Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review Thread - Page 6

Ewok Droppings · 12-17-2012, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanTheCool

Here's my two word review:

Rabbit Sled?!?!

You have obviously never been to Portland.

FVD · 12-17-2012, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedVader 2004

I will say that Azog is the biggest Orc I ever saw. But I will admit they made The Great Goblin a bit lame.

Oh just wait until the EE comes out - they'll flesh out his character a little more (and yes it's been confirmed, the EE that is).

Deexan · 12-17-2012, 06:46 AM

PJ said (in one of the production videos I think) that he made the goblins different looking because he was bored of the skinny, samey orcs from the LOTR trilogy and wanted to have more fun with their designs.

DarthVader 2004 · 12-17-2012, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FVD

Oh just wait until the EE comes out - they'll flesh out his character a little more (and yes it's been confirmed, the EE that is).

My guessing is the Goblins are like Roaches that hide in the mountains of Middle Earth. The Orcs are like Those Ants that destroy everything.

IanTheCool · 12-17-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FVD

Oh just wait until the EE comes out - they'll flesh out his character a little more (and yes it's been confirmed, the EE that is).

This one already felt like it was extended.

PsYkOoOoO · 12-17-2012, 08:04 PM

I've been checking out LEGO sets of The Hobbit and, based on the sets currently available, the first movie was supposed to end with the barrels (for you book readers). I think that'd 1) have been a way better ending point 2) justify the three-hour length 3) compress the story better. Unfortunately, we didn't get that version.

IanTheCool · 12-17-2012, 08:49 PM

I've decided to split my review into two parts The first will focus on the story elements of the film while the second will look at the technical and visual aspects.

Part 1

I have to admit that I went into this film skeptical, despite being a big Tolkien fan (or perhaps because of that). To be honest, I had strong doubts that it would even be made, but here it is. So after 9 year of waiting, was it all worth it?

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is yes, but damn it could have been a lot better. As an adaptation, The Hobbit is pretty faithful other than a lot of the additions. However, the additions are a large part of the problem, especially since most of them are just there to pander to the legions of fan geeks out there. The first one that jumps out is the opening with Ian Holm writing down his adventures in a scene which starts moments before the opening of Fellowship. It was really unnecessary, and purely there for fan service. However this scene also allows room for another opening prologue which details the history of the story. But while Fellowship's prologue was pithy and concise, this one was far too meandering.

Another disgusting display of fan service were the Rivendell scenes. There we get a meeting of the White Council which sees many familiar face, who are practically announced as though they are walking down the red carpet. Not to mention that that scene was ridiculously drawn out and really put a halt on any story momentum the movie had built up to that point.

So those were some of the glaring problems. What about the shining successes? First off, I have to say that it was great to see McKellan back as Gandalf. I also thought that Martin Freeman hit just the right note for Bilbo, although he does have a tendency to get lost in the background a lot. Another addition I liked was Richard Armitage who brought a lot of intensity and grounding to the role of Dwarfking Thorin Oakenshield.

Pretty much everything that was in the first six chapters of the book shows up here. The highlight of those scenes has to be the Gollum "riddles in the dark" sequence. It was filmed with pitch perfect precision and was almost exactly as I pictured it. The troll scene actually went well also, though it could have done with a little less slapstick. Another great scene was the Warg attack in the trees, as Peter Jackson was really able to use his embellishing talents to good effect there.

There is one scene that I was surprised to see which I wish they hadn't added, which was the stone giants. I remember them clearly from the book, but didn't expect them to be in the film. When they were, I was pleasantly surprised, that was until there was an entire "action' scene built out of them. Not only was the action very incoherent, but it also felt very out of place, as though it could have been completely removed from the film without a hiccup.

And then there was Radaghast... Oh dear. A completely unnecessary addition to the story who was ridiculously imagined. He has quickly become the Jar Jar Binks of the LOTR film franchise. I absolutely cringed during his scenes, especially that awkward hedgehog scene. Just.... why? Wh-why?

Okay, I know I'm rambling too much on what I didn't like. But that's because I'm a Tolkien geek and it bugged me. But to be honest, these problems that seem like nitpicking are actually pretty big problems. For one, all this film pandering really affects the pacing of this film. The movie needed to be cut down considerably, and could have been easily without PJ having to include so many unnecessary references to the other films.

Another big problem is the general silliness which permeates this production. Whether its the dwarf with the slingshot, the little goblin scribe on the zip-line, all the dwarves crashing down on that 3-layer bridge,or (I can't believe I have to say this) the rabbit sled, I just felt like Jackson needed to take this production a little more seriously. Its very clear that the Lord of the Rings trilogy has much more emotion resonance and more gravitas. And thats fine, its supposed to. Its a much larger story after all. This is a more light-hearted adventure tale in comparison, but that doesn't mean that it has to completely go over the deep end with goofiness. I seem to recall another movie in a big franchise which did that, and it was called The Phantom Menace.

Whew. Okay, with that off my chest, now I can gush a bit. I must say that it was nice to be back in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth when all is said and done. As a fan of the books, I really enjoyed seeing all the adventures from the book come to life. And when this show was in a high it worked very well. It does still feel consistent with the first trilogy, even if the tone is off kilter a bit. So even though Jackson and company made some missteps, I still find myself fairly happy with it overall.

PsYkOoOoO · 12-17-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanTheCool

The short answer is yes. The longer answer is yes, but damn it could have been a lot better.

Summed up my thoughts, exactly.

Quote:

Another disgusting display of fan service were the Rivendell scenes. There we get a meeting of the White Council which sees many familiar face, who are practically announced as though they are walking down the red carpet. Not to mention that that scene was ridiculously drawn out and really put a halt on any story momentum the movie had built up to that point.

I actually didn't have a problem with showing these familiar faces. It was nice to see Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman, for me. Fan service or not, I loved it. My problem is the scene is that it wasn't as well edited as, say, the Council of Elrond scene. If you are a fan of Tolkien, then I assume that you've read the books. You'd know that the Council of Elrond chapter is the longest chapter in the book. Yet, in FOTR, I thought the scene moved things forward despite having a lot of exposition. The White Council didn't quite have that forward momentum to me. The big reveal of the Morgul blade was a little underwhelming too, since we already saw the Witchking drop the blade back at Dol Guldur. So when Gandalf unwrapped the blade, there wasn't any element of surprise. To me, anyway.

Quote:

Pretty much everything that was in the first six chapters of the book shows up here. The highlight of those scenes has to be the Gollum "riddles in the dark" sequence. It was filmed with pitch perfect precision and was almost exactly as I pictured it. The troll scene actually went well also, though it could have done with a little less slapstick. Another great scene was the Warg attack in the trees, as Peter Jackson was really able to use his embellishing talents to good effect there.

It's interesting that the Riddles in the Dark sequence was the first scene to be filmed, and also unanimously the best scene in the movie. I actually really liked the troll sequence. People complain a lot about the first half of the movie, lumping the troll sequence in. I kinda liked the slapsticks, personally. I thought the action could've been handled a little better, but otherwise it was great.

Quote:

There is one scene that I was surprised to see which I wish they hadn't added, which was the stone giants. I remember them clearly from the book, but didn't expect them to be in the film. When they were, I was pleasantly surprised, that was until there was an entire "action' scene built out of them. Not only was the action very incoherent, but it also felt very out of place, as though it could have been completely removed from the film without a hiccup.

How did you picture the stone giants in the book? I've always pictured them to be giants (flesh and bone) throwing rocks at each other. That scene was completely unnecessary, yes, and should've been in the extended edition for fans of the book.

Quote:

This is a more light-hearted adventure tale in comparison, but that doesn't mean that it has to completely go over the deep end with goofiness. I seem to recall another movie in a big franchise which did that, and it was called The Phantom Menace.

