The movie was fuckin' incredible. Absolutely hated the 48 FPS, though. Felt like I was watching a soap opera on TV... just too smooth... it was weird. Really cheapened my experience of it because it felt comical with how funny it looked.
Early impressions seem to agree that there isn't enough tension or risk in the story. The main characters never feel like they are ever in real danger. A lack of restraint in the action sequences is probably to blame. The general story they are drawing from is also part of this.
I'm still going to go see it, probably with my parents on Saturday. Looking forward to it.
flight: japan - europe. I think you can cram all 3 movies into that schedule Dozed off when trying to watch all 3 pirates of the caribbean movies in a row though...
I don't understand the complaint about the long times, that's just more time to see the amazing work put into it(i.e. those Rivendell matte paintings :poly121: )
I thought it was amazing. I'm a big fan of Tolkien's novels, although I haven't read the books in a very long time. I loved the first part of the movie, with all of the LoTR references, and even Gandalf hitting his head on the chandelier. And Gollum, the mo-cap and all of the little details with him were great. I really enjoyed the time he was on the screen, I think they captured his playful/younger/curious side really well, as well as the eviler, 'I just want to eat the hobbitses' side.
After being rescued by the eagles from the trees. Which seemed weird to me because they show Beorn in his bear form on the posters...
Watched it last night and really liked it. The lighting was unusual though, there were sections were it was very much lit to be photoreal and other section where there was very stylized, with the typical red/orange contrast and oftentimes there was a lot of light with no discernible source. I don't know why that popped out to me but it did. Don't get me wrong, it still looked gorgeous, especially the
white Orc. Man, did the blue/orange lighting work on his beautiful model...
And the battle before Moria was another one that was weirdly lit (in a good way). It looked completely surreal which worked really well because it was a flashback.
Other than that I found it to be a lot more whimsical than the LOTR movies and as such some pretty cool/over the top stuff happens.
When they're battling their way out of the Goblin City, I couldn't help but be reminded of a video game sequence (especially when Gandalf gets that boulder rolling ) where it's just tons of enemies swarming the characters and they're all dispatched with one swordstrike.
I was also pleasantly surprised by Saruman showing up, they handled that sequence very well, I though.
I was a bit disappointed that they changed the troll scene around. In the book it really showed Gandalf's cleverness but now it's an action scene with some laughs. It's funny because they already had the poses the trolls needed to be in from the LotR movies so it was quite humorous to watch the trolls assume a pose that had nothing to do with what they were doing 2s earlier ^^
I'm definitely gonna need to rewatch a couple of time this movie to catch everything that's going on, especially the action sequences where there's so much going on :poly121:
Imo they changed the movie a bit too much to be action oriented instead of the adventurous journey that the book is.
Like adding the Thorin vs. white orc fight into the burning forest, changing the troll scene and changing the meeting of the elves in a forest to a run-away-from-orcs scene.
But if I ignore the changes it is an awesome movie
Saw it earlier today and LOVED IT. Saw it in Imax 3D (4k - 24 fps) and felt it was the best compromise to see it. No 48 fps smoothness (although I want to give it a shot) but still high res and 3D. One thing, though, and this might be due to the fact it was originally shot at 48 fps? but I felt like the "3D effect" was REALLY laggy (more than any other 3D movie I've seen so far). It didn't impact my appreciation of the movie but thought it was worth mentioning. Most of the CG looked incredible but 10% of it was REALLY BAD (I could almost see the green screen left overs). Story wise, I enjoyed it. I'm no Tolkien die-hard fan and only discovered this whole universe through peter Jackson's vision, which makes this new movie a perfect prequel to what I already know. Can't wait for the next one!
I felt the eagle scene was extended but I saw it coming before Gandolf does his butterfly trick and the perfect timing of each eagle could have been a bit more dramatic like one of the dwarfs falling far and the eagle catching them before they hit then coming up from the fog rejoining the flock.
But that's just reaching I still loved the movie.
Didn't do any 3D but I might go watch it again tomorrow in 3D.
Moms wants a family thing she's wants to check It out if only my niece could go to these things, but she hates people sitting and being zombiefied watching tv/movies and ends up making all of us play a game or move around, which is fine, 3yo(too young I know) she's too smart maybe later on in a few years. But if your lucky enough to get one to sit down for that long then awesome, their was some kids their and it was surprisingly quiet, perfect movie night out.
