Comments on: The Hobbit is an unexpectedly long journey to nowhere https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/ Big voices. Little censors. Fri, 10 Apr 2015 14:43:24 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.1.1 By: Ryan https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/#comment-16540 Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:45:17 +0000 https://cliqueclack.com/p/?p=4993#comment-16540 Yeeeahhh… no such luck.

]]> By: Chuck Duncan https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/#comment-15649 Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:45:40 +0000 https://cliqueclack.com/p/?p=4993#comment-15649 About the HFR, that’s my opinion (and the opinion of many others) that it makes the movie look cheap and flat, even in 3D. Hopefully the technology advances so that the HFR looks smoother than it does now, but I stand by my opinion. If I want to watch an HD TV movie, I can do that at home … in 3D too. I want a rich, deep film experience at the cinema … like the original LOTR movies. And if you’re prone to any kind of motion sickness, I would not recommend the HFR version under any circumstance.

As far as the bloated storytelling, I’m also not the only one who has that opinion.

]]> By: OlMighty https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/#comment-15546 Sun, 16 Dec 2012 14:35:41 +0000 https://cliqueclack.com/p/?p=4993#comment-15546 You’re wrong. Both about the HFR 3D and the storyline.

There’s absolutely no way it looks anything like an old BBC video. it looks amazing and I would absolutely recommend viewing it in this format.

As for the storyline, it’s one of the few films that I’ve come out of and felt like watching it again the next day. And the day after. I cannot wait for the next two, but in the meantime I will be going back to the cinema to see the hobbit.

]]> By: Otto66 https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/#comment-14363 Fri, 14 Dec 2012 09:58:59 +0000 https://cliqueclack.com/p/?p=4993#comment-14363 Read “The Hobbit” and then the Ring trilogy while in high school. I have fond memories of all the books and characters and stories that Tolkien wrote and prefer not to tamper with the world my imagination created by watching PJ’s movies. I harbor no ill will to PJ, I just don’t understand why all the fuss.
Alfred Bester’s “The Stars My Destination” or Asimov’s “Foundation” are books much more worthy of adaptation.

]]> By: Ruby https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/#comment-14125 Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:17:19 +0000 https://cliqueclack.com/p/?p=4993#comment-14125 I don’t think Jackson is allowed to use material from The Silmarillion because the film rights still belong to the Tolkien Estate. That’s why he keeps saying he’s using the appendices, which cover some of the same stuff.

]]> By: Chuck Duncan https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/#comment-14120 Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:09:51 +0000 https://cliqueclack.com/p/?p=4993#comment-14120 I’ve never read the book, so I’m not freaking out about what he did or didn’t add to the story upon which the film is based. I’m just saying if the set-up for the movie is this journey that Bilbo, Gandalf and the dwarfs are taking to destroy Smaug and regain the kingdom or Erebor … then that’s what the movie should be about. It’s just excessively padded out to make it go for three movies, and to me that feels a bit self-indulgent. I’m not basing the review on supposition … I sat through it and not knowing anything about the book, I still felt it was overly padded and really strayed from the main story. And from what I’ve read about The Silmarillion there isn’t anything in the movie from that. The added stuff is mostly from appendices and various notes that Jackson felt would flesh out the story. It just bogs it down.

]]> By: Chuck Duncan https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/#comment-14116 Fri, 14 Dec 2012 00:00:28 +0000 https://cliqueclack.com/p/?p=4993#comment-14116 I kind of have this fantasy idea that Jackson simply decided to release these films as the Extended Editions so he wouldn’t have to go through all the trouble for the video, and that perhaps he’ll do the reverse and release a shorter theatrical cut on DVD.

]]> By: steven https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/#comment-14109 Thu, 13 Dec 2012 23:42:22 +0000 https://cliqueclack.com/p/?p=4993#comment-14109 first, third third movie, as I understand it, is not the hobbit, but more on the middle earth Tolkien wrote about in the preface to a subsequent edition, I think it deals more the Sillmarillion.
Also, once again people freak out and forget this is BASED on a book. BASED on means he can add or subtract. I have faith in Jackson
.

]]> By: Ruby https://cliqueclack.com/p/hobbit-movie-review/#comment-14018 Thu, 13 Dec 2012 19:58:04 +0000 https://cliqueclack.com/p/?p=4993#comment-14018 There was a reason Tolkien didn’t tell us everything Gandalf was up to in The Hobbit – because the story doesn’t need any extra padding. I want to trust that Peter Jackson will do a good job, but I can’t get over the absurdity of making THREE movies (probably each three hours long) from a book that is shorter, tighter, and smaller in scope than LOTR. I need people to just shut up about “More Middle-earth is a good thing” and “PJ’s using material from the appendices.” I love Middle-earth more than most people, but it is simply not possible to make a nine-hour trilogy out of The Hobbit without adding all kinds of filler that distracts from and ruins the pacing of Bilbo’s story. You said it, Chuck – this is self-indulgence by Peter Jackson. Anyone in a creative profession knows that you have to be willing to ruthlessly edit yourself, and he seems to have lost that ability. This has soured my mood towards the new films, even as I anticipate seeing this story brought to life. A bloated Hobbit is better than none at all, but I’m angry that PJ made a self-indulgent decision that serves his bank account rather than the story.

]]>