So what you're saying is you liked me until I had ONE different opinion on a film? Honestly that's said. It's just a movie buddy, there are bigger things in life. I've given my HONEST opinion on how I feel for every film I've reviewed this year. If I have flaws in a film, I mention them.
I'm only going to comment once on this video. John and I both knew that posting a video on our honest opinions on a film with as much of a fanbase as The Hobbit would garner much hate. I'm only going to say this once. This is just our opinion of a movie. There's a lot of real, scary shit going on in the world today that matters. Get angry about that stuff, do something about that. Don't be that person that decides a persons character based off their opinion on a movie. That, my friends, is low.
I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan and The Hobbit disappointed so much. I think the more you are a fan of the originals, the more The Hobbit will disappoint you.
Should have been two movies. Pushing it to three was a huge mistake. Also they did go overboard with the CGI. The escape from the goblin city was like watching a video game cut scene. It was generally enjoyable, but way short of what it could have been.
FINALLY I hear someone else complain about Azog. Everyone was saying he's such a badass villain, I can't take him seriously because he's so animated >.
In the book the brown wizard is mentioned once by Gandalf. The thing about the book is that Gandalf disappears a lot to go do his own thing but as the reader we are left out, in knowing what that is. I thought it was interesting and cool that they put in the movie, all these things Gandalf was doing while not with the dwarfs and how it leads up to LOTR. I feel the brown wizard in the Hobbit was not important to the main plot but is important in the sense leading to LOTR. The Brown wizard is the first to witness darkness and evil things inhabiting areas they normally wouldn't. He finds the undead sword and presents it to Gandalf. Brown wizard tells Gandalf of the necromancer who is Sauron. It makes sense when Gandalf is meeting with Galadriel and Saruman. Saruman totally discredits Gandalf's discoveries because the source came from the Brown wizard, who has a reputation of tripping on mushrooms. However every LOTR fan knows Saruman helped bring back Sauron. There fore its understandable why he would find any reason to discredit anything the brown wizard had been noticing. So I feel the Brown wizard's purpose is 1: A Watch guard for the land. 2: Inform Gandalf of any potential dangers in not specifically Sauron. 3: Be a character who is discreditable. This way Gandalf really isn't allowed to investigate the situation anymore, leaving Saruman the privacy to summon Sauron back which leads to LOTR. Perhaps without the Brown Wizard's character, if Gandalf had been the one in his place to first witness all the darkness lurking out, Gandalf would have fought more with Saruman about the situation and defeat Saruman and Sauron before they are even a problem. But then we wouldn't have LOTR. I also liked how they spiced up some scenes, such as the barrel scene. If it was made according to the book then it would be a boring 2 week journey of the dwarfs floating on the river cramped into the barrels. Good spice up with some action in the movie.
Funny thing, a lot of this film actually wasn't in the book. Like the main villain Orc. Totally made him up, he's mentioned once in a big description chapter about Erebor's past. Really, the flaw with this movie is that it was the opposite of being faithful - it packed the story full of junk just to make more money. I don't even think Radagast was in it...
To be fair, they "made up" very little. A lot of that material came from other Tolkein writings but wasn't in the book. The only really made up element was Evangeline Lilly's character in the next two movies.
Little late on this one but here are my humble thoughts: 1. Saw it in both 48 frames per second and 24. Didn't really bother me either way, people just want something to complain about and Jackson made the mistake of giving them something. 2. The book is short, the story is not. The "Unfinished Tales" is a huge part of the movie script and frankly I don't mind it. 3. The dwarves are supposed to be disorientating (there are fucking thirteen of them) and Bilbo is supposed to come off as an asshole. 4. Read the Silmarillion and the Unfinished Tales, great world building and good stories to bridge the gaps between the movies. 5. Radoghast is necessary to the flow of the next two movies, he is instrumental in the storyline of Gandalf and the sub-plot of Sauron's return as the wraith-like figure. There is much more going on than you think and frankly the story will pick up during the next two movies. The problem that this movie faced was the amount of characters that they had to introduce in a very short time and honestly I would like to see an extended version with more character and world-building. 6. The rabbits and the sled kept the orcs away and allowed Thorin and Company to escape... Did you watch the same fucking movie as me? Sure it was silly, but it adds character Radoghast, just because you don't like his design, the rabbits were in the movie for a reason. My last point is specifically aimed at Chris. Chris, you loved Prometheus, you wanted to know more about the plot and world behind it and made a twenty minute video outlining your thoughts on the movie. Take a step back and look at the story as it stands: Thorin and Company are being chased across middle earth by Azog, who is under orders from the wraith (Sauron) to kill Thorin and destroy the dwarven kingdom forever to help set up for his return. Radoghast and Gandalf are about to set out to uncover the power behind Azog and his orcs and call for help from the elven kingdoms and the other dwarf kingdoms. Without establishing this on-screen (as your average movie-goer has the intellectual capacity of a speak and spell) the audience would feel completely confused when a huge goddamn army of orcs comes out of nowhere at the end of Act 2 and leads to a huge battle. This is one of my biggest problems with the original book, there is no adequately-explained reason as to why exactly this