Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: DEECONX on December 17, 2012, 07:58:51 PM
-
Finally got a chance to go see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, and it was amazing! As a big fan of the book and JRR Tolkien in general I was pleased. Jackson has done it again!
What'd you think? Have you seen it yet?
-
looking forward to it for sure :aok
-
looking forward to it for sure :aok
dont spoil it, its not out here until after x-mas!
-
Don't see the version at 60fps in 3D, it looks like crap.
ack-ack
-
Don't see the version at 60fps in 3D, it looks like crap.
ack-ack
THANK you! Really regret seeing it a second time in 3D.
-
Don't see the version at 60fps in 3D, it looks like crap.
ack-ack
I have heard that and from others I have been told that it is great. I guess the 60fps is a personal preferance.
-
Whatever version I saw in 3D, I thought it was the most convincing 3D effect I've ever seen in a movie theater. Far better than any previous 3D movie I've seen. But I'm not sure if that was the 24 or the 48 (there is no 60). I paid $13.50 so I'm hoping it was the 48.
Anyways I liked the movie a lot, but I didn't feel it was up to the level of any of the LotR movies. Maybe because its been ~25 years since I read the book as a kid. I'm not going to re-read it until I've seen all the movies so that I'm surprised by all the things I've forgotten.
One thing I didn't like, was that I couldn't suspend my disbelief that humanoids, even heroic dwarves protected with armor, could fall so often or far and not get seriously hurt or killed. Peter Jackson seems to have a fetish for people falling off stuff. Or maybe that was Tolkien, but if Tolkien says they live, maybe the fall shouldn't be so far. That's my chief criticism.
-
I didn't know that they had split it into three parts until the credits started rolling and my friend started laughing at my confusion. I thought it was great, though. Saw it in 2D at I guess 48fps.
The Hobbit is the only Tolkien book I've ever read. :uhoh
-
Don't see the version at 60fps in 3D, it looks like crap.
ack-ack
added you to 'the list'.
-
No thanks, LOTR was overlong and frankly boring for 50% of its running time, making a 3-part 8h version of The Hobbit (almost a short story) is a very cynical ploy to triple the revenues from the rights to one story.
I dont know how Jackson can pad out the story to 8 hours, and I dont want to.
-
No thanks, LOTR was overlong and frankly boring for 50% of its running time, making a 3-part 8h version of The Hobbit (almost a short story) is a very cynical ploy to triple the revenues from the rights to one story.
I dont know how Jackson can pad out the story to 8 hours, and I dont want to.
Reviewers said they were never so bored in a movie they waited anciously to see.
-
3 hours only to see they are 1/2 way to the mountain...
-
No thanks, LOTR was overlong and frankly boring for 50% of its running time, making a 3-part 8h version of The Hobbit (almost a short story) is a very cynical ploy to triple the revenues from the rights to one story.
I dont know how Jackson can pad out the story to 8 hours, and I dont want to.
The 3 part things made a few alarm bells go off when I first heard it.
-
I'm sure I'll watch it, but I agree splitting it into 3 feels like needless padding. LOTR deserved 3 movies. The Hobbit... I could see splitting it in 2, not three.
Wiley.
-
I didn't think it was boring for a single second, and actually I was surprised by that :old:
-
I'm sure I'll watch it, but I agree splitting it into 3 feels like needless padding. LOTR deserved 3 movies. The Hobbit... I could see splitting it in 2, not three.
Wiley.
The thing is, its not just the hobbit. They have added a large chunk from the events which are talked about in the other Tolkien works which were going on at the same time.
-
its far better than LOTR. instead of spending 3 movies walking through middle earth, they'll be spending 3 movies running through middle earth.
take that, Randal.
-
Heres my opinion so far:
Hobbit > Fellowship
Hobbit = Two Towers
Hobbit < Return of the King
However, I'm worried that the LOTR trillogy will be better than the Hobbit trillogy as a whole.
-
Heres my opinion so far:
Hobbit > Fellowship
Hobbit = Two Towers
Hobbit < Return of the King
However, I'm worried that the LOTR trillogy will be better than the Hobbit trillogy as a whole.
The book > movies
-
I don't know. I feel Tolkien went too far into detail with the descriptions in the LOTR books. I cannot get through them.
-
I don't know. I feel Tolkien went too far into detail with the descriptions in the LOTR books. I cannot get through them.
The funny thing is, I read the hobbit in grade school. It was assigned reading and although I love to read, for some reason if it was for school, my brain switched modes from 'enjoy reading this' to 'learn this for the test' mode. I honestly can't remember a damn thing about that book other than the fact that the descriptions were huuuuuge.
Wiley.
-
I saw it in HFR (48 fps) 3D. My impression was that the movie was amazingly real looking, sometimes almost like you were watching a live stage performance - from on the stage. Often that was good, sometimes not, and occasionally stunning. It dragged its large hairy feet at getting going, and the staging/acting, not surprisingly, had a British drama feel to it. The scene near the end (book readers think rescue from wargs and goblins) was alone worth the price of admission. Not to mention Cate Blanchett in HFR 3D.
-
The funny thing is, I read the hobbit in grade school. It was assigned reading and although I love to read, for some reason if it was for school, my brain switched modes from 'enjoy reading this' to 'learn this for the test' mode. I honestly can't remember a damn thing about that book other than the fact that the descriptions were huuuuuge.
Wiley.
I'm talking the LOTR trillogy books, as in the Fellowship, Towers, and Return.
I enjoyed The Hobbit very much, though I did think the movie was better purely because of the fight sequences, and the pale orc.
-
The books are great, all of them.