Close
One second...

Is there a discussion blog about The Hobbit yet?

Spoilers, probably.


So, Brian and I saw it yesterday. I freaking love the book and the Lord of the Rings movies, but this was a huuuuge disappointment to me. I wish I could get an edited version because I think there's a great movie in there buried in a pile of extra crap. Things I would cut:




  1. Why is the scene with old Bilbo and Frodo in there? I've seen that movie. It's called The Fellowship of the Ring. It doesn't need to be there, and it adds nothing. I like that it had the opening bits of the book written by Bilbo, but, it could just be that.




  2. The whole opening story of the glory of the dwarf kingdom should be shorter.




  3. Radagast's scene should be MUCH shorter or non-existent. It was silly and distracting.




  4. The flashback to the battle of Moria could've been shorter.




  5. GALADRIEL AND SARUMAN SHOULD NOT BE IN THIS MOVIE. Just because you missed hanging out with Cate Blancett and Christopher Lee, does not mean you should add them into this movie for no fucking reason.




If you cut all that shit, I think the movie would be loads better (and a least an hour shorter.) Peter Jackson should have saved that crap for the special edition.


What I DID like was the dwarves and Bilbo, the scene with the trolls, and especially the scene with Gollum. What did you think?

Watch this
Page:
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
sweetassryan

Me watching The Hobbit:

Ok... Ok... They're still in Bilbo's house? Ok.... Mmhmm... They're still walking....ok.... ok... ... ... ... Oh, cool, goblins. Now this is picking up. Aw, Gollum. Pale Orc is a total dick. Kind of wish he was an actual actor and not mo-cap. How are they going to get down from this plateau thing? I like Smaug. ok, it's over.

quick-brown-fox
quick-brown-fox profile pic Alumni

I loved it, but it did feel like a directors cut. I felt sorry for my girlfriend, who isn't as into fantasy and sci-fi and me. God knows how they're going to stretch it out to three movies. I think there's going to be a Necromancer sub-plot which might be trying to tie it in with Sauron and LOTR.

The birds at the end visually blew my mind in 3D.

WarDrobeInSpareOom

The book is such a fun adventure, and the movie is so very tedious.

tracerbullet
tracerbullet profile pic Alumni

There was also waaaaay too much CGI. I missed the awesome makeup from the LOTR trilogy. The goblin king looked like crap. And his voice was terrible.

tracerbullet
tracerbullet profile pic Alumni

Oh, and what the fuck, Gandalf? You have your giant birds drop everyone off on this random rock so they can see the mountain off in the distance? WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST FLY TO THE DAMN MOUNTAIN?

tracerbullet
tracerbullet profile pic Alumni

Spoiler alert: It's long.

funkie fresh
funkie fresh profile pic Alumni

I was disappointed in this film. I was disappointed in it before it came out just for the fact that it was getting stretched out over 3 movies. There were too many scenes that were either too long or unnecessary.

Also, the film quality was kind of off putting for me...it felt too "shiny/new" if that makes any sense. I don't think this is the type of film where 48fps or 3D would be a major factor in enhancing the experience. Personally, I would have enjoyed it more if I had just watched it in 2D...and also if they cut at least an hour of the footage out.

tracerbullet
tracerbullet profile pic Alumni

i've heard a lot of negative feedback regarding the 48fps version. i would be open to seeing it if there was a 2D 48fps version, but i can't stand 3D, so i ain't bothering.

WarDrobeInSpareOom

I was already iffy on it being two movies.

One thing I thought was kind of funny was that they seemed to have used real horses wearing fuzzy suits to make them look more like ponies, just because the idea of getting horses in their pony-suits every day amuses me. Also, in the movie, the ponies run away rather than get eaten by the goblins in the Misty Mountains. I'm sure it was done for budget reasons, but it was still kind of cute.

Morkki
Morkki profile pic Alumni

With a $150 million budget per movie money was probably not an issue. More likely Peter Jackson just thought that people don't want to see cute ponies get eaten.

tracerbullet
tracerbullet profile pic Alumni

Apparently there were 27 animal deaths during production of the movie :-\

WarDrobeInSpareOom

Like, on the set, or in the world. Because if it's the latter, that's actually pretty impressive.

tracerbullet
tracerbullet profile pic Alumni

on set, while filming was stopped. three horses and several goats, sheep, and chickens.

Morkki
Morkki profile pic Alumni

That is sad but PETA made me facepalm yet again. Especially with this comment: "In a movie that features CGI dragons, ogres, and hobbits, CGI animals would have fit in perfectly. Jackson could have made The Hobbit without using a single animal—and he should have."

