The Obligatory Hobbit Discussion & Spoilers Thread

I just saw it and since nobody else made this yet, go ahead and discuss, speculate, review, criticize, praise etc.

Here's my tl;dr review: good film, doesn't take itself too seriously and remains faithful to the book's lighthearted style, the pacing is kinda inconsistent and a lot of scenes were too drawn out, the whole "old Bilbo telling a story on his birthday" narrative feels hamfisted. Some improvements from LOTR are visible in terms of Jackson's directing, both in terms of framing (some nice panning shots and positioning here and there) and characterization, especially with that of the non-humanoid characters, like the goblin king, the trolls and even the orcs. Characters in general feel like they have a lot more soul than in LOTR. A lot of clichéd and predictable sequences prevent the film from being as engaging as it should be, and it definitely feels like we've passed the midway point of the adventure meaning I still remain very skeptical of the choice to make this a trilogy. 6/10

Did you see the HFR version? I'm planning to see the movie Monday, hopefully to avoid the crowds, but I haven't decided which version yet.

No, 2D. I hate 3D.

No, 2D. I hate 3D.

Is that why you're so miserable all the time?

Quote from: Blanko on December 14, 2012, 10:24:43 AM

No, 2D. I hate 3D.

Is that why you're so miserable all the time?

3D in movies, you dingus. I like real life 3D just fine.

Quote from: Particle Person on December 14, 2012, 11:28:09 AM

Quote from: Blanko on December 14, 2012, 10:24:43 AM

No, 2D. I hate 3D.

Is that why you're so miserable all the time?

3D in movies, you dingus. I like real life 3D just fine.

How do you know you'd hate HFR 3D?
Also, I wonder how they made 3D work, since most of the scenes with Gandalf and anyone else were traditionally filmed using forced perspective, which doesn't work in 3D.

I feel like we're going to be hearing a lot of butt hurt lotr "die-hards" in the near future. There were obviously stylistic differences between the trilogy and this. There had to be. If Peter Jackson wanted this to be a prequel to lotr, it would've been incredibly boring and repetitive, essentially an echo of what he had already done. It was a good choice to change to a more light, fantastical mood, with more exaggerated features in nonhumans, dwarves especially.

I thought it was far too slow at the beginning. The narration was too long and it took too long for the "adventure" to begin. However, I look at this as groundwork in setting the mood for the rest of the film, as well as the following two to come.

Fuck, I have to wait until Christmas before it's released. Fucking Australia.

Anyway, a lot of critics seem to be hating on one of two things:

1. Pacing.
2. HFR

I love Tolkien and the original trilogy, so I doubt pacing will impact my enjoyment at all. The 48 FPS is a moot point, because you can simply see the 24 FPS version if you don't like it in 48. I've been hoping that it's just a more focused, slower paced adventure in middle earth, and most people are saying it's exactly that. I doubt I'll be disappointed.

I liked this review, even though I haven't seen it yet:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/6620-The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey

I essentially lost interest in this when Guillermo del Toro left the project.

Why would they hate HFR? It seems like it would make action scenes much less blurry.

Why would they hate HFR? It seems like it would make action scenes much less blurry.

Less blurry means less natural looking. 24 fps is the industry standard because it is most similar to how our eyes see regularly. Bumping it to 48 makes quicker sequences more clearly defined, which I think worked here, because they didn't exactly go for a "natural" feel in the film.

I essentially lost interest in this when Guillermo del Toro left the project.

He was still kept as a produce, I think. In any case, his new movie, Pacific Rim, just had the first trailer released. It looks good.

Quote from: Crudblud on December 15, 2012, 02:02:16 AM

I essentially lost interest in this when Guillermo del Toro left the project.

He was still kept as a produce, I think. In any case, his new movie, Pacific Rim, just had the first trailer released. It looks good.

I just watched it. Normally I would dismiss something like that, but I trust him to pull it off.

Less blurry means less natural looking. 24 fps is the industry standard because it is most similar to how our eyes see regularly. Bumping it to 48 makes quicker sequences more clearly defined, which I think worked here, because they didn't exactly go for a "natural" feel in the film.

If human eyes worked at 24 fps then we wouldn't know what 48 fps looks like because our eyes can't see it.

Quote from: Heisenburgers on December 15, 2012, 04:11:57 PM

Less blurry means less natural looking. 24 fps is the industry standard because it is most similar to how our eyes see regularly. Bumping it to 48 makes quicker sequences more clearly defined, which I think worked here, because they didn't exactly go for a "natural" feel in the film.

If human eyes worked at 24 fps then we wouldn't know what 48 fps looks like because our eyes can't see it.

What I meant by that is that viewing something on a screen a set distance away at 24 fps is most similar to how we view things in everyday life. Watching a projection on a screen isn't the same as looking around a room. Real life doesn't work in frames, or set distances.

What I meant by that is that viewing something on a screen a set distance away at 24 fps is most similar to how we view things in everyday life. Watching a projection on a screen isn't the same as looking around a room. Real life doesn't work in frames, or set distances.

What are you basing that opinion on?

How was the Star Trek preview?

How was the Star Trek preview?

People actually applauded that preview. I wasn't really paying attention to it.

Quote from: Heisenburgers on December 16, 2012, 10:45:46 AM

What I meant by that is that viewing something on a screen a set distance away at 24 fps is most similar to how we view things in everyday life. Watching a projection on a screen isn't the same as looking around a room. Real life doesn't work in frames, or set distances.

What are you basing that opinion on?

I know real life doesn't work in frames and set distances cause I'm not a retarded fuck. It's really not an opinion.

How was the Star Trek preview?

Looked like the same trite Michael Bay-esque garbage as the first film.

I know real life doesn't work in frames and set distances cause I'm not a retarded fuck. It's really not an opinion.

An opinion is exactly what you stated, and a baseless one at that.

I'm gonna see The Hobbit this afternoon.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on December 15, 2012, 06:56:20 AM

Why would they hate HFR? It seems like it would make action scenes much less blurry.

Less blurry means less natural looking. 24 fps is the industry standard because it is most similar to how our eyes see regularly. Bumping it to 48 makes quicker sequences more clearly defined, which I think worked here, because they didn't exactly go for a "natural" feel in the film.

That's completely untrue. 24fps is the industry standard because back in the day when film first started, it was probably the lowest framerate the filmmakers could get away with without having people complain that they could make out each individual frame. It always has been about the money.

Also, if it were true, N. America would have accepted the PAL standards, because the American public would reject the NTSC standard of 30fps.

I saw the 3D version. Loved the movie, but hated the 3D. I could never get my eyes to focus properly, so I never felt immersed in the movie like I should have.

woops. my apologies about the 24 fps being most life like. I was mistaken and beg forgiveness.

Although I will hold to saying that high frame rates makes quick things look unnatural, like glass shattering.

I think it's just the uncanny valley effect. Trying too hard at imitating reality, etc.

The low budget afternoon soaps are shot in HFR, it makes them look super fake.

does it follow the book better than lotr? thats the only thing that bugs me with lotr.

does it follow the book better than lotr? thats the only thing that bugs me with lotr.

It's been a while since I've read the book but I didn't notice any glaring inconsistencies.