Fan Reaction to The Hobbit [Now with SPOILERS!]

[Elentári]

The wonderful DarkJackal has posted her account of her trip to the NY Premiere on her website...

http://thorinoakenshield.net/2012/12/09 ... -premiere/

Apparently she was not impressed by the HFR, but her friend was...

Article also contains a spoiler regarding the Oakenshield.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

ArPharazon, who was long one of the most strident defenders of Jackson's LOTR films at TORC, didn't like this film at all. Most surprising was this comment: "I almost nodded off in the Gollum section - I don't think i should have!!!" Given that virtually everyone else, fans and critics alike, have praised that scene, I have to wonder. His one positive comment was that Martin Freeman was "pretty good". But he thought "The dwarves at Bag End went on for ages, with lots of plate throwing, a song and silliness and i just wanted the plot to start." Methinks that Arphy isn't much of fan of The Hobbit.

[Elentári]

A couple of positive fan reviews in this latest review thread on TORn:

Firstly from Crunchable Birdses:

I've just seen it, so here are my thoughts.

HOLY BALLS THAT WAS GOOD. Right now I'm trying to fathom what the hell sort of planet the haters are on. This film does not feel long, or slow, or padded. I wished it would go on for another hour to be honest. I loved the Dwarves in Bag End stuff, and it did not drag at all. I was expecting that bit to go on and on, but it didn't, and I was just left thinking "what the hell is the deal with the critics here? This is all great".

There appears to be some sort of bizarre, coordinated backlash amongst all the critics, for them all to be complaining about the length. I wonder if it's somehow tied into the 48fps thing (48fps = more intense, makes the film seem longer?? Damned if I know).

This is easily up there with the LotR films. Let's just get that out of the way right now.

That said, having old Bilbo and Frodo in the opening was very "meh". I can see why they did it, but really it would have been better without it. This is my only real complaint of the film.

Acting was brilliant all round, the Dwarves were great and not cringeworthy at all (apart from maybe in that one single burp scene).

I loved the Appendices stuff, but there wasn't actually enough of it for my liking; there was a quick flashback of the Battle of Azanulbizar and some fairly brief Dol Guldur stuff. The brief shot of the Necromancer was creepy and actually looked more than a little bit like Slenderman . Based on this, if people have a problem with the Appendices stuff being included, then they really should not be wasting their time seeing films about Tolkien's stories. It was all good and done well.

I could have done without some of Radagast's goofiness, but that's a minor complaint.

I saw it in 2D and at 24fps. Strangely, I actually spent some time wishing I was seeing it in 48fps, because there were a couple of panning shots that looked really messed up, like more so than normal. (there was a panning shot during the flashback to pre-Smaug Erebor where the panning looked so bad I thought the projector must have crapped out or something, but thankfully that was the worst of it, although some of the long shots of Wargs chasing on the plains looked very jangly. I don't remember this being an issue on LotR, so maybe it has something to do with the down-conversion from 48fps, making 24fps look not quite as good as good old 24fps film, but I'm not sure. It's probably just my imagination, now that I'm looking out for it more.

The orcs were really visually awesome and menacing - more so than their LotR counterparts, especially the new orc antagonist, Azog, whose role is beefed up significantly from the book. I loved the Goblin King as well, because they take him in a totally different direction personality-wise to any of the other orcs we've seen in LotR - I mean he really has a personality and it's fun to watch.

I can go on and on but it would be me just saying how flippin' ace everything was over and over again, so I'll spare you any more.


* crunch *

And from Lacrimae Rerum -

In my view this is a good film, but not a truly great one. I enjoyed all of the bits but the whole lacked a narrative thrust. This is really what is at the heart of the comments about padding, as far as I can see.

Because there isn't a "bad" hour in this film to cut out, there isn't a "bad" 15 minutes. The scenes are not over-extended, as I was somewhat expecting from comments to date (in particular I was stunned to discover the much-discussed giants scene was only a two minute job!)

The discussion of padding, instead is a proxy for a discussion for lack of development, on the assumption that had we ended further down the road we would also be, somehow, further on. However, we wouldn't be (especially at the barrels, for example). We would feel exactly the same - it's just that we would have done some more "stuff" along the way.

Jackson makes some game attempts at creating a bit of narrative progress and character movement, but it remains, overall, just what it is in the text - an episodic, adventure travelogue. And it's good, but I can see and agree that it leaves one wanting something more.

The bits were all very enjoyable - Radagast and Azog included (in fact I can't quite understand what anyone's issue with Azog is!)

