My Hobbit review (Spoilers)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
This is all I had to read. I was thinking about watching it this weekend. I only like Film Master type movies where they have atmosphere and character.

(generally speaking) I couldn't care less with how many explosions or CGI motorcycle flips someone does during the movie.

Derp! I'll spend my dollars elsewhere.

I appreciate you putting stock in my words but I wouldn't want to deny you your own chance at seeing what you think.

I am seeing it again tonight with my gf and hoping I'll find positive bits to focus on.

Martin Freeman is great.
Thorin is well done.

Maybe you will like it. I wouldn't want to scare you off.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
A good way to sum it up is this:

In LOTR, CGI was Peter Jackson's servant. In The Hobbit, Peter Jackson is CGI's servant.

Another quote from Sar Tribune review:

Like Ridley Scott before him with "Prometheus," Jackson has caught George Lucas Disease, the compulsion to revisit beloved franchises and louse them up with maddening prequels

This. SO MUCH this.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
Oh my holy god...

as I was reading more into that Star Tribune review I came across this line: http://www.startribune.com/entertainment/movies/183364261.html?refer=y

Saruman (Christopher Lee, looking embalmed) offers a long expository conversation to explain the plot to us.

I'd say once very 5 years or so I truly LOSE IT with laughter, I know most people do this more often.

Oh holy shit... that hurt I laughed so hard. It's true, he does look "embalmed" in the film.

Sweet Jesus that made me laugh.

Actually, update, that entire review is really funny. And spot on.
 
Last edited:

KeithTalent

Elite Member | Administrator | No Lifer
Administrator
Nov 30, 2005
50,231
118
116
Not looking too great, so I will probably wait on this one for a bit. Maybe catch it in Janvier once the crowds die down.

A real shame, this could have been an awesome, epic, single film. :\

KT
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
Not looking too great, so I will probably wait on this one for a bit. Maybe catch it in Janvier once the crowds die down.

A real shame, this could have been an awesome, epic, single film. :\

KT

Yep, agreed. It should've been 1 3 hour film (or even less, maybe 2 hours) with a longer extended edition on blu-ray.

No 48 fps crap, certainly no 3D crap... those gimmicks may have a place in Transformers films, not here.
 

Olikan

Platinum Member
Sep 23, 2011
2,023
275
126
the forums post seems to be surprisingly and overhelming positive, some people are praysing 48 fps alot

but yea, the CGI seems to be overdone, like OP said
 

GunsMadeAmericaFree

Golden Member
Jan 23, 2007
1,351
329
136
A friend and I were going to watch it in 3d "Imax" today for $10, but then we found out that another theater in the Dayton area had it in 3D high framerate for $12. We decided to give it a try in the high framerate, since the "Imax" version locally really isn't much (if any) larger than a regular screen anyway. (not true Imax)

I can say that we were both blown away by the HFR version, and quite happy that we went to see it instead of the regular old 24 frames per second version.

Granted, early in the movie there were some indoor scenes where it almost seemed like things were fast forwarding a little bit - like what you'd see on a DVD if you hit the fast forward button on the remote, though not that much. However, I think that was mostly a holdover from a lifetime of what we expected from the older, more "flickery" format. In any case, we got used to it quickly in the movie, to the point where we really didn't notice it any more.

And you know what? The higher framerate made a HUGE difference in outdoor scenes with a lot of action, and especially scenic views where the camera pans across or around. In the past, the jarring flickering of the frames in those cases has jerked me out of the moviegoing experience, reminding me that it was just a movie I was watching. This time around, there was nothing but beauty to appreciate. I, for one, look forward to the time (hopefully soon) when ALL movies are filmed in 48 frames per second. It is a great leap forward.

BTW, regarding the plot, writing, character development and story - I can safely say that I really enjoyed this movie better than the previous 3. In the previous 3, I always found myself wondering WHEN it would be over by the time we got to the last half hour. I was tired of the unending battles and action, and wanted more character development, setup and plot. They simply had to do away with far too much trying to condense a long book into a single film. They even left Tom Bombadil out, for crying out loud.

This time around, they are doing it right. Characters are being developed to the point where I actually cared about them. They did a good job of setting things up for the following movies. There was a good balance between action and character development, and they also tied together with the other movies well. This way, they don't have to make the movie 4 hours long, and they won't have to leave important plot developments out of the movie in the end. It was the right choice to choose 3 movies for this book.

The deciding factor, I felt, was that in the final few minutes of the movie, even though my butt was a little sore from sitting that long, I still wanted more - I wished there was another half hour left in the movie. I'm definitely looking forward to The Desolation of Smaug in 12 months, and I'll watch it in HFR.
 

HumblePie

Lifer
Oct 30, 2000
14,665
440
126
Wow, Geo, I have to whole heartedly disagree with your review.

First off, I didn't like the LotR series by Peter Jackson that much. I thought it had way too much over the top crap that didn't belong and deviated way too much from the original books. I thought the CGI was a bit craptacular in many places (the giant elephants looked like ass to me) and everything just felt way to fast paced. Things happened without explanation that the books gave. For example, all the items the elves in Rivendale gave the fellowship had special and unique properties. In the movie, they just said, here some stuff, oh yah it's special but we'll never get to that bit in the movies so don't worry about it.

