SO, Saw this on Chrstmas and really liked it- it's long and has some pacing issues, but overall, I cant think of much that could have helped that wih so much to go over in this first third of the movies.
GOOD STUFF: Thorin Oakenshield- holy smokes is this guy worth watching- he's tough and prideful and bull headed enough to get into a serious argument with Gandalf (where everyone in the LOTR movies is so in awe of him). There's a fantastic and very nicely handled flashback which shows his stepping up and fighting after his father and grandfather were both hottibly killed in front of him at Minas Tirath. In an interesting bit, they show him leading the dwarves into a life of craftsmansip and odd jobs after Smaug kickes them outta their mountain home (which looks sooooo fantastic).
Martin Freeman as Bilbo is...amazing. He conveys SO much that I thought would be impossible to pull off- Bilbo's stuffiness and indecision as to weither he should go, his gradualy comng to terms with what he's doing and this simple honesty at being wholly unprepared and unskilled at really anything they hired him to do...a great performance. I liked this actor in the Sherlock series but he eally shines in this.
Lots of cameos and small roles which were unexpected- Elijah Wood reprises his role as Frodo- the film shows events just moments before the Frodo meets Gandalf in LOTR. That was a happy suprise for me- and Wood looks...well, certainly no older than he did in the second and third LOTR movie, if not quite as boyish as he did in the first movie.
There's plenty added which was not in the novel- some new (but very well written)- a vllian character which was only briefly mentioned and Radagast (played by Sylvester McCoy!) in the Samirillion. Radagast the Brown is, I'm told, much changed from the novel version, but I really liked him- not at all the sage and mysterious wizard like Gandalf.
There's also some elves and goblins and evil wizards, whateverthehell Gollum is and eagles (not the band, thankfully)Hill Giants, Wargs and stuff which are all nicely handled.
THE BAD: There's this five minute scene of giant rock men throwing boulders at each other which seem to be made from coal or something and break apart easily...it's in the book but not something taht I'd have kept and the scene kinda too much resembles the one in LOTR where Saruman is making the mountain ccome down on the travelers and they have to turn back and take another path.
Also a bit annoying is that Gandalf does not address or thank the king of the eagles when the birds save everyone's ass- hopefully that's in the 20 minutes or so extra that will be in the Special Edition bells and whistles version. Speaking of which, Benedict Cumberbatch is credited as the Necromancer (the Witch King from the LOTR movies), though that charcater has no lines in this- possibly it'll be a scene in the SE. Cumberbatch is also in the credits as the Necromancer in the next movie, so maybe it's just some contractual thing that his name appears in the credits... I wonder why they did not go with the heavy breather from the Return of The King?
THE GREAT: They completely omit the assinine Tom Bombadil from the movie! SO happy that happened.
Also, the end credits roll with a cool song about the Hobbit, which is a pretty far step away from the sorta less specific enya stuff of the other movies.
Anyone else see this yet?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I saw the 48 fps version. The bad things people have been saying about that are definitely true. It kept looking like a cheap TV movie.
I agree that Martin Freeman was an excellent choice for Bilbo. I also agree that it was long. I might have said "bloated". And I own the extra-long versions of the LotR movies.
One problem that I really noticed was the tendency to stick something inappropriately ridiculous into the middle of a serious scene. I realize the book was lighter fare than LotR, so I'm not complaining that there were jokes. I just think they popped up at the wrong moments. For example (and you should probably stop reading at about this point, if you're concerned about minor spoilers), the bit where Radagast is telling Gandalf about his encounter with the Necromancer. In the middle of it, Gandalf tries to calm him down by passing him his joint pipe, and Radagast pulls a goofy, cross-eyed face for a few beats. That didn't seem right at all, given the scene. Like if Gimli had farted during the Council of Elrond, or something. There were a few other bits like that (the goblin king's "that'll do it" stands out in my mind, too), and they just seemed poorly written, or at least poorly executed.
