# The Hobbit...



## billc

Anyone going to see this right away?  Do you have any thoughts so far at what it might be like?


----------



## Sukerkin

[yt]sQ06qQZd5mc[/yt]

Would love to go but medical matters prevent it sad to say .


----------



## Bob Hubbard

This will be the 1st film I see in a long time in theaters.


----------



## arnisador

We'll be there--hopefully at midnight! I've read it twice and am looking forward to it, as is my family. 

My daughter is a Benedict Cumberbatch fan and is hoping his role in part one is nontrivial, even though most of his work would be nearer the end of the actual book.


----------



## billc

Sorry to hear that Sukerkin.  Will you be able to see it before it leaves the theaters?


----------



## arnisador

Surely it'll play for months?


----------



## Dirty Dog

We will certainly be seeing it, but NOT right away. I don't do crowds...


----------



## Gemini

I was really looking forward to it until I just heard they chopped it up into 3 movies.


----------



## arnisador

I think it's just two--they floated the idea of three but then went back to two.


----------



## Dirty Dog

If they tried to make it one movie, they'd have to cut out WAY too much....


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Glad its multiple movies, if they tried to fit it in one, too much would be missing and i'd just be disappointed.
Going to see it with my ex during winter break...somehow my gf's ok with that


----------



## Mauthos

It has been confirmed that it is definitely going to be a trilogy but to help flesh it out a bit there are rumours that parts of thehttp://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...BBtSN4gS5xYGgAQ&ved=0CB8QBSgA&biw=884&bih=415 Silmarillion are also included.


----------



## Steve

I enjoyed the LoTR Trilogy and think Pete Jackson did a pretty good job.  There are aspects that are outstanding and other parts that bother me more every time I watch the films.  

So, I'm looking forward to watching these films, but I can wait a few days or weeks, I think, to avoid the initial rush.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

3 films.  gonna be a fun ride


----------



## Instructor

kempodisciple said:


> Glad its multiple movies, if they tried to fit it in one, too much would be missing and i'd just be disappointed.
> Going to see it with my ex during winter break...somehow my gf's ok with that



You like to live dangerously don't you?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Instructor said:


> You like to live dangerously don't you?


Well, lets just say my life is never dull


----------



## Gemini

Dirty Dog said:


> If they tried to make it one movie, they'd have to cut out WAY too much....


Maybe, but how well it covers the book depends on what's cut out more than how much is cut out. The trilogy was 3 books/3 movies and though they cut out notable scenes, they gave an excellent representation of the books overall imo. Sometimes, more is just more and I don't see why it should be necessary a book over 3 movies. If they apply that kind of logic to the Silmarillion I can't even imagine how many books that would be.


----------



## Blindside

I am expecting the added scenes to from the ROTK appendices, particularly the actions of the White Council against the Necromancer, which would provide another big dramatic fight scene in the middle and it would explain why Gandalf left the group in the middle of the quest.   I don't see how they could add in Silmarillion material to this movie series, unless is it is in flashback form like how Fellowship opened.


----------



## billc

I kind of wish they would have just done the Hobbit, in two parts.  The added material might distract from the main story. If it is three books then we won't see you know who for another 2 years.  I really wonder how they will handle him.


----------



## Blindside

billc said:


> I kind of wish they would have just done the Hobbit, in two parts.  The added material might distract from the main story. If it is three books then we won't see you know who for another 2 years.  I really wonder how they will handle him.


You know who?

I don't know, Orlando Bloom prancing around Mirkwood?


----------



## Scott T

Blindside said:


> You know who?
> 
> I don't know, Orlando Bloom prancing around Mirkwood?


He who must not be named?


----------



## Tgace

Blindside said:


> You know who?
> 
> I don't know, Orlando Bloom prancing around Mirkwood?



Smaug of course...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador

I see it is 3 films now--eh, I would've been OK with two (but not one).


----------



## Makalakumu

It's three movies!  That's news.  I wonder why they broke it up like that?  I'm listening to the Hobbit right now with my kids.  I can see two films, but three?


----------



## jks9199

From what I'm reading -- the third one is meant to make the connection to the Lord of The Ring trilogy more direct and make more of a transition between The Hobbit and others. 

