• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Hobbit - Official Thread of Officially In Production

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WyndhamPrice

Member
I don't think I'll be seeing this in 48 frames for the first time, it sounds like something I'll check out the second time around out of curiosity rather than necessity.
 
S

SCULLIBUNDO

Banned
maquiladora said:
Man, some of those comments on 48fps are making me wish I was seeing this in 24fps first.

What was WB thinking showing that version to reviewers...
Click to expand...

Joke? It's how Jackson intended for it to be seen. Had he shown off the 24fps version all the articles would read 'WHAT IS JACKSON HIDING?'
 
K

Kud Dukan

Member
Scullibundo said:
No surprises there. You can't ever trust impressions that come from the world premiere screening.
Click to expand...

Yeah, there is no denying that. We see it time and time again.

These reviews are definitely lowering my expectations a bit, which were probably way too high to begin with. Still, I'll make up my own mind before I pass judgement.
 
B

Bobby Roberts

Banned
maquiladora said:
Man, some of those comments on 48fps are making me wish I was seeing this in 24fps first.

What was WB thinking showing that version to reviewers...
Click to expand...

It's the intended format the filmmaker meant for the film to be seen in. If they hadn't shown it to critics, it would have sent a worse message, probably. So they had to roll the dice that the critics would have different takes on the footage than the exhibitors did when they saw it earlier this year.
 
C

Chuck Norris

Banned
So basically the movie suffers from a lack of editing and meanders around too much. Sounds like King Kong. Jackson is becoming the Kojima of cinema, he needs a better editor.

Or maybe it's just the executives who decided a short book needed to be a three part epic
 
K

kingocfs

Member
The exposition seems to be where PJ really pushed the envelope in the stretching-the-plot department. I can totally see where they're coming from with that King Kong comparison.
 
A

AstroNut325

Member
ViewtifulJC said:
Yeah, screw the story! Let's see that high framerate!
Click to expand...

I've always advocated the death of 24fps. I'm finally going to be able to see a big budget production that goes beyond the century old standard. Just because I don't care about the story of LOTR/Hobbit does not mean I do not value good scripts, screenplay and acting.
 
M

maquiladora

Member
Scullibundo said:
Joke? It's how Jackson intended for it to be seen. Had he shown off the 24fps version all the articles would read 'WHAT IS JACKSON HIDING?'
Click to expand...

They're asking people to review a movie and at the same time introducing them to this new format, on the back of the overwhelming negative reaction from cinemacon.

If WB are doing such a limited release in HFR because they don't know how audiences will react then they should have been equally cautious with press screenings too, knowing the risks there.

Unfortunately it sounds like HFR isn't the only concern though... :/
 
W

WyndhamPrice

Member
LotR set a ridiculously high level of expectation.

It sounds like The Hobbit is still a perfectly good film, it just has its share of flaws.

I made this damn thread nearly 2 years ago, I'm still hyped as hell.
 
A

Astral

Member
These reviews are heartbreaking. I was even planning on watching the first 3 movies back to back before watching this.
 
I

inm8num2

Member
Astral said:
These reviews are heartbreaking. I was even planning on watching the first 3 movies back to back before watching this.
Click to expand...

Why? I'm seeing mostly positive reviews, though I haven't seen the Variety one.

It may not be as good as LOTR, but people seem to have enjoyed the movie.
 
B

Branduil

Member
It was never going to get the reviews of the LotR films.

I think it's going to be difficult to assess the films as a whole until the entire trilogy is out.
 
A

AstroNut325

Member
ViewtifulJC said:
Yeah, it totally sucks. It's amazing how anybody made even a decent film with such limitations!

And in 2D, at that! All that lost immersion, all that potential!
Click to expand...

I agree... a good movie is a good movie regardless of fancy gimmicks and technological innovation. So we should just stagnate technological innovation for cinema from here on out? All that matters is the story right? Watching Lawrence of Arabia in black and white is the same as watching it in color. Same with Jurrasic Park, Toy Story, and all the other critically acclaimed movies. No need to advance tech anymore. In fact... while we're at it... let's get rid of sound. The Artist was amazing and it was a silent film!
 
