Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY has a lil TV special to watch!

Hey folks, Harry here...  Been entertaining some BNATTERS in town with OZOMBIE (not really worth the bother, unless you have people that appreciate propagandistic undead cinema.)  And as I was watching an email notification came in from a reader calling themselves Black Manta - and a link to this TV special about this new, but familiar journey we're about to take with Sir Peter & crew.

It was so refreshing to have my house filled with people that love the concept of a luxuriant experience with this book.   For me, this is that first "grown up" book I ever read.   Asking Mom & Dad what all the "Tolkein" words meant & how to say them.   My love for this came from the Rankin Bass cartoon.  But it fueled me to read the books, starting with THE HOBBIT.   OF everything Tolkein, THE HOBBIT was my favorite.   It gave me a love of dragons, goblins & all things Middle Earth.   Just seeing glimpses of the Stone Giants...  it kind of blew my mind, because that was something I didn't think I'd ever see.   I'm expecting to come away from THE HOBBIT not entirely satisfied...  because I'm not afraid to admit that I'm a bit of a Violet Beauregarde, that wants it all now.   The notion of waiting for the whole of the tale to be complete is something that I can't wait for.  That day where I can put this HOBBIT tale in my Blu Ray player, followed by the next two, followed by Extended Editions of The LORD OF THE RINGS...   Well that's a real damn good day I bet.   And a day I can not wait for.

Am I predisposed to love these films?  I kind of think so. I can't imagine not loving it.  That's absolutely honest - and perhaps the way a lot of you feel.   Sure, I've been dying for this pretty much since the moment I could read.  I've been dreaming of this forever.   But man, you've all seen me walk into films that I was dying to see, wanting to love... only to be like, "what the hell was that!" and turn into some evil dark version of Harry that didn't like this film.   And that's a world I don't want to think about.  It's scary and those unicorns shit shit and not rainbows and that's not the world I want.  Luckily we don't live in that world.  Because in that world the Mayans' glowing skin alien won't be arriving on December 17th thus signalling the end of time a few days later.   (HISTORY CHANNEL is so not).   

Well, I see it Monday.  Until then, I'm watching stuff like this... unless I'm at BNAT, where I'll be watching exactly what I want - and my tastes go way back.   Gonna be fun.   OH YEAH, and check this out - it's a 13+ minute featurette on the making of THE HOBBIT...   It's pretty excellent.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • Dec. 7, 2012, 2:01 a.m. CST


    by Peacefultalkbacker

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 2:19 a.m. CST


    by Peacefultalkbacker

    This video states that they referenced the rotk appendices but did not mention the simillarion. I wonder if they will also be utilizing those tales.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 2:20 a.m. CST

    Harry, I love you man. I mean that.

    by AntonStark

    And I really needed this article today, cause all I hear about the Hobbit is how for geek film critics it's not as good as the LOTR trilogy and from assholes who root for successes to fail that 48 FPS is a disaster of epic proportions. I spent my first date with my wife reading The Hobbit sitting on a giant log under a waterfall. Later I proposed to her with a bookmark I the Hobbit because we were reading it together. Then we spent the first year married reading LOTR before sleep. And for the first 3 anniversaries (dec 1st wedding) we watched a LOTR movie in theaters. We just had our 12th anniversary and we are pinching ourselves that we get a Hobbit movie in a week. It releases the day before my first directed game releases and I honestly don't k now which I am more excited about. So, I am so happy that my favorite movie geek is excited about the Hobbit and not letting anyone spoil it f or him. If it disappoints, so be it. But even a disappointing Hobbit is wonderful. He'll, my wife didn't like FOTR until about the 3rd time we saw it. Now we watch it every year at least once. I didn't like ROTK until DVD. Now I love it. That's how these things go. I know that I will love the Hobbit. Right away or eventually. No matter what... I am going in excited. And on a side note... It is the spirit of fantasy that Peter is taking a daring leap of hope in 48 FPS. Fantasy is not for the timid. It's for the courageous. The only way to fail is to half ass or give up. I love that Peter, like Cameron, is too bad ass to half ass

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 2:21 a.m. CST

    The Silmarillion

    by Peacefultalkbacker

    Sorry spell check. The Silmarillion

  • The life size WETA models he took to Comic Con didn't have Cave Troll faces either. Seems an odd decision to me.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 2:45 a.m. CST

    Those 13 minutes flew by...

    by bubcus

    ... great preview. I'm really looking forward to this.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 2:48 a.m. CST

    re: The Silmarillion

    by Bernard Wrangle

    The movie rights to The Silmarillion were never sold. Saul Zaentz bought the rights to The Hobbit and LOTR back in the 1970s and optioned them to MGM and subsequently New Line. The Tolkien Estate controls The Silmarillion, and since they don't like the movies, those stories are very unlikely to ever make it onscreen.

