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

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Snicket

How do you know this? Do you have a machine that allows for cross dimension transport so you have actually seen the Hobbit as 1 film?

To this day I have never seen a film justify breaking a book into parts, even Harry Potter, a series I very much enjoy, did not justify the cut. It gets a lot of the blame for setting the precedent.

At the end of the day it's all just commerce driving art, sure you can try and convince yourself otherwise, but its just for the almighty dollar.

i'm curious what u would've cut from either movie 7.1 or 7.2 for Harry Potter. there was no "fluff" added to either movie, it all came straight from the final book. how could that have all been condensed into 1 movie and still be able to satisfy everything story wise??

[bigbadwoppet]

Originally Posted by Snicket

How do you know this? Do you have a machine that allows for cross dimension transport so you have actually seen the Hobbit as 1 film?

To this day I have never seen a film justify breaking a book into parts, even Harry Potter, a series I very much enjoy, did not justify the cut. It gets a lot of the blame for setting the precedent.

At the end of the day it's all just commerce driving art, sure you can try and convince yourself otherwise, but its just for the almighty dollar.

Precedent is much older. Richard Lester's The Three Musketeers got split into two films and it made for a much satisfying adaptation of Dumas' novel. Had it been just one movie, it'd have left so much material out it'd have felt rushed and incomplete. The decision was done in post, it was filmed as a single movie and not originally intended to be a back-to-back affair.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

Common sense dictates as much. I just laid out the main points of the book. You really believe putting the battle with the trolls, goblins, wargs, smaug, battle of the five armies, gollum, and so forth all in one movie isn't too much both length-wise, and both plot-wise for an audience? And I disagree, Deathly Hallows certainly justified having two films

I'm sure if the right screenwriter was involved (Not PJ and his crew, who have become lords of excess) an acceptable length could have been accomplished. It's certainly not impossible, given there are many excellent writers out there. I know Topher Grace made his own 1 film cut of the Star Wars prequels, you just need some creativity.

The Hobbit was written for children, and many other thicker spines have been adapted as 1 film.

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i'm curious what u would've cut from either movie 7.1 or 7.2 for Harry Potter. there was no "fluff" added to either movie, it all came straight from the final book. how could that have all been condensed into 1 movie and still be able to satisfy everything story wise??

Given the first film was not really a film in my eyes, story and character arcs were sketchy at best. As I said above there are a lot of talented writers out there who could have trimmed the fat. But WB was not really interested in trimming were they?

Originally Posted by bigbadwoppet

Precedent is much older. Richard Lester's The Three Musketeers got split into two films and it made for a much satisfying adaptation of Dumas' novel. Had it been just one movie, it'd have left so much material out it'd have felt rushed and incomplete. The decision was done in post, it was filmed as a single movie and not originally intended to be a back-to-back affair.

So it was conceived as one film then? There is the difference maker.

[Taikero]

Originally Posted by Snicket

To this day I have never seen a film justify breaking a book into parts, even Harry Potter, a series I very much enjoy, did not justify the cut. It gets a lot of the blame for setting the precedent.

The last two Harry Potter films were the best and most adult of the series. That alone justifies the split, and I found zero qualms with splitting the last book into two films, despite my pre-viewing trepidation at the move. It was the right move.

Originally Posted by Snicket

At the end of the day it's all just commerce driving art, sure you can try and convince yourself otherwise, but its just for the almighty dollar.

Of course it's commerce driving the art, but that commerce is driven by what consumers want. Must it be so strange that consumers of beloved source material desire that source material to be transferred thematically intact to a visual medium, even if it requires six hours to do so?

Look at how well Game of Thrones is being received. That couldn't have been done in three movies, much less one.

[Snicket]

Originally Posted by Taikero

The last two Harry Potter films were the best and most adult of the series. That alone justifies the split, and I found zero qualms with splitting the last book into two films, despite my pre-viewing trepidation at the move. It was the right move.

