The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

johnny_ultimate

Embargo was today sometime, reviews are indeed filtering through from sites much more reliable than IGN : http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/

The Variety review is very in-depth and worth a read, although fairly full of plot details.

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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.

My biggest worry is that part 3 will be basically the endings of LOTR stretched out to a full movie.

Antar Bolaeisk

Time to switch off the internet me thinks, have to wait an extra day as well as I foolishly promised I'd go see it with someone

spank_inferno

Hello Dudes.

Apologies if already answered.

Does anyone know if any screenings at Dundrum will be HFR?
Either 2D or 3D.


Many thanks.

Sad Professor

spank_inferno wrote: »

Hello Dudes.

Apologies if already answered.

Does anyone know if any screenings at Dundrum will be HFR?
Either 2D or 3D.


Many thanks.

Look at the listings on the website. If it lists showings as "The Hobbit 3D HFR", then yes. Otherwise no.

There's no 2D HFR screenings.

indough

Sad Professor wrote: »

Look at the listings on the website. If it lists showings as "The Hobbit 3D HFR", then yes. Otherwise no.

There's no 2D HFR screenings.

odd, its showing a 48fps 2D at one of my local cinemas and the 3D version as 24fps, presumably a mistake though and they have no 48fps option.

Sad Professor

indough wrote: »

odd, its showing a 48fps 2D at one of my local cinemas and the 3D version as 24fps, presumably a mistake though and they have no 48fps option.

Which cinema is it?

indough

cork omniplex

http://www.omniplex.ie/cinema/movie/m4263

*** The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 48 frames per second format ***

Sad Professor

indough wrote: »

cork omniplex

http://www.omniplex.ie/cinema/movie/m4263

Yeah, it's a mistake. That's supposed to be the 35mm version, which definitely isn't 48fps.

indough

yeah thats what i thought alright, i emailed them to let them know anyway

johnny_ultimate

Awesome, scored a ticket to the press screening.

Get to see it in HFR without having to pay for 3D. The system works :P

spank_inferno

Sad Professor wrote: »

Look at the listings on the website. If it lists showings as "The Hobbit 3D HFR", then yes. Otherwise no.

There's no 2D HFR screenings.

The listings didnt specify.

However the Cinema's twitter feed mentions that screen 1 will be 3D-HFR

Sad Professor

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Awesome, scored a ticket to the press screening.

Get to see it in HFR without having to pay for 3D. The system works :P

Yeah but you also get your first viewing of the film potentially ruined not just by 3D but by 48fps as well.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

Yeah but you also get your first viewing of the film potentially ruined not just by 3D but by 48fps as well.

True, but it's likely that preview screenings are going to be the only way to check it out in 48 FPS without having to pay the manufactured premium. We'll see if there is indeed a quality loss, but at least I don't feel morally repugnant this way!

Movies.ie are running a competition for Sunday's premiere tickets too, by the way: http://movies.ie/Competitions/1185473/Win_tickets_to_THE_HOBBIT_AN_UNEXPECTED_JOURNEY_premiere

krudler

whens the press screening? really curious to see what 48fps looks like, dunno whether to see it that way or in regular 2D, what if i dont like the movie despite it being in 2D, then I'll have even less reason to see it in 48fps, but if I see it in 48fps first I might hate it because of that, gah.

Oafley Jones

Devine Faraci has a round up of critics reaction to HFR version. I think it's a cop out that he didn't opt for the experience himself.

http://badassdigest.com/2012/12/04/does-anybody-like-48fps-in-the-hobbit/

Sad Professor

I'm kind of bewildered by all the talk of 48fps being too clear, making makeup etc look fake. I mean, surely that's a result of the digital photography and would be a problem with the 24fps version as well? This is why I'm keen to see the 2D version first, both to give the film itself a chance, and so that I can judge the 48fps version properly when I do see it.

Anyway, the only unreservedly positive reaction to 48fps that I've read is from Jeff Wells. Although even he suggests that it's unsuitable for "straight adult fare" and should be mostly used for "comic-book whack-offs" like The Hobbit (which he hated).

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/12/exhausting_hobb.php

Josey Wales

Does anyone know how big the IMAX screen in Cineworld is? Is it true IMAX size. I've been to the London BFI screen a few times so I know what it should be like.

Sad Professor

Josey Wales wrote: »

Does anyone know how big the IMAX screen in Cineworld is? Is it true IMAX size. I've been to the London BFI screen a few times so I know what it should be like.

Go back a few pages and you'll see a picture of the screen. No, it's not true IMAX size. We don't know the exact dimensions yet, but it's probably about 8-9 metres tall, which wouldn't even make it the largest screen in the country. The Cineworld building used to house a true IMAX screen - it took up most of the building.

Handsome Bob

Sad Professor wrote: »

Go back a few pages and you'll see a picture of the screen. No, it's not true IMAX size. We don't know the exact dimensions yet, but it's probably about 8-9 metres tall, which wouldn't even make it the largest screen in the country. The Cineworld building used to house a true IMAX screen - it took up most of the building.

