The Hobbit...

[Roderick]

I perfectly heard that in Jake the Dog's voice.

[Ben X]

Watched this yesterday, didn't really enjoy it.

The HFR was massively jarring at first (that sped-up feel is just as bad as TV motion interpolation), but about halfway through the movie, I started getting used to it. It's weird, because if you compare it to how things look IRL, it is closer to that, but at the time because you're used to 24fps it just feels bizarre. I think I'll need a few more movies in this format before I really get used to it and start enjoying it.

The 3D seemed fine, but it's hard to say if the HFR improved it because it was so underused. I just don't understand why James Cameron has been the only filmmaker to use 3D to really make an impact on the viewer - the 'subtle feeling of depth' that most 3D films aim for is so subtle it's barely existent.

I wonder whether the HFR contributed to this feeling, but the whole film felt rushed. The pacing had none of the variation of the LOTR films, it was just full-steam ahead all the way. It basically goes "peril! Escape! Run to next location! Peril! Escape!" There's never a chance to get a feeling for place or character, before someone dramatically appears to rescue everyone in the nick of time so they can keep running. Plus, a lot of the direction feels either very half-hearted and perfunctory or tends to obscure what is actually happening. I've never really felt this with Jackson's direction before.

A lot of the dramatic beats, character motivations, action sequences and locations feel all too similar to LOTR as well. I know this is a little unfair with the locations, but I was really hoping to discover new, completely different feeling areas of Middle-Earth in this film. Instead, it's The Shire, Rivendell, forests, underground caves, dwarven lairs and that's it.

The tone is, as someone pointed out from the trailer, rather portentous and heavy for what is essentially a picaresque caper. The film is bogged down with bookending narration, unnecessary backstory and set-ups for the next movies that serve no purpose in this one (White Council, spiders, Necromancer) that the thin storyline can't support.. I really wish they'd made it much more of a kid's film.

That said, there are some nice moments and scenes (the Gollum sequence is fantastic), and it often looks super-real and beautiful when Jackson takes a moment to soak up the surroundings.

[gregbrown]

I wonder whether the HFR contributed to this feeling, but the whole film felt rushed. The pacing had none of the variation of the LOTR films, it was just full-steam ahead all the way. It basically goes "peril! Escape! Run to next location! Peril! Escape!" There's never a chance to get a feeling for place or character, before someone dramatically appears to rescue everyone in the nick of time so they can keep running. Plus, a lot of the direction feels either very half-hearted and perfunctory or tends to obscure what is actually happening. I've never really felt this with Jackson's direction before.

A. O. Scott (my favorite along with his partner in crime Manohla Dargis) had a really great passage on this feeling in his Hobbit review. It's a style that really came into its own in the first Pirates of the Caribbean film with big central set-pieces that the action navigates around and through, but has often devolved into a linear CGI thrill-ride.

Mr. Jackson has embraced what might be called theme-park-ride cinema, the default style of commercially anxious, creatively impoverished 3-D moviemaking. The action sequences are exercises in empty, hectic kineticism, with very little sense of peril or surprise. Characters go hurtling down chutes and crumbling mountainsides or else exert themselves in chaotic battles with masses of roaring, rampaging pixels.

It seems harder and harder to bring any real novelty or excitement to this kind of thing, though it is not clear how much Mr. Jackson really tries. (“Giants! Stone giants!” someone cries, and a couple of mountains dutifully slug it out.) When the initial rush of a chase or a skirmish dissipates, you are left with the slightly ripped-off feeling of having been here before, but with different costumes, in a “Pirates of the Caribbean” movie or “Clash of the Titans.”

[ThunderPeel2001]

Meanwhile, I enjoyed the film. Yes, it has problems (it felt like I was watching the extended cut version -- with a few unnecessary scenes), but I still really enjoyed it. It's aimed at a younger audience than Lord of the Rings (like the book itself), so that might explain some of Ben's problems with it. Personally, I think they're going to love it, and as an adult, it didn't bother me. It was very faithful to the book, as you'd expect, while at the same time expanding on the world and making it much darker. Welcome back, Middle Earth!

As for the 48fps/HFR -- It WAS hugely jarring at first, but no more than I expected it to be. (It looks very much like a TV in 100hz mode.) After about 20 minutes I had gotten used to it, and I found that it made the special effects and 3D look spectacular. I think it's well worth trying to find a screening for the experience of it, if you can.

In short: Ben is wrong :-P

[Nachimir]

I just came out of it thinking "That was… alright".

The first hour or so consisted of people pottering round a house, interleaved with battle scenes that didn't seem particularly connected. It was a long and, I thought, clumsy setup that lacked drama. The attempts at comedy, while probably truer to the book, clashed horribly with dramatic fantasy tone and made it feel like the film had a split personality. I don't remember their being so much fighting in the book, and lot of that and the character appearances seemed like fan service for LoTR film fans.

