[Closed] The Hobbit

Someone at work mentioned its only part 1 of 3 planned movies?

Please tell me that its not true!

Big fan of Martin Freeman, so looking forward to watching it.

Please tell me that its not true!

O.K. It's not true...

It's true.

Ah sorry.

It's not true!

(It is)

Apparently they've dipped into other books to flesh out the story.

I'm looking forward to it, but if Thorin doesn't sit down and start singing about gold at some point I'll be very disappointed.

Someone at work mentioned its only part 1 of 3 planned movies?

That's right. Apparently Peter Jackson said they had enough material to make 3 good movies. I'm sure this will please the studio behind it 😉

I'd prefer two [i]really[/i] good movies

Isn't this just the fist part of a 9 hr trilogy? Based on a 300 page book?

OK thank's, just read up on Wiki, still looking forward to it mind.

Who the hell in their right mind would cast Morgan Freeman as a white Somerset midget??

🙂

Going tomorrow, 3d version. I've been pretty disappointed with the 3d films* I've seen in the past, so hope this is better.

*there's been nothing wrong with the films, just thought the 3d stuff was a bit pointless and didn't add much to the film.

Interesting that they're dipping into other works, I guess 'Unfinished Tales' and 'The Silmarilion'? They're huge (and complex) volumes that I could never get into. They didn't have the 'great story' quality that The Hobbit and LOTRT had.

Apparently they've realised they can totally milk the cash cow to death, having seen it work for final instalments of Potter and Twilight, and have cobbled a 3rd film out of the [i]appendices[/i] of LotR

FTFY.

http://screenrant.com/hobbit-3-movie-trilogy/

Cynical? Possibly? Will I still go to see them? Definitely.

The missus was offered tickets to last nights premier. She turned them down as she didn't think I'd want to go to that London.

If he's just bloating out the book then it will be horrific - You could actually read the thing twice in 9 hours and there's just nothing there in terms of characterisation or depth of story - it's a straightahead kid's adventure tale.
However, I reckon he'll work some magic with it - he's got a bit of a blank canvas to bring in stuff from Lord of the Rings and borrow from all of that epic-ness. That will feed in for sure and it might work.

it's a straightahead kid's adventure tale.

I actually went back and tried to re-read it a couple of years ago. Anyone else tried this? It's really, really hard going because it is very much a children's book, it's all "little Bilbo Baggins in his little stripy dungarees" sort of twee-ness. I gave up fairly quickly.

mediocre reviews for it so far. Filmed in 48fps which has had mixed reactions, as well.

For someone who's supposedly such a big fan of Tolkiens writings, I wish he'd left well enough alone and given it a running time suitable for the book's original audience. I'm sure the big set pieces will look great, with loads of noise, but as said above it's a kids book, and it would have been nice to leave it as such, to introduce kids to the lotr thing. No neeed for all the back story and stuff, it wasn't relevant to the original book.

Takes 15 minutes to get to the 'in a hole in the ground' bit apparently. 🙂

Going to see it on Friday. Not sure if the cinema I've booked is 48fps or not. Fingers crossed it is.

I didn't read The Hobbit as a kid, but bought it for Jnr. He hasn't touched it so I tried to read it. Quite liked it for as far as I'd got. I only read on holiday and only started it on the last day so didn't get very far as Big Bob on the next sun lounger kept talking to me.

I'm off to see it this evening...it will have to be good as I've got tickets for the late showing so will be in danger of falling asleep!

I know I'm in a minority, but the whole Lord of the Rings thing just leaves me cold. I just don't get it at all! The prospect of watching 9 hours of the Hobbit (9 HOURS FFS!!!), would seriously have me contemplating opening a vein.

The better half absolutely loves them though! And is pant-wettingly excited about seeing the Hobbit. And luckily she's of the opinion that dragging a grumpy me along to watch them would be pointless. Phew! 😀

Reading the book now before I take my lad.

Read it a few years ago and enjoyed it. Enjoying it again and I too will be interested to see how they get 3 films from such a simple story.

Is it just me or does anyone else think Jackson is the worst thing to happen to LOTR?

Totally overated IMO. The whole LOTR movie trilogy made good viewing as a yarn, but was intertwined with dull drawn out camera panning sour faced moments. And the pace is all over the place.

I'd love to see another film studio do them again - LOTR Reboot!

By rights I should be the target market but the trailer just looked horrible... But I'll go and see it anyway of course.