I agree with this point too. Some Tolkien purists would argue against Gimli's almost slapstick humor in TTT (Could've picked a better spot!), but I thought that was just the right amount of humor and goof. In this movie, I greatly enjoyed the bit in the troll sequence when Bilbo had to talk the trolls out of eating the dwarves. That was cleverly done, and if only we had more of that throughout the movie (instead of, yes, rabbit sled).

IanTheCool · 12-17-2012, 09:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYkOoOoO

I actually didn't have a problem with showing these familiar faces. It was nice to see Galadriel, Elrond and Saruman, for me. Fan service or not, I loved it. My problem is the scene is that it wasn't as well edited as, say, the Council of Elrond scene. If you are a fan of Tolkien, then I assume that you've read the books. You'd know that the Council of Elrond chapter is the longest chapter in the book. Yet, in FOTR, I thought the scene moved things forward despite having a lot of exposition. The White Council didn't quite have that forward momentum to me. The big reveal of the Morgul blade was a little underwhelming too, since we already saw the Witchking drop the blade back at Dol Guldur. So when Gandalf unwrapped the blade, there wasn't any element of surprise. To me, anyway.

Yeah, the Council of Elrond was far better edited. The familiar faces are one thing, but they practically had their own entrance music playing and people cheering in the background when they were introduced. That I had a problem with. Its like PJ nudging the audience and saying "hey, remember them? Do ya? Do ya?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYkOoOoO

How did you picture the stone giants in the book? I've always pictured them to be giants (flesh and bone) throwing rocks at each other. That scene was completely unnecessary, yes, and should've been in the extended edition for fans of the book.

Yeah, I pictured them the same as you. And they really just viewed them from a distance. When I saw the rock crash above their heads, I knew what it was and was excited. But then it just became dumb.

**JBond** · 12-17-2012, 09:23 PM

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I'll admit I had fun at this movie, but it wasn't a very good one. All the fun was pretty cheap. There's some exciting action scenes; I was particularly excited during the stone Giants fight. But then there's some where they're just going through the motions, hacking down orcs, and commiting ridiculous feats. Particularly ridiculous is the scene underground where the crew escape on a surfing scaffold. There were other acts of cartoon logic throughout the movie that you wouldn't see in Lord of the Rings.

The next example of cheap fun was the cameos and nostalgia. Personally, I had no idea there were so many LOTR alum cameos in this, and it was fun to see them and live it again. On a second viewing, though, this would surely be lost. There were also many nods and winks to LOTR, perhaps too many.

I like Martin Freeman, so I was surpruised when he turned me off in this movie. Perhaps because he was Martin Freeman. If you're like me and have seen Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy a bunch of times, you'll have to agree with me that we got to see him again. He has that same Woody Allen-esque demeanor to him. This wouldn't be such a big deal if Ian Holm hadn't already played him in a completely different way.

One last complaint, and this is a weird one, something I've never encountered. The soundtrack was way too obvious. After I got the hang of it (10 years of Lord of the Rings helps) I always knew exactly what musical cue they were going to go with. They used the right ones with the cameos, with Rivendell, with "the happy Hobbit theme," the "the ring will destroy middle earth theme," and so on. They even used the "huge eagles are coming to save us now that Gandalf has spoken to the moth theme." I could have arranged the soundtrack myself. Like I said, too nostalgic.

I could list small complaints, but I think you get the idea. This movie actually could have been half-way decent if many scenes were trimmed. If this movie had anything going for it, it was a well-paced adventure.

**/****

IanTheCool · 12-17-2012, 09:59 PM

Good call on the musical cues. I found myself expecting certain themes to show up as well.

DarthVader 2004 · 12-17-2012, 10:01 PM

I think they just did the same Thing The First 3 Pirates movies did and that was reuse music in certain parts.

FVD · 12-18-2012, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsYkOoOoO

The big reveal of the Morgul blade was a little underwhelming too, since we already saw the Witchking drop the blade back at Dol Guldur. So when Gandalf unwrapped the blade, there wasn't any element of surprise. To me, anyway.

I wonder if perhaps the Radagast investigation would have been better suited to the White Council scene hence a better reveal of the Morgul Blade?

DarthVader 2004 · 12-18-2012, 04:46 PM

I personally think Saruman had been turned even back then because seemed like he was trying to be the skeptic and keep the other clueless for he likely had the crystal eye thing a long time.

JG7_ME262 · 12-18-2012, 06:38 PM

First I not familiar with The Hobbit as I am TLOTR. With that said I have a quick question.

Besides Balin. Which other Dwarfs were killed at Moria? Gloin and Ori?

IanTheCool · 12-18-2012, 07:38 PM

Ori and Oin.

PsYkOoOoO · 12-18-2012, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FVD

I wonder if perhaps the Radagast investigation would have been better suited to the White Council scene hence a better reveal of the Morgul Blade?

You know what, I think that'd have been a lot better, yes. By the way, I'm sad to see that the Witchking has been CG-ed. It looked perfectly fine back in the day. If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

JG7_ME262 · 12-18-2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by IanTheCool

Ori and Oin.

Thanks!

DarthVader 2004 · 12-18-2012, 10:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JG7_ME262

First I not familiar with The Hobbit as I am TLOTR. With that said I have a quick question.

Besides Balin. Which other Dwarfs were killed at Moria? Gloin and Ori?

I don't think Gloin was killed . I believed he was the white bearded Dwarf behind Gimli in Rivendall

sshuttari · 12-18-2012, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JBond

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Particularly ridiculous is the scene underground where the crew escape on a surfing scaffold. There were other acts of cartoon logic throughout the movie that you wouldn't see in Lord of the Rings.

**/****

Reminded me of "Temple of Doom" like a lot.

**JBond** · 12-18-2012, 11:45 PM

I like Temple of Doom, but I get what you mean.

DarthVader 2004 · 12-19-2012, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sshuttari

Reminded me of "Temple of Doom" like a lot.

To be honest that whole scene reminded me of the crumbling Rocks the fellowship ran down in Moria.

**JBond** · 12-20-2012, 01:18 PM

Panther2000 · 12-20-2012, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedVader 2004

I personally think Saruman had been turned even back then because seemed like he was trying to be the skeptic and keep the other clueless for he likely had the crystal eye thing a long time.

Yes, did you notice that also, & Gandalf kind of gave saurman a look was like( what you talking about willis

) He knew then that something was off about Saurman.

IanTheCool · 12-20-2012, 08:31 PM

Part 2

Alright, I feel like I have to chime in on the visuals of this movie. Yes, the production values look very consistent with the first trilogy. Yes, the special effects are up to Middle Earth Par, especially the Eagles. Well, okay, the goofier stuff not so much (i.e. The Goblin King). But what I really want to discuss is of course the 48 frames per second.

I may be accused of being afraid of change. I've been accused of that before, and that's fine. But in reality, I'm not afraid of it, I understand that progress is a crucial part of life. What I am against is change for the sake of change and blind "progress" which is given little thought put into it and more hype because its "the wave of the future". I don't have a smart phone because I see no practical purpose to have one in my life. I don't bother with Netflix because I see it as choosing convenience over quality.

And I don't like the idea of faster frame rates because it destroys the illusionary aspect of movies.

I know Peter Jackson believes that this is simply going to be the norm for film-making in a few years, and he may well be right. But judging on what I saw with The Hobbit, I hope it isn't. The frame rate gives the characters on film awkward movements which can be really off-putting. The moments when this is really bad are times when you see close-up actions such as Bilbo pulling things from his chest or hands grabbing at food on the table. It looks cheap. It looks like a homemade movie. What it doesn't look like is a movie. in fact, in the prologue they show the city of Dale, and because it looked so realistic, the costume design and sets looked so fake I was disgusted. With 24 fps second, I probably would have fooled and would have been pulled into that world.

