The Hobbit (The Movie)

Copperfox said:
On one hand, it's true that the tough-chick thing has been WAY, WAY overdone. Like Merida in "Brave": the invention of that character has got girls in the audience believing that the ability to AIM accurately is ALL an archer needs, ignoring the need for STRENGTH. Any late-medieval knight in plate armor would have laughed off all the arrows Merida shot at him.

On the other hand, Mister Tolkien WAS a bit misogynistic; his narrative in "The Hobbit" seemed to go out of its way NOT to depict ANY female characters onstage. I have no objection to correcting this imbalance, EVEN IF it involves having at least one tough-chick Elf-maid.
Click to expand...

I disagree about Merida; her story is more about self-dependence and NOT depending on a man to either be complete or be protected. THAT is something a lot of these girls/women need to hear, especially those who think that a person like Edward Cullen should be someone they aspire to marry. :rolleyes: If you're going to argue that Merida was all about accuracy and not about strength, then you would have to ascribe that same argument to Katniss, as it's never implied in the stories that she had the physical strength to shoot a bow and arrows. Also, you should look at the fact that both Brave and Hunger Games have given rise to a more popular view of archery, and more young women are going into archery BECAUSE of the fact that they admire these two fictional characters.

As with Tauriel (I think that's her name here), I'll have to wait and see how they have written her role before I make a serious judgment. I know people are upset about Legolas appearing, but why not? I mean, there's nothing to say that he wasn't involved in the events, and Bilbo would not have known Legolas in LotR. As it stands I think Legolas is another bridge from LotR to the Hobbit in order to draw in die-hard LotR fans who find it hard to get used to new characters.
 
I haven't had time to post a review of the trailer (because we live in an age where people do such things :p) but my cousin and I did watch it on Tuesday. We were both very excited and I liked what I saw of it. As to the discussion of Tauriel, I'm going to wait and see how she turns out before I freak out one way or the other. It really never bothered me that the Hobbit has no female characters in it (like, at all, ever) and I never even noticed it until everyone got riled up about there being a girl elf in the movie.
Both my cousin and myself were a little disappointed of what we saw of Smaug- but as I pointed out to her (I am ever the optimist :p) it still isn't a finished movie yet and we only saw his head. And we never heard him speak either (which I'm okay with) so I'm sure that will add to his character in a way nothing else can.
I liked the glimpse of the "Barrels out of Bond" scene that we saw the best. And random Bilbo in a tree surrounded by butterflies. xD
 
Aravis Kenobi said:
The one thing that kinda bugs me about the Elves in the trailer is their movement. It just seems so fake and unworldly. This is one complaint I have about these movies so far is their increased reliance on special effects and digital renderings instead of old-fashioned special effects as with LotR. I felt like LotR didn't have the sheen that these movies do, which may be why they're being so criticized by critics. I dunno. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

It's what I was thinking as soon as I saw the trailer. The CGI is really bad. They probably tried to cut corners by giving the job to an inexperienced team. Whoever is responsible for the CGI, especially the part of the Elves, did a bad, bad job. It would have been better to do motion capture like the do for Gollum, you know. Have some actual human actors jump from rock to rock or place to place and superimpose their movement on the CGI. it would've probably come out a lot better. What I saw in the trailer is very amateurish. My only hope is the final released version has that stuff fixed.
 
The problem isn't that the CGI is bad as much as it's all there is. Remember how lord of the Rings used sets, real locations, and bigatures? The Hobbit movies feature much less of those and far more CGI environments. Unfortunately it reduces the realism.
 
I've got no problem with Legolas appearing. As was said, there's no reason why he couldn't've been there. He's an elf! Moreoever one that hailed from the mentioned elf place/s. Plus it is fun to have these little links to LOTR. :)

Hoping too that the CGI is smoothed out - that thing will jar with comparison to LOTR.
 
Josh said:
The problem isn't that the CGI is bad as much as it's all there is. Remember how lord of the Rings used sets, real locations, and bigatures? The Hobbit movies feature much less of those and far more CGI environments. Unfortunately it reduces the realism.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly! I came out of the movie theatre the first time I watched it kinda disappointed that it didn't feel as real as LotR.
 
Eustace C. Scrubb said:
My thoughts exactly! I came out of the movie theatre the first time I watched it kinda disappointed that it didn't feel as real as LotR.
Click to expand...

When I discussed it with my dad on the way back from the movie theater I said I preferred the LOTR way of doing CGI. He disagreed and thought it looked better with more CGI.
Still don't understand that....
 