Of course, it couldn't possibly be about, oh... money.  Nah...  That's not it at all...


----------



## billc

Plus three years of awards ceremonies instead of just two.


----------



## Gemini

billc said:


> Plus three years of awards ceremonies instead of just two.


Not to mention 3 times the ticket sales. Why settle for a mere $8.50 a person for a one time showing when you can 3 times that.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

mmmm 48 ffs.   headaches and dizzyness in HD here I come!


----------



## jks9199

Bob Hubbard said:


> mmmm 48 ffs.   headaches and dizzyness in HD here I come!


I don't know... I might like it better, because I have a tendency to spot motion in movies, especially at the edges of my vision.  3D, though, tends to give me a headache.


----------



## K-man

billc said:


> I kind of wish they would have just done the Hobbit, in two parts.  The added material might distract from the main story. If it is three books then we won't see you know who for another 2 years.  I really wonder how they will handle him.


The 'added' material is actually the bits from Tolkien's notes that never made the book.  It just fleshes out the characters and background.


----------



## arnisador

jks9199 said:


> From what I'm reading -- the third one is meant to make the connection to the Lord of The Ring trilogy more direct and make more of a transition between The Hobbit and others.



Hmmm...that could be where the material from The Simarillion comes in, if that's accurate info.



> Of course, it couldn't possibly be about, oh... money.  Nah...  That's not it at all...



Corrupt Tolkien's legacy for something so base?!? I won't believe it!


----------



## arnisador

Bob Hubbard said:


> 48 ffs.



I need more context here. What does this rate really mean to me?


----------



## Sukerkin

Also, FFS means something entirely different to me than FPS :lol:


----------



## Flying Crane

Gemini said:


> Not to mention 3 times the ticket sales. Why settle for a mere $8.50 a person for a one time showing when you can 3 times that.



over ten bucks where I live.


----------



## arnisador

Sukerkin said:


> Also, FFS means something entirely different to me than FPS :lol:



Heh, I assumed he meant FPS!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

arnisador said:


> I need more context here. What does this rate really mean to me?



http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4



> There's been plenty of buzz about the upcoming film _The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, _but it's not just about the movie itself. It's also about the format the director Peter Jackson has decided to use, which he just defended in detail in a Facebook post  yesterday. Normally, films are shot at 24 frames per second (fps), and  have been for roughly 80 years. American television is broadcast at  29.97 fps, while European television is broadcast at 25 fps. Each of  these have a unique look to which we've all grown accustomed.
> What makes _The Hobbit_ different is Peter Jackson's method  for shooting it. He has employed an array of high-resolution RED Epic  cameras recording video at 5,120-by-2,700-pixel resolution, and at 48  fps (known in the industry, along with 60 fps, as High Frame Rate).  Depending on your viewpoint, the result either looks more lifelike than  ever before, or it seems oddly cold, and too much like digital footage  from live sports channels or daytime television.


http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403746,00.asp


----------



## Carol

Some say the high frame rate is making some people motion sick?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/12/hobbit-headaches-reports-new-film-sickens-fans/


----------



## arnisador

I've heard motion-sickness concerns. It's true about what's said in the quote from *Bob Hubbard*--objectively soap operas look more real, but I experience them as being cheap-looking. I'm not sure why.


----------



## Carol

arnisador said:


> I've heard motion-sickness concerns. It's true about what's said in the quote from *Bob Hubbard*--objectively soap operas look more real, but I experience them as being cheap-looking. I'm not sure why.



Well...soap operas _are_ cheap.  No one tunes in for the great production values, educational content, or artistic merit.  They tune in for short-attention-span drama thats produced in high volume.


----------



## arnisador

This article was interesting reading about the frame rate.


----------



## Carol

Love some of the comments.  "Peter Jackson's Trilogy of Overly Long Films"  :lfao:


----------



## Blindside

Carol said:


> Love some of the comments.  "Peter Jackson's Trilogy of Overly Long Films"  :lfao:



Humph... (owns the extended version box sets.)


----------



## Makalakumu

arnisador said:


> This article was interesting reading about the frame rate.



I just read that article. It sounds fascinating. I wonder if too much technology could actually ruin a movie?


