The Hobbit movies

[jammindude]

So if I go and see this, how will I know which one is 48FPS?

First you see if it's at one of these theaters...

https://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/

But even then, the 48fps version will be listed on the marquee as HFR.   (High Frame Rate) 

[Adami]

So if I go and see this, how will I know which one is 48FPS?

First you see if it's at one of these theaters...

https://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/

But even then, the 48fps version will be listed on the marquee as HFR.   (High Frame Rate)

Awesome, thanks bro.

[senecadawg2]

Thursday night, I'll meet you there. Bring the popcorn!

[Marion Crane]

Saw it last night in 48fps 3D.  Visually, it was fantastic.  If you have any doubts about the frame rate, I'll just tell you now that it felt exactly the same as the first time I ever watched a 1080p Blu Ray in 120hz.  It takes your eyes a few minutes to adjust but after that, it's gorgeous.  Especially Gollum.  I highly recommend watching it in HFR 3D

[MrBoom_shack-a-lack]

Nice! Just bought tickets for friday in glorious HFR 3D. 

[Perpetual Change]

Despite some early, intensely critical reviews (which launched the Hobbit into the 20-30 percent range on the Rotten Tomatoes index), the last few days have seen a number of much more positive reviews released, including approving ones from the New Yorker and the New York Post. The Hobbit remains in the 70s for “All Critics”, and have gotten up to the mid 50s for “Top Critics” while continuing to rise.

Hurrah. I can go back to expecting this to be the best movie to come out since Return of the King. 

[Marion Crane]

Overall (being a ridiculously huge LOTR fan), I'd give it a 9/10. 

[SomeoneLikeHim]

**SPOILERS INSIDE**


I thought it was good, though not as good as LOTR(not that I expected it to be). I really enjoyed the Gollum scene. The music was top notch and everytime they returned to a theme from LOTR I got chills. I also enjoyed the fact that in the beginning they cut off right before LOTR starts (Frodo was going to wait for Gandalf in the woods). I saw it in 48fps and while it was incredibly awkward at first I got used to it after about 20 minutes. After that it was just nice, I don't regret seeing it in high frame rate.

[senecadawg2]

Awesome to hear some more positive feedback. It seems like most of the critic reviews I've read have all been bashing the 48fps. I just got my tickets for the HFR tomorrow night. I haven't decided yet, but I may skip school tomorrow and watch all the LOTR Extended editions.

[JayOctavarium]

Awesome to hear some more positive feedback. It seems like most of the critic reviews I've read have all been bashing the 48fps. I just got my tickets for the HFR tomorrow night. I haven't decided yet, but I may skip school tomorrow and watch all the LOTR Extended editions.

I would love to be able to sit down and do that

[Adami]

Yea, I bought all of the movies on Blu Ray and will watch them soon. I've only seen each one once and all in theater when they came out.

[BlackInk]

*SPOILERS SORT OF*

I thought the movie was good, although a bit childish at times, but that was expected. My favorite scenes were those involving the white council because they were dealing with a subject far greater than 13 dwarves' quest.

And the Necromancer scene was also great for that same reason. And I did not expect that very short appearance of The Witch King of Angmar, I was not ready for that... It was awesome..

[MoraWintersoul]

Tonight's the night of Dream Theater.

Well, I might play some Dream Theater afterwards, but what I meant is that tonight I'll be seeing The Hobbit*. I don't think the cinema is showing it in the high frame rate but I'm not that interested in technology since I'm not seeing many movies at all, let alone in the cinema, so I don't feel the need to catch up.

* I should have said Nightmare Cinema, but, anyway it is a dream of many years coming true and I'll be in the cinema so that was the joke. You can kill me now.

[SomeoneLikeHim]

How? You're already a ghost

[MoraWintersoul]

How? You're already a ghost

[Lynxo]

Saw it on premiere day in 2D. The cinema manages to screw up the subtitles. It was no big deal for most of the film but it was a serious problem when they were talking in elvish or orchish.

Anyway, it was an awesome film. The Gollum scene is by far my favorite. The dwarfs were very enjoyable and Gandalf is just as awesome as usual. I've always liked him more as Gandalf grey rather than Gandalf white.
I'm not overly fond of Randagast and his pet Sebastian though.

I'd give the film 9/10. It made me very excited for the upcoming parts.

[MoraWintersoul]

My head hurts so much - not accustomed to wearing two pairs of glasses on my nose, blasted 3D.

I loved the movie. The LotR throwbacks kept tugging at my heartstrings, which is, I suppose, what they intended. I love the inter-character relations, especially the White Council. And I really like Radagast.

Having gotten into LotR a year after the movies got out, I feel like this is one of the most important chapters in my life as a Tolkien fan, there's that whole feel of a new saga beginning.

And, to quote my sister: Damnit, they should have made six fucking movies out of LotR so we could see everything.

[theseoafs]

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

[Kotowboy]

My head hurts so much - not accustomed to wearing two pairs of glasses on my nose, blasted 3D.

I loved the movie. The LotR throwbacks kept tugging at my heartstrings, which is, I suppose, what they intended. I love the inter-character relations, especially the White Council. And I really like Radagast.

Having gotten into LotR a year after the movies got out, I feel like this is one of the most important chapters in my life as a Tolkien fan, there's that whole feel of a new saga beginning.

And, to quote my sister: Damnit, they should have made six fucking movies out of LotR so we could see everything.

From what I gather - The Hobbit book could barely fill one film - let alone three.

But hey - three films make more money than one ! And why not chuck em in 3D as well for extra money ? Bingo !!

[Adami]

Watching The Fellowship of the Ring right now for the first time since it came out in 2001 (I believe).

Really enjoying it.

I'll finish the trilogy in the next few days before I see The Hobbit. Looking forward to it.

[Kotowboy]

Caught a glimpse of The Hobbit in 48fps whilst on my Cinema Induction today.

It looks crystal clear and really jumps off the screen - even in 2D.

It does have that slightly sped-up look to it.

But it does still "look" like a movie. Not like television - as some people have said it would.

[Adami]

Was it filmed in 3d or post converted?

[Perpetual Change]

Was it filmed in 3d or post converted?

It was painstakingly filmed in 3D

[Adami]

Was it filmed in 3d or post converted?

It was painstakingly filmed in 3D

Really? Well then I shall see it in 3D then!

[wasteland]

My head hurts so much - not accustomed to wearing two pairs of glasses on my nose, blasted 3D.

I loved the movie. The LotR throwbacks kept tugging at my heartstrings, which is, I suppose, what they intended. I love the inter-character relations, especially the White Council. And I really like Radagast.

Having gotten into LotR a year after the movies got out, I feel like this is one of the most important chapters in my life as a Tolkien fan, there's that whole feel of a new saga beginning.

And, to quote my sister: Damnit, they should have made six fucking movies out of LotR so we could see everything.

I agree with all of this, the movie went definitely beyond my expectations. I'm going to spend another 7€ to watch it a second time, and this time in 2D.

What about Martin Freeman's and Andy Serkis's performances? Outstanding they were, for me.

[Lynxo]

What about Martin Freeman's and Andy Serkis's performances? Outstanding they were, for me.

I agree. I especially like their scene together. I was worried it might not live up to my expectations since that's the highlight of the book for me, but it was awesome.

Martin Freeman is really good, but he kinda disappears midway into the film when the focus is on everything BUT him. Obviously it's not his fault, but I remember watching the movie and reacting to it.

Also, all the musical cues from Lord of the Rings made me chill. ESPECIALLY the ring theme, when the ring was featured for the first time. That was SO awesome!

[SomeoneLikeHim]

What about Martin Freeman's and Andy Serkis's performances? Outstanding they were, for me.

I agree. I especially like their scene together. I was worried it might not live up to my expectations since that's the highlight of the book for me, but it was awesome.

Martin Freeman is really good, but he kinda disappears midway into the film when the focus is on everything BUT him. Obviously it's not his fault, but I remember watching the movie and reacting to it.

Also, all the musical cues from Lord of the Rings made me chill. ESPECIALLY the ring theme, when the ring was featured for the first time. That was SO awesome!

All of this

[wasteland]

*SPOILER ALERT ON*

I agree. I especially like their scene together. I was worried it might not live up to my expectations since that's the highlight of the book for me, but it was awesome.

Yes, their interaction was one of the highlights of the movie. I fooled the friend I went to the cinema with, who didn't read the book, into believing that Gollum would not be appearing until the next movie. He was just exstatic to see his visage, once again. And it's also obvious the amazing lenght CGI or whatever that technique is called has gone in this past 10 years. I don't think I have ever seen anything computer generated appear so realistic.

I also LOVED the short scene with Radagast in Dol Guldur and the glimpse of the Necromancer we were given (also, the hooded spirit statue tightening its grip on the hilt of the sword was possibly the best two seconds of the movie). And to conclude this fanboyic "vichyssoise of verbage", they somehow managed to avoid showing Smaug in his majesty (the eye however was a CGI masterpiece) without taking any credibility from the flashback of the Sack of Erebor. Good job, once again.

[senecadawg2]

Just got home from the midnight premiere. I watched it in 3D HFR. The HFR really dazzled in some places (most memorably with Gollum). As for the content, I really loved the inclusion of the Whte Council (Cate Blanchett looked even more gorgeous than usual), as well as the Dol Guldur scene. My biggest complaint would be Radagasts role, and the incredible emphasis on Thorins arch enemy: the pale Orc. The sets all looked quite good, especially the goblin city and rivendale. Also really nice was the soundtrack (although I don't think I like it as much as The Lord of the rings') and the beautiful New Zealand scenery. Anyhow, it's not Lotr, but it would be foolish to place those expectations on this movie, considering that the hobbit's story has much less depth to it.

I'll be seeing it again in 3d IMAX this weekend, and then probably even a third time in plain ol 2d.

[Heretic]

Well that was amazing. Everything I expected and more.

[BlackInk]

Oh right, Azog. Did anyone else think he looked like he was from a video game? Not the best visual effects I must say...

[Perpetual Change]

Saw it last night. It was pretty good, but now I’m at work feeling like a zombie.

Although I should have, I wasn’t expecting the events of the Hobbit to be presented over such an epic backdrop, even though that’s consistent with how the events of the story are described in the LotR appendices and later. When Tolkien wrote the Hobbit, he wasn’t quite sure what it was leading up to, if anything at all. After he wrote Lord of the Rings, however, he was able to recast many of the events as being of great importance to Sauron’s return and the ring quest. This movie reflects that. It’s not really based on the Hobbit as-is, but more like the Hobbit as-would-have-been, given Tolkien never abandoned the idea of going back to rewrite it. However, the film is still The Hobbit as re-written by Jackson, not the Hobbit as re-written by Tolkien. The changes and informative fill-ins succeed most of the time, but there were a few instances that just seemed odd. Overall it was an enjoyable film. Not as enjoyable as the original trilogy, but still great, and promising only to get better.

As far as technical things go, After seeing 48fps 3D last night, I’m pretty convinced that the whole controversy over the thing was BS, if not an outright publicity stunt. Never once did I feel like I was watching a documentary, or a stage play. But at multiple times I was floored by how “alive” Middle Earth seemed to be. Visually, the only real strange part for me was when Radagast was zooming over the fields on his rabbit carriage while being chased by the Wargs. It looked really fake and weird, and I wonder how that scene made it through the final cut.

Some people will complain it’s slow, but what could you expect? There was no way it could be on Return of the King’s level from the getgo… however, with what’s coming up in the story, I am sure it’ll get there and I’ll be happy to see it when it does.

[Orbert]

From what I gather - The Hobbit book could barely fill one film - let alone three.

But hey - three films make more money than one ! And why not chuck em in 3D as well for extra money ? Bingo !!

From what you gather?  I take it you've never read the books, then?

A lot of people seem to think that because The Hobbit was only one book and The Lord of the Rings was three, that The Hobbit should only be one movie because The Lord of the Rings was three.  The problem with that thinking is that the books aren't "scaled" the same way.

The Hobbit was written first, and was a children's book.  There is a lot of lore which is only referenced or hinted at, and a lot of story occurs "off-screen".  Heck, the climactic Battle of Five Armies isn't even in the book, and you know that's gonna get milked for at least a half-hour of screen time, probably more.  The Lord of the Rings was meant to dig deeper and goes into greater detail.  The story itself is broader, but the books go into more detail.

I'm sure part of the reason why there will be three movies is because of the money, so you're not wrong about that.  But people always talk about what gets left out of the book to make the movie, and how they wish the movie could be twice as long (or in this case, three times as long).  Here we'll actually get it.  Plus, there's a certain elegance to making it a prequel trilogy, if for no other reason than to show George Lucas how to do it right.

[Perpetual Change]

The Hobbit’s prose is unadorned while being jam-packed with action, so I had no problem at all believing that it could be two or even three films. However, it’s also pretty telling that for the original trilogy, Jackson was cutting out things left and right, and sometimes even entire chapters, to try and control the length of what was already a trilogy of extremely long movies.

Now, the Hobbit is presented fully intact with not only every single triviality from the book represented, but with those trivialities in fact embellished upon. The passing mention of Radagast is now a 5 minute scene of the Wizard nursing his furry companion back to health, and the Dwarves’ back story is now an entire side narrative.   

[bosk1]

From what I gather - The Hobbit book could barely fill one film - let alone three.

But hey - three films make more money than one ! And why not chuck em in 3D as well for extra money ? Bingo !!

From what you gather?  I take it you've never read the books, then?

A lot of people seem to think that because The Hobbit was only one book and The Lord of the Rings was three, that The Hobbit should only be one movie because The Lord of the Rings was three.  The problem with that thinking is that the books aren't "scaled" the same way.

The Hobbit was written first, and was a children's book.  There is a lot of lore which is only referenced or hinted at, and a lot of story occurs "off-screen".  Heck, the climactic Battle of Five Armies isn't even in the book, and you know that's gonna get milked for at least a half-hour of screen time, probably more.  The Lord of the Rings was meant to dig deeper and goes into greater detail.  The story itself is broader, but the books go into more detail.

I'm sure part of the reason why there will be three movies is because of the money, so you're not wrong about that.  But people always talk about what gets left out of the book to make the movie, and how they wish the movie could be twice as long (or in this case, three times as long).  Here we'll actually get it.  Plus, there's a certain elegance to making it a prequel trilogy, if for no other reason than to show George Lucas how to do it right.