I think people will get used to movies at a higher framerate, and films will settle into it, but right now I feel like it just makes things look cheap and feel less immersive. So I'm gonna avoid it for awhile longer.
I saw it in Imax 3d, thought it was pretty amazing. Surprised about all the hate that is flying toward it... or maybe 4chan's movie forum is just a bad representation of real people's feelings.
I still enjoy Fellowship OTR more.. which is not suprising since it's my favorite among all three.
Eding sucks though lol, seriously.. wtf PJ thinking.
3D.. some parts are ridicilously awesome, while some parts are not.. same can be said to the CG.. i don't understaand why the inconsistency.
Btw.. can please anyone here who already read the book can tell me which part of the movie that's not faithful. In spoiler tag ofc. Some of the story plot.. just not making any sense IMO, i can't really tell whether it's Tolkien ore just PJ writing.
Example :
the part when bilbo meets smeagol, it's already been told on LOTR.. what's the purpose of having the one ring for "hobbit" journey? it's pointless, since we all know the ring only play it's role after sauron awakening. which most likely never happen in "hobbit". Well.. except for the invisibility part..
I still enjoy Fellowship OTR more.. which is not suprising since it's my favorite among all three.
Eding sucks though lol, seriously.. wtf PJ thinking.
3D.. some parts are ridicilously awesome, while some parts are not.. same can be said to the CG.. i don't understaand why the inconsistency.
Btw.. can please anyone here who already read the book can tell me which part of the movie that's not faithful. In spoiler tag ofc. Some of the story plot.. just not making any sense IMO, i can't really tell whether it's Tolkien ore just PJ writing.
Example :
the part when bilbo meets smeagol, it's already been told on LOTR.. what's the purpose of having the one ring for "hobbit" journey? it's pointless, since we all know the ring only play it's role after sauron awakening. which most likely never happen in "hobbit". Well.. except for the invisibility part..
I haven't seen the movie yet, but what you've questioned there is a pretty big part of the book and the results of which pop up repeatedly through the rest of the story. In fact without that part it would have been a much shorter story
I still enjoy Fellowship OTR more.. which is not suprising since it's my favorite among all three.
Eding sucks though lol, seriously.. wtf PJ thinking.
3D.. some parts are ridicilously awesome, while some parts are not.. same can be said to the CG.. i don't understaand why the inconsistency.
Btw.. can please anyone here who already read the book can tell me which part of the movie that's not faithful. In spoiler tag ofc. Some of the story plot.. just not making any sense IMO, i can't really tell whether it's Tolkien ore just PJ writing.
Example :
the part when bilbo meets smeagol, it's already been told on LOTR.. what's the purpose of having the one ring for "hobbit" journey? it's pointless, since we all know the ring only play it's role after sauron awakening. which most likely never happen in "hobbit". Well.. except for the invisibility part..
The ring is in The Hobbit because Tolkien wrote The Hobbit first and thus introduced a ring that grants you invisibility in it (which throughout The Hobbit is given more of a role due to making Bilbo a better burglar), and later in LOTR this ring was given a bigger meaning. As for other parts not faithful to the book I'll list and explain them as I remember them (can't be bothered to check the book so some of it might be incorrect and thus people should correct me if I am wrong).
1. Bilbo agrees to go with the dwarves during the evening instead of refusing and then following them in the morning. Though when he wakes up the dwarves have left and then Gandalf comes to meet Bilbo asking why he hasn't left yet (they left him a note saying they left early, telling him to follow them) and tells Bilbo about how they left him a note and tells Bilbo to hurry.
2. In the original troll scene, there is no fighting to be mentioned. The dwarves didn't camp, they were just going through the woods and heard noise and saw light in the distance sending Bilbo, their burglar to take a look. Bilbo sees the trolls and tries to pick the pocket of William and William's money pouch screams, Bilbo gets caught. The dwarves then go in pairs to check what's taking Bilbo so long. They all get caught and Gandalf arrives and makes the trolls argue about how to cook the dwarves by imitating each of the trolls at a time, this goes on until morning and the trolls turn into stone because they didn't notice the time pass.
3. Originally the company arrives in Rivendell after meeting elves in a forest near Rivendell (Thorin isn't anti-elves in the book) and thus the whole Rivendell part of the movie is slightly off.
4. Saruman, Radagast and the council of wizards in Rivendell is not part of the hobbit book but is essentially happening at the same time. These parts are from other materials of Tolkien's work.
