The Hobbit films, previously to be directed by Guillermo del Toro and now to be directed by Peter Jackson again.

cheated? heirs pffft

Is he not overstating the beauty, seriousness and philosophical etc of his father's books somewhat? Tolkien was a scholarly writer, granted, but artistically not exactly Nabakov.

that was my first thought

Knowing what I know of the family and all, I think CJRT is extremely glad of that very fact!

tolkien isn't at that level exactly but maybe 'writing as good as nabokov' isn't the greatest way to judge an author. he's a pretty major writer in a lot of ways (how many other authors basically invented a new genre?) and he clearly took his own work seriously. not surprised christopher feels protective of his dad's work since he's basically devoted his life to it.

dunno about that genre invention thing

i know you can point to all sorts of precedents but the specific kind of fantasy literature that came after JRRT seems pretty different from anything that came before.

true, he's definitely a demarcation point

people 15 to 25 you say

saw this tonight and actually dug it way more than i expected to. the rivendell stuff was interminable and i could've done without one or two of the protracted battle scenes (and most of the prologue) but everything else was awesome. actually pretty scary in places, much moreso than i would've expected.

the gollum scene knocks it out of the park -- SO good.

can't wait for 6-part silmarillion series

This movie was largely crap, with a moment or two of not crap. Things:

1) Considering the giant evil white orc was one of the lamest things about "Return of the King," it's a shame they added another, let alone one that looked like a Thundercat.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081123044821/thundercats/images/3/3d/Panthro.jpg

2) I felt that the scale was off with this one. I could never figure out the height relationship of dwarves, hobbits, goblins, trolls and orcs.

3) Could they not afford dwarf make-up for that one last human-looking dwarf?

http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Kili-the-Dwarf-The-Hobbit.jpg

4) That first hour should have been released as a stand-alone tease over the summer, then the rest better paced and fleshed out.

5) So they just literally stumble upon Rivendale? Not on the map, I guess.

On the plus side, I didn't mind all the prequel portent, because otherwise nothing is at stake.

pretty sure Gandalf lead them to Rivendell deliberately while pretending it was an accident

But how did the dwarves, arch-rivals of the elves, not know they were headed straight for Rivendale? That would be number one on my dwarf list of places not to go.

because it's a hidden valley

And they eat salads, which explains why they eventually invented dressing.

xpost Ah! Of course.

Anyway, moot, because that is among the very least of this not quite a film's problems.

entmoot?

Re reading the book currently, not seen this film yet nor in any rush to, but forgotten just how 'jolly' a read it is

every dwarf looks human, the one just has a trimmed beard

and okay his nose is less pronounced, but he's also much younger than most of the others iirc

i did kind of appreciate that all the dwarfs looked different, in the book you can't keep them straight -- it's thorin and 12 guys with funny names.

er, 'dwarves,' i guess is the tolkienish word.

Every single one of them had a bulbous nose or some other facial prosthetic, except that one.

Also, I kept expecting someone's beard (or feet!) to go up in flames at any minute. If I lived in a world where fire was an everyday part of life - for cooking, fighting, light, heat - I'd keep that shit trimmed or otherwise out of the way.

idk, the heavy prosthetic work was given to the olds and fats. thorin, that one, and his brother had very light or no prosthetics afaict. it is peculiar tho that they were like 'no aragorn so we need a dwarf with DREAMY EYES'. anyway, the idiot one with the slingshot was the worst.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/the-13-dwarves-in-the-hobbit-ranked-by-hotness

Kili is the only one without exotic facial hair, though, and clearly that dwarf could have managed. Maybe a rival dwarf clan went at him with some clippers?

A found review from a trusted source.

