I saw 'The Hobbit' tonight...(Spoiler free)

[fantastic_four]

1. The film was broken into three films instead of two. I have no idea how that could possibly work out for the better. It's one thing to make three 2-hour movies, but the Hobbit is almost 3 hours. That's unacceptable. From what I've heard, streamlining it a little in the first half would've helped greatly.

 

I'd agree if he had simply split "The Hobbit" book into three parts, but since he's also writing his own content to fill in huge gaps left by Tolkien between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship of the Ring," it's hard to say for now just how much of the three films comes exclusively from "The Hobbit." He's also said he has included extensive newly-envisioned material interpreted from some of the loose framework included in the "Appendices" at the end of "Return of the King." We'll have to wait for the second and third films to see how drawn-out he does make things.

 

Here's the bit from Wikipedia about what Jackson has done with the combination of "The Hobbit" novel, events implied from the end of that novel and the start of "Fellowship of the Ring," and the "Return of the King" Appendices:

 

The project had been envisaged as two parts since 2006, but the proposed contents of the parts changed during development. MGM expressed interest in a second film in 2006, set between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Jackson concurred, stating that "one of the drawbacks of The Hobbit is it's relatively lightweight compared to LOTR [Lord of the Rings]... There's a lot of sections in which a character like Gandalf disappears for a while. – he references going off to meet with the White Council, who are actually characters like Galadriel and Saruman and people that we see in Lord of the Rings. He mysteriously vanishes for a while and then comes back, but we don't really know what goes on." Jackson was also interested in showing Gollum's journey to Mordor and Aragorn setting a watch on the Shire.

 

After his hiring in 2008, del Toro confirmed the sequel would be about "trying to reconcile the facts of the first movie with a slightly different point of view. You would be able to see events that were not witnessed in the first." He also noted the story must be drawn from only what is mentioned in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, as they do not have the rights to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. Del Toro also added (before writing began) that if they could not find a coherent story for the second film, they would just film The Hobbit, stating "The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point'." By November 2008, he acknowledged that the book was more detailed and eventful than people may remember. He decided to abandon the "bridge film" concept, feeling that it would be better for the two parts to contain only material from The Hobbit:

 

when you lay out the cards fro [sic] the story beats contained within the book (before even considering any apendix [sic] material) the work is enormous and encompasses more than one film. That's why we are thinking of the two installments as parts of a single narrative. That's why I keep putting down the use of a "bridge" film (posited initially). I think the concept as such is not relevant anymore. I believe that the narrative and characters are rich enough to fit in two films.

 

Del Toro said that he was faced with two possible places to split the story, including Smaug's defeat. He noted the second film would need to end by leading directly into The Fellowship of the Ring. In June 2009, del Toro revealed he had decided where to divide the story based on comments from fans about signifying a change in Bilbo's relationship with the dwarves. The second film's story would also have depended on how many actors could have reprised their roles.

 

Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy. According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). While the third film will largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films, it will require additional filming as well. The second film was retitled The Desolation of Smaug and the third film was titled There and Back Again in August 2012.

[Reno McCoy]

I think there are two things happening with this movie, and they're both worth discussion on their own.

 

Agreed.

 

 

1. The film was broken into three films instead of two. I have no idea how that could possibly work out for the better. It's one thing to make three 2-hour movies, but the Hobbit is almost 3 hours. That's unacceptable. From what I've heard, streamlining it a little in the first half would've helped greatly.

 

Agreed. Hollywood trash. It's just a rape for your money.

 

2. As for the 48fps aspect, I think that's the next evolution of film. It looks weird now, but I bet when Cameron uses it for the next Avatar movie, the world will begin to embrace it. It's only a matter of time before all big-budget films are done this way. And I'm sure the disc player manufacturers will find a way to make sure we have to upgrade our machines to watch our movies, too.

 

There's got to be more to it than just the frames per second...I'm sure that it's also going to affect the way people are used to doing makeup, directing, production...the whole shebang is likely going to have to be done differently.

 

HD has already changed how some of this is being done, but you're right. Things will need to be done differently. But it'll be interesting to see how our eyes adapt. If it looks fake now, but we eventually get used to it, maybe it won't matter? I mean, maybe things look odd now simply because it's new? I haven't seen the presentation yet, so I have no idea. I have a feeling though, that I'll be one of the people who get ill from it.

[Reno McCoy]

1. The film was broken into three films instead of two. I have no idea how that could possibly work out for the better. It's one thing to make three 2-hour movies, but the Hobbit is almost 3 hours. That's unacceptable. From what I've heard, streamlining it a little in the first half would've helped greatly.

 

I'd agree if he had simply split "The Hobbit" book into three parts, but since he's also writing his own content to fill in huge gaps left by Tolkien between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship of the Ring," it's hard to say for now just how much of the three films comes exclusively from "The Hobbit." He's also said he has included extensive newly-envisioned material interpreted from some of the loose framework included in the "Appendices" at the end of "Return of the King." We'll have to wait for the second and third films to see how drawn-out he does make things.

 

Here's the bit from Wikipedia about what Jackson has done with the combination of "The Hobbit" novel, events implied from the end of that novel and the start of "Fellowship of the Ring," and the "Return of the King" Appendices:

 

The project had been envisaged as two parts since 2006, but the proposed contents of the parts changed during development. MGM expressed interest in a second film in 2006, set between The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Jackson concurred, stating that "one of the drawbacks of The Hobbit is it's relatively lightweight compared to LOTR [Lord of the Rings]... There's a lot of sections in which a character like Gandalf disappears for a while. – he references going off to meet with the White Council, who are actually characters like Galadriel and Saruman and people that we see in Lord of the Rings. He mysteriously vanishes for a while and then comes back, but we don't really know what goes on." Jackson was also interested in showing Gollum's journey to Mordor and Aragorn setting a watch on the Shire.

 

After his hiring in 2008, del Toro confirmed the sequel would be about "trying to reconcile the facts of the first movie with a slightly different point of view. You would be able to see events that were not witnessed in the first." He also noted the story must be drawn from only what is mentioned in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, as they do not have the rights to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales. Del Toro also added (before writing began) that if they could not find a coherent story for the second film, they would just film The Hobbit, stating "The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point'." By November 2008, he acknowledged that the book was more detailed and eventful than people may remember. He decided to abandon the "bridge film" concept, feeling that it would be better for the two parts to contain only material from The Hobbit:

 

when you lay out the cards fro [sic] the story beats contained within the book (before even considering any apendix [sic] material) the work is enormous and encompasses more than one film. That's why we are thinking of the two installments as parts of a single narrative. That's why I keep putting down the use of a "bridge" film (posited initially). I think the concept as such is not relevant anymore. I believe that the narrative and characters are rich enough to fit in two films.

 

Del Toro said that he was faced with two possible places to split the story, including Smaug's defeat. He noted the second film would need to end by leading directly into The Fellowship of the Ring. In June 2009, del Toro revealed he had decided where to divide the story based on comments from fans about signifying a change in Bilbo's relationship with the dwarves. The second film's story would also have depended on how many actors could have reprised their roles.

 

Although The Hobbit was originally made as a two-part film, on 30 July 2012, Jackson confirmed plans for a third film, turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy. According to Jackson, the third film would make extensive use of the appendices that Tolkien wrote to expand the story of Middle-Earth (published in the back of The Return of the King). While the third film will largely make use of footage originally shot for the first and second films, it will require additional filming as well. The second film was retitled The Desolation of Smaug and the third film was titled There and Back Again in August 2012.

[/quote

 

I think the issue I'm seeing, though, is the same thing I saw when Stephen King got huge over the years. King was so popular, so powerful, that he started having more say than the editors. How many of his books could've used an editor to trim 200 or so pages?

 

This feels the same way to me. A movie just doesn't need to be 3-hours. And a 2-movie set doesn't need to be three.

 

I'm saying this without seeing them, obviously, so I might be way off base. But sometimes "killing your babies" is exactly what a creator needs to do to benefit the audience.

[fantastic_four]

1. The film was broken into three films instead of two. I have no idea how that could possibly work out for the better. It's one thing to make three 2-hour movies, but the Hobbit is almost 3 hours. That's unacceptable. From what I've heard, streamlining it a little in the first half would've helped greatly.

 

Agreed. Hollywood trash. It's just a rape for your money.

 

I haven't seen evidence that Peter Jackson does movies to maximize money. I presumed it had more to do with his love of Tolkien and the fact that Tolkien just didn't write much material to draw from, so this was likely to be his last possibility of making films from an author he has said he loves so dearly.

 

I'd cut him slack until we see how much new material he had the screenwriters draw up from Tolkien's broad brushstrokes in the "Return of the King" Appendices and from the gap in events implied between "The Hobbit" and "Fellowship of the Ring."

[50 Cent #II (1st)]

Might be the result of the 48 frames per second.

 

(thumbs u

[He11blazer]

...

I think the ending was done well. It didn't feel like a total cliffhanger. It was a fitting end to what felt like a long, long movie.

 

Can you tell us geographically were it gets to? I'm guessing it might finish just this side of Mirkwood, perhaps?

[fantastic_four]

I think the issue I'm seeing, though, is the same thing I saw when Stephen King got huge over the years. King was so popular, so powerful, that he started having more say than the editors. How many of his books could've used an editor to trim 200 or so pages?

 

This feels the same way to me. A movie just doesn't need to be 3-hours. And a 2-movie set doesn't need to be three.

 

I'm saying this without seeing them, obviously, so I might be way off base. But sometimes "killing your babies" is exactly what a creator needs to do to benefit the audience.

 

King has been prolific, though. In the case of Tolkien, we're talking about an author who inspired multiple generations of medieval fantasy writers who only wrote five novels, and it's really only two if you count all three parts of "Lord of the Rings" as a single work as Tolkien intended it to be (his publisher made him split it into three books) and if you discount "The Silmarillion" since it's an unfinished collection of writings that Tolkien's son found and published following his father's death.

 

Content from "The Silmarillion", by the way, isn't covered in these three films. Apparently the studio doesn't have the rights to them and hasn't been able to obtain them, so it's possible but unlikely that a future movie would be made from it. I don't know if it's any good or not, haven't read it, but I presume it isn't great unless someone finishes it since Tolkien wasn't able to.

[Doohickamabob]

It had a weird feel to it. Maybe because I saw it in 3-D, or maybe it was just me. But it felt like it was a made for TV movie. The acting was fine and the story was good, but something was missing. One of my friends said it felt like we were watching it while it was being filmed.

The cheap, made-for-TV quality is something I hope filmmakers will eventually find a way to alleviate, perhaps using some sort of technical approach that simulates the dreamlike quality of classic film while keeping the benefits of the higher frame rates. It does seem a shame that one of the touchstones of fantasy storytelling has to be the testing ground for a new technique that appears to be hyper-realistic rather than fantasy enhancing.

 

Regarding reviews of this film, even spoiler-free ones, I rather wish there were a way to filter all reviews out of the internet, for any movie, until I have seen it. My curiosity gets the best of me when I see a link sitting there that says "Somebody has a strong opinion about this movie!" It's like a bowl of M&M's sitting on a coffee table -- it's very difficult to pass by without eating one.

 

My ideal scenario would be to somehow "forget" that the "Hobbit" movies even exist until all three have been released (this time next year?) and are either available to watch in a row at a cineplex (either the same day, or more likely, over the course of a week or so), or could all three be purchased to view on 3-D Blu-Ray at home, with a good TV and sound system and quality 3-D glasses. Add to that some good snacks and drinks, a cold rainy weekend, and a good blanket, and it sounds like it would be a very enjoyable way to pass the time. Even with annoying hyper-realistic film technique.

 

All of this is assuming the storytelling maintains quality. Since it has been dragged out over three movies, there must be a lot of padding and tangential stuff going on. I don't mind that, but I can see how it would kill the dramatic momentum, and from what I know of the story, there isn't that much momentum to begin with -- mostly characters going from point A to point B to point Z.....with a few good episodes along the way. Nonetheless, I found the extended DVDs of the "Lord of the Rings" movies to be agreeable ways to flesh out the movies while watching them at home, with a lot more time to get to know the characters and see their relationships develop. (There was also some stuff that didn't add up and they were right to remove it from the theatrical release.)

 

For now, I intend to avoid the crowded theaters for a while and catch up on other stuff, or see some other new releases. One movie that looks really interesting is Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained." That's another film where I *know* I don't want to read any spoilers beforehand.

[Bronty]

Since I never read the Hobbit.

 

Do they just walk the entire movie just like the other 3 movies?

 

Some guy with a DeLorean shows up to give Bilbo a ride to Smaug's house, but other than that - it's mostly walking.

 

I'm almost done with reading it right now for the first time. This book's material isn't anywhere near as exciting as Lord of the Rings. It's a simple, quaint journey with a handful of action scenes that happen along the way.

 

I don't think that's a fair characterization in that you can't separate the story from the fact it was a children's book. You're reading it for the first time as a nearly middle-aged man. I read it when I was 10 or 11. You're going to get more out of LOTR at this age, but an eleven year old will get more out of the hobbit than LOTR.

 

(I also read LOTR at the same age and while I enjoyed it a lot I know that at the time I preferred the shorter story in some respects. Reading it wasn't this massive undertaking like reading LOTR was, and at that age it felt a little too long, a little too 'epic').

[fantastic_four]

Regarding reviews of this film, even spoiler-free ones, I rather wish there were a way to filter all reviews out of the internet, for any movie, until I have seen it. My curiosity gets the best of me when I see a link sitting there that says "Somebody has a strong opinion about this movie!" It's like a bowl of M&M's sitting on a coffee table -- it's very difficult to pass by without eating one.

 

I only avoid reviews when I'm afraid a review will reveal something that the writer and director meant to keep hidden until later on in the film. I don't mind critics busting on a film...there are plenty of films that have crappy elements to them that I know I can thoroughly enjoy anyway. I know a lot of people tend to obsess on every flaw of a film, but if it has enough cool or fun elements to it, I end up enjoying it regardless of the rest of the world's opinion or the actual bad parts themselves. I find it easy to overlook poor filmmaking if it is counter-balanced by other elements of films that make it worth watching, for example if the visual effects are great I can overlook bad acting and direction. Still, knowing the critical response is useful to let me know how much bad stuff I'm going to have to overlook, or more importantly, how excited to see a film I already wanted to see that ends up getting great critical reception.

 

Examples of films that got bashed that I enjoyed a lot anyway are all three Transformers films, Starship Troopers, Wolverine (and most comic book movies for that matter), and lots of others.

[fantastic_four]

I don't think that's a fair characterization in that you can't separate the story from the fact it was a children's book. You're reading it for the first time as a nearly middle-aged man. I read it when I was 10 or 11. You're going to get more out of LOTR at this age, but an eleven year old will get more out of the hobbit than LOTR.

 

(I also read LOTR at the same age and while I enjoyed it a lot I know that at the time I preferred the shorter story in some respects. Reading it wasn't this massive undertaking like reading LOTR was, and at that age it felt a little too long, a little too 'epic').

 

Oh, I know, but I'm just telling it like it is because that's how the critics and fans are going to see it who aren't able to put it into its context like you and I can. I view Star Wars episodes I through III the same way--people are too harsh on them because they were kids when they saw the original three and are hypercritical adults now. I expect I'm going to enjoy "The Hobbit" a lot, but I can see why a lot of people won't, it skews young as you suggest. My girlfriend is interested in seeing it, but I have every expectation that she will hate it and get massively bored.

[Bronty]

[herc2000]

no Oscars this time round then? :-(

[musicmeta]

All this geek tech talk is losing me. I don't really care about higher and higher resolution, but I am concerned by the awkwardness people are experiencing, so which version would you guys recommend to avoid that feeling? Plus I'd rather avoid the whole 3-D option.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

(thumbs u

 

48fps makes it look like a day time soap opera.

24fps makes it look like Lord Of The Rings.

 

 

I'll be watching the 24fps version first. LOTR was AWESOME!

I may watch it at 48fps later on if I think it's good enough to watch again.

 

[Theagenes]

It had a weird feel to it. Maybe because I saw it in 3-D, or maybe it was just me. But it felt like it was a made for TV movie. The acting was fine and the story was good, but something was missing. One of my friends said it felt like we were watching it while it was being filmed.

 

The cheap, made-for-TV quality is something I hope filmmakers will eventually find a way to alleviate, perhaps using some sort of technical approach that simulates the dreamlike quality of classic film while keeping the benefits of the higher frame rates. It does seem a shame that one of the touchstones of fantasy storytelling has to be the testing ground for a new technique that appears to be hyper-realistic rather than fantasy enhancing.

 

 

A co-worker and I were discussing this very thing. It's the big blockbuster fantasy and SF movies that are always the guinea pigs for this type of thing. Sometimes it works (Avatar) and sometimes it doesn't (Hobbit maybe).

 

48fps might look great for a cop movie filmed on location in NY. But why would anyone think it would be a good idea to show hyper-detail in a movie where the sets and all the props are fake? One reviewer used Gandalf's intricately gnarled staff as an example. In 28fps it looks natural, like a real wooden staff; in the hyper-detail of 48 fps it looks like a resin costume accessory you'd get from an online LARPer supply store---which is of course is what it is.

 

By showing too much detail, you're in effect stripping away the illusion that you were working so hard to create in the first place. There's a reason why fashion model photos get photoshopped and digitally air brushed. It's like watching the remastered Star Trek original series in HD. It looks way more fake than than it did on the low-res early 60's Sylvanias it was meant to be seen on.

 

Yes, maybe they will make adjustments for this in future films, but it sucks that The Hobbit, which I've been so looking forward to, got caught in that transition.

[Bronty]

It had a weird feel to it. Maybe because I saw it in 3-D, or maybe it was just me. But it felt like it was a made for TV movie. The acting was fine and the story was good, but something was missing. One of my friends said it felt like we were watching it while it was being filmed.

 

The cheap, made-for-TV quality is something I hope filmmakers will eventually find a way to alleviate, perhaps using some sort of technical approach that simulates the dreamlike quality of classic film while keeping the benefits of the higher frame rates. It does seem a shame that one of the touchstones of fantasy storytelling has to be the testing ground for a new technique that appears to be hyper-realistic rather than fantasy enhancing.

 

 

 

Gandalf's intricately gnarled staff as an example. In 28fps it looks natural, like a real wooden staff; in the hyper-detail of 48 fps it looks like a resin costume accessory you'd get from an online LARPer supply store---which is of course is what it is.

 

 

[nearmint]

How will we know what theaters are screening the film in 24 fps versus 48? Fandango doesn't seem to be making any distinction.

[Theagenes]

How will we know what theaters are screening the film in 24 fps versus 48? Fandango doesn't seem to be making any distinction.

 

 

www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list

 

http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/index.html

[DiceX]

Good. My favorite local theater has the 48fps. I will go watch it next week just to experience it.

I may go see it in a regular theater this weekend so I have something to compare it to.

 

 

[nearmint]

How will we know what theaters are screening the film in 24 fps versus 48? Fandango doesn't seem to be making any distinction.

 

 

www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list

 

http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/index.html

 

Thanks. Looks like I'll be seeing it in 24.