stonejedi

iTrader: (51)

watched THE HOBBIT on Saturday in Wimbledon IMAX 3D and it was suberb,if the lord of the rings is your thing you have to watch THE HOBBIT which is the start of the prequel triple saga.Highly recommended my precious.Lol.

alcazar

iTrader: (2)

Yes but:
If they made THREE films from a book having 1800 pages, how have they got three MORE from one having 300 pages?

IIRC, there are NO females in the book, are there any in the film?
I've seen clips of stuff I don't recognise as coming from the book

stonejedi

iTrader: (51)

No women unless you count a long haired dwarf as one Lol.there is that elf women.I do agree with you about the book only being so long,but I guess there imagination plays apart to fill the holes in the script and I got to say they have done a swell job.without given too much away it links the films but shows a different story.but it does work well.

nyscooby

iTrader: (12)

no one heres actually read the book....

stonejedi

iTrader: (51)

Please elaborate

Geezer

I have read the book, and went to see the film on Saturday afternoon. I can tell you now, if you have read it, you are going to be disappointed and possibly frustrated at what they have done with it.

The Hobbit is quite a light hearted affair, and although there are moments of joviality in it, it's much more like LOTR in it's mood, which is not right IMO.

As previously mentioned, making 3 3 hours films out of a 300 page book is clearly just a money making exercise. Sections of the book that take up a few pages are strung out to ridiculous proportions. IMO, a scene should not take longer on screen than it does to read!

They have also changed the basic story considerably and added in lots of elements which simply weren't there and add nothing to the story.

That said, the film is well executed, and after a slow start it's typical Middle Earth fare, everyone turns in a decent, if lengthy, performance. I particularly like Martin Freeman as Bilbo, but in the end, he was just playing Martin Freeman! Maybe that's what Tolkien had in mind.........

Geezer

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Saw Martin Freeman going on and on about it on the Graham Norton Show... he bored me sh1tless and no doubt the film would too!

Read the book when I was 13 and thought it was the best book I had ever read, then I grew up!

corradoboy

I've read all the books, and enjoyed the three LOTR movies despite their changes. I think PJ did an excellent job of making LOTR into fun and watchable movies, and I have no doubt he will have done the same with The Hobbit. Anyone who has read The Hobbit is fully aware of its concise length, but if PJ has worked the same magic as on LOTR then I am happy for it to be 3x3hrs long, or longer on the inevitable DVD/BD extended releases. I can differentiate between story writing and movie-making, and am happy to have extra bits and changes as long as it makes for a captivating and impressive visual feast at the cinema.

Seeing the new film in Imax 3D on Thursday

stonejedi

iTrader: (51)

Well said that man.enjoy on your Thursday viewing.S.J

Geezer

I agree he did a stellar job on LOTR, but I can't say the same for this. It's only my opinion of course! I think the changes for LOTR were far more subtle than this. A film doesn't have to be long to be good.

Geezer

urban

iTrader: (1)

I also watched it on Saturday in 3D.

Was a good show, enjoyed it.

Geezer

Was the 3D any good? I don't know if it was filmed in 3D or a conversion?

Geezer

urban

iTrader: (1)

Well there weren't really any bits where you thought wow, that was good, so I suppose not really.

I can only describe it as making the characters kind of stand out from the background at bit.

In comparison I would sat that Avatar was fantastic in 3D.

corradoboy

Yup, all filmed 3D. Shot using 48 Red Epic cameras paired to film 3D at 48fps in 5k resolution. 3D meant they couldn't use the forced perspective trick commonplace throughout LOTR to trick the eye into believing the size differences of the various races of Middle Earth, so much more green screen and CGI was needed.

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Few people I know that have seen it have said it was **** but they arent into "Swords and Elves and ****", this sums up the LOTR/Hobbit thing for me,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&h...&v=AxAEo3CWeq8

Nimbus

I read the book when I was about 16 and really enjoyed it. I'm not sure if stretching the book into 3 films will really work from a storying telling perspective, but I really enjoed the LOTR films so will be pleased if we get more of the same.

Did anyone see this in HFR? The local Showcase to use will be showing it in HFR 3D so wanted to know if it was worth it.

Cheers

Nimbus

An interesting article for those that have not seen the film yet. After reading this, I think I'll stick to the 24fps 3D version

There and Back Again at 48 Frames per Second

P1Fanatic

The wife wanted to see it yesterday. Bored the hell out of me. Tbh seemed exactly the same as LOTR. Go off on a mission, get attacked, get away, meet someone new, get attacked, get away - rinse and repeat. Blatant money making exercise imho.

Only solace I can take is that it only cost us £2.80 a ticket.

P1Fanatic

Lmfao at the act out of all 3 LOTR episodes