You compare The Hobbit with Baldur's Gate it's useless, in reality you're able to dual wield a quarterstaff & a long sword, don't compare a game with special rules and a movie which can be reality (I said reality because the actors are real)
You compare The Hobbit with Baldur's Gate it's useless, in reality you're able to dual wield a quarterstaff & a long sword, don't compare a game with special rules and a movie which can be reality (I said reality because the actors are real)
I could've put a smiley face at the end of the last sentence, which, as opposed to the rest of my post, was rather tongue-in-cheek, but that would've deprived me of the amusement of reading your reply, so I'm glad I didn't.
I think the story is well told. Having just re-read the book, I feel Jackson did a great job with making it into an action picture. The pacing was great, and time flew by. Interestingly, the only time I felt just slightly antsy was in the biggest and longest action sequence towards the end of the film, when the party battled the goblin hoard within the mountains.
The liberties that Jackson takes are consistent with the background activity that ultimately knits together the greater story of the Rings. It all works fine for me anyway. I enjoyed seeing the bigger players of Middle Earth in the greater tale of Sauron's return, and how their roles weave that together from the story-telling standpoint.
Thorin is made into an Aragorn-like character. It works.
Bilbo is particularly well realized, I think.
I found myself appreciating the somewhat unexpected physical appearance of the dwarves. And they were realized as individuals far beyond what the book achieved. So that was a major plus. I liked the dwarves very much overall, whereas going in I had a feeling I might not, based on their look.
The action sequences are a bit over-the-top. Literally dizzying, what with the HFR in 3D. And that leads me to my only real criticism...
I saw the film in an IMAX theater at 48 FPS in 3D. I was curious to check it out in the fullest experience possible. But, for me anyway, I found the 3D experience to be vaguely distracting. My brain adjusted to the 3D after watching the trailers before the film even began. And at the point that that perceptual adjustment is made--for me--it becomes rather like watching a 2D film anyway. Except that there are a few scenes here and there where the 3D effect asserts itself. Then one is reminded of it. Yet at other times I was also easily able to detect a layering of flat planes. Not dissimilar from the visual effect of the BG:EE graphic novel style cinematics, actually.
So I think that, ironically, I would probably have enjoyed the film more... i.e., I would have become more easily immersed in it... had I been watching it in 2D at the normal frame rate. I'm very curious now to watch it on my home theater in 2D in order to compare.
I'm not saying don't see it in HFR 3D. That's up to you--and you may love it. I just found it oddly distracting.
I thought it was pretty good, not LOTR amazing but pretty good. The pacing of the second half of the film was just off as they jumped from one generic action scene to the next, half of which weren't necessary and didn't happen in the book e.g. the stone giants scene, and some of which were a bit silly e.g. it was either Fili or Kili deflecting arrows with his sword. The Gollum scene however was about the best they've done with him.
Honestly, I don't feel they did Gollum as well as they could have, or as well as most people here think. The scene was too bright and comical: I would've wished him to be the creepy little bastard he was in the book, and it was also described as an entirely dark cave.
Two things I checked in the second watching were..
Glamdring and Orcrist do not glow blue, they should - this is how Bilbo can tell he has found an Elvish blade too.
Thorin carries his oaken branch with him as a shield through the film (I didn't see him carrying it, until he used it again with for his second confrontation with Azog - you can tell he has a special one that he keeps with him as it has metal plates attached to it)
Honestly, I don't feel they did Gollum as well as they could have, or as well as most people here think. The scene was too bright and comical: I would've wished him to be the creepy little bastard he was in the book, and it was also described as an entirely dark cave.
Would have been pretty wierd if the cave was entirely dark. You'd only hear talking while "watching" the scene.
Honestly, I don't feel they did Gollum as well as they could have, or as well as most people here think. The scene was too bright and comical: I would've wished him to be the creepy little bastard he was in the book, and it was also described as an entirely dark cave.
Would have been pretty wierd if the cave was entirely dark. You'd only hear talking while "watching" the scene.
Second, my hobby store opened a box of The Hobbit miniatures. The owner painted up a set to display in her store in the hopes it'd get people excited about miniatures in general and it's worked fairly well. So, she got another box and is going to paint them and ship it up north to one of the original two locations up in the Salt Lake area.
I convinced her she should let me paint one of them. (I don't have the heart to tell her it's because I think I'm better than she is at it. That'd be rude. Hers look good, it's just that I'm fairly cocky now about my painting skills.)
Saw it this weekend in IMAX. Loved it... was a bit worried that they tried to put a relatively short novel into 3 movies of 3 hours in length but they did a great job of using the long duration to further detail certain events (flashbacks etc.).
The only scene that felt "cheesy" even though the same occured in the novel was the moon rune scene with Elrond. "Hey! These are moon runes that can only be read in the light of the same moon like there was 200 years ago! But wait! That exact same moon is in the sky now!!"
That scene should have a feeling of destiny and reassurance about it but instead it felt shoddy and hastily wrapped up.
In the movie Gandalf does push quite a bit to get them to Rivendell. Thorin doesn't want to go because the dwarves' beef with the elves for not helping them when they lost their fortress within Mount Erebor to begin with. Thorin's displeasure toward visiting Rivendell isn't emphasized as much in the book, I don't think.
The book says Elrond is a runemaster of the highest skill, which is why Gandalf sought him for this task. And Elrond does detect the moon runes whereas Gandlaf and Thorin could not (to the chagrin of both). Elrond notes that in order for the moon runes to be detected, they must be illuminated by moonlight on a "midsummer's eve" by a moon that is precisely the same shape (phase) as when the runes were written. If it's just the same exact crescent shape during the same season, those are a little easier conditions to meet. If it must be the exact same shape moon on the exact same day of the year, then that's far longer odds.
Still haven's seen the movie, but from what I've heard/read it's not nearly as good as the Lords of the Rings movies. I'm still going to see it when DVD comes out.
The movie was absolutely beautiful to watch in 48 FPS IMAX 3D, and I often hate the 3D effects of movies these days. I thought it was well-paced and extremely enjoyable, and I have no problems with the differences from the book. It rocked.
Still haven's seen the movie, but from what I've heard/read it's not nearly as good as the Lords of the Rings movies. I'm still going to see it when DVD comes out.
There are some problems with it, but it is important to realize LOTR and the Hobbit are very different stories, the world isn't ending this time around.
Still haven's seen the movie, but from what I've heard/read it's not nearly as good as the Lords of the Rings movies. I'm still going to see it when DVD comes out.
There are some problems with it, but it is important to realize LOTR and the Hobbit are very different stories, the world isn't ending this time around.
You're right and maybe they shouldn't even be compared. I've read both books years ago and really liked them. I think the Hobbit as a story is a little more childish and that's the way it should be. Maybe I'm just getting old.
The Hobbit was conceived originally as a children's story, according to Tolkien lore. It underwent some revisions by Tolkien in later printings (after LotR was published) that are kind of interesting. For example, in the original edition Gollum puts up his precious ring as his stakes in the game of riddles with Bilbo. After the Lord of the Rings trilogy elaborated the singular importance of the One Ring, both for the saga and to Gollum personally, this clearly would not do. So that conversation is revised such that Gollum offers to show Bilbo the way out of the mountain instead. But I think that tells us something about where the Hobbit stood when it was written versus the role it later assumed for Tolkien's greater creation of Middle Earth.
The Hobbit has more of a nursery rhyme or fairy tale feel to it. It's not intended as an epic, nor probably even a serious work of literature. It's tone is very whimsical.
Still haven's seen the movie, but from what I've heard/read it's not nearly as good as the Lords of the Rings movies. I'm still going to see it when DVD comes out.
There are some problems with it, but it is important to realize LOTR and the Hobbit are very different stories, the world isn't ending this time around.
You're right and maybe they shouldn't even be compared. I've read both books years ago and really liked them. I think the Hobbit as a story is a little more childish and that's the way it should be. Maybe I'm just getting old.
Well I don't mean to dismiss comparison entirely, Peter Jackson obviously does with this three movie nonsense.
Saw it over the Holidays and loved it -- I love the expanded story and I'm quite excited to see how the Necromancer is incorporated into the next two films. If only we didn't have to wait for them!
