Hobbit - the final one

otakar · December 23, 2014, 01:14:48 PM

So instead of braving the brutal commute home last night (snow and ice, numerous stuck cars) I took advantage of Monday night football and went to see the final piece of Peter Jackson's epic. Since I wanted to see it in IMAX I had to go with the 3D version. The same issues as with episode 1 came up (chose 2D for episode 2), blurry edges, at times disjointed flat background from the up close scene and some things just seem more artificial in 3D than 2D (for example the boulders in some shots). I also noticed a huge propensity of extreme upclose shots of faces. I am looking at this giant dwarven face in IMAX and thinking why do I have to be so close?

I wish there was more story, meaningful (background) conversation and landscape shots in the place of some of the action, although I did enjoy the battle scenes from a bird's eye view. As with the LOTR trilogy movies, it left me exhausted. Maybe it is because I have not read the books and I did not know how the story will unfold. All in all still a great piece of work, you can really tell how big this production was, even surpassing LOTR. I did enjoy the LOTR trilogy quite a bit more I have to say. Somehow I never got the connection to Thorin and company, unlike I did to the Fellowship of the Ring.

Hope to make it on location in NZ one day. Seems to be just the sort of place I would enjoy exploring.

Upon Infinity · December 23, 2014, 02:45:59 PM

I think it's great that we finally have a movie version of these books.

That said, I think they all need to be redone - and properly. And I know I'm part of a very small minority in this camp. Don't get me wrong, they are good, and there is some really, really awesome scenes in these movies. However, in my (humble?) opinion, PJ employs too much of the George Lucas factor; an overreliance on CG and special effects, hype and marketing, and too little on actual filmmaking.

I have not seen of any of the Hobbit movies yet, but based on what I've heard, he hasn't learned his lessons from LOTR; devoid of all Tolkienism, emotionally empty, awkwardly directed. And I certainly understand the need to cut, but I don't care for changes in story either, no matter how minute.

Then again, I could just be "nerding out".

archonforest · December 23, 2014, 02:58:01 PM

I do understand u. I went on the 1st Hobbit in a IMAX. Seeing the 3D, 4k or more version. After 10 minutes I wanted to leave. After 30 minutes of talking and talking I was sleeping already. BTW for some reason I cannot stand these full-full HD artificially over enhanced and sharpened movies...do I getting old?

TheBadger · December 23, 2014, 05:34:19 PM

I understand all the complaints, and agree with some of them out there. But I love these movies. Better the way they are than nothing at all.

And of them all (including TLOR) I like Desolation of Smaug the best. I have not seen the 5 armies yet though... Maybe the two towers... Between the Two Towers and Smaug. Because of the Ents, and Smaug. I dont know. Anyway, they are 10000 times better than harry potter who I hate.

Adult fans of the Hobbit and LTOR makes sense to me. But the moment I saw a 40 year old man dressed as a a harry potter wizard I immediately hated him and the potter movies. Something about it just made me feel violent. Thats not just nerd stuff, man. Thats some kind of mental illness.

Oshyan · December 23, 2014, 09:15:35 PM

I just watched Desolation of Smaug, trying to catch up with the intention of seeing Battle of Five Armies now that it's out. I won't be bothering. Desolation of Smaug had some good moments in it, but Peter Jackson has definitely jumped his own goblin shark and is now fully onboard the George Lucas more-CGI-than-necessary bandwagon. He's using it as a crutch, and to get things on screen that quite simply don't deserve to be there. Things like the absurd barrel riding sequence/battle in Desolation, or the mine cart "ride" in the first movie. I mean seriously, those scenes are absolute trash, and the rest of the movie is better in parts sure, but there are plenty of other absurdities, annoyances, etc. And here's the thing. I can and will overlook some of that kind of stuff if the movie that surrounds it is otherwise compelling, engaging, and enjoyable. These hobbit movies so far have not been, and I don't expect Battle of Five Armies to be any different, so I'll be waiting for "home video" if I see it at all. I'm in no hurry.

- Oshyan

TheBadger · December 23, 2014, 11:15:32 PM

lol!

Well I really understand actually. But the parts I like, I like so much that I can over look things. For example, that skate board thing the fruity elf does in the lord of the rings films. I hated that so much I swore out loud in the cinema at the two towers and just bit my lip in the return of the king. There is some other stuff too. But if you look on line you can see the deleted scenes from Smaug. And man, if you hated some of the stuff in the movie, you would really hate some of the stuff they cut.

