Half in the Bag: The Hobbit – An Unexpected Journey

December 19, 2012690 Comments

Mike and Jay talk about Peter Jackson’s latest trip to Middle-Earth, The Hobbit, and frustrate both Tolkien fans and HFR projection supporters in the process.

Other formats: YouTube


flattr this!

Filed in: General UpdatesHalf in the Bag

  • supr_g

    The Titanic review was boring and lame… NEW REVIEW PLEZE

  • SergeiWalankov

    Perhaps Tolkein fans would be a mite less frustrated if you spelled his name right.

    • Anna

      Isn’t that on purpose?

    • capitandelespacio

      How much fun would that be?

    • Asinus

      Also, did you know that J. K. Rowling didn’t write it?! There are just errors all over the place!

      • Yeaaah Geek out

        Yeeah… I knew there was something up with that…
        Didn’t she write something like Ray Harryhausen and the Potter’s Stone?

  • Bob Ross

    It’s happening.

  • Ryan Schuster

    I want to watch this but I fear they are going to rip apart The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings which I both love.

    • lotny

      They review movies, they don’t point out every flaw they can find for comedy value like some ‘reviewers’ do. They are neither the authority for deciding what’s good or bad, that’s up to you.

  • m0r1arty

    I’ll just grab myself some popcorn and wait for the comments to grow…

    • playdude92

      The Hobbit: A not-so-unexpected children´s story. An expected masterful production. An unnessecary trilogy. An eternal second place to LotR.

  • http://twitter.com/djbeema Reuben

    I assume this is merely part one of three

  • fabiobile

    The fast frame rate is why I can’t get into Dr. Who :(. I have tried so many times, but I just can’t watch it for more than five minutes because it just looks like a home movie.

    • http://www.facebook.com/john.t.fell.7 John Terrell Fell III

      Exactly.

      I never imagined “Mexican soap opera” would be the new standard for film technology.

      • silversmacks

        I’d settle for just Mexican soap operas on a big screen.

        • Mk Ultra

          don’t worry. man of steel premieres next summer. soap opera’ish enough in my book.

    • Meester Smeeth

      I always wondered what that was all about. I first noticed it in Peep Show series 6 and then in a few other things. All of a sudden it would look as if someone was fast-forwarding it for a few seconds. Glad I know what it is now, I thought I was going mad haha

    • Benzo

      They use 48fps in Doctor Who? Since when? I’ve never noticed it seem sped up or jerky before…

  • Joseph

    It was Bard who slew the dragon. Your review was great… they took a children’s book based on detail and language, and turned it into a movie. Didn’t work that well.

  • orbsonb

    “The Silmalarreon”

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002679723835 Lazy Child

    It’s Tolkien not Tolkein… just saying…

  • Harry’s Mother.

    Bury them under the floor boards Harry. Nobody has to know.. It’ll be our little secret..

  • Guest

    If Stoklasa wasnt a genius, I would have been angry with the words “I dont think Tolkien knew what he was doing.” Im thinking maybe Tolkien wrote the books in historical fiction type fashion, without the idea of them being made into movies. Personally, I find it a lot more easy to believe “some guy” killed the dragon with knowledge given to him by Bilbo, than Bilbo killing the dragon himself….Bilbo isnt supposed to be a mighty warrior, he was supposed to be a little guy who made the most with what he was given.

    • orbsonb

      i think what he meant was that Tolkein had no idea what implications his style of storytelling would have for Peter Jackson.

      • http://twitter.com/PoetAndPriest Paul Hughes

        Also at the time that Tolkien didn’t know the full story he was telling, and where it would go, and implications of *that*. Fairly common for authors. Then, updates and revisions to The Hobbit, then LOTR which really gets going, then boxes and boxes of notes left to his son, showing he wanted more, wanted to say more.

        Then, 75 years later, other people have to make choices about it.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=789083463 Christian W Lamb

      I’m pretty sure he was joking. Note the laughter immediately following his statement.

    • Asinus

      I think that the other cool thing about that particular turn is a theme that we all play a part. There is no one “Great Man,” in reality. There are all sorts of support networks going on behind the scenes, etc. Most fairy tales and legends have one person setting out to do one great thing, and Tolkien’s work makes the case that that’s not how things work in a complex world. It doesn’t fit our notions of how a hero’s quest should go. Bilbo isn’t a traditional hero but played an integral role none-the-less.

  • Stefan

    Additionally: BIG CONTINUITY ERROR @29:45: Plinkett left the door open – next shot: it’s closed. Drove me crazy.

    • Trayan Iliev

      Yes this just proves this show is crap and Mike and Jay sold out and jumped the shark.

    • Robby

      That ruined the whole review for me.

  • http://www.facebook.com/cirric.fylenco Cirric Fylenco

    “I dont think Tolkien knew what he was doing.” I hope Stoklasa, genius though he is, wasnt really serious when he said that.

    • siggyfrend

      Especially considering he (or possibly Jay) chided in a previous video the fact that the villain is never “killed by a random security guard.” Check your facts

  • http://twitter.com/AWBiggs Andrew Biggs

    Love.

  • Bob Sacamano

    It’s half in the bag so without seeing it let me guess: Jay: “How did you like the film Mike?” Mike: “It was ookkaaaay? I didn’t love it but I didn’t hate it I guess?” Jay: “Hey, me too!”

    • Bob Sacamano

      Ok, I was wrong, but it was an educated guess ;-)

  • Admiral Bone-to-Pick

    Mister Plinkett nooooooooooooo!

    • Andy S

      Did he died?

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mads-Bolding-Fenger-Poulsen/1513209391 Mads Bolding Fenger Poulsen

        I think that the past has showed us that it takes more to kill Plinkett than a bad movie to kill Plinkett.

  • http://twitter.com/EvielKhon Rom Ponce

    Mike and Jay are Frauds

  • Plinkett’s_grandkid

    Can’t wait for Part II: The Two Plinketts

  • Constantine1985

    Great review, as usual, guys. Huge fan of Tolkien here. I must say I agree that J.R.R.T. probably did not know where he was going with the book. lol. Also, I pretty much agreed with your review, though I thoroughfuly enjoyed the movie, specially the arc that P.J. put Bilbo through. Him being accepted by the dwarves and all, really liked that. Cheers.

    • doofer

      Are you kidding? As a “huge Tolkien fan” its pretty obvious that if the Dwarves had killed Smaug & not Bard there would have been no conflict over the treasure, its what leads to the massive battle at the end…. The guys want compensation for killing the dragon and Thorin tells em to f*** off and shit goes down. Thats why Bilbo didn’t kill Smaug, but I suppose Tolkien didn’t know what he was doing…

      • Bob Sacamano

        When Mike says that he doesn’t think Tolkien knew what he was doing, I didn’t take that to mean he didn’t think Tolkien knew how to write. More like that Tolkien didn’t realize he was making a book that would be widely revered and that films would be made of it that people would love. Otherwise he might have changed the way Smaug is defeated and by who he was defeated in a more grandios way.

        This story started as fairy tales for his kids, and probably stayed that way in the final output because Tolkien didn’t know how huge it would be. When he realized its potential, he created the Lord of The Rings books which do have a more grand way of concluding the story, rather than just an archer killing the dragon. So it will be interesting to see how Jackson handles that in a cinematic way without it being anti climactic.

        • doofer

          “This story started as fairy tales for his kids, and probably stayed that way in the final output because Tolkien didn’t know how huge it would be. When he realized its potential, he created the Lord of The Rings books which do have a more grand way of concluding the story, rather than just an archer killing the dragon.”

          I don’t know where you’re getting this from or if you’re just making it up but you’re completely wrong. He only wrote LOTR as the publishers wanted “more Hobbits” and rejected The Silmarillion. He agreed to write a sequel to The Hobbit after a lot of badgering, thinking it could give him more leeway to get The Silmarllion out there. It wasn’t because he saw potential after The Hobbit was a success and wanted to conclude the story in a grandiose way.

          You’re so full of shit.

          • Yeaaah Geek out

            Yeah, appart from the casual insults you got the facts right.
            I think Tolkien had his made-up world in mind, when he wrote the Hobbit. A lot of stories, which would be later known as the silmarillion, were in constant development. I don’t think it is a mistake, having Smaug killed by a person, which we haven’t heard of before. He becomes important, later. That makes the world feel more real, instead of a Die-Hard like ending, where the protagonist slays the antagonist in an epic fight to the death. Would you really prefer to see that one again. Anti-Climatic, you might say – I prefer: unpredictable.

          • RedLetterMedia

            Spot on. Finally someone with half a fucking brain.

          • Bob Sacamano

            Fucking jackass, you are missing the point. It’s not that Tolkien didn’t know what he was doing from a writing perspective, but that he didn’t realize he was making a book that would be so huge. It was a story for a little kid, which is why it ends the way it does. If Hobbit was written for screen, you wouldn’t see a single archer killing Smaug that way. Film audiences want more action, and would usually consider that anti-climactic. That is what I understood Mike to mean when he said that Tolkien didn’t know what he was doing. LOTR was not written for his kid. He saw the potential in EXPANDING the universe when he agreed to write the books, and take on more complexity, which is why LOTR translates to film better.

        • Jill

          Tolkien was in the process of rewriting the Hobbit to better suit the tone of the Lord of the Rings before he died. we’ll never know

          • emanuel reuter

            with liam neeson playing bilbo baggins dad that dies while he needs to get the girl and save the kingdom of the evil wizard guy…

            but anyway,smaug is badass godamn motherfucker and riddles in the dark and conversation with smaug are the best chapters on the book and probably the best scenes in the movies.(the riddles in the dark was in the movie,waiting for the later.)

            and they are scenes only with people talking (except that smaug tries to kill bilbo with fire at least three times)

      • Constantine1985

        Well, then, don’t you think it would be wiser to show Bard earlier in the story? Maybe the son of some human king or whatever… Bringing him later in the story, and making it just like some Average Joe could kim a f***in dragon, from a story-telling perspective, does not seem like a clever decision, in my opinion.
        Hence, why I think Tolkien “kind of” did not know where he was going. It’s pretty much a “deus ex machina” solution., bringing up some dude you haven’t even mentioned and making him killing the biggest threat in the story, one that had expelled the dwarve from their homes – and here comes my “huge Tolkien fan” badge – if you know your J.R.R.T, you’d know the dwarves were specially great at killing dragons, because they could stand the fire and all.
        Well… I guess that does not matter, let’s just bring a dude here and let him fire an arrow at the dragon… that will do.

        • Constantine1985

          BTW, I think Bilbo did not kill Smaug because he was scared shitless of the sodding dragon, that’s why.

  • http://www.facebook.com/robert.lenski Robert Lenski

    I think most everything about the movie was in good order. Great cast of characters and impressive world-building almost up to par with LOTR.
    Mainly it was the assembly of the story + backstory was uneven.
    One quick rewrite would have things unfold smoother, but mostly it was an editing problem. I mean I was glued throughout the Return of the King when watching it in its 200 minute glory, but 10 minutes into the Hobbit I surprisingly felt bored and pretty impatient with it already.

    The prologue was overlong and kind unnecessary. Unlike the ones for the LOTR that showed distant history and legendary characters, this practically does nothing but tell you what to anticipate for the 2nd film. Too many exact details especially rid the possibility of new surprises when they should kept to the very essentials.
    Azog the Pale Orc, totally overexposed. There wasn’t much to his character but they have to cut to him every 5 minutes. They should have kept him in the shadows more so we would have been as surprised as Thorin was when he heard he is actually alive.
    Not to mention a little more conservative on some character designs but mainly the action scenes. You can’t get me emotionally invested at a character’s supposedly fatal injury after surviving law-defying stunts earlier.

    • http://www.facebook.com/deejaytaufiq Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

      I think that adding scenes from the Silmarillon is pretty unnecessary.

      Why not make an animated side-series based on the Silmarillion instead? I mean, the Animatrix was awesome, and i think that an animated adaptation of The Silmarillion done by WETA and some Japanese animation studio (Madhouse or A-1) would be great.

      • Yeaaah Geek out

        As much as I would like any adaption of the Silmarillion, I would still rather go with 12 more Peter Jackson Movies. Oh and sorry for the geekness, but a vast ammount of the extra scenes are not from the Silmarillion, but from other Tolkien writings. The Silmarillion touches only very briefly on the third age of middle-earth.

  • http://twitter.com/SPambas Samuel Amaral

    Are you wearing prothestic Elves ears ? lol

  • fuck

    Bard kills the dragon.

    • Manuel

      Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?

    • emanuel reuter

      you know bard’s name but don’t know smaug’s?

      holy shit

  • thomin

    I agree with your assessment of the content of the film, but I for one real liked the 48fps thing.

    I think your criticism comes down to two things:

    1) The angle. I’ve seen Gladiator from that angle (in 2D obviously) and it was also extremely tiresome to focus on what’s happening, especially during fast paced scenes. That effect of course increases with 3D, because from that angle, the two images don’t match as well as from a more central position, giving your brain even more shit to deal with. So my guess is that get there in time next time around and half your problems will disappear. I for example haven’t noticed any jerkiness or anything of that sort.

    2) Tradition. You’re used to 24fps and that’s what you expect in movies. I think that’s something that will change with time. I remember when I first saw a BluRay movie, I thought it was terrible with all that clarity. It looked like a stage production.
    Today, I don’t wanna go back. The Hobbit kinda felt like that. I felt like I was watching the Hobbit on stage and it felt weird at first. But since I already went through the motion with HD movies at home, it didn’t take me long to get used to it and from then on, the clarity really was amazing and I thoroughly enjoyed it.

    • Sully

      I disagree. Bluray presents detail like seeing the world with 20/20 vision. 48fps doesn’t present an image like real life. In real life we perceive motion blur. Wave your hands in front of your face and you’ll see.

      (you’re doing it, aren’t you?)

      Removing that motion blur makes things appear artificial. It makes you completely aware that you’re watching a movie, thus destroying the suspension of disbelief. I don’t like it. I go to the movies to get lost in the experience, not to feel like I’m watching Days of Our Middle Earth Lives for 3 hours.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=39607573 Mo Hassan

        Yeah, but you ARE watching the movie in real life. Why do we need to add artificial motion blur with lower frame rates when your eyes will blur the higher frame rate movie you’re watching? In real life there are no frames (or there might be depending on your philosophical bent), and your eyes don’t perceive your hand moving at 24fps but there’s still motion blur.

        Sure, there’s an argument to be made for personal preference, or the idea that 24 feels like the past and 48 or higher feels like the present, but the idea that 48 is less like real life doesn’t make sense to me.

        Time and kids who aren’t used to 24fps as the norm will tell whether most of us are just prejudiced because we’re used to 24fps or if it really is more aesthetically pleasing.

        • CM Chunk

          You’re kidding, right? Your eyes don’t add motion blur like a special effect. When things move, your eyes can’t process all the information, so it blurs a little. The movie picture isn’t moving. Your eyes aren’t going to blur the higher frame rate. They’ll just be confused because there’s movement, but no blur.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=39607573 Mo Hassan

            Ok, I won’t say you’re wrong, but I don’t understand why you’re right. How is the movie picture not moving?

            If I wave my hand in front of my face I see motion blur. If I record my hand waving in front of a camera then play that video back on a screen at a high frame rate, won’t my eyes be unable to process all the information because the hand is moving and then blur it a little?

        • adamfox

          40% of the movie looked like was running at 1.5x speed

        • Sully

          Looks like someone else beat me to it, but they were correct. Your eyes won’t add a motion blur to a 2D film screen.

          • Asinus

            They’re not “adding blur.” It’s just a side effect of how our retinas function. Just because an image is in 2D doesn’t produce a magical light source that behaves differently relative to our retinas than light in any other context. This is just absurd. Also, an photographer will tell you that there is plenty of motion blur in an image captured at 1/48th of a second. Someone running pretty fast, let’s say 20mph (that’s about 30 feet per second) moves around 7 or 8 inches while the shutter is open for 1/48th of a second. So there is 8 inches of blur if the camera is stationary. Yes, if the camera is tracking the person perfectly there would be no blur (except in the legs) which is the same as if we were tracking with our heads. If the camera were capturing the runner at an infinite number of frames per second, blur on the film would be eliminated, but our retinas would still behave normally for the motion relative to our eyes.

          • Sully

            Never meant to say they were literally “adding” blur. Point aside, the 48fps looks unnatural. I don’t know if it’s the lack of motion blur, or if it’s the “off” look of the speed, but it looks bad. If you don’t agree, then that’s your opinion. My opinion remains; if they release the Hobbit on Blu Ray at 48fps, I won’t be buying it.

        • CorbeauNoir

          People seem to be confusing the projection of flat, still images in a rapid-fire sequence with ‘real life’ vision. They’re not the same thing. Hence why seeing fast movements with zero blur feels unnatural, it goes against what we normally perceive in reality.

          • http://www.facebook.com/willbybliw Will Bybliw

            What exactly has “zero blur”? Any photographed element is going to contain motion blur dictated by the motion of the object and the length of the exposure/shutter speed. The only way you could have “zero blur” for a real moving object would be to have an infinitely short shutter speed (which is not physically possible.)

      • FUCKBOT 5000

        He’s right, maybe it’s because we do not expect that in movies. Just like I do not expect to get punched in the face every morning, but I guess if it starts happening regularly I’ ll get use to it.

      • thomin

        I’m sorry but that doesn’t make any sense. Reality is perfectly sharp. Any motion blur is only happening on your retina. The same limitations to your retina however still apply when you watch a movie at 48fps with sharp images.

        As it happens, your eyes do apparently process around 50 images per second, so the 48fps thing does get close to reality, at least in your brain. For a fly, it would still be more like a slide show.

        Yes, it feels weird at fist when all you’re used to is 24fps, just like the first talkies were weird for the silent movie era, or the first color movies must have caused some people to want the good old days back.

        • Sully

          So when I wave my hands in front of my eyes and see that motion blur, and there’s no motion blur in a film with a guy doing the same thing, I suppose it’s because I haven’t told my retinas to add motion blur to the images. Got it.

          • thomin

            If you saw the exact same action without motion blur on screen when you would see it in reality, the only explanation is a glitch in the matrix, because it would be a physical impossibility.

            Not only has reality a much higher frame rate (roughly 5.39106 × 10^44 fps), it also has close to infinity pixels and zero blur. But even if that weren’t the case, even if a 48 fps HD movie were somehow superior to reality in terms of crispness, you’d still watch that movie through the filter of reality, so there’s absolutely no way to improve upon it. Unless reality really is fake and we’re all in the Matrix.

          • reality

            Did you pull those “reality frame rate” figures out of the air? Reality has no “frame rate,” we perceive reality in a totally different, holistic way than the intermittent “persistence of vision” motion of film and video… To say nothing about your assertion that reality has “pixels”.

          • thomin

            Actually, the number is real. Time moves in discrete steps. Ever heard of Planck time? The same is true for space (Planck length). You should read up on that, it’s fascinating really.

            But be that as it may, the fact remains that 48fps is closer to reality than 24fps and its absolutely impossible for any motion to be crisper on screen than in reality (unless of course you slow down the film).

          • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3FRCAMLKUFJCYZ5Q5TLI6C7VWM Thanatos

            This is the movie equivalent of theorycrafting. In real life, the movie looks like crap.

          • castingcouch

            We go to the movies to escape reality.

          • http://www.facebook.com/willbybliw Will Bybliw

            Motion blur only exists in real life when the object is moving in relation to your fixed view. If you were to track your hand with your eyes as it waves in front of your face, you would in fact not see the motion blur. In film it exists no matter what your eye is tracking, as it exists relative to where the camera was tracking.

            48 frames per second hasn’t any motion blur “removed”, it simply has less of it than the traditional 24 frame/s as the exposure times are appropriately shorter.

          • Blang

            ^This is the problem though. In real life our heads on our bodies are limited to how quick we can move or react to things physically. However, when they flip a virtual camera around a scene at a really fast pace (or even a real one that doesn’t move around like a human would) with a framerate closer to reality, it means you have an extra form of motion going on that isn’t present in the real world. I can imagine plenty of movies scenes that would make me sick at a higher frame-rate, all because animators feel limitless with virtual cameras and such.

        • Regan

          Not exactly – it has to do with what we want to see in movies.

          Behind-the-scenes documentaries look more fluid, even more real, but movies need to look like movies. Otherwise it’s a distraction.

          Put bluntly, we’ve maxed out the amount of p (as in 1080) that the human eye can distinguish, and now we’re being thrown crap that gets in the way.

          Stuff like this is why the Special Edition pissed off Plinkett so much.

          • http://www.facebook.com/peter.trindall Peter Trindall

            Do you know what 1080p means? I really can’t tell if you’re joking or not.

      • Regan

        You jerk, Sully. You could have just been brilliant OR make me feel like a fool, but no, you did both.

        I think you summed it up perfectly. I saw the Hobbit in 2D and everything I hear and see tells me that was a good call…

      • Asinus

        Are you kidding? We see motion blur because of how our retinas briefly retain images. An object moving on film at 48fps doesn’t change the way our retinas work. Real life moves at infinite frames per second. Infinity > 48.

        • Sully

          Don’t be daft. Infinite? I think not, but if you like the look of 48fps, that’s on you. Personally, I like my expensively made cinematic experiences to look like expensively made cinematic experiences, not like cheap mexican soap operas. It may be the next wave of movies (I hear Cameron wants to shoot Avatar 2 @ 60fps), but I think it really looks like shit. Just my 2¢. Take it or leave it.

      • zanoonga

        It’s the same amount of motion blur on 48fps as it is on 24 fps. Motion blur has NOTHING to do with a higher framerate. You film video with 60 fields/sec although the framerate is 30. (29.97) and to that you film with 60 in shutter speed, not 30.

    • KimmoKM

      >It looked like a stage production

      I’ve seen others pointing this out. Even Mike and Jay mentioned it looked fine when it was just people talking. What about if you forget all the crazy camera movements, fast cuts and what have you? Perhaps it isn’t an issue with 48fps by itself, it’s just that 48fps doesn’t work with the modern type of camerawork.

      And I don’t think a change to that would be a necessarily bad thing. I personally dislike shaky camera and really fast cutting to begin with.

      • Poppasketti

        I agree. Like 3D, 48fps requires a different style of filmmaking. The biggest folly most directors make using the new 3D technology is trying to shoot it the same way they would a 2D film. It just doesn’t work, because the more immersive a film is, the more distracting fast cuts and handheld camerawork become. We don’t generally walk through life constantly whip-panning.