I thought the frame rate was very interesting, and largely agree with Thunder. In scenes with just people, their quicker movements looked sped up at first. It worked best in scenes with creatures (eagles, trolls etc.), as if pushing the actors a little bit into the uncanny valley helped them to mesh more with the CGI.

[ThunderPeel2001]

It's funny, I've heard quite a few people say the first hour dragged. I thought it was fine. Ben felt it went by too quickly. The thing is, that part is very faithful to the book. (The book is arguably worse, in fact!) I do wonder if a lot people's issues with the film actually stem from the book -- A great read for kids, but really not much going on for adults.

With this in mind, I think Jackson and Co did a great job of taking such simple source material and making it more textured. The "Riddles in the Dark" scene was absolutely everything you'd hoped it would be, for instance. In the book, it's extremely tame, with not all that much threat. In the film it's the most threatening "game of riddles" you can imagine -- well, by comparison, at least.

The Hobbit, for me, was exactly what I was expecting: A lighter, more childish, story set in the of Lord of the Rings universe. Not as good, on the whole, but then I don't think the book is as good as its larger, more complex brother, either.

[melmer]

The bbc review show didn't like it so much. They all disliked the first hour and said the film had no suspense

[ThunderPeel2001]

The bbc review show didn't like it so much. They all disliked the first hour and said the film had no suspense

I didn't know that a film had to have suspense for it to be enjoyable.

[melmer]

He said the film wasted to much time at the beginning so when it got to the darker parts there wasn't enough time to build any suspense so scenes that could've been scary, weren't

Don't shoot the messenger I have no interest in seeing this movie whatsoever x

[ThunderPeel2001]

It definitely wasn't scary, but I'm not sure it was trying to be :-/ The original book isn't particularly scary.

[Nachimir]

It might be the fault of the book, but still: It's a bad-to-middling film with some very good scenes.

It doesn't help my opinion that this was the second time I'd ever been to an IMAX screen, and I expected it to be… different. The first one I went to was eight stories high, this one was (I learned later) the standard size and felt a lot like going to the cinema normally does. I don't think it affected the film itself by much, but it definitely primed me with an anticlimax.

[Argobot]

I read a review somewhere (I wish I could remember where) that claimed the 48fps combined with the 3-D give the movie an uncomfortably fake-look. Everything is so sharp and in focus, that it's really clear what you're watching is a movie and it's hard to not the artifice of the whole experience.

The reviews are certainly disheartening, especially the comparisons that people are making between Lucas and his prequels to Jackson and this movie. I'm really hoping that some of the negativity is just coming from the expected backlash that arises when the latest installment of a popular movie series appears (see the reactions to The Dark Knight Rises for a good example of how backlash really drives opinion) and that the movie isn't as cataclysmically bad as some people are claiming.

[ThunderPeel2001]

I read a review somewhere (I wish I could remember where) that claimed the 48fps combined with the 3-D give the movie an uncomfortably fake-look. Everything is so sharp and in focus, that it's really clear what you're watching is a movie and it's hard to not the artifice of the whole experience.

The reviews are certainly disheartening, especially the comparisons that people are making between Lucas and his prequels to Jackson and this movie. I'm really hoping that some of the negativity is just coming from the expected backlash that arises when the latest installment of a popular movie series appears (see the reactions to The Dark Knight Rises for a good example of how backlash really drives opinion) and that the movie isn't as cataclysmically bad as some people are claiming.

It's nothing to do with the 3D, it's just the 48fps by itself... It has pros and cons, as we've all mentioned. It certainly won't be to everyone's tastes, but seeing how hardly anyone is showing it in 48fps, it's unlikely to affect many people anyway.

Not sure what you mean about "cataclysmically bad". Are people really describing it like that...? Weird. Also, I don't think it's fair for people to compare The Hobbit to the Phantom Menace -- It's a separate story that just happens to feature the some of the same characters, for one thing. (Honestly, if you go and watch it expecting to be as disappointed as people were in The Phantom Menace, you'll probably be pleasantly surprised.)

It might be the fault of the book, but still: It's a bad-to-middling film with some very good scenes.

Yep, but it puts the filmmakers in a difficult spot, I guess. Stay true to the source, or improve on it. I think they managed to do both, to be honest, although I acknowledge it has problems.

[Argobot]

Isn't that what the Star Wars prequels were, a separate story with some of the same characters?

I think people are making the comparison because both are examples of a director returning to the same universe with less than stellar results. I heard the same comparison after Prometheus came out ( a movie I enjoyed but can admit had some serious flaws). Do I think it's fair to compare The Hobbit to the prequels? Probably not, but that's what some people are doing. My point is that these negative reviews might be slightly overblown and I will be watching this movie with an optimistic view of its quality.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Isn't that what the Star Wars prequels were, a separate story with some of the same characters?