But if you feel this way, I guess you should have no hope for star wars then too

zaxxon · December 24, 2014, 02:21:49 PM

Saw this yesterday on what the Century Theater chain claims is the the best resolution/brightness screen available: http://www.cinemark.com/technology. It was 3D, high frame rate. First: as to the actual movie; there are elements of digital silliness that either irritates the crap out of you, or can be taken as sheer fun and entertaining. Since Peter Jackson long ago gave up any pretense of being true to Tolkien's visionary work, my approach is to take these for the flights of cinema-graphic exuberance that makes sitting in front of an immersive technical display so entertaining. Jackson has created a wholly unique "Hobbit" tale that tries to set the stage for the darkness that is coming in LOTR, you can love it or hate it. I started reading these books in the mid sixties with the Ace Books unauthorized LOTR (still prefer Jack Gaughin's cover work to any other editions), and have since read everything from the family Tolkien with great appreciation. As my degree is in English Literature, I have long counted these works as true masterpieces of the English language, and yet I still manage to truly enjoy these movies. As to the high frame rate; in my estimation some scenes are fabulous, really displaying how crisp a 3D display can be. Others, especially the close-ups of characters with a limited depth look kind of 'televisionish' . So a mixed bag, but man where there are sweeping panoramas of CG work - wow! All in all my wife and I were thoroughly entertained and caught up in this last segment of a truly remarkable movie series, most enjoyable!

WAS · December 24, 2014, 03:32:39 PM

Quote from: otakar on December 23, 2014, 01:14:48 PM
So instead of braving the brutal commute home last night (snow and ice, numerous stuck cars) I took advantage of Monday night football and went to see the final piece of Peter Jackson's epic. Since I wanted to see it in IMAX I had to go with the 3D version. The same issues as with episode 1 came up (chose 2D for episode 2), blurry edges, at times disjointed flat background from the up close scene and some things just seem more artificial in 3D than 2D (for example the boulders in some shots). I also noticed a huge propensity of extreme upclose shots of faces. I am looking at this giant dwarven face in IMAX and thinking why do I have to be so close?

I wish there was more story, meaningful (background) conversation and landscape shots in the place of some of the action, although I did enjoy the battle scenes from a bird's eye view. As with the LOTR trilogy movies, it left me exhausted. Maybe it is because I have not read the books and I did not know how the story will unfold. All in all still a great piece of work, you can really tell how big this production was, even surpassing LOTR. I did enjoy the LOTR trilogy quite a bit more I have to say. Somehow I never got the connection to Thorin and company, unlike I did to the Fellowship of the Ring.

Hope to make it on location in NZ one day. Seems to be just the sort of place I would enjoy exploring.

I have yet to see the new movies, been waiting for their release on DVD to watch them all. I don't think I'll go to anything 3D anymore. I cannot see 3D like other people for some reason. I've tried all types of glasses, and I see nothing but blurry light and images misaligned.

And I the new movie are good, but you have a point I think. I heard a lot of people mention the 'gang' wasn't working as well as the LOTR series., Maybe trying to hard on the dynamic-ism of each character, instead of how they relate?

PabloMack · December 26, 2014, 05:39:34 PM

Quote from: otakar on December 23, 2014, 01:14:48 PMI wish there was more story...

"The Hobbit" was only one reasonably-sized book which is the only one I have read to completion. There really isn't enough there to make a trilogy. I read about 70 pages of "Fellowship of the Ring" and it just got so bogged down in backstory that I just gave up.

Seth · December 29, 2014, 04:12:03 AM

I slept for a few minutes during the movie. So boring.
Really not as good as the first trilogy Jackson did.
And I really didn't like how the movie look like. Too much gloom, I felt like watching a video game.
Some stupid actions too (like Legolas running on falling rocks) and some CGI didn't look as good as expected. Just a "meh" movie to me

Hannes · December 29, 2014, 12:32:11 PM

All the Hobbit movies are eye candy. That's for sure. And there are great moments, but, as Seth mentioned, things like Legolas' Errol Flynn-stunts were ridiculous.
My wife and I watched the whole LOTR trilogy during the last few days, and realized how good they were and still are.

otakar · December 29, 2014, 04:08:23 PM

LOL! The free falling stone block jumping episode! I was not sure if I was watching Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon there for a while. Completely unncessary sequence, IMHO. Will have to fire up LOTR again, now that I have a decent home setup and the Blue Ray extended version of the triology.