Critical Reception of The Hobbit: AUJ [Non-Spoiler]

[axordil]

The one thing that matters to me from critics is the reaction to HFR 3D. I find the one commenter who said 48 FPS was meh but the 3D was great amusing, since really the main point of HFR is to deal with motion artifacts in 3D films.

[Stranger Wings]

Reviews and Tolkien-ites, imo, don't necessarily go hand in hand.
We are all going to see the films no matter what, and we all have our own opinion of good and bad.
This is an instance where I think reviews are are superfluous or maybe a novelty.

That depends. In addition to being a massive Tolkien devotee, I am also a lover of the cinematic arts. In other words, I want these films to both faithfully capture the spirit of Tolkien, and be cinematic masterpieces (a wholly unrealistic expectation, I know, but I do believe Tolkien deserves it).

In this context, there are a small pool of critics whose sensibilities I find to be very close to my own. I will be very keen to see their reactions.

Hah! You like the films, or you do not. Cinematic appreaciativeness (sic) is cock and bull, and you know it.
This is no Oscar wannabe. PJ's Hobbit works, or it does not. Those who have emerged themselves in Tolkien's world have no choices.

Yes or no.

You miss my point. If someone who has similar opinions as I do about films thinks the Hobbit stinks, I will naturally listen and get a tad worried (even if that person is not a Tolkien fan). However, I will not let that affect my opinion. When I watch the film, I will make the final judgment.

As an aside, I always thought that any of Tolkien's work deserved a cinematic adaptation that was masterful, not merely "good" or "passable" (and PJ's is barely even the latter, IMO.) That is why I tend to care about what serious film reviewers, whom I respect, think.

And why is cinematic appreciativeness cock and bull? All that means is I like good films!

Though if you mean the idea that one can "appreciate all film" - in the sense of embracing the entire medium, I do think that's cock and bull (and something else). Yes, I like certain movies and dislike others, and that's all there is to it for most people. End of story.

But in general, I enjoy a good film just as much as I enjoy a good book. That's all I meant.

[Holbytla]

Just as an fyi, I posses zero knowledge of the Hobbit film as it is being released.

[Stranger Wings]

Just as an fyi, I posses zero knowledge of the Hobbit film as it is being released.

So, how was it?

[Holbytla]

Hah! You like the films, or you do not. Cinematic appreaciativeness (sic) is cock and bull, and you know it.
This is no Oscar wannabe. PJ's Hobbit works, or it does not. Those who have emerged themselves in Tolkien's world have no choices.

Yes or no.

You miss my point. If someone who has similar opinions as I do about films thinks the Hobbit stinks, I will naturally listen and get a tad worried (even if that person is not a Tolkien fan). However, I will not let that affect my opinion. When I watch the film, I will make the final judgment.

As an aside, I always thought that any of Tolkien's work deserved a cinematic adaptation that was masterful, not merely "good" or "passable" (and PJ's is barely even the latter, IMO.) That is why I tend to care about what serious film reviewers, whom I respect, think.

And why is cinematic appreciativeness cock and bull? All that means is I like good films!

Though if you mean the idea that one can "appreciate all film" - in the sense of embracing the entire medium, I do think that's cock and bull (and something else). Yes, I like certain movies and dislike others, and that's all there is to it for most people. End of story.

But in general, I enjoy a good film just as much as I enjoy a good book. That's all I meant.

My earlier post (wherever it is) says it better, but my point is that the reviews really mean nothing to Tolkien-ites.

[SirDennis]

A little TORn mining turned up this negative spoiler-free review: http://letterboxd.com/adamwaldowski/fil ... ed-journey

[Stranger Wings]

You miss my point. If someone who has similar opinions as I do about films thinks the Hobbit stinks, I will naturally listen and get a tad worried (even if that person is not a Tolkien fan). However, I will not let that affect my opinion. When I watch the film, I will make the final judgment.

As an aside, I always thought that any of Tolkien's work deserved a cinematic adaptation that was masterful, not merely "good" or "passable" (and PJ's is barely even the latter, IMO.) That is why I tend to care about what serious film reviewers, whom I respect, think.

And why is cinematic appreciativeness cock and bull? All that means is I like good films!

Though if you mean the idea that one can "appreciate all film" - in the sense of embracing the entire medium, I do think that's cock and bull (and something else). Yes, I like certain movies and dislike others, and that's all there is to it for most people. End of story.

But in general, I enjoy a good film just as much as I enjoy a good book. That's all I meant.

My earlier post (wherever it is) says it better, but my point is that the reviews really mean nothing to Tolkien-ites.

But that can't be true, because I am a Tolkienite and they matter to me.

[Stranger Wings]

A little TORn mining turned up this negative spoiler-free review: http://letterboxd.com/adamwaldowski/fil ... ed-journey

Oh boy. Though that reviewer clearly doesn't know very much about the book (when did Tolkien ever indicate a death toll of thousands?), his reasons for disliking the film seem to stem pretty directly from all of PJ's major faults, which may be even more magnified this time around...what with the overuse of CGI, and all that...The stone giants sequence sounds appalling, as expected...

