The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Funnily enough the look of the film is my biggest problem with it, and probably the single most disappointing thing about it It looks full on awful on the LIMAX screen. Genuinely shocked how poorly graded it was.

Really? awww, might just go with 2D then, is it the cgi or the actual look of the film itself?

mikhail

pixelburp wrote: »

And a question from me: I presume even with the 48fps screenings, the traditional Real3d glasses work fine - given the huge collection myself & friends have, I'd hate to think we couldn't use them.

The passive glasses will work fine. Ultimately, they're just polarising filters - a special kind of untinted sunglasses.

johnny_ultimate

Alright, where to begin...

So, as I said I think this film has serious aesthetic issues, ones which are far more fundamental than the 48 FPS presentation (which is hugely disorientating for an hour, and the benefits of smooth movement are completely negated by the nasty arefacts of 3D cinematography such as lack of focus. Still, it will be interesting to see other directors use the tech in future - hopefully in a less fantastical setting). The film is riddled with horrible, immersion-breaking CGI (animals, creatures, landscapes, everything), and the digital print is presented in such a 'clean' way that it's extremely distracting - ironically, Jackson's attempts to make his movie more natural only exaggerates its inherent artificiality. I have never lamented the death of film grain more than watching this film With a better grade, I think several of those problems could have been disguised. But everything put together - 3D, 48 FPS, RED Epic, bad colour grading, iffy CGI and digital projection - makes for a disappointingly ugly film. I'm not against progress, but I cannot possibly defend this film in terms of visual presentation. Perhaps 2D will help some issues, although the film is so uncomfortably 'digital' (and the RED can look great if utilised correctly) that I'm not sure it could disguise everything. Hopefully somewhere in Ireland will have an actual print... Otherwise, its easily the least 'cinematic' blockbuster I've ever seen, and its problems go way beyond the understandable acclimatisation period for HFR.

The second serious problem with the film is the one we all feared. In terms of pacing, this film is an absolute mess, which is all the more crushing because you can see how tighter editing and the cutting of entire sequences could have made for a sharper, much more enjoyable film. Alas, in its current state the film is completely bogged down with mind-numbing exposition, dull Middle Earth lore and a general lack of momentum & focus. I have a very low tolerance for fantasy bull****, and so all the stuff about elven swords and dastardly necromancers is absolutely insufferable here. There are times - especially during the 'flashbacks' and Rivendell sequences - where it all effectively shudders to a halt. The less said about the 'brown wizard' sequences the better. There is absolutely no doubt three films was a mistake.

Worse, the setpieces are dull and uninspired. Well, mostly anyway (I'll have a few nice things to say in a minute). Several action sequences end with the cheapest imaginable Deus Ex Machinas, with allies 'unexpectedly' swooping in (literally) to save the day - its the Helm's Deep 'twist' repeated again and again, with increasingly diminishing returns. I hate the phrase 'like a videogame', but the goblin chase sequence particularly is appallingly artificial (oh: anyone who has played Dark Souls may notice some similarities to Blighttown, but that's neither here nor there ). The adversaries all speak in ridiculous cockney actions that remove any sense of threat, and the comedy falls flat. This is inevitable really, but the company of dwarfs completely lack the charisma of the Fellowship, but I'm not sure that was in anyway avoidable. The 'cameos' from returning characters are little more than bulk on a film that is already very bloated indeed.

OK, what's actually good about it then? Well, the confrontation with the

mountain giants

is suitably spectacular (probably not coincidence that said

giants

don't speak). The Gollum scenes could have used some tighter editing (although everything could have used tighter editing), but they're very well realised, and Serkis goes a step beyond even his efforts in LotR. The film is too busy cutting between less interesting characters to give him enough attention, but Freeman is solidly charismatic, and McKellen is as reliable as usual. And yes the returning music cues are nostalgically rousing, although it would be wonderful if Jackson and Howard Shore didn't feel the need to score every single scene with epic compositions. Oh,

and the very last scene teases that the film will have at least one worthy CGI creation - that's some eye!