K

Kud Dukan

Member
Hollywood.com review: http://www.hollywood.com/news/The_Hobbit_Review_Star_Wars_Prequels/45498155

The film has its moments of shock — if the kids are too young for a good ol' fashioned Orc beheading, An Unexpected Journey is not for them — but in the end, it aims to be the fantasy read, played and explored in the imaginations of people of all ages. A fresh, free-spirited form of fantasy, Jackson's latest provides a younger generation with the right kind of stepping stone to his later films, while serving the adults who want more. No destroyed childhoods here.
Click to expand...

Yahoo Movies review: http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie...-ve-seen-welcome-return-middle-050025086.html
The final chapter of the original trilogy, "The Return of the King," won 11 Academy Awards, including Best Picture, tying the record for most wins shared by "Ben-Hur" and "Titanic." While "The Hobbit" will surely be considered for technical awards for visual effects, makeup, and sound, it's safe to say it won't be in the running for the major awards this time out. This one lacks the truly powerful emotional moments of the earlier films, and while the performances are solid, none are showy enough to grab any nominations.
This film is the first chapter of a new trilogy, though. Originally, Peter Jackson intended to split the book into two films, but earlier this year decided there was enough material for a third installment. There is a fair amount of time in this movie setting up the villains for the later chapter, and while it does end on something of a cliffhanger, it still feels like a complete story in and of itself.
Click to expand...

Cinemablend: http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-6201.html
When Jackson took on The Hobbit after Guillermo del Toro dropped it in 2010, it seemed like an obligation more than the passion that drove him to make the original trilogy. But for its occasional moments of excess and unhurried pace, An Unexpected Journey is proof that Jackson still has a knack for stories in this world, and that he may have more surprises in store as the rest of this new, unexpected trilogy unfolds.
Click to expand...

Indiewire: http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...ther-dazzling-action-adventure-epic-20121204#
While it will be too formulaic and familiar to some (and certainly non-fans won’t be won over), 'The Hobbit' is another grand achievement from director Peter Jackson. While this distended picture threatens to buckle under the weight of its own self-importantance, Peter Jackson clearly believes he’s earned the right to preamble and make nearly three hour long tent poles each time out of the gate. And the last two acts of 'The Hobbit' are simply a non-stop action-adventure rollercoaster that is just as engaging and winning as anything in the director’s previous trilogy. As epic, grandiose, and emotionally appealing as the previous pictures, 'The Hobbit' doesn’t stray far from the mold, but it’s a thrilling ride that’s one of the most enjoyable, exciting and engaging tentpoles of the year. [B+]
Click to expand...
 
V

ViewtifulJC

Banned
Most of the reviews are positive, but the main complaints being that the movie takes FOREVER and a day to get going, as the first hour is mostly Biblo bumbling around with the dwarves, with belch gags, and awkward staging, and hokey material that goes for too long. Eventually the damn trolls and goblins show up and the movie actually starts, and that's where it gets good.
 
D

Dreamwriter

Member
Most of the reviews I've seen seem to be mostly good, and agree that while the film is flawed, it's still great. The most negative one I read complained that he never liked The Hobbit, and he also basically said he doesn't like movies like Star Wars that take place in a world with entirely different cultures (thus the only character he liked in The Hobbit was Bilbo, who acts the most human).
 
D

Daft_Cat

Member
superdeluxe said:
Do we need to post some positive reviews to help you back off the ledge ?
Click to expand...

The LOTR had unanimous critical acclaim, and this one is clearly sounding a lot more mixed. So it's not getting panned? Big whoop. I'm still expecting something better than mediocre/pretty good.

Disappointing. I wonder how much 48fps has to do with it.

ViewtifulJC said:
Most of the reviews are positive, but the main complaints being that the movie takes FOREVER and a day to get going, as the first hour is mostly Biblo bumbling around with the dwarves, with belch gags, and awkward staging, and hokey material that goes for too long. Eventually the damn trolls and goblins show up and the movie actually starts, and that's where it gets good.
Click to expand...

So a bit more than a third of the film sucks? lol.
 
