# The Hobbit



## Tigercougar (Dec 14, 2012)

I'm not even interested in seeing this (I just don't like extremely lengthy movies) but I'm surprised there isn't a thread about it here. Too bad it's so long, cause from the trailer it looks like a fun fantasy that people of all ages can enjoy. Who on this board will see it? Do you think breaking it down into three films is a good idea?


----------



## Namba (Dec 14, 2012)

Well, what Peter Jackson wanted to do was take advantage of this opportunity to make another movie by adding in not only the prequel but also the appendixes, which go on for several books and further the story. He was originally just going to split it into two parts but since this is going to be the last time he's going to be able to do something with the series, he figured he may as well put in some history along with the story, which I think is a brilliant idea. Peter Jackson is a genius director and did such a fantastic job with the trilogy that I have high hopes for this next movie trilogy.

And yes, I already almost know for certain I'm actually going to see Part 1 at least twice; once with the family and another time on a movie date.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 14, 2012)

I don't mind lengthy movies, as long as they do a half-decent job of entertaining me. I loved the LotR books, the Hobbit, and the movies, so I'll probably like the Hobbit movies (as much as I hate having to pay $~30 to see the whole thing). Despite how harsh I am on music, I'm the opposite on movies xD I've seen so many terrible ones.


----------



## future4 (Dec 14, 2012)

I'm pretty excited to see it. I really dig the whole Tolkien's world, and I think the Hobbit movie will be another great thing that's come from it. I don't really mind them breaking it into three parts as long as there's development and such in them. Plus, I'm interested in Seeing what else Jackson has put in them.


----------



## peppygrowlithe (Dec 14, 2012)

It was pretty good, though going to midnight showings of three hour movies... Dunno if I'm gonna do that again. X)


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 14, 2012)

Tigercougar said:


> I'm not even interested in seeing this (I just don't like extremely lengthy movies) but I'm surprised there isn't a thread about it here. Too bad it's so long, cause from the trailer it looks like a fun fantasy that people of all ages can enjoy. Who on this board will see it? Do you think breaking it down into three films is a good idea?



This was back in July that we discussed it. http://forums.furaffinity.net/threads/122798-The-Hobbit-to-be-a-trilogy?highlight=hobbit


----------



## VGmaster9 (Dec 20, 2012)

Once this is done, I hope Jackson also does the Silmarillion. He's probably the only person that can make a good series out of that.


----------



## Butters Shikkon (Dec 20, 2012)

VGmaster9 said:


> Once this is done, I hope Jackson also does the Silmarillion. He's probably the only person that can make a good series out of that.



I could see making 3 movies out of the Simarillion more than this one actually. :C Plus its more badass!!


----------



## Tigercougar (Dec 20, 2012)

If any of you guys see the 48fps version please share what you think. I'm so intrigued about the technology I ALMOST want to catch an hour of the film just to see it for myself.


----------



## Avlenna (Dec 20, 2012)

peppygrowlithe said:


> It was pretty good, though going to midnight showings of three hour movies... Dunno if I'm gonna do that again. X)



I'll have to agree with the midnight showing of a three hour movie idea.  
It was a good movie, however, they could've left some things out and just made one movie out of the planned three.  That's my opinion though.  I still found it to be good though.  I recommend seeing it.


----------



## Arshes Nei (Dec 20, 2012)

From what I understand, many weren't happy with the 48 FPS version. I guess it's like seeing porn on BluRay there's a certain point where you don't want *that* many details. Closeups of actors got disturbing, and where CG blended in better on lower res, stuck out on the 48fps version.


----------



## VGmaster9 (Dec 21, 2012)

Butterflygoddess said:


> I could see making 3 movies out of the Simarillion more than this one actually. :C Plus its more badass!!



Well there are four major parts in the book, so four movies would be more necessary. However, they'd all need to be as long as the 1968 War & Peace movie, if not a bit longer (it's almost 500 minutes long).


----------



## Captain Howdy (Dec 21, 2012)

The best I've seen the 48 FPS described as, is that it basically removes the post-production veneer - The gloss and final touches that movies get pushed back months, if not a _year_ or more to finish - Eliminated by 48FPS/HFR.