5. Bilbo is never about to leave the company in the mountains.
6. In the goblin caves, Bilbo gets caught just like the rest of them and gets lost when they are running away (which hardly involved much fighting beyond the part where they kill the goblin king after gandalf appeared).
7.Bilbo doesn't see the ring fall off of Gollum but finds it before meeting Gollum when he is wandering in the caves. Also Gollum goes to check for the ring in his little island on the lake instead of going through his loin-cloth.
8. In the burning forest none of the company really try to fight the wargs and goblins that follow them (in the book it was goblins following them too) and the fire was started by lightning strike if I don't remember too wrong.
9. They meet the king of the eagles and talk to him shortly before the eagles leave after rescuing them.
10. Overall in the book there's less fighting and Bilbo-Thorin relationship isn't as dramatical and angsty. And the pale orc is not mentioned in hobbit at all.
Hope this helped clear it out for you. I recommend reading The Hobbit book though, but after the movies so you can enjoy the movies without getting annoyed by some major changes.
Sorry that this post ended up winding so long and being in a spoiler.
I made the mistake of reading the book again not too long ago, so the story was firmly in my head and I got annoyed by all of the plot changes. I'll give it another go in 48 fps/3d with a more open mind.
What I want Jackson to do is this;
Once the hobbit trilogy is done take the LOTR series and update the CGI to fit the standard of the Hobbit. Gollum looked amazing in the Hobbit..
That's a slippery slope.. next thing you know he's CGing Martin Freeman in the place of Ian Holm and changing who shoots the first arrow.
Heh. Just kidding, but yeah, I agree, Gollum looked really amazing. How Gollum appeared in the Two Towers was pretty groundbreaking and amazing at the time, but this is a big leap ahead.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but what you've questioned there is a pretty big part of the book and the results of which pop up repeatedly through the rest of the story. In fact without that part it would have been a much shorter story
TFYI nice to know that part is actually play big role on The Hobbit story.
Once the hobbit trilogy is done take the LOTR series and update the CGI to fit the standard of the Hobbit. Gollum looked amazing in the Hobbit..
Gollum are indeed looks amazing on Hobbit, but i'm not sure i can't tell the same for orcs, goblins, and trolls. They looks too "cartoony" if you know what i mean. LOTR orcs looks more believable/deadly IMO.
I still need to watch this on higher def (imax), really tempted to read the book.
Gollum are indeed looks amazing on Hobbit, but i'm not sure i can't tell the same for orcs, goblins, and trolls. They looks too "cartoony" if you know what i mean. LOTR orcs looks more believable/deadly IMO.
They didnt look cartoony, they looked like dumb creatures with a personality and they acted that way. I like them far better than the orcs from lotr. especially the trolls in comparison to the troll of the first lotr movie
Loved the movie to bits, didnt mind the changes too much overall as for the white Orc.
That is Azog,he was the Orc King in Moria. When Thror came to the ruins of Moria the Orcs killed and decapitated Thror and branded his head with the name "Azog" That action started a huge Dwarven/Orc war that was fought in the depths of the mountains of middle earth. The war finished on durina a battle of the gates of Moria which had the Dwarves barely win at great loss and in this battle Thror II, Thorins grandfather was slain by Azog and a Dwarf named Dain, not actually Thorin slew Azog thus ending the war. So in the movie they keep him alive for to be the antagonist to
as for Thorin's dislike of elves in the book..
Some commented here is did exist but its that dislike and stubbornness is what causes Tharundil to toss Thorin and the rest of the dungeon resulting in Bilbo smuggling them out with the use of the ring
The more I think about the film the more I like it
After the movie was over I didn't have the same feeling I had at the end of the first Lord of the Rings. So I sort of walked out of the theatre wondering if it was as good as the previous films. So after thinking it over I realized it's simply because of the fact that they cut it into 3 movies. Fellowship of the ring ended at such a perfect moment. The death of Boromir was such a tremendous and emotional scene followed by Merry and Pippin being taken by orcs, Frodo and Sam continuing on their quest and arogorn, Gimli and Leoglas trying to rescue the halfings. It was a perfect cliffhanger.
At the end of the Hobbit, everything was resolved and everyone was safe. So I think that's why it wasn't quite as memorable.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the next two films now. I loved the visuals. absolutely stunning. Although I didn't see it in 48FPS... I wonder how the sales numbers are doing for that. Did anyone like it?
