[Movies] The Hobbit Trilogy (Possible Spoilers)

[Wilian]

So, the movie is over, I just came home and I have few first words of it. Some spoilers of course so skip the post if you don't want to (Who haven't read The Hobbit anyhow?).

When I went in I couldn't really tell what I was expecting from it as most of the trailers left me with feelings of a bit like "Meh" "Might work out" "That could be promising" and other assorted stuff.

All in all I can say now though. Amazing. Simply amazing.

The movie, when it followed the book driven parts, managed to capture adventurous feeling of the Hobbit extremely well and unlike LotR, there was no gross reshaping of characterisations nor missing scenes (Or added nonesense, fuck you elves at the Helm's Deep). Pretty much everything worked as it did in the book, including the names of the three trolls! And of course songs, lots of singing. And they managed to do that without feeling forced.
Those few scenes that were from the books and had deviations, mostly worked for the better in the end I would say, such as the stone giants. They did not play football in the mountains and the scene all in all was truly epic sight to behold. The orc chase scene did not quite fit though, which I touch in next paraghraph

The scenes that were not on the book and followed the expanded "universe" also worked really well most of the time (For example, reminiscin the battle at the gates of Moria) even though in some bits it did interfere with the main storyline a wee. (Azog hunting the dwarves on western side of Misty Mountains).

Scenes with Gollum was brilliantly excecuted even though from my counting they missed the riddle about fishes which is a sort of silly as it is referred in the Two Towers movie. They also managed to add the tragic element into Gollum's character when Bilbo was about to slice down onto him with the help of the Ring .

There are, however, some things which I found to be what I call typically "Peter Jacksonin' " of the movie. What that stands for is taking some things that would work just fine by itself and then creating over the top scenes or characterizations to fist in the point with a sledgehammer.

Radagast was one of these mistreated characters. While it did not suffer from polar shift of character (Looking at you Faramir and Theoden) the way he was presented was simply too much. Most of his scenes were just outright silly (Racing wargs with rabbit driven cart on no wheels? WTF Jackson, WTF). He did have few nice scenes but most of it should've worked off differently.

Same with some of the chase bits in the Goblin City. Parts of it as I feared, were closer to slap stick humour than suspension filled action but luckily those events were only few and didn't break the flow in the end.

Musics were a bit "bland" as lot of it were recycled. The few original bits sounded extremely good but were a bit overused by the end and then there was this one "wtf" moment in the end when Thorin and Azog were to duel and suddenly Nazgul theme started to play. It set the "feeling" of that scene off for me quite a bit.

Overall I find this movie to out-do all the LotR movies easily and is so far the best movie released this year and also in many years. I could always rant about the lack of characterization of most of the dwarves but I won't because 13 is ridiculous amount to flesh out on the screen, expesially in the case when they practically had no character in the book either, just a long list of names.

Technical side of stuff. 48 FPS. Amazing, pure eyegasms for entire movie. The clarity and smoothness is uncomparable to anything and after going 48 I don't see how I could watch 24 comfortably anymore.

3D worked out really well too. It was subtle and not blown into your eyes like a gimmick. Instead it was used to convey the atmoshpere, which it did really well.
Comparisation could easily be made with the pre-movie commercials which simply just abused the whole thing again and again.

[Northy]

So, the movie is over, I just came home and I have few first words of it. Some spoilers of course so skip the post if you don't want to (Who haven't read The Hobbit anyhow?).

When I went in I couldn't really tell what I was expecting from it as most of the trailers left me with feelings of a bit like "Meh" "Might work out" "That could be promising" and other assorted stuff.

All in all I can say now though. Amazing. Simply amazing.

The movie, when it followed the book driven parts, managed to capture adventurous feeling of the Hobbit extremely well and unlike LotR, there was no gross reshaping of characterisations nor missing scenes (Or added nonesense, fuck you elves at the Helm's Deep). Pretty much everything worked as it did in the book, including the names of the three trolls! And of course songs, lots of singing. And they managed to do that without feeling forced.
Those few scenes that were from the books and had deviations, mostly worked for the better in the end I would say, such as the stone giants. They did not play football in the mountains and the scene all in all was truly epic sight to behold. The orc chase scene did not quite fit though, which I touch in next paraghraph

The scenes that were not on the book and followed the expanded "universe" also worked really well most of the time (For example, reminiscin the battle at the gates of Moria) even though in some bits it did interfere with the main storyline a wee. (Azog hunting the dwarves on western side of Misty Mountains).

Scenes with Gollum was brilliantly excecuted even though from my counting they missed the about fishes which is a sort of silly as it is referred in the Two Towers movie. They also managed to add the tragic element into Gollum's character when Bilbo was about to slice down onto him with the help of the Ring .

There are, however, some things which I found to be what I call typically "Peter Jacksonin' " of the movie. What that stands for is taking some things that would work just fine by itself and then creating over the top scenes or characterizations to fist in the point with a sledgehammer.

Radagast was one of these mistreated characters. While it did not suffer from polar shift of character (Looking at you Faramir and Theoden) the way he was presented was simply too much. Most of his scenes were just outright silly (Racing wargs with rabbit driven cart on no wheels? WTF Jackson, WTF). He did have few nice scenes but most of it should've worked off differently.

