Best RM17 I've spend for 3D movie since Avatar

I heard the book's actually quite short? And it's only ONE book. Why didn't they make LOTR 9 movies then?

coz 3 is enuff?

It's long? I almost felt sad when they showed the eye but still a great closure for part 1.

Yes. It's long. Too long for my taste. Much of the scenes have little or no relevance to the story. I shall re-count what I deem to be unnecessary in the movie:

trying to book 48fps at Pyramid.
which shud i buy? EIMAX3D Premium?

Don't select IMAX 3D, select normal 3D.

this 1?
E-3DXM Twn Incl Glass48

This post has been edited by ragk: Dec 18 2012, 04:10 PM

Yup, that one. It will include the disposable 3D glasses.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Wow... how to review this.

Watched this on Sunday, in 3D...

After watching Lord Of The Ring, Return of the King, I really REALLY wanted to see The Hobbit, just to be complete.

After hearing all the drama, related to the copyright, the changes in director, and now have watched the first of the three movie, I am... underwhelm....

Don't get me wrong, it is beautifully shot! Nostalgia galore, and hence there lays the problem, there really isn't enough story to justify 3 MOVIES!!!!

He spread thing out, to the point of stupor...

Alright, he extracted information from the compendium, and also, that is the problem. It is compendium, which means additional information, NOT story....



Pacing is an issue. When action happens, it is NOTHING but, and when things slow down, they slow down to a stupor...

One thing I would like to add though, the "music" in this movie, is actually an improvement over The Lord of the Ring trilogy, which is a good thing!!

I'm a little concern for part 2 and 3...

My Two Sen

This post has been edited by Mov_freak: Dec 18 2012, 04:37 PM

thanks.

Hope they'll be The Silmarillion & The Children of Hurin after this.

Thank you! Finally! Someone who feels the same as I did. It's too long!

I think the scene with Galadriel, Saruman, Elrond & Gandalf is all Peter Jackson and not Tolkien.

As with the meme:

Padding! Padding everywhere!

It was a little bored before they left the shire but I have no problems with pacing after that. It feels slow because we all know they won't reached the dragon hahaha but it isn't boring. This is even slower than Fellowship imo and there is simply no sense of urgency



I doubt part 2 and part 3 will be slow...cause either one part will kill the dragon and the other part is the battle of five armies.

Hi shootkk/soitsuagain

Nice to know there are people out there that kinda/sorta feel the same way about the movie.

Thanks you soitsuagain for bringing up Randergast, the brown wizard.

Would be interesting if the two blues make an appearance in the 2nd and 3rd (ala Peter Jackson, tempering)

Would be nice if things pick up a bit in the 2nd and 3rd...

I think I had expressed myself poorly in my review in a sense that when I was watching LOTR, 1, 2 and 3, there were alot of thing I haven't seen in movies before, and it was like, one wow after the next.

While watching The Hobbit, I keep getting the "been there" and "done that" feeling!!

The sense of "wonderment" in a sense was gone...

That, in essence was what I miss, in The Hobbit...

My Addendum...

This post has been edited by Mov_freak: Dec 18 2012, 07:16 PM

Pretty fun times at the theater. About a much fun as The Avengers, I'd say, maybe even slightly more so. I find it hard to believe people go gaga over that but not this. To me they are cut from the same cloth- same awe, similar problems.

Really liked the 48fps, made the 3D a lot better, though I do think it makes your eyes strain more, having to process fake 3D at twice the frequency.

No, the White Council meeting is by Tolkien himself. It was mentioned by Gandalf either in LOTR or in the appendices, in relation to the corruption of Saruman. (Saruman was leading the Council, and decided not to act against Dol Guldur while also trying to find the One Ring himself.)

---

Added on December 18, 2012, 9:21 pmIf the 2 blue wizards appear besides just Radagast, then it'll totally be a new characterisation, as PJ will have to create them from scratch. Tolkien did not elaborate much on their fates, just a small throwaway line.

Maybe for you, some parts are familiar because they pass through the same locales? The Shire, Rivendell.....don't forget, it was all brand new when the LOTR movies were new! For me, it's like revisiting Middle-earth so no issues with it

---

Added on December 18, 2012, 9:52 pmRandom likes, dislikes and thoughts :

Likes :
Christopher Lee and Sir Ian back as Saruman and Gandalf!
Scenes of how Thorin's Oakenshield nickname came about, and the Dwarven/Goblin war.
Glamdring/Orcrist! Sting!
Riddles in the Dark! Great scene between Bilbo and Gollum.
Seeing The Shire and Rivendell again.
Elrond being jolly! LOL, I didn't really like Hugo Weaving in LOTR, too much like Agent Smith.
The Dwarven Company, nice camaderie there.
Small references that reinforce the feel of the movie/world; the Witch-King of Angmar, Swords from Gondolin, the Istari.

Dislikes :
Stone giants...what was the point?
Radagast going round and round with the Wargs...the scene felt draggy.
Azog popping up and yelling....Chase Chase them! After a while, it felt like the Coyote and Road Runner.


This post has been edited by axoloke: Dec 18 2012, 09:52 PM

I did not expect to be wowed again by the sweeping scenery shots. We've already seen that. They were beautifully shot and is appreciated but they have lost their novelty and I'm ok with that.

What I am not ok with is how PJ thought he could get away with making 3 movies with such lean materials. Draggy dialogue scenes and action scenes that are not plot relevant does not make a movie great.

I am appalled when after 30 minutes of the movie opening the story had not even started proper. We are still seeing the old Bilbo. That's time wasted. Then when we see the dwarves, we are treated to a long, messy dinner and a silly dish tossing stunt. More time wasted. I think it was around the 1 hour mark before the young Bilbo even got out his front door!

Then there was Radagast the brown time waster and the stone giants rock 'em, sock 'em match interlude.

PJ could picked up the pace and brought us right to base of the Lonely Mountain before he ended the first movie and then wrapped it all up in the next movie. 6 hours. That would have been miles better.

He could have done away with all the doom and gloom foreshadowing about Sauron coming back with draggy council scenes. Just a little mention of it would have sufficed. This is The Hobbit anyway. Not the LOTR. Should have been much lighter in mood. PJ should not have resurrected Azog but because he wanted the movie to be 3 hours long and only tell half the tale, he needed a villain to up the tension or the viewers would have been bored stiff!

That's is what PJ did wrong. He thought he could pull a fast one on his viewers. He thought wrong.

This post has been edited by shootkk: Dec 18 2012, 11:20 PM

I can never forget this:


...when the choir kicks in, 1:44, goosebumps!

And... *drum rolls*, my absolute favorite that glued me to my seat after RotK was over:



The credits had the characters in sketch form. Such a beautiful ending. The end credits itself deserved an award! Incredible lyrics, "And all will turn, to silver glass..." (as uttered in the film).

I wasn't here in the forums back in 2003. If I was, I would be gushing about RotK for pages on end. Back in the days, I only saw one or two films a year.

Then why isn't one movie enough for this one? Because LOTR is not as epic?