and all 3 movies combined will be around 9 hours.
The humorous characters were intentional. Jackson stated that he didn't want to compete with himself and make the Hobbit trilogy using the same formula as he did for LOTR. He had more freedom and was able to incorporate many elements into the movie and not just a dark medieval feel. I thought he did that exceptionally well. Radagas was hilarious, yet caring. I thought he was a well put together character.Was good overall. If theres one knock, its that it was lacking that "epic" feel. To me it had more the feel of a childrens tale (as the Hobbit was...I know). But I still took a greater liking to the darker delivery that Jackson used in LoTR. At times, I found myself thinking that some characters acted too corny and not serious enough (Radagast and the Goblin King come to mind). I was also taken by surprise at Elronds demeanor as he came in for the first time. It was almost like he had a six pack on board.
That said, I'm already lined up to see it again this weekend.
Last edited by Technique; 12-23-2012 at 02:30 PM.
Radagast was my favorite character. My friends were making fun of me for how much I was stoked on him. He's so unique and obviously just doesn't give a about his appearance and perception from others. And even though he's half-crazed and with Saruman ripping on him he's still a powerful Maia who held his own against the Witch King. The scene where he's flying around the fields with the rabbits and the wargs chasing him was the first part of the movie where I got excited, like a very light version of Gandalf charging at Helm's Deep.
Is it just me, or are the special effects in this one a little off? The entire sequence with the Wargs chasing Radagast around looked sub-par. Another sequence was the bridge collapse during the Goblin King fight. Looked, well not as good as I'd expect from Jacksons team.
It's a personal preference of course, but it bothers me that he felt this way. There's nothing wrong with the way that Jackson went with this. He did well. I'm just having a hard time with the general air of "goofiness" if you will. I guess it was just an additive thing.....the silly mannerisms of the dwarves as they gathered at Bilbos place....then Bert, Tom and Will..... then an inappropriately giddy Elrond,...then Radagast.......then the Goblin King......
I fear what Smaug will be, honestly.
Good, yes. Epic no.
I thought it was fairly terrible. That much money into effects and its that bad? The CGI was absolute garbage and choosing to go with CGI over actual actors was a stupid decision. Frodo didn't need to be in this movie at all. Ok fine, you want to go with humerous and avoid the same formula but it was the same formula but worse. Has anyone ever seen an epic monty python movie? No but thats exactly what Jackson tried to do.
The sound mix was awesome though. Still, the effects were SO terrible.
Oh - just to add the movie theater we watched it at showed it in 48 fps. That might have been why the effects looked so bad. Honesty don't understand the appeal of 48 fps if it just maes things look way way way way worse. Or it could be the effects were just bad. The CGI characters likely look bad no matter what FPS you see the movie at.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I watched/read some reviews that said that the movie looks completely different in 2D compared to 48 fps.
I watched it in 2d.
EDIT - So I guess if I saw it in 2d it was 24 FPS? Then the movie just flat out looked that bad? There's pretty much no excuse then.
Enjoyed it. Still hate Hugo Weaving as Elrond. Terrible casting.
Kinda wish they didn't show Smaug's head, thought it was perfect until then. I couldn't help but be underwhelmed by him too but then I thought "it is only his head and it's really only a silhouette. I can't help having unrealistic expectations when the Balrog is in my memory
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
