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

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

But Tolkien wrote the appendicies to tie The Hobbit to the Lord of the Rings.

They contain story that is happening @ the same time as the events that are taking place during The Hobbit.

So i fail to see where I'm wrong since it's all happening @ the same time.

The point is that the appendices were written long after The Hobbit was written and first published and your prior modification of my post implied that the appendices were part of the original Hobbit, which we know they are not.

I knew what you meant, but wanted to put a finer point on it. I still think it is rude to modify other's posts. You could have made your point without doing that.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

The point is that the appendices were written long after The Hobbit was written and first published and your prior modification of my post implied that the appendices were part of the original Hobbit, which we know they are not.

I knew what you meant, but wanted to put a finer point on it. I still think it is rude to modify other's posts. You could have made your point without doing that.

i wanted to make my point that people always forget that it's The Hobbit and it's The Appendicies that are making up this trilogy.

to say it's a 320 page book being made into 3 movies is incorrect.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i wanted to make my point that people always forget that it's The Hobbit and it's The Appendicies that are making up this trilogy.

to say it's a 320 page book being made into 3 movies is incorrect.

I get that. What I said was it was a 320 page book that should have been made into one 2 1/2 hour movie. I'll just have to wait for the next two installments to see If I stay with that opinion.

[IronWaffle]

I went with a serious Tolkien fan yesterday. Me, I've never read the books, largely since I'm indifferent to fantasy (Yes, I have LotR in my collection but that's another story). Still, I felt this was one of the year's blockbusters worth checking out and leaving expectations at the door. He and I are both writers by trade and like to pick things apart from lots of angles. So...

take this as hearsay that I can neither defend nor criticize but thought it worth sharing: His impression was that the film had a bit of "fan-fic" -- particularly the Brown Wizard, but not much. The cameos he saw as fan service, but not distracting and as largely reasonable exposition. His only real issues were 1) amplifying the White Orc (?) into a huge villain. According to him, in the book that Orc is more a reference than a hinge on which the whole story hangs. If that is accurate, I can see how that is troubling at least until all three movies can be seen. 2) The Dwarf leader's role, he said, was not about being a deposed leader. If that's the case I find it interesting in that Jackson is setting up a parallel with Aragorn (?) in LotR; again, until all three are seen, who knows... but I think it risks being a Lucas-like error in narrative and thematic judgment to rely on manufactured parallels.

Personally I liked

[Show spoiler] The White Wizard's trite criticisms of their Brown brother and found it a memorable inclusion that adds a little contrast to what we see in the LotR movies

. Like many, I think Gollum's scene is the standout. Not just because of the tech, but because there was room for performance and subtext to work together in fleshing out both characters. This could be done any number of places. Another favorite moment and one that I immediately felt was a bit of homage to Tolkien himself was Bilbo's admission that he's more comfortable with his books and pipe at home...sort of a armchair adventurer, maybe dreaming up tales. This also made me wish that Gandalf cajoled Bilbo into joining them more on that basis than by shoehorning in the lineage and how Bilbo was just a shadow of his ancestors. I'm not sure how it was in the book (I forgot to ask yesterday) but with the lineage nods elsewhere I wouldn't be surprised if this is Jackson, not Tolkien.

Ultimately, I was never bored, but by the end I WAS tired (and we saw it 24fps, so it wasn't the tech). I feel that genre films like this require strong structural underpinning (a la Freytag's triangle -- look it up, you know all about it) to carry the audience through the fantastical. I feel Jackson and his collaborators did not do this very well. None of the set pieces seemed to move them further along or off their path. They were things that happened. Some were exciting, others just stopped (for instance, once they get in the cave, the "monstrous mountain quakes" completely stopped and the tension was eliminated, not resolved or released. Bilbo's turn in the eyes of the Dwarf leader is rushed, with the interesting part of his pivot being in the cave with the dwarf who looks kind'a like Spinal Tap's bassist (no offense). Since most of the dwarves aren't developed much as individuals it also seems reasonable to composite a few of them. But that opinion is based in one movie, not three, and I'm not an innate fan of this series so take that opinion with a boulder of salt.

Wow, I didn't mean to write that much. What else is there for a non-Christian to do on Xmas eve, I guess

[lilojbone]

I saw this film on Saturday in its 48fps -- I saw not sold on it. It looked weird in my opinion. It looked liked a Blu-Ray demo at Best Buy: I prefer my films to look like films. As for the movie, it was entertaining. I do not have high expectations for Peter Jackson.

[cathexist]

Saw it last night. I love the 48fps during panning shots and large landscape shots since you don't get the usual jitter on those sweeping shots...but for filming people...it took some getting used to and I don't really think it's better than 24fps overall.

Entertaining movie and nice initial tie in to the LOTR trilogy. I probably won't pass final judgement until I see the remaining 2 movies...just wish I didn't have to wait a year for the next one.