Posted by Wes (Member # 212) on :
I saw it in 3D/48fps, after the first half hour or so my eyes adjusted and really think this is the future of films, but its going to be hard to deprogram the perception of high frame rate = BBC drama / cheap video. I think people who play video games are going to adapt to it easier.
The 3D was the best I've seen since Avatar. Filming in 3D will always be far superior to these crappy cash-in conversions (even if the conversions ARE getting better)
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I agree with the goofy joint scene- if they had not made him cross his eyes it would have come off better...still, that got a lot of laught from the early 20-somethings in the theater I went to.
The only scene I felt looked cheap was when Radagast is watching the giant spiders plod away from his shack- they looked rubbery and not at all threatening from behind). their bodies looked to smooth and...well,...rubbery.
I also agree the Goblin King's "that'll do it" line was kinda odd- a simple you'll never get out of here alive" kinda line would have worked better. I wish they had made more effort t distinguish Orcs and Goblins- the brief look we get at goblins in the first LOTR movie made them look more like they had their shit together as a species than the Orcs did...and they seemed far less human in their general movements to me.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Orcs and goblins are the same thing. From the introduction to The Hobbit :
"Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds). Orc is the hobbits' form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and it is not connected at all with our orc, ork, applied to sea-animals of dolphin-kind."
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
Yeah, that's what I remembered from the book. The movies seem to treat them as somewhat different, though, if only as separate branches from a common ancestor.
I really enjoyed the movie. It seemed a little slow in places, but it didn't feel boring. None of the additional scenes felt tacked-on. As was already said, the acting and characterization was especially great. It's nice to see some scenes for Gandalf as more than just deus ex machinawizardry, like he was in the book.
The dwarves were fun, and the songs were good to hear after reading them in the book. The costumes were diverse, but I still can't tell most of the dwarves apart.
I was kinda hoping to see more of Smaug in this film. They obviously made extra sure we couldn't see his whole body at once, and only got a clear glimpse of his wings and tail. It makes sense, story-wise, to keep him more of a distant threat until the next film. But he'd better look fantastic in the next film or the whole thing could fall flat.
The only thing that felt wrong in the story was the white orc. I suppose Jackson was trying to make this fighting and pursuit a little more personal, drama-wise, but it felt kinda jarring compared to the no-name orcs of the previous trilogy, with only a couple of orc officers to provide necessary dialogue and exposition. But even so, it helped to keep the scale of the story somewhat smaller and more personal.
And with the extra emphasis on the necromancer (who's really Sauron, right?), I can understand why they wanted to stretch the story out into three films. It remains to be seen whether the rest of the movies have enough action and plot to sustain interest, but I think this one was just fine.
I can't wait to see the next one.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
The Necromancer is actually the Witch King- the main Ringwraith guy...and I think he's the same badass that rides the Wyvern (and gets killed by the babe from Rohan in ROTK). He's Sauron's top dog though, so it's all kinda leaning that way.
As to the orcs, I think the movie version is different- Sarouman describes the Orcs as having once been Elves that Sauron had corrupted. the goblins seem to be an actual species unto themselves- they certainly appear different from any Orc we see in the LOTR movies- even the goblins in Minas Tirath are much different in appearance...more noctournal or something. They sure dont live like orcs, chilling in the dark and either moving completely silently or doing some sort of communal sleep thing before Took drops tha armor and wakes them all up.
Here's a screengrab of the goblin that gets up close and personal in Fellowship of The ring: http://www.framecaplib.com/lotrlib/html/episodes/images/fotr/fotr1167.htm A far cry from the orcs we see later- almost no nose, which matches at least some of the goblins in The Hobbit. For a movie that literally did thousands of sketches to get the look of the goblin king just the way Peter Jackson wanted, I cant believe the difference is accidental.
The goblins also dont seem to have been in on Sauron's armies in the LOTR movies (possibly just because they were not handily located or something).
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
I thought that the Necromancer and the Witch King were both there at the fortress. It looked the the Necromancer was down the passageway/doorway in front of Radagast, and the Witch King was coming up over the wall from behind him. I also had the impression that the Necromancer was the one who revived the Witch King, and the Morgul blade was just proof that the Witch King was resurrected, implicating the Necromancer.
Posted by Malnurtured Snay (Member # 411) on :
I thought David Bowie was the Goblin King?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
It's a sad commentary o my life that I got that reference.
MM, I get what you're sayinga and it makes sense- I hope they do it that way. I base my post on my roomate, who told me that it's the same guy -and he's read the Samirrillion or however the fuck it's spelled, which seems to have those story elements in it, as the Hobbit certainly did not.
The only trouble with having the Necromancer as a seperate threat is that we know the witch King can kick Gandalf's ass: if it's both of them vs. Gandalf, it would be a very lopsided fight..and it would really screw up things having Gandalf know with certainty that the Witch King was alive, and Gandalf doing nothing about it for sixty years....
No, best to leave Gandalf with only suspicions and conjecture.
On the other hand, if the Witch King has split the scene to go renovate his own creepy green fortress and gandalf fights the Necromancer mano-a-manao, it would work in the story's pacjing for when the Dwarves and Bilbo are alone in the forest and inprisoned by the (dick) elves and all that Gandalf-free stuff.
I like that the Witch King is back so early in the overal narrative- sixty years would be about right to build up that army, make those bigass gates, harass the White City and build Sauron's tower...and talk about the boss always watching you. That had to be a crapppy work environment. Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I speak as someone who had absolutely NO issue with the high frame rate. Infact it was AMAZING. I noticed immediately that the 3D was far sharper, more vivid and smoother.
I carefully kept an eye out for all the ahem... CRAP that I had been reading about - and saw none of it. No lurid green glow, no unnaturally fast movement of the characters and WHAT the hell is this about '80s day time soap picture'!?!
I have a feeling people in the US are far too accustomed to looking at grainy NTSC pictures. I loved being in a movie, and watching what looked more akin to a MASSIVE HD TV, rather than a tired, scratchy film with blips in the corners for when they need to change reals etc.
Loved the movie, love the 48 fps. I definitely want to see it again and can't wait for the Desolation of Smaug. I am concerned/curious as to how they are stretching it out for 3 movies. They're over halfway to Erebor as it is.
P.S. I loved the humour - once again it might be a US v the world cultural thing that a lot just DON'T get. *shrug*.
P.P.S. I was surprised that they had the trolls speak like they did - but it worked. Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Tbe second movie should over going through the pitch black forest and getting captured by the talking spiders (which has the potential of making the movie awesome with suspense), escaping, almost starving, getting captured by dick elves, escaping in barrells to lake town, meetingthe humans (and Bard), breaking into the mountain, parlay with the dragon and then Smaug going into ass beating mode...
The third movie would be the giant fight with Smaug, the dragon's demise, the giant three way war for the riches in the mountain, then the Humans, dwarves and elves banding together against the Goblins and orcs, the trip back to the Shire and I guess that's it.
Oh, and gandalf fights the Necromancer/Witch King at some point, which keeps him from the forest adventures and big dragon throwdown fight.
Lots of stuff left to fill at least two more movies!
Posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim (Member # 646) on :
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I loved being in a movie, and watching what looked more akin to a MASSIVE HD TV, rather than a tired, scratchy film with blips in the corners for when they need to change reals etc.
What you're basically saying here is exactly what others have been saying: it doesn't look like a film, it looks like a TV show. The only difference is that you prefer it that way while others do not.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Mighty Monkey of Mim:
quote:Originally posted by AndrewR: I loved being in a movie, and watching what looked more akin to a MASSIVE HD TV, rather than a tired, scratchy film with blips in the corners for when they need to change reals etc.
What you're basically saying here is exactly what others have been saying: it doesn't look like a film, it looks like a TV show. The only difference is that you prefer it that way while others do not.
