You are not logged in.
True, in Spanish is the same. The translation is not very accurate .....
You can´t compare to this ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHjgKLGVTjI
Offline
I saw it last weekend, and I have to say that I´m very pleased with the result.
Some good points:
- Good adaptation, with no major liberties
- The (amazing) beggining: Peter Jackson knows how to catch the attention of every fan since the very first minute.
- The best moment: the riddles in the dark, of course (please, give Gollum/Serkis an Oscar, seriously )
- Martin Freeman >>>> Elijah wood
- The whole movie is an amazing visual show
Some not-so-good points:
- I know that the hobbit is more childish than the LOTR, but a few scenes are a bit "cartoon"
- The 3D does not contributes much to the film
- Viggo Mortensen>>>>Richard Armitage
- I personally prefer more "flesh and bone" orcs and goblins instead of so much CGI
Can´t wait to watch it again, and of course, the english version too.
Offline
I just came back from the theater and a bit disappointed. The story is like the book, that is great but the look of the movie is like a cartoon movie. Or more specific, it looks like a computer game, with not allways the characters in the background. Sometimes it seems that they are floating...
Anyway, my mayor dissapointment comes from my two favourite characters of the book: Ori and Radagast. They look like dumb and dumber.
But I had a really good time!!!
Offline
Seen it yesterday night.
Not so wonderfull as LOTR but still a pleasant moment if you are not a Tolkien devotee.
The worst storyline was Radagast venue to warn Gandalf about the Necromancer. Think how he crossed the misty mountains so easily anf swiftly from Mirkwood to rhudaur?
Offline
yes that's what I told myself... he's DAMN fast to rush from Rhosgobel down to almost Rivendell!!! Those rabbits may be fast but well, how did he pass the misty mountains??
as for his venture and experience in dol guldur, I liked it though it is quite non canonical even though... there is no proof it could not have happened too... (except for the meeting of course)
Offline
Don't forget, as he [Radagast] says, "These are Rhosgobel Rabbits!!!!!" ), so such a fast journey is no problem for these rodents
Offline
Finally got around to seing the movie yesterday. It inevitably takes outrageous liberties with the story, but I enjoyed every moment of it! Great fun, from beginning to end, and I look forward to Part 2 immensely. In the meantime I shall doubtless go and see this movie at least once more when I can find the time.
The only downside was that I unexpectedly found I'm one of the one-third of the population who can't cope with 3D. I had no problem when I was watching the film, but as soon as I stepped out of the cinema I was dizzy and nauseous, and had to go to bed whern I got home! Mind you, I suffer from acute motion-sickness, so maybe that was a factor.
The 48 frames a second, however, was very impressive indeed – at least, it was to me, though I know a lot of criticism has been levelled at it. I have to admit nevertheless that it seemed to work better at some points in the film than at others - almost as if it hadn't been used all the time, which it surely must have been. Some scenes were crystal clear - "clear as Kheled-zaram", as you might say, and as crisp as real life - while others seemed indistinguishable from standard 24 fps. I wonder why?
Anyway, a great movie. Not real Tolkien, but real fun!
Offline
I've also seen the movie a few days before (100 km away from home so this was a on day excursion). It was really great. In the whole story protrudes only albino Azog, but it's just a great film entertainment. Certainly the best scene for me is the last one, the one with the eagles. Watching in 3D HDR 48 frames in seccond... I was not tired it all. Rather it was great. Next week, moviel comes in my city, but we only have 2D digital cinema. Anyway ! I have already booked a ticket
....
Last edited by Thingol (Thu, Jan10 2013 8:56am)
Offline
Three nominations for Oscars.......
http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/cu … Oscar-nods
Offline
...But only three. Yet somehow I'm not surprised. I suspect the sequels may fare better, once the train has started to pick up speed.
Offline
Barliman wrote:
...But only three. Yet somehow I'm not surprised. I suspect the sequels may fare better, once the train has started to pick up speed.
Yes. Finally, as in the LOTR, the third film will serve to assess the "quality" of the entire trilogy ....
Offline
Finally I had the time to watch the "Hobbit" (in 3D) last night. - Somehow it left me being disappointed. After all that hazzle of merchandising and providing pics before, I was not surprised. - To me, Master P. Jackson did not find a way himself how to cope with Tolkien's "Hobbit". There's so much incoherence between Tolkien's first idea of a children's book and P. Jackson's adaption, mixed with an attempt to link the "Hobbit" with his former LotR-Trilogy, which, from my point of view was far more better (though also in many parts "far from the book"). I think he could not decide which way he could cope better with Tolkien's "Hobbit", so he tried to combine a children's book with his concept of the LotR-Trilogy.
I think it would have been far more better to decide what to do. - A "Hobbit", according to his presentation of the LotR-Trilogy should have been rather more serious, avoiding that many "slapsticks" in the movie. - I simply was disappointed.
