There's been stories recently of the film's frames-per-second being faster than the conventional film speed, thereby causing some folks to feel physically uncomfortable:
I tend not to experience motion sickness, so I doubt I will be affected. But one of my friends who is a very into Tolkien mentioned that he read some articles in which it is reported that the super high camera speed almost makes motion look unnatural.
Well, anyway, I'm going to see it in the theater for sure.
Ugh. The hobbit (the novel) is easily in my top three, if not favorite novel of all time. Yet, the movie is an obvious cash-grab, nothing more. Three movies for three times the profit. Story changed to represent Hollywood standards. I'm sure the mass merchandise is already being shipped to stores.
I will do my best to approach them with the mindset of "Middle-Earth Remix", but it is difficult to stay motivated once a story/concept has reached this point. Too bad too, because I thought Jackson did a decent job of keeping the LoTR trilogy close to the novel versions.
@MatthewA money is precisely the reason why all great art gets made! I'd be happy if they were making 10 movies, the more hobbit the better! Though in that case I'd be rather suspicious of where they were getting the content from.
Yes and no. Big projects means lots o' money. Not automatically bad until you have business men in control of an artist's job. That is what I meant by "once a story/concept has reached this point". The original concept is a product of the artist and is what generates interest. Once it falls into the hands of business men, that concept is a mere shadow, almost a parody of what once was. History is filled with countless examples. Bands "selling out" after their first or second album, the movies on their 10th sequel already twice spun-off, etc.
I hope I am wrong. Perhaps this re-imagining of The Hobbit will be pure genius. Perhaps it hasn't reached the stage of generic crap sold under a popular name. Like I said, I am going to try my best to watch it with an open mind.
Ugh. The hobbit (the novel) is easily in my top three, if not favorite novel of all time. Yet, the movie is an obvious cash-grab, nothing more. Three movies for three times the profit. Story changed to represent Hollywood standards. I'm sure the mass merchandise is already being shipped to stores.
I will do my best to approach them with the mindset of "Middle-Earth Remix", but it is difficult to stay motivated once a story/concept has reached this point. Too bad too, because I thought Jackson did a decent job of keeping the LoTR trilogy close to the novel versions.
I think one of the big problems facing any director of a film such as the Hobbit, is that it really isn't an epic tale. But according to Hollywood conventions it will have to be made as such. So for me the question is how well can Jackson pull this off. I'm seeing it with an eye toward how Jackson as an 'auteur' is able to negotiate the two demands--keeping the charm of the books and giving the audience the rousing, high energy adventure they have come to expect from high fantasy.
Even just reading up a little on Wikipedia re:Tokien's notes (Unfinished Tales and the History of Middle Earth, edited by his son) I'm beginning to see how they might be able to get 3 films out of this. I think we're probably going to see quite a lot about the Isatari, and their relationship to the search for the One Ring. I.e., when Gandalf leaves the party before they enter Mirkwood and heads off on his own. So the second film of the trilogy will probably have two parallel stories running.
It looks like potentially very rich material, actually. I'm getting kind of psyched to learn more about the Council of Five (wizards), of which Gandalf and Saruman are but two.
I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy very much and I trust Peter Jackson that he has made a great movie version of The Hobbit. What little I've yet seen of it looks awesome to me.
So I watched it. It was pretty. And boring. I know it has gotten great reviews already and is raking in the cash, but personally, I thought it was very disappointing. The 2x fps takes some getting used to, but it's the future, I hope. The graphics are as crisp as humanely possible, maybe even more so. My problem is just that every single scene seemed longer than necessary. Just as with the LotR movies, it's based on books, which usually means a lot of action and story packed closely together so it seems rushed, although LotR nailed it imho. The Hobbit didn't. If you are a huge Tolkien fan, you're most likely going to love this movie. I am of a much more critical mindset however, and watch movies with an objective view, and... objectively speaking, it fell short. I really hope the sequels will pick up the pace from here on out. There was one thing that was done in a perfect manner however;
Gollum was done beatifully again. And that one perticular scene with him and Bilbo was a stroke of genius.
