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

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

The Digital Bits confirmed with someone at WB that the Extended Edition will be available in 3D.

Excellent! Digibook and EE = Hobbit Heaven!

[Blu-Dre]

Originally Posted by unsung122212

It's my understanding that all the store exclusives won't have the 3D version. Also, that the 3D combo one will be the same as the other retailers that will be selling it.

Thanks. I suppose I'll stick with the 3D Combo. I'm sure the "exclusive 30min doc" will turn up separately somewhere, eventually.

[Grand Bob]

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.

This is true to a certain extent because The Hobbit story, as published in the original 1937 novel, is far less serious than the subject matter presented in The Lord of the Rings. However, while completing LotR, Tolkien attempted to merge the events of The Hobbit and LotR into one complete story by writing a short segment called "The Quest for Erebor". It was intended as an appendix to LotR, but was omitted due to the already extensive length of the book and appendices (but was later published in "Unfinished Tales"). I was surprised that Jackson and Boyens largely ignored this material, which would have raised the stakes of The Hobbit and resulted in a better integration of the movie versions of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Even with that aside, (again, IMO) The Hobbit movie would have benefitted from concentrating more on the intent of the original story, which is the development of Bilbo, instead of trying to please every victim of ADD with ridiculous threads such as "the revenge of Azog the Goblin", etc. The action scenes provide entertainment, but the thing that elevates Tolkien's stories from the masses, the "meat" so-to-speak, is the subtle philosophical background on which they are constructed. For example, Gandalf's statement in The Fellowship of the Ring, "so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us...", which Jackson portrayed exceptionally well. But I admit that I am pickier than most people, and the movie did succeed as an action/fantasy flick, it just could have been so much more.

Originally Posted by Taikero

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.

I agree with this and believe there is enough story-related action in the last half of the book to (perhaps) satisfy the action-junkie Jackson, which will hopefully minimize the contrived subplots.

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

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.

Agree with this 100%. Aside from Bag End, one of my favorite scenes is when Bilbo, Gandalf, and all thirteen dwarves are mounted on ponies, just at the beginning of the journey. I never was able to mentally picture that scene from the book, but was pleased at the way that Jackson presented it. There just weren't enough of those scenes in the movie.

[Majin Blu]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

TheOneRing.net has a list of the BD store exclusives and the Best Buy version is definitely a lenticular. The image they have up shows Bilbo holding the Ring behind his back. I'm not the biggest fan of lenticular covers, but the Bilbo/Gollum images make it the best cover design I've seen for this BD, and the 30 minute documentary will surely win me over.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013...rs-exclusives/

Hey, thanks for responding. I went ahead and ordered online.

[Todd Smith]

Grand Bob,

Thanks for the excellent information as I was not aware of "The Quest for Erebor". It is surprising that this was not incorporated more into the film since Jackson was obviously trying to tie The Hobbit in with the LOTR to some degree (this first installment had quite a few similarities to FOTR at times as far as general structure) and this would have aided that effort no doubt and provided for a better film most likely.

[Cook]

If film 2 is going all the way through the Smaug confrontation then Part 3 has to mostly be stuff Peter has added. All that is left after Smaug is preparaton for the Battle, the Battle itself, and returning home. I'm guessing the Necromancer showdown will be in there as well, but what else I wonder.

This may be blasphemy to some, but I wish Jackson would have made the Arkenstone more central and upped its importance and power. The way it is presented in the prologue makes it seem like a central element to the story, but it goes unmentioned after that in Part 1. I know Thorin is after it, but I would have liked him to say it in Part 1. And I would have liked someone else to be hunting it as well. Since he can never do the Silmarillion he could have made it something similar to a Silmaril.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

Grand Bob,

Thanks for the excellent information as I was not aware of "The Quest for Erebor". It is surprising that this was not incorporated more into the film since Jackson was obviously trying to tie The Hobbit in with the LOTR to some degree (this first installment had quite a few similarities to FOTR at times as far as general structure) and this would have aided that effort no doubt and provided for a better film most likely.

