|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 10/14/2008
Posts: 1,347
Location: Chokio, MN
|
I brought this topic up on swmgamers, but I think it would be interesting to see what you guys on bloomilk thought of this movies as well.
Ok, so I saw this film on Saturday. I had heard all the bad reviews saying it was too slow and that it wasn't as good as the LOTR's movies. Rottentommatoes.com didn't have a great score for it. So I wen't into the movies with a little doubt in my heart as to If I'd like this movie.
And here's what I learned from this movie. Middle Earth is back and I loved every minute of it! I've read the reviews and heard people even in the theatre complain it was too long. I think these must have been the same people that thought the original LOTR trilogy movies were too long. I had no problem at all with the pace. The movie had the feel of Fellowship of the Ring, where you get a sense of an epic adventure is taking place and the first 30 minutes are building it up and getting you immersed and in love with Middle Earth again. I wasn't bored at all watching it. I loved it! If you are a fan of J.R.R Tolkein, you will love this movie. If you aren't, you probably won't enjoy the detail that is in this film.
Most reviewers saw this movie in 48 fps. I didn't. I saw it in 24 fps just like how the other LOTR movies were filmed in. Maybe this is why people say it seems slow and it feels a bit off. I would recommend to everyone: see it in 24 fps. If you want to see if in 48 fps, see it after you see it in 24 fps.
Overall, I loved this movie, and I'm glad we are finnaly back in Middle Earth again. My only concern in this movie is how they are going to to fit the rest of the book into 2 more 3 hour films. He's going to have to add some extra story from his other books. I can see how this movie would be 2 movies. This movie ends where I thought it should have ended. And that is great. I'm just left wondering how they are going to show the next 2 movies. But if I means more time spent in Middle Earth and more epic journeying, I'm all for it, and I look forward to seeing the rest of this trilogy. I would like to tell people to not listen to the negativity being blasted at this movie. I think it is all being aimed at the 48 fps version (which would be if you see it in 3D). See the movie in 24 fps 2D glory!
So what did everyone else think of this movie? Please try to refrain from posting spoilers. If you do, indicate them as a spoiler. I'll make another forum topic later discussing the different plot elements in this movie, so that one will be spoiler filled, but seeing as this movie is brand new, I think it would be best to wait a while to give people a chance to see it.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 2,281
|
about 1/3 of the film was from the hobbit. 1/3 from some if Tolkien's otherbooks. the final third was complete fabrication by Peter Jackson. I felt like the film was bloated... like there was a really good movie buried in excess. thatbeing said, I did enjoy it, I just felt like Jackson took it to far.
some of the changes bother me... balin tried to talk thorin out of reclaiming erebor, which makes his actions to later try and reclaim moria seem out of character. I have little gripes like that.
that being said, it was still good enough to warrant a second view by me. I just think it could have been better.
I don't mind that it was 2:40 long... I enjoyed the other films enough and they were also about that long. I guess I was more bothered by the fact that he had more then enough content to work with, and he still ended up making up his own plot hooks. But, the hobbit is my favorite book (read it about 14 or 15 times front to back, plus the original version of the story, plus everything i could find in any of his other writings), so I am biased.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 8/30/2012
Posts: 834
Location: The Batcave Ota Gotham, Naboo
|
I just watched it yesterday and I loved it!  Yes it did have some changes but nothing that would totally alter the story. It was long, but that's what I liked about it!  I kept thinking "oh they'll end it now" but it just kept the adventure going. There was never a dull moment. I liked the tie in to the LOTR trilogy in the beginning (won't say due to tiny spoilers). I'm also glad Christopher Lee was still able to play his part. Also I would agree that it isn't really worth it to see it in 3D. I have also heard bad reviews due to people thinking they made it to epic like the LOTR trilogyb ut, if you look at it from just a movie standpoint and not from the book it was excellent.  On another note Benedict Cumberbatch is going to be in the Hobbit. If you don't know the connection I will elaborate. Martin Freeman (Bilbo Baggins) and Benedict Cumberbatch are both on a BBC show called Sherlock. Sherlock is about a modern day Sherlock Holmes played by Benedict Cumberbatch and Dr. Watson played by Martin Freeman. Also for the new Star Trek: Into Darkness movie Benedict Cumberbatch is the unnamed villian and Martin Freeman will somehow appear in that. If you go see the Hobbit in Imax you can watch the first 9 minutes of Star Trek: Into Darkness. This is all obviously not a coincidence, they went out of their way to get the two actors into each others movies.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 5/14/2008
Posts: 2,063
|
Saw it with all trimmings. I loved the HFR version. It felt like a BBC/Henson co-production. It made me feel nostalgiac. I enjoyed it immensely.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/26/2009
Posts: 1,382
Location: Detroit, Mi
|
I loved it also. I know I am one of the few people left on earth to have not seen the LOTR trilogy. But it helped me to not have any preconceived notions. I read the book 20 some years ago though so I was familiar with the series. Loved the MOvie!
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 1/30/2009
Posts: 6,457
Location: Southern Illinois
|
qvos wrote: I loved it also. I know I am one of the few people left on earth to have not seen the LOTR trilogy. But it helped me to not have any preconceived notions. I read the book 20 some years ago though so I was familiar with the series. Loved the MOvie! I've still only seen bits and pieces of the LotR trilogy. I've read all 4 books at least seven times over the years, and parts of the Silmarillion. I enjoyed this first segment of the Hobbit a lot. I thought a few moments were a bit over the top, but wasn't enough to sour me on the movie as a whole, and the length didn't bother me at all. It was fun seeing it with my son, who had just finished the book for school and pointed out everything that was off in some way or another. 
