"The Hobbit"

[polak]

Originally Posted by vektor

smoking weed would fix your problems and make the movie awsome

Hmmm.... Hold on. You might be on to something here.

Maybe this is how I can finally convince my girlfriend to get baked with me

[vektor]

good luck, be forewarned, low quality stuff can make you very sleepy and give you a headache (but you probably knew that) and for a 4 hour movie eating it would be better (in a cookie or something)

[polak]

Sneak a vap in

[Joborule]

I thought I was going to enjoy the movie, but I actually ended up liking it much more than I thought I would. Great film.

[Wormius]

Anyone know if kids are okay with this movie? Thinking of giving my wife a break and taking the 6 year old out. I understand there is some dismemberment, but is it gory or done, well, somewhat tastefully?

[Coys1882]

I'm interested to know as well - during the summer my six year old and I started watching Fellowship of the Ring but he got a little scared during the scene where the hobbits were hiding under the embankment from the Ring Wraith.

[3 Justin 3]

I can't remember seeing any blood.

If there is it is just the normal stuff. It is much tamer than The Lord of The Rings Trilogy.

[Wormius]

Also did he manage to maintain the size of the Bilbo over the course of the movie? Jackson seemed to flip-flop when it came to depicting the Hobbits' small size in LOTR.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Wormius

Anyone know if kids are okay with this movie? Thinking of giving my wife a break and taking the 6 year old out. I understand there is some dismemberment, but is it gory or done, well, somewhat tastefully?

I don't think it's appropriate for a 6 year old. For one it's too long to keep their full attention and two it's too scary and violent for a 6 year old.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Joborule

I thought I was going to enjoy the movie, but I actually ended up liking it much more than I thought I would. Great film.

Me too. Not sure why there would be any negative reviews as the movie stands on its own as a great flick. Long yes but there was lots of action especially the 2nd half of the film.

Also the 48fps was awesome. I wish all films looked this good.

[ComixZone]

Saw it in 3D IMAX today...friggin' love it. I'll see it again in theatres. One of the most enjoyable movie watching experiences of my life.

[Azure]

Saw it in 2D with the normal 24 fps. Well worth the money. Bit slow at times, but still VERY well done.

Can't wait for the next one, and then the next one, and then the extended versions.

[Wormius]

Saw it tonight in 3D. I really liked the film, but the 3D really annoyed me. This is my first ever 3D movie, and I was expecting more based on all of the hype that 3D has been getting, but wasn't impressed. Now apparently it might look better if I had worn contacts instead of having the glasses over top of my regular glasses, but it looked like the old style red/blue 3D but cleaner. It just looked layered.

Anyway, great movie. The length doesn't bother me, its one of those worlds I don't mind being immersed in regardless of what's going on. Kind of how some people would be happy going watching a movie where all it is is just Christopher Walken reading the phone book to the camera.

[You Need a Thneed]

^i saw the 3D version last night, and I can tell you that the 3D took away from the movie more than it added. I would have preferred to see the 2D version.

That really could be said for most movies that are released in 3D.

[OutOfTheCube]

Saw it. Very average, only a shadow of the quality of the Lord of the Rings. Too long, too much cheesy CGI (really, Azog looked like an action figure), too much exposition and boring parts, too many kiddy/cartoony characters (the trolls, the fat goblin king dude, Radagast, half the dwarves are just vehicles for gas jokes). And they're obviously stretching it out far too long.

The best parts were the ones that connected to the trilogy, like the Gollum parts. And Martin Freeman and Ian McKellan were great.

But seriously, the damn eagles? Why don't they just use them for everything? It's the deus ex machina of Middle Earth :P

[Wormius]

^ That was something, but not sure if it was an artifact of the 3D, but the CGI looked really off. Radagast whizzing around in his rabbit sled, being chased around by the Orcs looked awful. The waterfalls in Rivendell looked bad as well, as if they weren't obeying the laws of physics. And the Elves looked as though they had all been filmed in those filters that soften all features like those Asian-style portraits where a blur effect is used.

I don't recall the Dwarf gang to be used for much humour though, except in the beginning where the whole atmosphere was kept rather light. The Dwarves here got a lot better treatment than Gimli in LOTR, where he was pretty much reduced to a joke.

[Inglewood Jack]

Originally Posted by Wormius

And the Elves looked as though they had all been filmed in those filters that soften all features like those Asian-style portraits where a blur effect is used.

one of the issues I had was constantly studying the actors from the last films to see what they did, if anything, to make them look the same or younger since this is all supposed to be decades before FOTR. it's great to have many of the familiar people around again to make it feel like we're watching the same series, but at the same time it took me out of the movie checking to see how much Elrond's hairline has receded, or wondering how long it took for them to paint out Galadriel's wrinkles.

the two old wizards were probably the easiest since they were ancient to begin with, but McKellan to me still looked and sounded significantly older and worn down than the last time. and good thing Saruman doesn't have that much to do other than sit at a table and drone, cause I don't know how much more a 90 year old Lee can give er.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

I'm trying to figure this out, so your GF was like "Let's go see The Hobbit" and you said no. So she countered with "no sex for you" to which you obliged?

I love LOTR and the Hobbit, but there is no way any girl could ever tell me "put up with 3 hours of something you hate to get some poon" and I'd oblige.

For example, 3 hours of a Country concert for 4 minutes or something I'll do thousands of times in my life?

I'm with Polak.... no way. Not even close to a fair trade-off.

[J pold]

I saw it last night with my family. I cannot begin to explain how utterly disappointed I was in this film. I think for the first time ever I felt offended leaving the theatre after watching one of childhood memories be butchered but unnecessary Hollywood antics and completely unnecessary deviations from one of the greatest stories ever told.

I won't go through the laundry list of issues I have with the film (and there are a number of them) but I will touch on what I found to be the worst of the worst.

The 3D - this is been discussed in this thread and you can put me in the camp that utterly despises this ridiculous Hollywood cash grab. It is unnecessary, distracting and completely takes away from some of the amazing imagery created by the world of middle earth. Good films can make you forget you are watching a movie, all the 3D effects did was remind me that I was sitting in a cramped theatre with a ridiculous pair of glass hanging off my face. Unfortunately it wasn't just the visual aspects of the film that made it so painful to watch. It was the content of the film as well.

The multiple beginnings - I understand why they needed the prologue and back story of the Dwarves motivation but it felt out of place being right off the top of film. It would be better sprinkled throughout the story, similar to the book. What I do not understand in the pointless and awkward exchange between Frodo and Bilbo thereafter. It was not in the book and didn't serve any purpose to the film other then the nod to the LOTR. In the same way that The Return Of The King was heavily criticized for having too many endings, the Hobbit has too many beginnings.

The explanation (or lack thereof) for Bilbo agreeing to join the party on their journey - in the book this is explained by Bilbo's "Took-ish-ness" he gets from his mothers side who is rumored to have fairy blood. In the film his Tookishness nature hardly mentioned and never explained in depth.

The Pale Orc and Thorin subplot - I’m fairly sure there are no scenes in the book involving a Pale Orc who hunts Thorin while Bilbo and the company are on the road. That is invented, and an entirely unnecessary embellishment that serves just to tack on another big, menacing, ugly villain to the story so Jackson can have his juvenile tough-guy-hero-versus-snarling-villain subplot.

After enjoying most the film adaptions of the LOTR I was thoroughly disappointed by this imagination of The Hobbit.

[Yeah_Baby]

Azog is dead in the book. It is his son who leads the orcs at The Battle of Five Armies.