The first Star Wars movie (the one from 1977) was part IV of a bigger story -- and now that the prequels have been made, they do have a direct impact on those original stories. It's no longer about Luke Skywalker, all six films tell the story of Annakin. But I digress.

I hope you enjoy The Hobbit when you watch it! I do think any reviews that claim it's "cataclysmically bad" should be ignored. At worst, I think it's "meh".

[Frenetic Pony]

Gonna!

[Ben X]

It's aimed at a younger audience than Lord of the Rings (like the book itself), so that might explain some of Ben's problems with it.

Not really. I'm a big fan of a lot of children's films, but this has the problems with pacing and tone whomever it's aimed at. Like I said, I wish Jackson had aimed it more at kids.

I forgot to say that Freeman and most of the actors are very good, and most of the CG characters look great (although I suspect the lead orc will soon feel very I Am Legend).

[ThunderPeel2001]

Not really. I'm a big fan of a lot of children's films, but this has the problems with pacing and tone whomever it's aimed at. Like I said, I wish Jackson had aimed it more at kids.

I forgot to say that Freeman and most of the actors are very good, and most of the CG characters look great (although I suspect the lead orc will soon feel very I Am Legend).

Fair enough. It was just a vague idea that some of your issues may have stemmed from that. I know that you were mostly unhappy with the pacing. I do think there's a better (and shorter) cut waiting to be made by someone....

[Frenetic Pony]

What a friggen huge movie! Wasn't bothered by the high FPS at all, kind of feel like anyone that was is terribly old and has their brain encrusted. Not that it's better necessarily, but it's not like it's worse in any way. Can definitely say what I was missing, and that's any eyestrain whatsoever from the 3D, which normally I get some. It's never really bothersome, but it's nice not to have any at all.

And yeah, there's pacing issues. "Get on with it!" Indeed once they leave Rivendell they finally DO get on with it. Full on, Pirates of the Carribean style crazy action. It's not exactly what I was expecting, not the gravitas that was there from LOTR. Even when it really could have used some more seriousness and gravity it wasn't there, such as Bilbo getting lost in the mountain.

But the pacing issues range beyond just "getting on with it". "Rising action" is a classic pacing technique. You start off, maybe with a bang to get us started, but then calm down quickly to introduce characters. You spend time to get to know and care about them, all while slowly raising the action and stakes, introducing us to the idea that the characters are in danger, that they're getting into ever more trouble, that something big is building. When the climax hits you're right there with the characters all along the way. You care about them, you care about the conflict, everything's come together.

Star Wars: A New Hope is the absolute, pitch, note for note perfect example of this. It's also the best edited movie I've ever seen, so obviously not doable all the time, but it's still something to keep in mind. The Hobbit, as a book, is quite similar in structure. Which is why the movie goes off course when Jackson tries to become his own author rather than hewing more closely to what Tolkien wrote. Were thrown into jarringly huge battle scenes on occasion, for which we have little context or character attachment, seemingly simply because it's cool.

When you see Thorin walking over to challenge the (Rather underwhelming) pale orc it's still a lot more involving than the entire battle scene that introduced the conflict, which is just thrown at you as an "oh by the way..."

Of course all this is Jackson's main weakness to begin with, one he seems unable to overcome. Sure, everything's embellished and huge and over the top, but that's not necessarily bad. There's some awkward close ups and other shots. But his real problem is he doesn't know how to pace or build things well enough. I still enjoyed it. It's absolutely gorgeous to look at, the ending third is almost pure fun, the soundtrack is great, I'll happily go see the next movie. But Jackson is best at adapting others work, and preferably not in the cutting room himself.

[Thrik]

Saw it.

I went in with tempered expectations after seeing the comments about it being a bit weirdly paced and stuff, and I can honestly say that it delighted me to watch. It's the same Middle Earth we all loved in Lord of the Rings, but from a completely different perspective. For those who didn't read the books like me it's great discovering more about characters like Gandalf and the other wizards I had very little idea even existed, as well as helping to provide a bit of foundation for the LOTR to sit on (although I suspect some of this was exaggerated beyond what the book described).

Seeing some old characters return was simply lovely. I knew of some, not of others — highly recommended to go in as blind as possible so you can enjoy the same surprises. And all the new cast members are superb, the Dwarf leader dude is a terrific actor who just 5 or so years ago only really featured in shitty UK dramas. What a career break that he totally deserves. Generally great acting all round though, and I was genuinely taken aback to see so much performance from beastly creatures I just assumed were too unintelligent to speak.

Great film, but don't go in expecting a standalone epic masterpiece like LOTR. The Hobbit simply isn't a story that grand in scope, although what happens is still awesome. I'd say if anything it's a movie that gives the smaller aspects of Middle Earth more life, the smaller battles and creatures that go unnoticed in the grand world-ending dramatics of LOTR.