I saw it in 48fps, and I'm not really sure what I thought of it. It ssmed brighter, sharper and more vivid than anything I've seen before, and the cg looked exceptional in some parts. However some parts looked very strange, and you did lose that "film" look in some parts. I think I'd need to watch the normal fps version and the high fps version very quickly after one another to really appreciate the difference.
As for the film as a whole, I really enjoyed it, but the darker more adult tone of LOTR will always appeal to me more than the more whimsical tone of the hobbit. It really felt like a completely different universe in a lot of ways. I LOVE the dwarven stuff though, the beginning section with all the exposition of the drawves was very cool, I wish there had of been some more drawves in LOTR
The radigast stuff was just too whimsical for me though, as was some of the slapstick humour, and it felt really strange having trolls as these chatty cockney characters, with their little slapstick scenes and witty banter when they're portrayed in all the other LOTR films as just huge beasts, without the ability to even speak.
Also, a lore question, why did the orcs look nothing like the LOTR orcs?
Also, as someone from Northern Ireland, it was incredibly amusing to see James Nesbitt, a fellow Northern Irishman as one of the drawves, every time he spoke in the film, there were a load of sniggers from the audience, which was great lol
I hated the Radagast parts... So ridiculous. Did he actually ride a Rabbit powered sled in the books? Can you imagine something like that in Lord of the Rings? ._.
I hated the Radagast parts... So ridiculous. Did he actually ride a Rabbit powered sled in the books? Can you imagine something like that in Lord of the Rings? ._.
Radagast wasn't in the book. He appears in the Silmarillion. The whole sled thing was original to the film, that was never in the books.
It's also not supposed to be as serious or dark as the Lord of the Rings. It was written as a children's tale, so rather humorous depiction of things is quite expected. Though I believe a better direction could have been taken with Radagast, he looks rather ridiculous IMO.
I enjoyed it, immensely. Never felt drawn out to me. Saw it in 3d, though I don't think it was 48fps. The eyes were particularly well done (spec, reflection, depth, etc).
I can't wait for the next installment!
~edit:
I also liked the Radagast parts. I felt his inclusion will help to foretell later storylines and how they develop
I saw it last night at 48 fps! Sooo good!! Such an incredibly immersive and beautiful movie! I could have seriously looked at the pale orc for DAYS! His model is absolutely stunning!! That opening shot that shows his return where he's standing like a badass on the cliff with the cool moon light, and the white dogs green glowing eyes. That was just perfection!
I also really loved how tactical the dwarves were. That's exactly how I would have expected a group of vagabond dwarves to fight.
Just seriously a great film all around. I love how for alot of the movie bilbo was just an observer. He was just the scribe tagging along on this adventure and not really quite sure why, until he finds his reason.
I went to see it today in 3d 48 fps and thought it was amazing! I really appreciated that they took the time to develop the story in such a way. So much happened in the first movie already! I'm psyched for the 2nd and third.
Too bad my cinema didn't have a break though, I didn't want to miss anything but really had to go piss after a while .
I really like that its more whimsical and fantasy based over the LOTR, makes it a really fun adventure movie. The dwarves are effin bad ass too haha and the CG creatures were amazing. I absolutely loved it from start to finish, m'lady said it was too long but I could of gone for another few hours haha. I liked Radagast too.
Minor gripe is over use of SSS on the pale orc, he looked a bit like jelly in some shots as opposed to the trolls which looked great.
it was fantastic... the worst CG elements rival the best that most other studios put out, and the best were... good god.
48fps is really nice. at first it seemed a little weird, but after about a minute or so it just felt really smooth and "nice".
3d was something i can only comment on as a 3d novice... i've only seen a couple of 3d movies. but what i would say is that there was a layer of depth that i felt would be lost without it, and it was definitely a worthwhile addition to the movie.
Smaug, what little is seen of him, was amazing.
anywho... now i'm a little torn. part of me is sitting here saying "the lord of the rings movies were too long", but after seeing the hobbit part 1, i feel like it was paced perfectly and allowed for a lot of the books subtleties to shine through.
this is the first movie in a long time that i've truly enjoyed.
Any thoughts on the 3d at 48fps? i am still debating if i wanna see it in those terms...
You have to see it at 48fps. Even if it turns out that you don't like it - because if you do, it'll be a really memorable experience.
It seems that whether someone likes it or not is an incredibly complex issue, involving even subtle things about how human vision works from the eye through the optic nerve to the brain. You just can't tell in advance.
