The Hobbit Trilogy- Page 4

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 11/9/12 at 2:21pm

This might be my only post here today, but the film has outsold 'The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 2' and 'Skyfall' in advanced ticket sales.


'The Hobbit' outsells 'Breaking Dawn,' 'Skyfall' in online ticket sales

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 11/20/12 at 9:47am

Some disturbing news from the set of The Hobbit. Animal wranglers are claiming up to 27 animals used in the production died and are blaming the producers of the film. Wranglers say the deaths were caused by unsafe condidtions where the animals were being housed. None of the deaths happened during filming. Animal safety monitoring only takes place on set and apparently producers ignored the repeated pleas from animal wranglers to improve conditions.
Disappointing for a movie I was so looking forward to seeing.
Hobbit Animal Deaths: Up to 27 Die As Wranglers Blame Production Company

[tazber]

Posted: 11/28/12 at 2:04pm

The Goblin King:

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 9:25am

The advance reviews have been dissappointing so far. Looks like splitting the book into three movies was a mistake. And a lot of people are turned off by the 48fps.
From the Variety review: "More disconcerting is the introduction of the film's 48-frames-per-second digital cinematography, which solves the inherent stuttering effect of celluloid that occurs whenever a camera pans or horizontal movement crosses the frame -- but at too great a cost. Consequently, everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end homemovie. (A standard 24fps projection seems to correct this effect in the alternate version of the film being offered to some theaters, but sacrifices the smoother motion seen in action scenes and flyover landscape shots.)"
Looks like this won't be an Oscar contender.
Variety Hobbit Review

[artscallion]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 10:12am

I heard the 48fps makes the film so detailed that you can see the edges of people's contact lenses. Pretty distracting from what I hear.

I haven't been following the film news. So I'm surprised to hear that this has been split into a three films. A mistake in my opinion. Part of what makes the book work is the sense of building to a resolution with all the obstacles in the way. Breaking it into three films will break that build...all for the sake of $$, is my guess.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 10:21am

Yea, pretty much everyone HATES the 48fps.

I'm definitely not going to see it that way.

[ErikJ972]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 12:09pm

I think the decison to make three films was the biggest mistake. From what I've heard the first two acts are painfully boring. There's no reason this couldn't have been one film.

[tazber]

Posted: 12/5/12 at 1:44pm

I've also heard that it's very slow starting.

And I'm wondering how they are going to make the Smaug section long enough to sustain what will be (I'm assuming) a 2.5 + hour movie. I mean it's called The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug for crap's sake so I figure it will dominate the second movie.


But I'm a super fan so I'm not going to complain. The more time I can spend in Middle Earth the happier I am.

[UncleMustache]

Posted: 12/12/12 at 4:53pm

I made a sketch spoofing the Hobbit, check it out if you'd like.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLQm5WyQbRc&list=UUYrx8SPpgNyofBM45MgtP_g&index=1

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 1:10pm

I saw the film this morning. It was good but took a LONG time to get moving. With an almost 3 hour running time I'd say it didn't really pick up until about 1:45 into it. Don't get me wrong, it wasn't boring (for the most part) but it just seemed as if Peter Jackson wanted everyone to know he was making a LONG movie here. But once it got going it GOT GOING and the last half was incredible. I'm still not sure how this is going to be three films, though. I don't recall there being 6 more hours worth of material to cover from the book!

Also, I psaw it IMAX 3D which I'll say is totally not worth it. It added some nice depth to the picture but nice depth does not warrant wearing those glasses for three hours and fighting off a headache.

[BroadwayBenny]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 1:17pm

My guess is the second film will deal with the whole Smaug thing (Since the title is The Desolation of Smaug) and they will do to the third movie the same they did with The Two Towers. Turning the Battle of Five Armies, which is just a small part of the book into an entire movie. That and all the stuff added to tie into LotR as filler.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 1:22pm

Oh I didn't know the Smaug battle was the second film! I was wondering what tr hell could take up 3 hours from the point where this one ended up until that!

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 1:29pm

Would the 48-frames-per-second stand out to an untrained eye?

I'm seeing it this evening, and looking forward to it. I'm a total Middle Earth newbie, and for some reason this seems less off-putting than all of the other LOTR stuff.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 2:37pm

There's been some talk that the 48fps makes things look too fake, if you're not used to it. I'm actually curious, but, of course, no theatre here is playing it that way. I'd imagine in 3D it looks better than the regular 24...

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/12/14/the-hobbit-at-48-frames-looks-too-good/

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 2:43pm

I hadn't even heard of it being done in 48fps and I can't say I particularly noticed anything different about how the film looks compared to any other film.

[EricMontreal22]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 3:09pm

Dumb question, but Jordan, are you sure the theatre you saw it in was showing the 48fps?

