i know some people disliked the first movie but i absolutely loved it, so i'm really forward to this one.

Lol. It's a TRAP!

I really liked LOTR and saw each film multiple times in the cinema. I even have an officially licensed gold "the one" ring, so I was a bit of a geek for it back then.

I saw the Hobbit in 48fps 3d. It was okay, but I'm not super hyped for this or anything, but I'm like that for a lot of movies these days I guess..

The stakes at play are a common element in any kind of story, whether it be a romantic comedy or a gangster flick. It is all about what the character or characters have to lose or gain and all the stuff that happens in the act of them losing or gaining it. The Hobbit just didn't get me in that regard. I loved Frodo for his bravery, Sam for his loyalty, and Aragorn for his baddassery from the very start of LotR. I engaged with them instantly and character engagement is another common element with every story told. The characters in The Hobbit just didn't have that distinction to me. I could barely tell you the difference between the dwarves apart from one was the leader and the rest were soldiers. I guess that might be because I have only seen the movie twice but I doubt it. I am not comparing epicness - I have read both LotR and The Hobbit so I knew what was in store for me. I understood that The Hobbit was going to be a story on a much smaller scale.

But understand that I didn't dislike the movie. I liked it plenty. I was just trying to outline my biggest problem with it and then draw a comparison between a movie it can quite easily be compared to.

http://images.wikia.com/uncyclopedia/images/f/fb/WhenFrodoMetSam.jpg

No they don't. For example one of my favourite movies There Will Be Blood. The only thing at stake in that movie is Daniel Plainview's pride. He doesn't care about family, friends or human relationships at all. All he cares about is money and himself winning at the expense of everyone else losing. However the movie overcomes these lack of stakes by having awesome characters that we can relate to. Perhaps not to sympathise with (just about everyone in that movie is a c***) but we can understand their motivations and why they're doing what they're doing. Also, Daniel Day Lewis knocked it out of the park with a performance for the gods. I'll admit that if it wasn't for his character and his performance it might not have been a very good movie.

The Hobbit was a little bit weak in both regards like I already said (but I still liked the movie okay!)

yeah some of the CG from the trailer looked iffy. hopefully they'll touch it up over the next 6 months.

+1 for Daniel Day Lewis fpot the guy is a f*****g genius and i would go as far as to say he is head and shoulders above every other actor on the planet. Bill the butcher from gangs of new york is one of my favourite movie characters and he has a list of quality performances second to none.

The stakes at play are a common element in any kind of story, whether it be a romantic comedy or a gangster flick. It is all about what the character or characters have to lose or gain and all the stuff that happens in the act of them losing or gaining it.

There are stakes, it just depends how you look at it. The book is very enjoyable, and short. The movie is a CGI fest and long...far too long...3 movies? Seriously I'm pretty sure I read the book in 2 days :|

So have we reached peak CG? What's holding it back from looking photo-realistic? Surely it's not hardware.

Tbh I think that it's been a matter of skill over technology for a while now. DragonHeart is 17 years old (somehow), and still looks more "physical" than the Hobbit dragon to me.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120402050737/dragonheart/images/4/40/Draco.jpg

Yeah I prefer physical props as well, there's just no depth to most 3d rendered creatures still. Even the ships in star wars episode 3 looked unreal, compared to the models used in the older movies which looked fantastic. Then there's that they the animation is usually far too smooth/tweened to look remotely realistic.

Well, I guess this shows that the 3 movies is more than just the Hobbit. I approve.

looks even moar boring than lord of the rings (the most boring moofie series ever made)

Parts of that trailer looked exactly like what I'd imagined while reading the book, I'm pretty exited.

I remember for LTOR they were very tight fisted about showing the Balrog, and while I hated those films, they did the Balrog rather well.

I agree, they made the Balrog quite well, almost as good as this classic illustration.

http://img.acianetmedia.com/i/71fnQ.png

the battle of the five armies only takes up a page of the book because bilbo sleeps through it all.

i'm pretty sure that will take place in the movie. it is called the desolation of smaug after all.

