Thread: The hobbit

I guess that's a fair criticism but do people actually want to see a light hearted adventure story for kids, even if it'd be more true to the books? Maybe I'm just being egotistic but I'd much rather watch something in the same vein of the previous movies. I don't really care much for "The Hobbit" book so to me this seems like a way better route to take.

Originally Posted by BigBrown

I guess that's a fair criticism but do people actually want to see a light hearted adventure story for kids, even if it'd be more true to the books? Maybe I'm just being egotistic but I'd much rather watch something in the same vein of the previous movies. I don't really care much for "The Hobbit" book so to me this seems like a way better route to take.

I would have preferred a bit of darkness like the last movies too. This was embarressingly cartoonish. I walked after the three troll scene. Just awful.


I do regret, however, seeing it in HFR. It gave it this soap opera kind of look that I just couldn't get past. Really distracting and off putting. Maybe my experience would have been different if I saw the normal version.

I don't have to experience it in the theater to tell you that HFR sucks balls. For film at least. You know what else sucks balls? 3D.

Saw it in 3D IMAX. Loved, LOVED, LOVED!!!!

Saw it in 3D, not in IMAX, not in HDWhatever, enjoyed it. Thought there was quite a lot of stuff in it designed to move the picture along in length. Certainly doesn't need to be three movies. Probably won't see it again though. Maybe on blu.

Hurm. Not the overwhelming love I was expecting. I kind of think, from what I have heard at least, that this will probably get better further along, and we aren't really going to be able to judge it until all 3 parts have been seen.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

Hurm. Not the overwhelming love I was expecting. I kind of think, from what I have heard at least, that this will probably get better further along, and we aren't really going to be able to judge it until all 3 parts have been seen.

Pretty much my feeling. The second part will likely be very very good. At least, that's my hope. Just felt like too much exposition in this one. Also, for having three parts for a movie of a book that isn't quite that long, it sure makes you wonder why they felt that they had to put things in there that weren't in the book (at least my from my memory).

When you read about how they scoured the appendices and turned 1 or 2 sentences into complete scenes...yeah, a little much. I think they could have done with 2 if they really wanted to stretch it. 3 is just too much. But wasn't that the gripe about Jackson's Kong too? Someone needs to learn how to edit. I really would have liked to have seen Guillermos Del Toro's vision of what this could have been.

Originally Posted by jerseydevil

When you read about how they scoured the appendices and turned 1 or 2 sentences into complete scenes...yeah, a little much. I think they could have done with 2 if they really wanted to stretch it. 3 is just too much. But wasn't that the gripe about Jackson's Kong too? Someone needs to learn how to edit. I really would have liked to have seen Guillermos Del Toro's vision of what this could have been.

Actually, I mentioned on the way out that Peter Jackson has a baaaaaaaaaaad habit of not knowing how to end his movies now.

Having said all of this, my cousins and uncle absolutely loved this movie. It's not a bad movie by any stretch. Maybe a little silly at points and overdone at others, but far from bad.