However, I will wait to see reviews from the more professional critics before beginning to panic...

Nonetheless, I don't remember seeing any reviews of LOTR that were that scathing.

[eborr]

lest we forget PJ and Tolkein are both easy targets to the intellectually lazy.

If I knew nothing of the LOTR I would have said it was an ok action adventure films and judged it on that level, my reservations about the films are largely because of the treatment of the source material and the spurned opportunities.

Because of the tolkien and Jackson baggage there is bound to be plenty of negative press especially from the chattering classes

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Go ahead and panic, SA! Can I sell tickets?

[Stranger Wings]

lest we forget PJ and Tolkein are both easy targets to the intellectually lazy.

If I knew nothing of the LOTR I would have said it was an ok action adventure films and judged it on that level, my reservations about the films are largely because of the treatment of the source material and the spurned opportunities.

Because of the tolkien and Jackson baggage there is bound to be plenty of negative press especially from the chattering classes

Perhaps, but if I remember correctly, the LOTR films got very, very little of that negative press.

But that one review did lament the "episodic" nature of the film, which is not a concern at all, as the Hobbit is very episodic. In fact, I was worried that PJ, in his attempt to tie everything to the larger geopolitical story of Sauron's rise, would kill that simple element of the book.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The only criticism in that review that rings true to me is the "undercooked" villians comment. And even that is mitigated by the fact that it is combined with the complaint about "oafish musical numbers".

Bring on the oafish musical numbers!

[Stranger Wings]

The only criticism in that review that rings true to me is the "undercooked" villians comment. And even that is mitigated by the fact that it is combined with the complaint about "oafish musical numbers".

Bring on the oafish musical numbers!

I am a charter member of the Oafish Musical Numbers Club (OMNC), and we did everything we could to ensure their inclusion.

[Elentári]

I think this is pretty much non-spoiler, but feel free to move, V!)

Audio review podcast -
http://greggtonyandjim.blogspot.com/201 ... -2012.html

STRONG LANGUAGE WARNING!

Summary by utku on TORn

Key points:

-One of the guys has not seen LotR so basically gives then opinion of the casual viewer.
-They don't remember the name for HFR so casual in that regard as well.
-They were blown away by the experience, 48 is too good that it almost looks fake (in a good way).
-HFR is a very different experience as in they don't feel like watching a movie with the most realistic CG, but watching reality with fake-ish effects.
-They repeatedly say they were blown away by it and everyone should go and see it in that format but they are sure normal 3D would look just as fascinating.
-One of them says it is "one of the most beautifully shot movies ever"
-3D is spectacular, there is only a few "coming-at-you" gimmicks and it's mostly

Hidden text.

birds and butterflies

so that's a plus.
-3D, in this case, does not make it like coming into the theatre but taking audience to the world (if you know what I mean),
-At one point, one of the guys thought someone was standing up in theatre while it was just a camera movement in the movie, saying it was that real.
-Martin Freeman is a great choice for the role and they said he played his role like a normal, everyday person instead of a character from this fantasy world.
-They generally liked all the characters and how they looked.
-Story wise, it's much funnier and lighter compared to LotR but anyone who's a fan of LotR would still love this.
-They liked goblins very much, especailly Goblin King (they say orcs, obviously confused)
-Trollshaw scene is their favourite but they don't want to talk about the movie itself because of embargo.
-Also there's nothing much to say about the movie, they say it looks great and recommend people to see it.
-Most of the people in their screening seemed to like it, they have seen a couple of fans applauded, they were amazed.
-If I understood right, there was a group of people at the end who were nitpicking points from the movie but speaker thought even they seemed to like it.


Overall a very positive review, and it's fun to listen.

[Stranger Wings]

I think this is pretty much non-spoiler, but feel free to move, V!)

Audio review podcast -
http://greggtonyandjim.blogspot.com/201 ... -2012.html

STRONG LANGUAGE WARNING!

Summary by utku on TORn

Key points:

-One of the guys has not seen LotR so basically gives then opinion of the casual viewer.
-They don't remember the name for HFR so casual in that regard as well.
-They were blown away by the experience, 48 is too good that it almost looks fake (in a good way).
-HFR is a very different experience as in they don't feel like watching a movie with the most realistic CG, but watching reality with fake-ish effects.
-They repeatedly say they were blown away by it and everyone should go and see it in that format but they are sure normal 3D would look just as fascinating.
-One of them says it is "one of the most beautifully shot movies ever"
-3D is spectacular, there is only a few "coming-at-you" gimmicks and it's mostly

Hidden text.