Of course it's commerce driving the art, but that commerce is driven by what consumers want. Must it be so strange that consumers of beloved source material desire that source material to be transferred thematically intact to a visual medium, even if it requires six hours to do so?

Look at how well Game of Thrones is being received. That couldn't have been done in three movies, much less one.

I totally get art is subjective and people take away different things from it and have different expectations, my point was that for *this* consumer, splitting books is not a desirable option. You thought the last Harry Poter film were the best for you obviously that is not going to apply to everyone.

I love Game of Thrones, I think the way they decided to adapt them was appropriate. But now we are comparing TV to film, not exactly a level comparison.

[Blu-Benny]

i for 1 had no problem w/the 1st movie.....it was the way Jackson wanted it so i'm willing to take it for what it is.

could it have been trimmed a bit....sure. could the entire book been made into 2 movies instead of 3.....absolutely......2 is the bare minimum though no matter what anyone says.

b/c when u get into hacking the book apart and ripping certain things out......i'm not even sure what u'd get rid of from the book......then the purists out there would cry "foul" @ the source material being f**k'd with so bad.

bottom line is u can't please everybody.....and reading some of the threads on this very forum it appears certain people can never be pleased w/anything.

[Todd Smith]

No worries guys. I respect your opinion, but I stand by mine. As far as movies are concerned, I strongly believe making The Hobbit into one film would have made for a much more engaging film experience since it just feels very padded as it is. It worked great for LOTR and it would have worked great for this film as well. It feels way to long as it is IMO and watered down. From a business perspective, they made the right decision, but as far as great cinema goes it just feels thin and a bit dull due to the padding IMO.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

No worries guys. I respect your opinion, but I stand by mine. As far as movies are concerned, I strongly believe making The Hobbit into one film would have made for a much more engaging film experience since it just feels very padded as it is. It worked great for LOTR and it would have worked great for this film as well. It feels way to long as it is IMO and watered down. From a business perspective, they made the right decision, but as far as great cinema goes it just feels thin and a bit dull due to the padding IMO.

i didn't catch it if u posted it....but have u read the book??

just curious.

[Starpower67]

So is the March 19 date official? I ask because the link for the pre-order isn't working for me, and when I search for it on Amazon it doesn't come up.

[Lindele]

I keep coming on here to get in on some fun Hobbit Blu-ray talk...but all is see is an excessive amount of posts about the length and splitting of the film. That is all anyone talks about, and it is annoying.
Now, having said that. If you think AUJ was 'padded' and the whole story should be one film, I'm afraid your attention span is too far gone to be convinced otherwise. We live in an age when people need immediate satisfaction, and it is unfortunate...because there are a lot of people out there who could enjoy these films if they could get past the ADD. Most people said that the LOTR trilogy was too long as well...which is of course ridiculous.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i didn't catch it if u posted it....but have u read the book??

just curious.

Many years ago, but yes.

[bookcase]

Originally Posted by Snicket

To this day I have never seen a film justify breaking a book into parts, even Harry Potter, a series I very much enjoy, did not justify the cut. It gets a lot of the blame for setting the precedent.

It did set the precedent, but I ultimately agreed with that being split, otherwise they would've sacrificed too much from the book to do it justice.

[MifuneFan]

Originally Posted by Lindele

I keep coming on here to get in on some fun Hobbit Blu-ray talk...but all is see is an excessive amount of posts about the length and splitting of the film. That is all anyone talks about, and it is annoying.
Now, having said that. If you think AUJ was 'padded' and the whole story should be one film, I'm afraid your attention span is too far gone to be convinced otherwise. We live in an age when people need immediate satisfaction, and it is unfortunate...because there are a lot of people out there who could enjoy these films if they could get past the ADD. Most people said that the LOTR trilogy was too long as well...which is of course ridiculous.

Complains about how all people talk about is the length of the movie, and how annoying that is.

