The Hobbit

Faiona_sl · Dec 15, 2012

aychamo_aycono_sl said:
Spoilers!

Just saw it 2d 24fps. Pretty good movie. Almost made me tear up with the first scene seeing Bilbo and being back in Middle Earth. Could have done without the "that's what bilbo hates" song. And I couldn't stand how so much action was progressed by some ridiculous "comedic" falling of the entire gang down some ridiculous thing. Oh look, everyone is falling off rocks onto other rocks because there is big rock monsters, oh wait, they're falling through rocks now down a chute, oh wait, now the whole gang is falling between swinging wood platforms, oh look the platform is now surfing down the cave, oh look, they're in trees, and the trees are all falling into each other and they're swinging around in them. SIGH.

Besides the goofiness of some it, the movie was pretty dang good. I thought most people did great jobs. Some parts did feel cheap, like the CGI of the guy with the rabbit sled, in some scenes it just looked retarded. I didn't have a problem with the troll scene. From a story telling point of view the thing with the necromancer was just odd, so it just was kind of left out their hanging.

Of course, again I have to ask, why didn't the birds just fly them all the way to the mountain? And why didn't Gandalf just summon the birds in Fellowship and fly Frodo all the way to Mordor?

Movie looked good though. Peter Jackson's Middle Earth is beautiful as always, and makes me want to redo my backyard to look like Rivendale

Good style. I didn't see Evangeline Lily or Legolas. I guess they're in the other movies?

I answered it in my previous post with the spoiler thing. I'll just put it here though since people are talking about the entire movie anyways. In the book its because men of the area don't like them and try to shoot them with bows and arrows because they steal their sheep. So in the book they took them as far as they could go without endangering themselves.

Jait · Dec 15, 2012

Loved it in 3d 48fps

Lithose · Dec 15, 2012

Maul_sl said:
The Ring was only a small part of the Hobbit book, was no mention of it being anything more than what it first appeared to be, an invisibility ring.

And for a long time, until he started really revising the book--that's actually all it was. It wasn't until he had the first draft done of the Hobbit and went back and decided to rewrite a bunch of things because he loved the world so much (And then write everything else) that he changed it from a "magic ring", which is still very powerful in his world, to "The One Ring". So if Jackson played down it's importance, that's great--that's precisely how it was written.

Salacious_sl · Dec 15, 2012

Big Phoenix_sl said:
Good movie though, on par with the previous LoTR movies. Only thing I think it was lacking was a more meaningful connection or foreshadowing to the ring/saroun(coming from someone who never ready any of the books). They kind of hint at it with "hey goblins/orcs/trolls are starting to appear" but thats it really, no real exploration or investigation into the matter.

Uh... they hit you over the head with a sledge hammer with the Blade of Morgul Rhadagast found. A blade that doesn't belong in the land of the living. The same type of blade that pierced Frodo at Weathertop. A blade belonging to a ringwraith.

Sutekh · Dec 15, 2012

Not sure if this has been discussed at all, but am I the only one that was really disappointed in Thorins shield? The shit looked more like a makeshift tonfa than anything, not how I imagined it.

Salacious_sl · Dec 15, 2012

Sutekh_sl said:
Not sure if this has been discussed at all, but am I the only one that was really disappointed in Thorins shield? The shit looked more like a makeshift tonfa than anything, not how I imagined it.

Isn't that how a nickname would come to life though? I thought Balin's retelling of the seige of Moria was the strongest part of the entire movie.

Bane_sl · Dec 15, 2012

Sutekh_sl said:
Not sure if this has been discussed at all, but am I the only one that was really disappointed in Thorins shield? The shit looked more like a makeshift tonfa than anything, not how I imagined it.

Not only did I think it was weak, but I didn't even notice it until the fight against the Defiler when he rose off the tree and all the sudden it was there. I said out loud.. Wait, where did he get the shield from now!?

mimirswell_sl · Dec 15, 2012

Salacious_sl said:
Uh... they hit you over the head with a sledge hammer with the Blade of Morgul Rhadagast found. A blade that doesn't belong in the land of the living. The same type of blade that pierced Frodo at Weathertop. A blade belonging to a ringwraith.

Of course, within the lore of middle-earth, the appearance of a morgul-blade is essentially meaningless since the Nazgul had been active in middle-earth affairs since ~1300 T.A. The Witch-King over the next 1500 years founds the kingdom of Angmar, conquers the kingdoms of Arthedain, Rhudaur, and Cardolan. He then fights a series of battles with Gondor, temporarily loses Angmar. He regroups, assembles the rest of the Nazgul and conquers Minas Ithil in Mordor. He then proceeds to challenge and slay the last King of Gondor in single combat during the siege of Minas Tirith and is only stopped from conquering Gondor by Gandalf himself. Later, the 11th steward of Gondor would die from wounds sustained from a morgul-blade. I haven't seen the movie so perhaps the morgul-blade means more within its context but from the books standpoint, it would mean very little.