As for me, I've spent the second half or so of the movie with a face like this:
Once I thought someone wanted to go across me to go to pee, and it turned out to be a dwarf standing in the foreground. It was that convincing.
I saw it in both 2D and 3D-48fps, and I'd say it's worth watching both. Especially if you were already planning on seeing it in theatre twice, why not?
With the 48fps thing, there were some things awesome about it, and some parts that I didn't like at all. There are some parts where the movement looks like it was sped up or something, it just looks odd. But I chalk it up to the fact that I've been watching movies and TV all my life, thousands of hours combined, all in 24fps and that's what my brain is expecting, and now it's getting something different and it's freaking me out a bit.
Psychologically though I felt that personally it sorta killed my suspension of disbelief a bit. The 2D version I kinda subconsciously know I'm seeing a movie, so I have no problem accepting that "yeah, that's totally a dwarf right there". But then in 3D at 48fps it just looks so real so it's one step closing to almost being there, and my brain instead goes "nope, not a dwarf, that's a dude in a fat-suit with a silly beard". Maybe it means they need to up the ante now on the visuals?
Another thing I noticed is some shots where the camera moves real fast, the effect kinda breaks. If I had to guess, I'd say that the framerate actually isn't high enough. It's like when you're playing a game and it's running flawlessly at 60fps, and then some shit happens with an explosion or something, and it dips down to I don't know... say 48fps or something, and you notice that change. I felt that some scenes were more "believable" than others, and I think those were the ones without jarring motion.
Other than all that, the 3D stuff (not 48fps stuff) still kinda bugs me. It still feels gimmicky as hell. And even in a movie like this, they still toss things right in your face, or shoot an arrow right at the camera, as if to brag "Hey look! You're watching something in 3D!"... it's so fucking annoying. Like I'm a 5 year old being excited at Epcot or something. Another thing that bothers me is the depth of field. They can have the focus on the characters, then something passes right by the camera, which at 3D-space means it's close to you, so you naturally look at it, but because of the depth of field it's just a blurry-ass shape that goes by. In a 2D movie it's fine, since your eye isn't drawn to it, but it's real distracting in 3D. Plus the stupid glasses... the whole 3D thing still feels gimmicky to me.
I saw it in 2D (Not big on the 3D hype), but I'm really curious to see it at the 48FPS to see if there really is that much of a difference. I did notice, especially in the early pans over the dwarven city that elements were not in focus. That took some getting adjusted to, and once we were in the Shire, it was no longer a problem. Could that have been a result of them filming in 48 but then having to so it was 24fps in certain theatres?
Overall, I think it was a well paced movie. I'd heard a lot of complaints that it was too slow before going in, but I didn't think that was the case at all! It's story-time with Tolkein. Yes, it feels very different then LOTR did, which fits, considering the Hobbit was intended to be more of a "children's story". It isn't the epic save-the-world saga. I like that they take the moments to be silly here and there.
The ending felt a bit underwhelming. I won't go into detail, but I was left with a feeling of under accomplishment. Still, I'm looking forward to part two!
Once I thought someone wanted to go across me to go to pee, and it turned out to be a dwarf standing in the foreground. It was that convincing.
I did the exact same thing.
I was suprised how much I enjoyed it. I never felt the need to watch any of the Lord of the Rings movies a second time after seeing them in the theater but I do want to see this one again, especially if I can catch it at 48fps just to see for myself.
Seeing it in imax 3d probably helped. I don't know if I can go back to regular 3d after that.
hahaha i know that feeling! there was something... like, rubble.. or maybe an axe that bounces towards you on screen and i closed my eyes at that one haha I enjoyed the movie so much. So pretty! I want an art book!
I was more pissed off that people were laughing at the Gollum parts, rather then the Brown Wizard segments.
Also, the 2D version was kinda atrocious, it honestly felt like a 'cap' rather then an actual execution of the movie, the parts where the camera was panning in the start of the movie felt jarring, almost as if each frame of the movie was struggling to keep up, especially on detailed foliage.
There were also several parts in the 2D, which seems they were uncapped, such as the Elf town, the movie at several points spiked in an almost floaty, hyper real speed.
I also was surprised by some of the CGI effects, like the Trolls during the forest part, they had too much fresnel going on, and not enough of everything else, but it seems like they focused more on Gollum.