Granted, as the film went on, I noticed it less. However every once in a while some action scenes would really show it off again and jar me out of the experience. I will give the new technology credit for making the 3D flow more smoothly mind you. It wasn't as blurry and disjointed as 3D tends to be (the Eagle scene is a great example of this), but since I don't really care about 3D this didn't really matter to me.

I am glad that I saw it in 48 fps, since I have been extremely curious about this "new leap forward". I wondered if it was the next best thing our generation would have to adding sound to picture, or the introduction of Technicolor. Now I just hope that it doesn't catch on since this is an example of progress made simply for the sake of progress and not necessarily for the betterment of film.

Overall I would probably give The Hobbit an 8/10, however if I wasn't a massive Tolkien fan this would probably be lower. I've decided to keep the 48fps out of the score, for that would probably have dropped it down as well.

View Poll Results: How would you rate this film?
1	0	0%
2	0	0%
3	0	0%
4	0	0%
5	1	4.35%
6	2	8.70%
7	2	8.70%
8	10	43.48%
9	6	26.09%
10	2	8.70%
Voters: 23. You may not vote on this poll

12-17-2012, 06:46 AM	#128
Deexan Integral Join Date: Aug 2003 Posts: 10,331	PJ said (in one of the production videos I think) that he made the goblins different looking because he was bored of the skinny, samey orcs from the LOTR trilogy and wanted to have more fun with their designs. __________________ What's the law but a leash? SoundCloud Twitter

12-17-2012, 08:04 PM	#131
PsYkOoOoO Exceptionally Normal Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Singapore. Posts: 22,412	I've been checking out LEGO sets of The Hobbit and, based on the sets currently available, the first movie was supposed to end with the barrels (for you book readers). I think that'd 1) have been a way better ending point 2) justify the three-hour length 3) compress the story better. Unfortunately, we didn't get that version. __________________ W.

12-17-2012, 09:23 PM	#135
JBond Feed me Join Date: May 2000 Location: SR388 Posts: 67,503	The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) I'll admit I had fun at this movie, but it wasn't a very good one. All the fun was pretty cheap. There's some exciting action scenes; I was particularly excited during the stone Giants fight. But then there's some where they're just going through the motions, hacking down orcs, and commiting ridiculous feats. Particularly ridiculous is the scene underground where the crew escape on a surfing scaffold. There were other acts of cartoon logic throughout the movie that you wouldn't see in Lord of the Rings. The next example of cheap fun was the cameos and nostalgia. Personally, I had no idea there were so many LOTR alum cameos in this, and it was fun to see them and live it again. On a second viewing, though, this would surely be lost. There were also many nods and winks to LOTR, perhaps too many. I like Martin Freeman, so I was surpruised when he turned me off in this movie. Perhaps because he was Martin Freeman. If you're like me and have seen Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy a bunch of times, you'll have to agree with me that we got to see him again. He has that same Woody Allen-esque demeanor to him. This wouldn't be such a big deal if Ian Holm hadn't already played him in a completely different way. One last complaint, and this is a weird one, something I've never encountered. The soundtrack was way too obvious. After I got the hang of it (10 years of Lord of the Rings helps) I always knew exactly what musical cue they were going to go with. They used the right ones with the cameos, with Rivendell, with "the happy Hobbit theme," the "the ring will destroy middle earth theme," and so on. They even used the "huge eagles are coming to save us now that Gandalf has spoken to the moth theme." I could have arranged the soundtrack myself. Like I said, too nostalgic. I could list small complaints, but I think you get the idea. This movie actually could have been half-way decent if many scenes were trimmed. If this movie had anything going for it, it was a well-paced adventure. / __________________ The due date for Round 135 of the CS Film Club is Monday, May 20th, 2013.** 59 out of 64 Hugo Award winners completed. "Die Hard 5 makes Die Hard 4 look like Die Hard 1" - Doomsday Last edited by JBond; 12-17-2012 at 09:27 PM.

12-18-2012, 06:38 PM	#140
JG7_ME262 Executive Producer Join Date: May 2001 Location: kansas city , missouri, united states Posts: 223	First I not familiar with The Hobbit as I am TLOTR. With that said I have a quick question. Besides Balin. Which other Dwarfs were killed at Moria? Gloin and Ori? __________________ My Grand Cherokee is faster than 80% of all snakes. To give you a reference point, my Jeep is somewhere between a snake and a mongoose. And a panther.

12-17-2012, 08:49 PM	#132
IanTheCool Executive Lego Producer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 13,395	I've decided to split my review into two parts The first will focus on the story elements of the film while the second will look at the technical and visual aspects. Part 1 I have to admit that I went into this film skeptical, despite being a big Tolkien fan (or perhaps because of that). To be honest, I had strong doubts that it would even be made, but here it is. So after 9 year of waiting, was it all worth it? The short answer is yes. The longer answer is yes, but damn it could have been a lot better. As an adaptation, The Hobbit is pretty faithful other than a lot of the additions. However, the additions are a large part of the problem, especially since most of them are just there to pander to the legions of fan geeks out there. The first one that jumps out is the opening with Ian Holm writing down his adventures in a scene which starts moments before the opening of Fellowship. It was really unnecessary, and purely there for fan service. However this scene also allows room for another opening prologue which details the history of the story. But while Fellowship's prologue was pithy and concise, this one was far too meandering. Another disgusting display of fan service were the Rivendell scenes. There we get a meeting of the White Council which sees many familiar face, who are practically announced as though they are walking down the red carpet. Not to mention that that scene was ridiculously drawn out and really put a halt on any story momentum the movie had built up to that point. So those were some of the glaring problems. What about the shining successes? First off, I have to say that it was great to see McKellan back as Gandalf. I also thought that Martin Freeman hit just the right note for Bilbo, although he does have a tendency to get lost in the background a lot. Another addition I liked was Richard Armitage who brought a lot of intensity and grounding to the role of Dwarfking Thorin Oakenshield. Pretty much everything that was in the first six chapters of the book shows up here. The highlight of those scenes has to be the Gollum "riddles in the dark" sequence. It was filmed with pitch perfect precision and was almost exactly as I pictured it. The troll scene actually went well also, though it could have done with a little less slapstick. Another great scene was the Warg attack in the trees, as Peter Jackson was really able to use his embellishing talents to good effect there. There is one scene that I was surprised to see which I wish they hadn't added, which was the stone giants. I remember them clearly from the book, but didn't expect them to be in the film. When they were, I was pleasantly surprised, that was until there was an entire "action' scene built out of them. Not only was the action very incoherent, but it also felt very out of place, as though it could have been completely removed from the film without a hiccup. And then there was Radaghast... Oh dear. A completely unnecessary addition to the story who was ridiculously imagined. He has quickly become the Jar Jar Binks of the LOTR film franchise. I absolutely cringed during his scenes, especially that awkward hedgehog scene. Just.... why? Wh-why? Okay, I know I'm rambling too much on what I didn't like. But that's because I'm a Tolkien geek and it bugged me. But to be honest, these problems that seem like nitpicking are actually pretty big problems. For one, all this film pandering really affects the pacing of this film. The movie needed to be cut down considerably, and could have been easily without PJ having to include so many unnecessary references to the other films. Another big problem is the general silliness which permeates this production. Whether its the dwarf with the slingshot, the little goblin scribe on the zip-line, all the dwarves crashing down on that 3-layer bridge,or (I can't believe I have to say this) the rabbit sled, I just felt like Jackson needed to take this production a little more seriously. Its very clear that the Lord of the Rings trilogy has much more emotion resonance and more gravitas. And thats fine, its supposed to. Its a much larger story after all. This is a more light-hearted adventure tale in comparison, but that doesn't mean that it has to completely go over the deep end with goofiness. I seem to recall another movie in a big franchise which did that, and it was called The Phantom Menace. Whew. Okay, with that off my chest, now I can gush a bit. I must say that it was nice to be back in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth when all is said and done. As a fan of the books, I really enjoyed seeing all the adventures from the book come to life. And when this show was in a high it worked very well. It does still feel consistent with the first trilogy, even if the tone is off kilter a bit. So even though Jackson and company made some missteps, I still find myself fairly happy with it overall.

