Did Anyone Go See "The Hobbit" Yet....

kevhed72

I thought is came out this weekend....my Gandalf wizard costume and the kids' hobbit costumes are ready to rock.
I am curious if the series is ruined by this movie, as what happened after the first original Star Wars movies

Anywho, who went to see it yet?

avelanchefan

Great read on Grantland the other day regarding the movie. Sounds like the 48 FPS filming may have done more harm than good.

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/8743459/unexpected-journey

As for me I have not seen it. I want to, but I have not.

newrival

I'm going to be seeing it in an hour

dromunds

Just saw it. 2-D version. It's a really good movie, very entertaining and I thought it went fast for almost 2 1/2 hours. I heard a lot of kids leaving the theatre saying it was awesome, which was nice to see. There were a few things different than the book but we knew that would happen. Good casting on the dwarves. I'm in love with Galadriel. Going to see the IMAX 3-D version if I have time before its gone. Did I say I'm in love with Galadriel? Don't like having to wait another year to see the next segment, though.

pglbook

I am going to see it this weekend. I have read some reviews say it is a bit long and plodding (why make 3 movies out of a 300 page book?) and also that were not thrilled by the look of the film with the new 48fps technology used by Peter Jackson. And yet everyone I have talked to who has seen it has loved the movie. I love the book and even like the Hobbit book better than the Lord of the Rings books in some ways. And I look forward to seeing the movie. I will let you know how I liked it.

HHStuart

I saw it in 3D yesterday and thought it looked great. I wasn't that impressed by the 3D for Avatar and I thought this was a lot better. It wasn't really 3 hours long - 25 minutes of that was previews. Some redundancy with Lord of the Rings but not too much. It was entertaining.

pglbook

I am glad to hear it. I know what you mean by 3D - sometimes it works and sometimes it doen't. I recently saw Life of Pi and thought the 3D in that movie was awesome.

newrival

So I saw it in 3d - the 48fps version - and while I thought the 3d was the best I'd ever seen, it lost all of it's cinimatic effect for me. My initial response is to say it all looked fake, but that's not correct. It all looked too real. It looked like actors in costume on a set. It's difficult to suspend belief with the higher frame rate. The standard 24fps adds a romantic blur and stutter (which is why people aret thrilled with 3d at that frame rate), and gives a hazy view in comparison. Personally, I just couldn't get past it. When the movie started, I felt like it was playing at 125% speed. It was very distracting.

I cant comment on the movie itself because I kept leaving 3or falling asleep because I honestly couldn't watch it. My wife had no idea what I was talking about it when I brought it up afterward. However, she doesn't see that effect on funky LCD panels at the store, either.

sandman012

I am going to go see it (got a $5 movie ticket coupon with my recent LOR BluRay purchase from Target), but I fear the 'all too realness' factor

Meeks32

X2 on what Newrival said. I saw it in HFR 3d the other night and I cant even give a review on the movie since the HFR was THAT distracting. I will go back and check it out in 2d this week. If you enjoy your movies to look like soap opera's or a made for tv movie, then check it out in HFR

dromunds

I saw the IMAX 3-D version yesterday and it was awesome. Saw the 2-D version about a week ago. You can see the IMAX 3-D matinee for about $10. As far back as possible center.

dromunds

By the way, Galdriel is even better in IMAX 3-D.

jim 249

Bump

newbie308

Tomorrow our family will see the 6:00 PM show at the Neshaminy Imax theater. Can't wait!

kevhed72

Just saw it last night....unfortunately in 3D because we didn't want to wait for the next 2D showing.
I thought overall it was awesome and the younger Bilbo Baggins nailed-it.
The 3d was distracting and, as usual, too dim to enjoy the wide-angle landscape shots.
I can't wait for the Blu Ray to come out to watch at home, although it will take forever for the next extended version box-set with all 3 movies to be released.

tonyb

I heard it sucked and the ending was terrible, and thats from die hard LOTR fans too. So I will pass on this one.

gudnoyez

We went last night me and the grandson enjoyed it, the wife not so much she wanted to tag along though,we told her it was fantasy and similar to TLOTR, I cant wait for the next one.

Erik Tracy

Saw it yesterday with my boys.

As a Tolkien 'nerd' I thought it was good.

The opening/prologue/intro about the founding of Erebor was cool - although the 'history' was altered - not a biggy.

And the sequence in Bag End was nice, some said it dragged, but I kinda liked it.

There were other elements changed from book to movie (and other elements from Tolkien's ME 'history') that were changed - some I understand based on where the story may/will go, others I didn't agree with.

The weaving in of other material to 'plump' the movie storyline sometimes worked, but at other times made me go 'huh'??

Martin Freeman works wonderfully as Bilbo - thumbs up!

Cinematically - I got a bit bored with the PJ over the top action scenes, but the look of the movie was well done.

And if you are looking for a purist re-telling of The Hobbit - this won't be for you. I don't agree with some of the storyline changes, but overall it still works as an enternaining movie, and I'll be going for the next two.

AsSiMiLaTeD

So is the 48FPS only on the 3D version, or both versions?

Jimbo18

AsSiMiLaTeD wrote: »

So is the 48FPS only on the 3D version, or both versions?

