One thing important... DONT WATCH IT IN 3D or 48 frames/second mode, it's DREADFULL; and definetely not worth the extra money.
Kodaemon said:
Well, Del Toro is kind of sputtering at this point. He had his quirky hits back in the day - Hellboys, Pan's Labyrinth - but he's spent the past 5+ years waffling from project to project. Always is his name attached, but never does anything good get done. For instance, he's been yapping about a Hulk TV show for a while, which never went anywhere. Instead we get his "Don't Be Afraid Of The Dark," which was just more of his stale derping with pixie lore in an unscary, uninteresting "horror" f;lick. And what's on the horizon? Another lame-looking horror venture in "Mama" (creepy kids, OMG so original! Bravo!) and Pacific Rim, which seems ambitious but features dumb-looking behemoths and absurd megamechs that look like rejects from the Transformers movies (which suck to begin with). A shame Idris Elba is wasting his time with that one. Sure, it could be okay, but Del Toro has really strayed from what he did well - the eclectic Pan's Labyrinth mythic stuff and the Hellboy franchise. So haters gonna hate, and they're not entirely unjustified.
JackintheGreen said:
It's a matter of taste and takes time getting used to it.
I for one really liked it and was amazed how it looks and make you feel that you are actually in the movie (3D HFR).
In the future I only want to see (real) 3D only with 48 fps.
It's funny how people think they have to persuade people watching it in Format x or not watching it in this format, instead of saying how he/she liked it.
There are some things you have to see (or experience) and decide for yourself and 3D HFR is one of these things.
JackintheGreen said:
That's your opinion. I watched it and it was just fine for me in an Imax 3D. It's not Avatar for me in terms of visual quality but it's still good.
My conclusion on the movie is that it's kinda meh overall story wise. I mean it's a case of dwarves, Bilbo and Gandalf embark on a quest to retake Erebor from the Dragon Smaug and the movie is just about a portion of their quest so nothing really amazing happens.
The lore bits were well done...for the most part.... although the dwarven/orc battle flashback still was bleh in terms of tactics used, as in there were none.
Oh and for book fans Azog survived the war of orcs and dwarves.
It was good, but not amazing. Certainly not what LoTR was. The main problem comes from the story, which was derived by combining multiple books rather than just straight from the Hobbit, and it shows. The story felt unfocused, made up of a series of subplots all combined together without anything connecting them.
For example - the scene with the goblin city/king is a self-contained story. You could watch it without any back story or continuation, and it would still feel complete.
The corrupted forest/necromancer, the council of watchers, the pale orc, the goblin city/king, the meeting with Smeagol - I had actually forgotten that there was supposed to be a dragon somewhere till we briefly see Erebor at the end, and I realized that absolutely nothing had been accomplished with regards to the primary objective.
The movie is essentially a middle earth hike simulator. Fun, but nothing special.
For example - the scene with the goblin city/king is a self-contained story. You could watch it without any back story or continuation, and it would still feel complete.
The corrupted forest/necromancer, the council of watchers, the pale orc, the goblin city/king, the meeting with Smeagol - I had actually forgotten that there was supposed to be a dragon somewhere till we briefly see Erebor at the end, and I realized that absolutely nothing had been accomplished with regards to the primary objective.
The movie is essentially a middle earth hike simulator. Fun, but nothing special.
Kodaemon said:
That's what I'm wondering, since he's going to bring us the greatest freaking Mecha movie OF ALL TIME.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vKz7WnU83E[/media]
You are right, those two scenes are from The Hobbit - but the whole movie felt like that. It was one detached subplot after another. The scene with the Goblin king and Smeagol would have been more tolerable if the movie didn't just transition from another pointless subplot.CostinMoroianu said:
Why ? I saw it in the 3D and i like it ,it was more "natural" then another movies( like avatar 3D)JackintheGreen said:
Dragon said:
The "problem" is, that the book "The Hobbit" is essentially a chain of adventures, which are until the last third of the story not at all connected to the main quest of killing Smaug. This plot-structure derives from the genesis of the book as it started out as a series of bedtime stories for Tolkien's children. It was not related to Middle-Earth and Tolkien made some changes after LotR had been published to rectify continuation problems and he also wrote several short pieces which ties the story of the Hobbit into the greater story-line of his overall legendarium.