Overall, a great time, but I think the theater that I went to really dulled the experience somewhat. If you're in Montreal, at the Kirkland Center, be wary I guess is what I'm saying.
Replies
Going to watch it again at 24 FPS.
I'm still going to go see it, probably with my parents on Saturday. Looking forward to it.
I thought it was amazing. I'm a big fan of Tolkien's novels, although I haven't read the books in a very long time. I loved the first part of the movie, with all of the LoTR references, and even Gandalf hitting his head on the chandelier. And Gollum, the mo-cap and all of the little details with him were great. I really enjoyed the time he was on the screen, I think they captured his playful/younger/curious side really well, as well as the eviler, 'I just want to eat the hobbitses' side.
Maybe spoiler tag that for the folks who aren't so familiar with the source.
Watched it last night and really liked it. The lighting was unusual though, there were sections were it was very much lit to be photoreal and other section where there was very stylized, with the typical red/orange contrast and oftentimes there was a lot of light with no discernible source. I don't know why that popped out to me but it did. Don't get me wrong, it still looked gorgeous, especially the
And the battle before Moria was another one that was weirdly lit (in a good way). It looked completely surreal which worked really well because it was a flashback.
Other than that I found it to be a lot more whimsical than the LOTR movies and as such some pretty cool/over the top stuff happens.
I'm definitely gonna need to rewatch a couple of time this movie to catch everything that's going on, especially the action sequences where there's so much going on :poly121:
But if I ignore the changes it is an awesome movie
haven't loved being in the cinema that much in a very long time..
watched it in 3D simply because they filmed it specifically for 3D
didn't mind the 48fps.
one thing that I did notice was the 3d layering was a bit off .. elements looked a bit flat at times
I've only seen it in 2D though, so I still want to catch it again in 3D with the 48fps.
I liked it more than LOTR because it wasn't as serious of a tone and had more humor.
Didn't do any 3D but I might go watch it again tomorrow in 3D.
Moms wants a family thing she's wants to check It out if only my niece could go to these things, but she hates people sitting and being zombiefied watching tv/movies and ends up making all of us play a game or move around, which is fine, 3yo(too young I know) she's too smart maybe later on in a few years. But if your lucky enough to get one to sit down for that long then awesome, their was some kids their and it was surprisingly quiet, perfect movie night out.
I saw it in Imax 3d, thought it was pretty amazing. Surprised about all the hate that is flying toward it... or maybe 4chan's movie forum is just a bad representation of real people's feelings.
Eding sucks though lol, seriously.. wtf PJ thinking.
3D.. some parts are ridicilously awesome, while some parts are not.. same can be said to the CG.. i don't understaand why the inconsistency.
Btw.. can please anyone here who already read the book can tell me which part of the movie that's not faithful. In spoiler tag ofc. Some of the story plot.. just not making any sense IMO, i can't really tell whether it's Tolkien ore just PJ writing.
Example :
WAT.... I dont even..
I haven't seen the movie yet, but what you've questioned there is a pretty big part of the book and the results of which pop up repeatedly through the rest of the story. In fact without that part it would have been a much shorter story
1. Bilbo agrees to go with the dwarves during the evening instead of refusing and then following them in the morning. Though when he wakes up the dwarves have left and then Gandalf comes to meet Bilbo asking why he hasn't left yet (they left him a note saying they left early, telling him to follow them) and tells Bilbo about how they left him a note and tells Bilbo to hurry.
2. In the original troll scene, there is no fighting to be mentioned. The dwarves didn't camp, they were just going through the woods and heard noise and saw light in the distance sending Bilbo, their burglar to take a look. Bilbo sees the trolls and tries to pick the pocket of William and William's money pouch screams, Bilbo gets caught. The dwarves then go in pairs to check what's taking Bilbo so long. They all get caught and Gandalf arrives and makes the trolls argue about how to cook the dwarves by imitating each of the trolls at a time, this goes on until morning and the trolls turn into stone because they didn't notice the time pass.
3. Originally the company arrives in Rivendell after meeting elves in a forest near Rivendell (Thorin isn't anti-elves in the book) and thus the whole Rivendell part of the movie is slightly off.
4. Saruman, Radagast and the council of wizards in Rivendell is not part of the hobbit book but is essentially happening at the same time. These parts are from other materials of Tolkien's work.
5. Bilbo is never about to leave the company in the mountains.
6. In the goblin caves, Bilbo gets caught just like the rest of them and gets lost when they are running away (which hardly involved much fighting beyond the part where they kill the goblin king after gandalf appeared).
