Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

First they complain about it being 3 films, now this bullshit:

Royal Bitching

I'll be damned if that footage didn't make me feel like I was flying. The exaggerated and depth-increased mountains of New Zealand were majestic.

They can't even find a successful critique for anything relevant. Morons.

The 48 fps is the only complaint I've heard and I agree.

Too much detail results in inferior visual quality.

why do you care?

Originally posted by the ninjak
Too much detail results in inferior visual quality.

That's contradictory...unless your optic receptors aren't as sharp as the average individual's, then it's just too much visual quality.

I care because they are complaining about the very same things that I enjoy about Peter Jackson's methods.

If Peter Jackson is like George Lucas and gives up, it's the critic's fault that I don't get what I like.

critics are simply idiots

I didn't feel the quality of the film suffered, in fact, it was visually stunning in many scenes.

I also didn't go watch it in 3D, cos that shit is lame. "Weee, a 3D spear coming at me against a 2D background! Weeee!" I don't get the appeal.

I find that the 3D screens cause strain for me, but does anybody know if it's possible to do 2D HFR?

Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't feel the quality of the film suffered, in fact, it was visually stunning in many scenes.

I also didn't go watch it in 3D, cos that shit is lame. "Weee, a 3D spear coming at me against a 2D background! Weeee!" I don't get the appeal.

The Hobbit and Avatar's 3D is different from any other film's 3D.

Watch the Hobbit in 3D if you want to know what I mean. If more filmmakers design 3D films because they want them to be more appealing rather than to bring in more profit, you would quickly realize why 3D exists casually in theaters these days.

However, as Gandalf would say, much "has turned to greed and ambition."

Originally posted by Dolos
The Hobbit and Avatar's 3D is different from any other film's 3D.

Watch the Hobbit in 3D if you want to know what I mean. If more filmmakers design 3D films because they want them to be more appealing rather than to bring in more profit, you would quickly realize why 3D exists casually in theaters these days.

However, as Gandalf would say, much "has turned to greed and ambition."

The only thing I remotely enjoyed about Avatar in 3D was the extensive use of stark colors and lightning, the 3D made those more dashing. Otherwise it was more of the '3D object against a 2D background' nonsense which bothers me.

I'll give 3D another shot when the entire film and everything in it is 3D, until then, it's the superior (to me) 2D.

I feel that 3 movies are a bit excessive. It could have been handled in 2 movies. People are just into trilogies I guess. Some scenes seem paced kinda fast as they were kind of blurry for me but I had no complaints about the movie.

Originally posted by BlackZero30x
I had no complaints about the movie.

Good.



Dahhh!!!

Wait, wait, wait, is this split into three parts too?

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Wait, wait, wait, is this split into three parts too?

Yes.

The Hobbit:

An Unexpected Journey 2012

The Desolation of Smaug 2013

There and Back Agan 2014

I haven't seen the movie yet. I'm seeing it on Wednesday. But I always preferred the idea of a two-parter. Part I being to reach the Lonely Mountain, and Part II involving Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies. Seems like those two will be in separate films.

A lot of the critics are comparing it to LOTR, which is a bit unfair for the Hobbit. Though lol, how does the film compare to those who have seen it?

I didn't know what 48 fps looked like before I went in the theater, and I'm none the wiser after I came out. If a higher frame rate changed something, I have no idea what it was.

Movie looked like shit in some parts, imo. There was a visible motion-blur when the camera panned too quickly at certain points, and a lot of the CGI looked rather crummy and obviously CGI (the pale ork and the goblin king being two examples).

I wasn't "wowed" by the CGI in this like I was watching King Kong and LotR, but it isn't horrifically bad either. Though, the motion blurs were causing me physical pain, at 2 in the morning (saw it at midnight).

As for the higher detail/visual quality thing, it's a fact that the more clear the image is the worse the visual quality gets, regarding film effects. Real life objects, such as mountains and people, look great in HD. CGI and props, though, look more obviously like CGI and props.

Did you see it in 48 fps?

Regardless, even in 24 fps some of the effects looked rather fake.

I saw it in the standard fps format, specifically because I'd read in reviews that the 48fps version was so clear that the effects looked like crap.

