Mate of mine asked me to pick up the latest white dwarf whilst down on the mainland a couple of weeks ago and it was the Hobbit edition. Now I will say up front this is not to dis, annoy or otherwise have a go at Games Workshop. It is more to discuss the actual up and coming film.
Based on the models and the stills from the magazine I am not entirely sure what I think about the lateset work from Mr Jackson.
Bearing in mind I read the hobbit whenever I cant find anything/be bothered to read anything else. I am not in any way a zealot :-[.
and to be honest I actually like what he did with the Lord of the Rings.. so here goes.....
Goblins of the Misty mountain, now fair do's to him Tolkien does mention different sizes of Goblins etc, but these seem a whole new species. and as for the great Goblin.....errrrr :o
The wargs... again we seem to have a whole new species, ie looking a bit like wolves rather than the hyena-esque trypes from the earlier films, surely wolves are wolves....
And then we get to the three film bit..... From what I have seen, heard and otherwise ascertained it should be called Middle Earth a large bit the hobbit didnt actually tell us.
Upon saying this no doubt I will go and watch it anyway, :-[ but interested what other people think
Is it really going to be a trilogy of films? I would have thought it could easily be done in one film, two at a push. Three IMHO is taking the p*ss.
I think they are just pushing it to three as didn't they have some big legal battles a few years back, so they probably think that they can claw the money they lost back from getting another one from all the footage they should have used on just two!
Regardless, I will be taking my two eldest to see it, so I'll reserve my final thoughts for then!
Don't even start me with the GW stuff.....yeesh!
Just had a look at the minis on their website and not the b est I've seen from them. The poses look awful, but this may have been dictated by the requirements of using resin for the minis, if this is indeed the route they have gone down.
Looking forward to the film, I don't mind a trilogy as they adding in the battle of Dol Guldor 'exorcising the necromancer' which Tolkien didn't mention much so gives Peter Jackson a blank canvas for a good wizards battle. By stretching out to 3 films they may well be filling out some of the missing bits of the Hobbit alluded to in Tolkien's other work.
Having seen the GW miniatures though, am worried about what they have done in the film now! The GW Bolg looks like a WH 40K figure, not how I imagined him at all. But we shouldn't see him until film 3.
Also the clip showing Radaghast being pulled by a bunny powered sledge has got me worried. The albino Goblins? Umm, don't recall reading that. looking at the GW stuff, I get the feeling Jackson may have turned the encounter with the 3 trolls into a battle, and similarly the encounter with the Goblins in the Misty Mountains. There wasn't a battle, they were captured, and Gandalf rescued them by assassinating the Goblin king, then they legged it, with a running retreat where a dwarf dropped Bilbo. It doesn't auger well. Well, we shall see on Sunday.
As for GW, their prices are just taking the piss, over £40 for 4 resin figures of the White Council. Hopefully the range will be an overpriced flop!
Mark
;D Having just read the troll chapter with the kids in class, there is definitely a fight, mostly Thorin vs the Trolls until he is captured! ;)
Well..I am a bit biased but in short:
book version: no way a match for Lord of the Rings. Nice to read but not essential.
Movie: Won't go there unless I can get it for free, reason: Book was not "good" and usually films are worse. My first impression is that they wanna milk the cow as long as they can.
GW-Hobbit: Worse than the movie speaking of cowmilking. Figs I seen are rubbish and even for the GW standards way to overpriced. I am used to a lot of nonsense from Nottingham but this release is by far the worst I have seen in the industry so far. And I am a gamer since Space Crusade came out in Germany (circa 1990).
Quote from: sebigboss79 on 10 December 2012, 03:19:52 PM
(...) Book was not "good" (...)
I like the book just because it's a "prequel" to the trilogy. But I always thought it was well considered in english litteracy ? Am I wrong ? ( I don't like the style in the french version)
About the movie(s) : I was very disappointed when I learnt it will be another trilogy. 3 movies for this children's story ?... :o And I don't really like the photos. Not too "childish".... But I will see it ! ;)
Not going to rush out and see it....
Might even wait for the DVD of the second part to come out....and then pick up the first as a 'cheapo'.
Part one seems to be getting some rather poor reviews in the press at the moment....
We'll see, eh ? ;)
Cheers - Phil.