Jesus christ! One thing hearing people talk of dimensions but when you put it like that....they must really be monstrous.

johnny_ultimate

That's the level of difference you're likely dealing with. The fact that real IMAX has a peculiar aspect ratio only adds to its general level of impracticality. Again, it's likely Cineworld 'IMAX' is going to be a pretty decent digital screen in terms of size and quality, but that's the best you could hope for. I've already seen a lot of people on the likes of movies.ie completely buying into Cineworld / IMAX's misleading branding, which is a shame. It'll likely be a superior quality screen, but it sure as hell ain't IMAX in the proper sense.

Sad Professor

And here's the two pictures from a few days ago. The first one is the new IMAX screen in Cineworld. The second one is Branson's IMAX in Missouri.

Mickeroo

Have to say the reviews I've read so far aren't doing anything to convince me splitting it into 3 films was a good idea

Apparently the HFR stuff veers from being amazing in places to looking awful in others? I won't have the option of seeing it in that format anyway.

krudler

I dont understand the 3 movies thing either, 2 at a stretch but you could read the hobbit in a day, its not a big book. 3 LOTR movies made sense.

johnny_ultimate

Greed, pure and simple. It happened with Harry Potter, Twilight, Grindhouse (arguably even Kill Bill) and is going to happen with The Hunger Games too. If studios can get away with getting audiences to pay twice or three times instead of once, why wouldn't they? Screw artistic integrity or pacing (although Peter Jackson is admittedly the rare director deluded enough to think such an extended running time is justified).

The likes of Deathly Hollows just about got away with it considering the narrative bulk. Just about. But it's inevitable both critics and audiences are going to be less forgiving of The Hobbit - even with all the extra stuff, it's looking like there's no way they're going to be able to justify a nine-hour running time for what is basically a short, lighthearted adventure story.

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

I dont understand the 3 movies thing either, 2 at a stretch but you could read the hobbit in a day, its not a big book. 3 LOTR movies made sense.

One review compared the film to the first hour of king kong where they're on the boat. Not good. I liked king kong but that first hour was what stopped it from being straight up brilliant imo, it was jackson at his self indulgent worst.

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Greed, pure and simple. It happened with Harry Potter, Twilight, Grindhouse (arguably even Kill Bill) and is going to happen with The Hunger Games too. If studios can get away with getting audiences to pay twice or three times instead of once, why wouldn't they? Screw artistic integrity or pacing (although Peter Jackson is admittedly the rare director deluded enough to think such an extended running time is justified).

The likes of Deathly Hollows just about got away with it considering the narrative bulk. Just about. But it's inevitable both critics and audiences are going to be less forgiving of The Hobbit - even with all the extra stuff, it's looking like there's no way they're going to be able to justify a nine-hour running time for what is basically a short, lighthearted adventure story.

At least Deathly hollows had a lot to fit in yeah, but even then the first part still felt like half a movie (though I still liked it). It's madness making the last hunger games book into 2 movies aswell, that whole trilogy can be read in a couple of sittings sure. The last book needs a lot of tightening up to work as a film too imo, as its a bit all over the place but they're just going to draw it out, can't see it working at all.

johnny_ultimate

The studios are, alas, more obsessed than ever with the amount of showings they can get away with per day - it's pretty much entirely unlikely you'll see a studio film break the 180 minute mark anymore (although even 180 minute blockbusters are very, very thin on the ground). We, depressingly, are little more than 'audience turnover' for them. Oh for the days of Lawrence of Arabia or Gone with the Wind when you could actually get away with uber-extended running times if the story deserved it

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Greed, pure and simple. It happened with Harry Potter, Twilight, Grindhouse (arguably even Kill Bill) and is going to happen with The Hunger Games too. If studios can get away with getting audiences to pay twice or three times instead of once, why wouldn't they? Screw artistic integrity or pacing (although Peter Jackson is admittedly the rare director deluded enough to think such an extended running time is justified).

The likes of Deathly Hollows just about got away with it considering the narrative bulk. Just about. But it's inevitable both critics and audiences are going to be less forgiving of The Hobbit - even with all the extra stuff, it's looking like there's no way they're going to be able to justify a nine-hour running time for what is basically a short, lighthearted adventure story.

To my shame I saw the last Twilight movie, nothing happens, literally NOTHING happens in the film, you could have condensed the entirety of Breaking Dawn pt 2 into a 15 minute montage and stuck it on the end of the last movie. Its 90 minutes of buildup and talking, a fight on a lake, and then thats it and (spoilers for anyone who actually cares)

the fight on the lake in the trailers doesnt actually happen, its a 10 minute sequence that turns out to be nothing more than a premonition, in reality they arrive at the lake, have a chat, go their seperate ways and then the movie ends, its horrible.

Someone does need to explain to Jackson that 3hr running times are mostly a films detriment when they dont need them, the original King Kong was what, 80 odd minutes? tells the exact same story that Jackson needed over 3hrs to tell in his bloated version. Its almost the lenght of most movies running times before they even get to the island ffs.

Sad Professor

Deathly Hallows could easily have been done in one film. The second film is mostly CGI battle scenes.

Anyway, there quite a few clips now online. This one gives you a sense of what critics are talking about when they complain about the CGI:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyrCkczHL8w