Cor_sl · Dec 15, 2012

Feien_sl said:
This is inaccurate. The Red Epic camera, the one used for this movie, can actually shoot at 5k resolution at 96fps. The movie was actually shot at 5k Resolution at 48fps. The intention was to finish the movie at 4k, (having that extra resolution really helps you in post-production for reframing, or stabilizing. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is a very good example of this). Sadly, they finished this movie at 2k (which is almost the same as HD) due to time. The amount of VFX work at a higher resolution and at a higher frame rate takes a LONG time to work with and to render, so they had to finish it at 2k this time around, but from what I understand, they will have a native 4k version in the future. My hope is that the second and third movie will be in 4k since now that they have a year to work with it, but nothing has been confirmed yet.

Another factor has been projection. Projecting 3D at 48fps is a very new thing. A lot of projectors had to go through a bit of a software/hardware update in order to project the movie this way, but this update will now be able to handle bigger resolutions and frame rates.

Awesome! Thanks. Glad to hear that it's not a limitation of the tech.

Hateyou · Dec 15, 2012

mimirswell_sl said:
Of course, within the lore of middle-earth, the appearance of a morgul-blade is essentially meaningless since the Nazgul had been active in middle-earth affairs since ~1300 T.A. The Witch-King over the next 1500 years founds the kingdom of Angmar, conquers the kingdoms of Arthedain, Rhudaur, and Cardolan. He then fights a series of battles with Gondor, temporarily loses Angmar. He regroups, assembles the rest of the Nazgul and conquers Minas Ithil in Mordor. He then proceeds to challenge and slay the last King of Gondor in single combat during the siege of Minas Tirith and is only stopped from conquering Gondor by Gandalf himself. Later, the 11th steward of Gondor would die from wounds sustained from a morgul-blade. I haven't seen the movie so perhaps the morgul-blade means more within its context but from the books standpoint, it would mean very little.

Shit like this is why the internet is awesome.

Himeo · Dec 15, 2012

mimirswell_sl said:
Of course, within the lore of middle-earth, the appearance of a morgul-blade is essentially meaningless since the Nazgul had been active in middle-earth affairs since ~1300 T.A. The Witch-King over the next 1500 years founds the kingdom of Angmar, conquers the kingdoms of Arthedain, Rhudaur, and Cardolan. He then fights a series of battles with Gondor, temporarily loses Angmar. He regroups, assembles the rest of the Nazgul and conquers Minas Ithil in Mordor. He then proceeds to challenge and slay the last King of Gondor in single combat during the siege of Minas Tirith and is only stopped from conquering Gondor by Gandalf himself. Later, the 11th steward of Gondor would die from wounds sustained from a morgul-blade. I haven't seen the movie so perhaps the morgul-blade means more within its context but from the books standpoint, it would mean very little.

If you want slavish devotion to the source material, watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Hobbit is a money grab with generous padding and alterations by Peter Jackson. And you know what? I'm fine with that. It's fun.

Gecko_sl · Dec 15, 2012

The Lord of the Rings movie deviates quite a bit from the source material and does take some liberties. It does setup the back story nicely at the beginning. A lot of what Mimrswell is discussing is covered more in depth in the Silmarillion. It really answers a ton of questions in regards to the lore and fills out the holes left in Lord of the Rings. In the movie Saruman addresses the Morgul blade pretty much identically to what you are saying, which should amuse you, like was discussed in the LOTR books when Gandalf discusses his travels with Aragorn and finding Smeagol.

I liked the way The White Council was represented in the movie.

I agree it's a total money grab, especially making it into three movies, but as I really enjoyed the first one I'm cool with that and will definitely watch the next two. I've been a Tolkien nut since I was a little kid...

Kirun · Dec 15, 2012

Vvoid_sl said:
I loved the Lord of the Rings movies, and obviously am a fan of this book, so the story was great, I enjoyed the parts he added, and I was completely fine even with the fact that he's going to make 3 movies out of it. I will enjoy every single bit of story I'm pretty sure.

That being said, HFR (3D too, but 3D doesn't bother me) is not for me. It ruined the movie for me pretty much. I won't belabor the point, but the only times it didn't really bother me were panoramic landscape shots and the elven stuff. The elves looked dead on perfect for the most part. Galadriel looked ethereal and otherworldly and exactly like I wanted her to look. I didn't like the orcs, goblins, trolls, worgs, or dwarves (except for Thorin and the two brothers, who weren't really made up at all) because it just made them look fake to me. And the action scenes just didn't look right at all either.

I realize this is a problem with me and not the movie, so take that into consideration. Whether it is my brain, or eyes, or just being used to the old way, I couldn't get past it. The movie was pretty much everything I would have wanted it to be...except for the framerate thing. I doubt I'll see this one again until it comes out on bluray, but I expect I'll see the next two in the lower framerate and probably love them.

Totally agree. Especially about the elves and panoramic shots being some of the only things that looked decent. HFR totally ruined it for me as well. I disagree on the actions scenes, though. I think those were much improved with HFR and I'd like to see movies use the tech for them in the future. However, the HFR just made everything look like I was standing right there beside the director, watching a bunch of LARPers. The 48FPS made thingstoophoto-realistic and I just couldn't stand how "fake" looking everything was. Half the time you could tell that the actors were just running around on sets/sound stages.

mixtilplix · Dec 15, 2012

Forgot to mention the the 3d. It was pretty meh though the star trek preview they should prior to the hobbit was amazing. I guess the pallet of a medieval environment just doesn't lend itself to the correct colors one needs to create a good sense of depth in 3d. That being said I am going to watch the film again this time in HFR since my local theater did not have it available.

Salacious_sl · Dec 15, 2012

mimirswell_sl said:
Of course, within the lore of middle-earth, the appearance of a morgul-blade is essentially meaningless since the Nazgul had been active in middle-earth affairs since ~1300 T.A.

Meaningless? The blade was found all the way south in Dol Guldur, and Mirkwood forest is all kinds of fucked up. The white council should rightly be concerned, which is exactly why Saruman misdirects the entire issue, including Thorin's quest on Smaug. Saurman has already turned heel at this point through his study of the one ring, he wants it for himself.

quoted from a bigger nerd

Yeah FOAT's right about the White Council thing, but yeah Elrond says at the Council:

It is perilous to study too deeply in the arts of the Enemy, for good or ill

--- LotR, FotR, "The Council of Elrond"

Obviously Saruman studied too deeply. Also this stuff from Appendix B, "The Tale of Years" might be of some help:

2850 - Gandalf again enters Dol Guldur, and discovers that its master is indeed Sauron, who is gathering to him all the Rings and seeking for news of the One, and of Isildur's Heir.

2851 - The White Council meets. Gandalf urges an attack on Dol Guldur. Saruman overrules him. (It afterwards became clear that Saruman had then begun to desire to possess the One Ring himself, and hoped that it might reveal itself, seeking its master, if Sauron were let be for a time.) Saruman begins to search near the Gladden Fields.

2939 - Saruman discovers that Sauron's servants are searching the Anduin near Gladden Fields, and that Sauron therefore has learned of Isildur's end. He is alarmed, but says nothing to the Council.

2941- The White Council meets; Saruman agrees to an attack on Dol Guldur, since he now wished to prevent Sauron from searching the River. Sauron having made his plans abandons Dol Guldur.

2953 - Last meeting of the White Council. They debate the Rings. Saruman feigns that he has discovered the One Ring has passed down Anduin to the Sea. Saruman withdraws to Isengard, which he takes as his own, and fortifies it. Being jealous and afraid of Gandalf he sets spies to watch all his movements; and notes his interest in the Shire.

C 3000 - The shadow of Mordor lengthens. Saruman dares to use the palantir or Orthanc, and becomes ensnared by Sauron...He [Saruman] becomes a traitor to the Council.

I hope this sheds some light on the matter........it seems that it was around year 2851 that Saruman really began to lust for the Ring. Then he really became evil when he used the palantir and became a traitor ot the Council.

I bolded the year the events of The Hobbit take place.

Noodleface · Dec 15, 2012

So far I don't think anyone here has said the movie was bad, yet it stands strong at 65% on RT. Fuck those critics. And they all try to use some lame one-liner to justify their review.

A bigger fuck you goes to the one critic I saw who wrote "The Hobbit came out this week, did we really need this movie?" Go fuck yourself you fucking fuck.

nuday · Dec 15, 2012

I wasn't a fan of the HFR at all until the first real action scenes started to play out. I really fucking love the way the action looked, but otherwise I found myself distracted quite a lot by how fake most of the scenes looked. I think that HFR might be much better suited to a darker movie, because I seemed to notice it much more when the scene was bright.

Dumar_sl · Dec 15, 2012

the best way to describe this movie is that while it's certainly good (especially in terms of the absolute shit hollywood throws up every weekend), the best parts of the hobbit story could've been done much better, from the trolls to the goblin king to riddles. all of these scenes could've been much, much more epic than they were portrayed here. i don't know if jackson felt these scenes were how he envisioned them, or if he was rushed, or if he just didn't care since it's mostly a money grab, but yeah, that's the best way to describe.

Aychamo BanBan · Dec 15, 2012

I felt "money grab" too. A lot of CGI looked bad, some things looked faker than LOTR. Felt cheaper all over.

mixtilplix · Dec 16, 2012

aychamo_aycono_sl said:
I felt "money grab" too. A lot of CGI looked bad, some things looked faker than LOTR. Felt cheaper all over.

Really? I thought the CGI looked superior to LOTR with the exception of Azog (who knew we'd be seeing an engineer in the hobbit). But honestly I never thought much of the CGI from the first film. All of Jackson's CGI monsters tend to move with a certain cartoon quality, like his animators can't be bothered to animate real motions. Shit just zooms across the screen at warp speed kinda like a Disney movie, the only exception being gollum. I would love to have seen some animatronic puppets in these movies.

The Hobbit

shitlord

Molten Core Raider

Buzzfeed Editor

shitlord

Blackwing Lair Raider

shitlord

shitlord

shitlord

shitlord

Not Great, Not Terrible

Vyemm Raider

shitlord

Buzzfeed Editor

Lord Nagafen Raider

shitlord

A Mod Real Quick

Golden Squire

shitlord

Lord Nagafen Raider