army of goblins comes out of the mountains besides some very very small hints that you would miss if you didn't read every line. All of these changes are necessary to the flow and pacing of the plot, the same pattern was used in Fellowship - Long opening to establish main characters - Chase scenes to establish intensity - Respite at midway point after hard fight - Big Climactic battle setting up bigger battle later on - End at the next step of the journey. If Jackson did anything wrong, it was make it too much like the Lord of the Rings in pacing. These days I find it difficult to watch movie reviews on the internet because of the overwhelming negative response that great movies get just because the loudest person in the room is yelling at the top of his lungs why he didn't like the movie as he swills beer sitting in his chair like hes the goddamn king of the internet. Thankfully, most of your videos are fairer with their appraisal of movies like Prometheus or The Dark Night Rises or even Skyfall (Which I still cannot believe that people bitch about, seriously, it is a masterpiece of modern cinema with some of the best performances I have seen in recent memory) but on this one, I just think you listened to the unbelievable amount of bullshit that some of these mouth-breathers have been spewing all over the internet over the past year. Do I think this movie is as good as Lord of the Rings? Yes, maybe even better in a few ways. Should it be compared to the Lord of the Rings? No, it is its own story and only a contains a few returning characters, most of which are not at the forefront of the story. Do I believe that this movie deserves any measure of the scorn it has received? Not in the slightest, I am outright disgusted with the amount of negative feedback this movie got. It is well-shot, well-paced, fun, funny, heartwarming, tense, dramatic, large in scope and even manages to throw in a few morals to follow. It's more light hearted and friendly then the dark, no-win situations in the Lord of the Rings. Frankly I believe that the failures of this movie can be attributed to the Group-Think. One loudmouth stands up and shouts that he hates the movie because it looks different than he is used to and then all the other loudmouths join in leading to a group of loudmouths parading through the internet gathering more loudmouths into a veritable snowball of loudmouths (did I say loudmouth enough), this is especially true in the case of "professional" movie reviewers. The lowest I saw the Rotten Tomatoes score drop for this movie was 30% on the "professionals" side. I wanted to stick my arms through my computer screen and smack every reviewer who complained IN THE EXACT SAME 2 SENTENCES about the 48 frames per second... WATCH IT IN 24! However, looking now at the score you will see that 83% of people liked it, that is the silent majority at work, people who had enough respect for a film to go and see it another time if they didn't like the format. Of course, this is my humble opinion, but I, in the very least, have taken time out of my life to properly explain why I disagree with the loudmouths. Now that I have written an essay about this, I will now stay up until 2:00 in the morning writing the two essays that I should have been writing for Psychology and Classics on Monday. Oh joy.
Well. 1. At least for me, 48 fps makes me absolutely nauseous. It's not a "Oh my god this looks bad" feeling, it's more of a "That's too accurate, what the hell, it's... spinning... my eyes hurt..." To be honest, I couldn't even watch it fully the first time. I had to go to see it 24 because I was physically unable to watch it. Yay for motion sickness. 2. ... Okay... 3. I honestly don't mind Bilbo as an "asshole", and I don't know why these guys so dislike it. I didn't even see him as one, he was just someone who didn't know whether he should leave the security of home for new, exciting experiences. I can relate to that. And really, is he just supposed to laugh when other people are destroying his home? I know I wouldn't. The dwarves supposing to be disorienting, well... I don't know. I didn't mind the 13 dwarves, but then again, I didn't CARE about the 13 dwarves. It's a tricky one. 4. No. I'm sorry, but that's an invalid argument to support a movie (unless it's just a suggestion, then alright). NEVER should a book be read to understand a movie. That just means the movie was unable to explain itself clearly enough, which isn't a good thing. 5. I don't mind Radagast, but I don't think they wrote him well. There are such unfunny jokes to him and what he is trying to explain to be important comes out as boring. Is he unnecessary, well. As said, he does give Gandalf information. But that could have been executed differently. They should have written him better or replaced with a better character, that's my thought to it. Also, saying that "Oh but it will get better in the other movies, just wait!" isn't really a strong argument to support this movie. It should be able to stand on its own, or something is rather wrong with it. It had a lot of characters, and they needed more time, I agree with that. But... The Fellowship had a lot of characters, and it worked very nicely... maybe because they used time to introduce the world, Frodo, Gandalf, Bilbo, Sam, Merry and Pippin ALL before Frodo even got the ring? The Hobbit introduces Bilbo and Thorin fantastically, you can get the idea how they are in just few minutes. So... maybe it's the writing, and these two were just so well and strongly written? 6. I think the sled of rabbits was actually pretty cute and nicely thought. But. I also think the scene where he distracts the orchs is irrelevant, because it comes of as... rather boring. Nothing really happens, there's no tension, you're not afraid for Radagast OR the dwarves. It's just "Let me distract the orchs so the story can progress." It's not a funny scene, it's not a scene with tension. It's just there. You stare at it with dead eyes. It's a pointless scene; it doesn't even need to happen for the story. OR like with Radagast, they could have made it better. They could have added tension, or made it actually funny with Radagast. Or remove Radagast and make it stealthy (I think I would have I loved that. I think.). I know you said these movies shouldn't be compared, but I'm doing it anyway: The scene where Nazguls surround Frodo, Sam, Pippin and Merry is much, MUCH more effective than this scene. You feel for the hobbits, while... you don't really feel anything for the dwarves. If this is because the dwarves are disoriented, well, then they should have fixed that. Because it's making the movie pretty quite boring and uninteresting. "The rabbits were in a movie for a reason" is a weak argument (other than that it's there for toys and whatnot merchandise... Do kids play with toys anymore?). They were there because that's how they wrote the scene. They could have wrote it differently, they could have wrote it BETTER. The scene is weak, and shouldn't be defended because "Well, that's how they escaped". You can't defend it like there's NO OTHER WAY to write that scene. 7. (You don't have 7, but I refer to your little chapters to make my comment easier to understand, I hope that's okay).The story still feels to be slightly confusing. Nothing really ties well together. It's such a "Oh, now there's that... Oh that's a thing... Okay... So... They do that... because... ... ... ... Right... Why do they go there again? Wait, why is Gandalf leaving?" When a story is told to you (or preferably, shown to you), you should be able to grasp what's going on. Even if it's metaphorical. I'm a huge Dark Souls fan, so I love when a story is not spoon-fed to you. But the way they told the "side-quest" in the Hobbit comes off as confusing. Even if you get it, you feel like you don't. And even by the end of the 3th movie, I felt unsatisfied. In Lord of the Rings, everything is explained so... easily. It's masterful how much information you get about this fantasy world, and you feel like you understand it *snaps fingers* like that. In the Hobbit, you truly feel like you skipped the previous class and now you're not 100% sure what's going on. Maybe 76-83%, but not 100%. This comes from someone who has not read the books. And as I said before, books shouldn't be read to understand movies. That's just poor story-telling. 7.5 I can't judge the book since I haven't read it. But you compare the movie to Fellowship (movie, I take? And yes, I know you mean the pacing, but hear me out, I think this is important, too). I'd argue that the Hobbit has none of the tension the Fellowship has (Frodo inheriting the ring, Nazgul chases and ambush, Saruman, Mines of Moria, Balrog, Boromir). You could argue that "Yeah but there's not much stuff in the book anyway", but... they already had the nerve to make their own character and change the "fate" of the original characters. They could have made some interesting stuff that was missing. And I'd dare to say the lack of tension also comes from... having less violence and less realism in the movie. The dwarves are essentially super-dwarves, surviving long drops and whatnot, while the broken-bridge jump in Moria (I think the place has more specific name, but I think you get what I mean) alone is more intense than any of the scenes in the Hobbit, because it truly felt like shit could go down (which it eventually did, feeling everything lead up to it, feeling oh so satisfying), they played it as "This is really difficult, concentrate!". In the UJ, the dwarves don't even seem worried or that they should focus on something. As for violence, no one dies in the movie. The only violent scenes are in the flashbacks (which I actually enjoyed), and that's that. When there's no blood, no serious injuries, and the dwarves survive EVERYTHING unharmed, that's... that's where I personally stop caring. In LOTR (and in Star Wars), the near death scenes that feel real and intense make you care, and by killing an important character, you get the sense of mortality. In the Hobbit, there's none of that. Meaning my caring is very low, because I expect them to survive everything. 7.9 I don't know whether to agree with the pacing of LORT or not. I think the pacing is masterful in the Fellowship. But... ... Alright, here's how I feel. I think the Hobbit should have had a steadier pacing (if that makes sense). I think the movie should have gone slower (oh my god, how dare you make it even slower). It could have focused more on the sense of a journey, and leave scenes like Radagast and those stupid ass mountain giant creatures that we never see again or have any relevance to the story. I'm not saying it shouldn't have any scenes, but tossing so many scenes which all feel kinda unrelated, other than "okay we need to get them moving, how do we do that?" makes the film kinda... cartoonish. Since the "side-quest", finding out about Sauron, is important, they could have completely left that for Gandalf, and having more serious, more threating tone to his scenes (they tried this in the 2nd one, having a very, very serious, threat-filled atmosphere with Gandalf and Thorin in the tavern at the very beginning of the movie... and by god, I loved that). Which... is actually what they did in the Fellowship... huh... 8. What? It seems like you close your ears completely for the criticism and label it as "bullshit", no matter how valid it would be. I hope this isn't the case and you were just very heated when you wrote that. 9. What is better than in Lord of the Rings? And why shouldn't it be compared? If something is successful done by the same guy, why couldn't you say "It worked here, but here, here it doesn't"? Isn't comparing the base of doing things better, searching for what works the best? I don't mind if someone goes "I want to do this differently!", but after that people should be able to come in terms with the things they have created, and in some cases, be able to say "Yeah, we were bold and tried to do it differently (or too similarly), and it didn't work..." 10. Really? Is my criticism also "disgusting scorn?" You seem to be so in love with a movie that you just want to bash down the critics without actually stopping and thinking if they have a point. Do you love this movie so much that you're afraid you'll start noticing some issues, and start liking it less? I don't blame you for that. If you want to love this movie to the death, that's your choice, and I'm not going to stop you from doing so. But shouting how every single piece of criticism is bullshit isn't really the way to go, in fact, it just makes you look less... valid. To you, the movie was funny and lighthearted. Good for you. To me, it was boring, tensionless and cartoonish. I don't mind having something to be funny and lighthearted, but I dislike how the realism is absolutely destroyed in this movie. I do think that the movie suffers from unrelated scenes that could be done better, to add more beauty and calmness to the movie, or funniness, or tension. I just dislike the most when I feel like the movie is trying to kill time (like with the mountain giant thingies, so unnecessary). 