The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey (2012) 2D/3D - March 19, 2013 Reviews

[PUsokrJosh305]

Originally Posted by Cook

Look at the Half-Blood Prince trailers. They go from sepia to blue to no filter to green. The final film was pure Delbonnel, and very different in areas to the trailers.

Exactly, which basically proves that trailers don't mean a thing, personally I don't mind the so called "green tint" for The Hobbit, as with many people, I feel like it was there when we saw it in the theaters, I saw it in 3D and took my glasses off so I could see the true color, and yes it did have a more greenish tint, but I like it in this movie

[5th Of November]

I'm sure it has been brought up, but I'm not reading all the "green tint" posts. Does anyone know why the 3D release comes with 4 BD's? I tried searching for "4 BD", but nothing came up and I'm not sure what else to try. A quick answer would be helpful. Thanks!

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by 5th Of November

I'm sure it has been brought up, but I'm not reading all the "green tint" posts. Does anyone know why the 3D release comes with 4 BD's? I tried searching for "4 BD", but nothing came up and I'm not sure what else to try. A quick answer would be helpful. Thanks!

The 3D version is spread across 2 BDs.

[5th Of November]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

The 3D version is spread across 2 BDs.

Thanks, just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing out on any additional special features.

[joenostalgia23]

So... on the bright side, I guess The Hobbit will look more consistent with Fellowship of the Rings?

I don't really have a problem with it. The text is tinted, but it is also tinted in FOTR(title and subtitles) and I've never noticed while watching FOTR. All of the screenshots I've seen look gorgeous, and none of them looks like a blanket of teal was put over the entire image(even if there was)

Maybe it was teal in theaters and we never noticed? I always thought that scene in Harry Potter 7.2 was pure white, but it's all quite green, though my eyes/mind interpret it as white. There's not a single pure white in DH Part 2, and I don't there are any pure whites in any of the David Yates films.

The Hobbit should look fine on my TV.

[ninjaalex]

This has probably been answered before but, is the 3D portions of the movie good? or does it degrade from the overall quality of the movie.
I'm very much debating whether or not to get the 3D edition or not...

[HD Goofnut]

Originally Posted by ninjaalex

This has probably been answered before but, is the 3D portions of the movie good? or does it degrade from the overall quality of the movie.
I'm very much debating whether or not to get the 3D edition or not...

The entire film was shot in 3D with the Redcode RAW 5K camera system and yes it looks great as I saw it in 3D myself.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by ninjaalex

This has probably been answered before but, is the 3D portions of the movie good? or does it degrade from the overall quality of the movie.
I'm very much debating whether or not to get the 3D edition or not...

I am curious to revisit the 3d on blu as my opinion might change, BUT I thought the 3d was very subtle when I watched this at the IMAX. I thought the 3d in the previews before the movie was considerably more impressive in general (Star Trek preview, etc.....) vs the 3d in The Hobbit. If that holds true on blu, I will switch over to the 2d on future viewings assuming I watch the film more than once at home (I was disappointed in the movie itself which was not anywhere near as good as the LOTR films IMHO, but I am curious to see it at home again to see if my feelings have changed at all).

Audio seemed a bit weak as well, but again I need to revisit both at home before coming to any conclusion on the blu as it is always hard for me to judge these things in a theater I am not that familiar with.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I am curious to revisit the 3d on blu as my opinion might change, BUT I thought the 3d was very subtle when I watched this at the IMAX. I thought the 3d in the previews before the movie was considerably more impressive in general (Star Trek preview, etc.....) vs the 3d in The Hobbit. If that holds true on blu, I will switch over to the 2d on future viewings assuming I watch the film more than once at home (I was disappointed in the movie itself which was not anywhere near as good as the LOTR films IMHO, but I am curious to see it at home again to see if my feelings have changed at all).

Audio seemed a bit weak as well, but again I need to revisit both at home before coming to any conclusion on the blu as it is always hard for me to judge these things in a theater I am not that familiar with.

I watched this in HFR 3D (not IMAX 3D, which most were 24 FPS instead of 48 FPS) and didn't feel the 3D was subtle. I felt it was just right for the movie, quite frankly.

As for audio, I didn't get to see this movie in a Dolby Atmos-equipped theater (never got down to the one near me while they were using that theater for it, now it's relegated to A Good Day to Die Hard ), but the audio can hardly be considered weak.

