Hobbit late 2013 ?
- Thread starter Barney
- Start date
The more I hear about this the more uncertain I am.
You take what in essence was a short length children's book and turn it into a huge extravaganza that will be 10-12 hours long.
Either a blatant move for the money ala Lucas or Jackson's ego has exploded beyond belief. There will have to be tons of stuff that was never in the book. Before seeing this I will definitely reread the book.
You take what in essence was a short length children's book and turn it into a huge extravaganza that will be 10-12 hours long.
Either a blatant move for the money ala Lucas or Jackson's ego has exploded beyond belief. There will have to be tons of stuff that was never in the book. Before seeing this I will definitely reread the book.
Well I got in at 330 am. Just now out and about getting ready for work. I'll be honest it was, for me, a huge disappointment. I'll admit I haven't read this or LOTR and dissected all the books, vocabulary, etc. This thing was a yawner, not because there was a lack of action, but because it just felt like a below average retread of any of the 3 LOTR flicks. It was unnecessarily long and didn't feel as fluid and enveloping as any of the films from the original trilogy. I'd also stay away from 3D showing if you have the option. We watched in high frame rate 3D and it was very distracting. The film had an affect similar to soap opera effect with led TVs and it made the layering of the image and character movement seem very unnatural. In the end I guess it was okay, but I expected SO much more...
Kazaam
Well-Known Member
Well that kinda sucks. I've not read any reviews because I didn't want professional film critics to taint my expectations if they were just being snobby, but I could tell by a couple of headlines that they were disappointed. I've been hoping that the kind of folks in those Denny's commercials end up liking it a whole lot more. Say... you didn't by chance wear a hobbit costume to the film?
CMonster
Well-Known Member
My expectations were, for better or worse, based on Jackson's track record with the franchise so far. And as such I was pretty disappointed. Now, I'm not curled up in the corner of my bedroom in the fetal position like I would if there was a botched Batman movie, but I was deflated nonetheless. Plus I thought Jackson was capable of exercising better judgment, if the source material doesn't warrant a 3hr snoozefest, then whittle the film down to something tolerable. I'm not sure of the intention but it came off like they cashed in on a proven commodity, because they knew their biggest fans were clamoring for a movie(s). And to be clear, I'm not bashing the production quality since its pretty much top-notch, excluding the 3D. The cast and crew clearly poured much effort into the production, it's just pretty clear to me they don't have 8-9 hours of material to work with here...
Well before I really started to find that I enjoyed watching movies in a critiquing sense, I actually enjoyed Batman Forever. I have learned over time that it hasn't really held up well at all and is pretty hard to sit through. Batman & Robin is a complete POS and yes I literally shed a few tears of disappointment at the theater (thankfully it was dark :laughing-lettersrofl: ) but in hindsight, without it we would've never gotten the Nolan trilogy so its a wash...I'd humbly accept that POS over and over it means the eventuality of a respectable and well regarded effort.
Kazaam
Well-Known Member
DIYer said:
I very much agree low expectations can help.
It's just that I didn't want to read about too many of the specific things a reviewer didn't like about the film. That way I can hope that I'm not smart enough to realize or otherwise notice the stupidity of something, and maybe I'll like the overall film better. Whereas if I know something specific sucked (or didn't make sense) according to a reviewer, then when I see it I'll be all like "Ah... that's what the reviewer was talking about... he was so right!" In contrast, I figure maybe without the review I would fall into the whole "ignorance is bliss" category. That said... if it's just an overly long movie that begins to border on being a snoozefest, well, that's gonna be kind of hard not to notice, reviews having been read or not.
Razz
Well-Known Member
OMG.....
I just watched this with my girl at a VIP stadium, ordered wine, apps, ect... a fun night...
However, I'm going to be more blunt than Bats...
The Hobbit is a LOSER! I thought this was terrible. We were soooo disappointed.
There was a total of 15 mins of good movie, and that's only when Bilbo meets Golem, and that's it, really. It did finish at a part in the story that actually started to get interesting but other than that I was very bummed to watch this. I felt they were begging to extend this story with drawn out ridiculous shit that didn't matter. But the worst part was they had too many scenes that were just too unbelievable. At least 3 times my girl looks at me with a laugh and said..... "Really?" Also, characters such as orcs and trolls are too much different than LOR characters. When did trolls become intelligent? Just too many things that don't match up with LOR. I wanted a lot more from this one and was left empty. It's a sleeper for sure.
This is in NO WAY at the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy standard!
I'm not even planning on buying it when it comes out on Blu Ray, well at least till the trilogy finally comes out.... and on discount!
I just watched this with my girl at a VIP stadium, ordered wine, apps, ect... a fun night...
However, I'm going to be more blunt than Bats...
The Hobbit is a LOSER! I thought this was terrible. We were soooo disappointed.
There was a total of 15 mins of good movie, and that's only when Bilbo meets Golem, and that's it, really. It did finish at a part in the story that actually started to get interesting but other than that I was very bummed to watch this. I felt they were begging to extend this story with drawn out ridiculous shit that didn't matter. But the worst part was they had too many scenes that were just too unbelievable. At least 3 times my girl looks at me with a laugh and said..... "Really?" Also, characters such as orcs and trolls are too much different than LOR characters. When did trolls become intelligent? Just too many things that don't match up with LOR. I wanted a lot more from this one and was left empty. It's a sleeper for sure.
This is in NO WAY at the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy standard!
I'm not even planning on buying it when it comes out on Blu Ray, well at least till the trilogy finally comes out.... and on discount!
I haven't seen it, and probably won't until it comes out on Bluray. I would also think stretching it out into three movies, probably is a mistake. That being said, from what I remember from reading the books over 30 years ago, The Hobbit was a short story that never had the same feel as Lord of the Rings. Probably the biggest mistake here is, The Hobbit should have come out first. Again, haven't seen the movie, but judging it based on LOTR is a mistake, because they are truly two different series with common elements.
Maybe, but I'd argue that the general movie going audience associates this story with the LOTR as a direct prequel. Most know it's the origin of how the One Ring falls into the hands of Bilbo Baggins. That coupled with Peter Jackson's helming of the project and I think judging it that way is fair. Even if the story were completely unrelated, I expected better from Jackson concerning how he constructed THIS story for film.Huey said:
Again, I haven't seen the movie, so I may be way off base with my thoughts. I just remember reading the Hobbit first, and then the LOTR series, and always felt that while the stories were intertwined, you can tell Tolkien wrote them in a different frame of mind from one to the other. I can only hope that Jackson remained true to Tolkiens vision, but stretching a short story into a trilogy, I'm guessing he didn't.