11. It's kinda ironic how you first use the "snowball" effect thing to explain how critics do it, how they bash a movie and then other critics join their board, yet it's totally okay for you to say "But look, others like this movie, too!". Isn't... that exactly the same as in saying "But look, others dislike this movie, too!"? Aren't you just hopping on their boat? Or waiting for them to hop on your boat? I don't really care about how critics feel about the movie, and I never watch the reviews before going to a movie I really want to see. I think it has some good elements, like the beginning, which is highly criticized for being slow. Fuck, I loved it. I thought the dwarves singing "That's what Bilbo Baggings hates!" was sort of... child-likely innocent and funny, yet it got serious with Thorin, and then calm and almost trance like when they sang "Misty Mountains Cold". That was beautiful, that scene right there was why I love fantasy. I think the movie was still more of a positive experience up to the troll scene, during (mainly when Gandalf rescued them) and after that it started going down. Everything became too convenient, and I just laid back and didn't feel a thing. No tension, no wonder, nothing. The scene with Gollum was alright, although I feel it was a bit too long. But it was positive, and Serkis and Freeman are a delight to watch. Not to mention that the scene where Bilbo chooses to let Gollum live... I teared up. That was beautiful, with the innocence of Shire music playing... Just so, so good. The ending was shot beautifully. It looked nice (on 24... no more 48 for me), with beautiful coloring. To me, it didn't have that much tension, but at least it had a bit more serious tone to it. It wasn't that surprising or special, but it was stronger than the whole goblin or mountain giants or sled chase scenes. 12. Did I take enough time? Or am I still "a loudmouth?" I have a feeling I will always be a loudmouth to you. I really, REALLY hope I'm wrong. Okay, one final note that is just for you: Look. If you love this movie to death, and after reading my points you still think it's masterful and plays nicely with your emotions... That's fine. Honestly, there are few things I love to death, and if the Hobbit is something that will always bring you on a better mood, go ahead and watch it. I actually, extremely sincerely do hope that you still can have such passion for it, and can fully enjoy. I myself long for that feeling. I don't hate the Unexpected Journey, I actually think the first Hobbit is far better than the last one. I just think it has some good, and some bad. And to me, the bad that is in the middle just puts me off, which is why I can't fully enjoy the Hobbit. I mean... I can watch it, and if it comes from the TV, I won't mind watching parts from here and there. But I felt it has some problems that I addressed. I just hope that you could understand that just because people disagree with you doesn't necessarily mean they do it to be nasty, or to whine for the sake of whining, or that they are wrong and you are right and fuck their opinion. We all have our own opinions, and we should be honest about them, just like you are honest about yours. Having the attitude of "Anyone who dislikes/likes this movie is a shithead, and I'm right and you're wrong" isn't really supporting that. If you want others to love this movie, just show the passion you have for it. It should be enough. But... don't bash others just because they address some issues to it. It doesn't look or feel good, and it might actually make other people dislike the movie, as it feels like you're attacking them directly and personally. Sorry for my English and grammar mistakes. Also holy shit, I'm not even sure if RU-vid allows a comment this long. I have a feeling I need to fix it later on (EDIT: called that one). Have a nice day/evening.
+Dr Famine Oh my fucking god, You Tube deleted all of my spaces. Fuck. ... sigh. This should take a while...EDIT: I tried, but it still looks like shit. It's almost morning and I have school, not to mention a fever... I'll edit it tomorrow, if it allows me...
+Judge Fredd I didn't even know it got so many negative views. But I'm glad you're one of the few people who understands some crap. Thank you so much for this comment. Made me feel better about today
Thank You for the Essay, I don't think it is as good as the Lord of the Rings Trilogy but it is great. I mean 10 years after the original trilogy you would expect them to make a shitty cashgrab which it really isn't in most ways.
I just have to say, going back and watching some of these old videos with the flick pick, I absolutely love seeing him talk as himself and not as exaggerated youtube persona. I really wish he talked like this more in newer videos.
You lost me at the George Lucas comparisons. There was quite a lot of location shooting in these films, it was just shot in a higher frame rate. I know Jackson has been using a lot of CGI in the Hobbit films lately, and it shows, but at least he can still co-write a decent script and characters, create vivid and engaging worlds and direct actors to near perfection. I thought the reason why the Star Wars prequels failed was because they failed to touch on those other key aspects not just high use of CGI. Also, Bilblo is really likeable right from the start! He may have been prissy, upper-class fussbudget at first, but he was curious, well-meaning and polite to a fault and he developed and became a brave and resourceful adventurer. I understand most of your complaints (especially the CGI orcs), but this one really sticks out for me.
Oscar Stainton i think peter jackson has become this new george lucas. Three bad prequel that are meandering and forced love relationship and fake visual effects. I personally don’t love the lord of the ring movies as much as others do, the first is 8/10 second 7/10 and the third 8/10 it had some cheese, conveniences throughout the movie, still a little meandering and the visuals doesn’t hold up well ever since I saw it on theaters but not as bad as the hobbit movies.
if it was good for the action sequences, then i think it's safe to assume 48 frames per second should be treated like IMAX, good for action, not so much for anything else
Yeh siege of dol guldur, with galadriel and radagast fighting sauron, and the dwarves entering the mountain would have been the perfect ending to the first movie.
Time has done so much for these movies. 2017 I missed all these characters, and Martin freeman is currently at the top of his game. Long yes, but I feel so different seeing them now
I saw this movie in 4D. That was cool ;) But i have to admit that the main reason to my enjoyment was the fun from the 4D effects, not the story itself... The story was ok...
i completely agree with most of the issues you guys talked about. did you guys go and watch it in 24fps though? i know a lot of people changed their opinion about the movie after they did that.
Also, the start might have been a little slow, but I really enjoyed it because it brought me back to Middle Earth again. There had to be character setup since there were so many dwarves we had to get to know and their relationships. And the scenes that did not really move the plot along were there to connect the film to the events of the Lord of the Rings and to help flesh out the world and characters more.
I just saw it in 24 fps, and I absolutely loved it and am happy with it being part of the Middle-Earth film world. The story's a tiny bit tweaked from the books, and there is more CGI than the Lord of the Rings, but if I had to take marks from it, it would only be the CGI. Acting, music, atmosphere... I loved all of it. What's funny is that this year had me twisted: I enjoyed the Hobbit more than I thought I would, and I was totally disappointed with The Dark Knight Rises. Funny how it works.
'The Hobbit' was my favorite book as a little kid, and 'The Lord of the Rings' was my favorite book as an older kid. Even to this day, I reread the books each year around Thanksgiving (I'm in the middle of LOTR right now). I loved 'The Lord of the Rings' films...they were all excellent (even though Return of the King has 15 endings). I've probably watched the trilogy a dozen times. I saw this first Hobbit movie and thought it was OK, but too drawn out. I think I only saw it twice. I saw the 2nd movie and really hated it. There was way too much filler...scenes that had zero plot/character impact, and were put in the film just to take up time. I only saw it once. I never watched the 3rd movie. I think 'The Hobbit' would have made a lot of sense as a two-part movie, but a trilogy was simply a cash grab. Peter Jackson disappointed me with these films, and because of this I hope he doesn't do anything in Middle-earth again (and I hope one day to see a film adaptation on the story of Beren and Luthien).
I saw this film today for the first time in 48fps 3D IMAX and I loved the film and after a few minutes the 48fps didn't bother me at all. I thought it worked for this film. As far as CGI goes the book requires more CGI than the Lord of The Rings films. I also LOVED the pace of this film. Just my opinion though. -GM
but again, you're telling me it was slow. i didn't even feel it was slow. these guys lowered my bar so much i didn't know what to expect from the first half. when i watched it, it was such a relief you wouldn't believe.
Obviously, you only need 1 movie to show The Hobbit story. But there was three. They picked and chose which pieces of the Silmarillion they wanted to add in to fill the gaps.
You're welcome. In the second or third film, we will see more of this play out as Gandolf decides to visit Dol Goldur to see for himself the looming threat of the Necromancer. This was one of the places Gandolf goes to that is not seen in the book, but will be shown in the film. Also, in the beginning of LOTR, Gandolf explains that he tried to reach Gollum but was too late. I think we will also see this in the film as well to bring the films full circle.
I loved it in 24fps 3D. It had some shortcomings compared to LOTR, but as a fan of the original series I was so rewarding to be re immersed in the world that I am able to look over those and focus on the wonderful cgi, acting performances (which u never talked about here), and the great story telling and imaginative lore.
I completely agree with this review, I am glad you guys kept it real. It was obviously stretched out for no apparent reason and the 48Fps made regular scenes look like the characters had Parkinson's. I guess it was made solely for the book readers and not for the rest of the world. Only a limited amount of Lord of the Ring die hard fans will appreciate all the extra fluff that could have been put on the DVD bonus scenes.
I actually did enjoy the 'extra' stuff involving the Necromancer. Its much better when you actually know that it is setting up Sauron's return and further connect with LoTR. Gives it a slight edge of the impending danger to come that makes sense imo.
Personally, I loved The Hobbit. And this is coming from someone who hasn't read the books and hadn't seen LOTR movies before seeing Hobbit. I can see why people dislike the beginning of this film, but I loved it. It set the tone perfectly, did a great job in explaining the back story, the humor was great, and overall, it gave the movie a sense of warmth and charm. I had a smile on my face throughout those parts. Also, I disagree about the scenes in Rivendell.
Thank you for being honest. I am curious. What was the intended affect for using 48 fps? Was the film just supposed to look cool, or was there another purpose?
I love the film. I watched it in 24 frames so had no problem viewing it. There were some conversations that could have been shorter, but other than that i was ok with the first hour of the film since it did pick up when they left the Shire. The acting was great, the cinematography was breath taking, but the best part in the movie for me was with Gollum. Can't wait to see the dragon next year!