----------



## Fernin (Dec 22, 2012)

I for one have become a BIG fan of the 48fps playback, watching it makes it very clear how much detail of motion is lost in normal film. It makes everything very crisp and very clear. It feels more natural in regards to the 3D aspect I feel it'll become the standard simply because it's the first 3d movie I've seen where I didn't have an ounce of eye strain. All in all it's fantastic technology.


----------



## Aden (Dec 23, 2012)

Just coming back from seeing it in imax; what a great job Jackson did (again). It also eased into the ending real nice so I wasn't quite so disappointed when it ended, unlike the first two films of the LotR trilogy

Also, we require far more Andy Serkis


----------



## Fernin (Dec 23, 2012)

Aden said:


> Just coming back from seeing it in imax; what a great job Jackson did (again). It also eased into the ending real nice so I wasn't quite so disappointed when it ended, unlike the first two films of the LotR trilogy
> 
> Also, we require far more Andy Serkis


I was actually mad as hell about the ending. Not because it was poorly done or timed or anything, but because I REALLY wanted to see the show down with the spiders, as it's my favorite part of the book. And that section is pretty much right where they ended. XD


----------



## GhostWolf (Dec 23, 2012)

Up to now the only Hobbit thing I ever seen was the animated special they made back in the 1970s and it's 70 minutes long. From what I seen of the trailers I am actually excited to see more of the original story. I heard a radio version recently and it's way shorter than what the films are going be at 3 hours and give the first film is over 2. I can't wait to see what I missed.


----------



## Aleu (Dec 23, 2012)

Tigercougar said:


> If any of you guys see the 48fps version please share what you think. I'm so intrigued about the technology I ALMOST want to catch an hour of the film just to see it for myself.



Just fucking see it already. It's worth your money even if you know nothing of the story. Hell, my friend had no interest and she went to see it then raved about it (then ranted there's not much shown of Smaug).


----------



## Ames (Dec 23, 2012)

Saw it yesterday in 3D imax, quite enjoyed it.  I do feel like they could've done the ending better, though.  It felt a little half-assed.

Also was anybody else annoyed with how the tiaras on the elves kept shifting about?  Like one scene they would be shifted to the left, and a moment later they would be perfectly centered.  Maybe I'm just OCD but it bugged the hell out of me.


----------



## Azure (Dec 23, 2012)

Saw it, was pissed at the nonstandard story bullshittery. Azog is long dead by the time Thorin and Co make for the Lonely Mountain. Bolg, his son, isn't seen until the very end of the movie at the battle of the five armies. There is no reason for this movie to be more than 2 films long, 3 is really pushing it. And it didn't even get to any of the JUICY BITS. Besides Gollum. Though he did a fairly good job of not rushing it and keeping to the book, it deviated enough to make me dissappoint. That and there is absolutely no motivation contained in the movie for Bilbo to be going on that adventure. He just sort of wakes up after being quite pissed at everydwarf, and suddenly decides to go on.


----------



## DragonFU (Dec 23, 2012)

I've been a fan of the Hobbit my whole life though I never really got into LOTR. Tolkien wrote the Hobbit prior to LOTR at a time when LOTR wasn't a thought in his head. This mostly affects Riddles in the Dark where Gollum never used to be a hobbit and the ring wasn't special beyond invisibility. The Hobbit is like a folky personal adventure but LOTR is a war to save the world and I have a preference for the former, where it's not a constant brawl. Anyway, I'll see the movie when the theaters are less packed (nothing is worth being around that many people), I'll enjoy it but still be bitter that the book, after LOTR changes, is further changed so people unfamiliar with it see it as a story made after LOTR - just to tell more about LOTR, including characters who shouldn't be there just for the sake of fan service. He changed the Hobbit to fit with LOTR after the first couple editions so I can't say I read the original story, I'm kind of being grumpy for nothing. I just like the idea of Gollum being a cave monster of riddles rather than a zombie hobbit, as well as other factors like the trolls. Even though the Rankin Bass animated movie leaves out many parts, I'm a huge fan of it and the music, I own the album and art books, blah blah.


----------