[kdo]

Had a great time going to see this today...not disappointed in the slightest. Anyone who is a fan of the LOTR should not miss the opportunity to see this one on the big screen. While there's little doubt certain aspects probably could've been "tightened" up a bit, I found this to be a fantastic experience overall, and I'm glad I saw it in 2D. And while I will admit I had some initial reservations about the film based on what I'd seen in some of the early trailers (and from what I read in some of the early screener reviews), within about 20 minutes of the film, they'd all been quelled, and I settled in for what is easily the best theatrical experience I've had since the LOTR trilogy debuted in theaters over a decade ago. I'd rate the film in between a 4.0 and 4.5, and went with a 4.0 here on the poll. I'd imagine a solid 4.5 might be in order when the EE home video set comes out. Whatever the case, my congratulations on a fine job here by all involved in the production and a big round of thanks as well...I can't wait to purchase the EE HD release when it comes out next year, as well as see the 2nd and 3rd installments of this trilogy!

[Tony208]

It was a solid 4 stars imo, the 48fps worked in some places and failed in others. The film was also too long.

There were a lot of things/dialogue that didn't feel Tolkien, probably cause they were filling it with all of their own stuff

[Show spoiler]
The goblin king death was awful... like star wars prequel jar jar awful

This was a little like LOTR for kids

[Show spoiler] rabbit sled? cmon that one should of stayed out

[menaceuk]

saw this a few days ago and I really enjoyed it.

Have read lots of folks complaining about length and stretching out the book too much and while I haven't read the book...I can honestly say the 180 mins or so just whizzed by. Never really felt like it dragged it's feet and never really got boring.


Loved how they broke upo the movie with the bilbo and Golem stuff too and really enjoyed those sequences too.

I am not a LOTR fan either but I am anticipating the second movie in this trilogy

[JamesKurtovich]

I'm amazed at the amount of people who disliked the story itself because they expected a new Lord of the Rings story. The weak link is definitely the poorly done Azog character.

[thenexus6]

I watched it a few days after opening day in 3D 48FPS. And to be honest I didn't like it as much as I expected.

The 3D was okay, nothing too amazing plus i'm not really a fan of 3D.
The 48FPS was a little weird at the start, especially with small movements of characters but I kind of got used to it. The problem is that FPS made the film look cheap and incredibly fake (CGI speaking).

I've not read the books but it just wasn't as interesting as LOTR and I didn't really like any of the characters. Also the film was overly long I felt.

Overall I look forward to Part II being better, but the film generally just made me think how good LOTR actually is, and how well it's stood up.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

I think he meant he wished they didn't in the movie...You are correct on the book.

That is the first time I have heard a complaint about something that IS in the book also being in the movie.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by thenexus6

I watched it a few days after opening day in 3D 48FPS. And to be honest I didn't like it as much as I expected.

The 3D was okay, nothing too amazing plus i'm not really a fan of 3D.
The 48FPS was a little weird at the start, especially with small movements of characters but I kind of got used to it. The problem is that FPS made the film look cheap and incredibly fake (CGI speaking).

I've not read the books but it just wasn't as interesting as LOTR and I didn't really like any of the characters. Also the film was overly long I felt.

Overall I look forward to Part II being better, but the film generally just made me think how good LOTR actually is, and how well it's stood up.

After listening to all these complaints about 48fps I understand the point. I've decided to get rid of all my Blu-rays because they ruin the home video experience. Back to VHS for me.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

Yes, and that simple example illustrates the dilemma. At face-value, that might be a funny scene for an ordinary film. But to a person with an understanding of what the Wizards represent in context to the story, that is more of something you would expect from an Uwe Boll script, not a Peter Jackson, Oscar-winning director and Tolkien-fan script.

Possible plot element (?) for second movie:

Gandalf comes to Rhosgobel (Radagast's home), and knocks on front door.

Radagast (inside, stoned): Who is it?
Gandalf: It's me, Gandalf.
Radagast: WHO?
Gandalf: Gandalf!
Radagast: Gandalf's not here.
Gandalf (becoming impatient): NO, I'M GANDALF!
Radagast: Gandalf's not here.
Etc.

Third movie possible scene - Gandalf and Radagast at the drive-in (Gandalf: Hey, it's raining out here, man...)

I've heard that will be in the next movie.

[WetCardboard]

Can someone please enlighten me as to the point of shooting a movie in 5K?

Blu-ray is about 1.1k, most movies are filmed around 2k, true 1.43:1 IMAX sequences in movies like The Dark Knight and MI4 are around 4k.

Apparently movies that are upconverted using IMAX DMR (which is almost every mainstream movie released in IMAX, except for those mentioned above and a few others) are only shown at 2K (and would the entirety of 'The Dark Knight' for example, be shown at 4K, or only the true IMAX sequences, with the 2.4:1 part being 2k?)

