The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review Thread (Spoilers)

[JTStarkiller]

I saw it yesterday in HFR 3D and thought it was absolutely revolting. Sure it was crisp and clear, but the movements were just ugly. I loved everything else about the film, but I will NOT be seeing the other two films in 48 fps, that's for damn sure.

I went home and watched (on my Apple TV in the trailers section) the clip where Gandalf tells Bilbo of his relative in Bag End, and the scene just looked beautiful.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by BJKH

I just finished watching this movie In HFR 3D and I loved it! While not as good as Lord of the Rings, this film went above and beyond my expectations! The HFR 3D was really neat and I'm very glad I picked that format to watch it in. 5/5!

Welcome to the future of film making.

.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by JTStarkiller

I saw it yesterday in HFR 3D and thought it was absolutely revolting. Sure it was crisp and clear, but the movements were just ugly. I loved everything else about the film, but I will NOT be seeing the other two films in 48 fps, that's for damn sure.

I went home and watched (on my Apple TV in the trailers section) the clip where Gandalf tells Bilbo of his relative in Bag End, and the scene just looked beautiful.

I think you are safe untill 2014, when Avatar sequels are released there on in, at 60fps, (hhm exception of Hobbit sequels, i nearly forget)

[obriensg1]

Yeah saw it in 3D, then 4 days later in HFR 3D with my friends. None of us felt HFR was too dramatic a difference or more clear then anything else. It was the movement that got to me a few times. Even something like old Bilbo walking around his house looked like it was on 1.5 speed, but usually it was action scenes of running and fighting that looked a tad off.

Now, for Blu-ray, this will come out in like 3 months in 3D and 2D, then an extended edition will come out in November or so. Do you think the extended edition will be available in 3D?

[Vashetti]

Just got back from seeing it a second time and wow, it was even better.

I had no bad expectations from shitty reviews so I could just sit back and enjoy the film for what it is.

I had read thoughts from people who had watched it a second time and said that the beginning really dragged.

Not at all. I was blown away all over again.

It's such a feel-good film. Every time I hear that battle theme I just get a rush of euphoria and feel so happy.

The humour is also spot on and had me laughing all over again.

Argh. What are these feels.

At the end of the day, this is a film(s) for Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings film fans. If you don't like them then you definitely won't like this. Obviously it's ultimately made for money, but the people who work on it are obviously fans and everything is made with loving care and emotion.

Reviewers who slated this movie can **** off as far as I'm concerned.

You only need to see the disconnect between critics scores and audience scores to see where the problem lies.

The critics have gone on a full-blown assault against the 48fps and that has inappropriately seeped into their reviews of the film itself.

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

Both Gandalf and Bilbo sang the "Road goes ever on" song in FOTR. Singing is common, although more songs should have been featured in the trilogy that were in the books...

Like I said, I don't have a problem that there was singing. My problem was the impromptu song about Bilbo's dishes that everyone seeemed to know the words to. It's not a musical.

Later when they sang the slower song that was an old Dwarvish hymn, that was understandable.

Spontaneous musical numbers have no place in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. (Even if they were in the book).

But that's just my two cents.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Vashetti

The critics have gone on a full-blown assault against the 48fps and that has inappropriately seeped into their reviews of the film itself.

Absolutely!

Well said.

.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

Spontaneous musical numbers have no place in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. (Even if they were in the book).

But that's just my two cents.

I seem to remember that Merry and Pippen had one of those in the EE version of LotR.

.

[CYMBOL]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

I seem to remember that Merry and Pippen had one of those in the EE version of LotR.

.

That was probably a well known song.

There is a difference between breaking out into a well known song together (taking a road trip and the family sings songs together, or a bunch of girls sing a song in a car).

But doing some random task, cleaning someone's dishes - and you start making up a song - and 12 of your friends somehow join in and seemingly know all the words - that is what happens in musicals. The world is expressed through music - which isn't realistic.

Again, not a big deal. Just didn't feel like it fit in the movie.

[Talyn]

I may not speak for everyone else, and that's fine.... but I did myself a favor and skipped all the reviews. I went and saw a movie I thought would be fun. I wasn't disappointed....

[Member-115369]

Originally Posted by obriensg1

was the movement that got to me a few times. Even something like old Bilbo walking around his house looked like it was on 1.5 speed, but usually it was action scenes of running and fighting that looked a tad off.

Yep, a lot of scenes had that 1.5 speed effect for me as well and really bugged me and took me out of the movie at times. Also thought some of the sets/effects looked fake.

Didn't think it was too real or soap opera like or whatever. Thought it looked great and clear other than those two gripes above.

Definitely want to find time to catch it in 2D though to avoid those gripes. And I'm just not a big fan of 3D in general.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

Like I said, I don't have a problem that there was singing. My problem was the impromptu song about Bilbo's dishes that everyone seeemed to know the words to. It's not a musical.