I enjoyed the LOTR films but I'm looking forward to the The Hobbit much more as it was one of my favourite books as a kid (didn't read LOTR until the films came out).Plus I think Martin Freeman is potentially very well cast. Looking forward to it.

I was gonna take my 8 year old (although just seen its 12a!?) untill i saw the running length - 2hrs 50 mins!
Not sure if I could manage that, let alone her. :-0

Posted 29 minutes ago # vinnyeh - Member
mediocre reviews for it so far

http://www.empireonline.com/reviews/reviewcomplete.asp?FID=9834

Mills on radio 1,he had some woman film nerd on, having a go at it, 48 frames per second its filmed in instead of 24 fps, so it makes it look speeded up, and poor quality , she said lots more, like it was to long at 3 hours as she had a small bladder.

I enjoyed LotR 1, but 2 and 3 just merge into one long tedious mash-up of exceedingly large fights in/on mountains to me.

Currently re-reading T'Hobbit before seeing the film, but as others have said, stretching it out into 3 films just seems like a total cash-in...

I might need to remember that a large drink probably isn't the best option, even though the economy of scale means I really should.

Is it just me or does anyone else think Jackson is the worst thing to happen to LOTR?

I reckon he did a great job with the 3 films (apart from a few horrible 'comedy' moments, usually involving Orlando Bloom), and I read the books religiously as a child.

Not convinced about this though - why on earth is it three films? And the complaints about 48p sound a bit worrying. Quite a few reviews say it looks too sharp/real - so you know you are looking at a film set rather than being immersed in the world of the story. I'll still go and see it though.

48 frames per second its filmed in instead of 24 fps, so it makes it look speeded up

Why would 48fps make it look speeded up?

Grauniad seem to like it anyway:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/dec/09/hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review?intcmp=239

Interestingly they were speaking about it on R4 and the 48fps is playable on any projector as its the frame rate not speed of film (although i'm not sure how that works). And as it's faster it takes out the flicker that our brains blur out so makes it more realistic. But there is nowhere to hide poor lighting etc.

I didn't know there was a 48fps version. Strange decision.

Quality TV Dramas deliberately avoid it so that they have a 'filmic' look.

I've had hardware capable of up-sampling to 48/72hz for a few years and it's always made everything look very 'video'. Very hard to put into words, but it loses gravitas.
Perhaps we've been brainwashed, but I prefer my happy ignorance.

I might need to remember that a large drink probably isn't the best option, even though the economy of scale means I really should.

I'm with you there! And then there's the 'combo' deal..

The thing I'm wondering is if they used a higher frame rate have they also used double the shutter speed in order to still have a 180 degree shutter? So 1/100s of a second?

It's all very quiet here in the cinema's so far!

48fps is just the frame rate, and only the 3d version. There's rumblings that its caused a few issues around the country and that it has made a few people sick!!

The thing with 48fps seems to be just that it seems weird, because we're so used to normal cinema frame rates- nothing specifically wrong with it but a lot of people have responded that it feels more like tv than film.

Shhhh make sure you talk it up so my house price increases as Weta grow as I live right in the middle of it ! James Nesbitt was my neighbour for the last couple of years and I seem to the the only person who doesn't work in wellywood.

i wish that they managed to complete the lord of the rings animated film (from the late 70's i think).they ran out of money (they only got as far as the middle of the first book i think).i really enjoyed the film when it was on channel 4 back in the late 80's.

48fps is just the frame rate, and only the 3d version. There's rumblings that its caused a few issues around the country and that it has made a few people sick!!

HFR (48fps) is available in 2d and 3d.
Apparently it improves 3d, but we shall see.

It makes sense in theory, but the fact no one is used to it will make it seem odd.
If it catches on it will become the norm and anything shown at 24fps will look bad.

Well we've just got back from watching this and quite frankly I feel exhausted, never have I seen so much fighting in such a short space of time. I guess theyre setting the scene in this one but it did feel very bleak 🙁 Hopefully thats the worst over with !!

i wish that they managed to complete the lord of the rings animated film (from the late 70's i think).they ran out of money (they only got as far as the middle of the first book i think).i really enjoyed the film when it was on channel 4 back in the late 80's.

Boom! You are bang on the money. The Ralph Bakshi version was much darker in parts, and the humour was much more subtle. And John Hurt's voice for Aragorn for goodness sake!
I'd love to have seen it finished, I think Warner Bros pulled Pt11 as Pt1 only received luke warm praise.