  • Moreover, can we all agree that Harry's predisposition to love The Hobbit (by self-admission) is the exact same predisposition he has to love (or, most infamously, hate, in the case of TDKR) films he hasn't seen? It should be acknowledged that any kind of the smallest shred of objectivity is never present in Harry's reviews. We would all be better off for it.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:09 a.m. CST

    HOBBIT does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    What a fantastic preview - so great to see the continuity between this and the LOTR both in what has been shot and the spirit it has been shot in behind-the-scenes. After watching that you would have to be a cynic and a fool to describe this as a cash grab. I CANNOT WAIT TO SEE THIS LONG ASS MOVIE I WILL ENJOY EVERY SECOND AND STILL WANT MORE!! NUMB MY BUTT!!!

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:22 a.m. CST

    Just saw an advance screening...

    by Blood Simple 3D at 48fps. DO NOT SEE IT PROJECTED AT 48fps - it looks terrible! Do you like soap operas? Do you like auto-motion on your TV? If not, avoid it at all costs. It constantly took me out of the movie - which is too bad, because there is some GREAT stuff in there. Pretty much everyone agreed afterwards, the high frame rate is just awful (not to mention headache inducing). It just ruins the filmic aesthetic that we all know and love. The result makes everything look plastic, cheap, and disconcerting. As for the film itself, I enjoyed it well enough. Some wonderful moments and set-pieces separated by tons of unnecessary filler. About what I expected. The first 45 minutes are rough, but things get better and better as it builds towards the end. I just hope HFR dies a swift, unforgiving and uneventful death. I will see it again in regular old 2D at 24 fps...or, what I like to call, a movie.

  • I think its more likely they dont like the deal in already paid 1975 dollars. They were likely bought on the cheap and have been optioned by middle-men for mils that are never seen by the family.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:32 a.m. CST

    thanks for the heads-up blood simple

    by elvenblade

    I wanted to give 48fps a try on my first go (as a diehard I probably have to see this at least twice) but the amount of negative reactions is staggering. Sorry PJ. Going to see it in non-HFR 3D. Very interested in how the 3D will look considering the crazy rigs they have set up.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:39 a.m. CST

    The Silmarillion

    by Peacefultalkbacker

    Well fotr uses The Silmarillion as a reference with the telling of the forging of the rings and saurons fall at the end of the second age. I'm not sure how they legally were able to do that in fotr without the rights to The Silmarillion. Maybe we will get some cool retellings of middle earths beginnings when gandalf goes out on his own quests and investigates the necromancer

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:40 a.m. CST


    by Blood Simple

    I went in with an open mind, but unfortunately, it did hurt the experience for me. You are definitely safer going with regular 3D. I would suggest "peeking in" on a screening that is HFR to see just how...unsettling it is. Actually sitting through the long running time in that format was not fun for most of us.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:06 a.m. CST

    I'm gonna avoid the HFR versions like the plague

    by lv_426

    I was never really thrilled with the idea of 48fps in the first place, but now with reports of some early viewers getting ill or eye strain I'm not gonna bother with it. I think maybe The Hobbit using HFR was not the best way to debut this type of new viewing mode to the moviegoing public. All accounts say that it makes things look more realistic. This makes me think that HFR would make more sense for big screen documentaries or maybe gritty films that take place in present day or some sort of contemporary setting. Zero Dark Thirty is a good example I'd say, but not something like The Hobbit. It is not a big deal though, as we all have the chance to choose the HRF 48fps or regular 24fps showings. For me, I just want to see the closest approximation to what it was like seeing the three Lord of the Rings films on the big screen back a decade ago. 2D 24fps seems the best bet, even though The Hobbit was shot digitally versus The Lord of the Rings being captured on film. I want The Hobbit to sink or swim on its own merits, unencumbered by flashy gimmicks like 3D, IMAX, and HFR.