I just saw this movie in 3D at the IMAX. Don't think it was 48fps but the 3D was great and the movie was awesome and it never dragged and it didn't feel like stuff was just thrown in for no reason and both me and my dad were pretty much just WTF about all the bad criticism this movie has gotten. Gandalf was a slight letdown from the previous eps (he did seem older and a little lower on energy) but Bilbo and the Dwarves were great, Radagast was SO MUCH FUN to watch, the bad guys were a little less faceless videogame enemy this time around, Gollum did some good stuff, and the scenery, my god, the scenery was just GORGEOUS. Some of the shots of for instance Radagast's hut in the forest were just mindblowingly cool fantasy landscapes that sort of surpassed anything shown in the other films.

Anyways i had a great time and would def see again!

I hope Radagast is in the next two movies.

An expert weighs in:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WhLvwIUuLWg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DWhLvwIUuLWg

Between this and Life of Pi, I'm finding myself finally sold ont he whole CGI aesthetic, after so many years. It feels like computer images in movies have been warming up until now and that directors are only just hitting their stride and using things like CGI/3D to its best potential.

Ok apparently the theater i saw this at is listed as having 4fps movies. I did not really notice any difference, though during the trailers and Star Trek preview beforehand, the 3D effect during even slow camera pans was just nearly unwatchable, and during the Hobbit i don't think there was a single scene (aside from one rather quick rollercoaster-like sequence) where the image was blurry. Has anyone here for sure seen the 48fps and not really noticed the difference? I've heard so many bad things that frankly it feels like maybe I really just saw the 24fps one.

I just gotta say again how much i enjoyed the 3D. Some scenes it was barely noticeable, and some scenes it really added alot to the visuals. The bits where they discussing the necromancer in the elvish city of Rivendell were particularly breathtaking in scope.

I agree about the CGI. The effects in this are a step up from the original trilogy, they are really getting the hang of it.

you didn't see it in 48fps.

I generally don't mind 3D, but I have never seen a 3D movie in 2D in the theaters and wished it had been in 3D.

Funny you should mention the CGI, because I actually kept thinking as I watched this how disappointingly not far CGI has come since the other three movies. Maybe credit goes to Serkis, but I kept thinking how less convincing/engaging the trolls and goblin king were than Gollum (let alone King Kong).

the 48fps showings are only in regular 3d - not 2d, not IMAX 3D. if you saw the HFR showing you definitely would've noticed

i thought some of the CGI was really good looking, some of it was super duper shitty (the wargs)

Read that as 'wangs' and wondered which version you DID see.

That's Numberwarg!

maybe i will go see this today.
home sick from work, so really no better time right?

can u make other Hobbit fans sick?

This movie was so skippable. See something else twice instead.

you guys don't understand,
i love dwarves and elves and shit.

not to mention WIZARDS

There are dwarves and elves and shit in both Django Unchained and Skyfall.

i don't believe it.

You have to put on your special glasses to see them. I will be happy to sell you the glasses at a discount.

>the 48fps showings are only in regular 3d - not 2d, not IMAX 3D

Don't know about regular 2D, but the IMAX 3D showing I saw was def 48fps and visibly so (UK). Recognise this might vary from "territory to territory" though, and dependent on the whims of the cinema chain.

you guys don't understand,
i love dwarves and elves and shit.

otmx100000000

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2013/01/16/a-hobbit-is-chubby-but-is-he-off-balance/

Between this and Life of Pi, I'm finding myself finally sold ont he whole CGI aesthetic, after so many years. It feels like computer images in movies have been warming up until now and that directors are only just hitting their stride and using things like CGI/3D to its best potential.

― besides Sunny Real Estate (dog latin), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:19 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm of the complete opposite view - think I talked about this upthread, but the improvements in digital tech (from dvd 480p to bluray 1080p to, what, 4k?) has made it so that it's easier than ever to see the CGI sheen on the CGI sequences, it's awful, bring back miniature models and trick photography, return of the jedi had better efx than the hobbit

(saw this in HFR though)

otoh I really do admire films like this for being so balls-in-your-face fake, not apologetic at all about it, watch this amerrrrrica you're gonna give me your money anyway