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

[bluballer]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Can someone condense the essence of Duffy's post.Too tired now to read it,and have a feeling it'll be fluff.Correct me if I'm wrong.

No critique of you Duffy.Just a long post after a long day at work

Cliff notes: Peter Jackson's The Hobbit will be fondly remembered in due time as a faithful adaptation of Tolkien's intent for the story as a true, darker prequel to LOTR because of his (Jackson's) diligent research. Forget the critics.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Yes. Only 3D for now.

The reason being is the 3D projectors that they are using have the newer digital tech so it is far easier to update them to show off the HFR. They will eventually get around to the regular 2D projectors, but it will be quite a while before they do as they STILL have a whole lot of 3D ones yet to upgrade....

Duffy from Northern Va., that’s ^ only accurate if you read and believe the mainstream press. For this is the reality….
https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...sk#post6695872

Most pertinently, the fact of the matter is that all Series 2 systems can project 2D at 48fps and even most Series 1 projector systems can also perform the task now….without any upgrade at all. The projector system upgrade was needed to project 48fps in 3D.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I think that regardless of how you feel about the HFR 3D, this is pretty funny. The best part starts at 57 seconds.

Side Effects of The Hobbit - YouTube

Joe, I stopped tallying data. Anyway, that clip needs input from the cat with the blue glasses. I haven’t seen him around and I miss his presence.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-a...b_2342591.html

.

I found this article (especially the title) to be somewhat amusing. No one doubts that Jackson has greater knowledge of Tolkien than most of his critics - as well he should, since Tolkien has been his bread and butter. But the guy that wrote this article needs to look at what he has posted. It seems to me that he merely opened the Lord of the Rings to Appendix B ("The Tale of Years") and copied the events that occurred around the time of The Hobbit adventure as a means to justify the extra material Jackson put into three movies.

If the author had conducted more research, he might have discovered that most of the events that he quotes (so far) have little or nothing to do with the material in the movie, and my guess is we won't see most of them in the films to come. For example, we more than likely need not anticipate seeing the Wainriders, Balchoth, the Days of Dearth, or Eorl the Young saving the day at Field of Celebrant in films two and three. If the previous four movies (and ESPECIALLY The Hobbit movie) are an indicator, the plot elements that DO appear in the movies (Nazgul, etc.) "probably" won't be the same as the author's list. A list of the extra material written AFTER the third movie is released will most likely consist of invented material placed by the screenwriters. Those who doubt this may refer to the Lord of the Rings movies and especially the EE versions, where many of the extra scenes have little to do with Tolkien's writings.

Addition: An after-thought, I am somewhat perplexed by the title, which suggests that if for some reason you dislike Jackson's version of the Hobbit, then "You Don't Know Tolkien". I am somewhat confident the author does not know Tolkien, nor do I, though I am somewhat familiar with his writings. I would be interested in the opinions of people who DID know Tolkien or spent their lives studying him, such as Wayne G. Hammond, Christina Scull, Douglas Anderson, or Christopher Tolkien. The author might be disappointed in their responses.

[Mr. Lost]

I rated this movie a 4.5/5 because...

[Show spoiler]
The damn eagles save the day again. It is very anti climatic to see the whole party being defenseless in a damn tree and seeing eagles come out of nowhere. I expected a huge titanic clash of swords and brutal slayings, but no.

Furthermore, what's up with Gandalf doing all the damn saving as well? First it was with the mountain trolls, the road passageway, and finally, the goblin underground caverns. Wow, are the dwarves that pathetic? Aren't half of them warriors? Isn't Thorin supposed to be this almighty bad ass king? Didn't he spank that pale orc wearing cloth panties way back when?

I almost forgot about that pathetic battle between the albino orc and Thorin. Wow, just wow, I just... wow... I get that Bilbo has to prove himself to his peers before they take on Smaug, but honestly? That was the epitome of shit. I demand a reshoot of that scene. Thorin is supposed to not only whoop that albino orc all up and down the forest, but also annihilate the rest of his pawns with such brutality that it will be told time and time again for eons until Frodo's great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren hear it from their parents.


All in all, I loved the beautiful scenery shots and the epic music played ever so clearly throughout the film. I think my eyes had multiple orgasms in the span of those 3 hours. Wonderful film!

I doubt anyone will read what I said, but hopefully someone will.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lost

I rated this movie a 4.5/5 because...

[Show spoiler]
The damn eagles save the day again. It is very anti climatic to see the whole party being defenseless in a damn tree and seeing eagles come out of nowhere. I expected a huge titanic clash of swords and brutal slayings, but no.

Furthermore, what's up with Gandalf doing all the damn saving as well? First it was with the mountain trolls, the road passageway, and finally, the goblin underground caverns. Wow, are the dwarves that pathetic? Aren't half of them warriors? Isn't Thorin supposed to be this almighty bad ass king? Didn't he spank that pale orc wearing cloth panties way back when?