Yeah I wouldn't be too sure about that. They are also pulling stuff from the clear blue sky like the woman love interest for orlando bloom.

Milking 14 hours of footage from a ~250 book was always going to be an ask.

It was mentioned in passing and there was an appendix dedicated to it.

The woman elf in this one is entirely new. Not from the books at all

Meh, they are gonna do what they are gonna do. They are very male books, I guess hollywood types prefer to have a woman floating around.

Helps to offset the frodo sam relationship, which in transition to film became much more overtly gay than I remember in the books.

I always imagined them walking and talking like adult males do, rather than walking stopping and gazing into each others eyes for fourty minutes and then saying 'are we going to mordor mr frodo'.

I don't remember any women in the hobbit at all. 14 dwarves have to do something at night...

Been told that peter jackson used GoPro footage, how cheap and nasty especially since the type of cameras(RED) he has been using are more than capable of capturing images.

Is it 3 bum-numbing hours long?

Is it 3 bum-numbing hours long?

161mins but the pace of the movie was good enough that it wasn't noticeable.
lol I just want to see the barrel scene again, super ridiculous but hilarious.

I don't know Trog, the ridiculousness of it all and how it kept going got people to chuckle in the cinema. I couldn't take any of the combat too seriously, all you can do is appreciate the flow of the fight because...lets face it... those dwarfs would of died 10x over by now lol.

dat cliffhanger!

Damn, was very impressed by this one, didn't want it to end.

I really do like how they are linking it to the LOTR series too!

Fight scenes were very well done I reckon, and Tauriel is quite a hotty.

i likedthe movie but the new elf chick that likes dwarves... that just did not fit in the story & should have just been left out. it's just thrown in for some leet ninja elf moves & chopping orcs heads off.

That barrel scene pissed me off - one of my strongest memories from the book is that scene, so I was disappointed that the movie version was completely different and this big dumb slapstick thing they screwed in there just so they could have some orc combat

same. i remember feeling claustrophobic when i read the barrel part of the book... coz the dwarves were sealed inside! not riding rapids in inexplicably unsinkable barrels

i was pretty happy they had bjorn in the movie though... i thought they'd cut that bit out.

Spoiler:

also, fili copping a morgul arrow (in the knee lol) & staying in laketown with 2 other dwarves!? that didn't happen in the book.

Wait its a trilogy as well? I thought it was just two movies? I've read the Hobbit book several times over, absolutely love it but how in the heck do you get three movies out of it?

yeah i enjoyed the 2nd movie - better than the 1st i reckon

the xtra bits they added to the book (which is really what is going on around what was "the hobbit" story) did not feel tacked on

also looking forward to the 3rd

I will be happy to rent it when it comes out. There is already a dvd screener out around on the interwebz.

i thought you were talking about in the movies, not the book. it's only ever been sting in the movies. gandalf used glamdring during the LOTR movies and it never glowed.

Barrel scene = GOPRO, how s***!

I gave the movie 5 out of 10. CGI from the 90s, some useless scenes, just meh. Why dress people up as orcs in LOTR but use CGI orcs in this trilogy, makes no sense. the HFR 3D was good but at the same time bloody annoying. Jackson said everything was meant to have a more real feel, everything looked fake! The cows in that guys house just pissed me off.

The last 30mins with Smaug was worth the price of admission.

The barrel scene did suck the farts out of a dead Cave Troll's colon.

Evangeline Lilley > Liv Tyler

7 out of 10

Waaaaay better than the first Hobbit movie.

The use of CG orcs really takes away the sense of danger for me. The costumed orcs in the LoTR trilogy had a real sense of menace about them. They looked and sounded dangerous when they were in the screen - invoking memories of marching Nazis in old WW2 footage. When Aragorn parried the throwing knife in FotR I remember thinking you f*****g bad ass. When the big orc dude (urakai?) was filling Boromir with arrows and was about to perform a coup de gras I remember being terrified for him. Same with all the other good orc scenes (Helm's Deep, marching out of the Dead City etc)

The CG orcs just don't elicit the same sort of visceral response from me which is a shame because they are one of the central threats in the movie. So much time is spent either running from them or fighting them and they really seem like nothing more than a trivial threat. I really believe it's because watching a seemingly invincible Legolas despatch CG orc after CG orc never feels dangerous. If the orcs were actually real I reckon things would be different.

