GLASSJAW Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 fellowship is the best of the original trilogy, imo, by leaps and bounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Hartnell's Mane Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 fellowship is the best of the original trilogy, imo, by leaps and bounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Already post my review in the last movie I watched thread, but I would give The Hobbit a 9/10. Absolutely loved it. As some of said, the frame rate at 48fps took getting used to, and absolutely looked sped up in the first 5-10 minutes. However, once the troll scene came, I was used to the frame rate at that point. Coincidentally, that's also when the film picked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 my wife and I both enjoyed it very much, but we thought the 3d really didn't add much. I'd advise people to not bother paying extra for the 3D. We wouldn't have bothered ourselves but my parents and brother came, and my dad and brother insisted on 3D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 fellowship is the best of the original trilogy, imo, by leaps and bounds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:D Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'll probably go see it tonight or tomorrow. I am a bit concerned about them stretching this into three movies. I've only seen the Lord of the Rings trilogy once because I don't have the interest in sitting through three multi-hour movies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I'll probably go see it tonight or tomorrow. I am a bit concerned about them stretching this into three movies. I've only seen the Lord of the Rings trilogy once because I don't have the interest in sitting through three multi-hour movies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
:D Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 If you ask me The Lord of the Rings was the one that needed to be made as multiple movies a book, not The Hobbit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I don't think I could have handled any longer of Eowyn or Rohan.... Zzzzzzz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canuck_trevor16 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 watch the movie today not in 3D.........there is something about it that feel there is a lot of special effect use more than lord of the rings combine......especially for certain characters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GodzillaDeuce Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Can anyone who's seen the movie and read the book tell me whether going to see it would cause someone who's favourite childhood novel was The Hobbit to run screaming and crying from the theatre? What I mean is, how badly does he mess with the book, on a scale of 1-10? I know this is generally a stupid reason to hate a movie but honestly it's the reason I'm still debating whether to go see it. I will definitely wait for the crowds to die down at least so I don't have the added insult of having to wait in line for an hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaBestPlaceOnEarth Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Loved it! Admittedly some parts bugged me. The sequence with the eagles, I imagined it differently but I can see why they did it the way they did. No problem with the Azog thing although he could have done with less screen time and better makeup. The orc chief in the book was Azog as well, not the same guy but the same name for sure. If I remember it right, the original Azog was so tough that they started naming their leaders after him? The Radagst sequence was long but again, if they're working the attack on Dol Guldur/rise of Sauron angle (and they obviously are) then it makes sense. Gotta like how they threw in some dope-smoking/mushrooms-eating jokes there too, it had to be done. Good movie, can't wait for part two. Glad they ended it where they did, exactly where I figured they would. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 If you ask me The Lord of the Rings was the one that needed to be made as multiple movies a book, not The Hobbit Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Given the amount that Jackson missed in the LOTR series, I'd say the same.. maybe 2 parts for the Hobbit, and 6 parts for LOTR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
avelanch Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Ha ha, yeah, that's the reason the studio wouldn't let Jackson make more than a movie per book, they didn't think the average moviegoer would want to sit through six, four+ hour movies. Now I think Jakson is just saying F you to the studio by making The Hobbit into three movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 to be fair, he's including a lot of canon Tolkien stuff outside of the book to add content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Is that the reason? I haven't seen it yet so... The theatre in Grand Forks doesn't get it until the 28th... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Is that the reason? I haven't seen it yet so... The theatre in Grand Forks doesn't get it until the 28th... Actually somewhere here or in the Rate the Last Movie thread someone talks about the assault on Dol Guldur being a sub plot in the movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gumballthechewy Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 What? Just drive 2 hours north to Winnipeg. Although, Winnipeg doesn't have Paridiso. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 I think anyone considering that the Hobbit film is going to be the Hobbit book verbatim will be sorely disappointed, but their disappointment would be their own fault if they've ever seen any film adaptation of a book.. I've never seen such a thing. For people who don't like long and drawn out, this is definitely not the film for them. For the first half of the film, the plot drags on, especially the Shire/Bag End scene. I can only imagine when an extended version is released how long it will be. I am a bit more confused though about the 48 fps thing.. as far as I know I only saw it in IMAX 3D but I keep hearing that IMAX 3D was in 48 fps anyways? If it was, I noticed no difference at all compared to other IMAX 3D films I saw (the last one being Avengers). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.