Yes, this year has offered significantly worse films than The Hobbit, but its offered few as disappointing, which TBH is a little crushing. The potential is there, and very occasionally that old Middle Earth charm is there to remind us why we loved Jackson's earlier opus. But this is a faux-opus, an attempt to make a story that isn't epic unnecessarily epic. It is overly padded and far too indulgent, dragged down further by surprising technical inadequacies (all the more distressing when we remember the Rings trilogy achieved the ultimate balance of practical cinematography and computer effects). If you think I'm being harsh, some much bigger Tolkien fans I was with left the cinema absolutely raging. I'm sure many will find stuff to enjoy in An Unexpected Journey, but it's been a while since I left a cinema so dissatisfied

snausages

That's a pretty thorough trashing. But even before this whole trilogy lark Jackson's work on Lovely Bones had me worried for how this one would turn out. That film managed to feel longer than the entire LOTR trilogy. Still going to check it out mind. It seems a disservice to Middle Earth to not watch it in the cinema. But it will more than likely be in 24fps.

Gbear

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I have a very low tolerance for fantasy bull****, and so all the stuff about elven swords and dastardly necromancers is absolutely insufferable here. There are times - especially during the 'flashbacks' and Rivendell sequences - where it all effectively shudders to a halt. The less said about the 'brown wizard' sequences the better. There is absolutely no doubt three films was a mistake.

Pretty thorough and pretty damning.

On this point, as a colossal Tolkien nerd who's read the Hobbit and the LOtR dozens of times as well as the Silmarillion another half a dozen I love this kind of stuff. But I know that people who aren't as interested in it - the bulk of the viewing public - aren't. This is exactly the sort of stuff I'd be happy to see in a directors cut.

I'm obviously still going to see it. Given your views on the appearance, do you think there is much gained by seeing it on the big screen? Some films it doesn't really matter but something like Avatar was saved from being utter ****e by being a really enjoyable visual experience on the big screen.

Mickeroo

Bizarrely enough johnny's post has eased my fears a bit since I've a pretty high tolerence for fantasy bull****

johnny_ultimate

Gbear wrote: »

I'm obviously still going to see it. Given your views on the appearance, do you think there is much gained by seeing it on the big screen? Some films it doesn't really matter but something like Avatar was saved from being utter ****e by being a really enjoyable visual experience on the big screen.

Well I think all films benefit from the big screen, although I would advise anyone who really wants to see the film to stay the hell away from HFR screenings or Cineworld 17 for the first viewing. As I said, I do think the visual issues are much deeper than that, and 48 FPS is undoubtedly a new and confusing experience worth sitting through. But some of the film's issues might be less pronounced in standard format. The biggest question is, of course, whether you'd be willing to sit through it twice to find out I'm curious to, but really would struggle to stay attentive for a second viewing.

As for the 'fantasy bull****', I fully admit a pronounced personal dislike for that sort of thing. But even Tolkien fans at the screening were left irritated by the way its presented here, and it very distinctly gets in the way of the story being told for no good reason. One would need a very keen interest in Middle Earth lore to get the most out of An Unexpected Journey.

snausages

Maybe he's trying to assuage all the weirdos out there who thought that Tom Bombadil deserved a spot in Fellowship.

Tusky

Saw this in Cineworld IMAX-lite earlier, in 3D 48fps.

The first thing to say is that it's difficult to judge the appearance of the film because it's hard to know what feature is responsible for what. I found myself thinking, "I wonder what that would look like in 2D" and questioning how things would look if it was in a normal frame rate.

The 48fps is incredibly jarring for at least 45 minutes to an hour, before your eye settles into it. There's no doubting that it can be incredibly impressive, often making you feel like you are in the room with the characters due to the hyper-realistic lifelike quality. On the other hand, you also often feel like you are watching a TV soap, particularly in the early Shire sequences. I'd be keen to see it used in a non-fantasy setting. Often impressive, but I definitely wouldn't want all filmmakers to start filming this way.

Onto the film itself - it's certainly no Lord of the Rings, but then again, neither is it source material. It feels like a really good children's adventure film, rather an epic adult fantasy, but again, I guess this is a reflection of the source material. I was very much entertained for the entire running time, but I do have some significant gripes.

My very biggest disappointment is a particularly heart breaking one. This film is littered with far too much CGI characters, monsters and set pieces. The CGI itself is incredibly impressive on a technical level, but I always favor makeup, prosthetics and the use of real actors over computer effects.

All of the goblins in this film are done with CGI, which is particularly annoying as the orks in Lord of the Rings were done so well, and I was of the belief that Jackon understood the importance of using CGI only when necessary. Maybe that belief is a little misplaced however, considering his work on the Lovely Bones, King Kong and sections of Return of the Kind.

With this over use of CGI comes a lack of threat - I can't explain it, but I just cannot find a computer generated monster scary or threatening. And in certain scenes in the Hobbit, Jackson throws so many CGI creatures at the screen that they are literally bouncing off one another, and you lose any sort of sense of danger or concern for the protagonist or his friends. Again, I accept CGI is often unavoidable (you obviously can't create a dragon with models and prosthetics) but they went too far here.

Most annoyingly however, is Jackson's decision to use CGI to create the main villain when an actor in makeup clearly could have been used (think back to the excellent disfigured ork commander in Return of the King). This may not bother others as much as it does me, I was one of the few people that found Gollem an unnecessary CGI character too. Again, he was very impressive technically, but I much preferred the image of Gollum during the pre-credits sequence in Return when he is played by Sekris in makeup.

The decision to split the film into three is also problematic as the first part is lacking in plot. They essentially go from A to B to C to D, but often their motive is muddled or just plain silly, with far too much exposition.

On the positive side, Freeman is very likable as Bilbo, and all of the dwarves look great, even if they do go a little over the top on the 'slapstick' gags. You really get a sense of the size of the dwarves and the hobbits compared to Gandlaf in the opening scenes, which works really well. There is some incredible cinematography on show here, and I often found myself staring in awe at the screen. Many of the action set-pieces are creative and v.entertaining.

It's an entertaining and technically impressive action adventure, which trottles along at speed in the second half. However, this is a flawed beast at heart and never comes close to the high benchmark set by the rings trilogy.

david75

SPOILER ALERT SO BE WARNED.


I hate being negative so I'm gonna try be honest having seen it.
I read a review by a fan on Theonering.net that nailed how I felt.
Filming LOTR they had to pick the really important dramatic moments from a book crammed with detail down to the last flower petal and make them big features within each film and somehow make the points between each feel natural and faithful to the story. They succeeded admirably. Each film has an ambient tension and element of threat. Mission to accomplish against overwhelming odds against a powerful enemy.

Hobbit is a totally different story. It's a light heart ramble through some landscape spiked with some hairy moments. The big mistake Jackson et al have made is that they've tried to bring that sense of threat via azog or whatever his name is. It doesn't really work because we've seen LOTR and know what real threat on scale feels like. You are going to leave this film wishing with all your heart that he'd made the hobbit movies first.

Even the actual appearance of the necromancer(sauron) is robbed of it's strength because the overall tone is lighthearted and Jackson is trying to add a layer of threat. So it ambles along, he tries to jizz the pace up with questionable stuff like the scene with radagast being chased etc. But it does the opposite of it's intent. You kind of just want them to get on with it.

It's cast perfectly bar one. Gandalf and bilbo OWN every scene theyre in and you want more of them. Thorin, sadly is an overwrought overplayed mess. I get that he feels robbed and has a legitimate chip the size of a mountain on his shoulder. Armitage fumbles this. Overplays it. And there are 13 dwarves. I reckon four of them get to speak and have a presence. One or two don't have lines at all. And in such an overlong film I'm sure they could have found them some. I'm gonna go see it again and try remember it's a very very different type of story than fellowship. I don't think Jackson remembered that and he sorts of follows that exact template even down to the final shot of the dwarves. It mimics frodo and sam looking over the emyn muil at the the of fellowship exactly. So it goes for the whole film. He sets up the history and events perfectly but you're still left feeling kind of off about it somehow.

I'm gonna love it once I can sit down and really watch it at home but as another review said, it sorta does feel like a big bbbc Christmas special production. And weirdly looks like one too. That wow factor you got in endless punches in fellowship isn't there in this one. Or rather, it is, but it's just not done as well.

I'm rambling. It's great. It's just creaking loudly under the weight of our expectation perhaps. It's certainly not amazing.

Mellor

Tusky wrote: »

Most annoyingly however, is Jackson's decision to use CGI to create the main villain when an actor in makeup clearly could have been used (think back to the excellent disfigured ork commander in Return of the King).

