The Hobbit Reviews

So far reviews are still solid, but it looks like Hobbit: Ep1 is going to settle around high 70's/low 80's. From what I can tell many reviewers are dinging it for not comparing as well to the LotR trilogy. Is that a fair comparison? Mostly same creative staff...different story in scope. I'm sure stretching one book into three isn't doing the concept any favors either. How about the 24 vs 48 fps issue?

Regardless, I'm super stoked about this. Watching Rankin/Bass version with the kids Friday night. Then the wife and I are going to run through LotR on three consecutive nights. Finally, taking the wife and boy to see the Hobbit shortly after Christmas.

I'm not jaded yet...but then again I liked John Carter.

Forgive my ignorance please -- is The Hobbit (i.e. the film version) due to be a three-parter? I had assumed it was a single movie.

S.

Update -- Well shut my mouth it's three movies.

I hear Go Dog Go is being turned into five films, so I suppose this makes sense.

Just how much story is there to tell? Splitting it 3-ways...we'll see.

On the other hand, remember how much personality Oin had in the book? How about Bombur? Me neither. And there are 13 such dwarves in the tale. Hopefully the movies make them more interesting than the faceless characters they were in the book.

Sagrilarus wrote: Forgive my ignorance please -- is The Hobbit (i.e. the film version) due to be a three-parter? I had assumed it was a single movie.

S.

Originally supposed to be split in two, then Peter Jackson et al. decided that 3 movies would be so much better, because in the end, this will be the last time that they'll be able to show us stories in Middle-Earth. They were thinking of us, the movie-going public! Such kind hearts.

P.S.: I don't know exactly how long the first movie is, but I believe I read somewhere they'd be more around the 2-hour mark rather than the 3.5-4 hour marathons of the LOTR trilogy.

im going to see it in a few hours. Its just under 3 hours in length at the cinema(but that listing includes the credits and opening commercials etc so probably about 2 hours and 20-40 mins).

I'm a pretty harsh critic when it comes to source material i love but ill try and give some positives when i get back.

Duke, are you going for 24 fps, 48fps, or 3D?

I understand that 48 fps is 'too clear' and removes some 'movie magic'. Example given: you may be able to tell rain isn't falling on the actors.

Looking forward to hearing your report. I _loved_ the LotR triolgy btw, but was never a super fan of the books. Comparison to source material isn't big for me when comparing different mediums. Conan the Barbarian is a _great_ movie but isn't related to any REH story.

My buddy John saw it and had this to say:

It takes a while to get used to the higher framerate, and the first part of the movie is a little slow, but it was a really fun time overall.

Double post.

Apparently the higher frame rate makes a lot of people sick.

My wife and I are leaving the boys with a sitter and seeing this tomorrow night. I remain optimistic, but I worry about it being bloated. Peter Jackson has never been good at restraint.

*edit* We're seeing the normal 24fps non-3D version. It seemed to work alright for the original LotR trilogy.

Instead of "LOTR" expectations, I'm going in with "King Kong" expectations: I expect The Hobbit to be bloated and plodding, but an overall good time due to some brilliant segments.

I don't doubt I'll end up seeing this at some point soon, but the initial reviews are worrying me. Sod the framerate issue, I've said since they announced it was going to be a trilogy that for it to stretch that far it'd have to include almost all the material from the LotR appendices. And from the sounds of things, it really doesn't and is indulgently overlong and dull in parts. After the triumpg of the first and third LotR films, that's a bit sad.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Trilogy.

Fuck them for getting greedy. Not all the reviews are positive. One critic noted that this first movie only takes the story partway through chapter six of the book, spending about 1.5 minutes per page. The pace will apparently pick up rapidly in the third movie, because the second movie will focus on a big adventure that Gandalf had off-panel in the book.

Sagrilarus wrote: Forgive my ignorance please -- is The Hobbit (i.e. the film version) due to be a three-parter? I had assumed it was a single movie.

S.

Update -- Well shut my mouth it's three movies.

I hear Go Dog Go is being turned into five films, so I suppose this makes sense.

I fucking LOVE Go Do Go. Lol

There is no way I'm going to a theater to watch this. I would love to just not watch it at all because I hate the stupid three movie thing. What a waste. But my sad pathetic little geek heart will demand I watch it when it comes out in iTunes or whichever.

There's only one movie I'm going to go see this holiday season to get my action/geek thrills and that's Django Unchained. A whole story in one sitting.