7.Bilbo doesn't see the ring fall off of Gollum but finds it before meeting Gollum when he is wandering in the caves. Also Gollum goes to check for the ring in his little island on the lake instead of going through his loin-cloth.
8. In the burning forest none of the company really try to fight the wargs and goblins that follow them (in the book it was goblins following them too) and the fire was started by lightning strike if I don't remember too wrong.
9. They meet the king of the eagles and talk to him shortly before the eagles leave after rescuing them.
10. Overall in the book there's less fighting and Bilbo-Thorin relationship isn't as dramatical and angsty. And the pale orc is not mentioned in hobbit at all.
Hope this helped clear it out for you. I recommend reading The Hobbit book though, but after the movies so you can enjoy the movies without getting annoyed by some major changes.
Sorry that this post ended up winding so long and being in a spoiler.
Really?
Once the hobbit trilogy is done take the LOTR series and update the CGI to fit the standard of the Hobbit. Gollum looked amazing in the Hobbit..
Heh. Just kidding, but yeah, I agree, Gollum looked really amazing. How Gollum appeared in the Two Towers was pretty groundbreaking and amazing at the time, but this is a big leap ahead.
TFYI nice to know that part is actually play big role on The Hobbit story.
Gollum are indeed looks amazing on Hobbit, but i'm not sure i can't tell the same for orcs, goblins, and trolls. They looks too "cartoony" if you know what i mean. LOTR orcs looks more believable/deadly IMO.
I still need to watch this on higher def (imax), really tempted to read the book.
They didnt look cartoony, they looked like dumb creatures with a personality and they acted that way. I like them far better than the orcs from lotr. especially the trolls in comparison to the troll of the first lotr movie
as for Thorin's dislike of elves in the book..
After the movie was over I didn't have the same feeling I had at the end of the first Lord of the Rings. So I sort of walked out of the theatre wondering if it was as good as the previous films. So after thinking it over I realized it's simply because of the fact that they cut it into 3 movies. Fellowship of the ring ended at such a perfect moment. The death of Boromir was such a tremendous and emotional scene followed by Merry and Pippin being taken by orcs, Frodo and Sam continuing on their quest and arogorn, Gimli and Leoglas trying to rescue the halfings. It was a perfect cliffhanger.
I'm really looking forward to seeing the next two films now. I loved the visuals. absolutely stunning. Although I didn't see it in 48FPS... I wonder how the sales numbers are doing for that. Did anyone like it?
As for the film as a whole, I really enjoyed it, but the darker more adult tone of LOTR will always appeal to me more than the more whimsical tone of the hobbit. It really felt like a completely different universe in a lot of ways. I LOVE the dwarven stuff though, the beginning section with all the exposition of the drawves was very cool, I wish there had of been some more drawves in LOTR
The radigast stuff was just too whimsical for me though, as was some of the slapstick humour, and it felt really strange having trolls as these chatty cockney characters, with their little slapstick scenes and witty banter when they're portrayed in all the other LOTR films as just huge beasts, without the ability to even speak.
Also, a lore question, why did the orcs look nothing like the LOTR orcs?
Also, as someone from Northern Ireland, it was incredibly amusing to see James Nesbitt, a fellow Northern Irishman as one of the drawves, every time he spoke in the film, there were a load of sniggers from the audience, which was great lol
It's also not supposed to be as serious or dark as the Lord of the Rings. It was written as a children's tale, so rather humorous depiction of things is quite expected. Though I believe a better direction could have been taken with Radagast, he looks rather ridiculous IMO.
I can't wait for the next installment!
~edit:
I also really loved how tactical the dwarves were. That's exactly how I would have expected a group of vagabond dwarves to fight.
Just seriously a great film all around. I love how for alot of the movie bilbo was just an observer. He was just the scribe tagging along on this adventure and not really quite sure why, until he finds his reason.
[ame="
Since I'm seemingly in a tiny minority I'll just go away and let everyone else enjoy.
Too bad my cinema didn't have a break though, I didn't want to miss anything but really had to go piss after a while
Minor gripe is over use of SSS on the pale orc, he looked a bit like jelly in some shots as opposed to the trolls which looked great.
it was fantastic... the worst CG elements rival the best that most other studios put out, and the best were... good god.