Comments
You compare The Hobbit with Baldur's Gate it's useless, in reality you're able to dual wield a quarterstaff & a long sword, don't compare a game with special rules and a movie which can be reality (I said reality because the actors are real)
I think the story is well told. Having just re-read the book, I feel Jackson did a great job with making it into an action picture. The pacing was great, and time flew by. Interestingly, the only time I felt just slightly antsy was in the biggest and longest action sequence towards the end of the film, when the party battled the goblin hoard within the mountains.
The liberties that Jackson takes are consistent with the background activity that ultimately knits together the greater story of the Rings. It all works fine for me anyway. I enjoyed seeing the bigger players of Middle Earth in the greater tale of Sauron's return, and how their roles weave that together from the story-telling standpoint.
Thorin is made into an Aragorn-like character. It works.
Bilbo is particularly well realized, I think.
I found myself appreciating the somewhat unexpected physical appearance of the dwarves. And they were realized as individuals far beyond what the book achieved. So that was a major plus. I liked the dwarves very much overall, whereas going in I had a feeling I might not, based on their look.
The action sequences are a bit over-the-top. Literally dizzying, what with the HFR in 3D. And that leads me to my only real criticism...
I saw the film in an IMAX theater at 48 FPS in 3D. I was curious to check it out in the fullest experience possible. But, for me anyway, I found the 3D experience to be vaguely distracting. My brain adjusted to the 3D after watching the trailers before the film even began. And at the point that that perceptual adjustment is made--for me--it becomes rather like watching a 2D film anyway. Except that there are a few scenes here and there where the 3D effect asserts itself. Then one is reminded of it. Yet at other times I was also easily able to detect a layering of flat planes. Not dissimilar from the visual effect of the BG:EE graphic novel style cinematics, actually.
So I think that, ironically, I would probably have enjoyed the film more... i.e., I would have become more easily immersed in it... had I been watching it in 2D at the normal frame rate. I'm very curious now to watch it on my home theater in 2D in order to compare.
I'm not saying don't see it in HFR 3D. That's up to you--and you may love it. I just found it oddly distracting.
Glamdring and Orcrist do not glow blue, they should - this is how Bilbo can tell he has found an Elvish blade too.
Thorin carries his oaken branch with him as a shield through the film (I didn't see him carrying it, until he used it again with for his second confrontation with Azog - you can tell he has a special one that he keeps with him as it has metal plates attached to it)
Second, my hobby store opened a box of The Hobbit miniatures. The owner painted up a set to display in her store in the hopes it'd get people excited about miniatures in general and it's worked fairly well. So, she got another box and is going to paint them and ship it up north to one of the original two locations up in the Salt Lake area.
I convinced her she should let me paint one of them. (I don't have the heart to tell her it's because I think I'm better than she is at it. That'd be rude. Hers look good, it's just that I'm fairly cocky now about my painting skills.)
Picture of his back.
The only scene that felt "cheesy" even though the same occured in the novel was the moon rune scene with Elrond. "Hey! These are moon runes that can only be read in the light of the same moon like there was 200 years ago! But wait! That exact same moon is in the sky now!!"
That scene should have a feeling of destiny and reassurance about it but instead it felt shoddy and hastily wrapped up.
The rest of the movie was excellent though
The book says Elrond is a runemaster of the highest skill, which is why Gandalf sought him for this task. And Elrond does detect the moon runes whereas Gandlaf and Thorin could not (to the chagrin of both). Elrond notes that in order for the moon runes to be detected, they must be illuminated by moonlight on a "midsummer's eve" by a moon that is precisely the same shape (phase) as when the runes were written. If it's just the same exact crescent shape during the same season, those are a little easier conditions to meet. If it must be the exact same shape moon on the exact same day of the year, then that's far longer odds.
Has anyone seen it in non-3D HFR?
The Hobbit has more of a nursery rhyme or fairy tale feel to it. It's not intended as an epic, nor probably even a serious work of literature. It's tone is very whimsical.
WooHoo!
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Official Teaser Trailer
I thought this was pretty funny, though: