PDA

View Full Version : Anyone Else Fired up About "The Hobbit"?



zombywoof
12-03-2012, 03:12 PM
After years of dispute, "The Hobbit" is almost here! As a big fan of LoTR, I'm very excited about this one. Anyone else? Has anyone seen the premiere in Wellington?

Pam George
12-03-2012, 03:48 PM
Yes! I can't wait. I even read The Hobbit again in anticipation. Bring on the Bilbo!

Gruno
12-03-2012, 05:31 PM
looking forward to this more than Lord of the Rings!

Dave (in MA)
12-03-2012, 05:34 PM
My boss at the time took our team out to see all three of the earlier movies. I fell asleep in I and II, but due to the ingestion of large amounts of coffee I managed to remain conscious in III. Maybe I'll check this out on DVD when it comes out.

rapidfirerob
12-03-2012, 06:11 PM
Ready!!!

NogbadTheBad
12-03-2012, 06:13 PM
Can't wait!!

spellbound
12-03-2012, 07:09 PM
Sure. Fire up a hobbit and pass it this way.

notallwhowander
12-03-2012, 07:15 PM
Meh. I'm sure I'll see it, if only to complain about it. :geezer

I had a student today tell me he thought the LotR movies were better than the books. I told him he should banished and set outside the camp with the lepers. (Not fair to lepers, I know.)

Hopefully my viewing experience will benefit from low expectations. ;)

Jerjo
12-03-2012, 07:26 PM
I am beyond ready, I am practically turgid with excitement. :bad

Scott Bails
12-03-2012, 08:51 PM
Not quite as ready as Jerjo, but I'm looking forward to it. :)

WHORG
12-03-2012, 08:54 PM
I'm fired up to sell this Hobbit book that I've been sitting on since forever - - - hoping for some big bucks.

spellbound
12-03-2012, 10:02 PM
It is making some moviegoers sick:

http://news.yahoo.com/why-hobbit-making-moviegoers-sick-150200400.html

Garion81
12-03-2012, 10:42 PM
A shining spark in another wise dreary world. Seeing it a week or so.

Gruno
12-03-2012, 11:39 PM
I had a student today tell me he thought the LotR movies were better than the books. I told him he should banished and set outside the camp with the lepers. (Not fair to lepers, I know.)

I never have read Lord of the Rings. I quite enjoyed the trilogy of films and own the special editions on Blu-Ray. I don't care to ever read the books.


It is making some moviegoers sick:

http://news.yahoo.com/why-hobbit-making-moviegoers-sick-150200400.html

I did hear about this on a local tv station. I haven't read the article you posted, but I heard it was mainly the version in 3D.

progeezer
12-04-2012, 02:25 AM
I'm there with my daughter. Kay could care less about the Tolkien experience, which imo is her loss.

Yves
12-04-2012, 09:37 AM
I'll go see it...eventually. I wasn't totally bowled over by the LotR movies, as I've documented in other threads about them. I saw them all in the theater, I own all 3 on DVD, but never upgraded to BluRay because I've only watched them all once apiece.

In fairness to Mr Jackson, it was a very tall order. These books were just so important to me in my teen years that there is no way any movies could replace my 'vision' of the story, in my imagination. Also, when reading the books one gets a real sense of the time required to travel to Mordor and destroy the Ring. The movies just go by too fast. I have MANY pet peeves about Jackson's vision of the story vs what I deemed were the more important features of the story. Jackson wanted an action movie, but LotR had a certain social and philosophical undertone, largely ignored (imo) by Mr Jackson.

I'll stop now... :)

Trane
12-04-2012, 09:47 AM
In fairness to Mr Jackson, it was a very tall order. These books were just so important to me in my teen years that there is no way any movies could replace my 'vision' of the story, in my imagination. Also, when reading the books one gets a real sense of the time required to travel to Mordor and destroy the Ring. The movies just go by too fast. I have MANY pet peeves about Jackson's vision of the story vs what I deemed were the more important features of the story. Jackson wanted an action movie, but LotR had a certain social and philosophical undertone, largely ignored (imo) by Mr Jackson.
I'll stop now... :)


That's why I systematically refused to see them movies as well... and boycotted anything from them

I practically learne my English on these three books, and it was unfortunately all-too hyp to read them, but it's undeniable that it had an impact on me ... I probably hold them way too high in my esteem because of that as well... (Should I discover the trilogy nowadays, I'd probably say WTF, and not get past Bombadil's house)

But yeah, it was clear from the start that the movies cxouldn't have possibly filled the whole oeuvre's agenda... despite (or maybe fortunately because) Tolkien's questionable very right-wing affinities that tend to permeate his trilogy

notallwhowander
12-04-2012, 10:05 AM
Jackson wanted an action movie, but LotR had a certain social and philosophical undertone, largely ignored (imo) by Mr Jackson.

That's the root of it with me too. I realize that cuts and alterations need to be made when any novel is made into a film. But rewriting the epic to fit an action-blockbuster format did serious violence to what I experienced as the heart of the story.

I'll stop now too, though we've dealt with this a bit deeper in the Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature group. (Anyone can join in, btw.)

notallwhowander
12-04-2012, 10:08 AM
But yeah, it was clear from the start that the movies couldn't have possibly filled the whole oeuvre's agenda... despite (or maybe fortunately because) Tolkien's questionable very right-wing affinities that tend to permeate his trilogy I don't know if we would want to get into this here, but I'd really like to read your take on that. Perhaps in the Science Fiction and Fantasy Literature group? There's already a thread dedicated to Tolkien, and it seems to ideal place for such a discussion.

Stevie B
12-04-2012, 10:14 AM
A film is not a book, and vice versa. A film that followed The Lord of the Rings step by step would be incomprehensible and unwatchable.

For me, as someone who read LotR every year from the age of 15 until relatively recently and studied the works of Tolkien and his fellow inklings at university, I find it hard to imagine anyone doing a better job of filming what everyone said was unfilmable.

Having said that though, I have a few misgivings about stretching out The Hobbit into 3 films - I presume there will be a lot of delving into the mythology to flesh it out...

Yves
12-04-2012, 10:48 AM
Actually, maybe the stretching out of The Hobbit may be more to my liking. I'll admit I was very curious when I first heard about this. I realise it's 'Hollywood Milking Of A Proven License' at it's finest, but I also realise how much a trilogy of movies can cost to make. I have a feeling this trilogy will be more to my liking. The story itself seems more presentable in a movie format, and Mr Jackson must have learned plenty of "not to do's" from the first trilogy.

Is this going to be a 3-D movie? I loathe that format as I cannot wear those glasses comfortably, and actually get a little nauseous about 40 minutes into any 3-D experience.

Gruno
12-04-2012, 11:17 AM
Also, when reading the books one gets a real sense of the time required to travel to Mordor and destroy the Ring. The movies just go by too fast. I have MANY pet peeves about Jackson's vision of the story vs what I deemed were the more important features of the story.

I am glad that I never cared to read the book and I simply love the movies. I think the movies move along just fine. They accomplished something great. Those of us who haven't read Lord of the Rings and who love the films are the real winners here! ;)

BobM
12-04-2012, 11:28 AM
Who's going to toss the dwarves in this one? Hobbits are too small!

Garion81
12-04-2012, 12:08 PM
I love both the movies but only watch the directoer's cuts that restores a lot of what fans of the books wanted to see that was cut, and I love the books and one does not compromise the other in my opinion. I will never forget getting to see the sign of Prancing Pony, Rivendell and Moria int he first movie. Blew me away just as it does when I read the books.

Facelift
12-04-2012, 12:25 PM
Excited? Sure - it's been nine (wow) years since Return of the King, so I'm ready for more Middle Earth. Not sure what to make of stretching it into three films, or of how the extensive work already done by Del Toro will affect the end result... but I'm ready to find out!

Facelift
12-04-2012, 12:44 PM
Hmm. Just read this on Wikipedia. So *that's* why it looks so visually unimpressive in the trailer...

"Early reaction to frame rate

At an industry event screening in April 2012, the new 48 fps format was described as receiving "an underwhelming reaction at best".[192] While Variety stated that the footage "looked distinctively sharper and more immediate than everything shown before it, giving the 3D smoother movement and crisp sharpness", it also reported that it lost "the cinematic glow of the industry-standard 24 fps" and that "human actors seemed overlit and amplified in a way that many compared to modern sports broadcasts... and daytime television".[193] One projectionist complained that "it looked like a made-for-TV movie".[194]

Peter Jackson claimed that the poor reception "wasn't particularly surprising" because "it does take you a while to get used to it. Ten minutes is sort of marginal, it probably needed a little bit more".[195] The Hobbit will also be released in the current 24 fps standard, likely in theatres that have yet to change to digital projection.[196]"

rapidfirerob
12-04-2012, 12:59 PM
Reviews do say it is overly long and the last hour is fantastic. Three films seems excessive for The Hobbit. I'll see it and decide for myself.

zombywoof
12-04-2012, 01:23 PM
I think it'll be great as long as PJ doesn't try to make it too dark or try to out do LoTR in terms of spectacle. I'm sure I'll love it.

Plasmatopia
12-04-2012, 03:12 PM
I'm hoping it's good, but not really expecting too much. I read the book a few times years ago and the movie won't be able to take that experience away. Hopefully the movie is good too and is successful on it's own merits...which will likely be quite different merits from the book.

PiscesPraematurus
12-04-2012, 08:46 PM
I don't care to ever read the books.

That's a shame. You're missing a lot...

Jerjo
12-04-2012, 09:20 PM
I believe that del Toro's design will be most evident when we finally see Smaug. He and Jackson wanted a dragon like we had never seen before. I am just waiting for that moment when we see a great eye open and in a voice so low the theater speakers rumble he says, "I smell you, thief." You know Cumberbatch is just going to rock the hell out of that voice.

The Silent Man
12-04-2012, 11:27 PM
I love both the movies but only watch the directoer's cuts that restores a lot of what fans of the books wanted to see that was cut, and I love the books and one does not compromise the other in my opinion. I will never forget getting to see the sign of Prancing Pony, Rivendell and Moria int he first movie. Blew me away just as it does when I read the books.

Absolutely! I was another who lived and breathed the books in my teenage years, but the directors cuts of the films are essential! Great job.

zombywoof
12-04-2012, 11:34 PM
Absolutely! I was another who lived and breathed the books in my teenage years, but the directors cuts of the films are essential! Great job.

Agreed. Compared to the extended cuts, the theatrical cuts look hacked up.

Jerjo
12-04-2012, 11:37 PM
In case you aren't aware, Stephen Colbert is doing Hobbit-themed shows all week. Sir Ian was the guest last night, Martin Freeman tonight, Peter Jackson and Andy Serkis to follow.

Hunnibee
12-05-2012, 02:03 AM
I cannot wait for this movie! I am not sure why there needs to be three, but maybe Jackson is trying to make a stronger tie between The Hobbit and the LotR stories by dragging it out a bit. Yes/No?

Once Jackson is done with the Hobbit, I hope he starts on the Silmarillion. Can you imagine the lucky computer artist who creates the shining trees? So awesome!

Yodelgoat
12-05-2012, 02:17 AM
ready for it all to begin again. I'll be enjoying every moment. I love the world of Tolkein, and the movies were really well done for LOR. The Hobbit should be a little lighter, but just as fantastic characters and effects - Great monsters. Its a great story that I will enjoy - even stretched over three films. I cant get enough of middle earth. I've read the books several times. I hope they stay closer to the actual story in the Hobbit. It will have ample space to investigate all the details of the book. I also really like the guy they picked to play Bilbo. He is Great on the Sherlock series.

zombywoof
12-05-2012, 07:07 AM
I cannot wait for this movie! I am not sure why there needs to be three, but maybe Jackson is trying to make a stronger tie between The Hobbit and the LotR stories by dragging it out a bit. Yes/No?

Once Jackson is done with the Hobbit, I hope he starts on the Silmarillion. Can you imagine the lucky computer artist who creates the shining trees? So awesome!

That's exactly what he's doing. The third movie will be all about connecting to LoTR. Also, PJ bought the rights the Silmarillion for the purpose of filling in the gaps of The Hobbit.

Ursula
12-05-2012, 07:36 AM
I believe that del Toro's design will be most evident when we finally see Smaug. He and Jackson wanted a dragon like we had never seen before. I am just waiting for that moment when we see a great eye open and in a voice so low the theater speakers rumble he says, "I smell you, thief." You know Cumberbatch is just going to rock the hell out of that voice.

I'm an avid Cumberbatch fan, and there is Aiden Turner and Martin Freeman and some other excellent actors in that movie. That alone is worth seeing it. Then there is my son who can't wait for it to come into a cinema nowhere near us, so we have to go anyway. I'm also greatful that in school they took the movie as reason to make the kids actually read the hobbit. My son caught fire in spite of the, for modern kids, largely inaccessible language. So perhaps he'll move on to read some other classics after that.

Uschi

Sharp
12-05-2012, 12:47 PM
That's exactly what he's doing. The third movie will be all about connecting to LoTR. Also, PJ bought the rights the Silmarillion for the purpose of filling in the gaps of The Hobbit.

I suspected that might be what he was doing when I first heard that The Hobbit would be a trilogy. This could be good or bad depending on how well he integrates the background material into the story line. I also suspect it will make the story overall a bit darker than presented in the original book. It will be interesting to see and am looking forward to it as well.

zombywoof
12-05-2012, 01:31 PM
I suspected that might be what he was doing when I first heard that The Hobbit would be a trilogy. This could be good or bad depending on how well he integrates the background material into the story line. I also suspect it will make the story overall a bit darker than presented in the original book. It will be interesting to see and am looking forward to it as well.

I'm a bit concerned about the third movie. I'm not sure how a film could be made and still called The Hobbit if most of it is back story leading up to LoTR. I guess we just have to keep faith in PJ to do it right and blow (most of) us away.

Big Block 454 part 2
12-06-2012, 11:15 AM
I practically learne my English on these three books,

;)

Big Block 454 part 2
12-06-2012, 11:20 AM
despite (or maybe fortunately because) Tolkien's questionable very right-wing affinities that tend to permeate his trilogy

He was very anti-Nazi. Mind you, he didn't like Stalin either.

Kim Olesen
12-06-2012, 03:14 PM
Looking much forward to it. Seeing it sunday next week.

Garion81
12-08-2012, 12:40 AM
I'm a bit concerned about the third movie. I'm not sure how a film could be made and still called The Hobbit if most of it is back story leading up to LoTR. I guess we just have to keep faith in PJ to do it right and blow (most of) us away.

I think the original idea was to close the gap, so to speak, from the Hobbit to the LOtR but i think they backed off that. They will, however, put the parallel story of the White Council and the Necromancer of Dol Guldor. BTW Peter Jackson would not have to buy the rights to the Silmarillion to fill in the back story of the gap if he intended to do that as those stories reside in the appendixes of the Return of the King not The Silmarillion.
That being said I wouldn't mind seeing the downfall of Numenor and the landing of Elendil and his sons on middle earth. There are so may stories that could be plucked form that history to make a good movie.

Facelift
12-13-2012, 10:21 AM
I'm a bit disturbed to read so many negative reviews of the film, and I'm much less excited than I was. It's the look and feel elements that are particularly disturbing. I'll admit that after seeing some trailer footage, I thought the same thing: I know it's not actually the case, but by the looks of the end product, it has a very cheap appearance. This is especially disappointing, given how fantasticly Jackson nailed the look and feel of everything in the LotR trilogy.

notallwhowander
12-13-2012, 10:26 AM
I'm very sorry to hear this. As curmudgeonly as I am about the LotR films, the production values were top-notch.

Gruno
12-13-2012, 11:00 AM
I will reserve judgment of how it looks for when I am sitting there munching on some popcorn.

Jerjo
12-13-2012, 11:07 AM
I think a lot of the negative reviews have to do with the film's length and the fact that the Hobbit is lighter fare compared to LOTR. For critics expecting the gravitas of LOTR, which snared 3 best picture nominations and one win, the Hobbit is bound to disappoint.

Facelift
12-13-2012, 11:43 AM
I think a lot of the negative reviews have to do with the film's length and the fact that the Hobbit is lighter fare compared to LOTR. For critics expecting the gravitas of LOTR, which snared 3 best picture nominations and one win, the Hobbit is bound to disappoint.

Maybe, but everybody is mentioning how awful of a look the movie has, as well. The decision to the the 3-D thing really ruined the way it looks, apparently - like an 80s daytime soap instead of a big-budget film.

NogbadTheBad
12-13-2012, 12:30 PM
Maybe, but everybody is mentioning how awful of a look the movie has, as well. The decision to the the 3-D thing really ruined the way it looks, apparently - like an 80s daytime soap instead of a big-budget film.

From what I've read that only applies to the 48 frames a second versions compared to the more standard 24 frame rate. Apparently most cinemas aren't equipped with 48 frame. If you avoid 3D (which I do like the plague) and you are in a normal cinema I think it's meant to be fine. At least I hope so.

Plasmatopia
12-13-2012, 01:08 PM
Tuesday morning I was on the local theater's website to buy a ticket for Saturday - in 48fps/3D. I have to say that my expectations are pretty low at this point. I'm kind of hoping that I'll eventually adapt to the 48fps in the same way that I adapted to grainy VHS...I got absorbed in the story and didn't think about video quality after the first couple of minutes (which is why I don't have much use for today's Hi Def....at least not enough interest to spend money on an expensive TV until absolutely forced to).

tom unbound
12-14-2012, 11:47 AM
Hard-core fans just can't wait.....

http://www.wimp.com/unicyclebagpipes/

NogbadTheBad
12-14-2012, 01:26 PM
My daughter was at a midnight showing last night and LOVED it. She's a huge fan.

Jerjo
12-14-2012, 01:53 PM
Look at it this way, no orc is going to be singing "Where there's a whip, there's a way." Also, no Orson Bean.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7uf18ikEx1qbkta6o1_500.jpg

trurl
12-14-2012, 01:57 PM
Look at it this way, no orc is going to be singing "Where there's a whip, there's a way."Well, you can't have everything. But it will still be good.

trespass
12-14-2012, 02:57 PM
NO. Have fun Nerds ;) I do own that Bo Hansson album on vinyl. I'll spin that instead...

trurl
12-14-2012, 03:25 PM
NO. Have fun Nerds ;) I do own that Bo Hansson album on vinyl. I'll spin that instead...

Woah. That's, like, 20 times nerdier than going to see the movie. The movie is mainstream... ;) :D

trespass
12-14-2012, 03:49 PM
Touche! ;)...time to put on the "magician's hat"...is it even about the hobbit? I'm just assuming from the cover and song titles and distant memory...yes, I do own it, fondling it at this moment...it's been 20 years since I spun this piece of vinyl

zombywoof
12-14-2012, 05:19 PM
My daughter was at a midnight showing last night and LOVED it. She's a huge fan.

Seems promising. I've seen one midnight showing. Never again!

Brian Griffin
12-14-2012, 05:25 PM
The next sequel should be about John's wife Lorena, and be titled "The Bobbit"

BG

NogbadTheBad
12-14-2012, 05:28 PM
Seems promising. I've seen one midnight showing. Never again!Last midnight showing I was at a Rocky Horror audience partici....pation event.

notallwhowander
12-14-2012, 06:07 PM
The last midnight showing I went to was Big Trouble in Little China.

If you're not going to see The Rocky Horror Picture Show at midnight, in a theater, with a cast of local freaks, then don't even bother. There's a right way, and a wrong way. Watching at home is the wrong way. It's like licking a cilantro leaf and thinking you've had Mexican food.

Jerjo
12-14-2012, 06:07 PM
The last few midnight showing we've been at were for some rather nerdy movies and without fail, we get seated next to the guy who left mom's basement without his weekly bath.

Two reviews that manage to avoid having ridiculous expectations for the movie:

http://io9.com/5968455/the-hobbit-is-a-lot-better-once-you-realize-its-a-war-movie

http://www.tor.com/blogs/2012/12/its-okay-to-shamelessly-enjoy-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey

We were going to see it tomorrow but I got roped into doing something and the whole day is going to be fucked. So it won't be until Monday.

progeezer
12-14-2012, 08:55 PM
I'm there with my daughter. Kay could care less about the Tolkien experience, which imo is her loss.:O:O Well, Kay AND my daughter & I went to see it today. None of us was dizzy at any point, but the action/battle sequences were certainly at warp speed! I was surprised, but Kay (who is pretty much a strictly old movies, film noir and foreign film person) loved the visuals and said, "We should go to New Zealand":lol.

Andy Serkis either needs to be nominated for Best Supporting Actor or receive some special award for his Gollum over the course of 4 films. Hard to believe he actually looks normal, albeit short in photos I've seen.

zombywoof
12-14-2012, 09:42 PM
Last midnight showing I was at a Rocky Horror audience partici....pation event.

Did you dress as a character, Ian? Photos?

I was forced by one of my ex girlfriends to watch that movie. I suppose it was payback for all of the Gentle Giant I made her endure...

The last and only midnight showing I saw was the last Potter movie. It was a crowded theater and I was completely beat (I'm known for not getting much sleep), causing me to dose off during the film. At least I can say I've done it. Everyone moviegoer should attend a midnight showing at least once, I think.

Scott Bails
12-14-2012, 10:06 PM
Anyone want to "Eat like a Hobbit? (http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/10/24/breakfast-like-bilbo-dennys-launches-a-middle-earth-inspired-menu/)" :roll

NogbadTheBad
12-14-2012, 11:44 PM
Did you dress as a character, Ian? Photos?
...
.
Doctors gown fishnets and rubber gloves, I'll leave the rest to imagination

kristi
12-15-2012, 05:25 PM
Went to see it last night in IMAX 3-D (the only way to go if available in my opinion) and thought it was excellent! The battle scenes did indeed go a bit fast - I was wondering if it was me or the 3-D aspect of it, or what, and talked to the kids I took to the show this morning and heard that they felt that way too. Too fast to notice any detail of who was doing what certainly.

The story was well done - thanks to Mr. Jackson, just as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was. In fact, that movie in your head you get when reading? All of the movies so far have matched that movie in my head pretty perfectly. That just about never happens, so I'm pretty impressed. It was a beautiful movie from start to finish visually and special effect wise. Can't wait for the next installment!

dropforge
12-16-2012, 02:09 AM
Saw it earlier. No big deal with the 48fps aside from the image blurring whenever there was a quick panoramic scan. It's no big deal. This film looks like the others. Lots of action and funny-looking dwarves. Good time.

notallwhowander
12-16-2012, 11:32 AM
After watching the trailer, I have to say they did a good job with the dwarves. Though I always imagined Thorin looking the most "dwarven" and, of course, they make him look the most human.

Plasmatopia
12-16-2012, 01:53 PM
No big deal with the 48fps aside from the image blurring whenever there was a quick panoramic scan.

I would have thought the 48fps would have resulted in less image blurring? Maybe not...

There were a few things that moved unbelievably fast, that's for sure. If they were crystal clear I'm not sure if it would have mattered. I got pretty motion sick during the first 20-30 minutes and was glad the action slowed down after that. I'm not sure I could have handled 3 hours if it kept that pace. It probably didn't help that I drank a lot of coffee beforehand, but I had a headache for about 3 hours afterwards.

That said, I really enjoyed it. Visually it seemed at times almost ridiculously detailed and real. Maybe it was the clarity afforded by 48fps, but somehow the difference between a vast outdoor landscape showing mountains (probably some mountains in New Zealand) and a (slightly less vast and computer generated) landscape like Rivendell really showed up rather starkly. I really didn't mind that at all and somehow I think it all worked really well together, but some might find it distracting. These differences may be made more obvious with the 3D version, which at times made the characters in the foreground seem more like 2D cardboard cutouts moving around in front of cool backgrounds. I'd love to just see a plain ol' DVD version right now for comparison.

I also enjoyed the story. I think the "extra" material was well integrated and contributed to a good movie-based retelling of the story. I doubt anyone is expecting any sort of exact, by-the-book telling of the story at this point.

Garion81
12-16-2012, 06:25 PM
Just got back with Stacy and the kids and we were all very impressed. The movie was beautifully shot in both in set, computer and real world. The story follows loosely along the books path with the parallel subplot of the White Council and the return of Sauron laid out in the appendixes of the Return of The King. I enjoyed the costumes and with a couple of exceptions the characters worked well. Good humor abounds and I liked the fact he used the actual words from the songs in the book and even refereed to a chapter name during the story. So I would recommend it to anyone Tolkien fan or not No one has mentioned the music yet but Shore included themes already used in the LOTR films to give it a sense of familiarity and mixes in a few new ones including the song the dwarves sing in the beginning of the film into one of the main themes of the soundtrack. Quite well done.

Plasmatopia
12-16-2012, 10:27 PM
Yes, definitely cool to have some familiar musical references at the appropriate times.

NogbadTheBad
12-16-2012, 11:01 PM
Well I have to wait until X Mas Eve to watch it with my kids. The wife won't let me go ahead of that. Bah. :doh

trurl
12-16-2012, 11:31 PM
Saw it tonight in HFR. I'm of two minds- half my brain said "These are the most realistic images I've ever seen projected on a screen" and the other half said, "Yes, but they're not SUPPOSED to look like that!" and they fought the whole time. It is in one way stunning and gorgeous but it's hard to let go of 40 years of conditioning that says that such a hyper-real look is the look of "video" and therefore the look of "cheap". Sometimes it was like looking through a window, sometimes it was like looking at a stage play and sometimes it was looking at a movie. I think it's the way of the future but it's going to require filmmakers learning the language of the look, and how to light it, just like the introduction of color. It will also require the viewer to learn how to see it. I think everyone should at least check it out once though- when it works, it's teh shit. And the 3D is the best I have ever seen in my life for a live-action film. I will say this. For the first time ever, in this iteration of Gollum, I have accepted a CGI character as being a real, living character. The uncanny valley has been bridged. Cool stuff.

I am going to go see in on old-school 2D and see how I feel about that. As interesting as the HFR presentation was, at the end of the day I'm probably now a film philistine and will generally prefer 24 fps 2D.

zombywoof
12-17-2012, 11:45 AM
It was wonderful. I absolutely can not get it out of my mind. You guys will love it, even the naysayers. I'm a big fan of the book, too.

Gruno
12-17-2012, 12:15 PM
Well I have to wait until X Mas Eve to watch it with my kids. The wife won't let me go ahead of that. Bah. :doh

Grounds for divorce!

Kim Olesen
12-17-2012, 03:03 PM
Saw it yesterday. Loved it. I really have to contain myself in order not to go see it multiple times.

Chuck AzEee!
12-17-2012, 03:25 PM
Loved it. Seen it with my wife on Saturday afternoon and although I read the book passionately, it was still an excellent movie especially the 3D version.
Charles

progeezer
12-17-2012, 05:25 PM
Loved the 3D stuff as well, Chuck!

Garion81
12-17-2012, 07:46 PM
We are going to go back and see the 2D version. I think the glasses were a distraction and I really don't think 3D adds that much to an epic like this.

Jerjo
12-18-2012, 12:19 PM
Finally saw it yesterday. I have a few quibbles but on the whole it was bloody magnificent. The Riddles in the Dark scene was great, and then Bilbo deciding to not kill Gollum when he had the chance.

Progbear
12-24-2012, 03:51 AM
I saw it this weekend. I enjoyed it...with reservations.

Overall it was good, but quite gratuitously padded. As predicted, Jackson threw in lots of peripheral stuff from the LOTR appendices and The Appendix: The Book (a.k.a.: The Silmarillion). As someone who recently read the original Hobbit book and has the story fresh in his head, yet can find better uses for his time than reading the forests-worth of dry, supplemental background material, it was a mite frustrating to have the main story constantly derailed by side-stories not found in the original book. I kept asking myself, “Who is this weirdo with snot in his hair trying to resuscitate sick hedgehogs and what is his relation to the dwarves’ quest? Because this for damn sure wasn’t in the book, I would have remembered this!”

Speaking of...there was this odd familiarity about Radagast that I couldn’t put my finger on. At first I thought...“Ian Holm? No, they wouldn’t give him a dual role in this.” Finally, it clicked, “Oh my God, it’s The Doctor!” :lol

There was also a certain amount of campiness and I can’t help but wonder how much of that was intentional. Some Calculon-acting at times, like Thorin’s Big "NO!" during the flashback battle scene. Really? It’s 2012 and we’re still doing this stuff?

I agree, the riddle scene worked best of all and was worth the price of admission. Some of the action scenes stretch the limits of credibility (in particular, some of the falls absolutely did not look survivable) but it’s a fantasy film, so I’ll let it slide. They did a good job of giving the dwarves distinct personalities; I liked that a lot.

I have to say that I wound up getting choked up by (spoiler alert) the various interactions with Bilbo and Thorin, thanks to knowing how the book ends.


Saw it tonight in HFR. I'm of two minds- half my brain said "These are the most realistic images I've ever seen projected on a screen" and the other half said, "Yes, but they're not SUPPOSED to look like that!" and they fought the whole time. It is in one way stunning and gorgeous but it's hard to let go of 40 years of conditioning that says that such a hyper-real look is the look of "video" and therefore the look of "cheap".

This is particularly why cinematic luddite me deliberately sought out the lower-framerate version. I wanted my first experience with this film to be a cinematic experience, not a “watching soap operas on daytime TV” experience. The night before seeing this, I was at a pizza place with HD television screens on every wall. One of them showed a commercial that was obviously in a higher framerate and to me, it looked terrible. I guess it’s just like you say, people of my generation can’t get over high framerate looking like “cheap shot-on-video TV broadcasts” to us. Besides, I figured if I wanted to see the higher-framerate, I could always go back and watch it. Which I probably will.

I will say this: if you want to see it in 3-D, do yourself a favour and seek out an Imax screen. Seeing the edges of the screen really takes you out of the 3-D experience.

-------------
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")

‘“What blow, Goblin?” said Corinius.’ --E. R. Eddison

N.P.:nothing

KGHofSF
12-24-2012, 12:19 PM
Saw it yesterday. Overall I enjoyed it thoroughly, was reasonably happy with the whole 3D aspects (fun without being too distracting), and thought that the Screenplay team did a pretty good job overall and did try to capture (some) of the more lighthearted comic aspects of the book whilst making a very adult movie out of what was originally very much a children's story.

But (there has to be a but right)

At times I thought I was lost in a replay of the LOTR, the same crazy flights through underground warrens, the elevating of Azog to a uber-bad ass villain (I think he gets one paragraph of words in total in the book), having a handy bunch of eagles to save your rear end when the flames get too close etc (that is in the book, of course). Which is to say given that there are two more "Hobbits" and a near infinite amount of follow up material (The Adventures of Beren & Luthien!, The Voyage of Earendell!, The Downfall of Feanor!, Mim the Petty Dwarf get his) and a relatively limited palate of heavies in Tolkein (Orcs, Wargs, Evil Demi gods, really big spiders, Trolls, and Dragons) the whole Middle Earth franchise could end up in about the same place as Star Wars got to by the time of the Revenge of the Sith (e.g. very boring and rote indeed).

And that would be a real shame (even if it contributes significantly to the GDP of New Zealand in the interim). . . ;);)

regards
KGH

Garion81
12-24-2012, 02:51 PM
I saw it this weekend. I enjoyed it...with reservations.

Overall it was good, but quite gratuitously padded. As predicted, Jackson threw in lots of peripheral stuff from the LOTR appendices and The Appendix: The Book (a.k.a.: The Silmarillion). As someone who recently read the original Hobbit book and has the story fresh in his head, yet can find better uses for his time than reading the forests-worth of dry, supplemental background material,





Which is to say given that there are two more "Hobbits" and a near infinite amount of follow up material (The Adventures of Beren & Luthien!, The Voyage of Earendell!, The Downfall of Feanor!, Mim the Petty Dwarf get his) and a relatively limited palate of heavies in Tolkein (Orcs, Wargs, Evil Demi gods, really big spiders, Trolls, and Dragons) the whole Middle Earth franchise could end up in about the same place as Star Wars got to by the time of the Revenge of the Sith (e.g. very boring and rote indeed).


KGH\


The material being used to supplement the Hobbit story are found in the Appendices of The Return of the King and are not featured in The Simarillion. Peter Jackson and the movie companies do not own the rights to that book so none of the stories that KGH suggests could be filmed even if Jackson had a mind to do it. I think the Hobbit will end this franchise until someone else picks it up at a later time. The characters and story in the Simarrilion read like a history book which, of course, they were written in that style to provide his stories he gleaned from it to have the depth they have. I am not sure JRR Tolkien ever really meant to release that book.

Having sad that the one story I think would work would be the downfall of Numenor and Elendil and Sons founding the exile kingdoms in middle earth. The reason they would work is the sense of familiarity of the place already visited Gondor, Rivendell etc. some characters that have been introduced, Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel etc. up to the overthrow of Sauron that started the third age that would link to the previous films. Not saying it should be made but that would seem the most sellable one.

thedunno
12-25-2012, 04:58 PM
I"ve just seen it and I am very dissapointed. A complete overkill of action and violence scenes. I wont go see part 2 and 3.

NogbadTheBad
12-25-2012, 06:05 PM
Went last night and enjoyed it a lot, the time flew by, it didn't seem to be over long. I agree that some of the action was just stupid, all the protagonists would have died in that fall. The riddle scene was the highlight by far. I saw it in 3D as the 2D was sold out. I got used to it but I'm just not a fan of 3D, it just seems too gimmicky and the actions seems to actually lack depth rather than gain it as the characters look like cardboard cutouts in a diorama.I'll be going back to see it in 2D.

Plasmatopia
12-25-2012, 09:19 PM
How do people feel about the inclusion of the Pale Orc sub-plot? My brother really had a problem with it. It's been more than 10 years since I last read The Hobbit/LotR and closer to 30 years since I read the Silmarillion. For those of you with better memories than me - is there any basis for this character (and the events of the movie) in the books?

moecurlythanu
12-25-2012, 09:22 PM
Why does the trailer look like an effin' cartoon? Does the movie look like that? Based on the trailer, the LotR movies looked more realistic.

Progbear
12-26-2012, 02:20 AM
Why does the trailer look like an effin' cartoon? Does the movie look like that? Based on the trailer, the LotR movies looked more realistic.

It’s probably the HFR version you’re seeing. HFR has the unfortunate side-effect of looking shot-on-video.

-------------
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")

"Siento que debemos saber para el sueño de quién brillará esta luz
o consagrar una propia estrella" --Alberto Felici

N.P.:“Is There a Hope for Tomorrow?”-Trúbrot/Lifun

Jerjo
12-26-2012, 03:52 PM
How do people feel about the inclusion of the Pale Orc sub-plot? My brother really had a problem with it. It's been more than 10 years since I last read The Hobbit/LotR and closer to 30 years since I read the Silmarillion. For those of you with better memories than me - is there any basis for this character (and the events of the movie) in the books?

Here's a good theory:

http://middle-earth.xenite.org/2012/12/18/why-did-peter-jackson-change-azog-from-the-book/

My biggest problem with the movie wasn't deviations like this. It's going to happen when you move from one medium to another, from a book written in the 1930s to contemporary movie audiences. My problem is those action scenes where no one would have survived: the battle between the stone giants and the dwarves dropping 15 stories on those wooden bridges. THAT was hard to swallow.

Henry Krinkle
12-26-2012, 03:55 PM
No. Give me a Tarantino flick any day of the week. Or better yet, a David Lynch film.

Plasmatopia
12-26-2012, 05:27 PM
Here's a good theory:

http://middle-earth.xenite.org/2012/12/18/why-did-peter-jackson-change-azog-from-the-book/

My biggest problem with the movie wasn't deviations like this. It's going to happen when you move from one medium to another, from a book written in the 1930s to contemporary movie audiences. My problem is those action scenes where no one would have survived: the battle between the stone giants and the dwarves dropping 15 stories on those wooden bridges. THAT was hard to swallow.

Thanks for the link. The author probably isn't far off the mark. And yeah, I had problems with the stuff you mentioned as well. Reminded me of the last Indiana Jones movie in terms of outrageousness.

East New York
12-31-2012, 12:40 AM
And from Tumblr, so it's said:


Fili and Kili, You Little Shits - A Haiku

Fili and Kili,
Where are the fucking ponies?
You guys had *one job*.

trurl
12-31-2012, 11:45 AM
And from Tumblr, so it's said:

You win an Internet. :D

East New York
12-31-2012, 12:48 PM
You win an Internet. :D

:lol

Seriously, I liked the movie. Liked. I'm honestly not a curmudgeon, but the Iditarod Coneys just didn't do it for me.

trurl
12-31-2012, 02:57 PM
:lol

Seriously, I liked the movie. Liked. I'm honestly not a curmudgeon, but the Iditarod Coneys just didn't do it for me.
That was pretty whacked out. I haven't really come to grips with my feelings on PJ's take on Radagast in general yet; I want to see it again.

East New York
12-31-2012, 03:29 PM
That was pretty whacked out. I haven't really come to grips with my feelings on PJ's take on Radagast in general yet; I want to see it again.

Same here. I love the fact that he was covered in bird shit---it gave him that shaman-like touch, LOL---but other than that, I just don't know.

Jerjo
12-31-2012, 03:55 PM
First of all, calling them Iditarod Coneys is just a solid win. Second of all, that it was so whacked out is the reason that I loved it. And how about King Thranduil on the giant fucking elk? I think Jackson was partaking of the Hobbits' leaf.

bmooncd
01-02-2013, 07:26 AM
I admit it. I am a fairly huge LoTR fan - having read the books several times (the movies are an improvement imo) and watched the movies (extended cuts, please) times beyond count. They are comfort films for me, nearly always feeling like vacations. I have several rooms decorated with swords, shields and helms (United Cutlery made some gorgeous, if non-functional, stuff). Yes, I am a drooling fanboy, not to be trusted. And The Hobbit largely disappointed me.

Of course I knew it could not be as beautifully dark as the trilogy. After all, The Hobbit was written for Tolkien's children. I also know that the darkness and more serious bits will slowly creep in as the series progresses. This is not LoTR, nor should it be.

Jackson put all the pieces back in play. The same screenwriters. Another great soundtrack by Howard Shore. And his own obvious love for the source material. He was quoted many times that he wanted continuity between this and the other films, and that is where he fell short. Familiar characters seem out of whack. Elrond, for example - at several thousand years old I doubt that in 60 years he would change from smirking-smiled to aloof and grim. He seems a different character here. They might as well have used a different actor. A character out of character.

But what really put the pain on me was how the movie looks. I first saw it in regular 2D and often felt like I was watching a cartoon. I put that down to the fact that the film was shot for 3D. The second time I went full on - 3D HFR at a Cinemark XD theater (similar to an IMAX ). While much improved, and I was far from bored, I was still disappointed with the look - it largely looked fake, a sin almost never perpetrated in the trilogy. It seldom "took me away". I wondered why?

The trilogy was shot using many extremely elaborate miniatures. Mini cameras were used to sweep through and around them, creating a very real sense of size and space. They also painstaking built enormously detailed sets. It looked real because much of it WAS real. This time CG replaced the miniatures, and damn - it shows. Jackson upped some of the action sequences to near Coyote and Roadrunner levels. The main villain is so obviously fake as to be laughable. Often it simply looks like a video game. PJ says that the CG was necessary to get the requisite level of detail he wanted for 3D. I'm guessing the budget people were happy about that too. And don't even get me started on the idea of making some of the dwarves into clowns and even some pretty-boys. Pretty-boy dwarves? Sigh.

Perhaps The Hobbit could never have lived up to my expectations. It is certainly far from boring and does have its moments. But when I need a vacation in the man cave it will not be what I grab first.

bmooncd
01-02-2013, 07:27 AM
First of all, calling them Iditarod Coneys is just a solid win. Second of all, that it was so whacked out is the reason that I loved it. And how about King Thranduil on the giant fucking elk? I think Jackson was partaking of the Hobbits' leaf.

Best looking part of the movie.

Facelift
01-02-2013, 09:28 AM
The trilogy was shot using many extremely elaborate miniatures. Mini cameras were used to sweep through and around them, creating a very real sense of size and space. They also painstaking built enormously detailed sets. It looked real because much of it WAS real. This time CG replaced the miniatures, and damn - it shows. Jackson upped some of the action sequences to near Coyote and Roadrunner levels. The main villain is so obviously fake as to be laughable. Often it simply looks like a video game. PJ says that the CG was necessary to get the requisite level of detail he wanted for 3D. I'm guessing the budget people were happy about that too. And don't even get me started on the idea of making some of the dwarves into clowns and even some pretty-boys. Pretty-boy dwarves? Sigh.

Perhaps The Hobbit could never have lived up to my expectations. It is certainly far from boring and does have its moments. But when I need a vacation in the man cave it will not be what I grab first.

Agreed on all points. The film isn't *bad,* taken as a single entity -- but it's impossible not to compare it to the LoTR trilogy, especially since it was made by the same director, and in that regard I found it very disappointing. Given how successful and popular the LoTR trilogy was, The Hobbit - which even in print has a very different feel to it and does not have a lot of continuity with the later material, despite being in the same world and involving many of the same characters -- should probably have not been made unless the source material was tweaked darker and remade to conform with LoTR. Even if that does happen with the later films, that can't fix what happened here.

NogbadTheBad
01-02-2013, 09:37 AM
If look & feel was a compromise needed for 3D then I wish PJ hadn't made that compromise. I'd rather have an excellent 2D than a good 3D. Pretty sure that decision is driven by $$ and the higher ticket prices they can charge for 3D but it's a shame. I personally wish 3D would go away completely until it looks more convincing.

bmooncd
01-02-2013, 09:57 AM
If look & feel was a compromise needed for 3D then I wish PJ hadn't made that compromise. I'd rather have an excellent 2D than a good 3D. Pretty sure that decision is driven by $$ and the higher ticket prices they can charge for 3D but it's a shame. I personally wish 3D would go away completely until it looks more convincing.

The 3D was tastefully done, not your usual broomstick-in-yer-face. That element was quite well done imo. But if the idea was to suck the viewer into Middle Earth it would have been nice to do just that, not to take us to World of Warcraft. Because he shot the film in 3D, it suffers in 2D. That said, I too would have preferred good ol' fashioned movie making.

zombywoof
01-02-2013, 10:32 AM
Elrond, for example - at several thousand years old I doubt that in 60 years he would change from smirking-smiled to aloof and grim. He seems a different character here. They might as well have used a different actor. A character out of character.

I think the point was to show a world that was carefree. Elrond's darker character in LoTR was a result of worrying about the ring and what Sauron could do if he should get it back. I like that we are shown a different Elrond, it really drives home Sauron's evil.

bmooncd
01-02-2013, 01:27 PM
I think the point was to show a world that was carefree. Elrond's darker character in LoTR was a result of worrying about the ring and what Sauron could do if he should get it back. I like that we are shown a different Elrond, it really drives home Sauron's evil.

Hadn't thought of that. He did have a similar thing going talking with Sam at the Council of Elrond... Gods I AM a geek :oops

Jerjo
01-02-2013, 01:32 PM
You know how most of us film geeks are excited to see a director's cut (I will only watch the extended editions of the LOTR movies). I'd like to see a tighter cut of The Hobbit, say at about 2:15.

zombywoof
01-02-2013, 01:45 PM
Hadn't thought of that. He did have a similar thing going talking with Sam at the Council of Elrond... Gods I AM a geek :oops

Bmooncd, its a prog forum. We're ALL geeks. :-)

bmooncd
01-02-2013, 02:43 PM
Bmooncd, its a prog forum. We're ALL geeks. :-)

Ah, but you see... I admit it!

Kill me now.

notallwhowander
01-05-2013, 05:02 PM
Dude, love your geeky self! It's okay.

There are people who watch football religiously, dress up in sports uniforms and jerseys, memorize every stat going back decades, play in one or more fantasy leagues online. They are as geeky as hell, and they don't have a problem with it. They put attendees of Comicon to shame with how much time, treasure, and personal identity are invested into moving a ball down a pitch. They take a deep personal pride in the inconsequential accomplishments of others.

In the face of that, you can afford some pride.

zombywoof
01-05-2013, 05:57 PM
^ Wow, so right!

Jerjo
01-05-2013, 06:33 PM
http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/543157_523862594301423_1526159688_n.png

And here's a bit I wrote on my blog about the topic:

http://jeroljohnson.org/2013/01/04/on-being-geek/

roddenberry
01-05-2013, 07:02 PM
Excellent blog, Jerjo. Proud of my geekiness. And being a graphic designer, i am surrounded by geeks of all levels, but I am a level-5 geek!

Robert

moecurlythanu
01-05-2013, 07:04 PM
I'm definitely a geek, but I'm not a nerd. :cool

Oreb
01-06-2013, 03:00 AM
I've been avoiding this thread until I got a chance to see it.

Loved it.

I'll be seeing it again next week.

bmooncd
01-06-2013, 09:33 AM
I'm definitely a geek, but I'm not a nerd. :cool

Damn right.
I'm also never an asshole - I'm a DICK.

Progbear
01-06-2013, 04:03 PM
You know how most of us film geeks are excited to see a director's cut (I will only watch the extended editions of the LOTR movies). I'd like to see a tighter cut of The Hobbit, say at about 2:15.