Things like that kind of felt "meh" to me with the LotR series.



However, the Hobbit I thought was MARVELOUS. It stayed very true to the book. The CGI was crappy in a few parts, like the rocs that came, but it was much more complete of a movie in terms of basing it off the original book than the other movies were. Sure not everything was there, as for example when Gandalf was talking to the moth to get the Rocs, we didn't have the internal monologue that was in the book there. Still, it didn't matter that much in the scene.

I also liked they put the songs back in this. As the original book did have songs, something left out of the LotR series, and I loved how they omaged the original cartoon movie with some of the songs.

Personally I think the whole movie was beautifully done and far more true to form. I think breaking the book into 3 long movies is why they can do this. I seriously look forward to it all.
 

Kadarin

Lifer
Nov 23, 2001
44,296
16
81
I'd have to say that I really enjoyed the movie, with the exception that some events defied credibility such as how the group got out of the lair of the goblins.

And... Eagles? Really? I was expecting better than that.
 

akahoovy

Golden Member
May 1, 2011
1,336
1
0
My thoughts (saw it in 48fps 3D):

I thought the same thing in the beginning when the movie started, it felt like some of the action inside Bilbo's house was in fast forward. After that brief period, it seemed to slow down to a perceptible normal and I got used to the frame rate pretty quickly.

CGI looked poorly done. Everything is too well lit, no deep contrast, the eagles looked like the General and Penguin insurance commercials, the gold coin piles CGI looked like ASS. Most of the rest of the animals have impressive detail, but it looks fake.

Way too much exposition. Parts felt like it was trying to be a credible lead up to the events of the LotR trilogy, but still dragged on and on. There is a significant emphasis on developing all the characters.

The characters mysteriously know things they should not know and happily exclaim them to let the viewer know what's going on. There's a large disconnect after they reach Rivendell in the plot.

The bunny sled, while pretty funny in it's own right, feels like George Lucas had his personal touch on that one.

Severe suspension of disbelief needed for the escape from the goblins in the mountain cave. The final fall of the king on the dwarves was frickin' cheesy.

A very predictable moment from Thorin after being rescued by the eagles about Bilbo.

I wasn't very happy with the movie, probably because they actually took a lot of cues from the animated Hobbit but drag so much of it out to be able to make three movies of it that it is somewhat boring until it's time for the shaky-cam CGI fight scenes. The editing drove me crazier than everything else, it's a lot of fast cuts with no time to focus on or emphasize anything.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
I saw it again last night (again at 24fps 2D) and liked it a lot more this time. I'd say I went from a 4/10 to a 6.5/10 upon second viewing.

I knew my appreciation of it would jump somewhat, but it jumped more than anticipated.

It helps a lot for the movie to no longer have any power to surprise me in negative ways. I was almost immune to "ugh" factor this time, since I knew what was coming. This enabled me to see and appreciate a lot more parts that were well done and which I enjoyed.

I still don't think this is as good as any of the LOTR films by a pretty decent margin, but it's not as god awful as I first thought.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
71,762
31,729
136
So where did the first movie cut off? Please put in spoiler tags to protect those who don't want to know.
 

Lifted

Diamond Member
Nov 30, 2004
5,748
2
0
It's been at least a couple of decades since I read The Hobbit, but I seem to remember it being rather short... maybe 100 - 150 pages. Am I way off here? If not, I can't imagine how that can be stretched into 3 films.
 

Geosurface

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2012
5,773
4
0
More like 350 pages but yes stretching to three 3 hour films was an error IMO.

One film or two would make more sense. The one thing that might justify three films would be if it was used as a way to avoid any one film needing to be really long. They instead did too many films AND too long individually
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
More like 350 pages but yes stretching to three 3 hour films was an error IMO.

One film or two would make more sense. The one thing that might justify three films would be if it was used as a way to avoid any one film needing to be really long. They instead did too many films AND too long individually

Yup. It was just too long. Longer isnt always better - it really diluted the movie.
 

BD2003

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
16,815
1
81
The worst part was how they kept introducing villains into it, that werent even part of the movie!

Lets count:
ogres
goblins
elves (sorta villians, very little impact in this one)
orcs (led by the pale orc...wasnt he entirely made up?)
spiders (who were shown for a bit)
gollum (the highlight of the movie)
necromancer (not really in this movie)
smaug (not in movie either)
wargs, wargs and more wargs

Does a single movie really need 9 sets of villains? Couldnt they have just entirely left out the mention of the spiders, necromancer and smaug? They still had ogres, goblins, gollum and orcs. If the movies werent 3 hours they probably could have even shifted gollum to movie 2. Its so ridiculous there's even what felt like a 10 minute scene in rivendell where theyre talking to saruman (who doesnt belong!) about the necromancer - the end result is just him questioning the necromancer's existence....who even cares, he's not in the movie! Its that kind of thing that dragged it to such epic lengths.
 
Last edited:

Aharami

Lifer
Aug 31, 2001
21,205
165
106
looks like a skip for me. ah well, i kinda wanted to see what 48fps would look like
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |