The Hobbit

viv1969

viv1969

Suspended / Banned
Messages
29,452
Name
Bat-Frog
Edit My Images
No
Pretty good. Martin Freeman as Bilbo = very good.
Thankfully we saw it in 2D as I think 3D would have made me feel sick.
 
saw it last week. Its much better than I thought it would be.

Freeman steals the show as I knew he would
 
SarahLee said:
Hoping to go and see it on Friday.
Click to expand...

I hope you enjoy it too. I'm sure thier are Tolkien purists who will rip to to shreds and get all worked up about it, but we tend to go to the flicks as escapism and to just try to enjoy a good story, so we really liked it.
 
joescrivens said:
saw it last week. Its much better than I thought it would be.

Freeman steals the show as I knew he would
Click to expand...

Exactly, he's REALLY good isn't he Perfect choice.
 
Seeing it on Sunday in 3D. Not overly thrilled about 3D but I chose the last film (Magic Mike) so it's the hubsters choice. I felt sick last time we were at imax but i think we were too close to the screen.
 
Went to see it last saturday, and although I thought it was a very good film and thoroughly enjoyed it(it must have been good as my wife enjoyed it, and she hates things like this normally).
 
BarryDawsib said:
I enjoyed it, kinda annoying where it finished off but they did choose a good point at least :)

I also watched it in 2d >>>>>>(the 3D ones trigger migraines<<<<<<), might have been the screen used but at moments the detail looked bizarre like it was scattered/banding.
Click to expand...

Bit of a generalisation??

The 3d showings are 48 fps instead of 24 fps. I'm intrigued as to how that'll look. Will be seeing it in 3d just for that.
 
Not all the 3d shows are in 48fps...so make sure you pick the ones that do...also it's meant to help with the headaches/sick feeling.

Hopefully catch it at some point next week - can't wait!!!
 
I watched it the other night, 48fps 3D one. Brilliant film, works really well in 3D too. 24fps gives 3D a bad name. It does loose the cinematic feel a bit as expected, but I don't mind, it makes it feel really fresh.
 
We're going next week some time. I loved the LOTR trilogy and devoured all the extended documentaries and even watched them all with several of the commentaries too. :D
 
I hear it is amazing in 3D and the best 3D film so far. That said I went with my boy the day it came out and watched it in 2D because he is 6 and kids under 7 are not supposed to watch anything 3D or play a 3ds until they are 7 because its got something to do with their eyes aren't properly developed and can cause headaches and eyesight issues, even says it in the small print at the bottom of 3ds tv adverts.

That said, we both loved it. My boy absolutly loves gandalf and Gollum
 
guidlines like that do make my chuckle. It's like all of a sudden on their 7th birthday their eyes finish the development cycle

Or like hot tubs, no under 5's, but on their 5th birthday they are magically now able to go into a hot tub.
 
I'm hoping for the DVD for my birthday! I know I'll miss out on the cinema experience but I hate the places! Tend to be smelly, unpleasant dives and no pause/rewind buttons. I'd far rather see any film in the comfort of my own home.

To avoid any spoiler effect for those who don't want to know, could someone please PM me the cut off point.
 
joescrivens said:
guidlines like that do make my chuckle. It's like all of a sudden on their 7th birthday their eyes finish the development cycle

Or like hot tubs, no under 5's, but on their 5th birthday they are magically now able to go into a hot tub.
Click to expand...

Presumably by 5, they're less likely to foul the water...
 
Nod said:
Presumably by 5, they're less likely to foul the water...
Click to expand...

but the day before their 5th birthday they are? :shrug:

it has nothing to do with fouling in the water its to do with overheating
 
I've been instructed to read the book, up to the cut-off point, this evening. Is it worth reading before seeing the film?
 
Julie1979 said:
I've been instructed to read the book, up to the cut-off point, this evening. Is it worth reading before seeing the film?
Click to expand...

It's been years since I read the book, and personally I don't think I'd want to read it again right before seeing the film . . . I think it might spoil the experience for me.

I'd rather just go in and accept the film for what it is and have a few hours of entertainment and escapism.

Just checking times for tomorrow.
Need to decide between IMAX 3D and HFR 3D . . .
 
SarahLee said:
It's been years since I read the book, and personally I don't think I'd want to read it again right before seeing the film . . . I think it might spoil the experience for me.

I'd rather just go in and accept the film for what it is and have a few hours of entertainment and escapism.

Just checking times for tomorrow.
Need to decide between IMAX 3D and HFR 3D . . .
Click to expand...

I like your thinking as I really can't be bothered reading it tonight. I saw all the LOTR films without reading them first.
 
Never read the book first or the film will disappoint. ;)
 
To be honest I never knew it was also released in 3D, think I'll go for the 3D option when I go next week.
 
