The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

krudler

jaykhunter wrote: »

Yep. A bit of faith

Any word from NZ premières how is the film?

Overlong but good is what I've heard, 48fps is either amazing or horrible depending on who you ask.

Where do I want to see this? Cineworld?

maquiladora

jaykhunter wrote: »

Yep. A bit of faith

Any word from NZ premières how is the film?

Review embargo lifts tomorrow night. A guild screening just wrapped up in LA, no embargo, and I've collected whatever impressions I could find from twitter. I'll repost them here.

Joanclair Richter ‏@joanclairme

Hobbit screening - visually stunning. The beginning of it all. Peter Jackson Q & A - what a mind!

Matthew P. Spill ‏@matthewspill

Hobbit was great! 48fps is weird. Neat but not necessary. Can't wait for next December!

Jason T. Clark ‏@Jason_T_Clark

#Hobbit was fantastic!!! So happy to be back in Middle-Earth. This is a must see. 48Fps is interesting, but overall I didn't care for it.

Jason T. Clark ‏@Jason_T_Clark

Also, 3D was some of the best I've seen. Looking forward to seeing it again in IMAX 3D

Nicholas DeNitto ‏@NicksMovies

Just saw The Hobbit and was STUNNED. See this movie in 3D at 48 FPS! It looks incredible!

Scott Squires ‏@scott_squires

#hobbit 3D 48fps works. Won't be confused with cheap video. Less stereo artifacts. Only a few shots with odd motion. (speed changes?)

Basq

My local cinema is showing the 2D version in not a great screen, while it's showing 3D in one of their newer better screens.

Was planning 2D but if 3D is as impressive as people say.. hmmm...

maquiladora

Basq wrote: »

My local cinema is showing the 2D version in not a great screen, while it's showing 3D in one of their newer better screens.

Was planning 2D but if 3D is as impressive as people say.. hmmm...

The 3D + higher frame rate seems to be a thing people are either loving or hating.

Cameron Barrett ‏@mhcameron

@ the Academy today for a special screening of The Hobbit projected in 3D at 48 fps, which is was shot in. Spectacular! I'm truly awestruck.

Joe correll ‏@JoeCorrell

#TheHobbit the new frame rate and 3D look terrific . The movie is excellent, there should be a few Oscar nods -stiff completion though

But then you also have reactions like these.

James Bowskill ‏@jamesbowskill

… 48fps is incredibly sharp — too sharp perhaps, and the aesthetic it creates is quite jarring. With 3D on top, it’s visually exhausting.

I expect we'll see very mixed reviews about it.

Linguo

We have tix for the Savoy Screen 1, where I watched all the movies for the first time and my fav screen to go to!

RossPaws

Sorry if this has already been answered (I haven't read through the thread) but does anyone know if we're actually going to get to see the film in 48fps in Ireland? Or, on the flip side, if there's an option to not see it that way and just to watch in regular 24fps instead? I've heard that they're being cautious about how many places actually show the 48fps because of mixed reaction, so I'm not sure what to expect (or ask for) when I book my tickets this week.

Rabies

Its released here next wednesday.
What date is it released in Ireland? Presume the same date.

I have tickets booked for the Sunday showing. Going to high frame rate and 3D viewing. If its good I'll go back and watch it in normal 2D.

Oafley Jones

Jeremy Smith/Beaks aka the only decent critic on AICN.


AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY runs a healthy 160-plus minutes, and more than half of it is filler. Worse, I know goddamn well there's not 320-minutes worth of story left. Not even close. If I felt like Jackson was attacking this book with the all-in bravado he brought to THE LORD OF THE RINGS (and setting up more than Tolkien's book delivers), I'd forgive the bloat. But the listlessness of AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY reminds me of the slow boat to Skull Island in KING KONG. We're adrift. So please, Mr. Jackson, wrap this up, and get the hell out of Middle Earth. This is beginning to feel more like cartography than storytelling.

Liamalone

Thought as much, being dragged out

JohnnyRyan99

What supposedly sums it up is.... "Not as bad as you feared not as good as you hoped." The majority are still giving it largely positive reviews despite it's bloated feeling.

I feared worse so still can't wait!

upstairs for coffee

Peter Jackson at his self indulgent best - no thanks.

Rabies

Shouldn't have been spilt in 3 movies.
Hope the filler space isn't too much of a waste :-/

Frank Black

Got my ticket for a 3D showing next Thursday in Liffey Valley and am looking forward to it.
No idea if it 24fps or 48fps.
TBH, I reckon such old fashioned stuff like directing, cinematography, plot, acting, music and soundtrack are going to influence my enjoyment of the movie more - but then, I'm a bit strange like that.

Sad Professor

If the showing is 48fps the ticket will say The Hobbit 3D HFR. (HFR = higher frame rate.)

