"The Hobbit"

[troutman]

Hobbit Week on Colbert has been brilliant so far.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by troutman

Hobbit Week on Colbert has been brilliant so far.

Martin Freeman has some really quick wit

*talking about the Bilbo Baggins Lego man*

Colbert: "So do they also have a Lego Legolas?"

Freeman: *motions across waist* "Yes, but it only from here up. It's a Legless Lego Legolas"

that exchange made me laugh far harder than it probably should have

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

Martin Freeman has some really quick wit

*talking about the Bilbo Baggins Lego man*

Colbert: "So do they also have a Lego Legolas?"

Freeman: *motions across waist* "Yes, but it only from here up. It's a Legless Lego Legolas"

that exchange made me laugh far harder than it probably should have

I loved that, Colbert just thought "I'm not even coming back at you, I'm just going to shake your hand."

[HPLovecraft]

70% on RT now. Surprised it's this low, to be honest.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

70% on RT now. Surprised it's this low, to be honest.

Its also possible that it could be indicative of the kind of expectations people are holding Peter Jackson to.

Not to mention, the first of a trilogy isnt always the best. Lots of housekeeping to get out of the way, especially with Tolkien.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

70% on RT now. Surprised it's this low, to be honest.

Only 5 reviews from "Top Critics" so far (1/5). We will get the true measure next week.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by troutman

Only 5 reviews from "Top Critics" so far (1/5). We will get the true measure next week.

Looks like this one will truly be a disappointment, and sadly be the Phantom Menace of the LotR series. Maybe it just needs a better edit? 2 hours and 46 minutes sure seems overlong for such a short part of the book.

[AR_Six]

The review aggregators are stupid, you have to read the individual reviews. Upon so reading half a dozen, mostly from the top critics, I glean the following. I don't think these are spoilers but I'll tag 'em anyway.

Spoiler!

1. Everyone agrees it's too long and needed a trip to the editing room to cut out a number of scenes.
2. The thirteen dwarves are hard to keep track of and don't individually develop much personality other than Thorin.
3. The beginning drags a lot and reminds of the end of ROTK with a lot of stuttery shifts from one scene to another. Because of this the film feels more like "act 1" and not enough of a stand-alone movie; it barely gets off the ground. Which makes it really annoying that the next one is a full year away.
4. The 48fps is really, really jarring and has the opposite impact of that intended - instead of bringing you more into the movie, it exposes the "fakeness" of sets and props, and makes the whole thing look more like live theatre than a movie.
5. Everyone agrees that Gollum is awesome and possibly even better than the LOTR version. Everyone agrees that Ian McKellan's Gandalf is just as good as he's always been.
6. It's way better than Phantom Menace and the two shouldn't really be compared, but the Radagast character is a bit foppish and if you were dead set on making comparisons he'd be Jar Jar Binks.

[3 Justin 3]

I'm torn on the 48 FPS thing. I want to see what it looks like, but if I watch the first 15 minutes of the film in 48 FPS and I don't like it, I'll have to endure the entire 3 hours with it. Plus the tickets are $20.

I wish I could see a sample/preview to see what I am getting myself into.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Looks like this one will truly be a disappointment, and sadly be the Phantom Menace of the LotR series. Maybe it just needs a better edit? 2 hours and 46 minutes sure seems overlong for such a short part of the book.

Tough crowd. Sure 70% is maybe lower than the standard set by LOTR but let's please hold the comparisons to utter crap like Phantom Menace.

[AR_Six]

I want to watch it first in non-3d 24fps, and then watch it a SECOND time in 48, unless I think it totally sucks. Even if it's just "meh" I'm curious. But I want to see it as a movie rather than an exercise in curiosity first.

[MissTeeks]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

I'm torn on the 48 FPS thing. I want to see what it looks like, but if I watch the first 15 minutes of the film in 48 FPS and I don't like it, I'll have to endure the entire 3 hours with it. Plus the tickets are $20.

I wish I could see a sample/preview to see what I am getting myself into.

Go on Tuesday at Chinook, I bought tickets for $13.50 with my Scene card for the 48 FPS showing.

[polak]

Just came in here to say that 2 hrs and 46 min is inexcusable for a movie that is part one of a trilogy... Especially when the trilogy is based on one book... Thats not even that long...

Nearly 3 hours. How much of that will be walking and talking? 70%?

Boo-urns. I hate Peter Jackson.

[Hemi-Cuda]

ya i was planning on seeing this, but after seeing that run time and the reviews stating that it's slow, i don't feel like sitting in a theater for that long

[Tinordi]

I think that The Hobbit will incorporate significant parts of the backstory to Sauron's return which wasn't really in the book.

[trackercowe]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

Tough crowd. Sure 70% is maybe lower than the standard set by LOTR but let's please hold the comparisons to utter crap like Phantom Menace.

Phantom Menace ended up with a 57% review rating which isn't much less than The Hobbit's 70%. Then when you take into account the ratings of the LotR trilogy (92, 96 and 94 percent) you'll see why 70% is pretty bad for The Hobbit. Everyone seemed to be disappointed with Prometheus, and even that is at 74%. Don't kid yourself The Hobbit very well may be the Phantom Menace/Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls of the series (in terms of the drop in decline in quality compared to its predecessors).

[Yeah_Baby]

Originally Posted by trackercowe

Phantom Menace ended up with a 57% review rating which isn't much less than The Hobbit's 70%. Then when you take into account the ratings of the LotR trilogy (92, 96 and 94 percent) you'll see why 70% is pretty bad for The Hobbit. Everyone seemed to be disappointed with Prometheus, and even that is at 74%. Don't kid yourself The Hobbit very well may be the Phantom Menace/Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls of the series (in terms of the drop in decline in quality compared to its predecessors).

I appreciate what you're saying. But when Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark came out we didn't have Rotten Tomatoes. So in the original ratings we're getting a boatload of nostalgia etc.

[GreatWhiteEbola]

I don't give a flying fata what RT and the associated critics say.

[3 Justin 3]

For the people who are complaining about them stretching one book you have to remember they are also including all of the LOTR appendices and they wrote original material for the movies as well. It isn't just one book stretched out into three movies. Frodo and Legalus are both in the movies for example, yet from what I gather (as I never read the books) they aren't in The Hobbit book.

I'm not saying it should have been 3 (maybe 2 would have been fine), but can we get out facts straight before we bitch and bitch about the same issue over and over.

Fellowship of the Ring was rather slow as well.

[bugsy]

Legolas.

(if indeed we are worried about facts being straight)

The doom and gloom on the basis of reviews is pretty funny.

Abandon ship! Strangers on the internet say the movie is only sort of ok!