Goes on to talk about the length of the movie.

Makes Sense.

[Blu-Benny]

Just b/c of the debate going on in here lately, I may have to throw the movie in after it comes out and see what I can come up with as far as what should’ve been removed from the movie and see what kind of time frame I get.

[Lindele]

well what else was i supposed to do? how else could i fit in?

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by MifuneFan

If you tried to condense all of that, or even just most of that into a single movie it would be way too much to take in. It would be a complete mess.

Rankin/Bass condensed "most of that" into a 90 minute animated feature made for television, and it wasn't too much to take in, and it wasn't a complete mess. Just sayin'.

[Todd Smith]

Originally Posted by Lindele

I keep coming on here to get in on some fun Hobbit Blu-ray talk...but all is see is an excessive amount of posts about the length and splitting of the film. That is all anyone talks about, and it is annoying.
Now, having said that. If you think AUJ was 'padded' and the whole story should be one film, I'm afraid your attention span is too far gone to be convinced otherwise. We live in an age when people need immediate satisfaction, and it is unfortunate...because there are a lot of people out there who could enjoy these films if they could get past the ADD. Most people said that the LOTR trilogy was too long as well...which is of course ridiculous.

I know some of the people on the other side of the argument would like to make it that simple, but that is not the problem from my perspective. Length in general is not the issue, but how the length was used. LOTR is a great example of 3 films that were technically long in run time, but it absolutely flys by because it is so emotionally engaging, the characters are interesting, you truly care about what is going on, there is a sense of purpose, etc.....The Hobbit feels shallow and long because it is a much simpler story in general. Because of the relative simplicity vs LOTR, it just feels watered down in film form when attempting to drag it out over 3 movies which the first installment illustrates perfectly. So no, it is not a matter of ADD for most of us who dont like the length, it is that it feels long for the sake of length and not because the material demands it in movie form which The Hobbit does not, at least with PJs vision so far. Again just my opinion.

[Lindele]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

No worries guys. I respect your opinion, but I stand by mine. As far as movies are concerned, I strongly believe making The Hobbit into one film would have made for a much more engaging film experience since it just feels very padded as it is. It worked great for LOTR and it would have worked great for this film as well. It feels way to long as it is IMO and watered down. From a business perspective, they made the right decision, but as far as great cinema goes it just feels thin and a bit dull due to the padding IMO.

I firmly believe that if you did not know that The Hobbit was one book...if you weren't aware that one novel had been split into three films, you would feel totally different about it. We are used to the one book=one film mindset, and so we immediately have issues with something different. I'd like to see a legit example of The Hobbit: AUJ being 'padded.'
The action is non-stop, the story movies very quickly (aside from the first 30 minutes, which is perfect), the balance between character developement and plot is good...it's all just a mindset...IMHO

[rickah88]

I just hope PJ decides to take up the Wheel of Time series, with his desire to do extended releases and spilt films! It would, easily, be a 30 film series, all being 4hrs each!

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Todd Smith

I know some of the people on the other side of the argument would like to make it that simple, but that is not the problem from my perspective. Length in general is not the issue, but how the length was used. LOTR is a great example of 3 films that were technically long in run time, but it absolutely flys by because it is so emotionally engaging, the characters are interesting, you truly care about what is going on, there is a sense of purpose, etc.....The Hobbit feels shallow and long because it is a much simpler story in general. Because of the relative simplicity vs LOTR, it just feels watered down in film form when attempting to drag it out over 3 movies which the first installment illustrates perfectly. So no, it is not a matter of ADD for most of us who dont like the length, it is that it feels long for the sake of length and not because the material demands it in movie form which The Hobbit does not, at least with PJs vision so far. Again just my opinion.

I still think the first film is burdened with having to establish a whole lot of exposition, which really won't pay off until the next two films. There is no link, for instance, between the Necromancer/Radagast subplot with the main quest, we won't get to any of that or why it's even included until later.