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

[Pondosinatra]

Ok, saw this yesterday.

When I heard they were going to make LOTR into a movie I rolled my eyes and thought it'd be a disaster. However I thought they were amazing and Peter Jackson a genius.

Then when I heard they were making the Hobbit I once again rolled my eyes. How was he going to do a children's book? If he kept it like the movies he'd lose the essence of the book. If he kept it like the book he'd alienate fans of the movie.

I saw it in 2D as I didn't want the debate over 3D/48fps to be a distraction.

The Good: I thought the guy who played Bilbo was terrific, easily my favourite actor in the movie. I also thought the scene where he meets Gollum to be amazing. Best part of the movie. My concern about the feel of the movie was also mostly unfounded as he attempted to keep the tone light in parts.

The Bad: I found the FX to be a mixed bag. In one scene you have the bad guy looking bad ass and who would have fit right in to LOTR and then in the next you have the other bad guy looking like something out of Labyrinth and a Jim Henson creation.

The Ugly: Injecting stuff into the movie that didn't exist in the book simply as a tie in to future films. I get it, I just don't agree with it. The thought of Jackson coming up with 4.5hrs of dialogue based on a few notes by Tolkien I find to be abhorrent.

[Show spoiler]Finally as the credits rolled I was extremely pissed off that I just spent 3 hours watching a movie that only got part way through what is a short novel.

In hindsight it sucks that del Toro never got the chance to do this. I suspect it would have been much better.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

In hindsight it sucks that del Toro never got the chance to do this. I suspect it would have been much better.

Yea, but I don't know if I would have been able to handle flying Wargs with wings though.

.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Friday Box Office: ‘The Hobbit’ #1, ‘Django’ Neck & Neck With ‘Les Misérables’ For #2

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

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.

I get the feeling that Bjorn won't be in the films, and that Jackson instead morphed that character into Radagast. Which annoys me as much as completely not including Tom Bombadil in LOTR.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

I get the feeling that Bjorn won't be in the films, and that Jackson instead morphed that character into Radagast. Which annoys me as much as completely not including Tom Bombadil in LOTR.

Oh he is definitely in it.


In this vid some of the cast describe his house.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1eAWskbUrs

[/URL]

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Pondosinatra

I get the feeling that Bjorn won't be in the films, and that Jackson instead morphed that character into Radagast. Which annoys me as much as completely not including Tom Bombadil in LOTR.

Not even close to accurate. Beorn is indeed in the films, and is being played by Mikael Persbrandt.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Foggy

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.

Well you don't have to look much farther than the Avatars of some of the people on here dumping on those who didn't think this was the greatest, bestest movie, in the entire universe.

[Pondosinatra]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Not even close to accurate. Beorn is indeed in the films, and is being played by Mikael Persbrandt.

Considering I have purposefully avoided reading and watching every nugget of info leading up to the movie so as to not go into it biased I can be forgiven for not knowing that.

I am glad to hear that he'll be included.

[RandyK]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

Pointless Mumbling: I've been confused by that reaction from a lot of people (in relation to it shaping their overall review - particularly among critics but in general as well).

[Show spoiler]I guess I, personally, don't see why it matters all that much. If someone was adapting much of any work - particularly for another medium, I wouldn't really care about these things. If The Hobbit was an eight-episode television miniseries, I wouldn't care as long as it was good and seemed to be an attempt to, within its own interpretation, be faithful to the source. What matters to me with a film is the quality of the film as...even the worst "adaptation" of something ever (leaving out almost everything, switching around characters, whatever) could still be an absolutely amazing film. And that's not to mention a television series that might be based on a few novels - having four seasons of twenty episodes doesn't seem like a good "page-to-minute" ratio but it has no baring on the show's quality or interpretation as itself. Or say a film like The Fugitive (1993) - I'm not annoyed that it's not four seasons (or movies) and that it's not 6,000 minutes long or that it doesn't only cover the first few episodes and match minute-to-minute as it's not meant to be the exact same thing.

For me, the source material is just the source material and to let it cloud one's perception of a given work is unreasonable (whether it makes someone love it more or hate it more). So I don't get it when people talk about the "obvious" padding or how it's clearly been "stretched far too thin" because - while it makes sense to recognize if the film feels slow a lot - it starts to feel evident to me that many critics who state these things may well have (although obviously not always as plenty disliked this film for completely valid reasons) went in with a cynical perspective on how "it shouldn't be three movies from that one tiny book" and then largely just attempted to reaffirm that in their mind while watching (any time they didn't absolutely think something was necessary - basically slowly allowing themselves to slip into a negative perception of the film due to something akin to confirmation bias). I watch the film as a film and intend to ignore that the book existed while perceiving it. And I don't understand why someone would want a film version to be the book - that's what the book's there for. To me, it's like wanting a sequel to basically be the same as the last movie - WHY?

I just don't understand much of this stuff - and I know that's on me as it's clear most people just "get it." But I think, "But it's a movie - it's not supposed to be a book." or other things such as that and stare at people, confused. And they look back at me like I'm an idiot. Probably because I am...but I wish I understood that side of things.

If this place had recs, I would rec the hell out of this.

[bmore007]

Saw the movie yesterday and really enjoyed it. I'm actually surprised there has been this many bad reviews. I give it a 4/5, I was expecting it to be much worse and came out happy.

[Ernest Rister]

Pointless Mumbling: I've been confused by that reaction from a lot of people (in relation to it shaping their overall review - particularly among critics but in general as well).

This reminds me of play revivals, in that the text is (usually) the same, you're just seeing new blood do new things with material everyone knows. However, sometimes a director or a company will stage - say - Romeo and Juliet or Hamlet or Oedipus Rex, and go off on tangents, or take a long time to tell a story everyone knows, or use the play for political statements, etc. The Hobbit is like that - everyone knows the story, I don't think some people get that the first film is actually a massive first act awash in exposition which will pay off in the next two films (especially with the Necromancer storyline). Of course, just like someone staging Romeo and Juliet again, people are entitled to their opinions on how the creative team chose to re-tell that story. I don't think the jury is in yet with a verdict on the effort, and we won't really know until summer 2014. And because people don't have all the information yet, it's hard to make informed opinions, so they're confused why all these seemingly terciary side stories are clogging up what they perceived to be a simple A-Z adventure story of a little guy discovering his potential and courage. These people aren't stupid for feeling the way they do, they just don't have the perspective of the complete effort yet.

EDIT

Also, I think Jackson's somewhat overstuffed remake of King Kong might be clouding the judgement of certain critics.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by thunderforce

Anyone know if we will be able to get that hfr 3d hobbit on a blu ray or will it just be a normal 3d ?

I don't think the Blu-ray spec allows for that fast of a frame rate.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by radagast

I don't think the Blu-ray spec doesn't allow for that fast of a frame rate.

Händel Messiah - Hallelujah Chorus - YouTube

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Falaskan

Händel Messiah - Hallelujah Chorus - YouTube

You do realize that if a 48fps BD was possible, that wouldn't mean you couldn't still get a regular 24fps version.

[Jimmy Bro]

Fantastic film. Not quite as good as the LOTR trilogy thoug

2nd best movie of the year http://www.imdb.com/list/5vgF-q5FHMs/

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by radagast

I don't think the Blu-ray spec doesn't allow for that fast of a frame rate.

But 60p is allowed, as far as I recall, and apparently James Cameron shifted his interest from 48fps (for his Avatar sequels) to 60fps. So we'll still eventually get HFR films in the home, even if 48fps does not get added to the BD spec.

[NYorker]

Ok, so I finally got around to seeing The Hobbit last night - in HFR...