It wasn't enough to save the movie however. Don't get me wrong, it was still worth the money, just not the high expectations. I'll give it a 7/10. And that's being generous.
i keep looking at the trailer and i keep trying to convince myself if i should see it the end the movie is just not something that interest me as much as the original trilogy so i guess i will wait for a DVD release if i even wanna see it by then
I think the story of the hobbit and John Howe's book covers are some of the most fundamental influences in my life. I can't imagine not going to see The Hobbit, this is really a huge event for me and I'm sure, a lot of other people too.
I'm keeping my expectations modest, since having reread the tale over the last month I'm aware that it's going to be a challenge to make this story feel epic. If Jackson can pull me into the adventure and really make me care about the characters, and what's happening to them, etc., then for me that will be a win.
Even just reading up a little on Wikipedia re:Tokien's notes (Unfinished Tales and the History of Middle Earth, edited by his son) I'm beginning to see how they might be able to get 3 films out of this. I think we're probably going to see quite a lot about the Isatari, and their relationship to the search for the One Ring. I.e., when Gandalf leaves the party before they enter Mirkwood and heads off on his own. So the second film of the trilogy will probably have two parallel stories running.
It looks like potentially very rich material, actually. I'm getting kind of psyched to learn more about the Council of Five (wizards), of which Gandalf and Saruman are but two.
Except, they have no legal rights to either the Unfinished Tales or the Silmarillion which means that they cannot make the events in the movie the same as what the author actually said happened. So, what we see on film is no better than fan fiction. He's already changed the stories that he does have legal rights to (Azog died before the Hobbit even takes place, yet he has become the central villain of the film).
I keep reading that "fans will love it". What fans? PJ fans, or Tolkien fans, or both? I don't know where I fit in, as what I've seen and read so far has severely damped my spirits toward the movie to the point of not even wanting to see it any more, and I'd consider myself quite the fan of the books. Too many stupid, needless deviations and the use of potty humour to make me want to see it.
@MatthewA money is precisely the reason why all great art gets made! I'd be happy if they were making 10 movies, the more hobbit the better! Though in that case I'd be rather suspicious of where they were getting the content from.
But it wouldn't be more "Hobbit", it would be more "PJ and co.'s fan fiction twisting/partial retelling of the Hobbit", to the point where very little of the actual story remained "pure".
I really dislike PJ, and the "in PJ I trust"/"PJ can do no wrong" sentiment. Does it show?
@davidj8580 I really am not a PJ fanboy, I've criticized LotR films on forums before and been slated for the very idea that they aren't true to the books. I still like the films though. Fan fiction is not canon (to use a popular term) but it is for fans. That is precisely the reason why I expect to enjoy these films, regardless of their inevitable departure from Tolkien's style.
A friend of mine didn't like the BBC radio dramatisation of the LotR because it wasn't "true to the books." He was only satisfied with a dry reading of an actor, simply reading the book, word for word.
There will always be fans who fall in to that category.
Me, I like interpretation. I even enjoy adaptations that i take issue with, as exponents of stories that I really love.
But it wouldn't be more "Hobbit", it would be more "PJ and co.'s fan fiction twisting/partial retelling of the Hobbit", to the point where very little of the actual story remained "pure".
I really dislike PJ, and the "in PJ I trust"/"PJ can do no wrong" sentiment. Does it show?
Depends on how you define doing wrong. Peter Jackson's LotR may differ from the book in some ways, but it is still the best movie adaption of a book I've ever seen (besides the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society's The Call of Cthulhu from 2005). Others have so far always disappointed me. The War of the Worlds (2005) was crap; The Time Machine (2005) was crap; Starship Troopers was crap (although it has some merits when taken for itself) - most of PJ's changes were sensible to make the story work as a movie.
Depends on how you define doing wrong. Peter Jackson's LotR may differ from the book in some ways, but it is still the best movie adaption of a book I've ever seen (besides the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society's The Call of Cthulhu from 2005).
Depends on how you define doing wrong. Peter Jackson's LotR may differ from the book in some ways, but it is still the best movie adaption of a book I've ever seen (besides the H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society's The Call of Cthulhu from 2005).