The 48fps was fascinating but very unusual and clearly altered the way I was processing visual information (extraordinary). It gave a good deal of the film a feel of being almost theatrical, which leant some interesting overtones. I will be interested to see it in HFR again and in 24fps to compare.

The challenge here was always to achieve a balance or compromise between a film which is utterly severed from the world of LOTR or giving the punters the epic tale that they really want (and so be far more daring in stepping away from a literal adaptation of the TH). With AUJ he lands somewhere between these stools.

This is however the furthest point from LOTR and the distance decreases as we move through the next two films, so this is a solid foundation to build on, and an enjoyable 3 hours to tide us over until he gets there.

Although DanielLB loved the movie, he really hated the HFR...

Yup, I detest the HFR. But at atleast I gave it a go.

And I had to try really hard for it not to ruin the experience for me. Ignoring that, the film is just fantastic.

2D all the way from now on.

Asked why, he replied

It did work in the landscape shots, and in scenes where nothing happened (Bag End, the White Council, and so on). The HFR cheapened the scenes with a lot of action - such as the prologue.

It made things look horribly fake. It's a shame, but hey ho. I'm just glad I loved the film.

[Primula Baggins]

I'm still glad I'm seeing it in 48 fps. I've been intensely curious about it ever since we first heard it was being filmed that way (and my cinematographically trained son expressed doubts about the result, with some of the same complaints I'm reading now). Yet many people also seem to like it a lot. We shall see.

[axordil]

The common thread I pick up from the HR arguments is that it looks less like film and more like...life. "Theatrical production," "70s BBC," "LARP," "flatness of lighting," "video game" all sound like stabs at describing a visual feel (to get synesthetic for a moment) that's more precise, and perhaps more unforgiving in some respects, than what people are used to.

"Horribly fake," on the other hand, I can't understand them letting through. Given that the one review attached that to action sequences...it makes me wonder just how many people have actually SEEN some of the things that action sequences depict. Our conception of what is "real" is, in so many cases, shaped by what is in fact not real--special effects on film--that it may have simply skewed our ability to judge.

Anyone who's seen Mythbusters knows what I mean. There are explosions and there are explosions.

I know it's been said here before, but I am SO reminded of the CD vs. vinyl wars of the early 80s, where people said digital recording and reproduction lacked the warmth of analog recordings. "Warmth" in that context too often meant "muddiness."

At any rate, I'll see it in HFR twice this weekend and see if I can come up with my own stab. It's possible it does indeed suck. But it's also possible it's just different and meeting resistance.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This has got to be the most irrational reaction I have seen yet, from a TORN poster with the great name "Glóin the Dark":

[I've just seen the film twice ]First time at 48fps, second at 24fps.

I thought that the 48fps images looked absolutely amazing. I was prepared for the unfamiliar appearance and strange perception of movement, but I was completely unprepared for the way it would affect my perception of the film as a whole. Among other things, I thought that the music editing was absolutely atrocious, with cues sounding as though they were coming it at random in really poorly choreographed ways. The prospect of music taken straight from The Lord of the Rings was the least of my concerns.

When I watched it at 24fps, it was like a completely different film. Incomparably better. And the music flowed perfectly. There was perhaps a little bit too much taken from The Lord of the Rings without seeming to be developed in any significant way, but not disappointingly.

Quite baffled as to why the format should have affected my response to this. I'll be going back for a rewatch in both formats as soon as I can.

It makes no sense whatsoever that the HFR would effect the perception of the musical cues, or how much music was taken from LOTR, for heaven sakes.

[Alatar]

Just spotted this from Telcontarion over on Facebook:

Peter Jackson, what have you done?

I hope I haven't given people an overly optimistic view. I can only say how I felt about the movie.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

All you did was express your honest opinion. How could that be a bad thing?

[Alatar]

Well, if it raises hopes that are dashed, thats not good.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Not your responsibility. What were you going to do, lie and say you didn't like it order to avoid raising some people's hopes? Then you would have bummed other people out. Might as well tell like you see it, rather than worrying about how other people are going to react to what you say.

Or at least that is how I see it.

[Dave_LF]

It makes no sense whatsoever that the HFR would effect the perception of the musical cues, or how much music was taken from LOTR, for heaven sakes.

I could just be second viewing syndrome. Or it could just be that the novelty of the visual input does affect how you interpret everything.

[axordil]

Now, second viewing syndrome is definitely a factor to be reckoned with, as I attested back in 2001...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A long, very positive review from John Rateliff, the author of The History of the Hobbit, and arguably the worlds leading expert on the text (outside of Christopher Tolkien), but also the one leading Tolkien scholar who has a positive opinion of Jackson's Tolkien films:

HOBBIT Movie Review (Part I)

HOBBIT Movie Review (Part two)

It looks from his final comment that he has more to say; I'll look for that. I don't agree with everything he says, but his opinion largely tracks with my own, though he is more positive than I am overall. Of course, I've only seen it once, so we'll have to see where my thoughts go after seeing it again.