Some thoughts (minor spoilers ahead):

- I thought overall the movie was terrific and exciting. I feared that there would be a lot of moments when it would drag, but - it didn't.
- fine performances all around - standouts were Freeman, McKellan and Armitage (hope I spelled it correct...)
- best scene IMO, by far: Riddles in the Dark. Gollum never looked or sounded better, and the interaction with Bilbo was great.
- As someone who read both LOTR and The Hobbit I knew I was going into a film that was going to be different than LOTR, so I wasn't disappointed in anyway with the overall "tone" of the film. I have no idea what the critics bashing the film were expecting, but I suspect some of them thought they were going to see LOTR part 4.
- It was great to see Christopher Lee as Saruman again. Ditto Cate Blanchett...
- Visually stunning. The

[Show spoiler]battle of the rock giants

was amazing

Ok, now to the whole 48 fps thing...

I have to admit that watching the first 15-20 minutes felt quite weird. The whole prologue sequence got lost on me because I was trying to figure out what the heck I was looking at...!

There were a couple of instances -

[Show spoiler]old Bilbo opening his journal at the beginning, and the arrival of Elrond at Rivendell

that felt sped-up. Once I got into it, and tried to let go of my preconceptions, it looked great for the most part. Many scenes looked sensational and it really pulled you in. I think the so-called 'top critics' are being a bit too harsh and too conservative slamming PJ for his use of HFR. Is it perfect? no, but I think the positives outweigh the negatives.

Bottom line: I think PJ did a fantastic job; the film looked great, beautifully acted, and, although it took time getting used to, HFR added an extra dimension (har, har...).

On a side not, I wonder if, in the future ultimate mega boxset including all the movies, they'll replace Ian Holm with Martin Freeman, in the flashback scene where Bilbo finds the ring (Fellowship of the Ring).

[cbal75]

I walked out after 3 hours thinking i could wait until the blu-ray release to see the other two... and this is from someone who bought tickets from months out to see this. Almost exactly how i felt after i saw The Phantom Menace. meesa so disappointed.

1. I never really felt the drama and importance around the mission to which they were going to take this journey for at any point unlike fellowship which i am going to watch soon to slowly erase my memories of this movie. The soapy scene where everyone is singing this solemn song at Bilbo's house before they depart i started laughing ( so did my wife) where i was supposed to feel something else ..summed it up.

2. I felt the crass humour from the trolls especially, unnecessary and cheapened the movie...one of many times i just cringed. If this was written in the book well then colour me..

3. Felt like a lot of aspects in the first 3 movies were thrown in to give this movie credibility , i did not experience any nostalgia, more depression that nothing original could be put together..

edit : i just saw the voting on the poll.. you have got to be kidding folks!

blah!

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by thunderforce

Anyone know if we will be able to get that hfr 3d hobbit on a blu ray or will it just be a normal 3d ?

Originally Posted by radagast

I don't think the Blu-ray spec doesn't allow for that fast of a frame rate.

Think Radagast is right,but would one be able to get 48fps on 2D BD though?...

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by cbal75

I walked out after 3 hours thinking i could wait until the blu-ray release to see the other two... and this is from someone who bought tickets from months out to see this. Almost exactly how i felt after i saw The Phantom Menace. meesa so disappointed.

1. I never really felt the drama and importance around the mission to which they were going to take this journey for at any point unlike fellowship which i am going to watch soon to slowly erase my memories of this movie. The soapy scene where everyone is singing this solemn song at Bilbo's house before they depart i started laughing ( so did my wife) where i was supposed to feel something else ..summed it up.

2. I felt the crass humour from the trolls especially, unnecessary and cheapened the movie...one of many times i just cringed. If this was written in the book well then colour me..

3. Felt like a lot of aspects in the first 3 movies were thrown in to give this movie credibility , i did not experience any nostalgia, more depression that nothing original could be put together..

edit : i just saw the voting on the poll.. you have got to be kidding folks!

blah!

If you found it corny and bland,then it's a mystery you found LotR good...