I'm kinda wondering who you might be referring to here.

This may not bother others as much as it does me, I was one of the few people that found Gollem an unnecessary CGI character too. Again, he was very impressive technically, but I much preferred the image of Gollum during the pre-credits sequence in Return when he is played by Sekris in makeup.

That was Sekris playing Smeagol, when he was still a Hobbi and not Gollum. Having Gollum look like that too wouldn't illustrate the fact that 100s of years in the Dark with the Ring physically changed him.

smcgiff

Saw it last night at a media screening, wont give away any plot...

Tolkien fans will think this movie is about 3 hours short, most others will think an hour was added on to make it a LoTR companion.

Surprisingly the CGI was very poor and added a cartoonish element to it. There were also a lot more unrealistic elements (by which I don't mean magic, but characters surviving really long falls etc). This was more of a kids film, whereas LoTR I felt had some scary enough moments. I also think Sir Ian was phoning it in, I think he just go bored.

Whereas LoTR had a big book to film around, the hobbit has been stretched to make three films, and it suffers imho. 2/5 sounds about right.

However, if anyone reads this and hasn't seen the movie at least they may enjoy it all the more as their expectations may be lowered.

Tusky

Mellor wrote: »

I'm kinda wondering who you might be referring to here.

Only thing in the spoiler is the characters I'm talking about.

The Albino Ork in The Hobbit is done complete with CGI. I felt he should have been done like Gothmog - the Ork commander in Return of the King. Or any of the other orks, which were all excellent.

That was Sekris playing Smeagol, when he was still a Hobbi and not Gollum. Having Gollum look like that too wouldn't illustrate the fact that 100s of years in the Dark with the Ring physically changed him.

During the pre-credits sequence in Return of the King, we see Sekris portraying Smeagol part way into his transformation to Gollum. I would have favored that kind of approach, albeit with even more makeup, to create Gollum. Look at some of the creatures in the likes of Pans Labyrinth - its more than possible to create monsters without using CGI. When people look back on Lord of the Rings in 20 years, as people always do with classic films, Gollum will look horribly dated, as do all CGI characters. The Monsters in Pans Labyrnth however, will stand the test of time, just like the alien in The Thing.

Mellor

Tusky wrote: »

Only thing in the spoiler is the characters I'm talking about.

The Albino Ork in The Hobbit is done complete with CGI. I felt he should have been done like Gothmog - the Ork commander in Return of the King. Or any of the other orks, which were all excellent.

I was under the impression individual orcs would be make up - eg Bolg photos released a while ago - an CGI was used for large groups. Strange that that did one CGI and the other live action.
http://images.wikia.com/lotr/images/f/fb/Bolg-1-.jpg

During the pre-credits sequence in Return of the King, we see Sekris portraying Smeagol part way into his transformation to Gollum. I would have favored that kind of approach, albeit with even more makeup, to create Gollum.

Unless im having a complete blank. That scene was Smeagol before any transformation. He had only just found the ring.
The whole point was that he had become a skinny creature unrecognisable as once being a hobbit. Unless Serkis lost weight like Christian Bale in The Machinist, I think CGI was a better option.
Basically, I think CGI has huge flaws, but Gollum in LotR is a good example if the flaws imo.

Tusky

Mellor wrote: »

I was under the impression individual orcs would be make up - eg Bolg photos released a while ago - an CGI was used for large groups. Strange that that did one CGI and the other live action.
http://images.wikia.com/lotr/images/f/fb/Bolg-1-.jpg

There are a small few non CG orks/goblins but the vast majority are done with CGI. Again, the one that grates the most is the main villain, who is totally CG. He has that horrible 'plastic' appearance that all CG characters have.

Unless im having a complete blank. That scene was Smeagol before any transformation. He had only just found the ring.
The whole point was that he had become a skinny creature unrecognisable as once being a hobbit. Unless Serkis lost weight like Christian Bale in The Machinist, I think CGI was a better option.
Basically, I think CGI has huge flaws, but Gollum in LotR is a good example if the flaws imo.

I only watched Return of the King on Sunday night so it's very fresh in my mind. I've searched for a photo of what I'm talking about but can't find it. We see Sekris playing Smeagol, then we see Sekris playing a Smeagol/Gollum hybrid which is not CG. Then we see full CG Gollum.

Mellor

Tusky wrote: »

I only watched Return of the King on Sunday night so it's very fresh in my mind. I've searched for a photo of what I'm talking about but can't find it. We see Sekris playing Smeagol, then we see Sekris playing a Smeagol/Gollum hybrid which is not CG. Then we see full CG Gollum.

It's do weird. I'm drawing a complete blank on that.
It's been a long day, will come to me tomorrow - either that or I'll be dreaming of middle earth shortly

Tusky

Mellor wrote: »

It's do weird. I'm drawing a complete blank on that.
It's been a long day, will come to me tomorrow - either that or I'll be dreaming of middle earth shortly

Check the link in your private messages!

Mickeroo

There's a few shots towards the end of the sequence where he's only half transformed into Gollum and it's still Serkis playing him in make-up, I reckon thats what Tusky is on about?

Roar

Like this?

homerun_homer

From the previews/trailers alone I was thinking it was a bad move having Gollum look exactly like he was in LOTR. Jackson and the filmmakers kept comparing the Ring and it's holder to like being addicted to drugs/junkies so therefore in the years between Hobbit and LOTR Gollum would have deteriorated in appearance. Therefore looking exactly as he does in LOTR doesn't quite add up for me. Just look at how quick it affected Bilbo and began to age him.

Mickeroo

homerun_homer wrote: »

From the previews/trailers alone I was thinking it was a bad move having Gollum look exactly like he was in LOTR. Jackson and the filmmakers kept comparing the Ring and it's holder to like being addicted to drugs/junkies so therefore in the years between Hobbit and LOTR Gollum would have deteriorated in appearance. Therefore looking exactly as he does in LOTR doesn't quite add up for me. Just look at how quick it affected Bilbo and began to age him.

But the ring slowed Bilbo's aging, it wasn't until he handed it over to Frodo that he aged fast. Gollum is hundreds of years old iirc, so I don't think it's a stretch to have him looking much the same in this and LOTR.

johnny_ultimate

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Ring itself is a more horrid CGI creation than Gollum (who has gotten a suitable makeover, especially in the expression department). It's a frickin' gold ring - don't know how they made it so unconvincing in a couple of shots.

Beano

Does anybody know if the IMAX 3D version shown in cineworld on Parnell street will be shown in HFR or regular 24FPS? I contacted cineworld directly but no reply yet.

johnny_ultimate

The screenings there over the last few days have all been HFR so would be baffled if it wasn't that way for general release.

snausages

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I can say without a shadow of a doubt that the Ring itself is a more horrid CGI creation than Gollum (who has gotten a suitable makeover, especially in the expression department). It's a frickin' gold ring - don't know how they made it so unconvincing in a couple of shots.

Could you elaborate on that? I mean, is there an actual ring in the film or are we talking about the fancy cg-ed elvish gibberydook (firey letters)?

johnny_ultimate

snausages wrote: »

Could you elaborate on that? I mean, is there an actual ring in the film or are we talking about the fancy cg-ed elvish gibberydook (firey letters)?

There was just a few shots of slow-motion ring spinning looked very fake indeed. It's not the only thing, of course - green screen backgrounds, Rivendell, fire effects and others suffer hugely from ultra-clear presentation. But the poor Ring effects - theoretically such a simple thing - were actually distracting in a handful of shots. The Ring was CGI before, of course, but this film's overly detailed imagery only exaggerates any unconvincing SFX. So it's the little things, the things that have no good reason to be CGIed, that pulled me out of the film on occasion.

Beano

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

The screenings there over the last few days have all been HFR so would be baffled if it wasn't that way for general release.

cool.

johnny_ultimate

There's a PDF at this link of all HFR times in Cineworld: http://www.cineworld.ie/news/403/detail

I have described my feelings about it above, but once again I would advise that I thought seeing it in Cineworld was a very distracting experience, and as far from the 'total immersion' promised by the pre-film spiels as possible. HFR is worth a look for the curious, but definitely approach with caution.

david75

Sad news. Ian McKellan has prostate cancer. Roll on the 'you shall not pass!' jokes.

VinLieger

So whats the general consensus about to book tickets, 48 or 24 in 3d? or just go for 2d?