Actually, by using (and partly changing) material from outside the novel, PJ tried to build a more overarching story-line, for instance Azog as Thorin's nemesis. Moreover, I think PJ always wanted to make The Hobbit a prequel to the LotR,
which tells of the return of Sauron
Edit: I loved the movie. Loved nearly every minute of it. The only gripe I had was with the fighting scenes in the Goblin caves. It had that cheerful feeling of a "Pirates of the Caribbean"-type adventure movie, but I'd liked it more if it had been made like the fight scene in Moria in FotR (darker, dirter, claustrophobic)
ShadowKiller007 said:
Im aware this is a divisive issue, either yhou hate it or you love it. Maybe Im turning into "Grampa Jack" here
/>/>/>, but the level of detail in the image ends up detracting me from the story. It's kind of difficult for me to explain it, but being acustomed to the 35mm film all my life, watching all this new stuff makes me aware this is a film Im watching and it´s harder for me to immerse in the story (sorry if this doesnt make sense...).I agree with SkycladGuardian here, this felt like a Jerry Bruckheimer production, from the chase scenes to the type of comic relief... that was one of the things that pissed me off the most. IMHO this should ve been a smaller movie, and it should ve concentrated in the wonderful characters the story has (from Bilbo, to Thorin and Smaug included, who is at the same time both terrifying and funny) and less about the battles and "sweeping spectacle". Clearly they wanted to replicate the "blockbuster" structure that LOTR had.
I haven't read any of the Tolkien books, but just got home from watching The Hobbit in 3D. Thought it started very slowly, and some of the subplots didn't really fit together. It had a lot of "close shaves", as movies usually do, it's a cheap trick, but I would have liked it to be a bit different (is it really like this in the book?).
Thought the battle scenes were very unbelievable. I mean, 14 guys run at 1000 goblins or orcs or whatever, and nothing happens? They fall down cliff after cliff and don't have a scratch to show for it? Then the flashback battle where there is a huge battle, yet this king-dude can stand in the middle of it glancing about and nobody take him down? Mountains literally fight each other, yet these guys remain standing, with nothing to hold onto, on their tiny ledges. Err...
Having said that, I thought it was a good watch overall, and I liked the 3D. First time I've seen a 3D movie and it was good, for the most part. Sometimes it felt very blurry depending on where on the screen you watched, but the effect of birds and other characters appearing as if just in front of your nose is pretty cool.
Don't know if anybody else reacted to this, but I found it annoying how in the beginning, when the dragon attacked, we don't see anything of the actual dragon. They spend million upon million on CGI and fancy computer stuff, yet they can't make a dragon? All we saw of it was fire, a tail and an eye. The beard of that fat goblin king dude looked like flabby flesh too.
Okay, this must sounds very nitpicky and negative now, but apart from the first half hour or so I quite liked the movie. It does have a lot of Hollywood hallmarks, but it was a good watch nevertheless.
Thought the battle scenes were very unbelievable. I mean, 14 guys run at 1000 goblins or orcs or whatever, and nothing happens? They fall down cliff after cliff and don't have a scratch to show for it? Then the flashback battle where there is a huge battle, yet this king-dude can stand in the middle of it glancing about and nobody take him down? Mountains literally fight each other, yet these guys remain standing, with nothing to hold onto, on their tiny ledges. Err...
Having said that, I thought it was a good watch overall, and I liked the 3D. First time I've seen a 3D movie and it was good, for the most part. Sometimes it felt very blurry depending on where on the screen you watched, but the effect of birds and other characters appearing as if just in front of your nose is pretty cool.
Don't know if anybody else reacted to this, but I found it annoying how in the beginning, when the dragon attacked, we don't see anything of the actual dragon. They spend million upon million on CGI and fancy computer stuff, yet they can't make a dragon? All we saw of it was fire, a tail and an eye. The beard of that fat goblin king dude looked like flabby flesh too.
Okay, this must sounds very nitpicky and negative now, but apart from the first half hour or so I quite liked the movie. It does have a lot of Hollywood hallmarks, but it was a good watch nevertheless.
Re: Del Toro, the only movies of his I liked were Cronos and Hellboy. I disliked Pan's Labyrinth and Hellboy 2 was one big mess, although I loved some of character/environment design. I don't really know what to think of his movies anymore, but something about his new ones just doesn't click with me.
Re: The Hobbit, another 'not sure if want' because the book just... isn't that good. I read it after reading LotR and it was terribly boring and childish in comparison. I might see it for LotR movie nostalgia, but three movies is too much for such a small book, imo.
Sort-of related: JJB, Deus Ex HR art director, posing with Gloin's hand
Re: The Hobbit, another 'not sure if want' because the book just... isn't that good. I read it after reading LotR and it was terribly boring and childish in comparison. I might see it for LotR movie nostalgia, but three movies is too much for such a small book, imo.
Sort-of related: JJB, Deus Ex HR art director, posing with Gloin's hand
Gilrond said:
Not yet announced, but the estimate seems to be around May next year. If it's doing well in the cinema, they won't be in any hurry to release it on DVD.
Pangaea said:
Yeah, I also thought it was a bit much over the top.
It's the same reason why Aragorn could fight 100 Uruk-Hai in FotR without one of them simply stabbing him in the back: he's a hero
/>Since I knew there are two more movies to come, I didn't expect to see Smaug in all his glory. I actually liked how they managed to not show the dragon but to still convey his incredible power and strength.
And the "beard" was flabby flesh!