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

[Duffy12]

.

A minute with: Director Peter Jackson on shooting "The Hobbit"


reutersby zorianna kit | reuters – wed, dec 12, 2012


the oscar-winning director, 51, told reuters about the 3d film, including the 48 frames per second (fps) format he used, which was widely debated by fans and critics.




Q: You originally intended "the hobbit" to only be two parts. Why stretch it out to three?

A: "back in july, we were near the end of our shoot and we started to talk about the things that we had to leave out of the movies. There's material at the end of ‘the return of the king' (the final part of 'the lord of the rings' trilogy) in the appendices that takes place around the time of ‘the hobbit.'

"we were thinking, this is our last chance because it's very unlikely we're ever going to come back to middle earth as filmmakers. So we talked to the studio and next year we're going to be doing another 10 to 12 weeks of shooting because we're now adapting more of tolkien's material."

q: At what point did you decide you would direct the film yourself after originally handing it to guillermo del toro?

A: "at the time (we wrote the script), i was worried about repeating myself and worried that i was competing with myself. I thought it would be interesting to have another director with a fresh eye coming in and telling the story. But after guillermo left, having worked on script and the production for well over a year at that stage, i was very emotionally attached to it. I just thought, this is an opportunity i'm not going to say no to."

q: You hired gollum actor andy serkis to do second unit directing on the film, something he has never done before. What made you hand the task to a novice?

A: "i know how strongly andy has been wanting to direct. One of the problems with second unit is that you tend to have conservative footage given to you by the director. They play it safe. I knew that i wouldn't get that from andy because he's got such a ferocious energy. He goes for it and doesn't hold back. I knew that if andy was the director i would be getting some interesting material, that it would have a life and energy to it."

q: What inspired you to make a film in 48 fps?

A: "four years ago i shot a six or seven minute king kong ride for universal studios' tram ride in california. The reason we used the high frame rate was that we didn't want people to think it's a movie. You want that sense of reality, which you get from a high frame rate, of looking in to the real world. At the time, i thought it would be so cool to make a feature film with this process."

q: Not everyone has embraced "the hobbit" in 48 fps.

A: "for the last year and a half there's been speculation, largely negative, about it and i'm so relieved to have gotten to this point. I've been waiting for this moment when people can actually see it for themselves. Cinephiles and serious film critics who regard 24 fps as sacred are very negative and absolutely hate it. Anybody i've spoken to under the age of 20 thinks it's fantastic. I haven't heard a single negative thing from the young people, and these are the kids that are watching films on their ipads. These are the people i want to get back in the cinema."

q: Why all the hoopla over a frame rate?

A: "somehow as humans, we have a reaction to change that's partly fear driven. But there are so many ways to look at movies now and it's a choice that a filmmaker has. To me as a filmmaker, you've got to take the technology that's available in 2012, not the technology we've lived with since 1927, and say how can we enhance the experience in the cinema? How can we make it more immersive, more spectacular?"

q: George lucas sold lucasfilm to disney for $4 billion. Do you think you will sell your new zealand facility weta someday?

A: "i would if i want to retire at some stage and want to have a nice easy life, which will hopefully happen one day. But in the foreseeable future, the fact that i'm an owner of my own digital effects facility is a fantastic advantage for me."

q: How so?

A: "when we asked the studio if we could shoot ‘the hobbit' at 48 fps, we promised the budget would be the same. But it actually does have a cost implication because you've got to render twice as many frames and the rendering takes more time. The fact that we owned weta and could absorb that in-house was actually part of the reason we were able to do the 48 frames."

.

[JavaJulien]

I agree with what Jackson says about going after younger crowds. Then again, I'm in my early 20s so I kind of fit the demographic he is describing.

[Beast]

Appealing to Benny Hill fans with fast motion doesn't really sound like it would speak to younger people. As if they know who Benny Hill is.

[Col. Zombie]

Interesting article on The Hobbit demonstrating why HFR is a fail.

In the opening hour of The Hobbit shown in 3D HFR—I don't recall hearing a single sigh, or laugh. Not one. When I went to see the exact same scene with an audience of the same size on a 2D projection—I heard regular chuckles and laughter...why?

Source ... http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbi...y-48-fps-fails

[Dead By Shaun]

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

Interesting article on The Hobbit demonstrating why HFR is a fail.

Source ... http://gizmodo.com/5969817/the-hobbi...y-48-fps-fails

That wasn't my experience... and I've seen the film three times so far, once in 2D 24 FPS, and twice in 3D 48 FPS. The audience laughed all three times when they were supposed to Anyhow, interesting article regardless... I read it this morning.

[L-Rouge]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

I believe that it was included. It was one of my favorite scenes too.

[Show spoiler]
When Bilbo was fleeing the frantic Gollum, he made a slight noise while standing still, to which then Gollum noticed his hiding place. He slooowly turned to face towards him then his eyes started to glow a bit, and a VERY evil grin came upon his face. (GOOSEBUMPS!!!)

Does anybody else here remember that scene that I am talking about?

.

[Show spoiler]ahh yes I recall the scene that was spooky, In the movie he does have the reflective membrane in his eyes, in the book it seems more prominent, but I might be including artistic renditions, I'll have to read the book again

here's a link to how I thought the eyes would be http://www.epilogue.net/cgi/database...iew.pl?id=6401

I thought Bilbo could follow in the dark because of Gollum's eyes lighting the way?.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

BTW, regarding what will be in the next film, Jackson gives some nice hints in this vid that was posted last week, but many of you may not have seen it yet.

Of real interest 02:50 -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dUbm-8XAW8w

Originally Posted by frogmort

Thanks for that Duffy.

"In this one, they(The White Council) just sit around talking, but in the next one they kick some ass."
I wonder if Saruman will be out there doing some ass kicking too?

Well, it sounds good, and I hope it is, because I would like to see Jackson put some substance into the next film. There seems to be general agreement that the first film moved along, especially in the second half, and seemed shorter than the running time indicated. That was good. As for the Appendices (the reason for three films we are told), I haven't seen much that concerns them yet, so I will have to assume the material appears in films 2 and 3, and of course as Jackson seems to indicate in that interview.

IMO there is a quality missing from this film that was present in the LotR films. It is difficult to describe, but there seems to be a lack of inspiration, completion, or urgency that I sensed in the LotR films, where most of the scenes seemed to be extensively considered and carefully composed. Many of the scenes in those movies were works of cinematic art. In this film, with the exception of the prologue and a few others

[Show spoiler] (the scene at the end with the eagles comes to mind

these special moments seemed to be rare. Perhaps this is a result of the "success curse", where many artists lose their creative drive after they become popular, rich, and award-laden. After years of accolades, this production team really has nothing left to prove. Other aspects seem to also have been affected. For example, the score to this movie has gone relatively unnoticed compared to Shore's previous scores, which were regarded as among the greatest of all time.

But, I realize this is the first movie (and also that my expectations are higher than that of the average person), so here's hoping that the final two films fulfill the potential I know we can expect from this seasoned production crew.

[spidy]

I saw this tonight and I liked it but IMO it wasn't on par with the LOTR series. There were some good moments. Especially with Bilbo and Gollum. I think in some cases the action was a little more over the top than I prefer and a little more serious tone to the film would have nice as well.

[Dubstar]

I saw 'The Hobbit' again yesterday morning but in Atmos - and ... holy mother of god! the throwing around of sound to varying positions in the auditorium was unreal - you got the sense of the height of the Trolls with their voices above the dwarves. The spiders running up and over Radagast's home. The Thunder Giant's fight with the volley of boulders flying in every direction. Gollum's displaced voice echoing in his cave that envelops Bilbo and us the audience. The warg's devouring the orc directly behind the viewer. While the sound was a bit too loud at times, the more quieter moments involving the music score, the sound effects involving birds, insects just opened up the surround channels of sound to astonishing effect. This simply trounced even the standard 7.1 mix of the film. Even though this presentation was not HFR, the image and specifically the brightness was affected and the 3D pop was diminished as a result.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Beast

Appealing to Benny Hill fans with fast motion doesn't really sound like it would speak to younger people. As if they know who Benny Hill is.

At this point, anybody who's stepping up with "Fast motion" jokes is just plain admitting they haven't seen the movie (or HFR version) yet.
I have, and I've already posted the comparison to those snooty Fathom HD Met Live operas already in another thread. You've at least seen the trailers for THOSE, haven't you?

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

IMO there is a quality missing from this film that was present in the LotR films. It is difficult to describe, but there seems to be a lack of inspiration, completion, or urgency that I sensed in the LotR films, where most of the scenes seemed to be extensively considered and carefully composed.

I don't want to compare to Wolverine in terms of "Prequel anally obsessed with backstory-reffing every single aspect of the better-known first film", it wasn't that bad--
More to one of the better Narnia movies, where there was pretty extensive padding and "ramping up" simple children's-book scenes to Epic level, by giving every single unexplained motivation Deep Subplot Significance, and you could tell what had been added.

Here, with the need to both expand the movie and bring it into line with the Trilogy, it settled into the rhythm of:

• 1) Book chapter
  2) Added Deep-Subplot Establishing scene
  3) Book chapter
  4) Trilogy character callback cameo
  5) Book chapter of peril, followed by "cavalry" of dwarves rushing to rescue against epic CGI hordes, with orchestra blaring the Misty Mountains theme
  (Repeat as needed)

It's certainly the least of the now four movies (pushing up Two Towers), but even least is...pretty good.

(My complaint, apart from the un-darkening of Riddles, was that they threw away Smaug's "Thieves! Fire! Murder!" line by giving it away to Radagast, rather than save it for his big moment in the second movie.)
Probably because Smaug technically doesn't say it in the book, but it's still one of the most true-to-life depictions of a dragon's thought processes I've yet read in a fantasy novel. )

[fastburn430]

I just saw this tonight in 3D HFR and I did not care for the 48fps. It just looked to artificial to me. I would like to see it again in 2D to compare, but I won't be seeing other movies in this format.

[Dubstar]

Originally Posted by fastburn430

I just saw this tonight in 3D HFR and I did not care for the 48fps. It just looked to artificial to me. I would like to see it again in 2D to compare, but I won't be seeing other movies in this format.

while the speed up is obvious, the one thing that the HFR does supercede the 2D or even a non-HFR 3D presentation (which I just saw) is that the sharpness is dramatically heightened and ultra-crisp (the brightness level was also a tad higher).

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Dubstar

while the speed up is obvious, the one thing that the HFR does supercede the 2D or even a non-HFR 3D presentation (which I just saw) is that the sharpness is dramatically heightened and ultra-crisp (the brightness level was also a tad higher).

That is good news when it comes out on BD

[IronWaffle]

So, I'm sorting out details to see this with friends and I know what we'll settle on, but if I'm thrown by all these variations and price points, what must it be like for the average filmgoer, who I guess buys the ticket for the next showing and just grumbles about the price.

Matinee/Early Bird Showings:
Cinemark XD High Frame Rate RealD 3D: $15
High Frame Rate RealD 3D: $9.50
RealD 3D: $11.50
Digital Cinema: $6.50

Does anyone know how noticeable the XD and non-XD 3D? I'm surprised the HFR 3D is cheaper than the 24fps 3D.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by IronWaffle

So, I'm sorting out details to see this with friends and I know what we'll settle on, but if I'm thrown by all these variations and price points, what must it be like for the average filmgoer, who I guess buys the ticket for the next showing and just grumbles about the price.

Matinee/Early Bird Showings:
Cinemark XD High Frame Rate RealD 3D: $15
High Frame Rate RealD 3D: $9.50
RealD 3D: $11.50
Digital Cinema: $6.50

Does anyone know how noticeable the XD and non-XD 3D? I'm surprised the HFR 3D is cheaper than the 24fps 3D.

It's probably because they have to convert it from HFR to 24fps...

[beadelf]

whats the point of a poll you cant actually vote in hahahahaha

[Beast]

Originally Posted by EricJ

At this point, anybody who's stepping up with "Fast motion" jokes is just plain admitting they haven't seen the movie (or HFR version) yet.

No... we have. Which is why those jokes are being made. Because it's on display on the screen.

[Beast]

Really good review of the Hobbit by Doug and Rob Walker.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vid...lry-the-hobbit

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Beast

Really good review of the Hobbit by Doug and Rob Walker.

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/vid...lry-the-hobbit

Is it me,or do others feel they were off their medicine?

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by EricJ

(My complaint, apart from the un-darkening of Riddles, was that they threw away Smaug's "Thieves! Fire! Murder!" line by giving it away to Radagast, rather than save it for his big moment in the second movie.)
Probably because Smaug technically doesn't say it in the book, but it's still one of the most true-to-life depictions of a dragon's thought processes I've yet read in a fantasy novel. )

This is a good example of the disadvantage of trying to film things in a movie that can be simply stated in a book, like trying to portray Bilbo's often recurring thoughts of bacon and eggs without having him state it verbally. Since Jackson has no aversion to using slapstick in this trilogy, perhaps he'll use "thought clouds" above Smaug's head?