The Hobbit Trailer

[Who Really Cares?]

Really..

http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/the-hob ... -next-year

[Sonikku]

Sooooooo...


24fps or 48fps people? I haven't decided which version I'm going to see yet, mostly due to some critics giving bad reviews to the higher framerate.

[Yokosuka Martian]

We have an option to see which frame rate we want to see?

[Sonikku]

The 3D version is in 48fps. Some say it makes the movie smoother, others say it makes the movie look fake and robs the film of movie magic.

[Yokosuka Martian]

Welp, I'm going to see the 2d anyways so yay

[Sonikku]

Here is one critic comparing the two.

http://filmgeekcentral.com/2012/12/14/a ... he-hobbit/

[Nankeiro]

When the time comes, i'm gonna watch it in traditional form... But maybe we are reading (and in a few days and some of us), watching the future format? Hmmm... It looks amazing, of course!

[KiBa]

Saw it this weekend in 24fps. It was fantastic. Loved it. Will see the 48fps version tomorrow, and then post my opinion here for the enlightened consideration of my fellow members.

[Sonikku]

Just got back from it. I was on the fence, but ultimately settled on 2D for fear the noses would look fake/sets look cheap ect as many critics have pointed out. I liked it. Not as much as LOTR, but it was worth the cost of admission.

Pluses +
-Was great to see the old gang back together again
-Landscape shots really draw you in and are beautiful
-Jackson's attention to detail is a treat and helps mitigate the stretching of the content
-Martin Freeman was a good casting decision for Bilbo

Minus -
-TOO. MUCH. CGI. Jesus christ people, what the hell? LOTR had a fair balance of conventional effects and computer generated effects when the former just wasn't the right tool for the job. In the Hobbit? It's EVERYWHERE. And it looks fake as hell.
-No sense of dread. (see minus number 1) I just couldn't bring myself to feel any kind of intimidation from plastic-ie computer generated orcs in basically every seen. At least the Orc that killed Sean Bean in fellowship looked like he had the potential to be menacing. In Hobbit I just kept thinking pull the plug from the computer and go safely home. The sheer unbelievable nature of numerous other obstacles with never a single casualty also had me not caring anymore after the fourth or fifth offense. In films there is a certain suspension of disbelief, but hobbit took it too far too often.
-Martin Freeman despite being excellent, is underutilized. Instead of being allowed to set the pace for the entire film, he's just along for the video game ride. A pity.
-The film feels stretched far too thin. I chalk a lot of this up to trying to stretch one book across a lucrative 3 movie franchise. I'm not against another trilogy, I just wish there was enough content between the covers to do it. There really doesn't feel like there is.

It's still worthwhile. Just don't expect to have your socks knocked off. I fear the hobbit may have partly become a victim of the Hollywood machine.

[Bluecast]

I will wait for Amazon on Demand for this one. I loved the LOTR trilogy but this I just have zero excitement for. Something felt off to me. Sounds like I'm not alone in thinking that

[KiBa]

The film feels stretched far too thin.

Like butter over too much bread.

Sorry. Had to.

[silent killer]

Saw it in regular old 2d. Was pretty fun. and yes it looked beautiful. However, I think the award for best looking movie this year is without a doubt Life of Pi. That one had me in tears, it was so awesome.

[Deta]

I have mixed feelings about this. I didnt really like all the singing and some disneyish scenes but overall really enjoyable movie which ended really annoyingly.. Watched in 3d and didnt really like it. Regular 2d would have surely been better imo.

[KiBa]

Ah, you must not have read the book, so you might have expected it to be more like the Lord of the Rings. You see, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, is a children's book, and it's self-consciously supposed to be the book Bilbo himself writes about his adventure within J.R.R. Tolkien's world, which Tolkien has "discovered" and "translated." Moreover, the book is full of songs. It is a musical, really. Being released in 1937, the same year as Disney's fairly tame first movie, you can see that musical fantasy was obviously the style of the time. Disney and Tolkien-verse naturally reinforced one another over the years, literally creating the fantasy genre as we know it today, including D&D, movies, video games, renaissance faires, etc, all post-World War II diversions that created the popular genre we know today.

So, it's not as if Peter Jackson just pulled "Disneyishness" straight out of his... imagination. In 1937, The Hobbit was more Disney than Disney.

[Yukupo]

I thought it was a great film. The slow pace is actually preferable to me as I feel many movies have too much content and move way too fast. I agree about the CGI to a certain degree. It didn't really ruin it for me but I would much rather have seen people dressed as orcs. I also thought the singing was great.

Of course I haven't actually read the Hobbit so I can't compare it to that but I really enjoyed how they fleshed out the world. I also can't compare it to LOTR since I haven't seen them since they came out. (Really need to watch them again.)

(Also I watched it in regular old 2d. I don't really care about 3d.)