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 1/29/2011
Posts: 1,246
Location: SWMing now in the 936
|
Taking #1 son today, my biggest problem with the usual Jacksonian take is Thorin's far too "pretty."
So we're roughly thought the first 99 pages and I did enjoy Slyvester McCoy's portayal of Radagast the Brown an awful little bit.
|
|
Rank: Moderator
Groups: Member
, Moderator
Joined: 9/16/2008
Posts: 2,281
|
Spoilers, highlight to see (better).
I found the movie to be bloated... like... somewhere on that reel is a wonderful movie that was buried by excess. I have trouble getting past nit-picky stuff... but I'll explain. Now, i've read the hobbit 14 times in my life. Its my favorite book, and so, I am biased...
I don't mind the introduction of certain pieces, to get viewers up to date with what is going on with the movie and how it relates to the the other films. No problem with the introduction with the older bilbo and frodo, no problem with the introduction of the appendices/unfinished tales stuff either. What gets me is the changes to characters and plot that weren't in any of tolkiens writings. For example
1. Balin trying to talk Thorin out of the quest, telling him the dwarves were content with the new life thorin had made them. This felt really wrong for me, because it makes Balin's desire to go reclaim moria seem very out of character. The line itself would have been fine for any other character, but balin has that longing in his heart too, and the scene did not sit right for me.
2. Azog. What the heck? I hate the subplot to introduce him, but I would have been fine with it if they just said it was Bolg. Why resurrect a dead villain when you have one readily available who actually is in the book? They clearly added Azog in to spice up the plot and create more tension, but if that was their goal, why not just up it further by introducing Bolg's desire for revenge on his fallen father?
3. Radagast. I actually love the representation we get here, though I think the introduction of him was unneeded. I would have been fine if they left it at his home being attacked by spiders, but introducing him to the dwarves was silly. What bothers me the most is that they had him enter dol guldor, which makes no sense, because if he is the one who entered dol goldor, where the heck did gandalf find the map and key? blah.
4. bifur. Why make him the youngest dwarf? The book says kili and fili are the youngest. I see no point in doing this. It didn't further the plot, it didn't do anything except spit on cannon. I don't understand changes like these. It does nothing for the story. Its like PJ makes a change just because he can. I find it disrespectful to the story. These are the changes I hate the most, because there is absolutely no justification for them, where as other changes can be used to claim that they are improving the plot.
5. So much action. We're all overstimulated with modern action movies, so they keep making action scenes more over the top and longer ,trying to awe the viewer. I get bored. Give me a short fight with real substance over an hour long battle anyday. Gandalf assassinating the Great Goblin in the book took 2 seconds, but was more shocking than the 30 minute goblin chase scene the movies give us. I feel like a good director can find ways to use combat to further the plot and develop the characters, rather than shovel violence down our throats. The original star was movies are a good example of how to do combat right.
6. Celeborn? Where the heck is he? We know he was on the white council. I felt like he was left off so that the movie could imply a romantic relationship between gandalf and gladriel... everyone i know who saw the movie but hadn't read the books thought those two had a love connection after seeing this film. I think it was PJ sneaking romance into a romance-less film... because in this day and age, producers don't believe a movie can stand without it. I find the notion insulting, especially to women, who are the major target for cramming such garbage into films where it doesn't actually belong. If rumor has it right, there will be another elf introduced and kili or fili falls for her in the next film?
Basically, I feel like they could have made an 1:40 long movie instead of a 2:40, and I wouldn't miss anything, and the result would have been an actually decent film, good representation of the hobbit, appendices, and unfished tales, and it would have been fantastic. Its like he didn't even bother to edit the film. Just used every scene they recorded back-to-back and mailed it out the door.
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 2/26/2009
Posts: 1,382
Location: Detroit, Mi
|
swinefeld wrote:qvos wrote: I loved it also. I know I am one of the few people left on earth to have not seen the LOTR trilogy. But it helped me to not have any preconceived notions. I read the book 20 some years ago though so I was familiar with the series. Loved the MOvie! I've still only seen bits and pieces of the LotR trilogy. I've read all 4 books at least seven times over the years, and parts of the Silmarillion. I enjoyed this first segment of the Hobbit a lot. I thought a few moments were a bit over the top, but wasn't enough to sour me on the movie as a whole, and the length didn't bother me at all. It was fun seeing it with my son, who had just finished the book for school and pointed out everything that was off in some way or another. Wasn't the Silmarillion a tough book to read?
|
|
Rank: Advanced Bloo Milk Member
Groups: Member
Joined: 3/14/2009
Posts: 1,728
|
qvos wrote:swinefeld wrote:qvos wrote: I loved it also. I know I am one of the few people left on earth to have not seen the LOTR trilogy. But it helped me to not have any preconceived notions. I read the book 20 some years ago though so I was familiar with the series. Loved the MOvie! I've still only seen bits and pieces of the LotR trilogy. I've read all 4 books at least seven times over the years, and parts of the Silmarillion. I enjoyed this first segment of the Hobbit a lot. I thought a few moments were a bit over the top, but wasn't enough to sour me on the movie as a whole, and the length didn't bother me at all. It was fun seeing it with my son, who had just finished the book for school and pointed out everything that was off in some way or another. Wasn't the Silmarillion a tough book to read? *noticeably silent*
|
|
|
Guest |