The Hobbit movie does stand on its own from the standpoint of scenery and action. My disappointment stems from what Jackson could have done with this movie. He had the advantage of hindsight to actually make the corrections that Tolkien attempted but later abandoned. I believe a relatively seamless integration with the Lord of the Rings movies was achieveable. With his interest in the material, literally all of the knowledge of the world's many Tolkien experts available to him, a production crew of thousands, a practically unlimited budget, and his previous experience with three Middle-earth films, he should have nailed this thing - but so many lost opportunities! Nobody beats a Jackson film for sheer spectacle, but if only a few additional elements could have been incorporated (and a few removed), The Hobbit could have been elevated into the realm of classic films. I will still buy it and watch it many times, but "the could have beens..."

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

The Hobbit movie does stand on its own from the standpoint of scenery and action. My disappointment stems from what Jackson could have done with this movie. He had the advantage of hindsight to actually make the corrections that Tolkien attempted but later abandoned. I believe a relatively seamless integration with the Lord of the Rings movies was achieveable. With his interest in the material, literally all of the knowledge of the world's many Tolkien experts available to him, a production crew of thousands, a practically unlimited budget, and his previous experience with three Middle-earth films, he should have nailed this thing - but so many lost opportunities! Nobody beats a Jackson film for sheer spectacle, but if only a few additional elements could have been incorporated (and a few removed), The Hobbit could have been elevated into the realm of classic films. I will still buy it and watch it many times, but "the could have beens..."

Above, your entire argument hinges on material that Jackson nor Warner may not have rights to...

[Oscarilbo]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

This is true to a certain extent because The Hobbit story, as published in the original 1937 novel, is far less serious than the subject matter presented in The Lord of the Rings. However, while completing LotR, Tolkien attempted to merge the events of The Hobbit and LotR into one complete story by writing a short segment called "The Quest for Erebor". It was intended as an appendix to LotR, but was omitted due to the already extensive length of the book and appendices (but was later published in "Unfinished Tales"). I was surprised that Jackson and Boyens largely ignored this material, which would have raised the stakes of The Hobbit and resulted in a better integration of the movie versions of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings. Even with that aside, (again, IMO) The Hobbit movie would have benefitted from concentrating more on the intent of the original story, which is the development of Bilbo, instead of trying to please every victim of ADD with ridiculous threads such as "the revenge of Azog the Goblin", etc. The action scenes provide entertainment, but the thing that elevates Tolkien's stories from the masses, the "meat" so-to-speak, is the subtle philosophical background on which they are constructed. For example, Gandalf's statement in The Fellowship of the Ring, "so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us...", which Jackson portrayed exceptionally well. But I admit that I am pickier than most people, and the movie did succeed as an action/fantasy flick, it just could have been so much more.

From my understanding Peter Jackson did not have official access to the material published by Christopher Tolkien, son of JJR Tolkien. That's why Gandalf "couldn't" remember the name of the two blue wizzards when Bilbo asked.

[dcowboy7]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

The Digital Bits confirmed with someone at WB that the Extended Edition will be available in 3D.

Cool now ill just skip this version & wait till the fall for the 3D EE.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Oscarilbo

From my understanding Peter Jackson did not have official access to the material published by Christopher Tolkien, son of JJR Tolkien. That's why Gandalf "couldn't" remember the name of the two blue wizzards when Bilbo asked.

I thought it was odd an Istari wasn't able to remember the names of two of his order. For those wondering, their names are:

Alatar and Pallando, the Blue Wizards. Unlike the pother three they were not known by any other names of men.

(Note: Later in his life, Tolkien wrote a note, suggesting that the names of the Blue Wizards were Morinehtar and Rómestámo. It is not clear whether these names were intended to replace the names Alatar and Pallando, or whether Morinehtar and Rómestámo were alternate names for the Blue Wizards, possibly those given to them by the peoples of Middle-earth.)

[meremortal]

Originally Posted by dcowboy7

Cool now ill just skip this version & wait till the fall for the 3D EE.

Think I'll do the same since only WM is carrying the (2D?) digibook. If BB were carrying it, I'd probably grab it after saving a RZ certificate or two.

[Grand Bob]

Originally Posted by Oscarilbo

From my understanding Peter Jackson did not have official access to the material published by Christopher Tolkien, son of JJR Tolkien. That's why Gandalf "couldn't" remember the name of the two blue wizzards when Bilbo asked.

