The Hobbit: A Peter Jackson Trilogy

Nurhachi1991

Well-known member
Peter Jacksons like phew.... There are no more Harry Potter movies coming out! I can make another LOTR movie!




Pretty much
 

kongisking

Active member
Nurhachi1991 said:
Peter Jacksons like phew.... There are no more Harry Potter movies coming out! I can make another LOTR movie!


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yMOmSJNOnKA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>


Pretty much


Sigh. ADD people were doomed to hate films like LOTR. For the rest of us...they are art.
 

kongisking

Active member
Nurhachi1991 said:
Three movies about people walking to a ******* volcano is not art bro :hat:

If that's all they are to you, is "people walking to a, ahem, ******* volcano," then you are completely missing why these films are adored by so many. The three-dimensional characters, the stupendous war sequences, the excellent effects, the timeless and epic storyline...have I missed anything?
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
So, it's:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - December 14, 2012
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - December 13, 2013
The Hobbit: There and Back Again - July 18, 2014
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Raiders112390 said:
No buzz here?

Not really.

I'm only sort of curious to see what the studios are now labeling as "high frame rate" in 3D (48 fps)...

We will see if the Red Epic was up to the challenge.
 

MinnesotaJones

New member
First picture of Desolation of Smaug.
hobbit-desolation-smaug.jpeg
 
I'm looking forward to The Hobbit, even though what I've seen it has a more cartoon-like sheen from Lord of the Rings .

I'm mostly interested in how the supplimental material is integrated.
 
Alright. Love the book(s), and the Rings films are a solid A+, 95%.

There a few shots worthy of the 3D, but not nearly enough to recommend it.

It was nice that they took some time with some of the scenes, mostly the introduction of the dwarves. The screen time for those with distractingly cartoonish features is fleeting which is fine by me. Ultimately its an establishing film, and a few moments are inspired.

The song featured in the trailer/commercials has finally grown on me where I've hummed it a few times since.

The CGI is a mixed bag. The environments were very good and I didn't catch a single "Scooby Doo" synch moment matching the live action.

The wolves just didn't come out so well, and design/writing made The Great Goblin fall flat, (I wanted to like him, the potential was there). Azog I liked. Even though he was a bit flawed in the rendering department...but only a bit flawed.

There were a lot of long shots though and the editing wasn't as punchy as The Rings. There were certain jokes that were wonderful, but the delivery was off, not from an acting vantage point, but because of editing and directing, (camera placement).

The pace was...odd, it was like its trasmission was slipping. Eventually it found its footing.

There were some amazing moments both visually and emotionally.

The artistic license taken was on par with The Rings.

Except Radagast...

I didn't quite envision him so, but I warmed up to this version very quickly and enjoyed that they gave him some interesting screen time.

The rest of the liberties and source material beyond the book set up some nice surprises if you went in knowing it.

The music wasn't quite as good as The Rings but the themes reprised were nice.

Nice nod to Beorn...looking forward to him.
 

kongisking

Active member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Alright. Love the book(s), and the Rings films are a solid A+, 95%.

There a few shots worthy of the 3D, but not nearly enough to recommend it.

It was nice that they took some time with some of the scenes, mostly the introduction of the dwarves. The screen time for those with distractingly cartoonish features is fleeting which is fine by me. Ultimately its an establishing film, and a few moments are inspired.

The song featured in the trailer/commercials has finally grown on me where I've hummed it a few times since.

The CGI is a mixed bag. The environments were very good and I didn't catch a single "Scooby Doo" synch moment matching the live action.

The wolves just didn't come out so well, and design/writing made The Great Goblin fall flat, (I wanted to like him, the potential was there). Azog I liked. Even though he was a bit flawed in the rendering department...but only a bit flawed.

There were a lot of long shots though and the editing wasn't as punchy as The Rings. There were certain jokes that were wonderful, but the delivery was off, not from an acting vantage point, but because of editing and directing, (camera placement).

The pace was...odd, it was like its trasmission was slipping. Eventually it found its footing.

There were some amazing moments both visually and emotionally.

The artistic license taken was on par with The Rings.

Except Radagast...

I didn't quite envision him so, but I warmed up to this version very quickly and enjoyed that they gave him some interesting screen time.