Looking forward to the movie and what Jackson has decided to do with it.
I'm particularly intrigued as to how he's going to fill three films without a lot of padding.
Although i share the unease with the look of the goblins. They don't fit my mental image from reading the books - whereas the LotR Orcs were spot on...
Also I'm thinking my wife won't be able to watch the second film at all as presumably it'll be 2.5hrs of giant spiders?
GW figures.
Undoubtedly the worst minis they've spat out for a very long time.
Poor sculpts that look like the 'fit together' about as well as their first ropey experiments with multi-part plastics 15 years ago.
Quote from: Luddite on 10 December 2012, 10:05:46 PM
GW figures.
Undoubtedly the worst minis they've spat out for a very long time.
Poor sculpts that look like the 'fit together' about as well as their first ropey experiments with multi-part plastics 15 years ago.
The thing I find difficult to get my head around is the switch to the resin (?) models for character/hero figures.
Or did I read somewhere ages ago that GW had stopped making metal models altogether.....and were really going for a much more 'toy' market approach to their games ?
(I'll come back to
this when I know the answer to the above.)
Have to say that I really like the faces on the character models....At that scale, the designer's done a
cracking job.....But the other figures I'm not so keen on....especially the trolls.
Some of the prices ?......Well....what can you say ?
Again, I don't understand the logic of charging that sort of price.....except to make an enormous profit.....but
per unit.But if you're after wodges of dosh, wouldn't it make more sense to charge a good bit less.....Half your profit per item.....but then sell 3,4, 5 (?) times as many, as they'd be far more attractive price wise, so lots more folk would buy them ?....Or at least be able to afford to buy them.
Wouldn't you put more money in the coffers that way ? (I'd just LOVE to know the ins and outs of the costings of these products, to understand the logic of the prices...How much did they pay for the license I wonder ?)
Cheers - Confused of Wales.
Yeah, I don't see how you make a trilogy out of one slim volume either. Not without stretching the whole thing very, very thin.
And I agree that the Hobbit was essentially a kiddies book, not to be compared with LOTR in any shape or form. In fact, I don't think I ever finished the Hobbit, it was that far below par. :(
Had a toss up between this and Skyfall this Sunday just gone when me and 'the boy' went to Cineworld. I was dreading the response when I asked what he would rather see, thinking its going to be the Hobbit.
All I can say is 'the boy' is growing up quite rapidly.
"That's for kids dad. I'd much rather see Bond kick some serious arse!"
That's ma boy!! :D ;D ;)
For Techno : Someone who work in economics wrote an article on a blog about the prices of GW.
Said simply : If you buy a pack of 12 beers for 10 £ then sell a single beer can for 1 £, you'll be making effective money on the 11th and 12th cans you sell. At that point, if a new customer appears, you should buy another pack of 12, loosing again money.
Having the largest number of customers isn't always the way of making the most money of a product. (see Luxury items...)
About the faces of the miniatures, I'm afraid that the paintjob is really improving the sculpt (at least on the goblins)
Isn't the price increase with the Hobbit stuff supposed to be because of the movie licence/rights have gone up?
I think it's just hokum for them to justify price hiking once more. Lets face it, these must cost pennies to make, even with the other costs factored in total, they will still be making a huge profit in comparison.
Not to mention all the faithful new legion of GW Hobbit gamers who want all the expansion figures, rules and sets....
Point taken B
But that assumes you're buying the items to sell at a profit..
See if this gets across the point I was trying to make.
Imagine I own/run the mythical company "Techno's must have miniatures."
I create a set of 'X' number of figures and sell them for £40.....I make a lovely profit of £30 on each set...but as that's rather pricey, I only get 100 sales. (before anyone jumps in, I know I'm totally making these figures up, so it makes it all very, very hypothetical).
Only avid & wealthy "Techno's must have miniatures" collectors/gamers decide they can afford them.....I make £3,000 (30x100).....I can dream can't I ? ;D ;D ;D ;D
Instead of selling the sets for £40, I decide I'll sell them at the (ahem) knock down price of £20 a set......and just make a £10 profit on each.
Suddenly, another 400 people decide that that's a price they can live with....so I sell 500 sets....giving me a £5,000 profit (10 x 500)
That's what I was trying to get across......Less profit per item....But far more sales, which more than makes up for it.
Now someone who's really good at financial matters can shoot me down in flames
Hope it makes sense ! ;)
Cheers - Phil.
TAX? VAT?
Whatever they're doing its working for the shareholders http://www.standard.co.uk/business/games-workshop-profits-surge-40-7304732.html (http://www.standard.co.uk/business/games-workshop-profits-surge-40-7304732.html)
Although interestingly 'The group's results also benefited from a large royalty payment it received from the games manufacturer THQ after the launch of its Space Marine computer game.'
This accounted for £2.6m of the roughly £9m increase.
Looks like the online cash cow is producing a lot of milk.
http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2011-12-Press-statement.pdf (http://investor.games-workshop.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2011-12-Press-statement.pdf)
Hopefully the next licensed PC game will have a better solo mode to make up for Space Marine's 'online teaser' approach. Fingers crossed they'll bring in Bethesda to do a Fallout style RPG, with multiple bolt on expansions and an online option for the CoD gun bunnies...
Quote from: mad lemmey on 11 December 2012, 03:26:24 PM
TAX? VAT?
About £2.5m (+ VAT presumably?) on the half year..? I think, going from those figures. I'm no accountant thats for sure...
And here I have to jump in!
Looking at plain figures the sales did increase. Now please keep in mind Mr Kirby (Ex-CEO) claimed a few things including that demand is not tied to price in HIS (GWs) business.
Having said that you will also agree that the prise hike has been gigantic for the UK although continental Europe has seen its share. We are talking of an increase of MORE than 30 % on AVERAGE. Now have the sales increased in the same fashion as the prices have been raised? They have not! The last price rise was more than 10 % and iirc the sales increased by roundabout 1 %. Please forgive me I did not do a full due diligence report, most of you will know GWs salary structure and forgive me for not wasting my time there.
In plain words GW is massively loosing customers. A "fact" I can verify by passing by the GW store here in UK. Visitors become younger (can be influenced easier) and actually get filtered through faster (average 3 visits to store / GW before the preference of videogames supersedes GW).
Reasons for these "losses" in sales are manifold (prices, quality, finecast). Utterings like during last AGM that 25 % will buy anything at anyprice and the remaining 75 % can bugger off (sic!) do seriously not help in the long run. Like Techno says, rather a long run high profit by retaining buyers than quickly milk the cow off 300 GBP and drop them to milk the next. THAT is the american dream of shareholder value but it is not a sustainable business idea.
We face decreasing birthrates (less 12 year olds) and miniature makes would be well advised to nurture a more diverse client base. Agreed older gamers like me do have more disposable cash but most of us are more critical on HOW exactly we spend that cash.
I feel very brownnosing (again) but looking at Pendraken I see how a business should rather be managed. Leon is always helpful and this excellent customer service is the reason the only purchase from GW I make is the black spray (it stinks considerably less than the Armypainter one) and "Ceramite White". The latter being subject of re-evaluation and testing of the Vallejo Foundation White I just bought from minibits. My brushes I get from em4 and Pendraken and all my colour purchases have been switched to Pendraken and Minibits.
So using GWs logic I can bugger off but I am sure Leon and Dave happily take over those 75 % customers. I am also sure they will be happier with Pendrakens'/Minibits' approach to business.
Rant ends here.
Don't regard that as a rant at all 'S'.
Cheers - Phil.
Cheers Phil. Although some people do contest I am making up those "facts"... =)
And on the poor quality sculpts issue, its really surprising given that the Perry twins were involved. A VERY rare misfire for them i feel...perhaps its the source material that's at fault (the goblin design looks odd)?
:(
Do we know Mike and Alan were involved for sure L ?
I haven't dug into this in the slightest...So I've no idea.
The only 'rumour' that got passed on to me, from old contacts, is that there was a demand that the faces on the characters were done by a specified sculptor who didn't 'belong' to GW any more....and they had to 're-hire' him for the project.
As far as I know, all of this could all be complete and utter Hogwash.....Who knows ??
I get a small amount of 'inside' information....and I'm never sure I believe it.
At best, by the time it reaches yours truly. it's probably third hand ....at the very least !
Cheers - Phil.
Quote from: Techno on 12 December 2012, 03:55:53 PM
Do we know Mike and Alan were involved for sure L ?
They're listed in White Dwarf as being involved, with a few other sculptors.
As mentioned at the start this was not a dis for GW but more a why are things different, unless of course there have been some rapid and vast mutations in the 60 years between the Hobbit and the Adventures of Frodo. one nice if that is the right word is Gloin's war axes are the ones Gimli uses in the LOTR.
the other thing I notice from the stills are that the dwarves seem taller, stupid thing to say I know, but if you look at Gimli he seems shorter and squatter, however Thorin and company only look shorter if they are stood next to Gandalf etc, otherwise they seem proportioned as a standard human (which strangely enough they are)
Yep - not convinced that these are Gobbos - much more like post-apocalyptic mutants...
(http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2780305a_99121462010_Goblins01_873x627.jpg)
If I end up playing any of this, I'll use my Moria goblins I think...
For me these are ghouls.
I will not be buying any of this junk however :) I'm pretty sure we can play whatever we want with our current figures and rules :D
I did think about my One Ring games until I saw them and then thought nope- ebay here I come, Again the figures are based on the film, but why the pale, sore covered and mishapen lumps. Not that big a geek but from what I remember then both the Moria and Misty mountain goblins werent well renowned for their summer hols to a sun drenched beach.
oh no off on a rant again :-[
Quote from: nikharwood on 12 December 2012, 09:36:57 PM
(http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2780305a_99121462010_Goblins01_873x627.jpg)
Looks like Keighley on grab a granny night :D
Oh....
I've not seen them blown up to that size.
:-\.....Agreed....Not very keen on the look....I think the assumption would have to be that's the look the film makers were after.....It would be their train set.
Did I read somewhere (again something to be taken with a pinch of salt) that the figures had to be sculpted much more quickly than normal, because of some sort of time constraints ?
There would be a possible answer.
Like I say....I DO like the character models (NOT the price though).....But I'm even less keen on the trolls than I am on the goblins....Again that'll probably be down to the film concepts.
Anyway.....Let's hear what someone thinks of the film itself, when someone has the chance to go and see it. ;)
Nosher. !! ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Cheers - Phil.
They do look very Ghoulish to me and dare I say it rushed sculpts. Not a patch on the previous LoTR ranges.
Yep....
Far more 'ghoulish' than 'goblinoid'...to this old f*rts eyes ;)
Cheers - Phil.
Yes really can't get to the same level as the older ones. If you look at the rohirrim of the two towers set, they are just full of movement. These look like the statues at madame Tussauds...
But i have to admit, if you look at this trailer, they look quite like the movie versions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hy6O682OGI
I have not embedded it for peope who don't want spoilers :p
Quote from: petercooman on 13 December 2012, 06:54:54 PM
I have not embedded it for peope who don't want spoilers :p
hopefully they havent read the book either :D, but based on what I have seen so far then that doesnt actually matter either
Quote from: Techno on 13 December 2012, 09:06:12 AM
Oh....
Anyway.....Let's hear what someone thinks of the film itself, when someone has the chance to go and see it. ;)
I got this from the one ring forum:
This movie is really a deliberate prequel to the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, rather than a straight adaptation of The Hobbit itself. It's narrative is designed in exactly the same way, relying heavily on backstory. The tone is pretty much the same while the characters largely correspond with the same archetypes - whereas Thorin is presented in the book as a slightly comical, pompous figure he's basically a 'True King' figure, like Aragorn, here. There is also a lot of visual and thematic references to Rings movies - a lot more than in the book, which reflects on the fact that The Hobbit was written way before Lord of the Rings came out, making such references pretty pointless!
The movie is long, like the original Trilogy, and ponderous in parts, although the action sequences, effects and amiability of the characters make up for it. For those wishing to explore the fuller reaches of the Middle Earth world, then this is the movie for them. New beasties, like Stone Trolls, Goblins (with a pretty good Goblin King), Spiders, Wargs (more wolf-like than before) Stone Giants and a Dragon are mixed with new characters and places. Radagast (the Brown Wizard) isn't quite as annoying as some have argued, although he is played for laughs. The visuals are a step above anything seen in the Rings movies too.
I questioned the need for a 'Trilogy' being made from such a short book, but in fact the narrative worked here, in and of itself, is as effective as what we saw in the original Trilogy. Taken as a movie in itself, without reference to anything else (hard I know), this movie is still light years ahead of any other fantasy franchise out there. As for the 3D and frame rate, I had sore eyes after nearly 3 hours of wearing glasses. Just sayin'.
People always complain that films leave stuff out of their favourite books. People complained that LOTR left stuff out and changed parts of the story as a consequence. Now people are complaining that the film is going to have stuff that wasn't in the book.
I don't think the film makers can win this one.
I notice also that The Hobbit is being released in 3 formats:
24fps
24fps 3D
48fps (it was filmed in this)
You know...i rarely go to the cinema in any case (cannot stand all the chatter, mobile phone abuse, etc.), but its becoming far too confusing now.
>:(
Quote from: Paint it Pink on 14 December 2012, 10:19:00 AM
People always complain that films leave stuff out of their favourite books. People complained that LOTR left stuff out and changed parts of the story as a consequence. Now people are complaining that the film is going to have stuff that wasn't in the book.
I don't think the film makers can win this one.
The film makers are going to make a zillion bucks out of this franchise. That's pretty darn close to winning, I think. ;)
Quote from: Paint it Pink on 14 December 2012, 10:19:00 AM
I don't think the film makers can win this one.
Yep I think you're right. I'll watch the film and hope I enjoy it in its own right. However I don't think filmmakers can ever win - I don't recall ever seeing a film that did justice to the original book (I think the mediums are just too different). There are some great films derived from books (e.e. Bladerunner) but they often deviate from the novel. Even a great film series like the LOTR trilogy pales significantly compared to the version that's been in my head for nearly 40 years now.
Quote from: goat major on 15 December 2012, 10:56:19 AM
Even a great film series like the LOTR trilogy pales significantly compared to the version that's been in my head for nearly 40 years now.
That is SO true !
The films never
quite live to the images you have in your own mind do they ?..... ;D ;D ;D
A handful of films I've seen
have had massive input from the writers.....Whose written work I've
thoroughly enjoyed !
On seeing the films, I've often sat there and thought.....No, no, no, no, no,....Character X doesn't look or talk like that....Such and such a place is
completely different !...etc etc. ;D ;D
On re-watching the films I've almost always found them great...but if I re-read the
books, I still think of the characters as 'my versions'. ;D ;D
Anyone else feel the same ?
Cheers - Phil.
Seconded Techno / Phil.
Well for the figs. IF GW really dared continuity (Goblins = Goblins) they would naturally sell less of the new Goblins. Of course this cannot happen under any circumstances. Imagine what this world would come to if GAMERS were to decide WHAT to play or HOW....IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!
As for the movies I totally agree as well. The LOTR movies had a few different version but even the ultralong mega extended (add some superlatives here) Version had so much missing from the book(s) e.g. 2 hours with Beorn and so on. The "relationship" of Legolas and Gimli is different in the book etc etc.
Another movie that was "adapted" to a much lower experience (although awesome still) was Starship Troopers, or think of Jurassic Park. As much as I understand certain drama has to be entered / removed but the fundamental question is what kind of type are you. Do you prefer being entertained or rather active with your brain? Here is a case of "to each its own".
I must be one of the only people that thought the LOTR films were better than the novels. The novels were like wading through treacle witrh all the "hey nonny nonny" songs every few pages. Im looking forward to the Hobbit. Ive just finished reading it to my son, and much like LOTR its over long and bloated and hopefully the films will improve on it.
I know its heresy but there it is. ;D
Quote from: goat major on 15 December 2012, 10:56:19 AM
Yep I think you're right. I'll watch the film and hope I enjoy it in its own right. However I don't think filmmakers can ever win - I don't recall ever seeing a film that did justice to the original book (I think the mediums are just too different). There are some great films derived from books (e.e. Bladerunner) but they often deviate from the novel. Even a great film series like the LOTR trilogy pales significantly compared to the version that's been in my head for nearly 40 years now.
Generally, I'm with you on this. Even Kubrick couldn't turn
Lolita into a movie anywhere near the book (tho' with every other book he made a movie that was better, mind you). But there is one noteworthy exception: Peter Carew's
Oscar and Lucinda is a good novel and a movie that remains true to the original and still works as a film.
Marketing issues aside, HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY SEEN IT YET?
I've three mates who have,they all say it is breathtaking and wonderous, and well worth a visit.
I look forwards to stealing the redoubtable Mrs Lemmey away for a few hours to watch it during the school holidays!
Always I'm to a film with low expecations, that way you can never be disappointed!
Got woken up this morning with breakfast in bed and chilled champaign... well, it is my Birthday ;) jeeeese 50 21 years old at last woooohooo :D
Anyway, I`m being taken to see The Hobbit today at 3pm as a treat, so I`ll be able to give a (non spoiler) run down a bit later on.... can`t wait.
I thought it was being made into 2 films, is it really 3? The more Hobbit the better as far as I`m concerned 8)
Six
Saw a midnight showing last night (this morning). Kept my 16 year-old and 14 year-old sons, plus missus, thoroughly entertained for the entire three hours. For me though there was too much that was in line with that dreadful final 30 mins of ROTK (and more dreadful singing too!!). :(
Some of the Dwarves just look like humans to me and a lot of the CGI was ropey. Goblin Town was very good, as was Gollum. And the battle scene flashbacks were superb. 'Fraid the new 'albino Lurtz' and talking mountain trolls were meh though imho. :-\
Still it didn't seem like 3 hours by any stretch and once the adventure starts it was fun. It follows 'King Kong' in that sense if you know what I mean.
Just my humble opinion...
The GW minis though do match the goblins, trolls, dwarves etc absolutely spot on.
just back from the Hobbit. 3 hours 5 mins including humongous amount of adverts.
Continuity from LoTR film good, good background history fill-in which doesn't appear in the book but makes the bigger picture fit better.
Albino goblins meh. Generally useless as they should be. Albino Warg carrying Azog - lots of defective gene therapy going on.
Radaghast the Brown made to be made fun of but no slouch in combat.
Stunning scenery. Riddles in the dark scene excellent.
Several sequencing changes, eg Gandalf not in goblin 'front porch' cave when the rest get captured. Bilbo loses his buttons in a different place....
Stuck in trees scene becomes falling timbers scene which wasn't necessary me thinks.
Still fantastic, go see, would go and see it again.
Mark
Just home from watching the movie.
What can I say.... wow..... WOW..... WOOOOOOOW!!!!!!
Unbelievable.
It’s nothing like the books (which I`m grateful for), because the book hobbit is full of childish wit, double quips, bright coloured fairy tale dwarves and all the elements of a great and classic novel. The film, however, is a mature and highly successful attempt at reaching the fans of the lord of the rings movies with more of the same. If you liked lord of the rings - you`ll like the Hobbit. If you LOVED lord of the rings you`ll absolutely LOVE the Hobbit. If you hated lord of the rings or were indifferent, you`ll feel pretty much the same way about this movie.
In my opinion, Peter Jackson has done an amazing job at giving us an incredible prequel to the rings trilogy, one which enthrals and entices the viewers to want more (which they will get in part two when it comes out). Much like the Star Wars prequels did for that space opera, PJ`s The Hobbit provides the loyal fans with enriching snippets of earlier times, while successfully maintaining the balance between the book and the cinematic adventure; I absolutely love the foreshadowing of things to come in the rings trilogy. He achieves this with great skill and loyal dedication to the book... or rather books, as the story borrows heavily from unfinished tales and some other works from JRR and Christopher Tolkien`s archive. The whole thing is a perfectly formed tale to excite and tantalise even the most sceptical follower... although I`m sure there will be some who will complain it’s not what they were hoping for.
Personally, I didn`t know how they were going to make the Hobbit come alive, and as a member of the Tolkien Society, I was looking closely for flaws (such as the scouring of the shire which pj left out of the rings entirely); but the movie goes one better, it doesn’t attempt to recreate the book; instead it gives the viewer a modern retelling of a classic tale, sublimely welded to fit seamlessly with the lord of the rings movies.
Six
Start giving it a star rating out of five lads.
You know....1 star ....AWFUL...up to 5 stars ...BRILLIANT.
All the comments seem very positive so far.
You may change my mind about waiting to get the DVD until it drops drastically in price ! :-\
Cheers - Phil.