birds and butterflies

so that's a plus.
-3D, in this case, does not make it like coming into the theatre but taking audience to the world (if you know what I mean),
-At one point, one of the guys thought someone was standing up in theatre while it was just a camera movement in the movie, saying it was that real.
-Martin Freeman is a great choice for the role and they said he played his role like a normal, everyday person instead of a character from this fantasy world.
-They generally liked all the characters and how they looked.
-Story wise, it's much funnier and lighter compared to LotR but anyone who's a fan of LotR would still love this.
-They liked goblins very much, especailly Goblin King (they say orcs, obviously confused)
-Trollshaw scene is their favourite but they don't want to talk about the movie itself because of embargo.
-Also there's nothing much to say about the movie, they say it looks great and recommend people to see it.
-Most of the people in their screening seemed to like it, they have seen a couple of fans applauded, they were amazed.
-If I understood right, there was a group of people at the end who were nitpicking points from the movie but speaker thought even they seemed to like it.


Overall a very positive review, and it's fun to listen.

I love it when someone accuses someone else of being "confused" when they are in fact the confused ones. Goblins and orcs are the same thing, utku!

[SirDennis]

A little TORn mining turned up this negative spoiler-free review: http://letterboxd.com/adamwaldowski/fil ... ed-journey

Oh boy. Though that reviewer clearly doesn't know very much about the book (when did Tolkien ever indicate a death toll of thousands?), his reasons for disliking the film seem to stem pretty directly from all of PJ's major faults, which may be even more magnified this time around...what with the overuse of CGI, and all that...The stone giants sequence sounds appalling, as expected...

However, I will wait to see reviews from the more professional critics before beginning to panic...

Nonetheless, I don't remember seeing any reviews of LOTR that were that scathing.

I've tried to make this point before, elsewhere I think, and maybe it's too obvious to mention, even for the intellectually lazy.

The format (frame rate etc) affects every moment of the film. If people don't like the format, or the format highjacks their senses in an unpleasant way, it will be pretty hard to enjoy any aspect of the movie. This is why I maintain that it was an unnecessary gamble on Jackson's part to introduce a radically different format on this one. (Plus I think it is taking advantage of the built in fan base, but I may be being too cynical on this point.)

Having the option to see it in a more traditional format is a nice work around, but for those who end up taking a chance on the HFR 3D (or whatever it's called) only to find it doesn't agree with them, well that's going to generate some bad reviews of the entire film.

[Stranger Wings]

A little TORn mining turned up this negative spoiler-free review: http://letterboxd.com/adamwaldowski/fil ... ed-journey

Oh boy. Though that reviewer clearly doesn't know very much about the book (when did Tolkien ever indicate a death toll of thousands?), his reasons for disliking the film seem to stem pretty directly from all of PJ's major faults, which may be even more magnified this time around...what with the overuse of CGI, and all that...The stone giants sequence sounds appalling, as expected...

However, I will wait to see reviews from the more professional critics before beginning to panic...

Nonetheless, I don't remember seeing any reviews of LOTR that were that scathing.

I've tried to make this point before, elsewhere I think, and maybe it's too obvious to mention, even for the intellectually lazy.

The format (frame rate etc) affects every moment of the film. If people don't like the format, or the format highjacks their senses in an unpleasant way, it will be pretty hard to enjoy any aspect of the movie. This is why I maintain that it was an unnecessary gamble on Jackson's part to introduce a radically different format on this one. (Plus I think it is taking advantage of the built in fan base, but I may be being too cynical on this point.)

Having the option to see it in a more traditional format is a nice work around, but for those who end up taking a chance on the HFR 3D (or whatever it's called) only to find it doesn't agree with them, well that's going to generate some bad reviews of the entire film.

Yup. We already have the main movie reviewer from Slate focusing almost exclusively on how much she hated the 48fps.

I think they should have done press screenings exclusively in 24fps, given the bad reviews generated at Cinema Con. No idea why they would make the same mistake twice.

Hubris, methinks. Nobody cares about your unhealthy personal obsession with the mediocrity that is 48fps, Peter Jackson. Just make some good films, and shut up about it.

-SA
P.S. Voronwë, I hope that couch is comfortable.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I don't think this one has been posted here, although I could be wrong:

http://letterboxd.com/kenru/film/the-ho ... d-journey/

[Dave_LF]

Balance of opinion seems to be that it not up to LOTR standards, but still good as long as you don't expect perfection. And skip the HFR.

[Stranger Wings]

Balance of opinion seems to be that it not up to LOTR standards, but still good as long as you don't expect perfection. And skip the HFR.

Seems about right. The worst things I have read, which have been repeated a number of times in even the best reviews, is that the adventure doesn't seem to have any weight to it. The action scenes feel weightless and computer-gamey, with little sense of actual danger, and the characters are largely forgettable. Goblintown in particular, as now seems obvious from the trailers, looks to be a big CGI mess of a sequence.

The only heartening thing, for me, is when reviews complain about the story being slower than FOTR, particularly at the beginning. I won't mind a bit of meandering in the Shire - my favorite place from the LOTR films.