Planning To See 'The Hobbit.'

[FAST FRED]

Did J. R. R. Tolkien, the original author, write this story for 24 or 48 FPS/HFR?

I thought those four hobbit books, especially that trilogy, were pretty long, often almost redundant and thus eventually kind of boring.

And now this new hobbit movie made from the shortest book is gonna be expanded into three parts itself and has "guest appearances" from some extra characters who only appeared in the later trilogy part of the story in print.

So that quote I saw from one critic about him getting bored twice as fast when watching it in 48 FPS/HFR gives me pause.

Which frame speed do y'all think will deliver the best viewing experience for an aging, only lukewarm Tolkien fan who's an enthusiastic movie buff but has an impatient and demanding bladder?

Just a questioning thought.

 

[Son of a Son]

I saw the non-uber-special-duper version and was totally entertained.

 

[Vol Horn 4 Life]

I saw it today. I thought it was pretty good and didn't feel like I was in the theater for three hours. They did take liberties in the movie, but if you go in with the ability to not compare the movie to the book you'll enjoy it. Otherwise you'll probably be disappointed.

 

[s102r18]

As someone who has read The Hobbit and the LotR trilogy multiple times, and who loves the tales...and as someone who worshipped at the altar of Peter Jackson for the first two LotR movies...I'm really torn whether to pay to see the first hobbit film in the theatre. Borrowing it free from APL after it comes out on DVD is an enticing alternative.

The boredom potential is high with this film. I was concerned enough upon hearing The Hobbit was going to be a two-part film instead of one, and crazy mad about hearing it had been turned into a trilogy. It's an obvious money grab.

As with The Dark Knight Rises, I see flashing "Warning, Warning, Warning" signs with the advance info about this film. I'm a Nolanite but my TDKR premonitions came true; it rated as a flop for me.

I was pretty set to skip seeing The Hobbit...but ended up being impressed by the trailer. Purist concerns aside, I came to think maybe PJ had managed to make a good film after all. Lots of reviews suggest otherwise, however. So I am still on the fence.

 

[WithoutAClue]

as long as you go into the movie remembering that this is Peter Jackson's
version of The Hobbit and not JRR Tolkien's version you should do OK.

the cinematography is still fantastic. Jackson makes some changes to
add "more excitement" but i just assume it means that he lacks the
imagination to translate the words on the page to the screen.

 

[OldHippie]

I saw it and liked it. I read it long enough ago that I wasn't bothered by any changes from the book.

 

[s102r18]

Thanks WAC and OH. I forget whether my most recent time reading the four novels was just before or just after the three LoTR films. Either way, it has been a while. I'm not likely to gnash my teeth over things that are sourced in the LoTR novels, or PJ's imagination. I'm also curious about the 48 FPS, so for those reasons I'll probably go. The money grab annoyance might hold sway for the next two films, however.

 

[accuratehorn]

Saw The Hobbit last night at the Alamo Drafthouse.
I have read the books multiple times, as well.
I liked some things about the movie, but something bothered me about it, which I will attempt to put my finger on.
The opening scene, in The Shire, really looked like The Shire should look. The hobbit hole, Bilbo's home, was just like Bilbo's home should look. The scenery, of course, was amazing, and the photography thereof excellent.
There were a lot of scenes and characters thrown in which were not in the book, although this in itself didn't bother me too much. I suppose if they are trying to make a fairly short tale into three movies, they have to add some things. And in general, the things that were added were things going on at the time which led to the trilogy.
What bothered me was the tone, or the pace of the violence in the scenes. It got out of hand, it wasn't completely believable to me.
The books Tolkien created, while works of fantasy, are so carefully created, that you believe the history, the characters, the different races, it all seems plausible within the framework Tolkien invented so creatively.
Also, The Hobbit, although the characters were in dangerous situations, was a lighter tale overall than the trilogy. This movie was not. The characters were constantly fighting various enemies. It just seemed darker in tone than the book.
And something about the fighting just didn't seem believable. The dwarves were able to fight off huge numbers of orcs. It reminded me of the martial arts movies, where they go from a really good fighter defeating a number of foes, which you can accept up to a point for the sake of wanting to enjoy the movie, to a scene where they start flying through the air, defying gravity. I just can't buy this. The Hobbit almost got to that point.
Also, some of the dwarves really look like dwarves, and some just look like people, for instance Thorin Oakenshield.
I'm trying to not give spoilers about the plot, just impressions about how the book was adapted to the screen.
Still, being a hobbitphile, I will go to the next two films.
I would be interested in hearing other impressions from those who like the book and have seen the movie.

 

[Statalyzer]

In reply to:

---

---