I almost forgot about that pathetic battle between the albino orc and Thorin. Wow, just wow, I just... wow... I get that Bilbo has to prove himself to his peers before they take on Smaug, but honestly? That was the epitome of shit. I demand a reshoot of that scene. Thorin is supposed to not only whoop that albino orc all up and down the forest, but also annihilate the rest of his pawns with such brutality that it will be told time and time again for eons until Frodo's great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren hear it from their parents.

Gandalf

[Show spoiler] does the saving for now, but the dwarves and Bilbo become increasingly self-sufficient (which is partly what the movie is about), as Gandalf will leave them in the next film and will not rejoin them until close to the end. The albino orc you refer to in the movie was killed at that battle in the book version of the story. I have a feeling that his - and the other orcs - outcomes are not going to be good in the third movie.

I doubt anyone will read what I said, but hopefully someone will.

I did.

[jjbsn5192]

Great Film Loved seeing this!!!

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lost

I rated this movie a 4.5/5 because...

[Show spoiler]
The damn eagles save the day again. It is very anti climatic to see the whole party being defenseless in a damn tree and seeing eagles come out of nowhere. I expected a huge titanic clash of swords and brutal slayings, but no.

Furthermore, what's up with Gandalf doing all the damn saving as well? First it was with the mountain trolls, the road passageway, and finally, the goblin underground caverns. Wow, are the dwarves that pathetic? Aren't half of them warriors? Isn't Thorin supposed to be this almighty bad ass king? Didn't he spank that pale orc wearing cloth panties way back when?

I almost forgot about that pathetic battle between the albino orc and Thorin. Wow, just wow, I just... wow... I get that Bilbo has to prove himself to his peers before they take on Smaug, but honestly? That was the epitome of shit. I demand a reshoot of that scene. Thorin is supposed to not only whoop that albino orc all up and down the forest, but also annihilate the rest of his pawns with such brutality that it will be told time and time again for eons until Frodo's great, great, great, great, great, great grandchildren hear it from their parents.


All in all, I loved the beautiful scenery shots and the epic music played ever so clearly throughout the film. I think my eyes had multiple orgasms in the span of those 3 hours. Wonderful film!

I doubt anyone will read what I said, but hopefully someone will.

I did, and I pretty much agree with you on

[Show spoiler]Bilbo saving Thorin from the big bad goblin

. That sure was a groaner for me as well.

.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Gandalf

[Show spoiler] does the saving for now, but the dwarves and Bilbo become increasingly self-sufficient (which is partly what the movie is about), as Gandalf will leave them in the next film and will not rejoin them until close to the end. The albino orc you refer to in the movie was killed at that battle in the book version of the story. I have a feeling that his - and the other orcs - outcomes are not going to be good in the third movie.

I did.

This.I was surprised to see Gandalf so subservient in the movie.In the book he is like a fatherfigure,in that he is a wizard who has abilities and experience far above the dwarves-as is displayed in LotR,but also the book.I just take PJ with a shovel of salt,thats all

[ZoetMB]

Saw this today in HFR 3D and it really was visually simply awful, IMO. I really thought I was watching a play on British television. I really pray that this is not the future of movies. I cannot even begin to imagine why Peter Jackson wanted his movie to look like this. IMO, it destroys believability, it makes the sets obvious and it makes the movie look cheap.

I'm a tech guy and an ex-recording engineer, but I must admit there's something I don't understand about the "soap opera" effect. One of the reasons that 48fps looks so different than 24fps is because at 48fps, we get much less motion blur. And because 35mm film at 24fps always had motion blur, we associate the look of film with that blur. On TVs, we get the "soap opera" effect when we turn on "motion flow" because of frame interpolation. OK. That's pretty clear. But how come it still looks like crap when nothing is moving in the frame?

I don't think the look of the film was only because of HFR. It almost looked to me like they were using tilt-shift lenses. One of the side effects of tilt-shift lenses is that they can make everything look miniature, especially when shooting down.

I don't want to see this twice, so I'm not going to see it in 2D to see how it looks, but I am curious as to whether 24fps normal playback resolves the issue or whether because it was shot at 48fps, it's still going to look like a TV show shot on video.

I did not notice anything being looked like it was "sped up", as some have complained. And I can't imagine how 48fps would make anyone feel like they had motion sickness. If anything, 24fps, because of motion blur, should do that more than 48fps.

I'll admit to not being a big fan of 3D (although I thought the 3D in Hugo was pretty good), but I really don't think the 3D added anything to this movie and RealD 3D, as usual, made the image darker and killed the whites. If I go see the next one, it will be in 2D.

The presentation I did see was also in Dolby Atmos and that did add a lot to the presentation. Sound was very good - maybe almost as good as the best of the 70mm analog 6-track roadshows we used to have.

As for the film itself, if I had never seen the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I probably would rate it five stars. But because this is so much of the same type of material (even if the book had a totally different tone), I rate it 4 stars. This doesn't take into account any differences between the book and the movie because frankly, I have almost no recollection of reading it. One of these days, I'll read it again.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

For what it's worth, the 24fps version does look very much like a traditional film. Take a look at some film clips online - they represent the visual look of the regular 2D version.

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

Saw this today in HFR 3D and it really was visually simply awful, IMO. I really thought I was watching a play on British television. I really pray that this is not the future of movies. I cannot even begin to imagine why Peter Jackson wanted his movie to look like this. IMO, it destroys believability, it makes the sets obvious and it makes the movie look cheap.

I'm a tech guy and an ex-recording engineer, but I must admit there's something I don't understand about the "soap opera" effect. One of the reasons that 48fps looks so different than 24fps is because at 48fps, we get much less motion blur. And because 35mm film at 24fps always had motion blur, we associate the look of film with that blur. On TVs, we get the "soap opera" effect when we turn on "motion flow" because of frame interpolation. OK. That's pretty clear. But how come it still looks like crap when nothing is moving in the frame?

I don't think the look of the film was only because of HFR. It almost looked to me like they were using tilt-shift lenses. One of the side effects of tilt-shift lenses is that they can make everything look miniature, especially when shooting down.

I don't want to see this twice, so I'm not going to see it in 2D to see how it looks, but I am curious as to whether 24fps normal playback resolves the issue or whether because it was shot at 48fps, it's still going to look like a TV show shot on video.

I did not notice anything being looked like it was "sped up", as some have complained. And I can't imagine how 48fps would make anyone feel like they had motion sickness. If anything, 24fps, because of motion blur, should do that more than 48fps.

I'll admit to not being a big fan of 3D (although I thought the 3D in Hugo was pretty good), but I really don't think the 3D added anything to this movie and RealD 3D, as usual, made the image darker and killed the whites. If I go see the next one, it will be in 2D.

The presentation I did see was also in Dolby Atmos and that did add a lot to the presentation. Sound was very good - maybe almost as good as the best of the 70mm analog 6-track roadshows we used to have.

As for the film itself, if I had never seen the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I probably would rate it five stars. But because this is so much of the same type of material (even if the book had a totally different tone), I rate it 4 stars. This doesn't take into account any differences between the book and the movie because frankly, I have almost no recollection of reading it. One of these days, I'll read it again.

I have only seen this once so far, in HFR 48fps 3D, and while I enjoyed the movie for the most part, I felt like the new technology pulled me out of the story overall. Some scenes were like looking through a window into Middle-earth, but others looked slightly sped up, and some few other scenes looked like a fancy video game.

Edit: I think this effect would work much better for "real life" crime or drama type movies, but for fantasy movies, it seems like the last thing you would want is more "realism".

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by frogmort

I have only seen this once so far, in HFR 48fps 3D, and while I enjoyed the movie for the most part, I felt like the new technology pulled me out of the story overall. Some scenes were like looking through a window into Middle-earth, but others looked slightly sped up, and some few other scenes looked like a fancy video game.

Edit: I think this effect would work much better for "real life" crime or drama type movies, but for fantasy movies, it seems like the last thing you would want is more "realism".

lol.On your toes today are we?

[radagast]

I have a couple more memories and observations about my second viewing.

[Show spoiler] I was surprised that Bree wasn't in the movie. Also the name Gloin was mispronounced.

[Underworld54]

I just got back from a HFR showing and I thoroughly enjoyed the film. It was good to be back in Middle Earth. The interaction between Gollum and Bilbo was pretty darn good. I loved the eagles and the wolves were vicious. I own the book but have yet to read it so I can't say how it compares. I thought it was really good.

Now on to the HFR technology, I didn't like it much at all. I wanted to see it to give it a try but it just didn't feel like film to me. It really harmed the dreamy feel and look of Rivendell which was a shame. I do enjoy 3D but not the HFR. I'll avoid it in the future if possible.

[SpartanX]

Am I the only one around here

Who is waiting for this on BluRay

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by SpartanX

Am I the only one around here

Who is waiting for this on BluRay

Which one?

The theatrical or Extended?

.

[Duffy12]

.

I just saw this for the 2nd time, again in 48-FPS.

This time the only sped up movement that I noticed was Bilbo's arm reaching into his war chest and that was it on that issue.

Now regarding to so called realistic stage play syndrome look that a lot of people are complaining about...I guess that I only really noticed that during the Riddles sequence the most, and also briefly noting it when the dwarves were watching the rock fight, and also with them exiting the tunnel right before gazing at Rivendale. All this was very minor however I am still baffled at the Riddles part being so well lit with every nook and cranny having some kind of light source.

I can't believe that I am going to say this, but I sure hope that the BDs from this have their contrast cranked up to give it that darker feel that Riddles deserves(which seems to be an ongoing BD authoring problem that I wish that they would STOP DOING!).


I was going to mention some story observings that I made this time around, however I have already forgotten them.

.

[JamesKurtovich]

Originally Posted by SpartanX

Am I the only one around here

Who is waiting for this on BluRay

I'll be waiting for the extended version. I hope they release them simultaneously, but y'know, greed.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by JamesKurtovich

I'll be waiting for the extended version. I hope they release them simultaneously, but y'know, greed.

It's being extended into three movies. I think it's extended enough. Do you really want it longer?