48fps is really nice. at first it seemed a little weird, but after about a minute or so it just felt really smooth and "nice".
3d was something i can only comment on as a 3d novice... i've only seen a couple of 3d movies. but what i would say is that there was a layer of depth that i felt would be lost without it, and it was definitely a worthwhile addition to the movie.
Smaug, what little is seen of him, was amazing.
anywho... now i'm a little torn. part of me is sitting here saying "the lord of the rings movies were too long", but after seeing the hobbit part 1, i feel like it was paced perfectly and allowed for a lot of the books subtleties to shine through.
this is the first movie in a long time that i've truly enjoyed.
You have to see it at 48fps. Even if it turns out that you don't like it - because if you do, it'll be a really memorable experience.
It seems that whether someone likes it or not is an incredibly complex issue, involving even subtle things about how human vision works from the eye through the optic nerve to the brain. You just can't tell in advance.
As for me, I've spent the second half or so of the movie with a face like this:
Once I thought someone wanted to go across me to go to pee, and it turned out to be a dwarf standing in the foreground. It was that convincing.
With the 48fps thing, there were some things awesome about it, and some parts that I didn't like at all. There are some parts where the movement looks like it was sped up or something, it just looks odd. But I chalk it up to the fact that I've been watching movies and TV all my life, thousands of hours combined, all in 24fps and that's what my brain is expecting, and now it's getting something different and it's freaking me out a bit.
Psychologically though I felt that personally it sorta killed my suspension of disbelief a bit. The 2D version I kinda subconsciously know I'm seeing a movie, so I have no problem accepting that "yeah, that's totally a dwarf right there". But then in 3D at 48fps it just looks so real so it's one step closing to almost being there, and my brain instead goes "nope, not a dwarf, that's a dude in a fat-suit with a silly beard". Maybe it means they need to up the ante now on the visuals?
Another thing I noticed is some shots where the camera moves real fast, the effect kinda breaks. If I had to guess, I'd say that the framerate actually isn't high enough. It's like when you're playing a game and it's running flawlessly at 60fps, and then some shit happens with an explosion or something, and it dips down to I don't know... say 48fps or something, and you notice that change. I felt that some scenes were more "believable" than others, and I think those were the ones without jarring motion.
Other than all that, the 3D stuff (not 48fps stuff) still kinda bugs me. It still feels gimmicky as hell. And even in a movie like this, they still toss things right in your face, or shoot an arrow right at the camera, as if to brag "Hey look! You're watching something in 3D!"... it's so fucking annoying. Like I'm a 5 year old being excited at Epcot or something. Another thing that bothers me is the depth of field. They can have the focus on the characters, then something passes right by the camera, which at 3D-space means it's close to you, so you naturally look at it, but because of the depth of field it's just a blurry-ass shape that goes by. In a 2D movie it's fine, since your eye isn't drawn to it, but it's real distracting in 3D. Plus the stupid glasses... the whole 3D thing still feels gimmicky to me.
Overall, I think it was a well paced movie. I'd heard a lot of complaints that it was too slow before going in, but I didn't think that was the case at all! It's story-time with Tolkein. Yes, it feels very different then LOTR did, which fits, considering the Hobbit was intended to be more of a "children's story". It isn't the epic save-the-world saga. I like that they take the moments to be silly here and there.
The ending felt a bit underwhelming. I won't go into detail, but I was left with a feeling of under accomplishment. Still, I'm looking forward to part two!
I did the exact same thing.
I was suprised how much I enjoyed it. I never felt the need to watch any of the Lord of the Rings movies a second time after seeing them in the theater but I do want to see this one again, especially if I can catch it at 48fps just to see for myself.
Seeing it in imax 3d probably helped. I don't know if I can go back to regular 3d after that.
Also, the 2D version was kinda atrocious, it honestly felt like a 'cap' rather then an actual execution of the movie, the parts where the camera was panning in the start of the movie felt jarring, almost as if each frame of the movie was struggling to keep up, especially on detailed foliage.
There were also several parts in the 2D, which seems they were uncapped, such as the Elf town, the movie at several points spiked in an almost floaty, hyper real speed.
I also was surprised by some of the CGI effects, like the Trolls during the forest part, they had too much fresnel going on, and not enough of everything else, but it seems like they focused more on Gollum.
Overall, a great time, but I think the theater that I went to really dulled the experience somewhat. If you're in Montreal, at the Kirkland Center, be wary I guess is what I'm saying.