I've seen it, $5 for 24fps 3D.
Looks awesome.
Great song. Great action scenes. Great scenery. Great jokes. Does not feel stretched at all. A very fun movie to watch.
"Every great story deserves embelishment."
Well played Jackson, well played.
But then again, last time I read the book was 4 or 5 years ago.
Booked to see it Christmas Eve. I thought the LoTR films were great so high hopes.
I'll mark it out of five as Techno suggested.
Saw it on Thursday. For me 5 Stars! =D>
I've every intention of going again over the Holiday period if I get the chance.
I loved it and (apart from the 30 minutes of advertsing crap at the start of the "programme") the time just flew by.
I'm a long-term Tolkien fan who has all the books and regularly re-reads LOTR. I enjoyed Peter Jackson's LOTR as a film trilogy, but was disappointed with ROTK. For me the Hobbit Part 1 was a much better film.
Saw it with my son in HFR 48fps £D and was totally blown away- looked incredible, at times like the actors were in the cinema with us. Also thought the film was fantastic. As Ive previously said in this thread Im not amassive fan of Tolkien, and enjoyed the LOTR films more than the books, and have to say, its the same now with the Hobbit.
I didnt mind the sequencing changes and the addition were good, and i liked the addition of the Orcs tracking Thorins company as it gave the film more urgency and a good degree of tension. Some of the set peices were incredible in 48fps 3d- the escape from Goblin town was jaw dropping.
Want to see it again.
My score- 5. See it in HFR 3d if you get a chance.
Saw it yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed it - time did not drag, parts genuinely funny, others genuinely moving. Loved the effects, and the clarity of the imagery/photography. Excellent entertainment. Doesn't have the grandeur of LOTR, but then neither does the book. Acting a bit of a mixed bag. Liked Bilbo and the dwarves, found Gandalf too knowing and sanctimonious by half, wasn't keen on having Saruman appear so obviously "evil". Kate Blanchett was on screen far too little - she looked amazing!
4 1/2 stars =D> =D> =D> =D>
Mollinary
Saw it today and as I said I had high hopes.
I have to say I was a bit disappointed. There were a lot of fight sequences where I couldn't really see what was going on, just lots of movement. Dare I mention a lack of credibility in a film of this type? eg surviving some of the falls.
I thought in a film of that length the individual dwarf characters could have been played up a bit. They looked fun but I didn't really get the message on some of them.
Still an excellent film. Definately a must see.
4/5
Did you see it in HFR 48fps Albie because that was one thing that stood out for me- that all the fight scenes were incredibly smooth.
We saw the 2D version. I don't know about fps but it wasn't the clarity of the picture I meant.
As an example some of the fight scenes seemed to be general swishing of blades and random people falling down, or too close-up to see what was happening.
Only the 3D has the HFR option.
Went to see the movie today, was great!
Sadly the theatre only shows in 3D ecxept late in the evening, so had to catch that. I have a bit of problems with fast moving image (like in computer games), and get a little dizzy when i see stuff like that. Luckily it wasn't too bad though :)
All in all glad i saw it!
Finally saw it last week
4 out of 5 I think.
High points for me (in no order):
The opening 1/2 hour in Bag End. This scene's much derided by the critics but i though this was really good and i'd have been happy with a bit more. Even the 'Whistle while you work' singing didn't grate too badly.
Martin Freeman as Bilbo. Inspired, subtle, elegant performance. Again, i'd have like to see more of this; like to have seen Martin given time to develop Bilbo a bit more.
The fall of Erebor (and other flashbacks). Brilliant, and heart rending. Unlike the book this gives the film context as to why these dwarves are so keen to take on Smaug.
The 'politics' bits with the wizards and Elves. Went back and watched the 3 LotR films this week and those foreshadowing bits really made me reinterpret parts of the original trilogy.
Gollum - vicious and homicidal in this movie. Very interesting.
Radagast the brown - alright there were hippy, twee bits (What you didn't realise that 'pipeweed' is actually pot?!?) and Sylvester McCoy went full force for the comedy relief crown, but he made the character seem more a part of the forest than the CGI Treebeard!