    • CorbeauNoir

      Which raises the question, should they start tiering prices at these AVX theaters based on the view? When you go to a sports game or an arena-sized concert they typically don’t have flat pricing, it’s scaled dependent on how well you can see the action from your viewpoint.

  • http://twitter.com/bbhaver2 bbhaver

    Great job guys !

  • Jacob

    I don’t think that it was the case that Tolkien didn’t know what he was doing, rather the books he wrote all started as bedtime stories for his children. They were simple yet detailed adventures never meant to be turned into 8 hours of 48fps 3D movies for a modern audience. Jackson has done a wonderful job though. Even look at LoTR, Sauron and his legions are one dimensional. Why are they evil? Because!

    Also, regarding the 48fps… Beyond a “we aren’t use to it” critique, 24fps adds that magic of cinema feeling. You don’t see everything in super detail. Everything is made wonderful through the veil of 24fps instead of being made to look at every last comprehensible detail.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      sauron and his legions are evil because Melkor defied Eru Iluvatar and wanted to rule over the children of iluvatar and all the valar so he corrupted other spirits and races and created his own in an attempt to enslave the population, thus he was named Morgoth. His most reviered servent was Sauron who had been corrupted by Morgoth. That is why Sauron is evil.

      • Sully

        Nailed it!

      • T-Pain

        Wow alright.

      • Rumcajs

        Not having read Silmarillion, I suppose your explanation is good plot-wise, yet it fails to answer the nature of evil itself in the LotR universe. Why was Melkor evil? Because Tolkien just had to have evil guy to tell his story, a story of good and evil.
        By proxy, why are orcs evil? And goblins? LotR is a fantasy epic, epic in the traditional sense, though with one exception – the two sides of the conflict are clearly cut between good and evil, right and wrong, which is a rather huge difference from Iliad. This creates a rather one dimensional villain and race that are used as a blueprint for all the bad guys in pretty much every fantasy work. Whenever you see an orc in a fantasy novel or a game, you get this savage, unintelligent and simply cruel creature that you have the complete right to kill, since it is evil.
        I really like LotR, both the films and the novels, and I think you do as well, but that doesn’t change the fact that Tolkien’s bad guys are one-dimensional.

        • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

          I definitely see what your saying. The appendices and the silmarillion definitely characterize and explain the workings of the “bad guys”. the actual lotr and hobbit books do leave you to have some suspended disbelief. But, there is dialogue from orcs and goblins that you see they are not really “evil” as they are corrupted, selfish, and weak willed. They have no alliances, they only fear Sauron’s/Melkor’s power and are “united” by there hatred of men and elves. they constantly have in-fighting and confrontations that usually end with them killing each other. I could go on and on about the backstory of evil in middle earth, but the main arc is that Melkor was Eru’s favorite Ainur, he was given more power and knowledge than others, and this made him question the law and teachings of Eru. When Arda was created and the Ainur descended to live there, Melkor live in seclusion feeling cut off from his brothers and sisters. He eventually wanted to create things of his own which was forbidden without first consulting Eru. Eru disapproved which confused and inferiated Melkor being that he was proud of his creations. He brooded in his conflicted thought until his mind twisted and he became bent on defying Eru and enslaving all of his creations in middle earth.

  • f

    These guys are awful. Its clear they know nothing of either
    book, a passing interest in the original LOTR trilogy and their
    criticisms of the film and Tolkien you would expect from some
    ill-informed stoned high school students. worst part is they use the cartoon as their frame of reference… not the book.

    • doofer

      nice copypasta of my post on /tv/

      • k

        it’s spelled ”copypaste” check your facts.

        • Arrowtrololotheknee

          Maybe it is some sort of meme, like creepypasta.
          I like the part where f is insulting everyone and doofer said, he’s done that before him, and then misspells paste.

      • Leo Ladenson

        I like copypasta with red sauce.

        • Half Machine Lip Moves

          I like Copypasta with Clam Sauce and Vegetables. Clams are my favorite, and I make this recipe at least once a week in the summer. I like cherrystones, which are larger than littlenecks and meatier. Bring them
          just to a simmer and…

      • Guest

        Copypasta with Clam Sauce and Vegetables. Clams are my favorite, and I make this recipe at least once a week in the summer. I like cherrystones, which are larger than littlenecks and meatier. Bring them just to a simmer and…

    • http://www.facebook.com/MathieuDuchesne82 Mathieu Duchesne

      Seriously, calm down…..

    • Asinus

      So, is it your stolen opinion that a film shouldn’t stand and be criticized on its own merits? Seriously, I’d like to know because it is an important premise that others might not agree with. I personally don’t think that knowledge of the source material ought to be necessary and, in fact, if it’s required, that is a shortcoming of the film. The film shouldn’t be a supplement to a written text, it is an interpretation of that text which is, itself, a piece of art.

      I’m not saying, and please don’t assume that I am, that there is not value in the book, that’s absurd; I just believe that in any instance, they ought to be able to stand on their own. For an extreme case of this see Bladerunner and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? or The Shining. In both of those instances they diverge in very important and fundamental ways from the source material but in each of those pairs both works are fantastic on their own.

  • Ryan

    As a huge Tolkien nerd I really enjoyed this movie, despite the way it would shift in tone. They can stuff as much story into the film as they want and I’ll still like it. It’s like a Tolkien turducken! Great review though.

    • No Seriously

      You’re a huge tolkien nerd and you didn’t have gigantic issues with the inconsistencies and laziness in this film? From Glamdrang and Orcrist, to the mangling of the Trolls to the SUDDENLY ROCK PEOPLE to the silliness of the goblin king to the Get Out Of Jail Free card of the Eagles, now without any personality or Gwahir?

  • Bat Guano

    Gross revenue for the Lord of the Rings films was about 2.91 billion. Or about a billion dollars per picture.

    • doofer

      does this include DVD sales & merchandising?

  • Manuel

    J. Edgar Toklein meant the books for 48fps. Get your info straight.

    • capitandelespacio

      Isn’t George R. R. Rowling?

      • brrrr

        I believe you mean George Rail Road Tycoon

    • Mario Grueso Otalo

      Check your facts.

      • emanuel reuter

        isn’t it G. lucas?

        i heard that guy is a genious.

        now i can have my account back.

    • http://www.facebook.com/deejaytaufiq Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

      Peter Jackson may have gone too far in a few places.

      • Kureth

        Like where

        • http://www.facebook.com/deejaytaufiq Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

          Like poetry, it rhymes.

          • Manuel

            Hopefully, it will work.

          • http://www.facebook.com/TimeToChewBubbleGum Jason Argus Matthew

            It’s gonna be great.

          • reno

            its so dense.

          • bill

            fuck you, rick berman

          • Joos2000

            What is it with Ricks?

          • Rick

            If all the movies we’ve made so far, this is – by far – the biggest.

          • brian

            no really fuck rick berman

          • Manuel

            It’s gonna be great.

          • http://www.facebook.com/TimeToChewBubbleGum Jason Argus Matthew

            It’s gonna be great.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=501374086 Stephen Grillo

            It’s gonna be great.

          • http://www.facebook.com/TimeToChewBubbleGum Jason Argus Matthew

            Gungas.

          • Theth

            Goongans.

          • Steve

            It’s gonna be great.

          • Still funny?

            I get it.

          • capitandelespacio

            They’ve gone up the ventilation shaft.

          • uuhk

            Did you smoke too much?

          • capitandelespacio

            Why you ask?

          • http://www.facebook.com/hamzah.sultan.9 Hamzah Sultan

            I have a picture of you on my wall. Is that like a sicko thing?

          • capitandelespacio

            OHHMYGAAAWD!

          • http://www.facebook.com/TimeToChewBubbleGum Jason Argus Matthew

            What’s wrong with your faaaace?

          • Kidakor

            Vampire baby.

        • jc

          All the cutaway scenes where they’re walking and Gandalf just starts telling a story, for starters. There are too many of those, and they almost always come out of nowhere.

          • Jakoporeeno

            No, you can’t change the way it is. It’s stylistically designed to be that way and you can’t undo that but we can diminish the effects of it.

          • http://twitter.com/CKerotica Claudia King

            It doesn’t matter, they’ll never beat Titanic, no one can.

          • Mr. Right

            Wrong.

          • Great Expectations

            People really hadn’t seen Bilbo fight before. I think everyone was just waiting for him to whip out that little blue letter opener of his and go to town.

      • Unsubscribe

        The future of film is 5D. That’s three spacial-dimensions, one time-dimensions and a whole other dimension to hold the pretensions ambition to “revolutionize” film as we know it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/kitchenkyle Kyle Kitchen

        It’s just so dense, there’s so much going on in every shot.

      • M0I

        It’s Peter’s way to make the best movie possible.

    • Cameron Vale

      I just checked my facts, and in the book Aragorn was played by Jim Varney.

  • Solo4357

    Loved LOTR Movies, haven’t seen the Hobbit yet, But I agree with them on the books. Fucking Fellowship of the Ring was 50 pages of probate after Bilbo “died.” Sackville Baggins get left this, Tooks get left that.. Fuck this, I’ll wait 20 years for the movies.

  • Christopher Kulik

    I may be in the minority. but my favorite Peter Jackson film is THE FRIGHTENERS with Michael J. Fox, a fucked up Jake Busey and the mom from ET packing a shotgun for the entire final quarter. Awesome stuff!

  • Too much CGI

    You just confirmed everything I thought about the hobbit, both technology and story wise. I REFUSED to watch the movie at 48 frames and 3D, both things I don’t like, and thus bought 2 tickets for a friend of mine and myself in 2D.

    Sufficiant to say I very much liked the “experience” and saved about 10 bucks on each ticket. The only thing I thought was a bit of a bummer was the extensive use of CGI in characters, I liked the authentic look to the LOTR movies.

    Thank you, RLM, for this in-depth review. I said it once, and I’ll say it again: you’re the best of the best when it comes to reviewing movies, I can trust your verdict.

    • RedLetterMedia

      fucking tool.

    • John

      I thought the same and also planned to watch it in 2d then the people I went with forced my decision and we saw it in 3d at 48fps and I don’t regret it for a second, these guys were WAY OFF on this review.

  • doofer

    ou’ve lost any credibility with me now guys. When doing a review its at least expected you don’t make up random shit when a quick google to research your topic of discussion isn’t difficult. Mainly your reasons why jackson did LOTR before The Hobbit. Citing reasons as Jackson preferred the grandiose LOTR, that Ian McKellen is about to kick the bucket to it was a cash grab after LOTR was a massive success.
    Anyone with even a passing interest in film making knows the original intent was to make The Hobbit before LOTR but they did not have the rights, there was a lengthy and very well publicized negotiation to obtain the right to The Hobbit that dragged on for years. As film critics one would expect you to at least be aware of very well publicized reasons instead of making up your own, apparently its too much to ask of you.

    • Mr.Tickles

      Almost as if they are doing an entertainment show on the internets instead of a reasoned dissertation on a topic that nobody gives a shit about!

      • doofer

        There is no excuse for just making up shit, it puts their credibility to zero.

        • zn

          and why is that so important? actually it’s a small detail overall. their opinion isn’t based on what they made up, but what they saw. who cares?

        • Really?

          Disputing the credibility of two guys who refer to themselves as frauds every chance they get? Sounds legit.

          • RedLetterMedia

            Your point makes no sense. I guess you think that this was a clever zinger, but in reality they use the “Daily Show Defense” of “this being a joke” and calling themselves frauds to divert attention away from the fact that they are:
            A) lying
            and
            B) completely full of shit

            Mike made a couple Star Wars / Star Trek videos that were good… but the cult following he has spawned is a poison on humanity. Armchair film directors and failed artists, a society of bitter nitpicking windbags… 99.9% of which are dudes… sitting around jerking each other off. It’s fucking pathetic.

          • That ole Christmas Spirit

            And merry Christmas to you, too.

          • RedLetterMedia

            Ho Ho Ho motherfuckers.

    • FUCKBOT 5000

      You sir, are a gentleman and a scholar…

    • Guest

      From a filmmaking perspective all their reasoning and speculations are sound. Go cry somewhere else.

      • RedLetterMedia

        Everyone is a filmmaker nowadays, but …
        “From a filmmaking perspective all their reasoning and speculations are sound. ”
        is the DUMBEST thing I have read on these boards as of yet.

        • okeedokecoolguy

          you spend a lot of time posting whiny rants on the internets for someone who knows better

          • RedLetterMedia

            I know…. ten minutes last night and probably 5 minutes today is a lot of time… that’s like 1% of the total time I’ve spent watching shitty Half in the Bag Reviews.

    • Amdoofsten

      Yeah, letss all unsssubsscribe. Sssey should check their facssss.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1250067032 Nelson Kaiton

    Conversely, I thought the movie was the weak part and the 48 frames 3D was pretty good. The first 5 minutes were very disorientating and had that sped-up effect mentioned in the review, but after that it was just fine for me. As for the movie, I wish Jackson didn’t shoehorn so much LOTR nostalgia into this — it made everything feel cheap and one note (one example of this — Gandalf whispers to the butterfly, summoning the eagles — like clockwork, we hear the boy choir).

    • No Seriously

      THANK YOU. There’s so much of that in this film, like gandalf speaking in his I’m Very Serious voice and growing big in Bag End, or when a company of people are being chased in a rocky terrain by orcs riding wargs… am i describing two towers or the hobbit?

  • TomGMS

    I didn’t read any of the comments…but I just noticed Mike’s pointy ears…and I lol’d.

    • kjellmakrell

      Holy shit!

  • Steeeve

    fyi the cartoon butchers the book. worth reading the hobbit again though, check it out. Thanks again for your awesome reviews!

  • Rootfish

    The Hobbit should have had Bridgett the midget in it.

    • lucius

      i ain’t ever gonna give up p-p-p-pimpin’

  • Harmonica

    was anyone else ecpecting some kind of Star Wars joke at the end?

  • Andrew Curry.

    “The fast frame rate is why I can’t get into Dr. Who :(. I have tried so many times, but I just can’t watch it for more than five minutes because it just looks like a home movie.”
    That’s interesting because I grew up watching the original classic Doctor Who series and for years I couldn’t get into anything with a filmic look.
    With any new look you get used to a new look ove time.

    • Andrew Curry

      Also, in 1997 Red Dwarf changed from video to a film look and everyone in Britain hated it!

  • David1985

    I’d actually like the high frame rate. It was looking more realistic which can be very distracting but maybe you should give it another try with better seats. Our seats were in the 5th row in the middle an i had a great time. PS: I’m a big Fan!

  • OmgItsWilly

    I have no idea of your complaints about high frame-rate. From how I experienced it, the whole thing was amazing and I have hard time to return to watch 24 FPS movies after the 48 experience.

    The more and more I read complaints about the 48 FPS the more it starts to seem like similiar when people complained that adding sound to movies destroyed the integrity of the experience.

    • OmgItsWilly

      Also the movies have never been “always” 24 frames per second. 24 FPS came around after addition of sound because the cost of the actual film skyrocketed as a result. Before that framerates could’ve been anything between 22 to 30

      • guest

        He mentions that silent films were shot at a different frame rate. He clearly just mispoke when he said “always.”

        • Asinus

          But then he did say “that’s why they look like they’re walking fast.” I know that this is informal and we all know what he meant, but all-in-all it was a very oddly phrased discussion. About filming in slow motion and playing it fast? What? No, they just filmed it at 48fps.

          I’m pretty interested in seeing it at that speed because normally, panning shots at 24 look like headache-inducing, stuttery crap. I hate seeing action in the theater. Except hot action… yeah.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dylanthomasrichardson Dylan Richardson

    I’m really mad that you called Bard “just some guy”.

    • Yeaaah Geek out

      Yeah. And Bilbo discovered the Hole in the Dragons armor, so the bird
      could hear this and tell Bard, who, as a descendant of the King of Dale,
      speaks birdish fluently. See, not every movie has to be the same. Frodo
      wasn’t really the Hero of LOTR, Sam was. And the Hobbit is actually not
      about Hobbits, LOTR is. The Hobbit is actually about dwarves.

    • http://twitter.com/FACLC FACLC

      Bard is an important figure in Middle Earth: he’s the chief negotiator for the Arkenstone in the buildup to the Battle of the Five Armies, he restores Dale to its former glory, and is the grandfather of Brand who waylaid the Nazgul as they hunted for Bilbo and the Shire.

      Of course, this all stems from shooting Smaug in the first place: in the books, he really does appear out of nowhere.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002595235881 Aki Anttila

    Actually PJ really wanted first to do the Hobbit back in 90′s but the film studio couldn’t get the rights.

  • Kyran

    1- I always eat potato chips after the main course,and 2- I thought Magneto was awesome in this movie! The story line was very well put together. The entire build up to the 7 dwarves questing to find snow white was ingenious. Samuel Jackson needs to make more Hobbits movies!
    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
    The Hobbit: An Unexpexteder Journey Again
    The Hobbit: Would Someone Figure Out Where The Hell We Are Going?

  • Charlie

    My biggest problem with 3d movies is that you need to keep your head level with the movie. I can’t sit in the same position for 3 hours to watch this movie, so I like to tilt my head or rest it on my hand. This makes double vision so its like you need to stand at attention like people in that apple brainwash commercial. Often times I need to take my glasses off and just stare at the floor for a second.

  • Bartosz Sz

    Did you guys change the main camera? I can’t remember the background being blurry. Almost like you used greenscreen… Are you sure George L. is not the new “director” of HitB?

  • JoJoMonkeyBoy

    IMAX 3D HFR is awesome!

  • quippley

    I liked the movie, but could have done without the 48fps. It was too bright and lacked darker shadows. Even in the cave, it’s so bright. That actually made it feel less real and deep somehow.

  • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

    tolkien wanted to make the hobbit more like lotr after he finished lotr. and there is a ton of “the hobbit lore” in the appendices and other later writings.

  • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

    tolkien didn’t know what he was doing! haha, he wrote the the whole middle earth existence because he had multiple languages and no way to apply them.

  • pbottom

    I love you guys

  • Chicago Jeff

    This is the first time I’ve ever disagreed with you guys. HFR rules! Immersion is the wave of the future of movies. It may seem scary (change spooks people, it’s natural) but you’ll seem like people who thought color was a fad and be rightfully embarrassed. Feeling there is the point! Loved the review though, great job guys!

    • CorbeauNoir

      I keep hearing that HFR magically ‘immerses’ people further into movies and I can’t comprehend it at all. I can understand sound and color added into movies added into movies immersing people further into the cinematic experience but a format that makes everything look like it’s got some kind of stilted fast-forward effect? I’m not really seeing the dots being connected here and it’s because of that that I can’t take the comparisons to adding sound or colour being added to movies seriously.

      As soon as any kind of close-up action started up it kicked me right out of the world of the movie, it just felt so artificial and fake to me, especially anything with CGI.

    • D

      Can you be any more condescending? Let’s you and me keep a tally of how many HFR films get released in the next five years. I can promise you it won’t be much more than 2: The Hobbit Parts 2 and 3. Fucking moron.

  • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

    actually 120 frame rates will be the futures future, and holographic arena film

  • nj

    I’ve heard mixed reviews at best about HFR. I can only hope there’s some way to make it work better in the future.

  • zm

    omg that was brilliant

  • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

    idk, i saw the hobbit at imax and it was pretty awesome

  • Rick_Berman

    Check your facts…
    unsubscribe.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      RICK BERMAN YOU FUCK!!!!!

    • Manuel

      Shut your face. I said shut it!!!

    • Admiral Bone-To-Pick

      Fuck you, Rick_Berman! You ruined this comment section too?

    • Rick Rickerson

      What is it with Ricks?

    • http://www.facebook.com/deejaytaufiq Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

      Oh Shut Your Fucking Face!

  • http://www.facebook.com/dave.stoll.5 Dave Stoll

    That was fucking awesome. Bring them ON!!

  • Guy

    The Plinkett Star Wars reviews are some of the best things to come out of the internet. I like you guys a lot. But you should acknowledge that your disgust with 48fps is only your opinion, and obviously not the objective truth. I mean, come on – how could it be objective? I loved the way 48fps looked with The Hobbit. I thought it made action scenes 100x more enjoyable to watch because you could see much more detail. That’s one of the things I always complained about in the original trilogy – the camera shook so much that every single fight scene was “blurry” looking. Not to mention you already acknowledged that you were sitting in the front row of an IMAX which (having been in those seats before for The Dark Knight Rises) is a terrible experience.

    I kind of stopped watching this review after you said “48fps is the future,” which, if I had watched longer, I imagine you would’ve revealed your sarcasm with that statement. I just wanted to say that I personally was delighted with the way this film looked. You’re just so accustomed to associating that framerate with camcorders and soap operas that you’re conditioned to think that anything filmed in HFR is cheap. You know… you may not have noticed that you’ve been watching films in 24fps your entire life – but your brain did.

    • tgdsg

      “obviously not the objective truth”

      and who the fuck said that? this is a show about THEIR opinions. and guess what asshole: plinkett’s star wars review is also just an opinion.

    • Screw You

      Seriously? Go fuck yourself. HFR is absolute garbage. And you can save the whole “people hated sound and color when they first arrived on the scene” argument; color and sound didn’t make movies look like hyper-clear visual messes. Stick with daytime soap operas if you love that look so much, but keep that shit out of my films.

    • guest

      Of course it’s their opinion. Anyone with a brain can understand that everything they’re saying is merely their opinion. Are you fucking stupid?

    • someotherguy

      Whaaaaaaaat.

      Are you saying I am not to blindly accept their opinion and tell others, that this is completely my opinion, too?

      It feels like the end of the world.. Oh wait a minute.

  • von Mannteufel

    So, what did Mr. Plinkett think of the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer that was run with the Hobbit?

  • http://twitter.com/JackMarco Jack_Marco

    Wow. So many butt hurt fan boys in the comment section. It always gives me joy XD

  • http://twitter.com/kennyhotts Kenny Hotts

    Scene-for-scene, the Lord of the Rings! Gandalf whispers to moth/butterfly? Check. People walking on precipice, nearly falling off? Check. Etc., etc.

  • JustPassingBy

    I loved the movie, as a fan of Tolkien I loved going to middle earth again, nor I mind to much the stretching, or it not being letter by letter the book, its a different interpretation and has a charm and live of its own, it doesn’t “ruin” the book or anything like that.

    I also agree that Jackson has obviously a lot of love for the source material which explains why he its trying to put everything he can in this last trip to the middle earth. About making it altogether he made the right call, even if he refused those movie’s would had been made anyway and who knows who the studios would had got to make it. There was even talks of Del Toro doing it, which would had been a disaster, even if he its good, with the Orcs looking like they were from Pan’s Labyrinth or Hellboy. So in the overall I am quite thankful how things have turned up.

  • David T.

    I’m really at a loss for how anyone can defend the HFR. Your brains must have processed the visuals differently than mine did, because for me it was one of the worst things I have ever seen on film. The part with the dwarves singing “That’s What Biblo Baggins Hates” may actually be the single worst-looking, most cringe-inducing thing I’ve ever seen in a movie – certainly in the top 5. Add to that all of the other parts that looked really sped-up, and parts that looked like it was footage of people on a Universal Studios ride, and it just made for a very disappointing movie, visually speaking..

  • http://twitter.com/bluehawk232 bluehawk232

    I think people need to understand that just because a book is short at 300 pages doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot going on in the first place. And The Hobbit was never written as a children’s story but it just was considered one at the time really. Story-wise dividing it up into three films is better for pacing. I don’t want to get into spoiler territory too much but if you had one movie with that goblin king stuff then the stuff with the dragon then a battle sequence it’s just too many climaxes for one or two films. And all that stuff was in the Hobbit. Tolkien wasn’t good at writing action that well so the scenes that would be longer due to them being action oriented only took up at best 5 pages. In Two Towers Helms Deep was a big part of the film but barely a chapter in the movie. Likewise in the Hobbit, the epic battle that does happen doesn’t really happen from Bilbo’s perspective so it’s very lacking.

  • Tensen01

    I am seriously torn… I loved the movie and decided I wasn’t going to read/watch/listen to any reviews… But I really want to watch this Half in the Bag… What do I do?

    • gomer

      Watch it. If you don’t like it, you can have your memory erased as a convenient plot point.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sschoettler Sarah Danielle Schöttler

    just some guy!!

  • buuggy

    I’m loving this! Lotr was for movie fans, and The Hobbit is for the book’s fans! I didn’t like lotr’s as much as everybody else, blurring past characterization as it did. Of course the Battles are cool.
    My expectations dropped as I remembered the lotr in anticipation for this. But watching the Hobbit I was actually stunned at how faithful he was being to the book. Your complaining about the story in this is only complaining about the story in the book, lol! It’s not padding, you are just getting the full story! Well you would say,”ya, what lotr needed was tom bobbedel hurhur!” Of course not, nobody likes him, tolkien isn’t perfect, not asking for that, just asking to for a faithful, pertinent interpretation of the original story, not that hard to understand.

    My least favorite part then happens to be riddles in the dark, since he had Gollum give Bilbo the answer when he says ”time’s up” knowing that ”time” is the answer, that don’t make no sense, but he had to do that for the audience, being that Bilbo does that with inner monolog in the book.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      well, its hard to portray descriptive characterization through film. I love the Lotr movies, but the cut so much shit out. They easily could have broken the story into 6, 3 hour movies and included things like the barrow downs, tom bombadil, more of the ent stuff they cut, the scoring of the shire, and other random shit and made a saga that was just as good and stayed truer to the books. But, god damn new line for fucking replacing glorfindol with arwen just so they could show liv tyler more often. i mean i get they needed to setup the romance with aragorn a bit more than the book did, but GOD DAMN YOU RICK BERMAN!

      • http://twitter.com/bluehawk232 bluehawk232

        Tom Bombadil was wholly unnecessary and ruins pacing considerably

        • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

          u mad

  • qwert

    While I watched it, I too was thinking, man, I hope they finish the scene before Ian Holm, Christopher Lee, and Ian mckellen die…

  • Danny

    The Hobbits better than Lotr, so far.

  • Walley

    WTF? you guys sat in the worst spot possible for a 3D movie. Even in 2D those seats would suck for any movie – I was stuck in those front row far right seats a few times. I went last night to a 48HFR showing and it looked great but I alway sit in the middle of a row for a 3D film. Yes some shots looked like video but the whole movie was shot on video.

  • markocms

    My main criticism of LOTR movies is the “flattening” of the characters. They all have much more depth in the books and they all act kind of retarded in the movies. Especially Saruman. Fucking hate Peter Jackson’s Saruman.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      most of it is in a descriptive narrative and whimsical dialogue which wouldn’t have translated well to the films. plus trying to develop every character in the middle earth universe would leave it the last x-men movie. but i agree, Saruman was too flat.

    • Douchenozzle Hipsterfail

      That’s why the 3D.

      • markocms

        … and 48fps is because the story was developing too slow in the books.
        I get it now. It all makes sense.

  • Movie guru 457

    I don’t know what to go see The Hobbit or ZeroDarkThirty what should I see first?

  • vagoogoo

    Penis. Anal discharge. Vaginal fluids.

    • http://www.positivelyaware.com Josh Thorne

      Hold on everyone, let’s hear him out.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andreas.nordvall.5 Andreas Nordvall

    I’ll just wait for all movies to be released and then get the inevitable fan edit that’ll cut down the 2:50hx3 stretched story into a 90 minute, smooth sailing adventure.

    • Yeaaah dude bro

      Yeah.. that’ll be so awsome. Its like.. I wouldn’t have to sit and see stuff for so long.
      And the popcorn in my face is not getting cold n shit.
      I hope they cuts them movie down to 10 minutes, so I don’t hav to read subtitles and stuff and hear talkings for so long, that is really gay and stuff.

      • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

        replace all the characters names with names i can understand. like tony, and biff, and joey, and david bowie.

        • Yeaaah dude bro

          Yeeah, great, bro. And why no american flagg in this movie, I wonders. Mor explosions and shit getting blown up. Shazam. Splamo.

          That gay old tolksho guy who writes and shit like this movie here shoulda be like: totally send John and the Navy Seals to that mountain skydiving like wooah and they drop in, ride the barrel (to laketown) and get pitted, so pitted. Just like that.

          • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

            wheres the guns? dont they know guns are more efficient than swords and axes?

  • Matthew

    I love HitB but sometimes it annoys me when I can’t figure out whether you guys are in character or not. Saying you couldn’t read the books or Jay has never seen any Bond film just kinda feels like trolling the audience or something. Your often subtle fuck you to the audience becomes a bit grating at times.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      i think thats the point. and i like it.

  • Zach

    FYI, Jackson & Co. don’t have the rights to The Simarillion, so the non-Hobbit plotlines are taken from Tolkien’s notes, the appendices, etc.

  • anonemoose

    As a PC gamer I go for 60 FPS no matter what. People complaining about high frame rates makes me laugh.

    • Gabe

      Games and movies aren’t really comparable, though.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      fuck you, you pc gamer elitist bitch. your so much better than console gamers aren’t you? and you have to let everyone know it all the time, especially in conversations that have nothing to do with pc gaming.

    • CorbeauNoir

      And video games typically fall flat on their face when they try to be ‘cinematic’. COINCIDENCE?!

    • emanuel reuter

      on games it looks good but not on real life.

      it’s different you frog.

  • Man

    I have read the book, and I have seen the movie (in 2d, 24fps) and I really loved it. There were of course a few things they should have left out, and/or done differently, but as far as the story goes, they have been very faithful. They have not included any material outside of the Hobbit book except for a story from the appendices at the end of lotr (written by Tolkien), and that material is actually stuff happening at the same time as the story of Bilbo and the dwarves.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      except how he threw half the first chapter from fellowship in the beginning where old bilbo is talking to frodo, just because he has a man crush on elijah wood. but i see why he did it, it does tie in a bit, but having ian holm play old bilbo is weird because he is way too old looking at this point, but then again having martin freeman be old bilbo would just as weird in a different sense

  • sharkinspace

    Mike looks like Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park with those glasses on.

  • Cyvaris

    I agree with you guys about Jackson having effect issues. My biggest wonk was the CG orcs. Azog was a biggy for me. He SHOULD have been a man in a prosthetic suit like Lurtz in Fellowship. He just would have looked a good deal more integrated.The goblins also just looked strange.

  • p-nasty

    The beef with the Frame rate is fucking retarded, just b/c you are accustom to some old ass TVs your brains can’t comprehend a higher frame rate.

  • Handsome Pete

    I’ve heard it said that 3D, 48fps, etc. are “immersive,” which is very stupid. The human brain knows it’s just a screen, it can see the edges and how it tilts when viewed at different angles, and even the framerate. The brain ignores all of this intentionally, so it can get sucked into the story; THIS is what’s called “immersive.” That’s why movies don’t even attempt to look like reality, they use strange color filters and camera movements and editing techniques and so on. I’m not saying that it’s impossible for movies to look real, only that it’s so far removed from anything we have now that maybe we shouldn’t be conducting these bizarre experiments in the middle of colossally expensive blockbuster movies for general audiences.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=773970453 Cory Gross

      YES!! The best type of immersion is a GOOD STORY. If I want a carnival ride, I’ll go to Disneyland. No seriously, I love Disneyland. A theme park is a perfect venue for creating immersive worlds that you can tangibly experience. I got to movies for their narrative and cinematic qualities. Nothing drags me out of engaging the film more than it being all spectacle with no substance.

    • RedLetterMedia

      how is providing the public with 5 Different Viewing Options an “experiment”? it’s just a choice… most people didn’t see the 48fps version, and even if they had the chance, they would probably avoid it because people are afraid of things that are different. I don’t understand how this hurts ANYONE? Unless you are some poor guy riddled with cancer and you have exactly 3 hours left to live and you chose to see the 48fps version before dying, then fuck off, count your blessings and see the standard release.–

  • Dr. Steelhammer

    Everything that was said about the Frame rate was the same thing I said when I got a new TV a year ago, I went for a LCD 60hz refresh rate to a 480hz LED and after about a few days of watching on it you just get use to it and realize how awesome it is. When I go back and watch a 60hz TV, its like wow this sucks.

  • Sad Panda

    To hell with Blip! I can’t watch the damn video without advertisement covering 40% of the screen!

  • Klotzco

    wait so is fake plinkett dead for good?

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      hes like kenny, i think hes died three or four times now

  • Half Machine Lip Moves

    I’ve watched the Hobbit and, as Jay and Mike mentioned, the movie is drawn into length in some places with fillers. Apparently they both didn’t had a problem with it for the most part, but I thought it was pretty bad at several places.
    Maybe I got this impression because I saw it only in the 3D… HFR…
    There are scenes in the movie that are clearly made for the freaking 3D experience.

    [Spoilers]
    At the beginning of the movie for example there is a part where the dwarfs throw a party in the protagonists kitchen. Once they’re done they start to clean up. So they start washing dishes in the most cartoonish way possible. They choreographically throw and catch stuff through the room without damaging anything, for an unnecessarily long time. One can argue they put this in the movie because it’s funny, but no. They only did it because it’s a 3D movie, so they feel the need to hail goddamn cups and plates In Ya Face.

    Another example is a scene close to the end, where the group get chased by a pack of Wargs and they climb up some trees for protection. The Wargs then jump up and try to grab them. Once again begins a scene that is far too long. They show how the Wargs break off branches, so that the audience can get their 3D woodchips. The dwarves jump all over the place and in the in the process the conifers get shaken up, so that the audience can get their 3D pine needles.

    Later some giant eagles pick them up and they all get filmed from every angle imaginable. Majestic 3D eagle wings included.
    [Spoilers]

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      all of the stuff you complained about were pretty important in the book, so your wrong

      • Half Machine Lip Moves

        @10814a623e3dba6506823ecb1b3d13ef:disqus
        @facebook-1516155903:disqus
        You two missed my point.
        I’m not questioning the content or the events in those scenes. I was trying to describe how I think that some of those scenes are unnecessarily stretched in the movie. Just so that the filmmakers could build in some 3D elements for…
        “entertainment” reasons I guess.

        • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

          they are also unnecessarily long in the book, but its glorious in both cases.

          • Half Machine Lip Moves

            Okay, I assume you read the book and you enjoyed the movie.
            I never read the book and when I saw the movie, this particular aspect of the film was pretty irritating to me. It left the impression of being some kind of “It’s 3D-Time Everybody!” moment, that’s all.

          • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

            well im sure new-line payed jackson a hefty amount to make sure there were a few eye-poppers.

          • Half Machine Lip Moves

            No Doubt.

    • Manuel

      It’s gonna be great.

    • Slayer

      ” One can argue they put this in the movie because it’s funny, but no. They only did it because it’s a 3D movie, so they feel the need to hail goddamn cups and plates In Ya Face.”

      Maybe they put it in there because it’s in the book? Crazy thought…

      • Yeaaah Geek out

        Sorry, I stopped at dwarfs.

  • Simon Walker

    You guys clearly don’t know the source material at all well, and yet complain that it is made in a way which exceeds the narrative of ‘The Hobbit’ story. You guys sound like you are simply parroting something you heard from others. And PJ tried to make ‘The Hobbit’ before LOTR, but was unable to do so for legal reasons. Terrible review I’m sorry to say, as I usually like your take on things.

    • Blang

      Source material not necessary to enjoy a film. If they had issues with the film, so be it. You are clearly TOO familiar with the source material and ate it up like fanboy cake.

  • http://www.facebook.com/treknologist Clifford T. Hall

    I went to a Marcus theater recently too, and I have to say it was the worst theater system I had seen since 1995 before I had ever experienced THX or Dolby, blah blah blah.

  • DoctorKillpatient

    I think the problem isn’t as much about the 48fps or Hobbit not being as grand as Rings, but rather the problem is Tolkien.

    I hoped that either Mike or Jay had read Rings, just to understand what an awesome book writer Tolkien is and what a god-awful horrible movie writer Tolkien could have been.

    For example, if you would take Return of the King and try to make it into a movie as it is, 1:1 scale, translating everything on paper onto the screen, you would end up with a horrible piece of shite and an empty movie theatre before it was all over. You would presume that all the books built up to Frodo destroying the ring and wiping out evil (Sauron) from Middle-earth, but that’s not where that book ends. There are literally 80 pages more to this that didn’t end up into the movie – thanks to Jackson and no thanks to Tolkien. Something like this does not translate well onto the screen and clearly this was never Tolkien’s intention.

    Being a Tolkien fan myself, I have fought many a battle trying to convince some hard-line Tolkienite (who knows nothing about what makes a good movie) how hard it is to squeeze a good movie out of these books without major rewrites or major revisions.

    I still remember trying to convince one of them how inconsequential Tom Bombadil in Felloship would have been and how my efforts felt like running against a brick wall. P.S. He gave swords to hobbits – in the movie Aragorn does that in 2 seconds.

    The fact that Peter Jackson has given us 4 awesome movies while walking on pins and needles, trying to stay true to Tolkien’s vision on one hand and on the other, trying to turn his longwinded scribblings (great on paper, potential disaster on screen) into something resembling a decent movie, is almost a miracle.

    Though technically The Hobbit is still two movies not three – Smaug will die at the end of the second, while the third movie will deal with the “Necromancer”, thus being a link between The Hobbit and LotR.

    • Jason

      I agree. Books and movies are completely different art forms. I like that Peter Jackson ADAPTED the books rather than just transferred text to screen. A similar case of this was the third Harry Potter movie (Prisoner of Azkaban). A lot of people hated it because it made some big departures from Rowling’s story, but it is by far my favorite because I think it captures the flavor of the world better than any of the others. It took the themes and the feelings of the book and did what it had to do to make those come across on the big screen. I feel like Peter Jackson does that very well.

    • http://www.facebook.com/deejaytaufiq Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

      I think your point about RoTK is exactly why i’m quite bothered by the Extended Edition of the movie. Seriously, it’s like 4 hours of stuff made just to please the Tolkien fanboys in the worst way possible.

      • Maj Nemisbu L’shiddtu

        Hey Mohinder, would you say that the Extended Edition has gone too far in a few places?
        No seriously, say it.

        That would be like poetry… it rhymes.

        • http://www.facebook.com/deejaytaufiq Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

          The world is your oyster if you’re a con artist.

          • Maj Nemisbu L’shiddtu

            But it’s stylistically designed to be that way and you can’t undo that, but you can diminish the effects of it.

      • TacoPie

        I think they’re really cool, and I don’t just mean the footage. But it’s something that’s so rarely done. Most films have deleted or scrapped scenes, but Jackson’s crew actually fully filmed and edited them into the feature as an alternate version. And that’s a key distinction. The Extended Editions aren’t called Director’s Cut or some other title than implies they’re the “true” versions of the film. Both the Theatrical and Extended versions are equally valid film experiences.

      • DerpMaster

        The extended edition helps with a lot of the flow of the movie especially in the Fellowship. In fact in some cases the extended edition deviates more from the book then the original release like Saruman’s death.

        • montechristo88

          good point

      • http://www.facebook.com/cathy.leekam Cathy Leekam

        And fangirls. Audit your privilege dude.

      • Bill The Thrill

        It’s true. And supports what the guys were saying about Peter Jackson going over-the-top w/ the scope of his storytelling. That is to say, the sometimes excessive and self-indulgent side to it all.

        I have the extended editions of ‘Rings’ — and was just watching RoTK this past weekend. FORTY MINUTES into Disc 2, and the big, climactic battle was over. I stopped it right there and though, “I’m not gonna sit here for another ‘hour thirty’ to watch Aragorn & Co. march to The Black Gate . . . whilst Twiddle Dee & Twiddle Sam march up ‘Mount Doom’ . . . Fuck this shick.”

      • montechristo88

        i think, this is the part of the conversation, where i will just won’t read any further… this statement is stupid on so many levels i won’t even bother arguing any more.

    • http://www.facebook.com/TimeToChewBubbleGum Jason Argus Matthew

      Okay, obviously the problem is neither Tolkien nor Jackson, but the fans. You could have just said that instead of typing all this.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mads-Bolding-Fenger-Poulsen/1513209391 Mads Bolding Fenger Poulsen

        The problem is never one-sided, and therefore the audience, Tolkien and Jackson all have to make compromises in order for a good film to be made over what can be described as a lovely, lovely series of books

    • Some Guy

      “Adaptation is almost a matter of code-breaking, of breaking the work
      down into a structure that is truthful, that doesn’t lose the ideas or
      the content or the feeling of the book. And fitting it all into the much
      more limited time frame of a movie. And as long as you possibly can,
      you retain your emotional attitude, whatever it was that made you fall
      in love in the first place. You judge a scene by asking yourself, “Am I
      still responding to what’s there?”…It’s an intuitive process, the way I
      imagine writing music is intuitive. It’s not a matter of structuring an
      argument.”

      Some guy named Stanley Kudrick said this once about adapting books to films. He was kinda sorta good at doing that. Like William Shakesmen before him, who famously said, “Brevity is the soul of wit”, these two understood something…

      *ENGAGE PLINKETT VOICE* YOU KEEP IT NICE AND SIMPLE.

      The viewer in question must do the “impossible” and let the individual doing the adaptation express themselves through their interpretation of the original work (like Kudrick did with his films). “Adaptation” doesn’t mean “word for word clone” and the clueless keyboard warrior mentality of “it has to be exactly like the book or it sucks” does not work when you actually sit down to write a fucking script (believe me, I’m trying to finish mine own right now).

    • Some Fanboy

      Yeah I agree. Still hate it when people complain about shit like “The return of the king syndrom” though. I like how Tolkien took his time and it didn’t need to be the main character has to fight the bad guy at the end. It can just be a some noble archer that brings down the dragon. But I understand these movies are meant to appeal to everyone and its got to have fighting and less talking and structure and timing is important when you have to sit there the whole time and can’t read at your own pace. I think its hard to judge this movie on its own when its part of a bigger story. Its like reading half the book.

    • Rick Burman

      A Man Named William Shakesman Once Said, “Brevity is the soul of wit”.

      • anon the dreadful

        That was not Shakespeare, it was Polonius.

        And Shakespeare not only wrote that line in one of his longer plays, but it was adapted by Kenneth Branagh into an excellent 4-hour full-script film.

        • Alex Lee

          But Polonius is a character written by Shakespeare.

          But it is pretty ironic he says that, but all of his writing is long and dreary to read.

    • http://profiles.google.com/sonnywilliamson Sonny Williamson

      Your insights into the books, the films, the creators and the audience are astute, wise and learned and you should feel good.

    • http://www.facebook.com/hamzah.sultan.9 Hamzah Sultan

      The main difference between books and movies is that you can choose how long a book lasts. If it takes me a month to read something leisurely, that story has been going on in my head for a month. The characters in a way, continue to live when you close the book. The movie has to begin and end in one sitting. To actually capture the books on film with any success is I agree, almost a miracle. Unless it’s a very short book.

      It’s also funny how we complained about scenes cut from the LOTR trilogy and now we complain vice versa. But I think it’s not exactly hypocrisy. No closure on Saruman in ROTK, the secondary villain in the trilogy still boggles my mind.

      What also boggles my mind is how almost ANY scene in the Hobbit apart from the the Shire could have been cut out and made no real difference to the movie. Heck, even the Gollum scene could have been cut out STORY WISE, not audience wise, would have been riots lol

      • DerpMaster

        You couldn’t cut the Gollum scene out without making the movie silly and ruining any connection to the LOTR. How else would you introduce the ring? Which is vital to Bilbo’s usefulness throughout the story. Does he just find it lying on the floor? The Gollum scene establishes the ring as important not to mention it is one of the best scenes in the movie giving us more insight into Bilbo as a character.

    • Infernocanuck

      Holy shit! You mean… books are books and movies are movies? I WOULD HAVE NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT!

    • Hamster

      Meh, you can have just about anything happen in a movie, you just have to do it well. We try to mechanize quality, so as to explain it, but really, some film directors are smart and creative, some aren’t.

      You’re right about having to convert to a new medium though. Wether it be simple animes like Ghost in the Shell, or classic cinema like Laurence of Arabia, It’s always important to make a quality piece of art, not just something that has hight fidelity to the original work.

      So you can have Tom Bombadil, he just can’t be the same Tom from the book. (I don’t know, maybe make him a metaphor for gay civil rights?)

      • Cameron Vale

        I like Tom Bombadil for what he is. In the books, although Sauron is incredibly resourceful, his greatest asset is his ability to erode people morally. It can be seen in small degrees where his aggression causes joy and peace to appear unrealistic and negligent, a necessary prelude for the instillment of the perverse inverted morality seen in his flunkies; and of course it’s seen in greater degrees where his influence is felt more directly, such as being exposed to his words or using his stuff. Tom Bombadil illustrates a chilling aspect of this influence, by showing how Sauron’s deceptions have so confused the concept of might that residents of Middle Earth perceive the genuine article as “gay,” as you put it. He also sort of functions as a foil for Sauron.