[kzer_za]

That's interesting. I think I'll wait to see it again before I read Rateliff's review.

Doesn't Tom Shippey like them as well with some qualifications?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, Shippey gave them decent reviews, though not as good as Rateliff. I somewhat discount his reviews, though, since he was involved in the production (or at least took part in the EE documentaries). Then again, Janet Brennan Croft is credited as a consulting Tolkien scholar on the new film (she apparently provided advice as to what they did and did not have the rights to, some of which they apparently ignored), and she has been one of Jackson's biggest critics among Tolkien scholars (I think she liked this film a little better than the LOTR films, but not much).

[Voronwë the Faithful]

John's further thoughts:

HOBBIT Movie Review (Part Three)

What is very odd is that in a post about the changes made by Jackson, he completely fails to mention the biggest change (Azog's survival).

[Elentári]

What is very odd is that in a post about the changes made by Jackson, he completely fails to mention the biggest change (Azog's survival).

That omission really is totally bizarre. * Mind you, Ainur Olórin over on TORn can always be relied upon to point outexactly how drastic that changed storyline's implications are!

I haven't read the first two articles yet, but this one does back up claim that PJ/Boyens do not completely understand the material. It really seems they do not think things through before writing throw away lines...

The first obvious one is quite odd, and shd have considerable consequence down the road. In Jackson's film, Erebor is not only the greatest dwarven kingdom of its day but the greatest kingdom in all the world (apparently outstripping even Gondor, which seems unlikely). Furthermore, whereas in the book the dwarves were allied to the Men of Dale (and of Lake Town) and had the friendship of the lands about, and thus presumably were on good terms with the wood-elves as well, the film's voiceover makes clear that Thror is not just sovereign of the Mountain but holds suzerainty over Dale and the Wood-elf realm as well: we're explicitly shown a scene of King Thranduil bowing in homage to King Thror. That cd change things quite a lot in the final impasse of Thorin vs. Bard vs. the Elvenking. As the movie sets up the situation, both Bard (as heir of Girion of Dale) and Thranduil owe Thorin allegance; their siege of the mountain becomes an act of treachery, which it most definitely is not in the book. In short, the movie's changes to the set-up has the effect, intended or otherwise, of putting Thorin in the right in the stand-off that develops at the Mountain. I'll be v. curious to see how Jackson resolves this, whether by embracing Thorin's position, or changing events so that the matter never arises (think Elves at Helm's Deep), or some other solution.

* ETA: Well, I guess he does give it a brief once over in the first article...

Azog the White
Rounding out the new cast is the continuing villain, Azog the orc-king, atop his great white warg. In the largest departure from the original in the film, Jackson et al has taken the Company's pursuit by goblins after their escape from the Misty Mts (which Beorn warns them is still afoot as they prepare to leave his steading) and woven it back into the story starting much earlier, while the dwarves are still west of the mountains and approaching Rivendell. It then becomes a recurring element in the story, just as interference from Saruman was in the latter half of Jackson's FELLOWSHIP. So far he's just a fantasy movie monster-villain, right down to the scene of his killing a henchman for bringing him bad news. We'll have to see how this character develops in the second and third film -- as a nemesis, I suspect he'll be overshadowed by the dark forces gathering at Dol Guldur, which is most effectively sinister and spooky in the glimpses we've seen of it so far.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

You'd think, though, that he would have at least referred back to it in a post specifically about the changes made by Jackson.

Having only seen the film once (and after having taken a redeye flight at that), I don't remember it as well as I might, but I don't recall it being that clear to me that Thror was overlord over the Wood-elf realm. That would be a very bizarre change, if true.

[Elentári]

He's referring to the line in Bilbo's narration that says something like "all would pay homage to Thror, even the great Elvenking Thranduil" (probably not 100% accurate but near enough.) One could debate the meaning of "homage" in this context...subservience may not have been the definition intended, but it seems to be what the casual viewer is picking up on.

Homage: a : a feudal ceremony by which a man acknowledges himself the vassal of a lord b : the relationship between a feudal lord and his vassal c : an act done or payment made in meeting the obligations of vassalage 2 a : expression of high regard : respect —often used with pay b : something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another : tribute <his long life filled with international homages to his unique musical talent

I think the usage in the film was meant to be 2a, simply meaning Thranduil shows respect or high regard.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Yes, that is my assumption as well. I think John is off-base on that.