Later when they sang the slower song that was an old Dwarvish hymn, that was understandable.

Spontaneous musical numbers have no place in Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. (Even if they were in the book).

But that's just my two cents.

I was impressed with the way that Jackson inserted the "Chip the glasses and crack the plates" song, as it is the first song in the book and added an appropriate sense of wackiness at that point of the story where Bilbo is confronted with the unexpected arrival of the dwarves. I had no idea that Jackson would try to film that song, so it was a pleasant surprise. I was relieved that he did not try to add the elves' "Tra-la-la-lally" song in Rivendell, as I'm sure that even Tolkien eventually regretted putting that in the book. Where Jackson needs to be careful is his tendency to go overboard, as he did in the oft-mentioned Radagast and Great Goblin scenes, overblown Goblin-town chase, domino effect of falling trees, etc.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Vashetti

Just got back from seeing it a second time and wow, it was even better.

I had no bad expectations from shitty reviews so I could just sit back and enjoy the film for what it is.

I had read thoughts from people who had watched it a second time and said that the beginning really dragged.

Not at all. I was blown away all over again.

It's such a feel-good film. Every time I hear that battle theme I just get a rush of euphoria and feel so happy.

The humour is also spot on and had me laughing all over again.

Argh. What are these feels.

At the end of the day, this is a film(s) for Peter Jackson's Lord Of The Rings film fans. If you don't like them then you definitely won't like this. Obviously it's ultimately made for money, but the people who work on it are obviously fans and everything is made with loving care and emotion.

Reviewers who slated this movie can **** off as far as I'm concerned.

You only need to see the disconnect between critics scores and audience scores to see where the problem lies.

The critics have gone on a full-blown assault against the 48fps and that has inappropriately seeped into their reviews of the film itself.

Oh great, another one of these posts.

I don't know why it doesn't occur to people, but reviews are actually just people with opinions, like every other person in the world. It's very hypocritical to shout at people that you disagree with simply because they don't share the same opinion.

[chris_sc77]

SO many Hobbit threads but is this the one where someone was saying that this was gonna struggle to get to $200 million or such craziness?. Looks like its gonna cross $200 million today most likely and be around $225 million (at least) after the weekend

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by CYMBOL

That was probably a well known song.

There is a difference between breaking out into a well known song together (taking a road trip and the family sings songs together, or a bunch of girls sing a song in a car).

But doing some random task, cleaning someone's dishes - and you start making up a song - and 12 of your friends somehow join in and seemingly know all the words - that is what happens in musicals. The world is expressed through music - which isn't realistic.

Again, not a big deal. Just didn't feel like it fit in the movie.

I have to say, I'm in a bit of agreement here. I LOVE the Hobbit. Its my favorite book of all time, even over Lord of the Rings, BUT, you could tell that Jackson was trying to bring the tone up to LotR level, and I think this kind of took away from it a little. Not enough to bother me, but I personally would not have missed it if it was gone. What DID bother me was the crazy wacky insertion of Jar Jar Binks, sorry, I mean Radagast the Brown. With the tone of the film, he just seemed so out of place that it WAS distracting to me. Sure, if you insist on putting him in the film, fine. But good GOD man he seriously annoyed me as much as Jar Jar...

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Personally, I felt the tone of the film was quite different from LotR (intentionally so) and found the songs, Radagast, trolls, etc. to be perfectly in keeping with that tone.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Personally, I felt the tone of the film was quite different from LotR (intentionally so) and found the songs, Radagast, trolls, etc. to be perfectly in keeping with that tone.

It was different, but it certainly was not even close to the tone of the book. With all of the connections that Jackson was making to his previous films, and the insertion of Azog (I don't remember him from any of the stories) and just how absolutely stone faced serious Thorin was throughout the film, I just didn't personally feel that Radagasts presence enhanced the film. In many ways it just seemed like a distraction from the serious tone that Jackson was trying to portray.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

To each their own. I found the tone to be somewhere in the middle between Jackson's LotR films and the book 'The Hobbit'. So the lighter elements worked splendidly for me.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

how absolutely stone faced serious Thorin was throughout the film

I thought Jackson represented Bilbo quite accurately, but as you point out Thorin was considerably off the mark, particularly with his open hostility against Bilbo and his invented vendetta against the Elves. Thorin will have more than enough reasons to be angry with the Elves when

[Show spoiler] they imprison him later in the story. No doubt this is all a set-up for the dramatic emotional ending when Thorin reconciles his differences with Bilbo and the Elves before his death.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

I was relieved that he did not try to add the elves' "Tra-la-la-lally" song in Rivendell,

Yea, I see what saying. It just does not match Jackson's LotRs style.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woySeSNBL3o