Wharton
Wharton profile pic Alumni

I know the film was a bit overlong and I didn't feel totally immersed in it 100% of the time. But it was still fun. The Dwarves have richer characters in the film, with distinct personalities compared with the book. There was a lot of padding out of the story but I quite liked that, in the book there isn't whole lot of backstory to their adventure or the characters and to learn about the white council, Erebor etc was pretty cool, if not a a bit long.

tracerbullet
tracerbullet profile pic Alumni

The Wilhelm scream pissed me off

Twiggyhall

tracerbullet on Dec 17 '12 at 9:38am

Oh, and what the fuck, Gandalf? You have your giant birds drop everyone off on this random rock so they can see the mountain off in the distance? WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST FLY TO THE DAMN MOUNTAIN?

hahaha, that's what I said after the movie, too

We saw the 3D with the lame filming style thing version and I hated it. It looked like the film was moving in 1.5 speed every time a character moved. Also, it looked cheap.

Twiggyhall

I should clarify: I hated the filming style, not the film itself.

It was fine. But then I'm not a huge Tolkein nerd like the hubby is. He LOVED it, but agreed with me on disliking the filming style.

Wharton
Wharton profile pic Alumni

QBF. I'd red about Dame edna Everage being the Goblin king, I was hoping for her glasses to make an appearance. Stephen Fry is in the next one as the Master of Lake town.

Wharton
Wharton profile pic Alumni

No, I'm trying not to see/ read. hear too much. I want an innocent viewing of the films. I bought the Empire special edition magazine of the Hobbit and stopped reading as I didn't want to know too much.

Twiggyhall

WHAT?????!!!!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!

Chipmnk

Did you guys watch in 48 fps?

Chipmnk

And I agree on all this, but I still somehow really enjoyed the movie, primarily because of Bilbo and the dwarves. Martin Freeman was great. His acting style and performance just fits so well with the idea of a hobbit, a creature who can easily blend in and be unseen if necessary.

The dwarves were cool, though everyone other than Thorin was essentially just the same person.

Chipmnk

But the flashback scene where Thorin is actually fighting Azog and uses the oak branch. Man that was a cool scene.

thatrobert

I thought I was being too picky but I see the rest of you picked up on the same annoyances regarding movie length (I am the only one who was like, "oh no, it's not over yet" when the white orc appeared after they got out of the goblin mountain?). Nobody has mentioned yet the unnecessary and bizzare rock giant battle. Yeah, I know that's "technically" in the book but they took a throwaway sentence and turned it into a long boring CGI mess. I felt like I was watching Phantom Menance.

Chipmnk

I have no idea how they'll expand the book into three movies. The end of An Unexpected Journey is already more than halfway through the book.

quick-brown-fox
quick-brown-fox profile pic Alumni

I liked that bit, even though there was crazy destruction going down, it seemed really serene at the same time, with their slow movements.

I love Peter Jackson's Middle Earth, it was like seeing an old friend when I first saw Bag End. I'm easy to please though.

pyr4lis
pyr4lis profile pic Alumni

well I enjoyed the whole thing. The movie isn't actually just The Hobbit book but includes middle earth history from the Simarillian too. 3hrs was a bit long but still I wouldn't have changed anything. I'd rather have a 3hr movie with a little extra fluff than a standard 90min movie or 2hr movie and have important stuff cut out.

WarDrobeInSpareOom

The movie isn't actually just The Hobbit book but includes middle earth history from the Simarillian too

I just read earlier that this isn't true, because they don't have the rights to The Simarillian. A lot of the extra stuff was from the appendix at the end of The Return of the King.

tracerbullet
tracerbullet profile pic Alumni

From what I've read, the 48fps version is like watching a soap opera. Everything is much too clean and it looks like characters on a set.

I enjoyed the rock giant fight, but it definitely came out of nowhere and seemed to serve absolutely no purpose. I mean, it looked neat, but why was it there?

Twiggyhall

haha, yeah a lot of critics of the 48fps version say it looks like a corny telenovela, which it does, but it also has this weird, sped-up look to it whenever a character walks by close to the screen

I can't imagine why they thought it was a good idea to film it this way. I have to wonder if they were truly happy with how the final product turned out and if it matched their vision

[+duracell-]

guess I will just re-watch the 1977 cartoon

Twiggyhall

Haha, the hubby wants to watch it again, too :)

Chipmnk

The 48 fps is mainly a thing to help 3D by making things brighter and reducing motion blur.

I thought the 48 fps was interesting. The live action bits looked much more like a play or stage production, more human in a way. The CG bits looked like video game footage, for better or worse. When you mixed the live action with the CG, things just felt weird, like humans interacting within video game cinematics.

I think there's a lot of potential though. The main thing they have to figure out is lighting. Certain scenes definitely had that cheap, TV produced look to them because of that broad brightness.

P0ckets
P0ckets profile pic Alumni

I really enjoyed the film - I thought it kept the lighthearted spirit of the hobbit nicely.

I agree that three films is too much, perhaps stretching the book to two would have given them time to explore it properly and not drag it out too long.

[+duracell-]

Yeah, I mean how do you put 3d glasses over your regular glasses anyway?

I wish smelly popcorn would go away.

Also, people who arrive late and expect me to move over to make a pair of empty seats, be gone.

Page:
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
No account?
Join Us