The rest of the liberties and source material beyond the book set up some nice surprises if you went in knowing it.

The music wasn't quite as good as The Rings but the themes reprised were nice.

Nice nod to Beorn...looking forward to him.

I'm pleased you liked it, Rocket. I'll give my thoughts soon, but I'm currently at school, so stay tuned...;)
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Alright. Love the book(s), and the Rings films are a solid A+, 95%.

There a few shots worthy of the 3D, but not nearly enough to recommend it.

It was nice that they took some time with some of the scenes, mostly the introduction of the dwarves. The screen time for those with distractingly cartoonish features is fleeting which is fine by me. Ultimately its an establishing film, and a few moments are inspired.

The song featured in the trailer/commercials has finally grown on me where I've hummed it a few times since.

The CGI is a mixed bag. The environments were very good and I didn't catch a single "Scooby Doo" synch moment matching the live action.

The wolves just didn't come out so well, and design/writing made The Great Goblin fall flat, (I wanted to like him, the potential was there). Azog I liked. Even though he was a bit flawed in the rendering department...but only a bit flawed.

There were a lot of long shots though and the editing wasn't as punchy as The Rings. There were certain jokes that were wonderful, but the delivery was off, not from an acting vantage point, but because of editing and directing, (camera placement).

The pace was...odd, it was like its trasmission was slipping. Eventually it found its footing.

There were some amazing moments both visually and emotionally.

The artistic license taken was on par with The Rings.

Except Radagast...

I didn't quite envision him so, but I warmed up to this version very quickly and enjoyed that they gave him some interesting screen time.

The rest of the liberties and source material beyond the book set up some nice surprises if you went in knowing it.

The music wasn't quite as good as The Rings but the themes reprised were nice.

Nice nod to Beorn...looking forward to him.

Do you know if you saw it in what they are calling "high frame rate" ?
 

roundshort

Active member
OK- Hated the LOTR movies. I had zero and I mean zero motivation to see an almost 3 hour movie. But as luck woudl have it (and a bit of an afternoon off) i said I stop by the movie theather (a new barly a month old state of the art palace to movies) and see any movie that woudl start in 15 minutes of arriving. Well as luck would have it, there was one, The Hobbit. I went to it, and well, I liked it. Yes about 40 mintues too long, but it was 100 times better than LOTR movies, to me. It had way too much of people walking, but had some humor and was not as self-important. I give a B+ and loved the cliff hanger ending.
 
Saw it last night...pretty frustrating experience. The Hobbit is overblown geek-pandering at its best...Loved the book, liked the LOTR movies, but there's a definite line I must draw between the fan and film critic inside me: it's just not a good "film."

And speaking of geek pandering...sat thru a million video game ads, movie trailers for Zombie love stories, Stephanie Meyers new ****, promos for ABC family series about witches, non Pixar garbage...kiddie fare, tweens, and the socially awkward: nerd alert! I guess they really knew their audience(?), or were just covering all potential cash grabs.
 
Dr. Gonzo said:
Do you know if you saw it in what they are calling "high frame rate" ?
Sorry, I know it was on film, but I neglected to ask framerate...:eek:

My son said he liked it enough to go again, if so I'll find out...but it didn't make us "sick" like some of the early reports I read.


featofstrength said:
Saw it last night...pretty frustrating experience. The Hobbit is overblown geek-pandering at its best...Loved the book, liked the LOTR movies, but there's a definite line I must draw between the fan and film critic inside me: it's just not a good "film."
I thought it was stilted, that it didn't flow well, like it was rushed. It's not as engrossing as Fellowship was, but it continually improved. The edit was rough on the story. There's a good film in there...

featofstrength said:
And speaking of geek pandering...sat thru a million video game ads, movie trailers for Zombie love stories, Stephanie Meyers new ****, promos for ABC family series about witches, non Pixar garbage...kiddie fare, tweens, and the socially awkward: nerd alert! I guess they really knew their audience(?), or were just covering all potential cash grabs.
HA! Sucks for you! We had the new trailer for Supermanin 3D and NOTHING ELSE!

Not an advertisement, nada! Yea!
 
Top