A related semi-amusing story is that when Tolkien came up with the concept of the five wizards, he didn't know the names of the blue wizards. He confirmed this in a letter to a fan who inquired about them. Only later, while writing "The Istari" (in Unfinished Tales) did he identify them as Alatar and Pallando. It is unfortunate that the filming of other Middle-earth stories will not be permitted. The material (scope, battle, creatures) in "The Silmarillion" makes anything in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings seem relatively insignificant in comparison.

Edit: Just saw Cook's post. As an aside, there are many "loose ends" remaining in the Middle-earth saga. It would seem to me that stories such as "The Tale of the Blue Wizards" are just waiting to be told. Forum member Radagast has considered several of these threads that continue the story of Middle-earth.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Grand Bob

A related semi-amusing story is that when Tolkien came up with the concept of the five wizards, he didn't know the names of the blue wizards. He confirmed this in a letter to a fan who inquired about them. Only later, while writing "The Istari" (in Unfinished Tales) did he identify them as Alatar and Pallando. It is unfortunate that the filming of other Middle-earth stories will not be permitted. The material (scope, battle, creatures) in "The Silmarillion" makes anything in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings seem relatively insignificant in comparison.

Edit: Just saw Cook's post. As an aside, there are many "loose ends" remaining in the Middle-earth saga. It would seem to me that stories such as "The Tale of the Blue Wizards" are just waiting to be told. Forum member Radagast has considered several of these threads that continue the story of Middle-earth.

Imagine seeing the Fall of Gondolin on screen. Sauron corrupting the people into worshipping Morgoth with human sacrifice and the attempt to invade the West. Chris Tolkien is a selfish bitter old man.

[Oscarilbo]

by the way guys...

don't know if it has been discussed before but...

judging by the some of the clips WB just launched

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ayH3BtNjNE

What aspect ratio do you think are we gonna see for the 3D version ??? or is this change just for promotional purposes?

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Oscarilbo

by the way guys...

don't know if it has been discussed before but...

judging by the clips WB just launched http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ayH3BtNjNE

What aspect ratio do you think are we gonna see for the 3D version ???

Rarely do I say this but I wish the 2d version had been 1:85.1 or 1:78. Its such a gorgeous film I want it to fill up my whole screen. As per usual tho, its what ever it was framed at that matters.

[42041]

Originally Posted by Oscarilbo

What aspect ratio do you think are we gonna see for the 3D version ??? or is this change just for promotional purposes?

The Hobbit used scope in every format and venue. I doubt any visual effects were rendered beyond that. That video looks cropped (though I'm not sure).

[Livelong420]

In every post bashing The Hobbit, they bring up LoTR. Maybe one shouldn't be comparing so much. Keep your expectations in check and it will be more enjoyable!

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Livelong420

In every post bashing The Hobbit, they bring up LoTR. Maybe one shouldn't be comparing so much. Keep your expectations in check and it will be more enjoyable!

They are in the same franchise from the same director and crew. Comparisons are to be expected. And when something is being marketed that way, and as the second coming of greatness don't blame others for having certain expectations.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by Cook

If film 2 is going all the way through the Smaug confrontation then Part 3 has to mostly be stuff Peter has added. All that is left after Smaug is preparaton for the Battle, the Battle itself, and returning home. I'm guessing the Necromancer showdown will be in there as well, but what else I wonder.

This may be blasphemy to some, but I wish Jackson would have made the Arkenstone more central and upped its importance and power. The way it is presented in the prologue makes it seem like a central element to the story, but it goes unmentioned after that in Part 1. I know Thorin is after it, but I would have liked him to say it in Part 1. And I would have liked someone else to be hunting it as well. Since he can never do the Silmarillion he could have made it something similar to a Silmaril.

I imagine the Arkenstone will take up more importance in the second film, with some tie to the Arkenstone and perhaps the Necromancer (maybe the Arkenstone gives Sauron the power to return as The Eye?). Also, the Arkenstone may be important to Thranduil, and we'll see Thranduil in the second film (in Mirkwood) and the third film (Battle of Five Armies).

There's a lot of room for the Arkenstone to be brought back into the picture, I just think that the first film was considered to be not the right time for it, as so much else was going on.