I still see Bakshi's Gollum when I watch Jacskons.

Both versions dropped Tom Bombadil. I wonder why?

i wish that they managed to complete the lord of the rings animated film (from the late 70's i think).they ran out of money (they only got as far as the middle of the first book i think).i really enjoyed the film when it was on channel 4 back in the late 80's.

I agree, I think they reached the middle of the two towers, just before the battle of helms deep if I recall.

Fantastic animation, better than the films in my opinion

3 films from the prequel

Jackson is George Lucas and he claims £5 from all of you each year for life without actually delivering very much

Like LOTR [ read all books obviously] but there is no way the Hobbit story is 9 hours / 3 films long.

Good call re the Ralph Bakshi LOTR. Saw it at the flicks when I was 9. Ralph Bakshi did the 1960's animated Spiderman cartoons too (****in' loved them as a kid, still do as it goes!)

i wish that they managed to complete the lord of the rings animated film (from the late 70's i think).they ran out of money (they only got as far as the middle of the first book i think).i really enjoyed the film when it was on channel 4 back in the late 80's.

Boom! You are bang on the money. The Ralph Bakshi version was much darker in parts, and the humour was much more subtle. And John Hurt's voice for Aragorn for goodness sake!

+2 far better than jacksons,
jacksons was no where near as dark enough and sam gangee annnoying,long drawn out scenes in pt3 with frodo and sam.
silly dwarf and elf antics etc, i could go on and on,

the hobbit hmmm 3 parts will be worse without doubt.

Just got back from the flicks:

dropoff - Member

Well we've just got back from watching this and quite frankly I feel exhausted, never have I seen so much fighting in such a short space of time. I guess theyre setting the scene in this one but it did feel very bleak Hopefully thats the worst over with !!

Well, I enjoyed it, but I know what you mean.

It's a great film, but it's not The Hobbit as I remember it.
Deliberately not re read the book before seeing the film as I didn't want to be overly picky.

Glad I didn't.

Lot's of additional bits, some bits glossed over and some bits completely changed, including one bit which I thought was pretty important, but no spoilers here.

Effects and acting are suberb - even James Nesbitt is tolerable - he should play dwarves more often.

Fight scenes are ott and some of the additional plot devices are a bit creaky.

Andy Sirkis steals the show, tbh. The scenes with Gollum and Bilbo are the best thing about the film.
Martin Freeman is excellent and Sylvester McCoy should appeal to younger kids.

Feels like they've gone for action over substance a bit, but I guess it's aimed at a much younger audience than LOTR.
Misses the simple story telling of the book really though - I think I'd have preferred a straight retelling of the story.

Watch it in 3D if you get the chance - it works well - first 3D film I've seen at the pictures and it's excellent.

slimjim78 - Member
I still see Bakshi's Gollum when I watch Jacskons.

From the way he moved for the mocap stuff for Gollum, I reckon Andy Serkis must also be a fan of the Bakshi film.

And John Hurt's voice for Aragorn for goodness sake!

I never knew that, and even now having not seen it in decades, I still remember it well enough to think "oh gods, of course it was!" Nice one.

As a LOTR geek I like the fact it's fleshed out a bit but can see why some might find it a bit repetitive. I like the fact they've included a decent amount of humour into the film as it's a much more light-hearted story than LOTR.
I do agree that some of the changes make little sense - Azog/Bolg being one and having a major antagonist being CGI is a bit pants but I guess there would be no other way that would look any better.

I watched it in 2d 24fps. Some bits, particularly in the Mines of Erebor at the start and goblin town I would have liked 48fps, lots of detail lost in blur with such geometric scenes.

Saw Bakshi's film when it came out, was always sad that it never got finished. Saw his Fritz The Cat around then as well, excellent animation, too.
Enjoyed LOTR, but I won't be bothering with the Hobbit. Read it and LOTR when I was a teen, and enjoyed them then, but I prefer my fantasy to be rather more... [i]urban[/i] these days, I guess you could say.

Saw it last night - really enjoyed it in 3D

Not read the book so can't comment on the accuracy but as a film in it's own right I thought it was great - stunning cinematography too! 🙂

Ah, give the book a go, it's excellent.
Full of that sense of wonder you only get from the best books aimed at a younger audience.