If you weren't impressed with the movie, I'd say it's more likely the theater you went to than any weakness of the PQ/AQ itself.

The only downside of home 3D is the 3D Blu-ray won't be at 48 FPS as Peter Jackson originally intended, as the Blu-ray spec doesn't support that (yet). Because of this, The Hobbit: AUJ will not look as good at home as it did in any HFR 3D theater, at least as far as the 3D presentation is concerned.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Taikero

I watched this in HFR 3D (not IMAX 3D, which most were 24 FPS instead of 48 FPS) and didn't feel the 3D was subtle. I felt it was just right for the movie, quite frankly.

As for audio, I didn't get to see this movie in a Dolby Atmos-equipped theater (never got down to the one near me while they were using that theater for it, now it's relegated to A Good Day to Die Hard ), but the audio can hardly be considered weak.

If you weren't impressed with the movie, I'd say it's more likely the theater you went to than any weakness of the PQ/AQ itself.

The only downside of home 3D is the 3D Blu-ray won't be at 48 FPS as Peter Jackson originally intended, as the Blu-ray spec doesn't support that (yet). Because of this, The Hobbit: AUJ will not look as good at home as it did in any HFR 3D theater, at least as far as the 3D presentation is concerned.

Thanks for your comments. The audio was weak in the theater I saw this in, same with the 3d. I cant speak to the 48FPS, but the blu ray wont have that anyway so I would say the way I watched it is obviously more representative of what we will see at home on blu.

Having said all that, like I mentioned I will reserve final judgement on both the PQ and AQ after viewing in my HT since I am not familiar enough with the IMAX I watched this in to know if the audio/3d was truly weak or if it was just the theater. We will see..................

The movie itself is another matter. I dont have much hope to be honest as I felt it dragged and fell flat. I hate to say it as much as I LOVE the LOTR movies, but I got bored with The Hobbit as it just failed to really ever capture me and felt so juvenile compared to the LOTR. I am open to giving it a shot at home though to see if my opinion changes. Again, we will see. One thing is for sure though........this first installment is a FAR cry from the LOTR films in general which is not surprising I suppose since The Hobbit does not have near the depth of the LOTR books in general from what I remember reading them all years ago and obviously there is not anywhere near as much at stake in The Hobbit. I really think this would have made for a much better film experience if it had been one movie. Curious to see it again though at home and see what I think after that.

[kingkong650]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I am curious to revisit the 3d on blu as my opinion might change, BUT I thought the 3d was very subtle when I watched this at the IMAX. I thought the 3d in the previews before the movie was considerably more impressive in general (Star Trek preview, etc.....) vs the 3d in The Hobbit. If that holds true on blu, I will switch over to the 2d on future viewings assuming I watch the film more than once at home (I was disappointed in the movie itself which was not anywhere near as good as the LOTR films IMHO, but I am curious to see it at home again to see if my feelings have changed at all).

Pretty much agree with everything you said here. I also found the 3d in The Hobbit to be very subtle and underused compared to when I watched Prometheus in 3d in the same cinema, where I found the 3d experience very impressive. I´m looking forward to seeing this in 2d without all the distracting colour/brightness issues of watching it in 3d.

I also agree with you about An Unexpected Journey being nowhere near as good as the LOTR films. It just felt too long and a number of scenes felt drawn out (in particular the escape from goblin town felt way too long and the overuse of CG as well in that scene made it a real chore to watch towards the end), which is hard for me to say because I love long films when they´re structured well, Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition is my favourite LOTR film and thats well over three hours.

Other scenes felt unneccesary and almost like fanservice for the LOTR fans, like for example the bit with Frodo and Bilbo at the beginning that didn´t really add anything to the film, it feels more like a deleted scene from FOTR. Of course, it also slows the film right down with half an hour of dwarves arriving and dining at Bag End still to come, so it makes that beginning bit of the film with little action and a lot of dialogue and exposition seem that much longer, leading to many complaints from critics and viewers alike saying that the film seems to take forever to get out of Bag End, which is fair enough.

I also felt that the scenes foreshadowing Sauron and the LOTR trilogy, like for example the council scene in Rivendell with Saruman, Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf, didn´t quite mesh with the rest of the film revolving around Bilbo, Thorin and the Dwarfs reclaiming Erebor, it almost felt like two different films at times, at least to me.

That said, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is much better than most Hollywood fare coming out these days and comparisons to The Phantom Menace from some quarters is totally unjustified, this film is MUCH better IMHO (the riddles in the dark scene alone is better than the whole of TPM IMHO) . I´m definately looking forward to watching it again when it comes out on blu-ray.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Thanks for your comments. The audio was weak in the theater I saw this in, same with the 3d. I cant speak to the 48FPS, but the blu ray wont have that anyway so I would say the way I watched it is obviously more representative of what we will see at home on blu.

Having said all that, like I mentioned I will reserve final judgement on both the PQ and AQ after viewing in my HT since I am not familiar enough with the IMAX I watched this in to know if the audio/3d was truly weak or if it was just the theater. We will see..................

Dolby Atmos would have been the absolute best audio configuration for this movie, unfortunately I didn't have a local theater that had both HFR 3D and Dolby Atmos. When it came down to making a choice as to which I got to see, I picked HFR 3D (and was glad I did).

Hopefully your opinion of the audio quality improves. I felt it was quite excellent in this respect with only one minor gripe. I felt when Smaug is breathing fire near the beginning of the film, it feels like they constricted the sound of it a bit instead of making it sound fully unleashed as true dragon's fire bearing down on your castle walls should sound.

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

The movie itself is another matter. I dont have much hope to be honest as I felt it dragged and fell flat. I hate to say it as much as I LOVE the LOTR movies, but I got bored with The Hobbit as it just failed to really ever capture me and felt so juvenile compared to the LOTR. I am open to giving it a shot at home though to see if my opinion changes. Again, we will see. One thing is for sure though........this first installment is a FAR cry from the LOTR films in general which is not surprising I suppose since The Hobbit does not have near the depth of the LOTR books in general from what I remember reading them all years ago and obviously there is not anywhere near as much at stake in The Hobbit. I really think this would have made for a much better film experience if it had been one movie. Curious to see it again though at home and see what I think after that.

I'll give you that the pacing at the beginning of the film is a tad bit slow. I think they put a bit too much in the way of forced humor there which ate up some unnecessary time.

As for what's at stake, The Hobbit doesn't need to be as intense from the get-go as The Lord of the Rings. It starts out as just an adventure, and it's not really until at least Mirkwood that things start really getting bad, and even then who in the party would have predicted the Battle of the Five Armies?

I think in the next two films we'll see the progression from "return the home of the dwarves to them" to a more intense experience that will include the confrontation with Smaug, the aftermath of that, the Battle of Five Armies, and probably some more development with The Necromancer that probably will also play some key role in this story arc.

I'm basically saying I'm willing to give this first film the benefit of the doubt, realizing that there is much opportunity for things to get very exciting in the other two films, with the first film being necessary to set the stage.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

For all the complaints that the early Bag End scenes get, they're actually some of my favorite parts of the film. A book lover's dream come true.

I admit the film's not as great as LotR, but neither is the book. While it's true that there's stuff that didn't need to be in the final cut, I can't say I really minded. It's one of those times when the Tolkien fan in me overrides the more cynical film critic in me. I do have some quibbles with the film, but it's still loads of fun.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by kingkong650

Pretty much agree with everything you said here. I also found the 3d in The Hobbit to be very subtle and underused compared to when I watched Prometheus in 3d in the same cinema, where I found the 3d experience very impressive. I´m looking forward to seeing this in 2d without all the distracting colour/brightness issues of watching it in 3d.

I also agree with you about An Unexpected Journey being nowhere near as good as the LOTR films. It just felt too long and a number of scenes felt drawn out (in particular the escape from goblin town felt way too long and the overuse of CG as well in that scene made it a real chore to watch towards the end), which is hard for me to say because I love long films when they´re structured well, Fellowship of the Ring Extended Edition is my favourite LOTR film and thats well over three hours.

Other scenes felt unneccesary and almost like fanservice for the LOTR fans, like for example the bit with Frodo and Bilbo at the beginning that didn´t really add anything to the film, it feels more like a deleted scene from FOTR. Of course, it also slows the film right down with half an hour of dwarves arriving and dining at Bag End still to come, so it makes that beginning bit of the film with little action and a lot of dialogue and exposition seem that much longer, leading to many complaints from critics and viewers alike saying that the film seems to take forever to get out of Bag End, which is fair enough.

I also felt that the scenes foreshadowing Sauron and the LOTR trilogy, like for example the council scene in Rivendell with Saruman, Elrond, Galadriel and Gandalf, didn´t quite mesh with the rest of the film revolving around Bilbo, Thorin and the Dwarfs reclaiming Erebor, it almost felt like two different films at times, at least to me.

That said, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is much better than most Hollywood fare coming out these days and comparisons to The Phantom Menace from some quarters is totally unjustified, this film is MUCH better IMHO (the riddles in the dark scene alone is better than the whole of TPM IMHO) . I´m definately looking forward to watching it again when it comes out on blu-ray.

I agree with everything you say here.

As far as the Phantom Menace comparison, I agree that The Hobbit is a much better film in general. I perceived those Phantom Menace remarks in a relative sense though, and from that standpoint I can see their point. The Hobbit does feel a bit like the Phantom Menace of the LOTR films since it feels more geared toward a younger audience in general IMO. The Goblin town scene that you mention is a perfect example as I felt this section really dumbed down the movie and I felt as if I was watching an episode of Fraggle Rock. It felt geared towards kids and from this perspective, I can understand how some might feel this is the Phantom Menace of the LOTR films.

The Gollum scene was by far (IMO) the best scene/section in the whole film.

Another reason The Hobbit failed to capture me is I just did not care about ANY of the new characters. There was no emotional attachment like I had with SO MANY of the LOTR characters.

I think the biggest problem with The Hobbit is that it is a much simpler story with much less at stake like I mentioned before. The LOTR stories/films are much more mature themed in nature, have characters that you become emotionally attached to for various reasons (exploring elements of love, hate, pain, confusion, greed, temptation, good, evil, etc...........), have a strong sense of purpose/urgency which goes a long way in pulling in the audience, etc.........The Hobbit just feels like a relatively shallow adventure story in comparison and does not warrant 3 movies because of this. The 3 sections of the LOTR story each worked very well as one movie each and the material was much more dense to begin with so spreading a much thinner story like The Hobbit over 3 films it makes sense that it feels watered down and just a bit.......dull. I hate to say it, but it truly does feel like a money grab to some degree and making The Hobbit into one single film would have made for a MUCH more engaging and successful film experience IMO.

The Hobbit was a bit doomed from the start though as it had SO MUCH to live up to going off the brilliance that is the LOTR movies. Considering the much simpler story, it only makes sense that it would not live up to the Rings films I suppose when I think about it. I was really disappointed though when seeing it for the first time since it was my most anticipated film in quite some time and it just is not working at this point from my perspective. It should have been one film and it would have worked better as a movie being one film.

Like you mention though, I am still looking forward to revisiting it on blu with my expectations MUCH more in check this time around knowing it is not the next LOTR cinema experience at which point I will hopefully be able to appreciate it for what it is a bit more.

Taikero,

I agree it will be interesting to see where the next two films go and the effect they have on this one when viewing them all as a whole. The good news is I dont think it can get any worse.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

No matter how you put it, comparing The Hobbit to TPM is insane. If nothing else, The Hobbit is filled with wonderful performances, while TPM has wooden acting from head to toe.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

No matter how you put it, comparing The Hobbit to TPM is insane. If nothing else, The Hobbit is filled with wonderful performances, while TPM has wooden acting from head to toe.

When you put The Hobbit up against the LOTR films though (just like putting TPM up against the original trilogy), I can understand in some ways how people could come up with that comparison for the reasons I mentioned above and from a relative sense. As far as the acting in particular goes though, I agree with you. Saying The Hobbit is TPM of the LOTR films is a fair statement IMHO.

[neo78956]

Originally Posted by spf781

Mine should be arriving tomorrow along with "Zero Dark Thirty".

HOW? Hate you so much.

[dirkblack]

Anyone who ordered from dvdworldusa, it is now in stock.

http://dvdworldusa.com/shopexd.asp?id=99518

http://dvdworldusa.com/shopexd.asp?id=99519

[armyjon99]

So the 3D pack is 2 3d Discs. The movie on a single blu-ray disc. Then a special features blu-ray. Then the movie on DVD + UV correct?

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by armyjon99

So the 3D pack is 2 3d Discs. The movie on a single blu-ray disc. Then a special features blu-ray. Then the movie on DVD + UV correct?

I'm not sure if I'm misreading what you're trying to say but 3D movie is split across 2 Blu-rays.