The Hobbit: Early Screening

[Valandil]

I have a FB friend who lives in LA. She saw a screening of "The Hobbit" and walked out. And she says she was looking forward to it.

I've written her to see just what it was that made her want to go. I'll let you know if she replies. She did make disclaimers - that maybe it's just her, that she likes plenty of movies others don't like and vice versa.

But it's still got me a bit apprehensive.

[Rían]

OMGoodness, I hope it's not just a "throw in some of this and some of that, they liked it before" type of movie!!

[Earniel]

Oooh, foreboding.

Maybe I'll best just take my expectations down a bit.

Maybe it was the 3D? I'm having my doubts about that.

[The Gaffer]

There's rumours on the internets, apparently the frame rate is making people feel sick.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/short...plain-sickness

[Earniel]

What, still?

I thought they'd have that ironed out by now. That was already known a month or two or so ago at the test screening.

Note to self, don't eat before the screening.

[Valandil]

OK - here's our FB message exchange in full. She didn't speak too strongly on her actual post about walking out - but she pulled out all the stops here:

Originally Posted by me

Hey Gen,
Saw your post about walking out on "The Hobbit". Now you've got me all worried!
What was it that made you walk out? Too much on the humor/comic relief side? Too dark? Too far afield of the book? Too faithful to the book? What especially made you want to get up and get out?
Big JRRT fan, and I've been expectantly awaiting this movie for some time - so I'm curious.
Thanks,
Karl

PS: I hope all is well otherwise.

Originally Posted by her

Hey, Karl!

It was really bad in every way you could imagine. The 48fps and 3D just made everyone dizzy and sick. Because it was in 3D, there are certain rules that you can't break or it'll hurt people's eyes. So, there weren't enough inserts and the shots they held on were boring. The 48fps made the production quality look like crap. It looked like something you could have filmed on your grandma's handycam.

The acting was sub-par. Usually, great editors make good actors look great and they can turn great actors into legends. But with the restrictions that the 3D and 48fps issues caused, I don't think they could do as much as they could. In essence, they couldn't "polish the turd." The 48fps also makes the makeup look like "masks and makeup."

It looked bad; the writing was bad; the production design and lighting suffered from 3D and 48fps; and the acting suffered because of it too. I only stayed for 30 minutes...I want those 30 minutes of my life back.

My apprehensions are increased.

[Valandil]

OTOH - I've tried to check out a few reviews. Some sites give it 4.5 of 5 stars (!!!). On others where it gets a poor review - people post responses that this reassures them the movie will be good, since they usually disagree with the critics.

I did see a couple heartening (for me) comments on reviews: One, that it was 'too detailed'. The other - more or less that it 'began like LOTR, with a flashback to an ancient mythological battle which was not part of Tolkien's account' - by saying this, I assume the reviewer means it's not part of JRRT's "The Hobbit" - though it's likely (hopefully) part of JRRT's historical account (found elsewhere - like LOTR Appendices) which sets the stage for this story.

[Valandil]

Oh - and not knowing a lot about film in general, I learned some things here. The '48 fps' means 48 frames per second. I read that standard is 24 (for some reason, I thought was about 32). I also read that with more frames - maybe this is because the detail just shows through so well - that makeup and props and so forth look less real and more fake.

It's fun to learn.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

The 48fps also makes the makeup look like "masks and makeup.

So much for the 'hyperrealism' of the 48fps, then. I think I'll go for the 24fps, non-3D then, if I get the choice. Just checked on the cinema website, they will have all three options here. Lucky me. For now it's only viewable in 3D, but I'll probably go somewhere with the family in January so I can wait until it's viewable on 24fps. I can always try the 3D or 48fps later but I'd like our first viewing not to be automatically ruined by nausea or headaches.

Originally Posted by Valandil

I did see a couple heartening (for me) comments on reviews: One, that it was 'too detailed'. The other - more or less that it 'began like LOTR, with a flashback to an ancient mythological battle which was not part of Tolkien's account' - by saying this, I assume the reviewer means it's not part of JRRT's "The Hobbit" - though it's likely (hopefully) part of JRRT's historical account (found elsewhere - like LOTR Appendices) which sets the stage for this story.

The events from The Hobbit storyline probably won't need a flashback, but I reckon they'll have to give some background on everything they'll be doing around the Necromancer and the White Council.

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I did see a couple heartening (for me) comments on reviews: One, that it was 'too detailed'.

Some said the pictures were too detailed, due to the 48 pictures per second - you get less blur because there's less time for motion to ... move ... during the time of one picture.

One reviewer said nothing about getting dizzy from it, but he did say that the new sensation took him between five and ten minutes to get used to. After that there was a lot of new beauty, especially in the view of landscapes. For close-ups you would notice the details more - like Gandalf's contact lenses.

Perhaps it's better to choose a theatre that shows it in 24 rather than 48 - at least at first, and if you want to watch it again, you can then try the new technique.

The other - more or less that it 'began like LOTR, with a flashback to an ancient mythological battle which was not part of Tolkien's account' - by saying this, I assume the reviewer means it's not part of JRRT's "The Hobbit" - though it's likely (hopefully) part of JRRT's historical account (found elsewhere - like LOTR Appendices) which sets the stage for this story.

I read an interview with Richard Armitage who plays Thorin, and he was asked what it was like to play both a younger and an older version of his character. Also the journalist said that "it's the Hobbit, but it's also very much about you".

So I guess that the ancient mythological battle is when Smaug drives the Dwarves away from the Erebor and takes the mountain for himself. If so, it shows why the Dwarves want to take it back. Not a bad idea, I would say.

[Rían]

Do you mean we don't have a choice and we HAVE to see it in 3D? That's AWFUL!!!!! I hate hate HATE 3D! I have some eye issues and it just drives me crazy.

[Tessar]

I hope we don't have to see it in 3D. O_o I really don't care for 3D. It doesn't bother my eyes persay, but I don't care for it.

I can't imagine it'll ONLY be in 3D though.

[Valandil]

I hope not. I even saw someplace that most theaters cannot show the 48 fps, and will show a 24 fps version.

[shesabrandybuck]

Oh no! I bought my tickets for IMAX 3D and I feel motion sickness quite easily. I hope I don't regret this! That's my only fear though, I'm excited for the extra details - the more the merrier for me

[Ben]

It's sitting at 72% so far on Rotten Tomatoes, which suggests critics like it but don't love it. The LOTR films all had scores around the 90% mark.

[Rían]

my son just txted me and he's seeing the midnight screening! (back east, a few hours ahead of my time). I told him to email me his report

[Sminty_Smeagol]

just got back from the midnight screening. first bad omen is that they had royally mucked up the elvish on the promo posters that were handed out (the title was supposedly in elvish alphabet). I saw it in Imax 3d and think maybe this wasnt the best way to view it... I liked the 3d experience but some of it looked too fake... a mountain crossing scene where the stone looks fake, gandalf's contacts, the cgi orcs... yeah all the orcs in the movie are cgi. The movie is too comical and too much whimsy for my taste... some parts had me silently groaning saying, "really?" (cant remember his name... raganast? the brown). even actors that remain from lotr come off as more warm and less serious, most noticeably elrond but also galadriel etc. even gollum's smeagol face is a little comical to me. I am left wondering where they were trying to take this film, who the target audience is. One cool thing though is they reuse some of the musical themes from lotr but I am almost positive they modified them a little and they are brief. the overall musical theme for the movie seems to be from the song the dwarves sing about the journey before they leave bag end. Also we get to hear a bit of orc speech, with subtitles.

[shesabrandybuck]

wow, breathtaking - that's all I have to say.

[Nerdanel]

i went to the midnight screening, in 2d (i don't see the point of 3d). i did enjoy it, but it was a bit too much like the fellowship movie. it feels a bit silly that they made a fairly short book into a trilogy (feels like they might be doing it just for the money) and a children's book into another lotr - but hey, there were dragons and nice dwarf songs, so why not?

some scenes also felt a bit too much like a video game. that seems to be a trend nowadays - making movies with the thought of making it into a video game later. it doesn't work!

the music, as always, was wonderful.

people who think it's a silly film might be forgetting that it's based on a children's book? i thought it was a bit dark (although i don't actually mind) and i truly hope the second film won't follow the lotr trilogy and be a really dark movie. that wouldn't suit the hobbit, methinks.

but that's just me!

[Valandil]

Maybe we should get a different thread for posts by Mooters who have seen it. Someone that saw it could start the thread with their thoughts on it (but please - no spoilers just yet!).