    • jlk7e

      Are you stating here that Smaug dies at the end of the Hobbit? Because, there’s a bunch of Hobbit material after that – the dispute between the Dwarves, Elves, and men over division of the spoils, and then the arrival of the Orcs, the Battle of the Five Armies, and Bilbo’s return home. I assume all that will take up a significant portion of the third movie.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jubal-Biggs/686455551 Jubal Biggs

      It isn’t a movie versus book issue. Books also benefit from tight plots, and Tolkien (I am a big fan of his) got away with a somewhat rambling storyline thanks to his wonderful use of language. It was so entertaining to read the way he phrased things that you would forget that you were cruising through 50 pages of stuff that is really irrelevant to the plot or sometimes doesn’t even really make sense. I really am a big fan of his, but he could have used an editor. Bombadil is a great example; he just slows down the action after the Shire and before Bree with no particular purpose and no use of this powerful character at any point later on. I don’t like the way the movies just had Aragorn carrying around four Hobbit swords in his pants just on the chance that he ran into four Hobbits (how could he possibly know there would be four?) and suddenly whips them out almost a week’s travel out of Bree (?). Anyway; Jackson should have skipped Bombadil, but had them get into trouble in the Barrow Downs and find the swords in the tombs, as occurred. This would also let him introduce wights and undead things and educate the viewer about what the nazgul are by comparison.
      The Hobbit is actually a much tighter story than Lord of the Rings. Much less of that book could have been removed, and pretty much all the elements introduced actually serve the story. He still suffers from a tendency to use a Deus Ex Machina to get his characters out of trouble far too much, but I’ve always liked the Hobbit better. (Good example of a Deus Ex machina in LOTR; “Oh, there just happens to be an army of undead guys waiting around right here to win your unwinnable battle for you, by coincidence” Also, eagles are used for this in both stories).
      Despite all that; I love Tolkien, forgive his odd plots, and am happy to see his stories on film.

      • DerpMaster

        But it is those pointless passages that immerse you in the world showing it to be bigger than the novel’s story. When I read the LOTR I was fascinated but all the tiny details. The LOTR is not so much a story as being temporarily transported to Middle Earth. Seeing it as in need of a tight plot is to miss what makes the LOTR special. That being the fact it can make you forget it is a plot.

        • Cameron Vale

          What’s awesome about LotR is that its writer was a university professor who created Middle Earth down to the smallest details, without even intending to use it as a setting for something; it was a surprisingly natural development of his obsessive and weird interest in philology. (First creating languages, then creating histories to show how languages could form and evolve, then creating multiple languages from one history to show how they could relate and connect…) So every little passing mention of an unseen village way over there, or an event that occurred long ago right here, is actually a meticulously imagined part of the larger context of Middle Earth’s entire history; the story oozes authenticity from every pore. I would even wonder if the poems in those novels are the entire reason why they were written (folklore was another thing which he occasionally dabbled in due to a scholarly interest, and a fully realized artificial realm would have been a convenient venue to witness his ideas in action), or if Tolkien’s Catholicism is the entire reason for the epic scale of LotR (it’s the most likely reason why Middle Earth has its own internal mythical explanations for suffering, death, and evil).

  • SpiderHyphenMan

    No you’re supposed to find the ones for Star Wars and get all the VHS copies of it you can!

  • http://www.lukeharper.co.uk/ Luke Harper

    Erm you can’t exactly show 48 frames properly in Blips player since it limits you to 24 frames anyway.

  • Genkis

    with 48fps everything of the filmmaking gets so unnecessary and …yes… unreal. it just looks like those making of videos you can see in the extras.

    all “immersion” is lost through this HFR. there isno magic anymore. it looks boring. and cheap.
    no play with the light, no play with filters. Like someone mentioned here: the cave, bright and boring.
    the action scenes are sharp and clear and start to look boring. the brain gets it all, there is no imagination going on anymore.

    with blur, your brain has to fill in the “gaps” it has actually more to process and gets active , creative and imaginary.
    with hfr all that is lost. it is really sad…

    • http://www.facebook.com/derrick.cryderman Derrick Cryderman

      Look, 48fps compared to 24fps is like watching a movie in 2D compared to 3D, or color to black and white.. Imagine Schindler’s list, Casablanca or Citizen Kane in color. Like George Lucas said…

      “Watching a movie in 3D is simply a better way to watch a movie. It’s like black and white versus color”

      Like wow. Terrible because they aren’t in color. Which is BORING because my tiny mammal brain can’t pay attention to things that aren’t bright and loud and jumping out at me in high definition.

      Just tacking shit onto a movie just makes it better.

      48fps, 3D and Colorization add things like like:
      -Shitty, terrible, unnecessary colorizing that fucks up the lighting, shading and just fucking sucks
      -Dimmer picture from irritating glasses
      -Headache inducing, distracting, shallow 3D “Experience” that isn’t even remotely an experience.
      -Video like quality and unnatural motion.
      -Obvious, irritating gimmicks that add fuck all to the story.
      -Fucking ticket mark ups to be inconvenienced by pointless garbage.

      -Loss of artistic direction and credibility due to frequent abuse of technology where it could actually be use constructively, if at all.
      -Emphasis on effects and gimmicks rather than a story that people will love/like/tolerate/not hate because we’re lobotomized apes and can’t pay attention.

      TLDR:

      Nothing of any substance is added by this shit. Its stylized to be that way. You know, terrible.

      • Douchenozzle Hipsterfail

        “Imagine Schindler’s list, Casablanca or Citizen Kane in color. Like George Lucas said…”

        OF COURSE Schindler’s List would’ve been better in color and 3D, with a cgi Jar-Jar added for comic relief. I’m sure Lucasberg is working on a post-conversion re-release even as we speak!

  • cardcaptorsakura

    Why does Blip tv suddenly not work. Is it because Mike and Jay sold out?

  • Maddison

    Man you ripped it a new one. I liked the Hobbit a lot, it was a bit fluffy but that’s okay because I’m a fan of Tolkien anyway so it’s good to see more of Middle Earth. I understand the average movie-goer does not feel this way, but it’s still a pretty solid film. I haven’t seen it in 3D yet though, I find it hard to believe it actually looks as bad as you say it does, but I have heard mixed things about it.

    • CorbeauNoir

      Uh, what? They didn’t rip it a new one, they both liked it.

      • RedLetterMedia

        Fucking Plinkett apologists… just because they both use the cop out that they “liked it” after spending a half an hour distorting reality, and misinforming the masses with their completely false understanding of what 48fps is, how films work, and the history of Tolkien… well that doesn’t actually mean they “liked it” believe it or not.

        • RedLetterMedia!

          Go home. Like, don’t you have ANYTHING better to do? For people you think are a sham, you sure do spend a lot of time watching/talking about them. Like, go and fuck a woman or drink a juice or sneeze a sneeze, for fuck’s sake.

          • RedLetterMedia

            You know you Plinkett Apologist Faggots are all exactly the same…with the mindset of a 15 year old boy.

            I am simply pointing out the fact that I have spent a lot of time watching these guys and they have progressively gotten lazier and especially with this review… are now just flat-out lying.

            It’s called disappointment.

            Here is something you might be familiar with…
            Fart!

          • RedLetterMedia

            Go home. Shut up. You’re a sad sack of shit. That’s the only fact here, you sad sack of shit.

          • RedLetterMedia

            Are you the same asshole trolling my comments? The least you could do is use a different name.

            But yeah, another great response there fruitcake.
            Don’t you realize that every insult away from my initial points just makes you look even more pathetic and desperate? Use your brain… make some counter points.

            DEFEND YOUR RLM BOYFRIENDS DEAR -SIR, I QUESTION THEIR HONOR FOR GOD’S SAKE!

          • Douchenozzle Hipsterfail

            I think this is actually the same person, like Gollum talking to himself.

  • Jimmy Hoffa

    Id just like to point out that for a long time Peter Jackson really didn’t want to make this film because he didn’t feel he could do it well, and even offered it to Del Toro I believe, but he was doing other projects. I think the reason Jackson was apprehensive at first was because he wasn’t sure how to make the Dwarfs work on screen [I believe I heard this from the production diarys or whatever they were called, that can be found on youtube, but dont quote me on that]

    • CNBCFOXNiner

      Breaking News!
      Jimmy Hoffa claims Acclaimed Film Director Peter Pan doesn’t find Midgets appealing.

      • Jimmy Hoffa

        They may have a buried me…. but they could not keep me from watching Midgets fight President Hoover for their right to be Midgets.

  • Dan

    “It’s a carnival ride now”, cut to the carnival horror music and Jay in the trolley.
    I was so surprised and laughed so loudly I woke someone up.

  • Robby

    I DON’T KNOW NOTHIN BOUT NO GOBLINS

  • Aaron

    Jesus Christ! I don’t give a fuck about motion blur or 48fps, it was a good fucking movie and thats that! And FYI i saw in Imax 3D

  • Carl

    I had no issues at all with the film. I can understand your points but for me personally I loved it.

    • Carl

      Guys… next time sit in the center of the theater.

  • Jon

    Jesus you guys are misguided, oh well its a great film shame you can’t appreciate it.

  • Danielle

    I’m really offended by the implication that Ian McKellen won’t live forever.

    • Dongs

      This is why we need Feminism.

  • Peter Jackson

    Mike and Jay are just a sad sack of old man testicles whose eyes can’t handle the rich detail of 48 fps. If they lived in the 40′s or whatever, they probably would have been complaining about how color television distracts them from the film and hurts their old man eyes. Smart move sitting in the front corner of the theater, might as well just watch the movie projecting out of Rich Evans’ asshole. At least then you would have an excuse to make him your bitch before the next HITB comes around. Have fun with your old man VHS films for the rest of your life.

  • mike

    hey jay and mike, I have a quick question. What is the difference between film and video? I always thought they were the same thing, but your video says that this is not the case.

  • jc

    This film lacked the world ending threat of the first trilogy, which made me care a little less. It was also filled to the brim with cutaway stories that felt crammed in. The best part was the Gollum scene, but even that was a little too long. Also, no one died, so there wasn’t much of a sense of loss or sacrifice. In the first Lord of the Rings film, we lose two main characters, one of whom is Gandalf (although he comes back later, but I didn’t know that at the time), and we get a ton of emotion. This movie had some of that with Gollum’s scenes, but the rest of the film lacked that, and I feel like that’s what Jackson excels at.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=773970453 Cory Gross

    Peter Jackson hails from the “more is less” school of filmmaking. More running time, more spectacle, more extras, more detail, more battles, more heroic poses, more quick cuts, more sweeping pans, more this, more that, all of which results in less of a movie worth watching.

    I hated Lord of the Rings and don’t understand how anyone can accuse Jackson of being a competent director after it and King Kong. It had a lot of scenes in it, but no real, cinematic story that I could make out. Things happen one after the other, but even then I could barely figure it out because it was shot and edited in such a juvenile way. Heroic poses and slow motion deaths attempted to compensate for lack of character, and quick cuts attempted to compensate for lack of excitement.

    Jackson’s style really comes to the fore in King Kong, where it is contrasted against a practically perfect movie. One of the brilliant things about the original Kong is it’s economy. There is not a wasted second of that movie. Everything exists for a reason, everything advances the story in some way, and everything works together so well to create a totally satisfying cinematic experience. Jackson just heaps on more running time and more dinosaurs with nothing to show for it. More for the sake of having more.

    And yeah, I totally called the end of Kong before seeing it (which, I assure, was wholly by accident): big sweeping shot of New York with Kong perched heroically on top of the Empire State Building, choppy and quick-cut fight with the planes where you can’t really tell what’s going on, only to end with Kong’s slow motion fall to his death. Jackson’s entire vocabulary is cinematic cliches.

    As to why people like his movies… Damned if I know. I admit that I am out of touch (i.e.: I’ve actually seen the original King Kong), but I suspect that a lot of it is probably owing to people who don’t care about CINEMA as much as they care about slavish devotion to the books, the technical details and explosive spectacle of the carnival ride. In which case, 48fps is perfect for Jackson. He’s got to have some way of getting more details and more spectacle into the movie.

    • JustPassingBy

      Ill be honest and say I haven’t seen any other Jackson movies, but the core of the thing its, THAT’s Tolkien, the man was obsessive to incredible extents and practically laid down every single intimate detail of the world he created, from the eating habits to the language and their major and minor gods, there are pages and pages on his books only describing the scenery, then you have to take into account that the Lord of the Rings and the Hobbit are but a infinitesimal part of what he wrote, and that they are his “light” books

      So when you think of all that a director that thinks more is less and that worries about if the orc’s clans have each a symbol and defining characteristics even while you only see them dying in the background its pretty much perfect for the task. I have no idea of their cinematic worth, or if they are perfect movies or not, but I can tell you they do are the perfect Tolkien movies. I personally love them for that, you could double their extension and that would only make me more happy. About the general public that doesn’t care for Tolkien I assume its because Jackson must had found the perfect balancing point between entertainment and the obsession.

      • Yeaaah Geek out

        I agree with Mr. Bypasser here.
        These are movies that invest in strange regions. Cory Gross has a point, too, as a viewer of traditional movies, but Jackson takes a different route.
        As a lover of the source material I always admired Jackson adaptation.
        I was so happy about the extended editions, just adding so much stuff. On the other hand is it also distorting his theatrical cut with little respect for it. And somehow, for me it did work. I wasn’t bored by the additions at all, and honestly would like to have even more.
        So if Peter Jackson would announce re-releasing The Lord of the Rings with 3 Extra Movies to get more stuff in, I would be certain it would turn out well (at least for my taste).
        Everyone smells the quick cash-grab here, and I would too, if it would be any other director/producer. But King Kong really showed me what Jackson is doing with his adaptations. I wasn’t a big fan of the King Kong story. The original movie is a classic and a milestone in cinema history. Jacksons interpretation was one of a person who would embroider every aspect of a beloved story. Eventhough I didn’t care much for the story, I saw what he had done with his adaptation: Highlighting every aspect and embellishing it.
        Gandalf said in the Hobbit movie: Every good Story deserves to be embelleshed.
        If you do that with care and regard for the story and its characters, even to the degree where you break several cinematic rules, I can see that people dislike it (i.e. the endings in Return of the King) but I give credit for the attempt, even if I don’t care about the source material (King Kong) and I embrace it if it is done with material that is dear to me .

        • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=773970453 Cory Gross

          I have no doubt that the original books are quite good, and that the films are acceptable visualizations of scenes from it. Every time I have this conversation someone tells me that I should read the books. But here’s the thing: that slavish devotion does not necessarily make a good movie. A movie has a responsibility first and foremost to the cinematic art form, not the literary. It needs to be intelligible in its own right.

          There’s an old review of the 1933 Alice in Wonderland that sums up my thoughts well: “A viewing of this feature brings to the fore the fact that a creen story, as one of its first essentials, has to have a definite progress – a parade of events that dovetail and carry the interest along. A series of scattered, unrelated incidents definitely won’t do to hold interest for an hour and a quarter… One incident is made out of extravagant paradox and it is followed by other detached episodes constructed from the same material. Nothing grows out of anything else in this phantasmagoria. It’s like reading a whole volume of separate four-line gags. It takes super-human endurance.”

          Gandalf was wrong, at least insofar as embellishment is used to cover the fact that you have no story. There is also a lot to be said for knowing what to leave out of a story and when. The embellishments on King Kong actually made it a far worse movie than its original. only made more torturous by the fact that his embellishments are delivered so poorly. Just the other night I watched Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris and… WOW!… A story with a structure, that I could understand, which was intelligent and comprehensible, with genuine characters, witty dialogue, and subtlety in its direction. It was like the opposite of a Peter Jackson movie.

    • D

      Congratulations! You’ve successfully voiced the (incredibly miniscule) minority opinion of someone who (somehow, I have no idea how) dislikes the LotR films! You must feel so proud of yourself.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=773970453 Cory Gross

        I do! Thank you!

  • Leo Ladenson

    I can’t understand what you’re saying about no goblins.

  • Pereza0

    I dont understand why you would think action films would be better at 24fps, when things are moving around fast, than at 48 fps. the speed does NOT actually change, as you said there is more information to it.

    You make some arguments about motion blur? What the hell… You see, motion blur and 48 fps are not mutually exclusive, motion blur is extremely cheap and easy to recreate, independently of frame rate. Im guessing the reason it doesnt show up in 48 fps, though, is that it was precisely created to conceal the limits of 24fps when things are moving fast, no need for it at 48 fps.Still, I guess it wouldn’t be hard to recreate at all if people kept complaining about it.

    Im not a big fan of 3D, or CGI overuse, but the fps increase thing is nothing like that. It isn’t a forced qualitative change, its just more of the same thing, a step foward in the same direction.

    The “oh but it kind of looks like a video at 48 fps” thing is kind of dumb too, like if it was something bad. I know when im watching a movie, I dont need a lower framerate to tell me.

    The thing you said about jitter and changing running speeds like in horror movies… Its just makes no sense, they are the same exact scenes except in 24 fps you only have every other one, if that was an actual problem, it would show up in both. Not going to make sight/medication jokes, but seriously temped to.

    I agree with you about everything else concerning the hobbit, tried to hard to do both seriousLOTRspiritualsequel and the funchildrenbook. Wish the hobbit had been done before LOTR and had been an hour and a half fun movie meant for kids/families.
    I know they have constraints with the kind of content they can put inside the movies they make, but there’s other stuff in the LOTR universe that would have worked a lot better for this kind of epic, compared to the hobbit. Silmarillion any one?

    • CorbeauNoir

      “The “oh but it kind of looks like a video at 48 fps” thing is kind of dumb too, like if it was something bad.”

      It IS something bad, unless intentionally wanting to look like a cheap History Channel documentary is suddenly the new gold standard for cinema.

  • Leo Ladenson

    Ohhh . . .

  • CGI Smoke

    i thought they were going to wish for a huge supply of the original star wars vhs tapes

  • dick

    The day when 48/fps becomes the norm, literacy rates start to rise because people will start reading books. And anyone who disagrees is dyslexic.

  • Alt

    Why has noone pointed out Apocalypse Now yet?

  • CorbeauNoir

    I’ve had a few days to sit on it and my thoughts on the film have generally warmed up a fair bit. I still think 48fps looked awful and I still think there were some horrendous pacing issues in the first half or so – they could have maybe interweaved the dwarf kingdom backstory into the meeting at Bilbo’s house to help break up the ungodly-long sequence of a bunch of little people and an old guy sitting at a table talking, and the pointless Frodo-Bilbo framing device and pretty much everything that happens in Rivendell could have been majorly trimmed down.

    But there was some great acting performances in the movie and the last hour and a bit really helped salvage the whole thing. I’d still say it’s my least-favourite of the four Middle-Earth movies so far but I went in really afraid this was going to be a godawful bloated mess and left actually anticipating the next two now that (hopefully) a lot of the tedious expository stuff is out of the way, so I’d chalk it up as a success.

    • Robby

      I agree. I think the only reason I wasn’t horribly bored was because after the first thirty minutes when they’re still in the Shire, I realized how much they were padding the running time. So when they got to Rivendell I was like meh, I know this is going to be way longer than it needs to be.

    • http://www.facebook.com/deejaytaufiq Mohamad Taufiq Morshidi

      48fps would work better in animation and Video Games.

      I saw a 48fps demonstration of Japanese and Korean TV companies showing stuff like One Piece, K-On! and video games like Resident Evil 6 in the 48fps modes that their big TV sets have, and it kind of works well.

      • Asinus

        48fps is pretty slow for a video game– at least since 1998 or so.

  • Tunesimah

    What about Bob. Yeah!

  • JDDD

    When’s the next (better) Plinkett review?

  • Doug

    Immersion comes from good storytelling and characters we can relate to and enjoy. Not from sticking a piece of plastic on your face to make a blurry image un-blurry.

    • SecretTalkShowHost

      Exactly.

    • http://www.facebook.com/hamzah.sultan.9 Hamzah Sultan

      I saw it in 3D 48fps, my first ever 3D movie. I liked the fact they can make something look 3D, but because of that, I kept looking around, distracted the whole time, and overall, by the end, hated 48fps and 3D. Save it for adverts or games.

      I just watched it again this morning, downloaded cam version, I can’t believe how much more I enjoyed it on my laptop and cam copy than in IMAX 48 FPS 3D.

      Everything that just stood out to me now blended in the movie as a whole, which allowed me to focus on what was happening. Immersion is easier when everything around you is part of everything else. Plus the CGI looked a LOT better when it’s grainy, it felt too cartoony in the theater.

  • SecretTalkShowHost

    I don’t know if I personally have any issues with 48p because I haven’t seen a movie in a theatre running at that framerate. But, I really don’t understand why people defend it. Why would anyone feel the need to defend 48p in the first place? What does a faster framerate add that people feel makes it worth defending? The only reason it’s being used is to make filming in 3d easier. 3d is ultimately a gimmick meant to jack up ticket prices. Most people seem to be sick of it and perpetually irritated by it.

    It kind of just seems like people who defend 48p are just showing that they’re easily manipulated. “You don’t like change” this default argument that people on the internet use for anything. “Change is always good” is such a lazy, easy, dumb blanket excuse to take to when you’re an easily manipulated, easily impressed nerd who just wants to drool over the latest technological artifice.

    • Blang

      Not to mention that all the effects have to be rendered at double the frame-rate, increasing the cost of everything yet again. I agree with you: it’s just a way to get more money out of people for watching a movie. 24fps is completely fine and I’ve never heard of anyone desiring more. I understand it in the world of games, but not films.

  • Robby

    You guys already show enough contempt for your audience in your reviews without playing the Care Boars after every god damn episode.

  • Jason

    Honestly, I think I liked the Hobbit more than any of the Lord of the Rings movies. I liked that it was smaller and less epic, and that it took its time a bit more. The LOTR movies were OPPRESSIVELY serious, and even though they were incredibly long they still felt rushed and almost incoherent in some places (for example, Faramir’s inexplicable change of heart when he let the hobbits go). Everything was always “the most…” or “the biggest…” The Hobbit felt like a small piece of a bigger world, and I really liked that feeling. I also liked that it pulled off the trick of having a ton of characters while still making each one seem interesting and memorable. Even though some of the dwarves only had a few minutes of screen time, they still felt like cooler characters than Aragorn, who had zero personality and was (I thought) thoroughly uninteresting.

    In the end, the shire was by far my favorite part of the LOTR movies, and the Hobbit felt like an entire movie of that. I understand LOTR fans who thought it was underwhelming, but I thought the Hobbit was much more enjoyable. As Gandalf said, it is the small things that hold back evil, and this felt like an entire movie of wonderful, small little things!