The IP has been diminishing returns since Fellowship. I had thought at the time that Return of the King was the most sharks you could jump in a film, Hobbit proved me wrong
Took the words right out of my mouth. I like the risk that Jackson is taking, by expanding on the book. I mostly agree with Chris' reviews, but not this time, and I think this is why. LOTR is a movie that people across all movie genres can come to love. It's easy to just see the movies without reading the books and suddenly claim to be a fan of this universe. This movie basically says "Are you really a Middle-Earth fan? Let's test that devotion."
I've never read The Hobbit, so I can't argue what was faithful to the book and whatnot, but I've seen the movie twice now and each time it flew by for me. I thought it was paced fine, aside from the elf scene which I agree could have been shortened a bit. I saw it in both 24fps and 48fps. The CGI in 24 looked totally fine to me and I completely bought it, but in 48 I had the exact thought that you guys mentioned, it looked like video game graphics. 24 was definitely a better experience.
Radagast was indeed in the book. He is very briefly mentioned in the The Hobbit (book) and has bigger role in The Fellowship of the Ring (book). The character was actually omitted from Jackson's film adaptation of FOTR. And, remember, Jackson and his screenwriters have taken greatly from the appendices of The Lord of the Rings (book) to expand the story of The Hobbit (film).
I gotta say, I agree with just about every one of your points. The movie was very slow starting off, as though the action wasn't moving forward at all. I've told my friends my problems and I've been getting a lot of crap for it. I laughed when you guys said "Oh, it's in the book!" That's actually the main excuse that all of them have given me for some of the stuff that I thought should have been left out. Glad I'm not alone out there.
Also, I have to disagree with John that the "table" scene in Rivendell didn't move the plot. I loved that scene (which actually wasn't in the book, though apparently did occur) because it actually connects to the events of LOTR. In case you guys didn't know, the "Necromancer" that Gandalf was talking about is Sauron. Again, I'm not trying to be "that guy," but I just wanted to point some things out. btw, I saw it in 24 fps; I probably would've enjoyed it a lot less if I saw it in 48 fps.
exactly! The Hobbit is meant to be a story of events that lead into the Lord of the Rings. However, if i didn't read any of the books, i would have never figured out that the necromancer was sauron. and i can sort of understand why people think it an unnecessary scene.
The wizard was pretty important.. He informed Gandalf of the necromancer which I have read is supposed to be Soron which is pretty important. That was one of the major things that links The Hobbit to LOTR which is pretty awesome. Plus he distracted the orks so they all could escape to the Rivendale passage.
I thought the 48fps was great. It made the entire film seem more like a live action play. I did not see the jerkiness or any of the problems you experienced.
Wil Adams High frame rate is used in videos & games, not in movies. Just like movies have wide angle aspect ratio, it cannot be touched, same with frame rate, 24 fps is standard
Radagast informs them of the Necromancer who will be responsible for raising the Nazgul from the dead. He also brings them the Morgul blade as a warning of what the Necromancer is doing. Also, if you know Tolkien's works, you know that the mysterious Necromancer is actually Sauron. I actually liked those scenes the most in the movie because I loved how everything tied back to LOTR and I loved seeing the small nods to that as an overlying plot even though the dwarf adventure is in the forefront.
I suggest checking it out in 24 fps. I saw it originally like that and thoroughly enjoyed it. Yes, I do think it could have been paced better and some of the visuals could have been fixed. But I do think you guys might like it more, if you view it in 24 fps.
cont. Also, while I understand how you guys felt that the first 90 minutes or so dragged, I might come off as an apologist, but that's sort of how it's supposed to feel. It took me 5 years just to make it past the first 10 pages of The Hobbit for that same reason. Bilbo initially lives a boring, simple life, and I think the fact that the beginning is slow kind of feeds into that. That is what makes the adventure later so great because he is finally leaving his house and the Shire, lol.
This movie felt more cartoony, but I enjoyed that. I remembered that The Hobbit is a children's book, and that it isn't so much one story as many small stories baked into a larger universe. In that mindframe the Radagast expansion also makes a lot of sense. I think some of the action scenes were a bit drawn out though, especially the one with the stone throwers, which comes right before the fight in the caves, which is right before the fight outside the caves. Just endless fighting.
actually, the bluray release will have about 30 minutes extra. I admire the decision to expand it ito 3 films when you actually hear them explain why they chose to do it. I truly don't think it was financially motivated. They just really felt the desire to put in parts of the Appendicies. I know it started slow, but so did LotR if you think about it. Can't really debate the 48fps though... that was a bad choice, especially when added with 3-D
I know this seems like a weird question, but do you guys like The Great Gatsby or The Hobbit better? I like The Great Gatsby so much more, because it was fan service to me, and I love the book, and in that movie, the scenes that were in the book and movie actually worked, because it's such a great book. Not a great movie, but a good one in my opinion.