Iirc, the film was actually filmed in the 48fps format, and just condensed into the standard format; that'd explain why it looked so "meh" in standard.

The Orcs bugged the shit out of me. Years of watching the LotR have made me accustomed to the demonish, real-looking, monsters from the trilogy. The ones in The Hobbit looked like copy-and-paste CGI.

Yeah, I felt the same way about the Goblins. They had a certain impish, gangling look in Fellowship, whereas in this, they're all short and stocky, and fat in some cases.

I also got the feeling while watching this that they used a whole lot less costumed extras in this movie compared to the LotR trilogy. A shame really, considering the Uruks, orks and goblins looked frighteningly real in the trilogy.

edit- Thinking about it, I suppose it's not Jackson's fault, regarding the goblins. It's mmore Tolkeins, since he basically completely changed the goblins mannerisms between The Hobbit and LotR (made the Goblins darker than they were in the Hobbit, basically). He did the same thing with orks, changing from mostly sentient hill-billy's to generic beasts.

People who get butthurt over critics are stupid.

Originally posted by Dolos
The Hobbit and Avatar's 3D is different from any other film's 3D.

Watch the Hobbit in 3D if you want to know what I mean. If more filmmakers design 3D films because they want them to be more appealing rather than to bring in more profit, you would quickly realize why 3D exists casually in theaters these days.

However, as Gandalf would say, much "has turned to greed and ambition."

A strange point to make. It seems as if you're saying that the 3d in The Hobbit is more about making the film more appealing than about greed for money at the box office yet the last time any film was more blatantly about making profit was when they split Kill Bill into two separate films in the UK so they could charge film goers twice but keeping it as a single film elsewhere. If making The Hobbit 3 films isn't entirely about greed then I don't know what is.

Originally posted by NemeBro
People who get butthurt over critics are stupid.

a review from a critic has never swayed my opinion of a movie. I go out of my way to avoid reading most of them for that reason.

Originally posted by Robtard
Yes.

The Hobbit:

An Unexpected Journey 2012

The Desolation of Smaug 2013

There and Back Agan 2014

Honestly, I think I can wait on this then. The Hobbit doesn't have so much going on that it need to be a three-parter, and I'm just going to get annoyed having to do the "to be continued" thing this year and then next. I thought this was just going to be one long film and was looking forward to getting my Smaug on. Guess they weren't showing him in the previews for a different reason.

Originally posted by Ascendancy
Honestly, I think I can wait on this then. The Hobbit doesn't have so much going on that it need to be a three-parter, and I'm just going to get annoyed having to do the "to be continued" thing this year and then next. I thought this was just going to be one long film and was looking forward to getting my Smaug on. Guess they weren't showing him in the previews for a different reason.

You only see Smaug in small segments, a leg, an eye etc in The Hobbit. The second film will be Smaugtastic though.

I need my dragon fix. That was without question what I was wanting to see the most. Boo, hiss!

The series should have just been two films, imo. Two three hour films would have been satisfying.

Six one hour films, imo.

Definately don't think it needed to be 3 movies, maybe 2, and the 48fps not needed either as it made it look like television.

This review says it all for me
The Guardian Film Show - The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on youtube

IMHO peter jackson does not like the source material. I went into this having already looked up all the shit he changed, s oi wasnt thrown for a loop.

I've been reading the Hobbit since i was 5, and peter jackson seemed to have only glanceed at a copy and maybe wrote down some semi important if not good dialouge. Those little moments of banter or amusing lines didn't save this movie.

Jackson has wrote himself into a corner with what is supposed to happen in the second movie. If Smaug is desolated as the title promises, that leaves us withonly talking for the entire 3rd movie until the battle. Which was not long at all in the book.

I think PJ is going to expand more on this necromancer and azog side plots. Both of which only take away from what was otherwise a fantastic adventure tale. Now it seems to be what people who havent read or heard of the hobbit are expting, just some prequel to LOTR. It was actualyl written first lol. PJ is treating it as his own personal scrpit.

This movie dissapointed from a story telling , directorial, and source material aspect. Nevermind the 48 fps, the fact that so many scenes were so dark and hard to focus on was bad enough. When he directed the trilogy(a much darker series to be sure) it was bright and colorful even in Mordor.