Same with some of the chase bits in the Goblin City. Parts of it as I feared, were closer to slap stick humour than suspension filled action but luckily those events were only few and didn't break the flow in the end.

Musics were a bit "bland" as lot of it were recycled. The few original bits sounded extremely good but were a bit overused by the end and then there was this one "wtf" moment in the end when Thorin and Azog were to duel and suddenly Nazgul theme started to play. It set the "feeling" of that scene off for me quite a bit.

Overall I find this movie to out-do all the LotR movies easily and is so far the best movie released this year and also in many years. I could always rant about the lack of characterization of most of the dwarves but I won't because 13 is ridiculous amount to flesh out on the screen, expesially in the case when they practically had no character in the book either, just a long list of names.

Technical side of stuff. 48 FPS. Amazing, pure eyegasms for entire movie. The clarity and smoothness is uncomparable to anything and after going 48 I don't see how I could watch 24 comfortably anymore.

3D worked out really well too. It was subtle and not blown into your eyes like a gimmick. Instead it was used to convey the atmoshpere, which it did really well.
Comparisation could easily be made with the pre-movie commercials which simply just abused the whole thing again and again.

Everyone I know who has seen it (non-Americans cuz it's out Fri for us) claims it's a masterpiece. Bitch all they want about 48fps, the movie itself is phenomenal.

[Daelos]

So I just saw the movie, and well.. it was okay? Sure, the visuals and the music were perfect as always, just as expected, but otherwise it could have been better. It's been a long while since I read the book, but in my opinion there were many things added to the story that could have been left out, but I guess the first part of the book wouldn't have been interesting or action-packed enough to make it to a film without adding anything. About Azog (who was basically the villain in the movie), how did he appear in the book? As far as I remember he didn't play such a big role as he did now in the movie. Also, I think the golems turned into stone just because Bilbo stalled them long enough in the book, not because Gandalf came out of the blue to save the day. There were some other things too that I thought were changed, but I'm not completely sure because I haven't read the book in a while.
There could have been more focus on the different personalities of the dwarves, there were 13 but only a few had really any lines or role in the first movie. Martin Freeman did a fine job as Bilbo, although the character development seemed kinda weird; I didn't really feel that Bilbo really missed his home or was lost in this new, scary environment, this was better executed in LoTR-trilogy. Fine job by the actor anyways, I knew like Freeman would make a great Bilbo as soon as they revealed that he would be playing him. McKellen was great as Gandalf as always, he still got it!
From the second part I'm expecting more focus on the Necromancer, because in the books Gandalf disappears from the company and I'm guessing that this is what Jackson is planning to do too. Really excited to see how they will handle that, I was actually more interested on that than the actual plot The third film has potential to be pretty damn epic, with Smaug and the massive battle (can't remember the name, the third battle or something like that), definately looking forward to it.
But overall, I think the movie could have been better. In my opinion they added a little too much stuff to make it more exciting for a casual filmgoer to watch, and there wasn't enough focus on the different members of the company. On the other hand, it really had that sense of epicness and adventure, alongside with occasional humor. There's a lot of potential in the last two movies however, so I'm definately looking forward to watching them aswell.

[Xerkx]

Just saw this movie aswell. I loved it ! and I can't wait for the other movies !

[Gothicshark]

What is IMAX, and why do we want to see it there ?

I am sure others have stated this, but it is important to see eyegasm films in IMAX

"IMAX (an abbreviation for Image Maximum) is a motion picture film format and a set of cinema projection standards created by the Canadian company IMAX Corporation. IMAX has the capacity to record and display images of far greater size and resolution than conventional film systems. Since 2002, some feature films have been converted (or upgraded) into IMAX format for display in IMAX theatres and some have also been partially shot in IMAX."

this image shows the difference in film size from standard film and IMAX, IMAX is always in the Highest Definition possible.


---------- Post added 2012-12-11 at 06:50 PM ----------

Hello. I heard some place that the Hobbit was going to be a trilogy, its that something some one can verify here?
Read the book about 10 years ago, and i do remember it pretty well, and i dont understand how they will squeez that much movie out of it.
Dont get me wrong, i dont think its a bad thing, but i was really looking forward to see the fight vs Smaug!

Because it is a literal translation of the books into film. The biggest Nerd Film maker of all time made Lord of the Rings and filmed every line of the book, and was forced to edit each film for theatrical release. This time He filmed it the same way and split the film up into a trilogy.

[Deleted]

im a total noob, can someone explain the significance of the 48fps? what does this do to the movie and why is everyone so uppity about it?

[Wilian]

im a total noob, can someone explain the significance of the 48fps? what does this do to the movie and why is everyone so uppity about it?

The reason why 24 looks smooth to human eye is blur effect to hide the jerkyness (Easy to check when you pause 24 FPS stuff during motion it's usually blur). At 48 FPS the picture moves smoothly enough to not need the blur so it's much more crisp and sharper to look at.

