The Hobbit

[Eric Chang]

48fps was amazing, really legitimizes the fast cuts and camera work style of action, michael bay needs to shoot all his future movies in this lol. but yeah. DAMN. make sure you see it in this format if you can.

plotwise, it was paced pretty good, but god damn what a long movie, and they really stretched the story out, it was less of a "hobbit" movie, and more like "lord of the rings: episode 1"... prequel smell aside, tastefully done, eh some people i watched it with complained that it didn't feel like the hobbit book, but i went into the movie expecting them to "lotr tone" it, so i was prepared

darth maul orc with the ghetto claw hand was pretty lulz

[bkong0]

Gotta agree with seeing it in 48FPS. Takes a bit to get used to but it's worth it.

[Phil Clark]

I am off the week between Christmas and New Years, and my wife has to work, so I may try to go see it that week at a noon showing, in 48fps 3-D, just to say I did.

[Samy]

I didn't really see anything new in the 48 fps. Maybe I'd need a side-by-side viewing with 24 fps. But there was nothing that really jumped out at me as, "wow, this is totally different".

I thought the pacing was good, not once did I look at my watch. Obviously they have expanded a LOT from the sparse descriptions of things in a children's book, and things are dealt with in a lot more detail. But I can easily see how they can make seven or so hours of out of the book (I'm expecting two hours or so will be LotR prologue stuff).

My main criticism is the obsessive falling fetish that the movie has. Like half the runtime is dedicated to falling, sliding, falling, slipping, rolling, falling. I really hope they worked it out of their system so the next movie can have less of it.

[Simbob4000]

I didn't really see anything new in the 48 fps. Maybe I'd need a side-by-side viewing with 24 fps. But there was nothing that really jumped out at me as, "wow, this is totally different".

I thought the pacing was good, not once did I look at my watch. Obviously they have expanded a LOT from the sparse descriptions of things in a children's book, and things are dealt with in a lot more detail. But I can easily see how they can make seven or so hours of out of the book (I'm expecting two hours or so will be LotR prologue stuff).

My main criticism is the obsessive falling fetish that the movie has. Like half the runtime is dedicated to falling, sliding, falling, slipping, rolling, falling. I really hope they worked it out of their system so the next movie can have less of it.

Falling fetish...so The Hobbit is like Antichrist. Where are you guys seeing it, at special screenings? I didn't think it came out for a few more days.

[Samy]

Premiere here was last night.

[Arvandor]

I agree that the 48fps is amazing, and the critics don't know what they're talking about. Everything is sharper and clearer, especially in 3D. The underground scenes looked fantastic.

I'd been wary, with the mixed reviews and the stretching out into a trilogy. But I loved, and was not bored for a second

[mattbib]

Just came back from the midnight premiere in IMAX 3D. The 48FPS was pretty jarring at first, and there were a lot of scenes that were hard to follow early on, but by the end I was very happy with the quality. The film was visually beautiful and felt very much like the LotR. I agree it was very long...then again I saw it at midnight so that didn't help. Pacing was decent, though I completely agree with the overdone action sequences that involved the unrealistic falling and crashing. I know this story is meant to have a lighter tone, but those scenes really pulled me from the movie. A lot of the goblin and orc scenes really came across as overly animated, but that didn't really bother me too much.

The main cast was great, of course, and I was happy with the use of Frodo in the beginning as well as the rest of the Ring-related parts of the story. Loved the council with Galadriel and Saruman. My favorite part was the fire and the Eagles. I knew it would be. Man, the Eagles scene was just beautiful.

Looking forward to the next chapter, and I'm sure I'll check this one out again, maybe in a different format.

[Samy]

Yeah the Eagles scene was the only one that really got a tear in my eye, although seeing Elijah Wood and Ian Holm got close.

[Hiromi]

I have to say I really like the albino Orc antagonist addition, works especially well since we only get a glimpse of Smaug.

Likely Smaug will step into the main antagonist role next movie, and White Orc will resume it for the battle of five armies. And the necromancer will step up at some point, but who knows when.

I can't remember if Radagast was actually in the Hobbit but I don't think so, regardless he was a fun character.

[Simbob4000]

So does this 48FPS look anything like when a HDTV tries to run a movie at 48FPS? Because that makes movies unwatchable.

[Samy]

I think the Necromancer will be a main antagonist in the second movie and Smaug in the third. Because Dol Guldur is on the way to Erebor.

Simbob, I didn't notice anything special about the 48fps, it was just like a normal movie.

[Hiromi]

The problem with Smaug being the main antagonist in the third movie is that there's still a chunk of story left after he dies, notably the war of five armies. And the addition of the white Orc makes him the perfect candidate to lead the Goblin force, further more the conflict between him and Thorin gives them the perfect opening to flesh out that part far beyond what the book did. I think the second movie will mostly be about the Dwarves and Bilbo and will climax with the death of Smaug. Otherwise he'd have to die in the middle or thereabouts of the third movie, which doesn't feel right story structure wise given the build up he's had. The Necromancer side story can really take place anywhere(and could honestly be stretched out to encompass both movies) since its a side story(doesn't involve the main party or storyline at all).

[Samy]

I really doubt they're doing to do the Necromancer story without the main characters being there...they're going to get pulled into it on the way to Erebor.

[Mike Pothier]

Just got back from the movie. I loved it. Martin Freeman owned the role. He really brought Bilbo to life, and his transformation was believable. The best scenes in the movie were him sparing Gollum and saving Thorin's life.

The biggest weakness in the movie was, alas, Peter Jackson's damned insistence on making everything way over the top. There can't just be rock giants in the mountains, the company has to go riding on their knees! The 3 trolls became another action sequence! Wargs chasing the sledding Radagast! Cripes, dial it down, just a hair. I don't need a rollercoaster ride every 20 minutes.