You start off slow even for an epic "dragon scene" with elves for some strange reason passing by the lonely mountain with an army just as smaug attacks. Just so thorin can hate elves, as he also conveniently saw them up on a hill as just before they left, and made eye contact with the king.

While my rantings may not disuade you from seeing the hobbit, i dont mind because honestly im going to see them all because i have too. If PJ ruins even more of the magical moments from the book, then he has simply robbed hobbit fans of a descent movie adaptation for however long it is until someone decides to remake it(knowing hollywood i have at least a couple decades to wait).

In Conclusion i just want to voice my opinion that it does not bode well for other epic monets in the book when a short scene involving gandalf lobbing magical pine cone grenades that sparked red, blue, and green. Which lit afire the orcs with magical sparks from the explosions in order to give bilbo and dori more time to climb. Turns into some smoldering pine cones that dont actually kill any orcs, and then sends thorin in to fight an orc that was never there in the books. Who inexplicable crossed the mountains as fast as they did cutting straight through it. In order to have bilbo with no combat experience start blocking seasoned orcs like a baus. Then the eagle was nice enough to pick up thorins sword that he dropped after getting KOed. It just blew my mind how stupid the whole scene was.

Originally posted by omgchos
IMHO peter jackson does not like the source material. I went into this having already looked up all the shit he changed, s oi wasnt thrown for a loop.

I've been reading the Hobbit since i was 5, and peter jackson seemed to have only glanceed at a copy and maybe wrote down some semi important if not good dialouge. Those little moments of banter or amusing lines didn't save this movie.

Jackson has wrote himself into a corner with what is supposed to happen in the second movie. If Smaug is desolated as the title promises, that leaves us withonly talking for the entire 3rd movie until the battle. Which was not long at all in the book.

I think PJ is going to expand more on this necromancer and azog side plots. Both of which only take away from what was otherwise a fantastic adventure tale. Now it seems to be what people who havent read or heard of the hobbit are expting, just some prequel to LOTR. It was actualyl written first lol. PJ is treating it as his own personal scrpit.

This movie dissapointed from a story telling , directorial, and source material aspect. Nevermind the 48 fps, the fact that so many scenes were so dark and hard to focus on was bad enough. When he directed the trilogy(a much darker series to be sure) it was bright and colorful even in Mordor.

You start off slow even for an epic "dragon scene" with elves for some strange reason passing by the lonely mountain with an army just as smaug attacks. Just so thorin can hate elves, as he also conveniently saw them up on a hill as just before they left, and made eye contact with the king.

While my rantings may not disuade you from seeing the hobbit, i dont mind because honestly im going to see them all because i have too. If PJ ruins even more of the magical moments from the book, then he has simply robbed hobbit fans of a descent movie adaptation for however long it is until someone decides to remake it(knowing hollywood i have at least a couple decades to wait).

In Conclusion i just want to voice my opinion that it does not bode well for other epic monets in the book when a short scene involving gandalf lobbing magical pine cone grenades that sparked red, blue, and green. Which lit afire the orcs with magical sparks from the explosions in order to give bilbo and dori more time to climb. Turns into some smoldering pine cones that dont actually kill any orcs, and then sends thorin in to fight an orc that was never there in the books. Who inexplicable crossed the mountains as fast as they did cutting straight through it. In order to have bilbo with no combat experience start blocking seasoned orcs like a baus. Then the eagle was nice enough to pick up thorins sword that he dropped after getting KOed. It just blew my mind how stupid the whole scene was.

This fool be crazy.

Originally posted by Robtard
This fool be crazy.
He said no one had legit complaints, lol.

Originally posted by NemeBro
People who get butthurt over critics are stupid.

My friend will not watch a movie until who reads the critics and looks at the ratings.

I loved it!

.

I can't help but think what a terrible title "An Unexpected Journey" is.

What title would you give it then?

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
I can't help but think what a terrible title "An Unexpected Journey" is.

It was Unexpected for Bilbo, so fits imo.

finally saw this this past weekend.. the cinema was still packed.. i was surprised.. normally movies that are out this long have empty seats.. not the hobbit.. i liked the movie..

And here's Evangeline Lilly as Tauriel for The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v484/Ash_ED/elf_lady_625_zps50f6edae.jpg