P

Peru

Member
ViewtifulJC said:
Most of the reviews are positive, but the main complaints being that the movie takes FOREVER and a day to get going, as the first hour is mostly Biblo bumbling around with the dwarves, with belch gags, and awkward staging, and hokey material that goes for too long. Eventually the damn trolls and goblins show up and the movie actually starts, and that's where it gets good.
Click to expand...

But that's the best part.

Secret_Riddle said:
The LOTR had unanimous critical acclaim, and this one is clearly sounding a lot more mixed. So it's not getting panned? Big whoop. I'm still expecting something better than mediocre/pretty good.

Disappointing. I wonder how much 48fps has to do with it.
Click to expand...


Most reviews say it's basically the same level of craft as those. The shock and awe effect of 'wow, it worked' is gone obviously and could never have been represented in reviews again.
 
K

kingocfs

Member
ViewtifulJC said:
Most of the reviews are positive, but the main complaints being that the movie takes FOREVER and a day to get going, as the first hour is mostly Biblo bumbling around with the dwarves, with belch gags, and awkward staging, and hokey material that goes for too long. Eventually the damn trolls and goblins show up and the movie actually starts, and that's where it gets good.
Click to expand...

Variety claims about
40 minutes before they leave The Shire.
Complaints about that introduction scene going too long, as if it were "filmed in real time."

But every review I've read seems to claim that it hits it's stride after that. Just makes me more anxious to see it for myself, really.
 
K

Kud Dukan

Member
Yeah, I've been reading through some more reviews, and it does seem that when the film finally starts to pick up, it's pretty great.
 
V

ViewtifulJC

Banned
Secret_Riddle said:
The fuck?
Click to expand...

Sorry, there was a guy with a Bane avatar who said the following, whoever he is has definitely earned the title of THE Inception fan:

jytyDns8qNprg.PNG


Holy hyperbole, Batman!
 
A

Adam J.

Member
So it's sounds like we're getting plenty of Shire stuff this time around--I'm perfectly okay with this. With such a terrific cast I won't mind watching them hang about for the first act before the action sets in.
 
D

Daft_Cat

Member
I'm willing to bet Tolkien fans will dig the super slow opening.

I probably will too...at the same time, I'm getting the feeling that The Hobbit, in such a long form adaptation like this one, would've worked better as a miniseries. There's less of a stigma for bloat in that kind of space.
 
D

Dreamwriter

Member
Secret_Riddle said:
The LOTR had unanimous critical acclaim, and this one is clearly sounding a lot more mixed. So it's not getting panned? Big whoop. I'm still expecting something better than mediocre/pretty good.
Click to expand...

Some of the early Fellowship of the Rings reviews:

Personally, I'm heading back to the Harry Potter movie, which has fantasy and effects plus wittier charm, and some lives scaled to a human dimension.
Click to expand...

The pacing of the picture bogs the entire thing down. The actors look deep into each other's eyes time and time again, usually in slow motion, seemingly grinding the film to a halt, as it stretches itself out past the three hour mark... The movie goes in circles and never seems to come to an end
Click to expand...

Sure, the film’s technical aspects are vastly elaborate, the characters well cast, and the special effects amazing. So, what else do you expect from a big budget extravaganza like this? How about a story that does not find itself distracted with every step? Or characters that are not puppets of the plot? Is it really too much to ask for a movie to obey the guidelines it sets for itself
Click to expand...

Heck, Richard Roeper gave the movie a thumbs down because he thought it was just too long. Unanimous critical acclaim, was not from Fellowship of the Rings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Breaking News] Peter Jackson is returning to produce the first of the new Middle-earth films [2026]
2 3 4
194
10K
ManaByte replied
I've completed my 20th re-reading of The Lord of the Rings.
2
60
5K
NecrosaroIII replied
  • Locked
Thor Ragnaok adds Jeff Goldblum and Karl Urban, confirms character roles
5 6 7 8 9
434
45K
HeySeuss replied
  • Locked
Thor 3: Ragnarok | Production Thread
13 14 15 16 17
800
142K
Platy replied
  • Locked
NBC & ABC's Fall schedules and new shows for 2016-2017
28
4K
sphagnum replied
Top Bottom