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 3:14pm

I saw it at the Lincoln Square IMAX, so I'm pretty sure it would be.

[Taryn]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 3:57pm

Saw it at the Lincoln Square IMAX last night. I really wish PJ had just chosen to focus on one film and really just let the simple story of The Hobbit take precedence. I think all the added stuff really pulls from the narrative and bloats the overall film.

At the same time, there was a lot that was good about it. The cast is fantastic, and there's no denying that familiar ache at returning to Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. Martin Freeman is perfectly cast as Bilbo.

[beautywickedlover]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 8:02pm

I just got back from seeing the film. It did have some flaws in it, but overall I thought it was VERY GOOD. The second half is definitely better than the first. Martin Freeman was terrific and McKellen and Serkis gave great performances as usual. I also really enjoyed Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield.





Updated On: 12/15/12 at 08:02 PM

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/14/12 at 8:15pm

Serkis was outstanding. I know it wont happen but ibwouls love to see him get a supporting actor Oscar nomination. I think he's earned it.

[dtzumbrunnen]

Posted: 12/15/12 at 9:51am

Jordan - I was just looking to buy tickets for today at the Lincoln Center AMC and they've got three categories: IMAX 3D, Real 3D (with High Frame Rate), and a regular version. So if you saw it in IMAX it may not have been the HFR version...at least according to Fandango.
Fandango

[trentsketch]

Posted: 12/15/12 at 10:00am

Jordan, I've heard from some critic friends at press events that there are a number of Academy members who want Andy Serkis to be nominated for his motion capture work. Some were even planning on voting for him for playing the tiger in Life of Pi. He has supporters in the Academy. It's just getting enough of them to actually focus on the same role at the same time for him to break through. I think The Hobbit was released a little too late in the season to get him traction, which is a shame since audiences are eating up his work here.

Andy Serkis makes my Supporting Actor line-up and I'm even considering Martin Freeman for Lead. They were very strong in this. I'm curious to see how much screen time Cate Blanchett is going to get in the next two films considering her character and storyline was added in to bring in a female presence. She made some interesting choices with that character that made me want to see more.

I really enjoyed the film. It's not the fastest moving film, but The Hobbit isn't exactly a fast-moving novel, either. It's about the journey, the camaraderie, and the banding together of opposing forces to take on greater evil for the betterment of all.

My only big issue was the score. Howard Shore can do better than that. He took the one song performed at Bilbo's house, written by someone else entirely, and just adapted it into all the battle scenes. It felt lazy and kept taking me out of the moment.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 12/15/12 at 10:14am

Maybe. It doesn't matter to me, really. When you used to go to the movies your choices were regular and sometimes 3D. Now it's Standard, RealD, RealD 3D, 3D, HFR 3D, HFR, IMAX, RPX or RPX 3D.

And every one of them besides TRUE IMAX is a scam to get more money from the audience. And theaters that charge more for these like Regal's RPX which is just a screen that's a little bigger than usual that they charge an extra $4 for, is disgusting and the price increase isn't even advertised.

[ElphabaRose]

Posted: 12/15/12 at 11:25am

The 48 fps, to my completely untrained eye, looked beautiful. And I still say that the only place that 3D belongs is in Muppets 3D in Disney World. It did absolutely nothing for the movie, but to see the high frame rate version, I had to deal with it.

As for the movie itself, I'm still angry about how poorly it was done. The beginning setup was great (although I was a little worried from the start since they set up the conflict between Thorin and the White Orc). The scenes in Bilbo's house were great, and as soon as he left for his journey, the whole movie went to hell in a handbasket. The idea of character development was completely ignored, in favor of adding elements to the plot that completely distorted it.

I don't think that any of the changes made to the plot were for the better. The battle with the trolls deprived Bilbo of beginning to show his worth by saving the dwarves, it made him look stupid and weak. Bringing in Radagast was pointless and, frankly, boring. The addition of Saruman and Galadriel to Rivendel did nothing for the plot and since (correct me if I'm wrong) neither one is even mentioned in the Hobbit, what's the point? Finally, there could have been just as impressive a fight scene in the woods if the goblins had been there instead of the orcs (who I also don't recall showing up in the book). The friendship of the dwarves and Bilbo in the movie are practically non existant, and it doesn't make sense that Bilbo will continue to follow them like a pathetic puppy.

I'm sure the movie is perfectly fine if you've never read The Hobbit, but as someone who has, I'm incredibly disappointed. There would have been (almost) the same amount of fighting if they hadn't made all of the pointless changes, and they wouldn't have had to do such a great disservice to their main character.

[TheLadyoftheWood]

Posted: 12/15/12 at 12:58pm

@ElphabaRose Thanks for adding the words

***Spoiler Alert to your post for those who haven't seen the film.