CGI is an interesting thing. It has developed so much over the last 30 years and yet in some ways it hasn't improved at a fast pace. I look at the CG work in Jurassic Park of 1993 and compare it to say, as we're on the subject of dinosaurs, Night at the Museum (2, I think) (2009). The T-Rex seems to flow much better with the scenes in JP. There's more believability to the movements and interaction with its real life background. Yes, I know they used animatronics, too, but for more extreme actions it was the computer, as another good example is the Galimimus stampede. In NatM it is noticably CGI in its appearance and real-world interaction. Actually, on the subject of stampedes, the CG scene of the wildebeest stampede in The Lion King (1994) is miles smoother than that of the caribou stampede of Brother Bear, 10 years on which practically screams 'CGI addition'.

It seems to me that there's a little bit of laziness going around during a very confident CGI era. (And elaborate I won't now. :p)
 
Sir Cabbage said:
CGI is an interesting thing. It has developed so much over the last 30 years and yet in some ways it hasn't improved at a fast pace. I look at the CG work in Jurassic Park of 1993 and compare it to say, as we're on the subject of dinosaurs, Night at the Museum (2, I think) (2009). The T-Rex seems to flow much better with the scenes in JP. There's more believability to the movements and interaction with its real life background. Yes, I know they used animatronics, too, but for more extreme actions it was the computer, as another good example is the Galimimus stampede. In NatM it is noticably CGI in its appearance and real-world interaction. Actually, on the subject of stampedes, the CG scene of the wildebeest stampede in The Lion King (1994) is miles smoother than that of the caribou stampede of Brother Bear, 10 years on which practically screams 'CGI addition'.

It seems to me that there's a little bit of laziness going around during a very confident CGI era. (And elaborate I won't now. :p)
Click to expand...

I actually noticed something similar to this between Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005) and Prince Caspian (2008). To me, the way the centaurs were animated was more smooth in LWW than in PC. The gait of the horse part seemed more natural than in PC. PC was just sloppy all around, but the CGI work/effects work was pitiful in that regard.
 
I am kind of bummed that I really hadn't noticed any new comers to the fandom after The Hobbit... Where is the next generation? I guess not in South Korea. Though, my 13 year old Mongolian student is a fan.
 
fernshirehobbit said:
I am kind of bummed that I really hadn't noticed any new comers to the fandom after The Hobbit... Where is the next generation? I guess not in South Korea. Though, my 13 year old Mongolian student is a fan.
Click to expand...

Well, I've been a fan since I was 12, but I'm happy to be able to see the Hobbit in theaters, since I missed out seeing the LOTR films in theaters (I was like, 6 or 7 when those came out) and I know a bunch of teenagers who went to see it. I showed it to my friend too and she thought it was great too.
 
Mozart the Meerkitten said:
Well, I've been a fan since I was 12, but I'm happy to be able to see the Hobbit in theaters, since I missed out seeing the LOTR films in theaters (I was like, 6 or 7 when those came out) and I know a bunch of teenagers who went to see it. I showed it to my friend too and she thought it was great too.
Click to expand...

Awesome! It's good to see another dedicated fan of Tolkien, LOTRs and Middle Earth. I checked out The Hobbit soundtrack from the library yesterday. I can't wait until I get to hear more songs of Middle Earth when I get the chance to listen to it.
 
Mozart the Meerkitten said:
When I discussed it with my dad on the way back from the movie theater I said I preferred the LOTR way of doing CGI. He disagreed and thought it looked better with more CGI.
Still don't understand that....
Click to expand...

I don't understand it either! Anyway, we're past half the year so there's less wait time. :)
 
Well, some good news, and some bad news.

The good news? an Extended Edition will be coming November.

The bad news: The MPAA has rated "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Extended Cut" PG13 for "...fleeting nudity".
 
Last edited:
Aravis Kenobi said:
This is one complaint I have about these movies so far is their increased reliance on special effects and digital renderings instead of old-fashioned special effects as with LotR.

I felt like LotR didn't have the sheen that these movies do, which may be why they're being so criticized by critics. I dunno. Just my opinion.
Click to expand...

1: I believe there are less minitures and more CGI, is because of the 48fps 3D camera's film differently than regular camera's, so they cannot use Bigatures with them

2: I believe the "sheen" comes from LOTR being shot on film, and The Hobbit being shot digitally.
 
Faleel said:
1: I believe there are less minitures and more CGI, is because of the 48fps 3D camera's film differently than regular camera's, so they cannot use Bigatures with them

2: I believe the "sheen" comes from LOTR being shot on film, and The Hobbit being shot digitally.
Click to expand...

Yes, I realize all of that. I was simply remarking on the fact that Hobbit has a sheen, and LotR does not. The reason why was blatantly obvious to me. :rolleyes: And maybe that's part of the problem: only relying on CGI and NOT on bigatures/miniatures OR actual sets.

As far as the fleeting nudity goes...wonder if it has something to do with the Mirkwood spiders sequence.
 
Back
Top