  • The Nonconformist Muffin

    They killed Plinkett….you bastards!!

  • http://twitter.com/Chickengirl001 bwak bwok bwak

    I was ready for Mike and Jay to tear this film apart and hate it. I enjoyed the film quite a bit, but I didn’t disagree with anything they had to say. I wouldn’t say I was disappointed by the film like they slightly were, I guess because I knew that The Hobbit wouldn’t be able to match up to the LOTR series. I look forward to what the next two films bring.

    I haven’t seen the HFR version of it, I’m not surprised they hated it. It seems like there are more people who have hated it than people who liked it, but part of me wants to see the HFR version to experience it for myself, and if I end up hating it then so be it.

    • RedLetterMedia

      Jesus Christ… this has to be the most convoluted, retarded attempt at an opinion, or statement I have ever seen.

      I had to read this three or four times because it made me laugh so hard.

      Thanks bwak Bwok for this.

  • Me

    >watch it in front row corner
    >has opinion about image quality

    Lol no.

  • ugh

    I wish Jay would shut the fuck up…………..

  • Jaime Ponfar

    Hand me that fucking Silmiril would ya?

  • Ricky

    It is a joy to watch Half in the bag again. For fuck’s sake get rid of that christmas video that follows on the loop after the episode ends, I’ve come to hate that cheap christmas music after hearing it so much.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      What is it with ricks?

      • Ricky

        Now you know why we’re called “Dick”.

  • jackrenter

    weird, i thought it might be weird in 48fps. but it looked fine. the 3d was much less painfull then it normally is with 24fps. the thing i hate the most is when HDTV’s strech out 24fps movies into 30fps.

  • http://twitter.com/GrantElicious Grant Butler

    The movie just bored me, I fell asleep before they even left the house, it just seemed like a whole load of washing up.

  • Tempest81

    Plinkett didn’t act very Plinkettey in this one.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      I DONT LIKE THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT!

  • Grimmers

    The DOF on the main camera is fucking weird.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      well its not like redlettermedia is a huge production studio. maybe they can’t afford the fancy stuff?

  • Bilbo

    FUCK you guys!

  • Some Guy

    Is that a Bloody Mary that Mike is drinking?

    • Alcoholic13

      No, it’s a Greyhound. Vodka and grapefruit juice.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=71303060 T.e. Post

    Spot on, brothers!:)

  • FistsofChuckNorris

    Spot on, brothers! You mentioned that he likes to drag out scenes and movies. That is true, but it works so well in these movies. In my opinion, in the Hobbit and The Lord of The Rings, there’s a sense of looming evil creeping back into the world. It’s a build up. The fight scene with the goblins was a little too much, though. It got boring at that point.

  • A.D.

    Great review guys. The biggest mistake they made was deciding to stretch the book into three films. I think all of the flashback sequences and cutaways (especially the Radagast stuff) was totally unnecessary. Just by cutting out the Radagast stuff, the framing device with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood, the conversation at Rivendell, and the flashback to the Dwarves fighting at Moria, the film could have been spared at least 40 minutes of filler. Instead, all of that stuff was necessary to set up concepts that will be addressed later, such as the Necromancer. This film felt bloated far past acceptable limits, and I must say that I did get a little of that sinister, in it for the money feeling from it (although I suspect it was the studio that wanted 3 movies more than Jackson did).

    I did enjoy the film, but not as much as I know I would have if they were just sticking to The Hobbit stuff. I have nothing but respect for Peter Jackson after his awe-inspiring LotR films, but this film was just so disappointing.

  • dongaroo

    thumbs up for that bottle of New Amsterdam gin. good stuff for the price

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=730430121 Rob Thomas

    lol – called the end!

  • Json8tr

    I left feeling it was the grandest movie ever made. I did not like the clear and jarring camera pans at 48fps. I too am not a fan of modern 3D. if its going to be 3D their should be stuff flying off the screen at me!

  • stupid face

    The blood from from when Jay shot Rich Evans with a mustache is still on the wall behind Mike. What a plot hole!

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      rich evans is like the prestige guy. TESLA YOU FUCK

  • DagobahDave

    Mike’s coughing fit excited my vagoons.

    • Jacob

      Vaginzo

  • http://www.facebook.com/william.lyth William Rosten Lyth

    The finally of The Hobbit series will have a dragon. It’s childish, but that’s what I want to see.

  • http://www.sunnystrangers.blogspot.com/ Bryan M. White

    I had to go looking for a 48fps trailer of the movie to see for myself. Good Lord, it reminds me of some kind of CGI Bible adventure from the Christian channel.

  • dennett316

    I disagree with their thoughts on 48fps and 3D, and I liked the movie a little more than they did too. Then again, I haven’t read the book at all, so that may explain that.
    As for 48fps, it took about 10 minutes to get used to for me. I saw Bilbo walking and it did indeed have a fast forward look to it, and my heart sank. But as the movie got going, I never noticed that effect again. I can imagine sitting so close to a large screen playing havoc with your eyes, so I think that may account for the fact that I had no problems with the motion of the film at all…I thought it looked great, especially during the action scenes with the quick panning being blur free and still retaining the detail. It wasn’t entirely perfect though. Lightning flashes when they were on the mountainside looked very stagey, and a few of the sets did have that set-like feel that 24fps tends to hide. That was only a few moments out of the movie though.
    Stuff like 48fps and 3D will not suddenly make a bad movie good or add anything to the story, they are simply visual tricks that add to the overall experience…at least for me they do. The 3D was great in this, and obviously gave a great sense of depth and solidity to the proceedings. Like I said, it’s just a visual flourish, no-one has ever claimed it adds any more than that. I look forward to seeing what other directors can do with 48fps. If it doesn’t take off, that’d be a real shame, but the traditional method will always be there. It needs people to try it first before determinations can be made, and I admire Peter Jackson for taking the risk. It’s an experiment that may not work, but it had to be tried.

  • MonkeyKing1969

    This 48 frames argument is pointless. The brain is plastic, it adjusts to sensory input. In a few years people will just say, “What do you mean… THAT is what movies look like.” And, my guess is we will be watching 120 fps movies in less then seven years that uses an entirely different technology for 3d.

    There’s no “gate” on these digital projectors, the limit of frames will be merely our desire to handle large files of data in the editing process and how fast our projectors can display images smoothly. Our brains will adjust, because that is what they do best. Our brains are biological computers running primitive million year old primate operating system software, but it works because it is adaptive. All the arguments about what humans “can see” or what our brains can process is BULL SH_T because our brains are rated for watching leopards leaping out of trees to kill us in 1/100 of a second.

  • G_G

    A movie is a mix out of theater and painting. You have got actors that build a connection to the audience by telling a story that is emersive. And you got pictures or scenes that the audience can get emerged into. It highly depends on what you are out to do, which presentation helps the most. A porn movie for example is the most extreme example of trying you to emerse in just the pictures. In that case tools of visual emersion are likely to work better. If you otherwise are making a movie out of a book, which from the start uses only a story to emerse you, the more you make the audience get distracted from it, the less it will work. At least that is true for people that want to see the story, and not Hobbit porn. It almost seems as if Peter Jackson threw in all those visually emersive gimmicks to distract from the lack of a really epic storyline in the Hobbit.

  • Katie Peterson

    Rock’n the 3D shades.

  • Nequit

    So why 24 fps is great for movies, but unacceptable in a video games?

    • Harry S. Plinkett

      Cause I don’t like things that are different.

    • http://twitter.com/A_Lively Arthur Lively

      Two very different kinds of illusions there; videogames often don’t add motion blur, so they look horrible and choppy at slow frame rates. The camera is sufficiently unpredictable that they can’t pick shots that reduce judder / strobing, so better to just fit in all the frames you can. Also, since you’re controlling the game many prefer the super crisp feedback that 60 FPS provides.

      Movies naturally have motion blur built in, and presenting it in 24 FPS gives you a more cinematic, confident style which also provides the ability to better suspend disbelief. 48 FPS is so close to looking like reality that it triggers an “uncanny valley” response in many viewers. In 24 FPS, the director can actively choose shots that won’t strobe too much, and do a lot of other things to optimize the presentation that videogames don’t bother with.

      Ultimately movies will probably always be the best, most distilled, and “curated” form of video-based art, and 24 FPS has been, and probably will continue to be the most well-liked way to present this art form (higher frame rates have been around for decades, by the way, but they never really took off). Videogames have their own strengths, but you shouldn’t assume that what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

    • Blang

      The framerate can affect the input on a video game. So at a higher rate you are getting faster controls…good for fast-paced games. Also it’s less of an animation issue because the player is in direct control of a lot of what happens on screen (like a 3d character doing a 180 for instance), so it’s not a surprise. In a film, there is no input, you just have to accept the camera movements as they are. Besides, lots of high-res games ADD blur effect to the screen anyway to make it feel more like a film, as the high FPS movement does, indeed, look very unnatural. And everything Arthur said above is also valid.

    • Guest

      Movies, most of the time, are meant to be realistic. Video games are not.

      It’s not ok for 60 fps in a video game that’s attempting to portray reality. Which is why none have as yet.

  • T-Dog

    Damn you frauds. The review was excellent, but Half in the Bag just jumped the shark with the magical movie trivia game at the end.

  • http://www.facebook.com/TimeToChewBubbleGum Jason Argus Matthew

    I think Peter Jackson was right when he said the 48 fps is meant for the younger generation, since it’s they who are supporting it the most. They’re calling the rest of us, the ones who don’t like it, whiners because we apparently can’t accept change in technology. :/ I remember when Independence Day was released on home video. The scene where the White House was destroyed was changed to a higher frame rate for some reason, making it look like a cheap TV show shot. The scene was 24 fps in the theater, so it made little sense to alter it for the VHS version. I’m with you Mike and Jay; I’m not going to watch entire movies like this. I stuck with the standard 24 when I saw The Hobbit.

  • Chris Robertson

    I really had hoped you guys would have liked the new 48fps format. I have a tv with a setting that sorta “forces” whatever is on into a higher frame rate so I’ve gotten used to it over the past couple of months. To me, it looked great but of course with flaws with it being the “first” theatrical release. I hope they improve on the editing mishaps with the new format and I hope you all see the sequels a second time in 48fps to get follow up comments on it.

  • Lil’A-hole

    Check Your Facts.

    • Gross movie nerd

      This is like debating “which came first, chicken or egg” and of course the answer is chicken, because how else would the egg get laid?

      • jack

        The real question is.. how you get laid?

        • capitandelespacio

          Fascinating.

  • kevdev

    how many times has mr plinkett fucking died in this series

  • james

    You may want to read the books. They have an immense fan base and these films are really geared towards them. Tolkien’s legendarium encompasses about 100,000 years of history from the beginning of the universe till the supposed death of Sam (it is thought Sam travels to the West as Frodo did). Jackson is filling in the timeline in a true chronological narrative. The Hobbit is a now a trilogy to include things that Tolkien hinted at or omitted from the book, but that he mentions in other writings that are occurring at the same time.
    It is rumored that Jackson would one day like to film “The Silmarillion”, and a daring piece of filmmaking it would be too. By rights, he should have filmed this first, but that LOTR is better known and he had the rights to LOTR (which he didn’t for the Hobbit).

    • David T.

      Most of that history, though, is just “the gods were trying to make the earth and Morgoth kept messing with them”

      • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

        Morgoth, the original internet troll of the void and valanor.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sigsoosh Peter Schmidt

    These guys shot some of this episode in 48 fps. What talentless hacks.

  • Seremfe

    There’s almost nothing in The Silmarillion(which is way more epic than LotR) that would be able to be included during the time The Hobbit/LotR is set. And they couldn’t use it anyway if there were because they don’t have the rights.

    • guest

      This. I was just coming on here to say this. Everything that’s been shoehorned into the plot came DIRECTLY from Jackson, not from anything Tolkien wrote – the family’s denied Jackson film rights to anything else.

      • Spielberg

        Sounds like an excuse for how poorly they tied it together. Maybe they should have listened to the part of their brain that said “We better not”

      • Gooilt

        It comes from the Return of the King’s appendices. They have the rights to it.

      • jlk7e

        Most of it is in the Lord of the Rings appendices, and also some in thhe exposition the Council of Elrond and Shadow of the Past chapters of Lord of the Rings. I kind of vaguely feel as though some of the material comes from “The Quest of Erebor” in Unfinished Tales, but Jackson doesn’t have the rights to that, either, so I suppose I must be mistaken.

        • jlk7e

          Of course, some of it is made up or changed – in LOTR, Thror was murdered when he went to Moria alone, and then Thrain led a Dwarf army to get revenge, rather than Thror leading a Dwarf army to reconquer Moria, and Azog was killed by Dain in the battle. The Necromancer material is also changed around – the White Council debate that we see at Rivendell actually happened, more or less, 100 years before The Hobbit, and Gandalf’s visit to Dol Guldur (where he meets Thrain and gets the key) seems to have been displaced, since nobody seems to know anything about the Necromancer.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=770253091 Christian Hurtig

    I haven’t seen the movie yet but I have played a lot of games in a variety of framerates. It sounds to me like there was several things wrong with the movie theatre and how displaying the movie was handled.
    I’m not an expert but your explanation and video of the 24 fps vs 48 fps were incorrect. Movement in one of the frame rate modes is not faster than the other and a higher frame rate does not produce jerky movement.
    A movement that takes one second will always take one second, the number of frames per SECOND is irrelevant to the duration as stated in the name.I suspect that the projector was not able to keep a constant 48 fps and that produced the jerky motion.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jubal-Biggs/686455551 Jubal Biggs

    You dummies! Lord of the Rings wasn’t written by J.K. Rowling! Good grief! Everybody knows it was written by C.S. Lewis! Sheesh! What is wrong with you two?

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      It wasn’t written by Loius C.K. it was written by J.J. Abraham Lincoln

      • guyinthehat

        It was definitely written by H.P. Barker

  • MatthewMelange

    I hope someday the top comments on your videos aren’t callbacks to your earlier reviews and are about the content at hand

    • What’s the point then?

      Taft, you fuck

  • dongaroo

    thumbs up in the series for every time Mike goes “AWW MY GAAAHD” in the Plinkett voice

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1340020127 Rubin Safaya

    Fuck you, Rick Berman.

  • Smertnik

    I’m surprised you guys hated HFR so much, Maybe you should have picked better seats.

    It did take about half an hour to get used to but afterwards I enjoyed it immensely, especially during action scenes and fast movements in general, I didn’t have any problems with “processing the information” at all. I also found it far more pleasant and relaxing to watch than normal 3D.
    I really hope to see more movies filmed this way.

  • Farts

    The fast frame rate makes it look more like British TV, so maybe that’s how the film is enhanced? Saw the film in 48 frames per second as well, sat right in the middle of the theater as well. Movie still look like total shit. I can’t believe you guys didn’t mention how much uglier the CG scenes look in 48 fps. They make the CG in Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull look like a work of crafted art. The only feature film I have ever scene where 48 fps worked was probably collateral, but every other film it has just been distracting bad. Fast frame rate works for smaller more personal films, but not massive cg filled blockbusters.

  • sheepfu

    Oh no! They killed fake Plinkett!….. Yay! They killed fake Plinkett!

  • TotalLamer

    I honestly enjoyed the 48 FPS…. but 3D just needs to go. Unfortunately, 48 FPS is only shown in conjunction with 3D, so I’m SOL there.

    On another note, YES, the scene with Radagast fleeing from the Orcs on his sled looked horrendous. Also the White Orc himself looked terrible, even compared to the other unnamed Orcs.

    I’m also surprised you never mentioned the utterly ridiculous (and entirely superfluous) rock giant fight scene. I think it was meant to be epic, but it just looked silly.

  • Victorinus

    I did a spit take on the way Mike said MFer.

  • Gotta make more money

    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Trilogy

  • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

    the jiggle on the great goblins goiter was next level

  • stolliosis

    That looks like a tasty Bloody Mary Mike is swigging.

  • UberNeuman

    Ernest Goes To Brain Trauma.

    as always, great and funny review…

  • guest

    My question is this; how can a movie both be completely faithful to the source material, and add in a bunch of scenes/characters/themes/plotting that weren’t in the book (or, at the most, mentioned in passing)? How can these two conflicting ideas both be true, like everyone keeps saying about both the LotR and The Hobbit?

  • http://www.facebook.com/theblocksays Rory Block

    Did anyone else wish that @ the 26:00 mark when Jay was talking about those who’d have trouble viewing 3D like a magic eye poster that they’d show a pic of

    Ethan Suplee in Mallrats? LOL!

  • Poppasketti

    UNSUBSCRIBE

  • Wolf

    Aw man, they should have done a Star Wars original trilogy gag with that magical VHS game.

  • Woll Smoth

    Have these faggots even read the book?

  • RedLetterMedia

    What a pair of fucking hacks. KOTCS Review sucked, Mike liked Hunger Games, then he spent months editing a defense of Titanic??? Almost EVERY SINGLE POINT they make in this review is totally wrong, not funny, and misguided. You guys have really dropped the ball this time… lazy lazy film-making. This is coming from a film-lover who didn’t waste my parents’ money in “Film School” and as a casual Tolkien Fan… I mean you guys obviously don’t read books… it was pretty embarrassing to find out that your reference for the hobbit was the cartoon.

    Jay finally reveals himself to be a homosexual in this episode with his ridiculous assertion that “The Hobbit lacked in heart… and the LOTR had heart because of Sam’s unwavering love for Frodo.” WHAT?

    You can use the “Daily Show Defense” that this is supposed to be a joke, and not to take things too seriously, but you can’t do that forever before people start to realize that you are both bitter, failed film-makers, and the lowest of the low when it comes to opportunist hacks who made a name off of calling-out other opportunist hacks.

    What a fucking joke.

    This was probably the worst review for a film I have ever seen.

    • Unsubscribe

      Opportunistic troll.

      • RedLetterMedia

        I have seen every video by RLM and used to be a big fan, but they have progressively gotten fatter, lazier, and in the case of the Hobbit… just flat out forgotten to do their homework.

        You can’t have an opinion on 48fps if you don’t actually know how it works, and the one time you tried watching a 48fps film you sat all the way in the front row and all the way to the side.

        You can’t have an opinion on Tolkien if you never read any of his books and you can’t have any kind of insightful theories on Tolkien’s mindset if you don’t know ANYTHING about the conceiving of these books and the PJ Hobbit film itself.

        • M0ii

          True !

          BUT !! That’ doesn’t give you the right to tell the guys that they should hang themselves. I mean, show some respect for the work they did even if you think it’s cmplete garbage. And don’t get me wrong. I also have this feeling like they kinda ”sold out” to this ” all entertainment-no intelligent content ” shit. But that’s not a reason to talk trash they way you do.

          • RedLetterMedia

            I actually said that Mike should “hang it up,” as in give up making these hack reviews. But I did say that Jay should kill himself. You are right.

            Now as far as respect and talking trash is concerned… well they kind of deserve it. I can’t respect frauds, no matter how cute they pretend to be. Let me restate something:

            In reality RLM uses the “Daily Show Defense” of “this being a joke” and calling themselves frauds to divert attention away from the fact that they are:
            A) lying
            and
            B) completely full of shit

            Mike made a couple Star Wars / Star Trek videos that were good… but the cult following he has spawned is a poison on humanity. Armchair film directors and failed artists, a society of bitter nitpicking windbags… 99.9% of which are dudes… sitting around jerking each other off. It’s fucking pathetic.

          • Mr. Prober

            Go somewhere else? Like, what in the world possesses you to stick around here and waste your keystrokes?

          • guest

            They “deserve” to be insulted by an anonymous person on the internet simply because you don’t agree with their opinions? Yeah, sure.

          • RedLetterMedia

            They are not “opinions” fuck-nut… mostly false statements, half-truths, and poorly formulated assertions.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=707535202 Chris Pendlebury

            Why does it say redlettermedia as the name then it bashes them? If this is a joke from the guys it’s the first one I havn’t been able to understand because it’s just not funny.

    • April O’Neil

      Just die already, you scummy cunt.

      • RedLetterMedia

        Good response there fruitcake jr.

        • RedLetterMedia

          BAZINGA! Somebody get this man a prize for his creative and delightful repartee. Fruitcake jr. HOW CAN ONE MAN BE SO WITTY? GOSH!

          • RedLetterMedia

            I appreciate that. Now here is your chance to counter any of the points that I made… (cricket noises)

    • Robby

      olol u mad bro

      • RedLetterMedia

        no I am not mad, I feel much better now after calling out all the cunts on this board, including you bro…

    • RedRetterRedia

      Comments like yours and the ensuing replies are almost as entertaining as the review itself, so thank you, hope to hear more from you soon :)

    • zm

      you take it way too seriously dude. how old are you? it’s just a movie ffs.

    • Marvin Falz

      Isn’t Sam’s love for Frodo more like love between father and son or between two good brothers? (I wouldn’t know cause I’m living under a rock ;) )

  • RedLetterMedia

    Mike … give it up.
    Jay … kill yourself.

    • Unsubcribe

      George Lucas is that you? How’s your retirement?

      • RedLetterMedia

        George Lucas created Star Wars AND Indiana Jones… he directed A New Hope and American Graffiti, he produced Labyrinth, Willow, Catain EO, and The Land Before Time. He has given away BILLIONS of dollars to charity… and influenced BILLIONS of people in a positive way all around the world.
        WHAT HAVE YOU EVER DONE?

        NOT A GOD DAMN THING.
        HA!

        SAME GOES TO MIKE AND JAY… fucking fat, failed film-makers.

        • Seriously, though.

          What have you done? Ha!

          • RedLetterMedia

            good response there fruitcake.

          • RedLetterMedia

            I’m excited to see or hear anything you’ve ever done or made. If Lucas has influenced Billions, Jay and Mike have influenced Thousands, and you have… influenced… well, I guess me, because I’m responding. And I suppose whichever sister/mother your dad/brother humped to leak you out of her oozy babyhole. So, good work!

          • RedLetterMedia

            Don’t answer a question with a question. Tell me what you have done, minus the unfunny quips and pointless defense of the the fat RLM hacks and we might have the makings for an actual conversation here.

          • RedLetterMedia

            I don’t want to converse with you, because you’re a terrible piece of sad shit. I hope the heat generated by your fevered masturbation dries your sad fucking nerd tears, you waste of smegma.

          • RedLetterMedia

            Well I obviously just owned you… for starters.

    • Pat

      Random anonymous internet commenter…..let me ejaculate on your face.

      • RedLetterMedia

        good one Pat.

      • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

        OH MY GOD!!! I CAN’T STOP CCCUUUUMMMIINNGGG!!!!!!

  • DeeplyCynical

    $50 says it was never Peter Jackson’s preference to shoot in either 3D or 48fps. This is all about the studios trying to increase cinema attendance and compete with the combination of home theater and internet piracy.

  • Kyle

    Frustrating is only you still use fucking blip-tv, which keeps the advertisement screen open all the time, regardless whether I use Firefox, Opera or IE, clicking skip won’t close it, nyaaaah! Fuck blip-tv, dudes, seriously!

  • An aussie

    Point of order: I read somewhere peter Jackson wanted to make the Hobbit FIRST, but the studio said, “do the lord of the rings and we’ve got a deal.” At that time it obviously didn’t occur to anyone that you could also squeeze a trilogy out of a 200 page book…

    • JarJarOReilly

      Point of order! You’re a Hobbit nerd – a la the guy in Clerks 2

  • Voidward

    I feel like the 48fps hubbub is mostly due to how conditioned we are that 24fps is cinematic and 60ish is video.

    I’m not huge on 3D, but I honestly felt like the 3d was considerably better at 48fps than 24, to the point that I wouldn’t want to even try a 24fps 3d film in the future. The weird sped up effect only lasted as long as the ian holm scenes for me, after that it felt natural.

    Also, on the contrary, the fast action scenes actually were a lot easier to follow for me. Close up action scenes and fast cuts are hard for me to follow at 24fps, but at 48 I feel like my brain can actually process some information instead of just seeing a series of blurs.

  • Monkey Boy

    Was Mike joking when he said he hadn’t seen many (or any?) Hitchcock films?

    He said in the “People vs George Lucas” episode that Hitchcock was a master and genius when he was standing next to a photo of him.

    It would be strange if he had said that without ever having seen one of his films.

    But in the same passage they mention that Jay has never seen a James Bond film (before Skyfall) and they seemed to be telling the truth about that when they mentioned it in the Skyfall episode. So was the part about Hitchcock true as well?

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      you only need to see one hitchcock movie to know he was a genious

  • Flaccid

    Why do you use 3D and poor seating on a weird screen as an excuse to hate 48 fps? Why do you hate more clarity and less motion blur? Why are you afraid of change? You kept saying how shit it was but never really explained why the 48 fps part was bad. What, it made the movie look more like real life? Is it because you hate real life?

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      everything should be the same because i don’t like anything thats different!

  • Bjorn

    Being so rare, your reviews should be somewhere around the 8-hour mark.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      needs moar plinkett skits

  • http://www.facebook.com/martin.thelin Martin Bonovox Thelin

    The ad is in the way of the video. Nice.

    • Kidney

      And i still haven’t managed to turn the piece of crap of so I’m hoping for a youtube release as well….

    • Pat

      Adblock is your friend.

  • That comment guy

    Why do you people hate stuff because its new or popular? You all seem like one of those retards that think because a movie is in black and white it’s some how better because it’s “classic” or has the “magic of cinema” or some shit. Grow the fuck up. Just because something looks more realistic doesn’t mean the story is less important or the movie in general is going to be less entertaining. Stop looking for things to hate and just fucking enjoy the movie.

    • Pat

      If you’re talking about the 40 fps thing, they explain why they dislike it in detail during this review,….

      • RedLetterMedia

        they really don’t explain anything. Mike is flat-out wrong about the way 48fps works… it was embarrassing.

        • guest

          And what exactly is he wrong about. I’ve seen multiple comments by you in this comments section saying they’re wrong, but haven’t provided one piece of information on HOW they’re wrong.

          Also, getting the specific technical details about the process correct doesn’t change ones opinion on the final outcome. I don’t know the details of how HFR works, but I know I saw it and it looked like shit.

          • RedLetterMedia

            Welll… it is as if Mike was confusing slow motion photography with HFR. If you shoot something at a high frame rate and then project it at 24fps, then you get the illusion of slow-motion. He was implying that what Peter Jackson did was to film The Hobbit at a higher frame rate… and because it was filmed at a higher frame rate, it would look like slowmotion when projected at 48fps… so they have to speed it up to counter the slow-motion?

            I mean I guess that is what he was saying… either way it is fucking ridiculous.

            Number of frames per second has NOTHING to do with duration of film.

            and as far as this other ridiculous shit you said:
            “getting the specific technical details about the process correct doesn’t change ones opinion on the final outcome. ”
            —Well it kind of does if you get all the details wrong, including technical, historical, and contextual.

            I went into the Hobbit 48fps with an open mind, and approached it the same way I approached riding a bicycle the first time when I was a child. I knew that I wasn’t ready for it… it was probably going to hurt when I fell off the first time, and I was scared, but once I got the hang of it… it was fucking amazing. You just can’t walk in expecting to get your dick sucked by 48fps, it’s not going to happen. You have to keep an open mind, and at the very least… NOT SIT AT THE FUCKING BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE MOVIE THEATER.

            First screening it was really fucked up for about 30 minutes… then it all went away. A couple days later I saw it again… absolutely no problems… I was completely adjusted, and there was no comparison to watching it in the standard 24fps digital.

            Peter Jackson is not STANLEY FUCKING KUBRICK… he is an okay director, but he is right for once to defend 48fps for these types of films. I saw the Hobbit yesterday in standard 3D and it looked like shit. Dark, blurry, and in some parts completely unwatchable. These trolls online harping on about how 48fps makes things look “fake” are completely retarded. Everything Peter Jackson does looks fake… get the fuck over it. TLOTR is just about the most hammed up, overly-emotional, overly-serious, fucking video-game I have ever seen.
            The Hobbit novel and film both lacked the end of the world doom and gloom (even though it is hinted at in the film, but never quite slapped in your face like they did with TLOTR)… and I really appreciated that, it’s just a Hobbit and some dwarves… not the end of the world.

            If anything, the 48fps seperates The Hobbit aesthetically from the absolute shit LOTR films, and ANY Difference between the two is a good difference in my book.

  • Zina Bat

    I love you guys.

  • Yiannis

    Everybody complaining about the length, the “extra” stuff they added or the split into 3 films should bear a few things in mind:

    1. Will people please stop with the whole “The Hobbit is only 300 pages so should be a single 90 minute movie” nonsense? Anybody who says that has clearly either never read the book or read it so long ago (presumably when they were a child) that they don’t remember it. The Hobbit’s 300 pages actually occupy a longer timescale than LotR’s 1000+ pages (approx 14 months to LotR’s 12) and include just as many events. The difference in book length has nothing to do with how many things happen, but rather how detailed the description of those things are. For example, there is a scene that didn’t make it into the Hobbit film around a landslide, that I was sure Jackson would turn into a 5 minute action set piece. In the book, it lasts precisely 2 lines. If the same event had occurred in LotR, it would have lasted 2 pages. Also, unlike LotR, the vast majority of events in The Hobbit have direct relevance to the ongoing story. There are very few “unnecessary” interludes in The Hobbit, compared to stuff like Tom Bombadil and The Old Forest in LotR.

    2. Regarding the split into 3 movies, I for one am glad they did. It will always be viewed by many as nothing more than a cynical cash grab and nothing anyone says will probably ever change their minds, but as a fan of the story I am glad they did as otherwise I would have ended up watching either 2 five hour movies or 2 horribly rushed movies. In an interview Jackson confirmed the original split point for the two movies was after (or during) the barrel ride. Given where they left the first film, to get to that point would have to include the scenes with the Eagles, the flight to the Carrock, the whole Beorn episode, the entire journey through Mirkwood, starvation in the forest and the chasing after the Elven feasts, the spider fight, the capture by the elves, imprisonment and questioning, Bilbo breaking into the palace, lots of sneaking round the place and finally Bilbo breaking the Dwarves out of jail and their subsequent escape. That is easily 90+ minutes of film material right there and even longer if they allow the individual moments proper breathing room. To try and cram that much plot into a single movie would have led to sheer audience fatigue. I’m surprised they included the Wolves/Trees set piece at the end, as I thought that was one thing too far and would have made a great set piece opener for film 2. To try and cram half a dozen more set pieces in, plus introduce two key new characters in Beorn and Thranduil, would be ridiculous.

    3. Regarding the added stuff that isn’t in The Hobbit (published edition), two things need to be said. First of all, Tolkien himself was eager to amend – and indeed completely rewrite – The Hobbit following the publication of LotR, because it simply didn’t fit the grander mythology he created, but was still a key part of it. In the end all he rewrote was the Riddles in the Dark chapter as that was the only part that had direct relevance to LotR’s plot (concerning as it did the finding of the Ring and Gollum/Smeagol). However, as others have said, Tolkien did in fact start work on a completely rewritten Hobbit story that would have tied in all the grander, darker elements (White Council, Dol Goldur etc). By that time, however, The Hobbit was already a beloved children’s classic that had been in publication for 30 years and Tolkien was advised (can’t remember by who, may have been the publisher Unwin) that he shouldn’t mess around with it as too many people liked it. He reluctantly (emphasis on the reluctant part) accepted this advice, but he was always uneasy with the lightness and frivolity of The Hobbit, more around the writing style he used rather than the events depicted.

    Secondly, and much more simply, without the added elements (of which there really are very few in this first film – the bulk will come later) there would be only ONE connection between The Hobbit and LotR as films, which would be the Ring. Rather than being a true prequel/sequel to each other, as they should be, they would be two completely isolated stories in the same world, with the major character of the first having a cameo in the second (Bilbo in LotR) and the major macguffin of the second having a cameo in the first (the Ring in The Hobbit). True, Gandalf would be another link between the two, but his appearance in The Hobbit as a linear story is little more than an extended cameo, of which we’ve already seen virtually all of it. He will disappear from Bilbo and the Dwarves’ story early in film two and not reappear again until the climax of film three. The reason for his disappearance is also tied directly to the whole White Council/Dol Goldur/Necromancer plotline (which IS mentioned in The Hobbit book, btw, just not in detail), so even without the need to tie the two series of films together, the additional stuff (all of which is happening at the same time, btw – it’s not like they are adding stuff from years earlier or later) is required to explain why Gandalf buggers off for two thirds of the plot.

    Admittedly, I thought the addition of Frodo to the prologue was a bit cheesy, but that was my only gripe. All the other stuff was essential.

    • David T.

      One 90 minute movie? No.
      One 3 hour movie? Easily.

      • Presto668

        One 3-hour movie? No way. Two 3-hour movies? Maybe.

        • Robby

          Totally agree. They could have done The Hobbit in two three-hour movies. All of the stuff in part one establishing how this ties into The Lord of the Rings are entirely unnecessary.

          • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

            unnecessary, but so awesome i don’t care

    • Yeaaah Geek out

      I also don’t know what the big deal about 3 movies is. It seems all the people heard the word ‘cash-grab’ and apply it to anything.
      Of course, 3 movies are made, mainly for financial reasons… as in every other movie you have seen in your life (even Feeding Frenzy).
      But we are not talking about fucking Twilight – Breaking Dawn here.
      Would one or two movies be enough for the story? – Sure. They could easlily trimm it down, to even one movie.
      Would it be a better movie, then? – If you don’t care about the story and just watch it to get it over with, then yes. But if you do (and I really do) give thanks and praises for going the long way.
      It is Peter Jackson. Not Geroge Lucas, charging for a singing teddy bear. His extended Versions of movies usually provides something called ‘quality’ (and quantity) and are already sold to me. But he can keep the 3d glasses.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jubal-Biggs/686455551 Jubal Biggs

      Azog running around like a cartoon villain going “Curses! I will get you blasted dwarvies!” in orcish as they escape again and again is not “essential”. A bunny bobsled wasn’t essential either (though I don’t really have a problem with Radagast). It is entirely possible to shoot a film that tells a very long story involving numerous “set pieces” without taking three films to do it. I don’t really mind the fact that The Hobbit is three films, but come on, we know why it was done, let’s not fool ourselves here.

  • Kidney

    How the hell do i bypass that annoying commercial It’s plastered all over the screen and i cant skip it and it doesn’t disappear after it’s finished….

  • Mark Bisone

    Jackson you fat fraud fuck! Screw 48 frames, where’s my god damned smell-a-vision?

  • Toby Hansen

    Are the Hobbit prequels, going to be a bad experience like the star wars prequels or not?

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      not even close.

  • Aaron

    I sat in the back/middle at an Imax/3d it was awesome

  • Angry_Zellers

    What’s Mike drinking?

    • Alcoholic

      I think it’s a Greyhound or a Bloody Mary.

  • Jason Straight

    For once I have to disagree. Calling it the worst movie ever is over the top, but I would go as far as calling it a bad movie.

  • spokmage

    I saw this film with a friend and I didn’t know we were going to a 3D 48fps screening. Normally I dislike 3D because I find it gimmicky. However, after getting over having to wear those stupid glasses, I found I was able to enjoy the film without really being distracted by the 48fps at all.

    Maybe it’s because it was actually filmed in this format. In my experience it is far worse when something filmed at 24fps is then displayed at 30 or 60 fps as is default on most HDTVs. I’m not sure why, but for me that is when everything starts looking unnatural and I have to stop watching. Wonder if anybody else has the same experience.

  • Fuck Movies

    I thought that last VHS would manifest itself in Plinket’s anus…

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      well they did say the title more than once, so maybe thats where the rest of them ended up?

  • Presto668

    Your subjective opinion about HFR is wrong. (Seriously, I thought it was nice.)

  • http://www.facebook.com/dan.mohorter Dan Mohorter

    Another entertaining and accurate review.Thanks guys. I was wondering what you two thought about ‘Cloud Atlas’

  • sumasbignose

    i thought Goblinn fell into a lava and destroyed the ring. Now it’s back again? What tha faaaack?

  • ex1lepr0

    Oh my gawd! They killed Plinkett!

  • http://profiles.google.com/sonnywilliamson Sonny Williamson

    I was going to complain that you guys seem to be ragging on the film more than it deserved seeing as you seemed to like a lot about it, but you actually addressed that at the end so I’ll give it a pass. Good review in all, aside from a small gripe (I honestly feel that Jackson made three movies instead of two for creative reasons rather than financial ones).

    I’m still upset you gave Prometheus such an easy ride though.

  • Gandalf

    I was not prepared for the sudden appeared of trolley car Mike.

  • Name

    great show as ever :D

  • Beckoning Chasm

    I wonder if Mike or Jay ever saw Douglas Trumbull’s “Showscan” process. It was shot 60fps, but played back at the same speed and looked pretty good.

  • bb-15

    I agreed with your review.

    As for 48fps, I think this is trying to improve 3D. 3D at a regular frame rate can be pretty awful for a lot of viewers causing eyestrain and even nausea.

    Also, some advice; get to the THEATER ON TIME SO YOU CAN GET A GOOD SEAT!

  • Ruiner

    Lets face it, as sad and unfair as it is this was a film destined to be critically polarizing. First off, the high Fantasy genre is only arguably surpassed by Comedy, and Horror in it’s subjectivity. Secondly, I could be remembering this wrong but I seem to recall it being reported far before The Two Towers hit theaters that negotiations for The Hobbit’s film rights were well underway. While 11 years is in no way a long time for a person, it is a lifetime when it comes to a person’s expectations.

    Also I just wanted to add that I can understand the suspicion of some that the 3 instead of 2 decision was made strictly for profit similar to breaking dawn. However, if there was ever an exception to the “less is more” rule it would easily be J.R.R. Tolkien. I do have to take issue with those that are assuming that as a fan be they casual or hardcore,they know best or at least more then Jackson.At this point where only Part 1 has been seen It is terribly arrogant to already cast a “cash grab” judgement. It is possible that the LOTR books might have been eventually adapted into films without Jackson to champion the cause, but Jackson’ love and enthusiasm for the source material was absolutely unique making him the only great choice for a director. If that isn’t enough to justify giving him the benefit of the doubt, and having some faith in his decision I don’t know what is.

  • Concerned Alcoholic

    WHY IS MIKE NOT DRINKING A BEER? IS THAT A GODDAMNED MUDSLIDE!??!??

  • edczxcvbnm

    When is the next Plinkett Review coming out?

  • Pedant

    Kinda disappointing. The guys’ complaints about image processing boil down to not being used to the frame rate, despite saying that it’s not just about not being used to the frame rate.
    Spend a few months watching movies on a 240Hz tv with all the goodies turned on. In the first few weeks, you get a lot of what Mike and Jay describe: certain pans get you to go, “Whuh?” After a while, though, that fades; those reactions start to disappear. Eventually everything just looks normal.

  • Mornegroth

    I left this comment on Blip but might as well leave it here:

    The only conclusion you’ll get in this movie is for the fluff that no one cares about (the trolls, goblins and what-not). All the other conflicts are deemed overarching plot and left open. That’s why you and I came out of the movie disappointed, even though we liked some parts of it.

  • Daniel Burke

    My review is number 1 negative review by votes at IMDB. The film is all
    about action sequences and has no soul or brains. It is more like
    Phantom Menace and I will be annoyed if after slagging off the prequels,
    you do not slag off this film for same reasons

    • guest

      Maybe you should watch the review before commenting.

      Also, The Hobbit is miles ahead of the Phantom Menace on a technical level, an acting leve, an effects level, and a narrative level. Even if you didn’t like the movie, it’s juvenile to say it’s as bad as the prequels.

    • friedman

      “My review is number 1 negative review by votes at IMDB.”

      Haha! That’s like saying you’re the smartest kid in special ed.

      • Daniel Burke

        There is a reason why it is seen as the best negative review, smart ass.

        • Daniel Burke

          Because you’re the best reviewer, ever!

  • Daniel Burke

    Also what the fuck are they on about? 48 fps means 48 A SECOND. Nothing is slowed down. There are just more frames a second. How can these 2 not know that?

    • guest

      They explain what 48 fps has typically meant in film technology up until this point.

      Between your last comment and now this, it’s clear you’re just a joyless asshole that wants to complain simply to complain.

  • adam sandler

    None of these videos play on my windows 8..wtf?? So gay!!

  • PsychoSulfur

    is it me or does mike have elf ears?

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.r.cooper.5 James Ross Cooper

    Ignorant, stupid, retarded morons sit down to discuss a movie about which they can’t remember major details, names, character motivations and actions after seeing it presumably a few days beforehand. They review this as though acting ignorant of the source material is some sort of a virtue and the way they speak about The Hobbit makes it clear that these two probably don’t read anything or have any credible reason to be spewing word diarrhoea at me from my computer screen.

    • James Ross Cooper

      You spent your time watching the review. You lose. The stop button is there the whole time. Go fuck a goat.

      • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

        he gets off by being enraged and then complaining about it

  • MikeAndJaySuck?

    I think it is kinda lame to go the movie a second time to try out the 3D 48 FPS, just to sit up front and to the side.

    If you went to the movie in 2D and 24 FPS and sat up front and to the side it would suck. Not that I would really know, whenever I showed up late and that was my only option, I returned my ticket and got my money back.

    Not to say 3D is super great or 48 FPS is super great, but if you went out of your way to see the movie a second time just to compare the differenes between the standard 2D 24 FPS vs 3D 48 FPS why not do it right and get optimal seats?

  • Chuck
    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      did bilbo have a molester-stache?

  • Jackson

    I just came back from watching the Hobbit.From the very first time I heard that they were going to do an adaptation I was wondering how it would turn out.

    For a variety of reasons this book is simply much more difficult to translate into film format than The Lord of Rings, probably more difficult than most books to do so. First of all it’s a very different book and not just because it’s more for children. Even though the story is simple the storytelling is very complex and full of subtle humor. And a lot of that humor of the books comes from the ironic observations of the narrator who is a main character in their own right who pokes fun at the bumbling of Bilbo and the occasional pomposity of the dwarves, especially Thorin.

    I knew going into it that simply from the sheer logic standpoint of having done the three previous movies that there was going to be a lot of “epic” material in this one. It was unavoidable. The question was how much of the tone of the book were they going to keep. In a way it’s similar to the incredible difficulty of trying to adapt the Hitchiker’s Guide in a film format. Because it too has a lot of complex humor delivered through the structure of the writing rather than simply the story.

    Personally, I was thrilled that they kept in hobbity things like the plate scene and the trolls. I thought that was great. I wasn’t too crazy about Azog, but I recognize he was a necessary element. And it was probably jarring to people Jay and Mike for a different reason since they approach it from the context of LOTR and not from the books.

    In the end The Hobbit simply wasn’t really meant to be watched. It was meant to be read and it loses a lot of its richness in visual presentation. However, if it was going to be a movie I don’t think anyone could have balanced being faithful to the emotional feel of the book and the epic presentation that movie audiences expect than Peter Jackson. It was a little rough at times but on the whole I think he did a great job and he actually exceeded my expectations about how he would handle that difficulty. Which again, was far higher than LOTR.

    On a final note. Riddles in the Dark is probably one of the best scenes in all of the movies. And Martin Freeman turned in an excellent performance as Bilbo.I don’t disagree with anything Mike and Jay have said. They understand the language of film and what works as a movie. But considering the complexity of The Hobbit I think Peter Jackson did a great job and I was perfectly willing to overlook the rough patches.

  • Whenceitcame

    Love how he says “OH MY GOD!!!”

  • http://www.facebook.com/james.d.hyndman James David Forsyth Hyndman

    To anyone that complains about padding.
    I didnt see you bitching during The Two Towers with the battle of Helm’s Deep. In the books that was ONE PAGE.

    • Robby

      Yeah but that was awesome. Radagast isn’t, and wasn’t in The Hobbit at all.

    • Slayer

      Was your book printed in size two font or were the pages two feet tall? In both my copies the battle is like ten pages.

  • Facepwn

    That “Some guy” was named Bard and he was literally “just some guy”. Had almost no back story whatsoever, so yeah, you weren’t too far off base.

    • Trollbane

      .. Don’t think we read the same book.

  • *SIiiiigh*

    These guys are good at reviewing movies when the movies are 100% dogshit awful and someone’s doing a weird voice. Other than that….

    It’s like I’m overhearing two pretentious douchebags in a Barnes & Noble complaining about irrelevant shit that they don’t actually know much about.. I’ve only read Hobbit and tho-thirds of LotR and I still know enought to see this is wrong. Why is a chunk of this review a complaint about 3d movies in general? Why would you see a movie in 3d if you seem to be aware that 3d is just a stupid fad? Why do so many people think The Hobbit ends after the dragon is killed? What does the skinny guy add to any of these discussions other than nodding?

  • PizzaRoll

    Why is it that every so often in Half in the Bag reviews, I hear in the background…a phone ringtone that sounds like the theme music to Gnaw: Food of the Gods, part II…

  • David

    Well, I guess this means I’m now officially done with red letter media. I like the show, but I’m tired of people ripping on this movie.

    • lumpy

      “I like the show, but I don’t agree with every one of their opinions so I’m not going to watch it anymore.”

      What a shitty, close-minded attitude, especially considering you yourself said you enjoy the show. Besides, they gave the movie a pretty fare review. They didn’t rip it apart, just mentioned the things they didn’t care for about it. Are you that insecure in your own opinions that you can’t handle a little objection?

      • flaccid

        Who are you quoting? Anyway even if he may be over reacting a bit its not that hard to understand. If someone you thought was funny says “your mother is a filthy whore” its not like you will go “I disagree but still like you anyway”. He’s meant to think their opinion is utterly wrong and perhaps offensive and still like them? Its hard for some people to hold conflicting ideas like that.

        • Leo

          What a very odd thing to compare it to. Not at all similar.

  • StormCat

    Oh, I’m not frustrated at all! Mike and Jay are funny, and their Plinkett review of Eposode 1 is awesome, but they have their heads up their asses on this one.

  • http://www.facebook.com/endeyequote Paul Gales

    ABITA! You guys just got so much more cred for having Abita.

    You ever consider doing a show, like a one off, on beer? Id love to hear what you guys have to say cause you are obviously beer experts. maybe one or two eps talking about your favorite beers and why.

    as for the review: f-ing nailed it. i agree %100. loved the movie hatred the high frame rate. the only place i felt like it really worked was the gollum scene. and i think it worked there because there wasnt a ton of quick movement and it was dark. maybe the real secret to 48 fps will be that it should only be used in scenes where it will help and 24 fps should be used where it is better suited. i wonder how difficult it would be to switch between the two during the projection of a movie.

  • Robby

    I went and saw the movie for the second time today. While I still agree that 3D is annoying, knowing what the high frame rate was going to look like, it was much easier to just watch the movie. I think the part that still looks really weird is when they’re escaping the underground cave and they’re all falling on the wooden bridge and all the wooden pieces are flying off fast. With no motion blur it looks super strange.

  • D-Bag

    Maybe you guys would have liked your 3D 48frames UltraScreen movie viewing more if you had got some sweet D-Box seats to make it the true moviegoing experience.

  • JOED_NORTHVEGAS

    Right on 3D is 100% pure uncut garbage.

  • http://www.facebook.com/hamzah.sultan.9 Hamzah Sultan

    I saw a 3d performance with infinite FPS and seemless CGI, couldn’t spot any of it!

    it was a play. -__-

  • Patti

    Peter Jackson and the other horrible screenplay writers DID NOT try or even attempt to try to make a “faithful adaptation” of the novel.

  • Robby

    While I might have an unhealthy attachment to watching Half in the Bag, I think it’s kind of strange to judge a 3D high frame rate projection of a movie based on sitting in front corner of a theater. I think you guys should have seen it again. It’s not the movie’s fault you guys got such bad seats.

    Not that I’m in any way defending 3D, I’m just saying.

  • The.Watcher

    I loved it, I thought it was too short, actually. But then, I love the extended versions of LOTR, so that’s to be expected.

    I saw it in 3D and 48fps, and the first 20 minutes were brutal. My mind and eyes were freaking out because they couldn’t understand why everything was in fast forward and moving at normal speed at the same time. But, after those 20 minutes, when I got used to it, I fucking loved the shit outta the new format. So much so that I watched it again the next day, and loved it even more. I can honestly say that I want every single movie to be shot in hfr from now on. Nothing rivals the unparalleled smoothness and crispness. It was so awesome. Too bad the BD release will be 24, unless WB convinces the industry to re-write the book on guidelines for BD releases.

  • http://twitter.com/rdbrewer4 rdbrewer

    Dude on the right, you butt in too much.

  • http://twitter.com/rdbrewer4 rdbrewer

    You guys should start each one of these with a disclaimer: “We’re not gay.” It’d be funny.

  • tjp77

    My girlfriend has a goddamn television that deliberately makes fucking EVERYTHING look like it’s shot in 48FPS, and I DONT KNOW HOW TO DISABLE THE MOTHERFUCKING SETTING.

    We watched Friends With Kids the other night and it looked like we were watching the shitty off-Broadway adaptation of the movie instead of the actual movie.

    I DON’T KNOW WHY ANYONE WOULD WANT THIS. Its basically just like having a ‘looks like shit’ button on your remote. Like, ‘Hey, this is an okay movie and all, but it would be way better if everything looked like absolute crap, with totally artificial lighting, zero depth of field, and a bizarre unnatural feeling to the camera pans’.

    PS, if anyone knows how to turn this horrid setting off, don’t hold back.

  • ZaKk

    In this episode the last segment with Peter Jackson, Colbert talks about how there was some attempt of a transition from the Hobbit, a kids book, to try to fit it in with the Lord of the Rings books

    http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/thu-december-6-2012-peter-jackson

  • AW8, Erebor exile

    What a cliffhanger! I can’t wait to see what happens to our hero Mr. Plinkett now that he’s got movies on his brain.

    I hope those overrated hacks Stoklasa and Bauman haven’t hurt him too badly.

  • Douchenozzle Hipsterfail

    Front Row Imax = 20′ tall Hobbitses.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      oxymoron

  • Kevin Klein

    I watched this in 48fps 3d but not ultra screen far back middle and I expected the worst but it never came, it was great and I loved it even more. I loved this movie even more in 3d and 48fps, and I watched with old and young people and we all had a great experience, noticed no complaints from anyone at the cinema. I am not sure how you are genetically made or what the difference is between american and my swedish cinema but I have to disagree with all their complaints.

  • Peace!

    You guys are off about the new star trek review, avatar, hunger games, batman dark knight,prometheus and more. You had a good run,early the star wars reviews were great and iconic and the other ones “ok”. Now this and your titanic movie review nailed it for me.

    You are not only painfully amateur when it comes to movie making and criticizing it, you guys are also fucking clueless to movies. Alfred Hitchcock, James Bond, what frames per second is lol

    As jay said to the critics of Prometheus I now reply in kind, you guys are haters, hate movies and are stupid internet trolls.

  • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

    is the ending a clue to the next plinkett review? (rhyme unintentional)

    • Marvin Falz

      If so I’d like to see a review on Pulp Fiction.

      • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

        i was thinking it would be ernest goes to camp since it ended up in plinketts brain. is that too subtle?

        • Marvin Falz

          Haha, no that is more like ‘in your face!’ but Pulp Fiction is one of the movies I know and actually really really like. It’s so Christmas-y.

          • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

            nothing says christmas like shoving an adrenaline shot into the chest of a junkie overdosing on heroin.

          • Marvin Falz

            And getting anally raped!

            No, Pulp Fiction is Christmas-y bc the main characters are willing to fuck each other for shiny objects. Just like last minute Christmas shoppers. Har Har Har.
            No, the reason why I love Pulp Fiction is Jules’ transformation from bad motherfucker to a guy who wants to walk the earth, get into adventures and help people after he felt the touch of God.

  • sdlajolla

    You should review Les Miserables next!

  • http://twitter.com/mraustinbond Austin

    Turning The Hobbit into an epic trilogy is like turning The Italian Job into The Godfather. Seriously.

  • http://www.facebook.com/samuel.floreani Samuel Floreani

    I honestly don’t understand why everyone is so pissed about the whole 48 FPS thing.

    I watched the movie and while the 3D was goddamned obnoxious (didn’t add anything to the movie, glasses were annoying, etc.), I actually liked the higher frame rate. Most complaints I’ve read about it boil down to “It’s different than what I’m used to and that made me angry.”

    Maybe it’s just because I frequently play video games (which typically render at around 60 FPS), but I enjoyed the clarity of motion and wasn’t annoyed by it in any way whatsoever.

  • http://twitter.com/BillHiers Bill Hiers

    So, despite the fact The Hobbit was written first, and then The Lord of the Rings, since Lord of the Rings was made into a movie trilogy first, this makes any attempt to do a film based on The Hobbit pointless…? Ugh. That you came away from the film thinking this confirms my suspicions that Jackson made his film too much in service to Lord of the Rings rather than allowing it to stand on its own as its own story the way the actual Hobbit novel does…

    • Anon

      What problem?

      • http://twitter.com/aliennetwork RP Clarke

        that the hobbit is fucking visual bloatware. it is a fucking stinking piece of shit

  • Peter the Bilbo

    Fili and Kili merry a man. with Oin and Gloin the two whores. with Dwalin & Balin balls of steam. with Bifur and Bofur the cocaine entrepreneurs. with Bombur & Dori assholes in love. with Nori and Ori the small daughters. with Thorin and his dick… shows to Galdalf.. before Bilbo, the dildo.

  • http://www.facebook.com/jacob.levy.54 Jacob Levy

    they should have used the game to get access to the original versions of the Star Wars movies

  • Jedilink

    You know, I saw this film in the theater today in 3D and 48 fps and I thought it looked great. THEN AGAIN, I sat in the middle of the theater, not at some bizarre off putting angle. I think the biggest issue with the film in 3D and 48 fps was the horrendous angle you saw it in.

    I have had some issues with 3D in the past (namely the focus of the film) but as long as the film is originally shot in 3D and the projector is focused correctly and projected with the right amount of light, I don’t typically have any issues watching 3D.

    Either way, I think your issues with the look of it in 3D was primarily the angle you saw the film in.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Jubal-Biggs/686455551 Jubal Biggs

      Every time I’ve seen a 3D movie, including this one; it has looked too dark. The glasses also usually don’t fit, which gets uncomfortable with longer movies, and it actually looks worse for things like wide angle scenery shots. When you look at something more than half a mile away, it is flat to your vision because of the distance between your eyes. So, in a scenery shot, the far away bits are flat, as they should be, but that makes the entire 3D movie look like a bunch of flat paper cutouts sort of stacked on top of one another. No 3D movie has ever got a wide angle scenery shot right that I remember. Basically, the gimmick starts to interfere with the movie itself for me, which makes me actively seek out places that do not show something in 3D (which was hard for the Hobbit).

    • Kenan Kurt

      I agree, if they watched it at a normal angle, maybe the disorienting effects wouldn’t be present. I thought the 48 fps greatly helped the 3d, and it is easily the best 3d film I’ve ever seen. I completely forgot I was watching 3D and was just fully immersed in the film.

  • kgd

    Having read The Hobbit out loud, twice, to each of my kids, I gotta say that the movie was pretty true to the book (except for the orc leader dude – where they needed a damn arch-villian outside of Smaug to split the book into three parts). The interesting reaction everybody gives is – this is great because it is a return to middle earth. Well, actually the Hobbit was the introduction to middle earth. It was also a children’s tale first and foremost even though a predecessor to the more adult-orientated LOR. Anyhow, for what its worth, I think it captured the spirit of the book – even if most of the dwarfs were annoying (trying reading their damn names outloud in rhyme every 10 pages!). Thanks for your review – and really dig the elfen ears! Hoping to catch you cats at the 2013 B-fest….

  • kgd

    Okay – sorry for posting prior to seeing your full review. I have to fully agree with both of you that the 2nd movie is going to SUCK. It is an obvious place holder that the ‘evil forest’ and ‘capture by wood elves’ is going to be the full scope of movie 2 up until the point where they find the opening to Smaug’s mountain layer. Movie two is going to be about Bilbo, playing with his ring and screwing with the elves the whole time. Movie 3 might be entertaining though. It has a dragon and a five army war.

    • http://twitter.com/bluehawk232 bluehawk232

      Uhh movie 2 is called the Desolation of Smaug.

    • http://www.facebook.com/MaaShinn Matthew Shannon

      no the second will (or should) end after bard (or whoever jackson chooses) kills smaug. the third will be battle of five armies and the return journey/some fill stuff to connect it to lotr

  • supr_g

    3D, and now 48 fps, are dumb gimmicks. There is a serious disconnect between certain film-makers and the audience now.

  • James Hughes

    I enjoyed the movie in 3D at 24fps, even though I don’t like 3D as a rule. I don’t know if you guys can really make an objective criticism of a “movie experience” from the worst seats in the house.

  • http://twitter.com/aliennetwork RP Clarke

    Ori, that fucking downs syndrome retard with a slingshot. fuck this bullshit movie

  • http://twitter.com/aliennetwork RP Clarke

    reasons why this movie sucked donkey cock:

    *Bilbo’s arc of gaining respect on Thorin’s death bed.No he is is awesome at the end of act 1
    *the dwarves are not super warriors. they are no better than Bilbo
    *the fucking albino orc
    *the goblin king has balls hanging off his face
    *bilbo show compassion for gollum, yet murders in the next scene
    *the 3 jarjar, I mean troll scene
    *the unknown being the enemy in the book
    *the albino orc dying of infection, only to appear in the next scene,
    *peter jackson being a fat fucking cocksucker who ruined a perfect story by someone who knew how to write

  • Liam

    I agree that Tolkien had no idea what he was doing.

    • http://twitter.com/aliennetwork RP Clarke

      seems that way, huh? haha

  • http://twitter.com/aliennetwork RP Clarke

    this movie was visual bloatware. nothing more. peter jackson should get AIDS and die

  • king ofniiples

    what all that 48fps crap about? i watched in3d in aus and it was heaps fucking good btw fuck you rick berman you fucking asshole

  • Prometheus

    There is a Soviet movie of Hobbit,filmed in 1985!!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m0l3Yr1B50

  • JM

    STOKLASA, you FUCK.

  • turd

    48fps. That’s gonna be great!

  • rossco

    Check your facts.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Ricky-Moore/100001644241266 Ricky Moore

    My question would be this: Why does the movie cut off short after only 153 minutes and leave the story hanging with no indication that this is only party 1?

    I would give the movie 2 thumbs down just because of that crap.

  • http://www.facebook.com/andy.young.94214 Andy Young

    Agreed with most of the usual RLM wisdom, but Mckellen was excellent in the movie.

  • Peace

    You guys even deleted my comment, bah, fuck you guys and Jay please fucking die, you suck.

  • Quinn

    Jay punching the air in slow-mo and then regular speed was hilarious.

  • Prometheus

    Check this!! There is a Hobbit movie filmed in USSR in 1985!!! :

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6m0l3Yr1B50

    • Strelnikov

      The Soviet Union: ahead it it’s time.

  • pokeymcgee

    …wait, so there’s people now who don’t like 3D? Because… ? Well, I guess it’s part of the whole “everything sucks for no reason” mentality that’s so popular these days. I can’t wait until people can admit cool stuff is cool again.

    For the record, I never noticed any odd frame rate shenanigans when I saw the Hobbit. Nobody sped up or anything. Maybe it’s just that 24fps is the limit of information the human brain can process, and this is like one of those “PS360″ situations where the technology is already the best it can possibly be, but they keep making shit more expensive even though the consumers can’t actually tell the difference.

    Actually, that makes sense, because most things are like that now. Blu-rays don’t look any different from DVD’s, video games all look the same, 3D tv’s still make you wear glasses so they aren’t any different from normal tv’s, and now a new frame rate that human eyes can’t physically distinguish from other framerates, but still give people something to complain about for the sake of complaining.

    It’s like you have to have bionic eyes in order to work in the consumer electronics industry now.

    • http://twitter.com/bluehawk232 bluehawk232

      There are plenty of people that provide good reasons why 3D is bad. It is obviously a gimmick used to raise ticket prices. And it doesn’t really enhance the movie going experience. But whatever, it’s only used for the major studio releases that want to make the movie going experience like a theme park ride. When it comes to movies like Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, Les Miserables, or any of those I do not think oh man if only this was in 3D. I get immersed in the film well enough with the acting and directing

  • Kenan Kurt

    I think the HFR thing is like 3D, some people like it, some people don’t. I thought it worked fine, and I didn’t even notice it after a while. Also sitting way in the front corner will ruin any movie, so I would take that part of the review with a grain of salt.

  • Ady

    Looking forward to The Hobbit: A Necessary Edit, once the three films have been released.

  • Space Cat

    Haha. I saw this movie at 48 fps, and while I thought it kind of worked on a movie like this, it did feel a lot like I was watching someone play WoW on a blown up screen.

  • Bill The Thrill

    Jim Henson’s STORYTELLERS series is well worth the watch.

    I can’t stand 3-D. Tim Burton’s ALICE IN WONDERLAND was the last film I watch in the 3-D format, and it make me physically ILL (for a number of reasons).

    I keep hearing these stories about 3-D giving people Vertigo . . . and the like. Society is playing the part of The Film Industry’s guinea pigs. I will be very disappointed IF a Class Action Lawsuit is not filed *AGAINST* said industry.

    Those greedy, unconscionable fucks.

  • Unitedstatesisacorporation

    movie was awesome

  • Jakoporeeno

    SCREW THE HOBBIT TRILOGY! WHERE’S BAD TASTE 2?!

  • montechristo88

    i would like half in the bag much more, if you would explain your opinions a little further than “it is shitty because it is terrible”

    • Leo

      They do. You’re mixing them up with ‘confused Matthew’.

    • guest

      So what you’re saying is, you’ve never watched an episode of Half in the Bag ever.

      Seriously, how could you even come to the conclusion that they don’t go into detail about their opinions?

      • montechristo88

        stfu fanboy. i have watched every episode from the beginning, this was some honest critic. they are more entertainment than serious moviecritics.

  • Guest

    Hey guys, I had a great idea. Instead of showing the poor people partying in third class with the accordion, stick in a quick edit from the hobbit party at the beginning of Fellowship of the Ring. I really think this would be a lot funnier. Thanks in advance, forever your pal.

  • http://www.positivelyaware.com Josh Thorne

    I’m glad they went out of their way to see it in 48 fps, but sitting in the front corner would be a crappy way to see any movie on a huge screen. The HFR had some interesting trade offs. Yes, it made the whole thing look like a BBC TV special, (which for the Hobbit is oddly appropriate), but it also did very interesting things with the CGI. I absolutely could not tell the difference between the CG characters and the live action characters, which I’ve never experienced before in a movie. All of the CG work looked either like live action or like outstanding miniature work, which is in many ways preferable to it looking like CG. It had real presence which, again, I’ve never felt from computer work before. Normally computer characters and live ones always seem to be in 2 different worlds, no matter how well done they are. It added a quaintness, but what I find exciting is what it did to the effect shots. Again, trade off’s.

  • nkutz

    IMO, The Hobbit was great. It doesn’t reach the same level as Lord of the RIngs, but I knew not to expect the same thing. I for one, did think it definitely showed that lighter tone and I thought it lent to the movie, and this was mainly just the inclusion of the Dwarves. The dinner scene was far more enjoyable than I thought it would be, and then the Dwarves still showed that strong fighter spirit and it all added to their character. Then Gandalf was surprising “young and inexperienced” compared to Gandalf the White- I thought Ian McKellen did fantastic. I actually read that he was not enthused that he had to talk to “tennis balls” the entire shoot because of 3d effects, and I imagine any “old” feel you guys saw was due to that.
    But the movie had a nice mix of lighter, storybook tone and serious prophetic fear. I thought it was fitting- Bilbo did have to go through events, and as it’s shown Gollum is a much more serious part of his story. I was also fine with the less-narrow focus- I knew the story would be about every character and not just the Hobbit (it’s titled the Hobbit because it’s his chronicle of everything that happened, and how he learned that taste for adventure from these other characters).

  • PinkPony

    Is Plinket really died?

  • bananna hammock

    I watched this today, and I had the same reaction the instant it started the Jay had… just an overwhelming feeling of *Uhhhg!*

  • roysterer

    I have no respect for the opinions of anyone who does not enjoy The Lord of the Rings. And if it were possible, I’d have even less respect for those of someone who actively refuses to read it. I had never imagined that such people existed until I watched this. It makes me sad.

    • Strelnikov

      Buy some truck nuts.

      Suck them.

  • René Hartman

    King Bard the Bowman killed Smaug! Not some guy you evil bastards!

  • Guestie

    Love the reviews. Keep it up!

  • DeadTomGC

    You pussies don’t like 48fps? HA! We gamers play games in up to 120 fps! and play at 60fps standard. Geesh… get used to it. (I’m joking about insulting these guys. They are awesome… mostly.)

    • Alex

      There’s a difference in how pictures are rendered/projected in a movie and in a computer game. A computer game renders a number of static picures, one after the other, per second onto your computer screen. This is very unforgiving when the framerate is slow (e.g. at low framerates, the game looks laggy). In a movie, the pictures are projected by running the movie through the projector. The motion of the actual film running through the projector creates a bluring effect which makes the motions of things in the projected series of pictures look smoother even at slower framerates. Does this make sense?

  • http://twitter.com/harpake Sebastian Härpäke

    I like your work, but you really screwed up on the high frame rate. All the sports broadcasts I watch are in 60 fps. All the games I play have an uncapped frame rate. I wouldn’t play a video game capped at 24 fps, and neither would you.

    If you watch the trailers and commercials before the movie which are at 24 fps fuck yeah it’s going to look weird, especially if you have the worst seats in the house (which alone makes it a terrible experience, never mind it being in 3D).

    The Hobbit did have issues in cinematography (shaky cam, bad virtual cinematography, awful camera panning) but those had nothing to do with the frame rate. The higher frame rate finally made 3D to be more than a piece of shit mess. 3D is still gimmicky and useless as hell but at least now I didn’t get a huge headache from watching it.

  • volbla

    I’m almost starting to believe there is some sort of placebo going on. I saw the movie in 48fps and i didn’t notice any difference at all, except maybe it was smoother on panning shots. I just don’t see at all what people like you claim to see, so i don’t understand any of the artistic objections against the technology.

  • http://twitter.com/MD411971 MD411971

    Progress occurs when you improve on an existing technology. By that definition 3D is not progress, we have had 3D for about 50 years now. You want progess there? Then watch a 3D movie without the need for glasses, that is true progress. Instead of using 48 frames per second right now, wait till it is perfected, and can be used without a hitch, then use it for films.

  • Justin Petoskey

    . The Hobbit is one of my favorite books of all time and the animated film holds a special place in my heart, so seeing this was come to the big screen was exciting. There were a few things that bothered me, specifically the small tweaks to Bilbo’s character such as trying to sneak off back home and originally not wanting to leave at all, the weapon props looked fake in several scenes where everyone is walking or riding, but other than that I thought it was great and am excited to see the following movies. I’ll have to take your word on the whole 3D thing, since I think 3D is shit in general and don’t watch movies in that format. Also didn’t like the shoehorning in stuff from the Silmarillion into this, it’s kind of irritating.

