Off Topic: The Flood
This topic has moved here: Subject: Just watched The Hobbit *Spoilers*
  • Subject: Just watched The Hobbit *Spoilers*
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Just watched The Hobbit *Spoilers*
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: DngerlyAwkwrd

Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: Palien90

Posted by: JMcDon15
The movie was a pretty big letdown IMO.


Please elaborate as to why.

To summarize my feelings:

1. It was extremely childish compared to LotR.
2. Everything could talk.
3. There was so much redundant crap that seemed like it was only added to prolong the film.
4. The CGI was bad.
5. Radagast the Brown

I could say so much more. The only thing I really liked was the acting. Compared to the previous movies, it just felt wrong.

1. That's how The Hobbit was written. If you expected the same tone as The Lord of the Rings, it's natural that you'd be disappointed.
2. You should read the book. Even more creatures were talking, in one way or another.
3. Redundant how?
4. It wasn't bad, it was just a bit excessive.
5. I'll admit, they made his character a bit too over-the-top...

1. Considering that it's supposed to be a prequel to the Lord of the Rings, it's only natural that I would compare them.
2.I did read the book several years ago. But I'm not talking about it, I'm talking about the film.
3. Did nothing to further the plot or be even slightly interesting.
4. Yes but I hate how they changed the way everything looked.

  • 12.16.2012 12:18 PM PDT

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

Posted by: G O R E25
I thought it was #SSSIIICCC-blam!- but I thought you could really tell it was one book split into 3


It is one book split into 3...... but its also got lots of stuff from other books like The Silmarillion and footnotes and incomplete works.

All that stuff in Rivendell with Gandalf and..... er..... Cate Blanchett wasn't in The Hobbit.

  • 12.16.2012 12:18 PM PDT

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

Posted by: JMcDon15
1. Considering that it's supposed to be a prequel to the Lord of the Rings, it's only natural that I would compare them.
2.I did read the book several years ago. But I'm not talking about it, I'm talking about the film.
3. Did nothing to further the plot or be even slightly interesting.
4. Yes but I hate how they changed the way everything looked.


The thing is The Hobbit as a book is more important than the Lord of the Rings films. Peter Jackson had to walk a fine line to satisfy his own fans as well as respect Tolkiens work and his legion of fans.

So The Hobbit has to pay homage to the book, which was a childrens book, as well as pay homage to the upcoming events of the LotR trilogy. Personally I think he did it really well, though I agree about Radagast (awful rubbish), but he was bound to not satisfy everyone.

  • 12.16.2012 12:22 PM PDT

Here's how Bilbo gets the ring:


They're sleeping in a cave, a crack opens in the back of it and goblins leap out. Bilbo screams, alerting gandalf who kills two goblins, and eludes capture. Bilbo and the dwarves are taken captive by the goblin. Gandfalf saves them and since Bilbo is a lot smaller than the dwarves, the dwarves carry Bilbo as Gandalf leads them out of the goblin place. One of the dwarves unknowingly drops Bilbo and Bilbo is knocked unconsciousness.

Bilbo wakes up, and it's so dark, so he just gropes around and finds a ring and puts it in his pocket and forgets about it. And the secene from the movie is pretty accurate and sums up what happened in regards with Gollum.

  • 12.16.2012 12:29 PM PDT

Take me into your heart! Accept me as your savior! Nail me to the -blam!- cross, and let me be reborn!

I thought it was great. I would have hoped they killed Azog at the end. I haven't read the book, but I was thinking that Smaug would be the main villain in the next movie, with the Necromancer/Sauron being the one in the 3rd.

  • 12.16.2012 12:30 PM PDT

So basically its not lotr so you don't like it. It doesn't have the same action, it doesn't look the same and your short attention span cant handle background and character development. You are sad.

Edit: this was to JMC whatever. What parts "didn't advance the story". Any flashbacks helped establish the plight of thorin and the dwarves, and the radagast stuff will be flesh out further in the next films.

[Edited on 12.16.2012 12:35 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 12:31 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: Palien90

Posted by: JMcDon15
The movie was a pretty big letdown IMO.


Please elaborate as to why.

To summarize my feelings:

1. It was extremely childish compared to LotR.
2. Everything could talk.
3. There was so much redundant crap that seemed like it was only added to prolong the film.
4. The CGI was bad.
5. Radagast the Brown

I could say so much more. The only thing I really liked was the acting. Compared to the previous movies, it just felt wrong.
1. The Hobbit was a children's book.
2. So could they in the LotR.
3. Like what?
4. Did you see it in 3D?
5. I liked that they added more of him in, actually. Shows that not all wizards are stuck up, thin, tall dudes.

  • 12.16.2012 12:40 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Palien90
So basically its not lotr so you don't like it. It doesn't have the same action, it doesn't look the same and your short attention span cant handle background and character development. You are sad.

Edit: this was to JMC whatever. What parts "didn't advance the story". Any flashbacks helped establish the plight of thorin and the dwarves, and the radagast stuff will be flesh out further in the next films.

I can see that you're not going to be able to discuss this intelligently. I didn't like the movie, deal with it.

  • 12.16.2012 12:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Pretty much everything you said is addressed above ^.

Example of a redundant scene is the mountains throwing rocks at each other. And I did see it in 3D but I can't imagine that the CGI would look better in 2D.

  • 12.16.2012 12:49 PM PDT


Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: Palien90
So basically its not lotr so you don't like it. It doesn't have the same action, it doesn't look the same and your short attention span cant handle background and character development. You are sad.

Edit: this was to JMC whatever. What parts "didn't advance the story". Any flashbacks helped establish the plight of thorin and the dwarves, and the radagast stuff will be flesh out further in the next films.

I can see that you're not going to be able to discuss this intelligently. I didn't like the movie, deal with it.


That's nice. Back out of the thread and avoid backing up your claims about parts "not advancing the story"

  • 12.16.2012 12:50 PM PDT


Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Pretty much everything you said is addressed above ^.

Example of a redundant scene is the mountains throwing rocks at each other. And I did see it in 3D but I can't imagine that the CGI would look better in 2D.


I don't think you understand what redundant means.

  • 12.16.2012 12:52 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Pretty much everything you said is addressed above ^.

Example of a redundant scene is the mountains throwing rocks at each other. And I did see it in 3D but I can't imagine that the CGI would look better in 2D.
I've heard from people who've seen it in 2D that it really does look better. In fact, lots of the stuff you thought may have been 3D with the sets was probably actually not CG, but looked it because of the 3D.

  • 12.16.2012 1:02 PM PDT

"Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men."

Get at me

Posted by: Habah
Posted by: SPLEEEEENS
The Bilbo and Gollum scene is actually accurate to the book "The Hobbit," if I remember correctly that portion of the book is called "Riddles in the dark." That was honestly my favorite part of the movie.
This.
Yep, great scene. They definitely did it right.

They added some stuff in as well. The whole Radagast plot is from the Silmarillion, and I think they completely made up the giant rock men fight.

Overall, I thought it was great.

  • 12.16.2012 1:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Pretty much everything you said is addressed above ^.

Example of a redundant scene is the mountains throwing rocks at each other. And I did see it in 3D but I can't imagine that the CGI would look better in 2D.
I've heard from people who've seen it in 2D that it really does look better. In fact, lots of the stuff you thought may have been 3D with the sets was probably actually not CG, but looked it because of the 3D.

I mainly disliked the way they changed the way the orcs and goblins looked. My cousin thinks it was to save money but the difference is really noticeable. I also didn't like the CGI animals.

  • 12.16.2012 1:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

The entire movie took a turn for the worse because of the High Frames per Second capturing that they included in the 3D showing. Their idea behind it was to make the movie seem crisper and more true to life, but instead it felt like the movie was being fast-forwarded to a noticeable degree.

Every action scene was over-the-top; it was much easier to notice the fake backdrops and the CGI stuck out even more like a sore thumb just because of the High Frames.

The cameras moved too fast and the story-telling/dialogue didn't fit with the scenes in the 3D showing. Even the movement of the live-action actors looked animated because of it; it felt like I was watching a video-game cutscene marathon.

I have faith in Peter Jackson's film-making, so I don't want to believe that this was because of something other than the High FPS capturing.

I really want to rewatch The Hobbit sometime without this nonsense and see if I can really enjoy the movie like I did with the Lord of the Rings movies. Apparently The Hobbit was supposed to be a guinea pig for High Frames capturing, so hopefully this technology dies before it ruins the film industry.

[Edited on 12.16.2012 1:18 PM PST]

  • 12.16.2012 1:15 PM PDT

On Waypoint I'm rocketFox;
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/members/rocketfox/default.aspx

Old GTs; RebelRobot, Flamedude

Posted by: General_Rafa
The entire movie took a turn for the worse because of the High Frames per Second capturing that they included in the 3D showing. Their idea behind it was to make the movie seem crisper and more true to life, but instead it felt like the movie was being fast-forwarded to a noticeable degree.


Well for starters only a few cinemas are showing The Hobbit in HFR, most are showing at normal 24FPS.

Secondly this is a new technology and The Hobbit is the first EVER film shot at 48FPS. There is bound to be a mixed reaction to it.

Read this for a good article on The Hobbit, HFR and why its important.

Personally I loved it in HFR, the detail was amazing and I felt way more immersed in the world rather than watching it from afar. Going back to regular frame rate movies is now going to be hard.

  • 12.16.2012 1:25 PM PDT

Key


Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Pretty much everything you said is addressed above ^.

Example of a redundant scene is the mountains throwing rocks at each other. And I did see it in 3D but I can't imagine that the CGI would look better in 2D.
I've heard from people who've seen it in 2D that it really does look better. In fact, lots of the stuff you thought may have been 3D with the sets was probably actually not CG, but looked it because of the 3D.

I mainly disliked the way they changed the way the orcs and goblins looked. My cousin thinks it was to save money but the difference is really noticeable. I also didn't like the CGI animals.
The lion things the orcs rode on were CG in LotR as well. But I agree they could've used practical orc effects. Even still I've heard the higher framerate and lack of atmospheric 3D really makes the 2D version better.

  • 12.16.2012 1:29 PM PDT


Posted by: lVl e r c u r y
Posted by: Habah
Posted by: SPLEEEEENS
The Bilbo and Gollum scene is actually accurate to the book "The Hobbit," if I remember correctly that portion of the book is called "Riddles in the dark." That was honestly my favorite part of the movie.
This.
Yep, great scene. They definitely did it right.

They added some stuff in as well. The whole Radagast plot is from the Silmarillion, and I think they completely made up the giant rock men fight.

Overall, I thought it was great.


1. The Radagast stuff is not from the Silmarillion
2. The Rock Giants WERE in the book

  • 12.16.2012 1:30 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Posted by: JMcDon15
Posted by: CrazzySnipe55

Pretty much everything you said is addressed above ^.

Example of a redundant scene is the mountains throwing rocks at each other. And I did see it in 3D but I can't imagine that the CGI would look better in 2D.
I've heard from people who've seen it in 2D that it really does look better. In fact, lots of the stuff you thought may have been 3D with the sets was probably actually not CG, but looked it because of the 3D.

I mainly disliked the way they changed the way the orcs and goblins looked. My cousin thinks it was to save money but the difference is really noticeable. I also didn't like the CGI animals.
The lion things the orcs rode on were CG in LotR as well. But I agree they could've used practical orc effects. Even still I've heard the higher framerate and lack of atmospheric 3D really makes the 2D version better.

I know but the wargs looked alot different in this movie as well. I think I saw it 24 fps because I didn't notice the "fast-forwarding" feel that people have been complaining about. I will probably see it again in 2D eventually and see if the CGI looks any better.

  • 12.16.2012 1:39 PM PDT

#1 Legendary ODST Firefight Highscore

[UNINTELLIGIBLE > INSUBORDINATION(?)]

I thought it was amazing. Definitely living up to the book and LOTR trilogy. As for the high frame rate, I stopped noticing after 15 minutes.

  • 12.16.2012 1:44 PM PDT

Xbox LIVE gamertag: Dat3lessNutella
Steam username: TopWargamer
To look up my Halo stats...search for the gamertag TopWargamer.
SAVED THREAD PAGES: 283
One does not simply get rid of TopWargamer so easily.
You know this to be true.
ALL HAIL GABEN


Posted by: M94 Mushroom Man
The part with Gollum was much the same, although the corridor was completely dark in the book, and Gollum had long since left it. In the movie, it's brighter, and Gollum is still there. In both, Gollum drops the ring.

  • 12.16.2012 1:49 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3