I'm reading a lot of complaints about the CGI. Apparently the film is over saturated in it (comparisons to the Star Wars prequels) and it's laughably fake in places. All the orcs and goblins are now CGI, as well as the environments - no minatures or traditional matte paintings.

Very mixed reactions to 48fps. Everyone agrees that it's jarring at first and takes about an hour to get used to it. Anyone really looking forward to the film should probably steer clear of HFR for their first viewing.

WolfForager

I can stick quoting specific negative comments from critics (even though it's ridiculously easy, I could find negative critic comments about the Godfather II with a simple google search if I wanted). But what is really starting to piss me off are the armchair critics who are basing their opinions on the opinions of others. Before you start blasting the movie (and calling people self-indulgent) maybe watch it first. It seems to me that every forum I'm following about the Hobbit has it's fair share of them.

Roar

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'm reading a lot of complaints about the CGI. Apparently the film is over saturated in it (comparisons to the Star Wars prequels) and it's laughably fake in places. All the orcs and goblins are now CGI, as well as the environments - no minatures or traditional matte paintings.

Was worried about this, from watching the production diaries and from what I saw in the trailer, which looked like a green screen fest.

speedboatchase

I said a few weeks ago that I felt this would be the year's most disappointing movie - in terms of pre-release hype - and I do think Prometheus has a challenger there.

I also think there's a Star Wars prequels vibe here in that the creator of the original trilogy has so much goodwill from their previous efforts that their ego has been allowed run amok. Warner obviously only saw dollar signs when Jackson suggested making two movies become three - after filming had been complete, no less - and that decision, much like the splitting of the Harry Potter, Twilight and upcoming Hunger Games finales, is going to hurt word of mouth and the eventual product, but will obviously recoup greater profits.

I don't care how big of a Tolkien fan you are, The Hobbit should never, ever have been a three-film, near-nine hour epic. It's a 300-page children's book (as opposed to the LOTR trilogy) with a linear storyline and simple narrative. It's a real pity Del Toro didn't hold onto the reins of this one.

Though I felt that Return of the King had some really obvious pacing issues, Jackson bolted out the gate with the breathless Fellowship of the Ring. That The Hobbit trilogy reportedly feels extremely bloated from its first installment does not fill me with any hope for what's to come.

jpm4

speedboatchase wrote: »

I
I don't care how big of a Tolkien fan you are, The Hobbit should never, ever have been a three-film, near-nine hour epic. It's a 300-page children's book (as opposed to the LOTR trilogy) with a linear storyline and simple narrative. It's a real pity Del Toro didn't hold onto the reins of this one.

It's not a film of The Hobbit, the 300-page children book though. How about waiting to see for yourself first?

Sad Professor

Roar wrote: »

Was worried about this, from watching the production diaries and from what I saw in the trailer, which looked like a green screen fest.

Yeah, one of things that I loved about LOTR was the way Jackson mixed old-school special effects with computer generated imagery. It's a shame to see him abandon that approach and go all digital. Doing all the orcs and goblins as CGI strikes as me as particularly unnecessary.

Anyway, I think the main thing we can take away from these early reviews is that critics aren't going to give Jackson a free pass this time. Fantasy films with epic battles are dime-a-dozen these days. And for many people, the 9-12 hours they already spent in Jackson's Middle Earth was probably more than enough. I can understand this. While I adored Jackson's previous trilogy and would count it among my most memorable cinematic experiences, by the time credits rolled on the Extended Edition of ROTK, I had really had my fill of it. That was 8 years ago. I thought I would start to feel excited again for this new trilogy at some point, but it still feels too soon.

speedboatchase

jpm4 wrote: »

speedboatchase wrote: »

I
I don't care how big of a Tolkien fan you are, The Hobbit should never, ever have been a three-film, near-nine hour epic. It's a 300-page children's book (as opposed to the LOTR trilogy) with a linear storyline and simple narrative. It's a real pity Del Toro didn't hold onto the reins of this one.
QUOTE]

It's not a film of The Hobbit, the 300-page children book though. How about waiting to see for yourself first?

What I'm saying is that it seems to me at least that Jackson is taking his post-LOTR bloated, 'epic' approach to source material that should be breezy and fast paced. I will see it for myself but I'll probably skip it in the cinema - haven't been feeling any hype for this project and the consensus of reviews seem to have confirmed some of the complaints I was expecting.

jpm4

speedboatchase wrote: »

jpm4 wrote: »

What I'm saying is that it seems to me at least that Jackson is taking his post-LOTR bloated, 'epic' approach to source material that should be breezy and fast paced. I will see it for myself but I'll probably skip it in the cinema - haven't been feeling any hype for this project and the consensus of reviews seem to have confirmed some of the complaints I was expecting.

Why does it have to be fast paced though? 1 film of the book would need to cover all this or else start chopping:

The party at Bilbos
The encounter with the Trolls
Arrival at Rivendell
Capture by the goblins
Bilbos finds ring and encounter with Gollum
Bilbo escapes and finds Dwarves
Resuce by the Eagles
Meeting Beorn
Passage through Mirkwood
Battle with Spiders
Capture by Elves
Escape from Elven Hall
Arrival at Lake town
Passage to Lonely Mountain/Smaug
Death of Smaug
The seiging of the Mountain by Elves/Men
Battle of 5 armies
Wrap up and go home

That is absolutely 2 films in my mind, unless you want to start cutting stuff out but why would you? There is no need to, there is nothing sapping the pace here like the Tom Bombadaill (whatever his name was) episode in TFOTR book, which Jackson was right to take out of the film.

speedboatchase

jpm4 wrote: »

speedboatchase wrote: »

Why does it have to be fast paced though? 1 film of the book would need to cover all this or else start chopping:

The party at Bilbos
The encounter with the Trolls
Arrival at Rivendell
Capture by the goblins
Bilbos finds ring and encounter with Gollum
Bilbo escapes and finds Dwarves
Resuce by the Eagles
Meeting Beorn
Passage through Mirkwood
Battle with Spiders
Capture by Elves
Escape from Elven Hall
Arrival at Lake town
Passage to Lonely Mountain/Smaug
Death of Smaug
The seiging of the Mountain by Elves/Men
Battle of 5 armies
Wrap up and go home

That is absolutely 2 films in my mind, unless you want to start cutting stuff out but why would you? There is no need to, there is nothing sapping the pace here like the Tom Bombadaill (whatever his name was) episode in TFOTR book, which Jackson was right to take out of the film.

I didn't have a problem with the original plan of two movies (although the plan even before that was one Hobbit film and one standalone film set in Middle Earth) but I think the early reviews are showing just how misguided - artistically, not financially - it might have been to stretch two films into three after principal photography.

WolfForager

Hmm. Skimming over these reviews and I realise they all read the exact same way (bar the HFR) that the early FOTR reviews did. Take from that what you will.

johnny_ultimate

Unfortunately the production had to resort to more CGI and studio work than its predecessor as they couldn't risk the influx of fans that are inherent with location shooting, especially since films like this require the building of very elaborate sets. The previous production was big without being a phenomenon - this was hyped from the outset. It's a real shame - LotR is the pinnacle of practical effects cleverly enhanced by computers, although some of the more overtly CGI creations haven't aged all that nicely. Disappointing but not entirely surprising to hear it mightn't hold up this time.

Was there ever any doubt the film is going to be farcically overstretched though? That was obvious from the announcement of the third film. Hopefully there'll be enough to still make it worthwhile.

WolfForager

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Was there ever any doubt the film was going to be farcically overstretched though? That was obvious from the announcement of the third film. Hopefully there'll be enough to still make it worthwhile.

I was OK with two films, when I heard there were going to be three films I was a bit concerned alright. Even with the appendice material I wasn't sure if PJ could pull it off. I'm gonna watch the first movie though, see how far they get into the stoyline, where they're going with it and then I'll make up my mind if they're over stretching it. I'm hoping that An Unexpected Journey will be the foundation for the next two movies and will lead to excellent films.

Mellor

speedboatchase wrote: »

I don't care how big of a Tolkien fan you are, The Hobbit should never, ever have been a three-film, near-nine hour epic. It's a 300-page children's book (as opposed to the LOTR trilogy) with a linear storyline and simple narrative.

I'm not saying that the 8 hour saga we are getting is optimal. But I don't think that fitting it into 120 minutes and pacing it like the book is best either. The book speeds through events and even skips some events completely, eg the White Council, banishing Sauron etc. Remember the main events in the Hobbit cover 6-8 months, and it's over a year by the time Bilbo gets home.

Pacing it like the book would be really bad, it wouldn't work as a film at all. To make a film work the book needed to be fleshed out with the info in appendices, letters etc. and why not, the info is there, it's canon, it's part if the story as intended by Tolkien.

Sad Professor

WolfForager wrote: »

Hmm. Skimming over these reviews and I realise they all read the exact same way (bar the HFR) that the early FOTR reviews did. Take from that what you will.

Not true at all. The early reviews of FOTR were extremely positive. Ecstatic even. I remember because my expectations were sky high going into the cinema.

johnny_ultimate

TBH, I think the film that's going to suffer most is part three. I think the first two will have the basic narrative momentum of the novel to keep them afloat, but I fear the third will be weighed down by epilogues and asides with little to keep them together or indeed keep the audience interest. This is a fear largely born out of Jackson's inability to IMO wrap up the LotR films with sufficient elegance.

qz

Folks there's a review already up on IGN.

http://ie.ign.com/articles/2012/12/04/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review

I'm avoiding reading it. What date was that embargo again?