Low points for me (in no order):
Daft voices - the three trolls were incongruous. the Goblin King was laughable...huge fearsome beast lumbers up through the crowd of mutant goblins, glares at the heroes and then basically says...in his best Kenneth Williams voice 'ooh 'ello!' X_X
Goblins - Why did they redesign them?!?! Look like pervy, sweaty, naked mutants. And the Wargs are now basically wolves. Fine since the Goblins never actually rode Wargs (and i didn't like that the the LotR trilogy), but then call them wolves like they were in the book and be done with it.
Riddles in the Dark scene - fell flat for me...although i was distracted by the scum-bags noticeably talking about two rows behind me*, so i'm looking forwards to the DVD to rewatch this part in comfort.
But...the thing that made it 4/5 rather than 5/5 for me was that the film was too epic. the Hobbit is a small, claustrophobic, intimate little book. The film should have been too, but instead it has the epic feel of LotR...and for me that, just sort of, jarred...a bit.
* People who talk, make noise, or other distractions at the cinema should the flayed and dipped in salt.
Quote from: Luddite on 13 January 2013, 08:28:36 PM
* People who talk, make noise, or other distractions at the cinema should the flayed and dipped in salt.
Ahhhh Luddite, what would a cinema visit be without some random violence :D
I rarely go to the cinema these days; only now for the 'big events' like The Hobbit. When we do go, the wife and i tend to take time off work and head over on say a Wednesday morning in the hope of us being the only people in.
I find the whole thing a miserable experience.
Having to be on time - hate
Massively overpriced concessions - hate
Cripplingly uncomfortable seats - hate
People talking 'et. al.' - rage-hate >:(
I have been known to stand up in the middle of a movie, head over to those talking and shout, 'WOULD YOU MIND NOT TALKING PLEASE, I'M TRYING TO WATCH THE MOVIE'.
This little group during the Hobbit talked all the way through the 3 hours. I mean why? Why go to see a movie and then talk all the way through it? Baffling.
Luckily the movie sound was cranked up to 11 so i could only hear them during the quiet moments (like the Riddles in the Dark scene).
Yeah...cinema-going...gruelling.
It's true, going to the cinema is torture! I only go for must see things.
The hobbit , like all the other LOTR movies, is something you must see on the big screen though, gives it that "wow" feeling.
Similar experiences for me too regarding watching things in the cinema.. >:( >:(
What Peter says is true....But even that consideration's very unlikely to drag me out of the house. ;)
Cheers - Phil.
Depends what film you go to see. Went to see Quartet last Friday afternoon with the missus. No-one under fifty in the house. Perfect peace. The wrinklies at least know how to behave. :-bd
Quote from: Hertsblue on 14 January 2013, 09:45:00 AM
Depends what film you go to see. Went to see Quartet last Friday afternoon with the missus. No-one under fifty in the house. Perfect peace. The wrinklies at least know how to behave. :-bd
We went to the 11.55am Tuesday showing...unaware that Tuesday at the local is 'Silver discount day'. Place was heaving with Saga-louts.
Definately 50+ 'wrinklies' whittering on throughout the film. >:(
So perhaps not
all wrinklies know how to behave?
;D
Bet you fit right in eh Lud? :-t
I thought it was quite good actually, not as good as LOTR but I was happy I went and ill defo be there next winter for another instalment.
I also find the seats uncomfortable. I'm always sitting up and then I get uncomfortable and so slouch, then my back plays up and the hole process starts agin. I actually forgot my 3D Glass's went to order them and said "two pairs of x-ray glasses please" don't quite no what I was thinking at the time...
"You see, I am a colossal pervert ..."
- Baby eating bishop of bath and wells
Price wise, yeah, around £10.00 each plus popcorn etc. I am considering the membership at Boldon. It's £15per/mnt and you have to sign up for at lest 1 year. But as many films as you like. Admittedly I recon I only go to see 12 films a year but I would like to go more. Also, I was thinking that when there is a bunch of good films out, go for a hole day. Mid day film, out quick drink and refresh, 2nd film, out, meal across the road, 3rd film... I think you could even squeeze 4 into a day! Just depends on film lengths and start times.
Quote from: Luddite on 13 January 2013, 08:28:36 PM
* People who talk, make noise, or other distractions at the cinema should the flayed and dipped in salt.
Apart from 50 Shades of Grey the film. They might see that as a bonus :-bd