  • Fucking brilliant. I'd forgotten.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:12 a.m. CST

    2D 24fps is the only way to fly.

    by DocPazuzu

    Search your feelings, you know this to be true.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:15 a.m. CST

    Unencumbered does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Me too - will see this as a regular movie *unencumbured* and avoid the 48fps screening. I do not want to be distracted by a new form of digital presentation or sitting in judgment of a high frame rate - I simply want to sink back into Middle Earth for 3 hours and let the movie wash over me! Haven't heard a single good thing about HFR yet.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:34 a.m. CST

    I'm Confused... They're Still Releasing This Movie?

    by aceldama

    Despite the fact it looks like an absolute trainwreck? Just doesn't add up...

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:37 a.m. CST

    I'm seeing the 96 HFCS version

    by Margot Tenenbaum

    You drink the movie in a beverage and then you shit out a Bilbo action figure. Cameron is using it for AVATAR vs. PROMETHEUS

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:46 a.m. CST


    by DocPazuzu

    ...wins the talkback.

  • If only I could watch that movie in this HFCS you speak of, and then crap out a full size Charlize Theron sex-droid.* *Fuck you Lucas. I used the term droid.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:49 a.m. CST



    I was DYING to see DARK KNIGHT RISES. DYING. Mad fan of THE DARK KNIGHT, which I still feel is an absolutely incredible film. In fact tonight, the group of Bnatters that I was hanging out with all agree with me. One actually is quite intimate with the character professionally. When I began disconnecting with the film at the IMAX theater that I saw it in... I was traumatized. There are moments of the film I love, nearly everything with THE BAT. Big fan of that device. Love practical action. But it in no way felt like the film I wanted on the otherside of DARK KNIGHT. At all.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:55 a.m. CST


    by Margot Tenenbaum

    Charlize Theron is 5' 10"

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:55 a.m. CST

    unicorns shit shit and not rainbows

    by Miss Moneypennys Pishflapsh

    The long awaited sequel to Blade Runner.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:57 a.m. CST

    But it would be so worth it in the long run

    by lv_426

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 5:32 a.m. CST


    by Richard

    All of that is covered within the actual LOTR books as well, mostly in the appendices. That's why they could use it. They can't use anything that's in the Silmarillion but not in the Hobbit or LOTR. Also can't use anything from the BOLT or HOME series.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 5:34 a.m. CST

    Headgeek does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Harry, can you confirm or deny whether it was you that spent a month watching JACK REACHER? Enquiring minds, and asylum officials, want to know.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 6:08 a.m. CST

    Let's avoid this movie

    by High_Guy

    Let's avoid this movie in cinema so that it bombs on the box office and Peter Jackson cries like a bitch he is.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 6:12 a.m. CST

    Put me on the bus for the 24fps showing.

    by Deceased Fan

    It appears that I'll be in good company.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 6:34 a.m. CST

    70% on Rotten Tomatoes

    by brobdingnag

    With numerous comparisons to the Star Wars prequels in terms of low quality.

  • In fact tommy cruiser could play a hobbit jack reacher in part 2!

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 7:05 a.m. CST

    I thought they would be sloggy and way too dense

    by David Duchovny

    but now they are being compared to the prequel trilogy? That's some heartbreaking shit right there. Had no idea they could be that bad.

  • Apparently, this took priority over asking them what all the English words meant and how to say them.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 7:50 a.m. CST

    What asshole wouldnt be excited for a Hobbit movie?

    by Logan_1973

    Oh, wait... Seriously, I can't believe there are so called geeks here rooting for PJ and his middle earth films to fail. LOTR was such a special phenom equal to what STAR WARS accomplished in the 70s and 80s.I can't get my head around geeks hoping this will fall flat on its face when it should be their wet dream. Good write up, Harry. The old cartoon introduced me to Tolkien, too.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 8:08 a.m. CST

    Whoaaa! Christopher Lee is getting up there!

    by T

    ... and so am I. :-/

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 8:34 a.m. CST

    Star Trek

    by SpencerBarnes

    do we have a listing of screens that will show the 9 minute preview? Seeing Hobbit in KoP, PA on 12/15...

  • 2 Films would've been more than sufficient to tell an awesome Hobbit. My favortie story from Tolkien as well, butto say oh we have Tolkien's notes so were expanding. No you just wanted a new trilogy to cash in on.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 8:49 a.m. CST

    I liked that a lot.


    I'd forgetten how many special features the extended edition DVDs have, this reminded me of those. Can't wait to watch them on The Hobbit Blu Ray. I hope the movie is amazing.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Ah, that's just classic Harry...

    by keyserSOZE

    I could just link you to this little special, but first, how about a rambling interlude in which I tell you trivial facts about myself as a child? That's what the people want!

  • Was already in his 80s by the time the last LOTR films were coming out. Just saying :P And nothing wrong with that. were it not for how short our lives are, being 90 would be fantastic, as you'd have lived so much and seen so much and know so much. Yet even 90 years...isnt all that long. How I envy Tolkien's elves and their 3000 year lifespans. Imagine what you'd see in that amount of time. 10,000? My god. Just imagine. You'd see whole ages come and go, countries rise and fall, new languages form, new religions, ice ages...

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 10:26 a.m. CST

    I'm with deceased ...

    by DrMorbius

    and the rest of the (good old 24fps) lot. Better yet, we won't have to worry about the bell-end high_guy ruining it for everyone.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Veruca Salt?

    by MateoMcD

    I assume that's who Harry meant, not Violet Beauregard. Nitpicking complete.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 10:42 a.m. CST

    I’m really not worried about any negative reviews.

    by frank

    I imagine they all come from the same people who retroactively hate the LotR trilogy, thought RotK had too many endings, etc. I can tell that comparisons to the Star Wars prequels and Transformers are ridiculous just from watching Peter Jacksons ‘making of’ video blogs. Those documentaries show that the movie will have soul, which is something completely lacking in those other two series. I fully expect to love this movie and cannot wait until next Friday.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Whoever wrote that Jack Reacher review is obviously embarassed by it.

    by kindofabigdeal

    If it was Harry he would admit it because that's just the way he writes. My money is on it being a plant. In other topics my ass will be in the seat not just to see the 9 min Star Trek: Turn Off The Darkness, but because I loved all of the LOTR movies. (sorry I didn't read the books) However, all the things I'm hearing about the 48fps is making me consider seeing this in 24.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Harry, did you "rip off" that comment?

    by Mel Gibsteinberg

    I just read this on Rotten Tomatoes by a super reviewer named Cherry Darling. This was the first 'grown up' book I ever read way back when. I don't want to wish my life away but I honestly can't wait for this one Considering they posted their review on Dec 6th, and you put up your little column on Dec 7th, I call shenanigans. Ooopsies.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Silmarillion blows hard...

    by ScriptCunt

    Read that waste of trees when I was the perfect age for it (as a misfit, D&D-obsessed high school student) and discovered a book that was the perfect marriage of biblical tedium and stale mythology. Why anyone would want to see the 19-hour mess of a movie based on that horrid book is as baffling to me as why people chew and eat their own toenails.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST

    48fps must be in 3d apparently...its crap if I've heard/read

    by Darth Macchio

    Everything I've heard/read about 48fps says it's superb in 3d but not in 2d. I one of those poor schlups with very sensitive eyes - even 75Hz on a crt gives me headaches and active 3d apparently does use a 60Hz frequency for creating the 3d effect which means it would likely be a deal-breaker for me as it would induce migraines (I can easily perceived the strobe flicker of even 75Hz screens..anything past 85Hz works fine tho). this leads me to think that watching 48fps in regular 2d would probably cause eye strain that might lead to a nasty headache. but yet i really want to check this out and really want to check it out in 3d. but, of course, cameron wants to go to 60fps...and then, why not 120fps? or higher? reminds of Louis Tulley in Ghostbusters - playing a workout tape at 2x speed so he can get a 30 minute workout in 15 minutes (or however he did the math) if we get 144fps, can they take a 3 hour movie and compress it down to 30 minutes? may as well considering how busy we all are. can't even sit down with some hobbits/dwarves and their dinner without wanting to get the party started yesterday, much less in 10 or 15 minutes. no time no time!!! go go go go!!!!

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    I hope they draw out the Shire part.

    by frank

    ‘Concerning Hobbits’ might have been my favorite part of Jackson’s LotR.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST

    I've seen it in both 24 and 48 fps

    by hollywoodsummers

    I strongly suggest if you want to enjoy the story and the film see it in 24fps! 48 looks sped up x1 and I kept having to close my eyes to rest from headaches. I haven't talked to one person that thought 48fps looked good and wasn't totally distracted by it.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Plenty of room on the bus Doc.

    by Deceased Fan


  • If Jackson's 'non-cinematic'-looking format turns out to be a turn-off for too many people, then I wonder where that leaves Cameron's plans for the AVATAR sequels?

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    Oh and some people were OK with 48fps based on what I read.

    by Proman1984

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 1 p.m. CST

    can we dump digital too and 3d?

    by walt

    tech is destroying the movie experience

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 1:40 p.m. CST

    Seriously Harry? You can't even spell Tolkien?!?

    by menacingphantom


  • Dec. 7, 2012, 2:03 p.m. CST

    tech destroying the movie experience...yes but not the tech itself...

    by Darth Macchio's the obsessives like Cameron charging forward on 60fps...120fps, 144 fps...and on and on... jackson doens't seem to have this mindless push for more and more tech but yet, from how it's sounding, 48fps in 2d is simply not a valid format for making films that utilized sets (apparently the outdoors look stunning). one reviewer said he could see McKellan's contact lenses. Not colored contacts...the actor's prescription lenses! like lucas...he errs on the side of cgi no matter what....often more expensive and less realistic than practical. sometimes i think these guys are like asshole versions of don quixote or something...arrogantly tilting at windmills when no one asked them to do so nor really wants them too...but they they do.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST

    The virgins were roooarring on the height...

    by David Duchovny

    The fags were moaning in the night. Enjoy your 3 hour wankfest.

  • make me weep.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by john

    Yeah too right!! Where better too see big expensive art take on fundamental human questions and themes. Can't wait!!!

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 5:25 p.m. CST

    What time will you be rolling by deceased?

    by DrMorbius

    I'm wearing my old army coat with the big pockets, just need to swing by Subway really quick, then I'm good to go.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 5:48 p.m. CST

    don't understand the haters

    by orcrist

    I'm guessing these are the same people who grew up watching The Phantom Menace instead of A New Hope, and thought Prometheus and Dark Knight Rises were great films. Seriously go somewhere else and get a life.

  • That after Tolkien wrote LOTR & many of the other works he had been doing for his own back history were published that he(Tolkien) decided that in the world of the myths he had created that The Hobbit was a "childrens' story version" of events that occurred in MEarth & are expanded upon elsewhere in a more adult fashion akin to LOTR. Aside from the White Council meeting or meetings, I know that things that happen off page in the Hobbit will be at least part of what fills the 3rd movie. Sauron has re established himself in the southern part of Mirkwood & is calling himself The Necromancer & there is a huge battle(The Battle of Dol Guldur) in which Gandlaf, Galadriel, Elrond & others try to capture him, but he ends up fleeing to Mordor. From an article explaining this: The Battle of Dol Guldur In his statement on Facebook confirming the trilogy Jackson singles out The Battle of Dol Guldur as something he couldn't capture without breaking the book into three parts. This is the battle where Galadriel kicks a lot of ass. They fight orcs who ride werewolves and giant spiders, so yeah, awesome. But Galadriel just rips down the walls. It's impressive, and helps explain why everyone is so petrified of her awesome power in LOTR. Now, to me--THAT sounds worthy of a 3rd movie, even knowing that it wont comprise the entirety of it

  • before it even comes out, no less. yeah, because the LOTR films just went over so poorly with the vast majority of audiences. No, they weren't beloved by generations of Tolkein fans for being faithful, beautiful, wonderful examples of adaptations gone RIGHT. Sense the sarcasm. What a bunch of twatburgers. Seriously. Just go try sucking your own dick in a corner until you succeed or kill yourself trying. It'll at least keep you away from the keyboard, you annoying little insatiable fuckwits. You must lead sad, sad lives if you feel the need to come into a thread with the express purpose of trolling. Enjoy your virginity. I'm sure it'll be with you for a long...LONG time.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 7:51 p.m. CST

    Going to the Imax showing

    by David Duchovny

    To see 9 minutes of a movie something might happen in.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 8:46 p.m. CST

    I pity all who can't get excited over a return to Middle Earth.

    by DoctorWho?

  • And while searching for that, here's a live action Lord of the Rings TV miniseries (in Finnish) that I never knew existed either: They're both really terrible!

  • I get that studios have to make sure that a movie will have broad appeal for financial reasons, but perhaps after the performance of the LOTR films, they're giving Jackson more room to aim at die hard Hobbit fans. I'm only guessing this based on the fact that some of the criticisms I've heard so far are leveled at the detail played out in every scene, especially toward the beginning. So, if that's the case, I'm all for it. I'll find out next Thursday.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 9:43 p.m. CST

    Agree with crisp_one

    by ghost_matt

    All the "negative" reviews I've read have all been about the 48fps, or that it's "too faithful" to the book and has to include everything. If that's the case, bring it on! I have a feeling, like another talkbacker already said, that the people who are giving it bad reviews are the same people who thought the ending of ROTK was too long or thought King Kong sucked. Yes, I happen to REALLY like PJ's remake of King Kong. I saw it twice in the theater. Sure, 10 minutes could have been shaved off (the whole Jimmy arc and some of the dino scenes were a bit over the top), but the good outweighs the bad and it was/is an awesome movie. Like the boat stuff in King Kong, I have a feeling that the dinner scene in The Hobbit that supposedly goes on too long is going to be character stuff. Heaven forbid that Jackson try to somewhat establish each of the dwarves before the adventure begins.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 10:15 p.m. CST

    @Ghost_Matt: Glad I'm not the only one thinking that

    by Crobran

    Mr. Beaks' review said "this is just the first act of a book that can easily be read in a couple of sittings." In other words, "it's too long." Perhaps you could read through The Hobbit in less time than it would take to see all three movies, but... 1) You'd have to read fast, and with a good story, what's the point of doing that? 2) There are sentences in every story that describe events which take way more time than that required to read the sentence 3) These movies cover events that aren't even mentioned in The Hobbit or that were only hinted at, but which are elaborated on in other works, as the above documentary points out. So, for those of us who really do enjoy soaking in this vivid world that Tolkien has created for us, IF we're right about why the movies are long (here's hoping), then it'll be great.

  • Dec. 7, 2012, 10:22 p.m. CST

    @Ghost_Matt: Glad I'm not the only one who feels that way

    by Crobran

    Mr Beaks' review said " this is just the first act of a book that can easily be read in a couple of sittings," meaning that "it's too long." That argument falls a little flat for those of us who WANT to see the book laid out in detail, for three reasons: 1) Sure, maybe you could read The Hobbit in less time than it would take to sit through the movies, but when you're reading a really good story, what's the point in rushing through it? 2) There are sentences in every story that describe events which take way more time than it actually takes just to read the sentence (Tolkien describes part of the fight between the three trolls by saying "Then there was a gorgeous row.") 3) As the above documentary points out, these movies will cover things that happened at the same time as The Hobbit, but which are either barely mentioned or not even mentioned at all in the book. For those of us who really do enjoy soaking in this vivid world that Tolkien has created, IF that's why these movies are long, then that's a good thing, though I can understand why that wouldn't be good for everyone.

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 2:56 a.m. CST

    I'm down with Subway drmorbius.

    by Deceased Fan

    Hope you got room in that coat for my $5 Footlong.