But apart from that I liked it a lot better than an AUJ. The Smaug scenes were a real highlight. I still rate all of the LotR movies above the Hobbit movies though.

^ The bog standard orc is supposed to be smaller, weaker and dumber than the Urak-hai orcs. I think the Urak-hai are supposed to be the super-orcs bred for war.

But I agree that the Hobbit Trilogy CGI orcs are more like video game fodder.

i believe jackson recently said that he would have made the orcs in the LOTR movies CGI if he was able to. he's always envisioned orcs as being humanoid but with vastly different proportions to humans which is what he dislikes about the orcs in the LOTR movies.

i preferred the costumed orcs too. with the hobbit they even shot the scenes with people in prosthetics and then placed a digital version over them. :/

i think these movies would have had a lot less CG if they weren't shot in HFR 3D.

last edited by ravn0s at 18:18:54 01/Jan/14

i believe jackson recently said that he would have made the orcs in the LOTR movies CGI if he was able to. he's always envisioned orcs as being humanoid but with vastly different proportions to humans which is what he dislikes about the orcs in the LOTR movies.

The problem, is that nobody else dislikes the orcs in the LOTR movies. It's a fine line between "realising your artistic vision", and becoming the next George Lucas.

If Jackson had have stuck with what made the LOTR trilogy great, and adapted the book into two moderate length movies, at most - he'd have another masterpiece on his hands, instead of a polarising offering that has let down many fans of the books.

Anyone have any thoughts on the HFR 3D version vrs the 2d/3d? I've seen the 3d version and am curious if there is any substantial difference between the formats?
I have heard some didn't like the clarity and depth on the HFR 48fps version.

Saw both of them now in HFR-3D and really liked it, as far as seeing something in 3D goes, having it done in HFR makes it a lot clearer and to me seemed brighter, I much prefer it

i haven't had the chance to see it in HFR. gold class only shows it in ordinary 3D.

My brother works for people who are in charge of movie presentations/awards at the golden globes. He doesn't mingle with the rich and famous. He would probably get sacked if he spoke to one.But thanks to him i have seen a s*** load of other movies that aren't out yet. lolz

My brother works for people who are in charge of movie presentations/awards at the golden globes. He doesn't mingle with the rich and famous. He would probably get sacked if he spoke to one.But thanks to him i have seen a s*** load of other movies that aren't out yet. lolz

cool story. lolz

We care, because if you know your lore, its suggested through many of the texts of tolkien's work, and also hinted at in the hobbit, that there is something much more sinister happening in the background of the hobbit , hence Gandalf is always pissing off and coming back. The whole world is at stake in this book also, it is just a lot more subtle is all. I know what you mean about its just a bunch of Dwarves that want their gold back, who gives a flying, but much more going on and Peter Jackson has really fleshed those parts out, which were only hinted at in the book!! YOu wont be disappointed with this film.

Yeah I found that quite interesting in the first film, looking forward to seeing it all fleshed out a bit more.

^ don't like dragons bro?

i watched this the other night in 3d dunno if it was hfr but the opening scene when the dwarf is walking in the street to the dancing pony was like watching a live stage performance.. was amazeballs

Yes defiantly noticed the HFR difference it was a lot smoother and clear I hope more directors take this up.

I enjoyed the movie and can't wait for the third movie, although from what I remember in the book I don't know how they will milk another three hours out of it.

movie 1 : the walk there.
movie 2 : yay, we are here.
movie 3 : the walk home..

:D

The battle of five armies happens in the book near the end, it's just skimmed over quickly because Bilbo is knocked out or something and sleeps for most of the fight.

if you played Lord of the Rings: War in the North it had much of the lore that these movies are now showing.



it was an ok game for a play thru - and the lore was interesting and there was a lot on dol guldur