Offline
Saw it for the second time today - this time in 2D. I am perhaps more forgiving of the deviations from the book in The Hobbit than I was in LotR. Some added bits still puzzle me, some bits are still irritating, but overall I like it .
Neither viewing was in 48FPS so I cannot comment on this.
Offline
I gave my comment before. I do not mind at all if anyone is of a different opinion. So, don't get me wrong please. Indeed, it's a nice movie, just for watching. But nothing more. - I do dare to comment, Master Ddaines, and of course, I am aware that many seem to like that "Hobbit"- version. - I do not.
Offline
Not at all Master Tree , each to his or her own. As they say it's not everyones 'cup of tea'
.
I had to see it again to take my good lady's daughter to see it, and to catch the bits I missed first time around (I have to confess to 'dozing' a couple of times this viewing )!
I have to admit seeing it in 2D was more enjoyable than 3D, but I am still curious about what the 48FPS is like.
Offline
The 48 fps is amazing! When you see it, you'll see what I mean.
Offline
... I was waiting a lot of time before give my comment(s) about this movie...
The more I can say:
I have the same opinion than Master Theobald, except: "a nice movie" : for me it's a bad movie! Too fashion, too "modern", too Producers-Conducted...
(I could think that P.J. had good ideas and intends before doing this film, who knows what he was allowed to do?)
or:
My children love it !
And I suppose that the majority of people like it....
(those who like awful and surrealistic Special Effects, horrible characters (the Great Goblin, the Goblins, Radagast .....) poor dialogues and beautiful Stars! )
Sorry, I have to say that...
Offline
well what were you expecting for maste samwise? an "arts et d'essais" movie who would drive half the wordlwide "customers" of such "hollywood movies" to sleep after 10minutes of watching?
I take the movie for what it's meant to be , a special effects and action movie , I can't judge or comment it on another basis than that
Still I deeply respect your feelings about it everybody is looking at the movie with his own expectations
but well, you've seen the LoTR before I assume, and I'm surprised that YOU are surprised that the Hobbit is this way. I could not have been anything else
Offline
Master Gildor: I've expressed my opinion because it's what I think!
I didn't expect a "art et essai" movie, I just think that a movie can be entertaining without all the Modern Hollywood Business ... I'm a dreamer, and when I saw that, I didn't sleep but I didn't dream no more...
When I wrote my comment, I know that I will have such replies... Honesty, no matter, I respect and understand the opinions of each one here and there!
For the LoTR, it was such a Great Event for us! I was dreaming because I've never imagined that I will see the Books adapted to cinema... and I've accepted (and accept yet again) all the defaults...
.... maybe for The Hobbit, I've seen and read before too much images and infos and trailers before, I was not in a good condition for seeing it...
.... and I hate 3D !
Offline
For the record, I think you're both right! There's an old saying here in Bree that "You can't please all of the people all of the time", and another one that says "It would ba a boring world if we all liked the same things."
Incidentally, I'm surprised no one has commented on the stone giants yet. They were very impressive, were they not? I've never managed to form a clear picture in my mind of how they should look, but the movie ones were perfect.
Offline
my wife commented on them and she clearly stated she was shocked and very upset at their representations...
For her, in the text, which is a tale for children, the stone giants are implied, and could very well be in the imaginations of Bilbo and the dwarves as it happens when it is very dark and you see more shadows than clear faces.
The stones falling and the tunder whipping are true, but the giants could very well be "real" or "a view of the mind".... I think that's why PJ made them completly out of stone as if the mountains themselves were in motion... and they melt and break on mountain slopes... as if they were rock elementals and not "giants".
I have personnaly nothing against them except that the action and what happens for our dwarves between their "fight" is too much, far too much as compared to what happens in the books. Here it is clearly magical and elemental magic, while in the books it could simply be a bad impression from some folks who never ventured in the high mountains... during a storm
Offline
Your wife has obviously overlooked Gandalf's remark about trying to find a "friendly" stone giant to block up the Orcs' entrance into the pass. He obviously ragarded them as real!
Offline
These giants are not the ones I have in mind. But OK, I could cope with it as the scene in the movie is very well done, impressive & spectacular.
On my side, I read (in my mind, maybe not in the book itself) "Giants playing with stones". More or less the mithril representation even if the M307 is too gentle.
Last edited by Milo (Mon, Jan14 2013 10:19am)
Offline
I would have warmed to the Stone Giants a lot more had the 'situation been a bit more realistic' - from what I could see the dwarves were in an unsurviveable situation with that amount of rock being lobbed around, but I have to accept that the film is made to entertain the vast majority of cinema goers rather than the hard-core. So on balance, everyone appears right in their views and comments
I do wonder though, what would we have been watching if GTD had made the film?
Offline
I'm not sure that Hobbit production blog number 10 ever got posted here, probably in consequence of it coming out just as the film was actually released, but here it is - just in case no one has seen it yet. It's rather enjoyable anyway – and it does provide the confirmed title for film two...
http://www.thehobbitblog.com/video-blog … -premiere/
I now await blog 1 for film 2!
Offline