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 7:08 a.m. CST

    I have seen The Hobbit in 48fps

    by slappy jones

    Yes. At first it is jarring because it is so different. Your eyes kind of can't take it all in but after a while you forget about it.i loved the film. I really do believe that the most negative reviews are reviewing the frame rate and that's fair enough. It's how they saw it and they didn't like what it looked like but I keep reading about the first 45 minutes taking so long and I never felt the length at all. Of course if you hate the way a film looks as strongly as some hate the 48fps you are more than likely not going to enjoy it. If anything I think the lowered expectations after these reviews are probably going to help because it really is nowhere near as bad as it is being made out and I think a lot of people are going to wonder why it got so slammed. Is LOTR is this films biggest problem. It hangs over the film and there is no way to avoid comparing it on your mind. I can't wait to see it again to see if it was just excitement at seeing early or whatever but I genuinely did not notice the beginning dragging and I was never bored. Is it as good as Fellowship? I don't know. It's almost an unfair comparison. And anyone who compares it to Phantom Menace needs to go watch phantom menace again.another thing.... I will never ever understand people wanting something to fail as if they have some personal stake in it. Willing failure on anything is just weird. Who gives a fuck?? I couldn't give a fuck about Twilight but I don't pray and hope it fails. Either see it or don't. Your life won't change whether something's a hit or a flop. The other thing is fuck all screens are going to have it 48 anyway so it won't matter all that much.

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 7:15 a.m. CST

    Ghost Matt

    by slappy jones

    The beginning bit...the dinner and all that....that's exactly what it is. It's introducing 13 characters in as quick as time as possible. Like I said above I can't wait to see it again to see if I just got swept up in the excitement of seeing it early because I keep going over it in my much stuff happens in the film and trying to remember anything that dragged and I can't. Maybe I will see it again and have a different experience but as it stands I liked it and can't believe so many people are down n it. Also lets remember there are still more good than bad reviews. At this stage anyway. Sure even the good ones are not exactly raving but it isn't getting slated across the board with a 34 on Tomatoes or anything...I haven't read many outright pans calling it the biggest piece of shit ever made or saying.

  • Dec. 8, 2012, 6:51 p.m. CST

    thanks slappy jones!

    by ghost_matt

    Thanks for posting! That's great to hear! I think I'm really going to enjoy this movie. PJ had said in an earlier interview that his reason for splitting the book into 3 films was because he wanted the time to give each of the dwarves an arc and some character development. Sounds good to me. And crisp_one, I agree I'm sure all the stuff with Gandalf and the White Council will need plenty of screentime. I read elsewhere (I think that the Battle of Dol Goldur will have them fighting werewolves and giant spiders. Freaking A I want to see that!!! Plus I bet PJ will go all out on the Battle of Five Armies, whereas in the book it was a few pages.

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 2:03 a.m. CST

    I have seen reviews complain about

    by slappy jones

    Not getting to know the dwarves better and then complain it takes to long to get going. So they can't win....the film does take a bit of time to get on the road but without that you would be stuck wondering who anyone was, why they are going and why the fuck would bilbo join them. My favourite scene in the film is from the early bit before they head interesting to see how audiencs react this week.

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 1:01 p.m. CST

    I'm seein the Hobbit on friday....

    by Darren

    I'm a Tolkien fan + movie lover for all of my 45yrs = i'm lookin forward to the whole damn "bloated" thing! This is it folks, this is the Hobbit, this is what we've been given by all the Stars in Heaven! ENJOY.

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 7:51 p.m. CST

    extended edition confirmed

    by ghost_matt

  • Dec. 9, 2012, 9:05 p.m. CST

    spencerbarnes, King of Prussia...

    by skellngtn

    is showing the 9 minutes of Star Trek before the IMax/3-d/48fps Hobbit according to:

  • Since the Star Trek footage is only showing on IMAX screens (or LieMax since in a lot of cases the real giant IMAX screens aren't showing it), I would think this is true. Or are some IMAX screens actually showing 24 fps 2d (all 3d showings are 48 fps since they aren't offering it in 24 fps 2d)? I saw a test reel at Lincoln Square in Bellevue, WA at 48 fps. I advise anyone who doesn't already know what 48 fps looks like to consider watching the 24 fps 2d version first for the newness of the story, and then watch it on 48 fps at a second showing for the tech and to compare it in your own mind. I am definitely not wasting my one chance at an inaugural viewing on the added convolution and distraction of 48 fps. You might be a lucky 1 in 100 that 48 fps doesn't bug, but why take the chance on ruining it? Also, the more poeple you go with, the more likely someone will dislike it... You have been warned.

  • Dec. 10, 2012, 8:56 a.m. CST

    So, just a quick question, will the Spider Fight be in the next movie?

    by TheMachinist