The Hobbit: The Battle of the Underwhelming Prequels

[mstrox 6,651]

When does this open in Canada?

[Jay 37,346]

Today!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Didnt it open the same day as the US?

[Jay 37,346]

Yes!

[King Mark 3,631]

Are you sure?

[Jay 37,346]

Yes!

[King Mark 3,631]

This means crowded theaters this weekend

[Jay 37,346]

Yes.

[King Mark 3,631]

it's playing in IMAX 3D...but I guess it wasn't shot in that format

[Jay 37,346]

The entire film was shot directly in 3D with 48fps cameras. it was NOT post-converted.

[mstrox 6,651]

Is the film available in HFR?

[Jay 37,346]

I assume you mean HFR?

If so: In theaters? Yes. At home? No.

[King Mark 3,631]

I see no HFR advertised in any theater here

I remember it was specified for the first one

[mstrox 6,651]

When will HFR be available at home?

I'm done asking you annoying questions I know the answer to now, everyone else seems to have stopped playing.

[King Mark 3,631]

when there's new kind of TV's or bluray players?

[Jay 37,346]

I think blu rays can already store 48fps content? Maybe just not in 1080p though. I dunno.

[mstrox 6,651]

I see no HFR advertised in any theater here

I remember it was specified for the first one

I have tickets for HFR on Friday, so it's still around. Looks like, at least at my local theater, it's only in one of the ~4 houses showing The Hobbit (1 HFR, 2 regular 3D, 1 2D).

If your theater has HFR, it'll likely be advertised as such and there will be an upcharge.

[Quintus 5,399]

So everyone hates this new Hobbit movie except gkgyver?

And Steef.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Alvar also liked it, and Incanus.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

I always love it when I get to GoF in a Potter Marathon! Everyone is suddenly completely over the top. Everything is turned up to 11. The hair styling is hilarious!

And then when OOTP comes in, everything is toned down. There's really a stark contrast between the two films. It's even more obvious when you watch them back-to-back. Everything from the pace to the mixing of the music, the acting, the overall design is basically at the opposite side of the spectrum between both films.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

GoF is far too over the top and OOTP is far too restraint

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Yep.

[Dixon Hill 4,234]

POA is the best of the lot. I could watch that soon, come to think of it.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

My fav are:

The Philosophers Stone

Prisoner of Azkaban

Half-blood Prince

Deathly Hallows part 1

[mrbellamy 6,278]

Yeah, I would say those are the top four too. PS and POA are probably the most successful at what they're trying to be overall...entertaining, well-paced, not too over-the-top, sincere but not too serious. HBP and DH:1 are pretty flawed, I don't think the storytelling is really very good but I like that they're multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbusters interested in silence. One could argue the drama isn't compelling enough to support the serious tone, but they didn't half-ass it or just try for some vague feeling of "darkness." They're deliberately quiet movies for long stretches of their running time, several sequences with little dialogue or music. For some it's just bland but I thought it was an interesting choice.

[publicist 4,643]

Can't stand the first one with its second-rate try at Dickens (rather: dickless, with Columbus at the helm) and its overstuffed, badly CGI'ed candy store look. GOBLET and HALF-BLOOD PRINCE also were pretty meh, though the last one at least has some chilling imagery (Goblet really was just irritatingly pointless), all the other ones had something going for it - it wasn't Yates fault that the last one ended so unsatisfyingly.

Compared to LOTR I-III, Potter loses, compared to the HOBBIT movies, they seem like mini-masterpieces, especially from a dramatic standpoint. I really winced through DOS how it crawled like half-dead roadkill through character exposition and dumb, eternally prolonged action sequences.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

HBP and DH:1 are pretty flawed, I don't think the storytelling is really very good but I like that they're multi-million dollar Hollywood blockbusters interested in silence. One could argue the drama isn't compelling enough to support the serious tone, but they didn't half-ass it or just try for some vague feeling of "darkness." They're deliberately quiet movies for long stretches of their running time, several sequences with little dialogue or music.

I loved the cave scene in HBP in that regard.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yes!

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

HBP, book and film, feel like the real filler entries of the franchise just so JKR could meet her seven-book quota. Besides someone important getting killed, I can't remember anything important happening in this story at all.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

HBP, book and film, feel like the real filler entries of the franchise just so JKR could meet her seven-book quota.

Along with OOTP, yeah. You could fit all the vital info from both books into one of about 800 pages, instead of the 1500 pages we got with books 5 and 6.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Like PJ, Rowling went mad with power and added loads of details in her books that arent even in the original films. She just made stuff up!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

Yeah!

That's it, I'm gonna make a fan edit of the books.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

HBP, book and film, feel like the real filler entries of the franchise just so JKR could meet her seven-book quota. Besides someone important getting killed, I can't remember anything important happening in this story at all.

That's what I like about it. It's a very laid back and character driven movie as opposed to plot driven. I could do without that "love potion" bullshit but other than that, it's a solid film.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

HBP, book and film, feel like the real filler entries of the franchise just so JKR could meet her seven-book quota. Besides someone important getting killed, I can't remember anything important happening in this story at all.

That's what I like about it. It's a very laid back and character driven movie as opposed to plot driven. I could do without that "love potion" bullshit but other than that, it's a solid film.

Voldemort's back and everyone's laid back about it! The introspection and grim sense of urgency in OOTP (as unnecessarily long as that book was) is completely absent in HBP. Although it was an easy read, it was a frustrating one.

[publicist 4,643]

The main problem was that Rowling shied away from killing important characters - which for me seemed the only real solution for the Potter character, but others should have been axed, too. A cause as important as this - vanquish evil from the world - shouldn't be a walk in the park with wholesome happy endings for almost everyone involved.

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

What? Did you read the last book? Pretty high death toll, even among major characters.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

The only major characters are Harry, Ron and Hermione, at that point.

[MedigoScan 324]

Personally there should have been more badguy deaths

[publicist 4,643]

Potter should have died, obviously - it makes sense within the specific setup of this story) - others would find that heresy, i would have found it a more meaningful story. as i recall, Rowling couldn't bear to part from i. e. the Weasley parents and characters like that, instead opting for less 'beloved' characters.

[crocodile 8,000]

But... he did... sort of.

Karol

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Deux ex machina!

[MedigoScan 324]

well Dumbledore and Snape were obvious deaths

I'd say the most beloved character to die after that would be Lupin

[Samuel Walters 0]

I can't get onboard with the Hobbit Hate (well, zest for criticism, at any rate). Sure, the films have their flaws. But I thoroughly enjoyed each of them. As such, I think the decision to expand from two to three films was a perfectly fine idea. Yeah, we got some filler ... but that's balanced with content I'm sure would have been left on the cutting room floor.

As for Potter ... PoA remains my fave - both as a film and a score. It's closely followed by TDH, pt. 1, HBP and SS.

[gkgyver 1,645]

Yeah, in retrospect, if I had the choice of either having the stuff that would either never have been filmed or cut entirely, or having a quickly paced two-parter, I'd always go for the first choice.

In the end, even the flawed stuff is too good not to include it, save for maybe 10 minutes of pointless fluff.

[Jay 37,346]

Here's the thing: I don't mind the idea of making a trilogy of films out of "The Hobbit" novel at all: I think the story told in that book - combined with the stuff Tolkien later wrote that happened at the same time (White Council subplot), plus the various backstories - can support a trilogy of films, no question. Even the stuff they pretty much invented (Tauriel and Alfrid, orcs chasing the company from the beginning, major Thrain and Dol Goldur events happening during the timeline of the Hobbit rather than before, larger roles for Bard and The Master) were inspired ideas that probably worked very well and did not overstay their welcome in the original screenplay and 2-film structure.

The problem lies with the fact that they spent 2 years writing and refining a 2-film screenplay, made all their pre-production planning based on that, went out and shot it, and then only transitioned to 3 films during post-production of the first movie. This led to pacing problems in the first film; a weak opening; huge amount of bloat, and weak ending of the second film; and a really disjointed opening not to mention not much story left to tell in the third film. And of course they now had to quickly write and film a quite large amount of new scenes that were never part of the original plan at all - basically as was said before inventions to cover prior inventions. All just to increase the runtime of the second film, adjust the Thorin/Bilbo relationship of the first film, and finally try to have some kind of payoff to these new ideas in the third film.

All of this would have been avoided if they spent the time in pre-production to purposely break down and write a 3 film structure that made sense and had then went out and filmed that.

Had they done so, there's no question the three films would have been stronger than what we got.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yep!

[Uni 306]

I can't get onboard with the Hobbit Hate (well, zest for criticism, at any rate).

Y'know . . . I think "hate" is probably too strong a word. For the most part, we're airing our frustration on how the movies played out as opposed to how they easily could've played out, had they followed more in the mold of LOTR. And it's a little galling to see what some money and success can do to people who've proven their talents as filmmakers in the past. We pine for what might've been, if it weren't for the indulgent excesses of big-time movie makers.

But I don't hate the movies. I enjoyed them, a lot at times, and I would much rather have them than not have them, if that makes sense.

Here's the thing: I don't mind the idea of making a trilogy of films out of "The Hobbit" novel at all: I think the story told in that book - combined with the stuff Tolkien later wrote that happened at the same time (White Council subplot), plus the various backstories - can support a trilogy of films, no question. Even the stuff they pretty much invented (Tauriel and Alfrid, orcs chasing them, larger roles for Bard and The Master) were inspired ideas that probably worked very well and did not overstay their welcome in the original screenplay and 2film structure.

The problem lies with the fact that they spent 2 years writing and refining a 2-film screen play, made all their pre-production planning based on that, went out and shot it, and then only transitioned to 3 films during post-production. This led to pacing problems in the first film, a weak opening and weak ending of hte second film, and a really disjointed opening to the third film. Not to mention they now had to quickly write and film a quite large amount of new scenes that were never part of the original plan at all - basically as was said before inventions to cover prior inventions to make your second film long enough (and beef up the third film, and change the early development of the Bilbo/Thorin relationship).

All of this would have been avoided if they spent the time in pre-production to purposely break down and write a 3 film structure that made sense and had then went out and filmed that.

Had they done so, there's no question the three films would have been stronger than what we got.

Outstanding, Jay. I still haven't been able to sit down with the EEs and all the behind-the-scenes material yet, so I really wasn't aware that this was how it all came about. Now that you've educated me, I have to say it makes perfect sense. It's easy to see where the all the bloating and pacing problems arose from. You're absolutely right: they might've been able to make a three-film cycle succeed if that's what they'd aimed for from the start.

[Jay 37,346]

Yea, I think so. Honestly, the ideas involved can support 3 movies. They just would have written things a little differently to have each of the three films have a proper beginning, climax, and denouement. And also to plan out their multi-film subplots to have the right beats within each film. Had they done that, this trilogy really could have been as good as the LOTR trilogy in terms of execution and entertainment (it never would have the emotional payoff, but that's to be expected no matter what).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I dunno. Three films did result in an awful of of bloat. Two 3 hours film swould have been fine. I mean thats a 6 hour film for what is essentially a short book with a few add ons.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I liked An Unexpected Journey, at the very very least for every scene in the Shire.

The other two can be non-existent as far as I'm concerned.