It was a long time ago I read the book, but the radagast scene I believe was an appendix addition. They don't get scale across very well, but when he visits the ruins, that is actually half way across middle earth, near where the dwarves will be visiting in the next movie. The necromancer is a continuity 'device' to ease the trilogy into LotR.
understood clearly. I read the books as well. But Jackson acquired the added material rights from Tolkien's estate and decided to add them into the film as a way to connect the Hobbit into LOTR in a more constructive way. I agree with Jackson's approach but I can understand why someone would disagree and feel the opposite. It's simply a matter of preference.
The 48 fps looks amazing for action scenes, it the close up shot where the camera moves kinda fast in the normal scenes that makes it seem strange. There is less blur when the camera moves so you pick up more detail, which we are not use to in movies. I think If they just refine it alittle bit it could work really well, and people would get use to it and like it.
First of all I like your videos John and Chris. The thing though I should say is that if you guys haven't seen it in 24fps then go do that seriously. I think if you see it that way you guys might have a different opinion. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and saw no problems with it. I saw it in 24fps which might have had such a good affect on me. Another reviewer had the same opinions as you guys and gave it his second best rating. He saw it in 24fps and thought it was better but kept the rating.
I believe every time a new innovation of technology is introduced the general audience is not going to accept it. "The Hobbit" introduced a technology that I personally liked, I'll explain. 48 fps projects 3D in a new way, better than 24fps, and I think it was bold move to further progress 3D. Like it or not, 3D will head this way because Cameron is projecting "Avatar" sequels in 60fps! I believe it enhanced the experience better than the 24fps. Nor did it degrade the experience.
Ratagast's purpose was to introduce the Necromancer. He's supposed to be odd so that no one takes him seriously so that his perceived threat doesn't appear ominous at first and therefore goes ignored. To me it works for the film and I did not dislike the character and saw his relevance. However, I can also see how he can be disliked by others.
I think people will appreciate the first movie more after the second one comes out, because it's quite clear that the stuff that seemed pointless in this film will actually matter later on, as in the second film clearly Gandalf and Radagast go to the old fortress and then more stuff will happen with the Necromancer a.k.a Sauron, and then probably in the third film that story line will tie with the LotR trilogy.
Same with Bofur, you really got to see and feel his relationship with Bilbo grow, he became one of my favorite dwarfs after Thorin. I feel the same way about the pacing as well, not slow at all
I understand your opinions Chris and John. I love the middle earth universe and as someone who has read my fair share of the other books, I enjoyed everything about this movie! A lot of the things added are in the books and part of the lore and I love everything. I feel like it was made for the fans, and not a general fan.
I don't understand why do people find Radagast so annoying. Yes he is weird, but he didn't annoyed me one bit, i actually liked him a lot. (SPOILERS) My favorite part with Radagast was when he distracted the orcs and wargs, allowing Gandalf and his company to escape. In my opinion that was completely badass! Gandalf told him that his rabbits couldn't outrun the wargs, and Radagast proved him wrong. Radagast the Brown is no Jar Jar Binks! Not by a mile! But that's just me.
i liked the dwarfs, and honestly i really loved this movie, i agree what you said about the first 90 minutes of the movie.. but the final hour really saved the movie for me.. it was so amazing
Still think Jackson did great and needs credit for trying to stay faithful to the books. Maybe there needs to be an action fast pace edited version for those who didn't the book.
The opening sequence and Frodo's cameo were the only moments where I felt were the strongest moments that brought back the LOTR spirit. The first hour was slow, almost draining however it did pick up.
I loved this movie, but I agree with what you both said. The CGI was off and the beginning was tedious. Still, it didn't bother me enough. Maybe because I saw it in 24fps and the film felt like it got going when the prologue finished. From what I remember, Radagast was a minor character early in Fellowship of the Ring. He's mentioned in the Hobbit but never appeared. The only logical reason for Radagast to be in this film is to appease anyone disappointed by his absence from the first film.
I saw the movie in 24 FPS and loved it. You guys should try and see the movie again in 24 FPS and see if that makes a different. I thought everything looked great.
If these movies are going to be an effective trilogy, the characters needed to be strongly established. I really got to know and grow fond of a lot of important characters in the "slow" first hour of this movie. This is great, because in the later movies, they can skip the "slow" bits and get right to the action because we already know and love the characters.
With pleasure John. Radaghast (i think that's how you spell it) was in the movie to set up the fact the the necromancer (a.k.a. Sauron) was coming back. You're welcome.
I actually enjoyed the first two thirds better. The first part of the movie is all about the charaters, the Rivendell part is all about situating this story within the framework of the larger universe, and that's why I think Radagast is in it too. In the book they quickly mention the necromancer, and say that this is too big a task for them, but you don't really understand what rolle he has to play in the greater universe. The book is many adventures after another, I think they captured that
If you read the book 40 years ago and reread it before this film, and brought your young nephews/neices to see it on a Sunday afternoon, bugger the pace it is a film of that 40 year old book and Jackson has it right don't compromise take it slow and easy. A fantastic film, and looking forward to parts 2 & 3 (and keep it as slow in the telling as you like Mr. Jackson)
Don't know if you remember FoTR but the first 90 minutes of that is essentially the same as the Hobbit, so I have no idea what you are complaining about. Also, you didnt have to see it in 48fps, that was a choice. The best advice I can give you is to re-watch in 24fps and then review it again, please.
so many people said it's so slow in the first hour but i really didn't feel any slowdown whatsoever. the first scenes with the dwarves was pretty funny and engaging and not boring at all. and radagast was there to bring to light the oncoming darkness and the discovery of the necromancer. he's not a great character but he might get much better later. and the elves scene was fantastic! it cemented saruman's fright at this unknown force leading to his downfall!