The Secret of NIMH.
I second that wholeheartedly! If you haven't seen/read Mrs Frisby/Brisby und das Geheimnis von Nihm, you haven't lived!
Just got back from seeing this and its amazing! 10/10
I'm not going to post any spoilers or anything that would give away the plot but its much more high-fantasy than LOTR and is quite a different take to the novel(in a VERY good way).
I'm a bit worried about going to watch The Hobbit. Sure, I have tickets and all reserved, but I fear that the HFR 3D will just be as bad as regular 3D is in the movies.
And then to the quality of the movie itself.. it seems to have received quite poor reviews here in Finland. Well, I will of course judge it myself when I see it, but I don't have great hopes for it.
Gandalf was a servant of Manwe and was affiliated with fire -- like the balrog in Moria (an otherwise un-named fire maia that fell under the shadow/influence of Melkor/Morgoth/'the great enemy') and so a kindred spirit though obviously differently aligned.
Actually Gandalf is maia (maia is singular of maiar) but he has taken form of flesh and bone and he entered Arda, after he took his form of Gandalf the Grey he was able to get killed. And while Saruman was considered to be the most powerful one of istari Gandalf got the Ring of Fire from Círdan. (Totally off topic in a off topic here but figured I want to post it out anyways.) And if I remember correctly wasn't Gandalf servant of Manwe and Varda and Saruman servant of Aule?
Comments
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2012/12/03/new-hobbit-film-makes-some-moviegoers-sick/1742247/
http://www.manolith.com/2012/12/05/stories-about-the-hobbit-making-people-sick-are-likely-overblown/
I tend not to experience motion sickness, so I doubt I will be affected. But one of my friends who is a very into Tolkien mentioned that he read some articles in which it is reported that the super high camera speed almost makes motion look unnatural.
Well, anyway, I'm going to see it in the theater for sure.
I will do my best to approach them with the mindset of "Middle-Earth Remix", but it is difficult to stay motivated once a story/concept has reached this point. Too bad too, because I thought Jackson did a decent job of keeping the LoTR trilogy close to the novel versions.
I hope I am wrong. Perhaps this re-imagining of The Hobbit will be pure genius. Perhaps it hasn't reached the stage of generic crap sold under a popular name. Like I said, I am going to try my best to watch it with an open mind.
It looks like potentially very rich material, actually. I'm getting kind of psyched to learn more about the Council of Five (wizards), of which Gandalf and Saruman are but two.
My problem is just that every single scene seemed longer than necessary. Just as with the LotR movies, it's based on books, which usually means a lot of action and story packed closely together so it seems rushed, although LotR nailed it imho. The Hobbit didn't.
If you are a huge Tolkien fan, you're most likely going to love this movie. I am of a much more critical mindset however, and watch movies with an objective view, and... objectively speaking, it fell short. I really hope the sequels will pick up the pace from here on out.
There was one thing that was done in a perfect manner however;
It wasn't enough to save the movie however. Don't get me wrong, it was still worth the money, just not the high expectations. I'll give it a 7/10. And that's being generous.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/escape-to-the-movies/6620-The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey
I keep reading that "fans will love it". What fans? PJ fans, or Tolkien fans, or both? I don't know where I fit in, as what I've seen and read so far has severely damped my spirits toward the movie to the point of not even wanting to see it any more, and I'd consider myself quite the fan of the books. Too many stupid, needless deviations and the use of potty humour to make me want to see it.
I really dislike PJ, and the "in PJ I trust"/"PJ can do no wrong" sentiment. Does it show?
There will always be fans who fall in to that category.
Me, I like interpretation. I even enjoy adaptations that i take issue with, as exponents of stories that I really love.
I'm not going to post any spoilers or anything that would give away the plot but its much more high-fantasy than LOTR and is quite a different take to the novel(in a VERY good way).
And then to the quality of the movie itself.. it seems to have received quite poor reviews here in Finland. Well, I will of course judge it myself when I see it, but I don't have great hopes for it.