Mafiafish, I'm in two minds.
I liked the bits added from the appendices and they were very cleverly integrated.
I think the trilogy as a whole will be an excellent prequel to LOTR and I'm dying to see what he comes up with for the next two episodes.

I'd still like to see an edited version which simply follows the narrative structure of the book though.

Do you think Ken Stott's nose deserves it's own credit? Couldn't stop staring at the thing.
Thought Dame Edna was excellent. She's put a bit of weight on though.

Interesting review from SFX, addresses a lot of the points raised here.

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2012/12/10/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review/

Apparently the films are so long because most of the dialogue is very repetitive, along the lines of:

Open door.
<the door is locked>
Use key.
<how do I use key?>
Use key to open door.
<you don't have the key>
etc etc.

[img] [/img]

Apparently the graphics are somewhat improved though!

[img] [/img]

+1 re. Ralph Bakshi version of LOTR. Much, much better script and a lot fewer clanging departures from the books. Somehow managed to have more gravitas despite being animated.

Some stunning cinematography in PJ's version, but script and characterisation painfully clunky.

Sam Gamgee was annoying in both though.

"Your legs are too short so use your head!".

HFR (48fps) is available in 2d and 3d.
Apparently it improves 3d, but we shall see.

It makes sense in theory, but the fact no one is used to it will make it seem odd.
If it catches on it will become the norm and anything shown at 24fps will look bad.

I should point out....[url= http://www.odeon.co.uk/fanatic/film/hobbit_HFR ]http://www.odeon.co.uk/fanatic/film/hobbit_HFR[/url]

not that i would know these things 😉

After spending time at the Hobbit set I can't wait to see it. What a magical place.

http://www.outdoorphotography.co.nz/tourism-new-zealand-john-key-green-dragon-opening-hobbiton/

[img] [/img]

That SFX review is spot on.
Thanks for the link.

Slimjim78

Both versions dropped Tom Bombadil. I wonder why?

Although the character doesn't appear his words become part of treebeards rant.

They come with fire, they come with axes... gnawing, biting, breaking, hacking, burning. Destroyers and usurpers, curse them.

Back from the flicks. Liked lots and lots about the film BUT Peter Jackson is taking the p*ss with great swathes of it. At least George Lucas invented Star Wars so therefore Jar Jar was his call. PJ is fracking with a very treasured story.

Should I watch it free 3 years later?

Just been to watch it with the kids. We all liked it, but I just felt it was a bit too long. Unlike the LOTR films where the time flew, I got to a point where I thought, can't be long left now..... looked at watch and we were only 90 mins in. The way they've done it it would probably suit a kids mini series on TV than a film.

3 films for the hobbit??..... Taking the piss and the $

No Tom Bombadil in LOTR?.... Missed the point.

I'm out

Loved the Hobbit and LOTR when I read them around 10-13 IIRC?

Kids stuff and interminably dull to me 30 years later though, perhaps I have lost my imagination.

1/3 so I'm out, can't be ****ed with that. Loved the book when I was younger as well.

Just back. Really enjoyed it but it did drag in places - prompting the dreaded arse shuffle from about half way through. There's more than enough hack 'n' slash to make up for it though, and i'm looking forward to seeing what's next.

The 3D works so well with the HFR that it makes some of the effects look poor. Must be a pain for the artists as i'm sure it looks great in ordinary 2d. Some of the action scenes (underground bridge fight) really suited this style, but watching the non-action stuff was like watching a play rather than a movie. It just looks odd. Real life depth perception isn't that clearly defined, so the 'layers' are less distinguished. There is a hint that you're more 'in' the scene but this technology might be better suited in a more realistic 'acty' film (the original SAW springs to mind for some reason).

I'll go and see the next two, but i'll stick with good old 2D thanks and keep the special glasses for Pixar style stuff.

Just come back from watching the Hobbit and spent most if the film looking for the best MTB lines through the route they were taking

I enjoyed it, in 2D, but i thought the pan & motion scenes were quite juddery - not sure if it was anything to do with watching it at a normal 24fps and 2d, for a 3d 48fps film, or if it was just the way it was, but it actually made me feel tired watching it!!!

...and the fight scenes seemed overly cgi'd and engineered...

i really enjoyed the bilbo/gollum scene - the best of the film i thought.

only really grated me was the 3 trolls, dunno why, just did!

overall though 8 out of 10.

oh, anyone else thing bilbo/ian holm's voice was quite different than the LOTR version??