What I just read said that the 2D version is 24fps, and that there are both 24fps and 48fps 3D versions. This could be why some people thought it looked fine and others were distracted by the look of the film.

I just came from the 2D version and thought it looked fine, but at the time I watched it, I thought that all versions were the 48fps, so I kept looking for the too realistic look that others have complained about and, of course, I didn't find it.

As far as the movie itself goes, it was a little better than I expected, but not great. I am a huge LotR fan, but really had low expectations for The Hobbit. My favorite scenes were those in Rivendell and the Erebor history.

strider

dromunds wrote: »

I saw the IMAX 3-D version yesterday and it was awesome. Saw the 2-D version about a week ago. You can see the IMAX 3-D matinee for about $10. As far back as possible center.

We saw the IMAX 3D version yesterday, I agree it's best to sit way to the back. 3D effects seem too enveloping otherwise. I loved the movie, even the stuff they added from the appendices and the Silmarillion.

dromunds wrote: »

By the way, Galdriel is even better in IMAX 3-D.

Oh hell yes, I can't type here what was going through my mind when she was standing backlit talking to Gandalf.

dromunds

Strider, I know what you mean. She is a goddess if ever there was one.... and the best part, she wasn't even in the book. Nor was Rivendell if I remember correctly, only Elrond's "Last Homely House" which they stayed at for fourteen days to rest after their ordeal with the Trolls, who never stole their ponies to eat in the book. We take a lot for granted, I can still remember the pathetic animated Hobbit attempts in the past. We knew that Jackson would use his artistic license to stray from the book. Who cares? And I really didn't notice the film effects everyone is talking about, but maybe the versions I saw weren't 48 fps, I don't know. We're very fortunate to have these LOTR and Hobbit movies. When I was watching the Hobbit, I was amazed at some of the stuff they can do now. I hope more people will actually go back and (re-)read the books now.

Ern Dog

I'm going to watch it later today and excited about it. I'm a big fan of LOTR!

Toolfan66

I loved the Hobbit. saw it about a week ago, and belive it or not I never saw LOTR's!! well till three days ago. I have had the box set still sealed for years and I finally broke it open and watched one movie each day. As amatter of fact I just finished watching the return of the king. Great movies!! Long but very good indeed..

Strong Bad

tonyb wrote: »

I heard it sucked and the ending was terrible, and thats from die hard LOTR fans too. So I will pass on this one.

I saw it today in 2D and loved it. I never read the book so I had nothing to go on. Not sure why you heard the ending sucked. They ended it at a point similar to each of the LotR films, so no issue at all for me. You just have to keep in mind that it is 3 movies that are meant to be one story, same as LotR.

The overall look to the movie is quite awesome. I loved the tie-ins to LotR as well. Galadriel...hell yeah!

Overall a very enjoyable movie! Peter Jackson did well!

drumminman

Saw it a week ago, in 3D. Apparaently it was the 24 fps version as I didn't notice the weird super detail I've read about. I thought the 3D was very well done.

Its been years since I read the book so I was a little fuzzy on details of the story line; can't comment too much about that. I thought the battle scenes were amazing, and overly long. They could have advance the plot and lost little to nothing by making them shorter. Having said that, they were still totally mesmerizing!

There were some truly funny scenes as well, such as anything with the Goblin King in it. Still wonder who came up with the idea of the chin **** for him :eek:

Loved the scene with the trolls and Bilbo and his dwarf buddies rescuing the horses too.

When it was over it didn't seem like I had been sitting there for 2 1/2 hours.

headrott

I saw it a little over a week ago. I had read the book 2 or 3 times. I felt it was better than I was expecting, but once i heard the series was going to be 3 movies instead of 2 I knew it wasn't going to be good as there would be too much "filler", and I was correct in my thought. So, I had low expectations and it exceeded my low expectations. It not as good as any of the LOTR movies unfortunately. IMO, the most uneccessary "filler' was the giant rock creatures throwing rocks at each other. What was the point of this scene as far as plot/story goes? Was it just "filler" to give the crowd a look what we can do with our CGI machines? IMO, it was pointless and detracts from the story. I wish Peter Jackson had stucj to 2 movies rather than 3 to tell the story. The end result would have been more to the point and stuck to the book more, which would be a good thing (again, IMO). OK, I guess I have ranted enough.

starkiller

Just saw it this afternoon...meh...i must say i was very disappointed in it. Maybe because I have the entire series at least 10 times and know what to expect and what NOT to expect. Too much added stuff and stuff left out

My wife really liked but see never read the books. Also, compared to the previous 3 films, this one was just too sharp, too bright..i much preferred the "look" of the other ones...oh well, can always hope the next one is better i guess..

goofyGAguy

Go away Festus. Reported.

TurboGTU

I enjoyed it, they kept a surprising amount of the original material. I didn't care for all the changes, but could understand why they felt the need to do them. Overall I thought it was a good movie.

Uilleann

I wanted to punch Peter Jackson square in the face after seeing this. ...As if his ridiculous Air New Zealand commercial wasn't bad enough. I don't consider myself a 'purist' in any sense, but apart from the fact that he managed to mangle the plot, I have decided I just can't stand his "style" as a cinematographer. Not sure if I'll allow myself to be dragged off to the next two, the wife may have some say though...sigh...