Since Radagast was the overseer of the great forest, he was able to see that it was "sick", which was the point of the scene with the dying porcupine. If Radagast didn't relay the information about the Necromancer to Gandalf, then how would Gandalf, Elrond, Sarumanm and Galdriel know about Sauron's return?
Now I haven't read the books, but just based on what I saw in the movie, 1. Radagast told Gandalf that there was a Necromancer, I have NOT read the books, but I DO know that the Necromancer plays a crucial role in *Ahem* later stories. Therefore, Radagast was important. 2. The only real problem that I had with this movie were the fact that they used CGI for the Goblins and Orcs, when in the originals, those were all actors with makeup, as you said. That kind of took me out of the movie. 3. Thi
I saw this movie in both 24 and 48fps. And I agree with you, 48fps just kills the movie magic. I strongly recommend anyone to see it in 24fps. It is much better that way.
If you didn't notice it probably was in 24 fps. I have watched it in both formats (48 fps and 24 fps) and believe it's and entirely different experience.
It was ridiculous at the beginning with the HFR when older Bilbo was walking around. Looked like someone was pressing FAST FORWARD on a VHS! Got used to it after a while though. Hobbit was highly enjoyable though and the 2 sequels can definitely improve and create for better quality pieces, while also enhancing Unexpected Journey perhaps.
Thanks for giving your honest opinion. Great discussion although I don't agree with everything that was said. Also, the problems with the movie (like Radagast and the long conversations in Rivendell, etc) were not from the book, but from the screenplay written by Peter Jackson and company, the movie in general was badly adapted. Again thanks for the review and keep on doing your thing.
Saw it in 2D. Didnt want the 48fps to mess up the experience. Actually enjoyed it. Maybe because my expectations were lowered by reviewers and such but thought it was a fun time.
i didn't find the beginning slow at all, and you seem to be forgetting this is the 1st part of a whole movie, the parts with radagast and the talk at rivendell become key plot points later. Even without reading the book that should have been made apparent with all the references to mirkwood, dol guldur and things in the east on the way to the lonely mountain if you were paying attention to the dialogue.
I agree and respect your points. I feel like the rushed nature of the production and the sudden dropping of Deltoro as the director hurt the film. But if it hadn't been put into Jacksons hands the movies would've been a gigantic mess.
fun fact: peter jackson said he was influenced to do 48 frames after riding star tours the adventures continue in disneyland which is a 3d simulator attraction based on star wars with alot of action scenes so the flick pick is completely right
After digesting the film for a couple days, I must say that this was a fantastic film, and a fitting return to Middle Earth. I'm starting to think that this film may be a contender for underrated movie of the year.
check it out in 24fps... you will be much more engrossed. i think the radagast scene with his discovery of the necromancer will play much more in the future movies... so thats how it served the story.
I love how people attack Chris for stating his opinion and calling him a bad critic. Really? he's the best youtube critic out there. the way he looks and sees a movie is down right the way it should be seen. And the fact that people are so butthurt that he didn't like this movie makes me laugh. Get over it people. I thought it was a pretty good movie, not great on any terms, and i agree with his criticisms here. This movie should've been one film and had an extended directors cut.
That's weird cause twice he said "Dude, it was in the book!" sarcastically. But both times he was referring to something that wasn't actually in the book.
Fellowship of the Ring, though slow at first, immediately jumped right into the characters and gave a good feel for who everyone is while also getting you involved with what was happening with them. Here, the dwarves show up..then we stay with the dwarves around a table for another 45 minutes with very little forward plot movement.And even after they leave the shire, very little happens that's terribly interesting. It's like you said, it's supposed to get you involved. The Hobbit didn't do that.
also, I am subscribed to both of your channels and I'm going to continue to watch your reviews and what not. Still appreciate this review even if you seem a bit jaded.
I also want to say that while you can definetly overuse CGI and I think they did in parts, Azog (wich has a completely changed/added story in this movie) looks spectacular in my opinion.
Your point about the orcs (both you guys) is a really good one. CGI is really problematic and directors or producers or studios or whoever just won't acknowledge its limitations and drawbacks.
I think those scenes were necessary and the dialogue mattered. However, now that I've seen the LOTR trilogy, I agree that the CGI was a little bit overused in The Hobbit. And the weird wizard didn't bother me at all because his little story arc did lead to something important: the rise of the Necromancer, who's basically Sauron from LOTR. So yeah, I loved The Hobbit. Best movie I've seen this year. Nevertheless, I won't get angry just because you guys had a different opinion than mine :)
If they do that to Radagast then the problem is they would tell instead of show the character. While I'm not a fan of the house scene itself (they could have done something better I'm sure) it at least gives us a sense of the wizard before he shows up out of the blue on a bunny sled. And you at least see Mirkwood a little bit so you have an idea of what he's talking about when he says evil things are gathering at Dol Goldur.