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Makalakumu said:


> I just read that article. It sounds fascinating. I wonder if too much technology could actually ruin a movie?


Just in case, I'll probably watch it in 24 fps. I have eyesight problems anyway, normally cant see 3D, so better not to hurt my eyes with the 48 till i know normal people can watch it. Especially with that whole 'flashlight in a dark room' thing


----------



## Aikikitty

I went to go see it Thursday night's midnight showing in IMAX 3D. I LOVED IT!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought the 3D was amazing and I had no trouble with it, but I've never had motion sickness from 3D before. I loved parts that they've kept true to the books, the things that they added to show "the darkness" growing, and even the little changes and additions that Peter Jackson added worked well IMHO. I really enjoyed it and I'm really looking forward to seeing it again.


----------



## billc

I liked the review Aikikitty.  I like hearing regular people review movies.  Too often the critics, whose job is to see movies, lose that thrill of entering the theater.  Their idea of what is really good can get a little mixed up since they are forced to see so many movies and then comment on them.


----------



## arnisador

Reviews--from critics and movie-goers--seem pretty muted to me, though the 3D is getting solid reviews. We're going tomorrow.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

48fps at local theater. Will see it shortly.


----------



## billc

> Will see it shortly.



How tall are you Bob...


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Finally got a chance to see it, and loved it! They added in quite a few things im pretty sure werent in the book, but in my opinion it gave them the depth that tolkien gave by writing a lot more books, which wouldnt have been there if they followed the book word for word. Cant wait for the second!


----------



## Makalakumu

kempodisciple said:


> Finally got a chance to see it, and loved it! They added in quite a few things im pretty sure werent in the book, but in my opinion it gave them the depth that tolkien gave by writing a lot more books, which wouldnt have been there if they followed the book word for word. Cant wait for the second!



That's pretty much what I've heard.  The critics seem out on a limb on this one.  People love the Hobbit!


----------



## Steve

I enjoyed it more than the first three.  I gave that some thought and I think I've figured out a few reasons why.  First, a better hobbit who is believable in the role of reluctant adventurer.  He's clever and spry, as a halfling should be.  Second, better dwarves.  Third, fewer elves.  Elves are like garlic.  They make a dish better, but too much makes you feel sick.  Fourth, better villains. 

Criticisms I've seen a lot are about the pacing, but honestly, I didn't find it to be slow or drag.  I enjoyed it quite a bit.     


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador

I wasn't too taken with it. Some good scenes--e.g., the 3 trolls--but the whole was less than the sum of its parts. The humor didn't work for me--Radagast the Clown in particular. (Yes, I know the source material here has a different flavor than LOTR. It just didn't translate for me.) I'll certainly see the next two though.


----------



## punisher73

Gemini said:


> I was really looking forward to it until I just heard they chopped it up into 3 movies.



Personally, I would rather have the movie in multiple parts if it stays true to the book as much as possible.  I think that there are way too many important parts in the book that are good that would have to be cut out for just one movie.


----------



## punisher73

Steve said:


> I enjoyed it more than the first three.  I gave that some thought and I think I've figured out a few reasons why.  First, a better hobbit who is believable in the role of reluctant adventurer.  He's clever and spry, as a halfling should be.  Second, better dwarves.  Third, fewer elves.  Elves are like garlic.  They make a dish better, but too much makes you feel sick.  Fourth, better villains.
> 
> Criticisms I've seen a lot are about the pacing, but honestly, I didn't find it to be slow or drag.  I enjoyed it quite a bit.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD



I'm hoping to go see it this weekend.  I know for me personally, I have read "The Hobbit" and enjoyed the book, but when I tried to read the LOTR trilogy, I just couldn't get into them.  Even the movies had alot of slow parts for me.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Steve said:


> I enjoyed it more than the first three.  I gave that some thought and I think I've figured out a few reasons why.  First, a better hobbit who is believable in the role of reluctant adventurer.  He's clever and spry, as a halfling should be.  Second, better dwarves.  Third, fewer elves.  Elves are like garlic.  They make a dish better, but too much makes you feel sick.  Fourth, better villains.
> 
> Criticisms I've seen a lot are about the pacing, but honestly, I didn't find it to be slow or drag.  I enjoyed it quite a bit.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD


