The Hobbit

[Sheleph]

Has anyone seen it yet?

I'll be going to see it, no doubt several times, but don't know what version to see. Our local flicks do it in 2D, 3D and HFR 3D. The HFR is said to look more real with greater depth/detail so faces/movement's defined better, but looks less cinematic for that.

So, if anyone's seen it, any comments on what the 2D, 3D or HFR 3D version was like?

Or should I just see all 3 versions?

 

[Zed]

Just watched 2D. My summary: took me back to the wonder of the first time i read the book for myself. i was immersed, and the 3hrs didnt feel like three hours. Ill probably do the last one of the three in the HFR if i can see it but i didnt feel i losts anything with boring old 2d

 

[Soupytwist]

I took my son to see it, I found it really dull nearly 3 hours to tell a story that'd take about 30 minutes to read (only 7 chapters of the novel). Could easily tell the entire book in that running time, doesn't need to be epic.
On the plus side Martin Freeman was much better than the guy who played Frodo in the LotRs movies.
But overall just to much padding.

 

[Treebeard]

A bloated mess with some really good bits in it (3 hrs to make it to chapter 6!!).

Ironically the best things about the film were when the Hobbit was being the Hobbit. The trolls, riddle game, introduction of the dwarves etc were all great.

Azog, Radaghast, running along knocking goblins off of platforms for 10 mins, Aidan Turner with no Dwarf make-up because you have to have eye candy, just rubbish.

It just seemed to plod from set piece to filler and back again. I understand the need to try and ground the film and connect it to the LOTR's but somewhere someone has only thought of the money 3 films could make.

It's a shame as a Hobbit film, where the actual Hobbit stuff was expanded upon, would have been great.

 

[Artanix]

I'm kinda disappointing, as its what ALOT of films are doing at the moment. Getting a "good idea" and making it bigger, more often, and apparently better.

Gandalf seems to have become (or was previously) a steam roller of a wizard, he just blitz's everything in his path. All the characters seem to be extremities of their trait just to stand out from each other, everything just seems to be an extreme (for me at least).

I enjoyed it, it just lost so much of its subtleties and magic for me.

 

[Rochdale]

TREEBREAD!

I knew the hobbit film would bring you out of hiding

 

[Zed]

Azog, Radaghast, running along knocking goblins off of platforms for 10 mins, Aidan Turner with no Dwarf make-up because you have to have eye candy, just rubbish.

Apparently, my son told me this morning, Azog IS in the Hobbit. albeit very briefly, he is mentioned and does exist in Middle Earth Canon!!!!

 

[Chick]

I agree with Treebeard with a lot of that. It could easily be an horu shortr, cover more and be excellent. My major gripes not yet mentioned are:

1. it's to 'dark'. hobbit is a fun kids book for gods sake.
2. it's been turned into a lotr prequel with all the saruman crap.

not overly impressed, and will definitely not bother cinemaering with the other 2 now. they are sofa material.

 

[Sheleph]

1. it's to 'dark'. hobbit is a fun kids book for gods sake.
2. it's been turned into a lotr prequel with all the saruman crap.

This.


I've seen it and I really enjoyed it. I've read The Hobbit to my 10 year old, she really enjoyed the film and the 3 hours flew by. It wasn't true to the book but was broadly true to Middle Earth cannon. It had a good mix of introductions (which set the scene), past events (which set the scene), discussions of what the problems were (which set the scene) and past character backstory (which set the scene). But for a 3 hour film not an awful lot of The Hobbit really happened . . .

I can forgive that since it was a good film that was true to Middle Earth content/events so as a film of The Hobbit (plus extra twiddly bits) I'm happy.

The bits I'm uneasy about are the same as Chick, it's much darker than it needs to be and it's investing arguably too much screen time setting things up to be congruent/mesh with LOTR.

 

[Emmon]

The film is incredible, i loved all the extra bits that i couldn't remember being in the book but went with it and i felt all the extra magic really made me smile and get swept into an adventure. Although last time i read it was 2001.

Maybe the Gandalf line early of "All good tales deserve some embellishment" was a nod to this.

 

[Sorontar]

Projector failure just as the riddles started so missed the end - got complementary tickets as we are Unlimited, so we get to take friends as well when we HAVE to go back and watch a most excellent film again (this time to the end) .

 

[Janie]

This movie made me feel really ill, I only just managed to get though it and had to keep looking away from the screen. I can't really comment on the quality because I just wanted to get outta there.

 

[Sheleph]

Meep Janie, in 3D?? I watched in 2D and was fine (aside from grumbles above, I really enjoyed it) but I get motion sick watching some 3D films. Blair Witch Project in 2D made me feel sick too, though.

 

[Artanix]

I heard about a few people having problems with the HDR 3D-ness, sounds like fun

 

[Janie]

Meep Janie, in 3D?? I watched in 2D and was fine (aside from grumbles above, I really enjoyed it) but I get motion sick watching some 3D films. Blair Witch Project in 2D made me feel sick too, though.

No the 3D wasn't an issue, I've seen 3D movies before with no ill effects. I believe they shot this film in some new way, and to me if I looked at the screen to long it felt like everything was sped up (hard to explain) I got a massive headache and started to feel sick.

 

[Swither]

Hasn't this been shot in a faster resolution? Maybe that was what it was?

48 frames per sec

 

[Treebeard]

Apparently, my son told me this morning, Azog IS in the Hobbit. albeit very briefly, he is mentioned and does exist in Middle Earth Canon!!!!

He is mentioned by Gandalf in one line I think but that's it. He is killed by the Dwarf King Dain at some point after he kills Thror. I felt it was a tick in the "we have to have a baddy to boo and hiss at" box.

 

[Swither]

Saw this today, with the kids and we all enjoyed it.

Been a while since I read the book so not bothered if it wasn't totally true to canon. (except for that 'good-looking' dwarf, why?)

This was ordinary 2D so I guess the 3d HFR thingy is the new resolution version?

 

[Anubis]

Off to see it next Tuesday. I can't be arsed with 3D, it's just another unnecessary gimmick. I am expecting something not close to the book, but watchable at worst.

 

[Daerflin]

Apparently, my son told me this morning, Azog IS in the Hobbit. albeit very briefly, he is mentioned and does exist in Middle Earth Canon!!!!

Don't feel too bad.

Azog is mentioned in the Hobbit, Bolg son of Azog is in the Hobbit. PJ obviously felt that Tolkien needed streamlining there...ironic really

I enjoyed it, a lot of the stuff in the film is touched upon in the book or covered in other ME literature, PJ just expanded a great deal.

For me a lot of the changes made sense, the Trolls on the Troll Moors, instead of being just a random encounter, were part of Azog's forces. Azog's pursuit injected a bit of pace - the journey to Rivendell would have been a drearfest otherwise, the council of the wise was featured instead of just referenced vaguely (as in the Hobbit). The rescue of Thorin & Co. from Azog made for a better story than just a bunch of Goblins pissed off at the Great Goblin being offed by Gandalf (or Thorin can't recall which).

I enjoyed the film immensely.

The second film will probably split between Beorn and Murkwood for Thorin & Co. and the Battle between the Necromancer of Dol Guldur and the Council of the Wise.