Also when watching 3D in a movie theatre, is the resolution to each eye the same as watching in 2D or is it "halved" like on passive displays?

Also I would have to assume the human eye can only make out resolution so high...

Thanks!

Unfortunately the IMAX cinema in Edmonton was not equipped for HFR/48p so I watched The Hobbit in 'UltraAVX' (comparable to Imax...reserved seating/wall-to-wall screen/better sound/rocker chairs) at 48fps and I really enjoyed it. No idea what resolution it was being shown at but if there was such a thing as a "next-gen" movie going experience, this is what The Hobbit felt like. The detail was UNREAL! (no pun intended, nothing looked 'fake' to me at all, it was great!)

[42041]

Originally Posted by WetCardboard

Can someone please enlighten me as to the point of shooting a movie in 5K?

Blu-ray is about 1.1k, most movies are filmed around 2k, true 1.43:1 IMAX sequences in movies like The Dark Knight and MI4 are around 4k.

Apparently movies that are upconverted using IMAX DMR (which is almost every mainstream movie released in IMAX, except for those mentioned above and a few others) are only shown at 2K (and would the entirety of 'The Dark Knight' for example, be shown at 4K, or only the true IMAX sequences, with the 2.4:1 part being 2k?)

Also when watching 3D in a movie theatre, is the resolution to each eye the same as watching in 2D or is it "halved" like on passive displays?

Also I would have to assume the human eye can only make out resolution so high...

Thanks!

Unfortunately the IMAX cinema in Edmonton was not equipped for HFR/48p so I watched The Hobbit in 'UltraAVX' (comparable to Imax...reserved seating/wall-to-wall screen/better sound/rocker chairs) at 48fps and I really enjoyed it. No idea what resolution it was being shown at but if there was such a thing as a "next-gen" movie going experience, this is what The Hobbit felt like. The detail was UNREAL! (no pun intended, nothing looked 'fake' to me at all, it was great!)

2K/4K refers to the horizontal resolution. So blu-ray is almost 2K by that metric.

I suppose the point of shooting 5K is because that's what the digital cameras Jackson is using happen to be (there's a more technical answer there, involving things like Bayer sensors and low-pass filters and a whiff of camera manufacturer hype, but let's not get into that). From what I've heard, the film is mastered at 2K just like almost every big effects movie, because doing extensive effects work at higher resolution is still cost prohibitive, especially when you add 3D and HFR to the mix.

Digital IMAX is 2K. "Real" 70mm film IMAX footage like in The Dark Knight Rises would be closer to 10-12K in optimal conditions, but that likely won't be the case, unless you live in LA or NYC or London and are lucky enough to see one of the handful of prints made straight off the camera negative. Otherwise I'd estimate you're looking at something effectively around 6K-8K.

However you saw The Hobbit, you saw a 2K image.

[AmrlKJaneway]

Originally Posted by WetCardboard

Can someone please enlighten me as to the point of shooting a movie in 5K?

Blu-ray is about 1.1k, most movies are filmed around 2k, true 1.43:1 IMAX sequences in movies like The Dark Knight and MI4 are around 4k.

Apparently movies that are upconverted using IMAX DMR (which is almost every mainstream movie released in IMAX, except for those mentioned above and a few others) are only shown at 2K (and would the entirety of 'The Dark Knight' for example, be shown at 4K, or only the true IMAX sequences, with the 2.4:1 part being 2k?)

Also when watching 3D in a movie theatre, is the resolution to each eye the same as watching in 2D or is it "halved" like on passive displays?

Also I would have to assume the human eye can only make out resolution so high...

Thanks!

Unfortunately the IMAX cinema in Edmonton was not equipped for HFR/48p so I watched The Hobbit in 'UltraAVX' (comparable to Imax...reserved seating/wall-to-wall screen/better sound/rocker chairs) at 48fps and I really enjoyed it. No idea what resolution it was being shown at but if there was such a thing as a "next-gen" movie going experience, this is what The Hobbit felt like. The detail was UNREAL! (no pun intended, nothing looked 'fake' to me at all, it was great!)

Passive 3D in cinemas is full resolution. Passive TV's try to show you two pictures at once for a 3D effect, whereas cinemas flick between left and right images, polarized for the left and right lenses, funnily enough in a similar fashion to how active 3D is displayed (but not viewed).

[Batman1980]

Hobbit was just okay, too much time walking and

[Show spoiler]setting up the movie with the LoTR bits and the dwarf party at Bag End.

[kdo]

Originally Posted by radagast

I've decided to get rid of all my Blu-rays because they ruin the home video experience. Back to VHS for me.

Goodbye then .

[jag2007]

Saw this today...I thought it was good....long....but good. I saw in the 48fps AVX 3D. Prolly stick to regular 24 fps. I really liked the ATMOS sound though. Didn't get sick or anything just seemed like i was watching on one of those tvs with the artificial scan that makes it look like a soap opera.