The Hobbit

[Mercedes]

I'm going to a book festival next week and a group of us were going to catch The Hobbit on the big screen. Until I heard that it's been making audiences nauseated due to the way it's filmed. This bums me out. After getting urpy and migraines at Blair Witch, the Jason Bourne movies, and The Last Exorcism, I have to base my choices on movie-hurl.com. I skipped watching Cloverfield, The Hunger Games, and now The Hobbit in the theater because I don't want strangers to pull my retching body out of the movie.

Also, I thought the LOTR series was pretty impressive. But it feels like The Hobbit's time has passed. It just doesn't interest me as much.

Is anybody else planning to go?

[Argentus]

I'll probably catch The Hobbit when it comes out on DVD. I imagine a smaller screen will dilute this cinematic sickening effect.

What gets me about The Hobbit is that it will encompass three movies. Did they make up material to use as padding? I can see this with the LOTR books: three books = three movies. That's understandable. But three movies for one book, a book that didn't have as much material as any one of the LOTR books? Maybe two movies if it faithfully followed the book, but three? I just can't see it.

And yes, while I do not doubt the quality with which The Hobbit has been made, it seems a bit redundant coming after the LOTR mania.

[Kenwood]

It's filmed with some new technology that apparently makes it look REALLY HD. Basically, no one is used to it. It's not because of any shaky-cam nonsense like those other films.

I know the first time I saw someone's HD TV, I thought everything looked HORRIBLE. Way too clean and shiny, you now. But I'm used to it now.

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-talk/hobbit-first-look-ve-seen-welcome-return-middle-050025086.html

That article discusses it a bit.

[Shiney]

I could not give less of a shit about a film...

[Kenwood]

I'm glad they're making these into movies, because I can't read the books without my eyes bleeding.

[Shiney]

The books were boring shite.

The films are overly executed, high gloss boring shite.

I'll just stay home and watch my 80's horror DVDs instead.

[Kenwood]

The books were boring shite.

The films are overly executed, high gloss boring shite.

I'll just stay home and watch my 80's horror DVDs instead.

I think most 80s horror movies are shite.

[Shiney]

90 minutes, at best and a guarantee for blood and boobs.

I'll take that over 3 hours of CGI and hairy little men.

[Kenwood]

90 minutes, at best and a guarantee for blood and boobs.

I'll take that over 3 hours of CGI and hairy little men.

[Balor]

All class up in heah.

[Kenwood]

All class up in heah.

[J_Kyle]

What gets me about The Hobbit is that it will encompass three movies. Did they make up material to use as padding? I can see this with the LOTR books: three books = three movies. That's understandable. But three movies for one book, a book that didn't have as much material as any one of the LOTR books? Maybe two movies if it faithfully followed the book, but three? I just can't see it.

I heard they were using the Appendices to fill in some of the side stories from the Hobbit, like the Necromancer side plot, what Gandalf was up to when he wasn't with the party, the back story of the Dwarves losing their home to Smaug, and so on. Three still seems like a stretch, but there ya go.

And yeah, I'm going to see it while it's still on the big screen. Maybe even opening weekend if I find myself in a suitably small town to avoid the crowds.

[Kenwood]

Plenty of material if they did it that way.

[Argentus]

Maybe they should make a movie out of this: http://www.amazon.com/Bored-Rings-Parody-Tolkiens-Lord/dp/0451452615/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1355013120&sr=1-1&keywords=bored+of+the+rings+by+harvard+lampoon+1969 I read this in high school, which is pretty much where the humor level is (Bilbo Baggins is Dildo Bugger here), so for that time it worked out.

[scottmitchell74]

Went and saw this with my girls. They loved it! And, so did I.

Complaints about it being boring, bloated, excessive, etc...are overblown. We watched it in 2D, so I can't comment about 48fps, but Eyesore nailed it anyhow. These new viewing technologies are always a bit of a shock at first. I HATED my LED tv when we first got it (went straight from 21" analog to 42" LED, so, that was a bit of a shock) but now I can't even remember what my complaint was.

The original story was written for Tolkien's kid, so it is a little more childish in parts, but not enough to ruin anything.

I've noticed in our cynical times that movie critics these days stumble and fall all over each other in their attempts to write the most scathing, witty, snarky, and "adult" reviews. They're mostly fools. This movie nailed the mid-Sauron "peace" of Middle Earth, mostly nailed the tone and warmth of Tolkien's book, brought in some back or side-story where needed and didn't feel stretched like I thought it would considering the source material is much shorter than the LOTR books.

Also, Eyesore, I suspect you'd get a particular kick out of the Goblin King's chin. Trust me.

[Sponsored content]