[BHD]

Just saw the movie too, and I loved it. It met my expectations and more, so happy that I bought a ticket to watch it again in about 16 hours. Unlike Wilian, I didn't mind the sillyness of Radagast (We all have our own opinions ) I was aware that he could be crossing into Jar Jar Bings terrority, but I don't think he did at all. It is based upon a children's book after all and unlike a few of the jokes in the movie I thought Radagast's way of travelling was enjoyable to watch

I was very impressed with the way 3D looked in this film, I've seen my fair share of 3D movies at the cinema and most were awful. It was a bit irritating for the eyes after 2ish hours, but it worked very well. I just wish they had 48 fps around here Next viewing will be without 3D just to compare.

[Wilian]

Also, I think the golems turned into stone just because Bilbo stalled them long enough in the book, not because Gandalf came out of the blue to save the day.

It the book it was Gandalf who distracted the trolls by hiding in the shadows and speaking in the voices of the trolls, making them argue and brawl each others until sunrise.

[Xykotic]

Anyone got a link to the battle theme they had going on? It was the same tune as the "misty mountain" song, but i can only found it when they actually sing it, not the orchestral version.

[Lilly32]

I heard the book was boring as hell but the movie looks badass. Cant wait to download it from --SNIP--

Don't post about illegal activites

[Gothicshark]

I'll watch ALL the credits.
ALL of them.

Also, this is pretty cool:


Seeing this, those reviewers must have a heart of stone or a very big pet peeve with 48fps and/or the three movie thing, how can you not be excited for this ^^

I wanted to see it badly, now I can't wait.

[Scummer]

I haven't seen it and can't say I've made any arrangements to .
Although my soundtrack arrived yesterday and I must say it's pretty damn awesome. There is definitely similarities between it and LotR's soundtrack which truth be told I actually liked as it keeps the franchise sound very consistent and remind you that you still in middle earth, mean while enough has been added to keep it sounding fresh.

Howard Shore keeps it awesome as always!

[Deleted]

Anyone comparing Radagast to Jar Jar Binks is a clueless prat.
True story.

Loved the film. Hit the ball out of the park, so pumped for the nest two.

[Darsithis]

I can't wait to see it myself, really. I mean, I saw the original, read the book (gold bound and all), but this promises to be far more amazing .

[Deleted]

Hey I wear glasses IRL and want to go watch this on the weekend but im worried it will be bad because of my glasses not letting the other glasses fit?
Has any 1 with glasses seen any movies in 3D and if soo do they fit?

[Arrowstormen]

Saw it. Given the book, I can't really say how it could have been made better.

Now, it's my movie of the year, surprising about none. Pretty sure it will make a billion in box office by the end of it, though I still wonder if it will beat The Avengers, who sits on more than 1,5 billion dollars.

Comparing it to LOTR, is a little difficult to do. It's clearly more lighthearted, and it gives you a good sense of the peace and nice times of Middle-Earth before Sauron began posing as a big burning eye in Mordor. A very different creature than LOTR. LOTR was also completely new and mindblowing 10 years ago, something you can't truly expect The Hobbit to do again. Seeing as we've had a surprisingly low amount of LOTR-like movies since it's huge success, The Hobbit is the most "epic fantasy" we've seen on movie since LOTR.

I'd say LOTR is better, if for nothing else than age and the fact that it's source material was clearly a bigger story. However, as I said, couldn't see how you could have made The Hobbit better than The Hobbit was. LOTR is my favorite movie(s) of all time, and this sits on the same shelf. I think, besides some very iconic scenes, that the next two movies will be better, at least if The Battle of the Five Armies will be the best battle ever since ROTK. The next one has Mirkwood and Smaug, hnnnng!

Also, saw it in 3D 48fps. It looked kind of weird in the very start, but by the end of the movie, I couldn't tell anymore. I will probably watch it again.

---------- Post added 2012-12-12 at 07:40 PM ----------

It the book it was Gandalf who distracted the trolls by hiding in the shadows and speaking in the voices of the trolls, making them argue and brawl each others until sunrise.

I thought Bilbo keeping the trolls at bay was a better choice for the movie, as it helped a huge amount to Bilbo's growth and the dwarves' acceptance of Bilbo.

[Gothicshark]

Hey I wear glasses IRL and want to go watch this on the weekend but im worried it will be bad because of my glasses not letting the other glasses fit?
Has any 1 with glasses seen any movies in 3D and if soo do they fit?

I use to wear glasses and I always do 3D when possible, never had an issue.

[Scummer]

I thought Bilbo keeping the trolls at bay was a better choice for the movie, as it helped a huge amount to Bilbo's growth and the dwarves' acceptance of Bilbo.

Well I think while purists will want to have seen Gandalf pretend to be the Trolls it in the end really doesn't change anything in the story whatsoever which is what matters .
I take it Gandalf appears afterwards though?

[BHD]

Well I think while purists will want to have seen Gandalf pretend to be the Trolls it in the end really doesn't change anything in the story whatsoever which is what matters .
I take it Gandalf appears afterwards though?

He does.

I've now seen the movie for the third time! The one and only negative thing I can say about this movie is the pronounciation of the dwarven names. Glóin and Óin should not rhyme with "coin". >.< Should be more like Glooin or Glow-in.