DELETED_74993

Saw this today, 3d imax hfr.

Honestly didn't notice this HFR - nothing bothered me in the slightest, apart from the 3d glasses being a little wonky and tight!

Anyway, no complaints at all, even sequences which may have gone on too long, or done another way. Best film this year.
 
Saw it yesterday and overall I thought it was pretty good. Started very slow but has set the scene nicely for the next 2 films. Also the tie in with LOTR which is not in the original book doesnt look like it will be quite as awful as I first imagined.

Only 3 complaints really.
1) Radaghast and his bunny powred slegde was retarded.
2) The goblin king lookd and sounded far too jovial to be a bad guy. Felt this part should have been much more dark and menacing as it is in the book.
3) James Nesbit plays one of the dwarves. Not only that they actually gave him lines so he irritating face is in the film and his voice! Bah!

/Salsa
 
48fps was incredible, I thought it would look similar to Eastenders or something, but gave the film a unique look. Only problem was half way through the film I got a bad headache.

As with all the LOTR films I prefer the extended editions as PJ goes into more character depth and adds new music in. But the film met my expectations and Richard Armitage was incredible.
 
Saw it in 2D and loved it.

Took a little while to get going (just like the book it was one songs worth of not a lot too long) but once it got going it was really enjoyable.

I was a little sad one or two of the things from the book building up Bilbo were cut (for the sake of about an hours worth of film it was acceptable) and the additions were pretty good for the film.

Loved the tone of the film being a lot less serious business than LOTR and I can see how the 48fps and 3D stuff should look really good. 2D still looked nice (much brighter and more vibrant film than most these days which makes a change) but I can see how the new stuff should work and improve it.

Agree with Salsa on point 3, seemed to focus on him on being "all multicultural" on the Dwarf front with little regard to the book or what naturally should have happened given the characters and they way they came across.

Anyway I was really really pleased with it, for once the tone was about right, the balance of singing and tomfoolery was right and the general pacing was right. Really cannot wait for the next one to be done!
 
Last edited:
Castor said:
Everyone has already said what i think of it, but i will say, Gollum, bloody brilliant! :D
Click to expand...

Gives us a chance precious!:D

I thoroughly enjoyed my first viewing of The Hobbit yesterday.

I wasn't quite expecting the grand scale of The Lord Of The Rings but The Hobbit was every bit as epic IMO. The slow start some people have complained about is totally in keeping with the book and is neccessary to lay down the foundation of the story/plot IMO.

Visually absolutely spectacular, the sweeping landscape cinematography is breathtaking at times, great CGI for the most part, the orcs, trolls and Goblins all looked suitably foul (in a good way).

The additions were good, especially Erebor at the very start, which helped to explain the terrible plight of the dwarves and why Gandalf was so keen for them to reclaim what was rightfully theirs.

I thought Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo, he played it far straighter than I was expecting, I imagined he would have played him with a slightly more comic edge than he did. Thorin was also very well played as was Ian Mckellens Gandalf as always.

Looking forward to part 2 & also hoping we get an extended cut on blu ray of The Unexpected Journey at some point.
 
Salsa said:
Saw it yesterday and overall I thought it was pretty good. Started very slow but has set the scene nicely for the next 2 films. Also the tie in with LOTR which is not in the original book doesnt look like it will be quite as awful as I first imagined.

/Salsa
Click to expand...

Well, it wasn't in the book, because Tolkien hadn't really fleshed out the universe around it at that point - which is why he then wrote all the stuff in the appendices of LotR years later to retcon/make it fit in, stuff that makes it better!

It's good for us because it give things in The Hobbit the significance they deserve that they understandably weren't in the book - the ring being the Ring of Power, the identity of the Necromancer and the significance of his return to Middle Earth, what Gandalf gets up to when he's missing for a big chunk of the book and so on.

If they'd have just done a screenplay based on the book itself and none of the material Tolkien added after it was written it'd feel strangely detached from LotR, because having seen that trilogy already, we're not like people who read The Hobbit when it came out because we're already aware of the greater world around it.

Btw - there's 100% going to be extended editions for each of these, look forward to 2014 when I can watch all 6 extended editions back to back haha.
 
What a great film, a fair bit better than lord of the rings. I haven't read books so no idea how that affects people's view of it.
 
Last edited:
Glaucus said:
What a great film, a fair bit better than lord of the rings. I haven't read books so no idea how that affects people's views of it.0
Click to expand...

There seems to be less nerd-rage this time round as Jackson hasn't made as many changes from the source material - although he has made some - but then again The Hobbit, even with the material from the appendices of LoTR padding it out, was probably a much easier task to adapt into a screenplay than LoTR.
 
I enjoyed it, but two things frustrated me:-
1) A number of scenes were seemingly needless changed from the book, generally for the worse IMHO. eg: The trolls, the cave opening in the mountain or riddles in the dark (slightly).
2) The unnecessarily Hanna-Barbera physics! Characters needlessly falling down hundreds of feet of rock face with seemingly no concerns/risks? Or the ridiculous bridge sliding down a thousand feet of rock face... Just took you unnecessarily away from reality for no other reason than stupid effects. Don't see why these couldn't have been treated more like life people in real situation to - The moment you realise they can fall down rock holes hundreds of feet deep with no worries.... why worry at all!?

That all said, generally really enjoyed it and didn't feel slow or overlong to me. Didn't seem quite as solid/deep as LOTR, but I guess that's to be expected.
 
NeilFawcett said:
2) The unnecessarily Hanna-Barbera physics! Characters needlessly falling down hundreds of feet of rock face with seemingly no concerns/risks? Or the ridiculous bridge sliding down a thousand feet of rock face... Just took you unnecessarily away from reality for no other reason than stupid effects. Don't see why these couldn't have been treated more like life people in real situation to - The moment you realise they can fall down rock holes hundreds of feet deep with no worries.... why worry at all!?
Click to expand...

Make it more realistic??

Missing the point of it being a fantasy world a little bit there...lol

cant stand people like this
 
tombrr said:
Make it more realistic??

Missing the point of it being a fantasy world a little bit there...lol

cant stand people like this
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Well, have them sprout wings as they fall down then, or have parachutes pop out. Missing the point of continuity and believability a bit there!

I'll write something in little text too!


These characters are basically portrayed as normal(ish) flesh and blood, in a world where pretty much the normal laws of physics apply. So when one drops down 400feet of rock tunnels, and gets up and carries on, you sort of get the feeling its a step too far.

And let's not forget, this is stuff NOT in the book, but put in for candy. The scenes in question could have been done more subtly, without the need for Hanna-Barbera cartoon time, and would have resulted in a better more gripping outcome. Have them fall down 10ft and obviously show it was painful, rather than 400ft and just get up...

Why the need for the eagles... They could have just jumped out of the tree and off the cliff face from what we've seen before :)


But as I said, it's a minor annoyance in the scheme of things. Just felt a bit daft and out of place TBH.
 
Last edited:
Morfik said:
Personally I think 3D HFR.

I'd recommend seeing it in HFR anyway, even if you're not sure, as it's worth trying out if only once to experience it.
Click to expand...

Shame there's not many screens in the UK capable of it as I would have like to have seen it in that format.

It was funny that our neighbour said he didn't get on with the new 48fps 3D... I pointed out to him later that our local cinema is actually showing it in regular 24fps!

Placebo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom