The Hobbit II

[Darth Mandarb]

When I read The Hobbit I was a child (I think I was 10 or so).  I didn't tackle The Lord of the Rings until high school.  I remembered, going into LotR, the "magic" that I felt from the Hobbit (wizards, dwarves and dragons) and tLotR was too serious and dark comparatively.  I couldn't get past the first few chapters (and not just because of Tolkein's writing style, which was daunting).  It took me years to finally hunker down and read the entire story of LotR.  I fell in love with the world but I always felt a disconnect between the Middle Earth of the Hobbit and the Middle Earth in the Lord of the Rings.  The Hobbit is much more of a children's book, while LotR is (admittedly) the origin of modern Sci-fi/Fantasy and more geared towards an older reading audience.

So when I went to see An Unexpected Journey last year (and The Desolation of Smaug a few weeks ago) I was expecting a much more light-hearted and whimsical (more fantastical) movie than the previous Middle Earth trilogy; and I wasn't disappointed.  It is supposed to be that way.  Another thing to consider is that The Hobbit is told (more clear in the movies) from the memories and perspective of Bilbo.  He's relating the story and his memories are more vivid and fantastical than the reality probably was.  Hence the "jumping 10 feet" or "barrel hitting 20 orcs" etc.  So my experience, so far, with the Hobbit trilogy is more or less what I was expecting (and more enjoyable since I wasn't comparing it to the first trilogy).  The Hobbit feels like you're being told a story and the Lord of the Rings feels like you're watching the events happen.

About the only complaint (and it's not really a complaint, more just an observation) that I have is that while I was expecting the more child-like nature (and disconnect) from the LotR trilogy... Jackson is really trying to tie it all together with the supplemental material being added in (which directly links the events of the Hobbit to the LotR, which the Hobbit (book) doesn't even really hint at).  I was kind of hoping just for the Hobbit and letting the viewer make the connections).  The addition of these materials that weren't in the book do clash a little with the more whimsical material from the book.  I have noticed, however, that the parts of the movie(s) that are not from Bilbo's recollections (from the book) do tend to be darker and more dingy (more like LotR) which I think is a nice touch.

I do have to admit that I was, by the end of the Desolation of Smaug, rather tired of Legolas' spinning and general bad-assery.  It wasn't that it was over the top (I liked that) it was that there was just too much of it (and Tauriel's as well).  Oh look he's spinning and stabbing again!  Didn't ruin the experience for me (Peter Jackson is known for too much of a thing; walking scenes, the entirety of the movie King Kong) but it was getting a tad annoying.

[Ewery1]

The Hobbit was way too unrealistic for me. Yeah I know "but it's a fantasy!" yet even fantasies shouldn't exceed the framework of the world it's set in. Eg everything in Lord of the Rings or GoT is believable if you accept the basic rules of the fantasy world. But I'm pretty sure the hobbit and dwarves wouldn't survive a 10 million foot drop inside the goblin kingdom, and that chase scene was way too action movie-ey, and there was a genuine WTF moment when I saw that messenger on the string that the goblin with the deformed ball sack on his head speaks to. I also hated the whole White Orc subplot, not withstanding the CGI for it just looked so out of place for some reason. And in the trailer for Desolation of Smaug I saw Thorin jump about 10 feet into the air off a cliff, that would never happen.

I was hoping to see something in the same vein as the LotR but it turned out to be a dumb children's movie (the scene where that hedgehog called Sebastian dies actually made me angry). At least PJ stayed faithful to the text as it's essentially a children's book anyway. As a massive LotR fan I still hated it though.

No, they ruined it. It was completely different in the book, he didn't stay faithful to the text WHATSOEVER. He strayed from the plot too much, he also added way too much. The scene with Sebastian in it was not in the book at all. He added action where it wasn't nessisary, and it kind of ruined the point of the book. He added way too much extra plotline. The "Necromancer"

Spoiler

Who we all know is Sauron

[close]

was never  in it.

[TheBitPriest]

Hopefully, the "rumpus" in my last post was clear, even if this isn't the rumpus room.   I'm sure that PJ's creative energy is not tied to his weight and heart health.

[Knox]

I really liked it, but I can't stand the HFR, makes everything look "cheap", or a really bad BBC special or something (I'd like to see it again at 24fps). I'd say it was better than the first Hobbit movie, but not as good as the Lord of the Rings movies.

[TheBitPriest]

I just watched the extended edition of The Unexpected Journey.  I don't know if it's because it wasn't as rushed or because I was so turned off by the HFR/3D of my first experience, but I liked it much better.  Perhaps the extended version of The Desolation of Smaug will be a little better, too.

[Retro Wolf]

I've really enjoyed the films so far, I can tell they are stretching it out a bit too much, but still good fun. I haven't got round to reading the books, something I'd like to do one day. My sister has all the books, I found it interesting that The Hobbit is the thinnest of the four, and they're making THREE films out of it!
It doesn't bother me if a film of a book changes things though.

I'm not a fan of HFR either, it's almost like there's too much visual information for my brain to handle, and it's like everything that moves, moves too fast. It's hard to explain.

I saw the first Hobbit in 3D at the cinema, it's like being cross-eyed for 3 three hours. I'll admit the effects were brilliant, the best 3D I've seen in a film. But I don't think it's necessary. When it was released on DVD I enjoyed it much more.

I have better than 20/20 vision, maybe that's a factor in all this. EDIT: (Or perhaps some undiscovered mental condition....hmm)

[Esseb]

I don't care about the 3d (I don't even notice after the first few minutes), and The Hobbitses have followed the LOTR pattern of the first 30 minutes set in the shire being the only bit I really enjoyed, but I'm really loving the HFR and wish all movies would adopt this.

I can actually look at stuff when the camera is panning horizontally! It's like magic.

[blueskirt]

To each their own I suppose. I had a dreadful experience watching it in HFR, it totally broke my immersion, every movement looked accelerated, during a couple scenes I had the Benny Hill chase theme playing in my head, the whole time I was constantly reminded I was sitting in a dark room, with a bunch of other people, in front of a screen. I dunno, maybe it's my brain that's wrong or maybe it's the projector at that cinema that wasn't suited for HFR.

I went there a second time to watch it in 2D, no glasses, no HFR, and I really had a blast the second time around, I could instead focus on what was going on in the movie rather than the quality of the picture.

[Darth Mandarb]

Personally I freakin' love the HFR (particularly when coupled with the 3D because it really helps the 3D look brighter (I'm not a huge fan of 3D though, but the Hobbit(s) have done it the best I've seen so far)).  It's a new theater experience rather than the old 24fps.  Finally something fresh!  My guess, as to the reasoning behind it, was a desperate attempt (from Hollywood and theater owners) to get people coming back to the theaters.  Ticket sales have plummeted over the years as home theaters have gotten better and better.  I have a 120" screen at home and feel very little need to go sit in a theater with a bunch of ignorant and inconsiderate idiots who can't sit there and just watch the movie without texting, talking, etc.  I now consider going to the theater and "occasion".  And my wife and I go to this theater called the "Premiere" and you sit up in the balcony (on very comfy couches) over the general seating.  You can get food (and BEER!!) delivered to your seat as well.  It's twice as expensive but it serves two purposes as the people that pay the extra money are there to see the movie and not use their goddamn cellphones and I don't like sitting down amongst the peasants.

[Chicky]

I have a 120" screen at home

Whoa! Have you ran a low res feed through it yet? Imagine the giant pixels I've always wanted to play something pretty like Simon the Sorcerer on a big cinema screen.

[Darth Mandarb]

Whoa! Have you ran a low res feed through it yet? Imagine the giant pixels I've always wanted to play something pretty like Simon the Sorcerer on a big cinema screen.

I plugged some old consoles into it (the N64 most recently) and it looks great!  Mario Kart at 120" is fan-freakin-tastic!  I played Space Quest III on it as well.  The pixels are noticeably huge, but it just gives it more charm

[TheBitPriest]

+1 for dinner theaters.