  • http://shockya.com/ Monique Jones

    I had the same thoughts as you guys had when it came to “The Hobbit.” It’s trying too hard to be “LOTR.” http://moniqueblog.net/2012/12/review-the-hobbit/

  • El Duderino

    While “it’s not the image but the story that makes you immersed” is true it is a truly bizarre way to argue for not trying to technically improve image quality.

    • AghBowling

      I see you’re into the whole brevity thing.

  • Orbital Wobble

    Just… No. This movie was the disappointment of 2012. Thank you Peter Jackson, for giving me a movie that dissolves all the tension by turning every fight scene into a slapstick farce. I don’t care if noone gets hurt in the book, how about somebody getting a scratch from SOMETHING. And how about giving all the dwarves at least some minor personality traits, like everyone has their own unique fighting style or something? It’s even established that most of them arent any good fighters, well, how about SHOWING us that then? Some dwarves must carry most of the burden of fighting, some dwarves are utterly useless but fight anyway. That migh have made the action a bit more exciting right?

    Classic example of someone fucking it up just the same way: SW:EP1. Qui-gon dies and his death is tossed aside with more FUNSTUFF WITH JURJUR BEINKSS LOLS.
    This cartoony violence combined with completely invincible heroes renders all the gore and action completely useless, useless ,useless!! MUDAMUDAMUDA!! I can’t feel anything!

  • ex1lepr0

    Mike and Jay should do lectures at film schools. I mean seriously, they know more about film than 90% of people in Hollywood do.

  • Juan

    If any of you reads spanish here is one desecrating review of the whole Lord of the rings story. http://www.lapaginadefinitiva.com/2006/10/23/el-senor-de-los-anillos/

  • http://www.facebook.com/guy.mcrae.1 Guy McRae

    Neither of you understand how 48fps work–or at least did a terrible job of explaining it. If you dropped a bottle cap at 100fps it would not take any longer to hit the tv as if it was 10fps because it is still PER SECOND. The only difference between 100 and 10fps is clarity and smoothness of motion. I love you guys, you are hilarious, but it seems you really don’t know what you’re talking about here.

  • yesman

    Speaking of Peter Jackson, are you gonna review Bad Taste sometime?

  • http://www.facebook.com/Istvanzsmurin Istvan Zsmurin

    “Whatever the fuck is the elf’s name?” get your shit together RLM. and just why the hell do you want find the little problems everywhere?

  • http://www.awesometania.com John T. Hill

    Uhmn. I’m 4 minutes in, and I wanted to make a correction. You said “Peter Jackson is a competent filmmaker.” Check your facts.

  • Dead_Parade

    I like how no-one gives a shit that the Twilight questions weren’t answered.

  • http://www.facebook.com/lincoln.keane Lincoln Keane

    I think the high frame rate only looks bad for critics. I have not met a single person who didn’t like the high frame rate.

    • guest

      You know critics are people, right?

  • mc

    Were all IMAX 3D showings in 48fps? I really enjoyed it in IMAX 3D. Usually if I go to a 3D movie, it’s distracting and it takes 30 minutes for me to get used to it, resulting in a mild headache for the first half of the movie. When I watched it in IMAX 3D (in the middle of the theater), I had no transition time and it wasn’t jerky or awkward for me. Maybe it wasn’t 48fps, or maybe I’m one of the people who can just process it better, like they mentioned.

    I do have to comment that sitting in the very front row, off to the corner is going to make every movie format look terrible. There’s a reason those floor seats are the last ones to be taken. So I’m not sure if the experience was really was as bad they say it is, or if it was just them sitting so close at a horrible angle.

  • http://shockya.com/ Monique Jones

    I’ve watched this tons of times, and I agree with everything about this review of The Hobbit.

  • jakoporeeno

    31:55 I thought it was Apocalypse Now

  • Ted

    Is 48 fps bad, or is 48 fps WITH 3D bad? I’d like to have you guys watch the film at 48 fps without 3D.

  • Matthew Osbourne

    Ian M is 73. Not all that old.

    Chris Lee is 90. He’s been in more movies than any other actor ever alive. Just saying.

  • JC

    Even though it looks fucking terrible, the thinking behind adding more frames to every filmic second can be seen as kinda noble. It is like, ‘hey Weta spent a long time working on sets and props. everything is really authentic and you’ll get to see every detail of their hard work, even when we do our fast, sweeping pans.’ The fault lies with whoever screened the footage and said it looked good. But at least the thinking is more justifiable than a ‘film to tell special effects’, or a carnival ride.

  • ColinJ

    I saw this in IMAX 3D and it fucking sucked. I don’t think it was in 48FPS but the distortion caused by sitting in an aisle seat in front of such a massive screen with the glasses making the image look like it was right at the end of your nose was very unpleasant. I had quite a throbbing migrane after 2 hours and 45 minutes of this.

    IMAX and 3D do not go together at all. Why go and pay nearly $30 to see something on the biggest screen in the world when the glasses instantly make everything look as small as a child’s viewfinder?

  • http://www.facebook.com/throatgorge Coz T. Shroom

    lucky for me our village wasn’t capable of showing this in 3-d and possibly couldn’t even project at the frame rate… so for me my chief complaint was those “stone giants” which were not at all what I pictured when I read the book. More like transformers or something like that.

  • Some Orc

    I really don’t know how anyone who is a fan of Tolkien could
    have enjoyed this movie. It virtually ignored the real story, unnecessarily replacing
    dialog from the book, adding characters, or expanding on characters, that were not
    in it or merely referred too. The
    action sequences were exaggerated to incredulity, particularly in the Goblin
    cave. It reminded me of “Indian
    Jones and The Temple of Doom”. A
    potential one film Canon classic turned into a series of movies for
    questionable motives. Watching it made me squirm.

    • Sappho Sabine

      Thank you for saying this. A friend of mine told me I should just give it a chance because it’s “not that bad” and that I need to see it. No I don’t. The Two Towers and The Return of the King were already ruined. I will never support Jackson. He’s ruined something I dearly love. And I agree. I have absolutely no idea how anyone who loves Tolkien and knows anything about the lore of Middle Earth and beyond could love or support these movies. Which are, by the way, a scummy attempt to make as much money as possible out of a story that could have been told in two hours and forty-five minutes. How anyone can allow this to continue and not boycott movies I’ll never understand. It is outright insulting that movies are being turned into two and three parters when no such thing is needed.

  • Pladson

    Weakest HitB episode.

    They clearly have a really hard time trying to come up with something bad to say about the 48fps.

    they keep mixing it with the 3D, the bad viewing angle because of bad seats, and even their being used to the framerate of home video, which is no fault of the movie itself.

    Then how it all adds up to some motion sickness which shows an inability to separate different technical factors that i really thought was below them.

    Makes them sound conservative and afraid of change

    • Marvin Falz

      As if changes were automatically good and refusing a change automatically bad, except in nature.

    • Withinfinte

      Some people don’t like the way 48fps looks.

      Such as myself.
      It doesn’t add anything but some slightly unnatural movement.

      So id prefer not to see everything in 48fps

    • your face

      but i dont like think that are different.

  • http://twitter.com/Tea557 Wayland77

    The Hobbit was a stunning movie for Tolkien/high fantasy fans. If people are not into the intricate details and the work that Jackson has put into adapting Tolkien’s books then they shouldn’t bother watching.

    • Kevin Catlin

      You’re right. I am a fan of Tolkien and high fantasy, and I was utterly stunned by how horrible it was. I’ll gladly take your advice and not bother watching the other two.

  • Bob

    What an amazing coincidence that the optimal fps for movies just happened to be 24fps. The human brain just happened to be optimised for the fps that for technical reasons (not experience ones) is what we standardised on.

    And you seem to misrepresent what it means for motion blur. Especially for digital video the fps and the shutter speed need not be connected. You can have short shutter speed even with 24fps to reduce motion blur to essentially nothing.

    • irata42

      What a coincidence that cone cells in the human eye (foveal vision, color, sharpness) refreshes like 3 to 4 times per second, and rod cells (peripheral vision, low light, motion) refreshes like 100 times per second.
      Perhaps also a coincidence that reality has infinite fps or no frames at all, depending on how you interpret it.

  • deaconcole

    I have never done a fan edit of a movie before in my life, nor have I ever wanted to other than putting the best line in Army of Darkness into the extended cut. But I am sorely tempted to get the Hobbit trilogy and edit out everything that is stupid and make a decent movie out of it. It will likely be 45 minutes long after i remove all the extraneous stuff from the trilogy.

  • http://www.facebook.com/paulo.pereira.7311 Paulo Pereira

    Oh how you guys drone on and on. Had to stop less than a third of the way in.

    BTW, this movie really sucks.

  • http://twitter.com/fishbong Jan Martin

    lol those guys don’t even know what the word spectrum means but “hey i got shitty seats in the cinema so 3d sucks”.

  • peter jackson

    I’ve been thinking about what you guys have said about 48 fps for months but I still don’t get it. It looked fine to me. It actually looked pretty good to me. What the fuck are you guys on about? I understand the whole “magic of cinema”. That’s nice, but that’s gone. Not all movies should be like that. Movies that aren’t like that don’t automatically look bad. In your own words, film has advanced as an art form. It doesn’t look fast or sickening or stupid. It just looks more realistic. When it comes fantasy or sci-fi, added realism is something I enjoy. It gets me more engaged in the story. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT?! Do we have completely different vision or something? Please this has raped my brain thinking about it. I usually agree or understand your point of view but what you said in this makes no sense to me.

  • CAPNFRAMERATOR

    Y U NOT LYKE FRAMERATE Y IT IS GUDE I LUV FREMRETE AND UR FAG IF U DON LIKE FReMRAT

  • JCain

    I went with my family and friends, we all expected some changes in the structure of the book. Considering the pile of shit that appears every year at the movies, Peter Jackson brought a good product to watch with the family, a bit violent at times, but nothing brutally bloody.

    No big problems with the 48 frames, I believe you need to arrive earlier in the cinema, you passed a discomfort too exagerated. Maybe a new cinema area for watch “3D” in your city?

    I agree it is not a Lord of the Rings in the final result, but close to the movies offered in late 2012 and early 2013, is a great product.

  • Guestieguest

    I did not like the movie. I thought it was insulting and videogame-ish and lacked all of the charm of the original book. When it became completely obvious that no one within our band of heroes was going to be harmed no matter how ridiculously violent the scene became, all tension was removed and I became bored and annoyed. An example? Well let’s just say that the inside of that mountain must be made of pillows because not only do the main characters bounce and fall down a tunnel for hundreds of feet and seem to not even suffer a scratch, but later Frodo falls hundreds more feet down a crevice and he barely slows down to pick up his sword. Then Gandalf and the dwarfs are are attacked by a seemingly endless supply of goblins and the heroes are about as put out as they would be fighting paper dolls. Enjoy it if you want, but I can not.

    • sup

      It’s really because a lot of those parts are filler and didn’t actually happen in the book. Most of the book deals with them escaping dangers rather than fighting wargs and falling down mountains so no one dies in the parts that this movie goes over. It’s a weird situation. I would have preferred the book’s version, but whatever.

  • Liudeius

    To me, a higher framerate is clearly superior, the clarity and fluidness of motion makes a bigger difference than 720p vs 1080p image quality.I’m probably a bit biased because I’m used to it from video games where higher FPS is always better (some gamers even claim 30 fps is debilitatingly slow when it comes to competitive games), but I only see 48fps as good.

    But then again, I seem to be one of the few people who is ok with 3D. I don’t consciously see much difference (I forgot I was watching The Hobbit in 3D), but why not? Black and white film was given sound, color was added to make it more realistic, and now it will be 3D like the real world, and thanks to fps will be much smoother and realistic.
    I’m eagerly awaiting 120 Hz monitors becoming standard (120 max fps).

    • Patrick

      A higher framerate works better in gaming since the medium is focused more on immersion than visual presentation, but it doesn’t work well in movies. A higher framerate evens out the focus in the film, defeating the entire purpose of actually framing a shot for added effect.

  • SajberT

    Main issue for me was the unnecessary use of CG, especially during the bloated action scenes. The white orc was an addition which is completely out of sync with the story and in addition to that he also looks terrible in CG. As for the high framerate, no qualms here.

  • Patrick

    It’s clear a higher framerate degrades the visual quality since it defeats the purpose of even framing the shot, but I’m curious what they think of shooting with larger frames in IMAX.

  • falcon jackson

    the music at the beginning is from a video game called blood bowl???

  • Ryan Gilbert

    I normally agree with them, but I never realized they suffered from pussyitis when it comes to 3d and high framerate. I love the 3d and the high framerate. The action scenes are crisper, and the overall picture clarity is better. If you want that motion blur back, drop some acid or eat some shrooms before you head into the theater and you’ll get all of that motion blur and then some.

    I will say it did take me about 10 minutes for my brain to adjust to the clarity because it looked like I was watching a play on broadway. Once I adjusted though, it was great.The same thing happened with 3d.

    Also, they should get the Tolkein books on Audio books, because it’s a great book and can be a little daunting to read them. Audible has them very well produced, and the readers are great.

  • Pota Tseng

    i might be wrong, but i think u guys were wrong about the S3D frame rate thing. it’s 48 fps but split by half for each eye. so each eye has still 24 fps.

    • Admiral Bone2pick
      • Admiral Bone-to-Pick

        I must be seeing double… FOUR of us!!

    • Mike

      That’s only true if it’s stereoscope, theaters are polarized so no 48fps is 48 fps.

  • splimis

    24 fps ain’t broke, so don’t fix it.

  • stefan

    jay punching air is so damn hilarious to me for some reason

  • izhmash

    If they inject a shitty romance subplot into the second film, I swear to God I will not watch it or the third one.

  • Kes

    To me, The Hobbit Trilogy will be just as insulting as the Star Wars prequels are to many (including me), this first installment most certainly is. Although the script of the Hobbit is much better then that of any of the prequels, it still contains a lot of the same crappy elements that made the prequels so horrible. An overuse of CGI, excuse that it’s for children, bad character focus.

    Most insulting to me though is the additions they made. I am cool with the Gandalf added parts, because I understand why they are there. But to create a main antagonist that does not appear in the book or even the story line is just painful, same with Radagast. Now a lot of people will say I am a crying fanboy, and that I should not expect all to be the same as the book, and I don’t. I love LOTR, and have read those books as well, but they mainly changed things or left things out, they didn’t add two MAJOR characters in the story line.
    When I heard Legolas was going to be featured in one of the films I was excited, it would make sense for him to be there, being the son of Thranduil (google it). But Azog and Radagast just do not belong anywhere in this story. It also did not help that the first was a bad CGI character and the latter a Jar Jar Bings sort of comic relief.

    They added Azog to add tension, to have a antagonist, because they had to do so in order to make 3 films out of the book. Which is why making 3 films is a huge mistake. 2 films would have worked, you could find enough time to bond with Bilbo. But now it just takes away the focus from the hobbit himself.

    Tolkien met Hollywood, to bad… I hope we get more stone giant scenes that have NOTHING to do AT ALL with the story, and have just been added as filler, and to satisfy the numb brained movie goers.

    Still love RLM, you at least explain why you liked it in a respectful way that I can relate to.

  • Vaz

    The first movie was just over-drawn exposition, which made it suck. I have a feeling the second part will be much better because things start happening (plus we finally see the dragon and the man-bear!). As for CGI…yeah, I can see why people would be upset given the impressive work Jackson did with all the models (and believe me, they were really fucking cool models.) and now suddenly he’s using CGI. At least the CG in the film looks nicely detailed, unlike the Star Wars CGI which looks so damn primitive and fake, especially when you watch it on Blu-Ray. Gollum benefited enormously from advances in computer animation, he looks so real when you watch the Blu-Ray of the movie, it’s amazing. As far as story goes, yeah I wish they hadn’t thrown so many things in there that distract you from the actual Hobbit in the story. Might as well call it “The Hobbit & Other S**t”.

  • sifer2

    The movie feels like an anniversary get together or something. Where they just tried to get all the actors from the first one they could back to do stuff even if they were not in the Hobbit story. It’s good for a fanboy, but all the extra stuff just draws the story out longer than need be. Going in I didn’t even know they planned to make 3 films. So I was totally shocked by the end of it. I expected the whole story to easily fit in one movie. Instead there is just so much padding. It’s still fun just to watch a movie in the Middle Earth universe but yeah. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel pretty much does sum it up well.

  • TapewormBike

    What bums me out is the fact, that because of the 48fps stuff, they had to really scale back on lots of the practical sfx (using “bigatures”, in camera forced perspective), since it would look faky. That is the irony, the only thing visually, that is enhanced by the 48fps, is the CGI. it basicly looks as if like BBC TV crew shot a Jane Austen adaptation, but they really went and shot it in Middlearth.

  • toaster

    I haven’t seen a red letter review since the brilliant reviews of new Star Wars, but this format has to be the most boring and lazy review of a movie I’ve ever seen. And i AGREE with everything said, it’s just really, REALLY hard to watch. I guess what i can compare it too was watching Lord of the Rings and loving it, and then coming back years later to watch the Hobbit… and it’s just okay. hmmm…

  • evilfish

    please make a review for the new hobbit movie

  • Admiral Bone-to-Pick

    A couple things bothered me about the Hobbit movie:

    1) There were an awful lot of scenes where you could tell the
    film-makers were thinking “Okay, if we can just keep them in Bilbo’s house for 30
    minutes / if we can just think of 20 minutes worth of stuff for them to do in
    Rivendale… then that only leaves us another hour we need to fill before this
    movie is as long as the originals.”

    2) The CGI Orks didn’t look as organic or believable as the ‘real’
    ones in costumes in the previous movie. It was like Clonetroopers against the
    original Stormtroopers. Every time the white orc and his cronies were onscreen
    it looked obviously fake, and like a completely different world from the original films.

    3) There were many scenes where I felt the same way Plinkett did about Anakin’s speeder chase sequence in Attack of the Clones, where physics and probability is stretched to such an extent that credulity breaks and all sense of tension dissolves: Consider the scene in the original film where they’re running along the bridge at Morea and it’s collapsing and there’s a real risk that one or more characters might not make the jump. Now compare that with the one in the current movie in the goblin stronghold, where the Dwarves are bounding through millions of CGI goblins, and dozens of bridges and walkways are falling down everywhere, but every structural collapse miraculously keeps the dwarves on track and together without slowing their pace one jot. Likewise the risk-free scene with the stone giants in this one, compared to the unsuccessful attempt to cross a similar mountain pass in the snow in the original LOTR movie. Also in this one, when all the trees were collapsing like dominoes one after the other, but each time all the dwarves manage to get to the next tree (like the vine-swinging in Crystal Skull). The fact that not a single dwarf dies or gets injured in any of these encounters – especially in the goblin mine – when it’s been set up that most of them are not professional warriors, strains believability.

    I think if they’d released this new trilogy as just two films (which, I see, was originally the plan) of about 150 minutes each, they could have done without all the CGI filler and dross, and had a couple of tightly paced, exciting movies there. After all, between all the excess in this new trilogy there’s definitely 300 minutes of good stuff to make into just two films.

  • Alex Lee

    Two things really took me out of the movie when I saw it in theaters.

    One is the scene where Old Bilbo is writing the story down for Frodo, These lines describe what a hobbit hole is and how it’s different from other holes. In the context of the movie, that makes no sense because it’s for Frodo. He already knows what a hobbit hole is and it only serves as a connection to the audience members who read The Hobbit.

    The second has to do with the Pale Orc, and I’m not referring to the CGI aspect. I’m referring to how he acts as a character when compared to the trolls and the Goblin King. The latter two were speaking in verse, which makes sense in a children’s story. But then we have the Pale Orc, who is very clearly a LoTR villain-and a pretty shallow one at that. He speaks Orcish and obviously doesn’t speak in verse or even rhyme for that matter. That really stuck out as a lot of “this world is connected to the Lord of the Rings” moments.

  • irata42

    Your explanation is very confusing.
    If you record 48 frames per second and play it at 48 frames per second, there is no slow-motion or speedup.
    Old movies were mostly 16 frames per second, and played at the right speed it’s not faster, it just looks weird (dream-like) because of the blur.
    Recently I saw porn at 60 fps, and it looks very good ;-)

  • roaroar roarar

    I love you guys, but in the book “it was just some guy who killed Smaug”, is not a correct statement.

    In the cartoon it appears as if it is just some guy, but it’s actually the Bard in the book. The only reason they don’t really go into the story of the bard in the cartoon is because of time constraints. There is a lot of content that was left out of the cartoon that is either in the book, or in the Silmarillion.

    Also, they didn’t add the storyline about the Necromancer and the meeting with Gandalf, Galadriel and Saruman etc etc just to tie it into the original movie trilogy. All that actually happened during the events of the book, but most of it is just vaguely referenced, but not really shown. Though it is further elaborated upon in the Silmarillion.

    In fact, the new Hobbit movies are closer to a combination of the Hobbit and the parts of the Silmarillion that make note of the events that took place during the journey to kill Smaug and reclaim the Misty Mountain.

    My biggest gripe with the movies has been the Pale Orc, and I know this sounds a bit stupid, but it bothers me to see that the movie would just make up an antagonist and place him in such an important position in the movie and give him so much screen time. I understand the need, because Peter Jackson was probably worried that nondescript “goblins” would not bring with them the same tension as goblins who were being led by a character with a clear motivation to exact vengeance on Thorin. I think he wanted audience to be able to mentally put a face to the dangers of the journey, because otherwise it’d just be skirmishes with anonymous goblins until they got to Smaug, aside from the confrontation with the Goblin King.

    Also, don’t even bother trying to differentiate between the Hobbit’s goblins, and LotR’s orcs, because people who know the books a lot better than we do are still debating this. Some fans insist that there is has always difference between the two, and other fans believe it is just JRR Tolkien’s most obvious instance of retroactive continuity and that there was no difference in the Hobbit, but that Tolkien later made them into separate creatures despite using the terms interchangeably at first. Most people now a days agree that post-Hobbit there is a difference between orcs and goblins, but that difference may not have existed in the Hobbit.

    I’m not sure if anyone has brought this stuff up yet, but I didn’t see any comments on it, so I figured I might as well for the sake of viewers of this review who might be curious.

    BLAH BLAH BLAH
    TL;DR

Back to Top