Well, I wasnt really thinking about comparing the two trilogies (when it becomes a trilogy) so much as seeing how they meshed, which I feel they do. The hobbit had a lighter overall tone to it, allowing for the humorous parts like radagast but still having the parts like them humming the song in bilbos house, while the original had to be much more serious and grave since they were literally stopping their world from being overrun by darkness. But if I were to compare the two, it would be almost exactly as you have done. Especially the pacing, if anything this was paced better than the first movie from LOTR, didnt have as many spots were I was waiting for the next big scene, and didnt even notice how much time went by.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

Also, I found out today that one of my coworkers has a cousin who works for Wingnut films and he said he already saw a rough, rough draft of the second movie and that even the rough version was amazing...it with a grain of salt though, since I dont know him personally


----------



## Cirdan

Loved it, may go watch it a second time (something I haven`t done for over a decade).
Sure a few things have been changed, but hey it is an adventure and such stories _should_ be able to be told in different ways.

Only thing I missed is more time for the Eagles, they are not just simply big birds that picks wizards and hobbits out of sticky situations.


----------



## Tgace

The One Arm Orc thing is a bit contrived but it doesn't upset me...the Stone Giant scene was obviously bling for the 3D showings and could have done wo it. Overall I liked it...the protryal of Middle Earth is even better than the first 3 movies IMO.

And...while I know they do it for cinematic reasons, the rendering of Moria, Gobblin Town, Erebor as these huge open caverns irks me a bit. Are the mountians of Middle Earth all just huge hollow cones? Lol!

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## arnisador

Tgace said:


> The One Arm Orc thing is a bit contrived but it doesn't upset me..
> [...]
> And...while I know they do it for cinematic reasons, the rendering of Moria, Gobblin Town, Erebor as these huge open caverns irks me a bit. Are the mountians of Middle Earth all just huge hollow cones?



Heh. Agreed on both counts. All the mountains are indeed movie-style facades!


----------



## Bob Hubbard

I would say 'hollowed out' not 'hollow'.  I mean, dwarfs dig, digging = holes.


----------



## Tgace

Yes. Tolkien always described passages, tunnels, halls, mines, etc...not these HUGE wide open (yet strangely somehow lit) caverns with wooden walkways, exposed staircases etc.....


----------



## arnisador

Too much, too open--I agree. Those were some overachieving dwarves. The occasional grand hall is fine, but not everywhere.


----------



## Bob Hubbard

Eh, ancient government works programs from the 2nd age. 
I'm just trying to figure out how to convert my house to something more....hobbity.


----------



## Gemini

I found it enjoyable enough, but was not overwhelmed like with the trilogy. There was a lot of added (and unnecessary) footage relative to nothing other than to stretch a short story line into a long winded 3 movie event. Some of the tie-ins were well done...not all. That said, it does live up to what I've come to expect from Peter Jackson and would recommend it to anyone who enjoyed the LoTR experience.


----------



## jks9199

Bob Hubbard said:


> I'm just trying to figure out how to convert my house to something more....hobbity.



Start easy...  Adobt a hobbitish meal schedule:

7:00 (ish) AM  Breakfast
9:00 AM (ish) Second Breakfast
11:00 AM (ish) Elevensies
1:00 PM (ish) Lunch
4:00 PM (ish) Afternoon tea
6:00 PM (ish) Dinner

(I think the long break between lunch and tea is to allow time to do the dishes from the meals to that point, so that you've got enough plates for the rest of the day!)
8:00 PM Supper


----------



## Tgace

I will never forgive Jackson's re-writing of Faramir's character....


----------



## Gemini

I think his representation of the soldiers of Gondor, being the descendants of the Numenoreans, as a whole was terrible, but the overall effort throughout the trilogy was pdg given the magnitude of the endeavor.


----------



## stickarts

I saw The Hobbit opening night in 2D and then again later in 3D and the higher frames per second version. I enjoyed it, especially once it got to the riddles in the dark. I thought the ending was well done too. Interesting that radagast has a bigger part than in the book. Too bad we have to wait one year for the next one!  I had wanted a hobbit movie since first reading the book circa 1978! Glad we finally have one ( or three )


----------