12-17-2012, 09:59 PM	#136
IanTheCool Executive Lego Producer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 13,395	Good call on the musical cues. I found myself expecting certain themes to show up as well.

12-17-2012, 10:01 PM	#137
DarthVader 2004 Executive Producer Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: West Virginia Posts: 13,555	I think they just did the same Thing The First 3 Pirates movies did and that was reuse music in certain parts.

12-18-2012, 04:46 PM	#139
DarthVader 2004 Executive Producer Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: West Virginia Posts: 13,555	I personally think Saruman had been turned even back then because seemed like he was trying to be the skeptic and keep the other clueless for he likely had the crystal eye thing a long time.

12-18-2012, 07:38 PM	#141
IanTheCool Executive Lego Producer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 13,395	Ori and Oin.

12-18-2012, 11:45 PM	#146
JBond Feed me Join Date: May 2000 Location: SR388 Posts: 67,503	I like Temple of Doom, but I get what you mean. __________________ The due date for Round 135 of the CS Film Club is Monday, May 20th, 2013. 59 out of 64 Hugo Award winners completed. "Die Hard 5 makes Die Hard 4 look like Die Hard 1" - Doomsday

12-20-2012, 01:18 PM	#148
JBond Feed me Join Date: May 2000 Location: SR388 Posts: 67,503	__________________ The due date for Round 135 of the CS Film Club is Monday, May 20th, 2013. 59 out of 64 Hugo Award winners completed. "Die Hard 5 makes Die Hard 4 look like Die Hard 1" - Doomsday

12-20-2012, 08:31 PM	#150
IanTheCool Executive Lego Producer Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 13,395	Part 2 Alright, I feel like I have to chime in on the visuals of this movie. Yes, the production values look very consistent with the first trilogy. Yes, the special effects are up to Middle Earth Par, especially the Eagles. Well, okay, the goofier stuff not so much (i.e. The Goblin King). But what I really want to discuss is of course the 48 frames per second. I may be accused of being afraid of change. I've been accused of that before, and that's fine. But in reality, I'm not afraid of it, I understand that progress is a crucial part of life. What I am against is change for the sake of change and blind "progress" which is given little thought put into it and more hype because its "the wave of the future". I don't have a smart phone because I see no practical purpose to have one in my life. I don't bother with Netflix because I see it as choosing convenience over quality. And I don't like the idea of faster frame rates because it destroys the illusionary aspect of movies. I know Peter Jackson believes that this is simply going to be the norm for film-making in a few years, and he may well be right. But judging on what I saw with The Hobbit, I hope it isn't. The frame rate gives the characters on film awkward movements which can be really off-putting. The moments when this is really bad are times when you see close-up actions such as Bilbo pulling things from his chest or hands grabbing at food on the table. It looks cheap. It looks like a homemade movie. What it doesn't look like is a movie. in fact, in the prologue they show the city of Dale, and because it looked so realistic, the costume design and sets looked so fake I was disgusted. With 24 fps second, I probably would have fooled and would have been pulled into that world. Granted, as the film went on, I noticed it less. However every once in a while some action scenes would really show it off again and jar me out of the experience. I will give the new technology credit for making the 3D flow more smoothly mind you. It wasn't as blurry and disjointed as 3D tends to be (the Eagle scene is a great example of this), but since I don't really care about 3D this didn't really matter to me. I am glad that I saw it in 48 fps, since I have been extremely curious about this "new leap forward". I wondered if it was the next best thing our generation would have to adding sound to picture, or the introduction of Technicolor. Now I just hope that it doesn't catch on since this is an example of progress made simply for the sake of progress and not necessarily for the betterment of film. Overall I would probably give The Hobbit an 8/10, however if I wasn't a massive Tolkien fan this would probably be lower. I've decided to keep the 48fps out of the score, for that would probably have dropped it down as well.