In no way do I say it looks like a TV show. This is an epic movie, with a superior image. When did 'tv show' = bad anyway? Why is 'film grain the preference? In a world where everyone seems to want the biggest, the sharpest, the clearest and the thinnest TV out there to watch their MOVIES on, why not make something clear and beautiful to start with, rather than dark and grainy??
Maybe it's the Instagram effect?
Posted by Fabrux (Member # 71) on :
I was working in a department store back when TVs with refresh rates higher than 60 Hz started coming to the market. They looked so surreal I didn't really like them. I felt the same with The Hobbit. There's just something....off about it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
It's not that the "film" look is inherently good and the "video" look is inherently bad. It's just that, for so many years, the latter has been associated with TV shows and cheap, terrible movies, that's what we automatically think of when we see it.
Posted by Irishman (Member # 1188) on :
As well as poor;y-interpolated 120 and 240 hz motion on LCD and LED flatpanels.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
It seriously must be a US thing, or at least NOT an Australian thing. Everyone who I have talked to in Australia, who have seen The Hobbit in HFR have had absolutely no issue and think the picture is gorgeous.
I really don't get what the big deal is.
The 3D was smoother, more vibrant and rich - the scenery was spectacular. NZ couldn't have looked any better.
Infact the crisper picture made the experience more tangiable, rather than being left detached from the experience due to the unrealistic film grain of the picture.
*shrug*.
Posted by WizArtist II (Member # 1425) on :
OK, IIRC, in the books, the Necromancer is actually Sauron starting to regain his power again after getting nine-fingered by Isildur. That being the case, he is still regaining his power and is nowhere near the threat we see in the Trilogy. And the battle isn't between Gandalf and the Necromancer, its between the White Council and the Bad Dude and IIRC, he simply withdraws from Dol Goldur and reposseses Barad-Dur.
The White Council includes Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Celeborn, and Saruman if I haven't totally forgotten it. Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel are all wielding one of the three rings of power given by Sauron to the Elven Kings. (Gandalf was given his by the elf lord Cirdan when he arrived on the shores of Middle Earth because Cirdan knew he would need its power)
There is just a brief mention of the "Battle of Dol Goldur" in the book but I'm sure Jackson will turn it into a visual spectacle (including his ubiquitous 'ghosting' effect he seems to love). That alone should eat a good chunk of time.
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
The Necromancer is definitely Sauron, it has never been anyone else, and in the movie scene, the WK and Sauron are two different characters. I liked that scene for another reason, Radagast having to defend himself in combat. He always struck me as such a mellow and pathetic little character, tricked by Saruman and failing in his mission as an Istari by abandoning the Children by turning into a botanist. I liked that he at least got some action and purpose here.
Also, this movie redresses the fallacy of Sauron only existing as a burning eye in the LOTR-trilogy, in the LOTR-novels he's described as sitting in the flesh in the topmost level of Barad-Dur with his PalantÃr. I really enjoyed that The Hobbit showed him approaching a humanoid form again. He already made that transition once at the Fall of Numenor, drowning and having to abandon his first body, taking the ring with him.
Interesting that Gandalf got fast-tracked after his first body died. Maybe Maia corporeal regeneration is like a torrent client, and Gandalf got one hell of a seeder. ; Saruman, if you study the text, rose from his dead body like a wisp of vapor after his death in The Shire, turned towards Valinor in a moment of tragic hope, but a wind from The West came and scattered him into oblivion. That was very subtle and touching to those who'd read The Silmarillion and knew about the Valar.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I just want talking spiders? is that so bad? Talking spiders in a pitch black forest with no animals and webs everywhere. I want that to be crazy claustrophobic...and it's a pity that Del Toro is not directing for that reason alone. I think that scenewould freak people the hell out- people dont go to a Hobbit movie expecting to be scared shitless and the shock of that would be great.
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
Hahaha! True! Pan's Labyrinth... that scene with the 'creature' at the table with the eyes in it's hands... (!)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)