When we were done watching it, the friend who took me said, when the trilogy is complete, to expect a two-hour fan edit of the entire trilogy to be posted to Youtube and be taken down by New Line an hour later. :lol

-------------
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")

"'Thin Thighs For Your Man.' But I don't *like* men with thin thighs" --Daria

N.P.:“Birds”-Trace

Jerjo
01-06-2013, 04:07 PM
I saw it again Friday night and it worked even better the second time. I did much better at catching the various personalities of the dwarfs and their relationships with each other. And damn, I love that Howard Shore score.

bmooncd
01-07-2013, 08:09 PM
I saw it again Friday night and it worked even better the second time. I did much better at catching the various personalities of the dwarfs and their relationships with each other. And damn, I love that Howard Shore score.

There is nothing I could add to this. I agree on all counts. It indeed does get better with repeated viewings.

notallwhowander
01-07-2013, 09:14 PM
I had planned to see it in the week after New Year's Eve, but my gallbladder had other plans. So after an emergency room visit, a hospital stay, and surgery, I still haven't seen the film. Now I'm convalescing, and am not sure when I'll get to it. Perhaps I can catch it in a couple of weeks.

moecurlythanu
01-07-2013, 10:55 PM
Get well soon, Notall.

notallwhowander
01-21-2013, 10:48 PM
Finally saw it.

I can't believe they fucked up, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." :lol

I'll give full kudos to this: the sequence of the dwarves at Bag End was great.

On the whole: infrequently good, often oscillating between passable and lame.

Good actors, mostly great visuals, and a thoroughly tragic screenplay.

You can't fault Jackson on consistency. :p

NogbadTheBad
01-21-2013, 11:10 PM
I watched it for the second time tonight, this time in 2D with a 24 frame rate. Much much better than in 3D and the look and feel was much more like LOTR's and less like a video game. Also picked up a lot more detail second time round.

Much more enjoyable.

notallwhowander
01-21-2013, 11:53 PM
I went straight for 2D based on commentary here.

I should also honestly say I was pleased with how much of the songs/poetry they kept in the movie. When they included it, they did it well.

However, I don't think there was enough dangling. I mean, there had to be at least three or four minutes when someone wasn't dangling from something, and surely they could have tightened that up.

Jerjo
01-22-2013, 12:10 AM
I've seen it twice now and the second time it actually improved. It's not a feast for a purist but despite having read the books too many times to count, I'm not one. In regards to the obvious bloat, my guess is that the cash-strapped MGM approached Peter Jackson and said, "two movies? And then you're going to expand those on the DVD? Can't you just include the whole kitchen sink and make it three movies, because we really really really need the cash. Cuz if you and the new James Bond don't make a fortune, we're tits up."

bmooncd
01-26-2013, 10:24 AM
One last time into the breach this afternoon with my 11 year old fangirl and a noob. Wife refuses to share same area code. $9 for HFR IMAX clone at Cinemark. Final judgment to follow. I know - just try to stay calm....

bmooncd
01-26-2013, 11:20 PM
BASTARDS. Cinemark web site says HFR, but NO. Enraged emails to commence. Movie still fun, though.

Jerjo
02-20-2013, 04:08 PM
Looks like the movie comes out on DVD March 19. I have just bought my first pairs of 3D glasses. We're ready.

NogbadTheBad
02-20-2013, 08:20 PM
Looks like the movie comes out on DVD March 19. I have just bought my first pairs of 3D glasses. We're ready.It is better in 2D.

Kim Olesen
02-22-2013, 05:48 PM
Looking forward to seeing it again when the dvd comes out. I wonder if there will be an expanded version like the lotr dvd had?

zombywoof
02-22-2013, 05:55 PM
Looking forward to seeing it again when the dvd comes out. I wonder if there will be an expanded version like the lotr dvd had?

Yeah, there should be. And, as with the original trilogy, I will not be able to be patient and will probably purchase both versions. :-)

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2013/02/the-hobbit-blu-ray-cover-610x826.jpg
http://wpc.556e.edgecastcdn.net/80556E/img.product/DVntoNXoZWudrt_1_l.jpg

Kim Olesen
02-22-2013, 05:56 PM
Yeah, there should be. And, as with the original trilogy, I will not be able to be patient and will probably purchase both versions. :-)

http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2013/02/the-hobbit-blu-ray-cover-610x826.jpg
http://wpc.556e.edgecastcdn.net/80556E/img.product/DVntoNXoZWudrt_1_l.jpg

You are not alone.

notallwhowander
02-22-2013, 06:16 PM
I thought I read that they won't bother with a "theatrical version" and go straight to an expanded release. I think retailers got upset when the theatrical versions of LotR couldn't be given away after the expanded versions were made available.

zombywoof
02-22-2013, 07:36 PM
^That would be fantastic. I doubt its true, though, PJ always says the theatrical cuts are the definitive versions.

Jerjo
02-23-2013, 06:17 PM
I swear the "expanded edition" was the one we saw in the theaters. And yeah, I'll buy both versions.

rapidfirerob
05-12-2013, 04:47 AM
Just saw it on DVD, incredible film from first frame to last! Wish I'd seen it on the big screen. Can't wait for the second one.

bmooncd
05-12-2013, 09:11 AM
It's a grower. We enjoy it much more now, tho I really prefer the beginning to the end. The orcs are just...annoying. Hopefullly young Bolg will add something.

Kim Olesen
05-12-2013, 02:17 PM
I swear the "expanded edition" was the one we saw in the theaters. And yeah, I'll buy both versions.

There will be an expanded version with 20-25 mins of extra footage.

NogbadTheBad
05-12-2013, 03:14 PM
There will be an expanded version with 20-25 mins of extra footage.Well I guess I'll be buying that then

Jerjo
05-12-2013, 03:24 PM
Yeah - autobuy here. Given how Jackson expanded what were supposed to be two films into three, I figured he shot his wad with extra footage but obviously I was wrong.

zombywoof
05-12-2013, 05:39 PM
There will be an expanded version with 20-25 mins of extra footage.

Can't wait! I love the LoTR expanded editions.

Yodelgoat
05-13-2013, 12:52 AM
When is the next film due out?

Progbear
05-13-2013, 01:21 AM
If you can’t wait, there’s always this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m0l3Yr1B50

:lol

-------------
MIKE (a.k.a. "Progbear")

"Siento que debemos saber para el sueño de quién brillará esta luz
o consagrar una propia estrella" --Alberto Felici

N.P.:“Crickets Don’t Cry”-Thirsty Moon/Blitz

zombywoof
05-13-2013, 10:56 AM
When is the next film due out?

December 13th, 2013

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1170358/