Emmett and I, and his godmother Karen, saw the midnight show.
I almost passed out at 2am, but then the movie was filled with action stuff and I rallied. It was good and I enjoyed it, but there were couple times where it felt like Jackson just wanted to replay his favorite shots. "Isn't it time we did
running along the ridge? Did we yet? Yeah, let's have them all running along the spine of a mountain ridge. That's a good one."
Also, did we really need to see
Radagast's hair all bird poop bedraggled for such a long stretch?
I could easily have cut 20 minutes
Honestly...I'm not sure I could. I mean, yes, it was very long, but if you had to pin me down to what I would have cut to make it shorter, there isn't an obvious scene I'd willingly leave out.
Can people who have seen the Hobbit comment on whether or not they've seen it as 48fps?
I finally watched John Carter on cable, and boy, that is one cheap looking $250M picture. At least when James Cameron spends that much money, you get to see what he spent it on.
And Andrew Stanton is not a very good (live-action) director. I don't remember the last time I've noticed how bad the blocking was on a Hollywood produced movie. There were several times I had to pause and rewind just to understand what I just saw. I guess in CGI, blocking is something you can go back and fix afterwards, but you are limited to how much you can go back and reshoot in live-action (not that Stanton didn't try).
David, yes we did.
Honestly...I'm not sure I could. I mean, yes, it was very long, but if you had to pin me down to what I would have cut to make it shorter, there isn't an obvious scene I'd willingly leave out.
If I'd had to have cut anything, it would have been
the framing device at the beginning with Frodo.
Jessica, I wouldn't have left any scenes out. But there were a number of scenes that could have been tightened up.
Scola, I didn't, so I can't comment. The 3-d is lovely, though.
Our projector was...out of alignment, maybe? At the beginning. I thought it looked wrong, and then I noticed a lot of people fiddling with their glasses, so I quickly went outside and told a staff member. They stopped the movie, apologized, fixed the problem, and started over. The audience was really appreciative (I doubt they've gotten applause for stopping a showing before), and it was absolutely the right call, rather than trying to fix it on the fly. And there are some shots in the prologue that you really want in good 3-D.
But there were a number of scenes that could have been tightened up.
My sister estimates that if Thorin cut down on his staring-meaningfully-into-the-distance time, this movie could have come in under 2 hours.
My sister estimates that if Thorin cut down on his staring-meaningfully-into-the-distance time, this movie could have come in under 2 hours.
I could have lived with all the fight scenes being cut by 2/3, and we would have lost nothing in either plot or characterization.
Did anyone else get the sense that
Thorin is being explicitly positioned as this movie's Boromir?
Also,
there will be a hella lot of sad fangirls at the end of the last movie, IJS.
I had lots of niggly issues, like
Bilbo being the first one to attack the Orcs after Thorin gets beat down, and being successful at it. And the conversation about the Witch-King of Angmar ignoring the prophecy about how he would die--the point is that he never died, and was never buried.
But I loved the Riddles scene, and thought the choice to
play Gollum as split personality
worked really well.
In general, it was entertaining, but I thought it was too close in tone and narrative technique to the earlier trilogy. Some bits seemed pretty repetitive, like the
bridges and cliffs tilting and falling so people could cross a chasm.
That's a pretty damn specific thing to use over again--twice, no less!
Well you know, that's just how
chasms work in Middle-Earth!