On a technical note, when I first started watching it I was really distracted by the slow pans of Middle Earth's landscapes. I was watching in a regular 24 FPS 2D cinema screen, and it seemed like something was off with the pans — I couldn't focus my eyes on them properly. Maybe it's because the shutter speed used for shooting is different when shooting at 48 FPS, so when you half the frame rate you end up with a bit of a mess? Or maybe I just wasn't used to it, I don't know. I can't remember it bothering me later in the film so maybe it was just that.

[gregbrown]

On a technical note, when I first started watching it I was really distracted by the slow pans of Middle Earth's landscapes. I was watching in a regular 24 FPS 2D cinema screen, and it seemed like something was off with the pans — I couldn't focus my eyes on them properly. Maybe it's because the shutter speed used for shooting is different when shooting at 48 FPS, so when you half the frame rate you end up with a bit of a mess? Or maybe I just wasn't used to it, I don't know. I can't remember it bothering me later in the film so maybe it was just that.

That's a good observation, because the shutter speed they used was a compromise between the 1/48th typically used by 24 fps cinema, and the 1/96th you'd expect them to use with 48 fps cinema. They ended up going with 1/72nd which means it's a bit more "fluid" than you'd expect at 48 fps, and a bit choppier than you'd expect when they remove half the frames for 24 fps.

I'd be very interested to see what actually using 1/96th at 48 fps looks like, and see if that tempers the complaints somewhat. (I'm personally very skeptical of the tech, but won't get an opportunity to see it for myself for The Hobbit, most likely. )

[brkl]

Heh, I was thinking the opposite: from the complaints I've heard, I was thinking it's the change in shutter speed that's the problem. Keeping it at 1/48 could have helped. But I thought 48 fps was just spiffy, so I don't have a full understanding of what bothered people about it. My mom and dad didn't have any trouble either.

[Erkki]

Saw it as well. Liked it, although it seemed to try to make it more epic than the book was.

Didn't notice the difference HFR brings much, except in some chase scenes, where it did seem more fluid than what I'd usually expect.

[James]

I really enjoyed it. It certainly has its faults, but I ended up seeing it three times, partly because of different groups of friends and relatives wanting to see it, and partly because I was curious to see every version my local cinema is offering: IMAX 3D, 2D, and (non-IMAX) HFR 3D. That was pretty silly on my part – there are many films I've seen only once that deserve repeat viewing more than The Hobbit – but I had a good time. In part, I just like to spend time in Jackson's version of Middle-earth. Perhaps that's why I actually prefer the earlier, slower portion of the film, placing me pretty much entirely at odds with most of the other opinions I've heard about the pacing. It did need to pick up at some point, of course, but, as somebody already pointed out, once it does, it's kind of relentless. I got particularly fed up with the numerous falling sequences. Several of them look like everyone should have died, and that they didn't makes it seem very much like a roller coaster, and undermines any sense of risk the scene might have had. I guess that's madcap kids' adventure film stuff, but in this context it was unsatisfying for me.

Regarding the HFR, some shots did seem like they were in fast-motion to me, particularly at the beginning, which was incredibly frustrating because I knew that the actual action wasn't playing out any faster, and my eyes are receiving more images than that per second in my everyday life. Does putting a screen around the action really make that much of a difference?

I found that camera motions triggered that sensation the most, particularly if there was also a moving object in the frame. I'm not entirely sure why that would be, but I guess at least there's some reason why I'd be accustomed to camera movements in a particular framerate. Anyway, it did make those big sweeping shots clearer, although unfortunately I arrived late and missed the one in that huge cavernous throne room at the beginning that particularly stood out to me the previous two times. As I remember it, it's this very grand and conspicuous flight down into the mines, and you know it's meant to be impressive, but you're not able to focus on anything because it's all slightly blurry, and leaves you feeling uneasy.

Anyway, I'm mainly saying things that have already been said in this thread, so I'll add two more uninteresting thoughts: the art design was wonderful, and Martin Freeman makes a more hobbity hobbit than Elijah Wood did. Also, I prefer the more cartoonish looking heavy-on-the-facial-prosthetics dwarves, because they look like dwarves all the time rather than just when you can compare their size against someone, whereas my nephew prefers Fili and Kili, because he's seven and doesn't know anything about anything.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Heh, I was thinking the opposite: from the complaints I've heard, I was thinking it's the change in shutter speed that's the problem. Keeping it at 1/48 could have helped. But I thought 48 fps was just spiffy, so I don't have a full understanding of what bothered people about it. My mom and dad didn't have any trouble either.

Apparently a lot of the complaints were media BS. At least according to Jackson. I think the 48fps 3D was the clearest, least painful, 3D I've ever watched.