So what is the cutoff point in the film? The fact that they've stretched it over 3 films has really put me off it tbh.
 
the cut off point is where the party is saved from the wargs by the birds.
 
I went to see it yesterday, fairly disappointed to be honest. It's almost a scene for scene remake of lotr, right down to the " if you can summon eagles why not just get them to fly you there?" scene.
 
It's interesting to see you all enjoyed it. I've been put of by a few reviews, but might go to see it in the cinema now.
 
Nod said:
I'm hoping for the DVD for my birthday! I know I'll miss out on the cinema experience but I hate the places! Tend to be smelly, unpleasant dives and no pause/rewind buttons. I'd far rather see any film in the comfort of my own home.
Click to expand...

:plusone: I rarely go to the cinema any more, too many ads, people talking and eating all the through the film. I'll wait till it comes out on DVD

The23rdman said:
Never read the book first or the film will disappoint. ;)
Click to expand...

IMHO the Lord of the Rings films were much better than the books. The books are long-winded, poorly written and in places almost unreadable. They were popular because they were the first of their kind. If they were published today by an unknown author they'd sink without trace.








.
 
ivandobski said:
I went to see it yesterday, fairly disappointed to be honest. It's almost a scene for scene remake of lotr, right down to the " if you can summon eagles why not just get them to fly you there?" scene.
Click to expand...

Guessing you haven't read the books then.
 
ivandobski said:
I went to see it yesterday, fairly disappointed to be honest. It's almost a scene for scene remake of lotr, right down to the " if you can summon eagles why not just get them to fly you there?" scene.
Click to expand...

I thought the "how it should have ended" website got it nail on head, video below

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU

I havent read the books, But from what I heard it wasnt as simple as just sending the eagles all the way to mordoor with the ring. Something to do with them getting corrupted by its power.

Also, as far as reviews and personal opinions go, I never listen to them. I watch a film and judge it myself, and never let people tell me what I think is good to watch. The Film Battleship got overshadowed by transformers 3 and the avengers, it also had a terrible review by multiple critics, yet I found it an absolutly amazing film.
 
Last edited:
PatrickO said:
IMHO the Lord of the Rings films were much better than the books. The books are long-winded, poorly written and in places almost unreadable. They were popular because they were the first of their kind. If they were published today by an unknown author they'd sink without trace.

.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting opinion. Long winded I'll give you but how on earth you can call them poorly written I'll never know. Read something by Clive Barker if you want to see poorly written. Tolkien was a true linguistic scholar.
 
PatrickO said:
The books are long-winded, poorly written and in places almost unreadable. They were popular because they were the first of their kind. If they were published today by an unknown author they'd sink without trace.
Click to expand...

Agreed on the long-winded.... cut out all the "Balin, son of thallin, keeper of the magic shoe, overlord of three-eyed budgies, defender of the khazi, blah blah..." And you'd have some shorter, more fluid books. Great stories but at times, not a read you can dip in and out of.

Read the hobbit years ago and was disapointed but may at least give it another bash....
 
Last edited:
The books do waffle, granted, but I don't think that makes them poorly written. If that were the case then every Stephen King or George R R Martin book is also badly written. Just because the style isn't to your taste, doesn't make it poor.
 
I enjoyed the film but thought the beginning was a bit slow, I think the marketing guys have had the upper hand by making 3 films out of it, I'm sure less would have been more

Simon
 
82980401.jpg
 
specialman said:
Agreed.... cut out all the "Balin, son of thallin, keeper of the magic shoe, overlord of three-eyed budgies, defender of the khazi, blah blah..." And you'd have some shorter, more fluid books. Great stories but at times, not a read you can dip in and out of.

Read the hobbit years ago and was disapointed but may at least give it another bash....
Click to expand...

That's a silly argument, Pat. You cannot judge a book published in 1954 with today's narrative style. Tolkien wasn't just writing a thrills and spills adventure, he was writing to create a folkloreish tale in the style of the great lore of old. If you think LOTR is tough to read you should pick up the Silmarillion.

Have you read any James Joyce? Sometimes a book is great because it isn't easy. :)
 
The23rdman said:
That's a silly argument, Pat. You cannot judge a book published in 1954 with today's narrative style. Tolkien wasn't just writing a thrills and spills adventure, he was writing to create a folkloreish tale in the style of the great lore of old. If you think LOTR is tough to read you should pick up the Silmarillion.

Have you read any James Joyce? Sometimes a book is great because it isn't easy. :)
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing - obviously the way the books are perceived these days might be different to the original intention - and I do love the stories. I just get frustrated with the way they're hard to dip in and out of. They're deffo books that demand constant attention....

Nah, never read Joyce, heard of him but wouldn't have a clue about what he writes....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top