The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

messinkiapina

It's getting some dodgy reviews. I hope it bombs to be honest, they deserve to fail for been so greedy as to try and stretch this thing out to 3 movies at the expense of making the best movie they could have.

Mellor

Mickeroo wrote: »

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?

yeah, forgot about the middle scenes, thought it went from
Serkis fishing, to scene with CGI eyes (the last one Roar posted) or at least I think that ones part CGI.

Still think CGI wasn't a bad choice.

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.

I think you are forgetting about time scale of events here.

Smeagol found the ring, lived in a cave and slowly turned into Gollum. He had the ring for 500 years before he lost it to Bilbo (The Hobbit). The LotR events start 60 years later. So its not really a big chuck of his life. I thought they might have given him more hair, or something different for the hobbit, but I don't think its a continuity error that they didn't.

Bilbo had it for 60 years, and wasn't totally corrupted by it. Still a Hobbit. His aging and hair turning white in fellowship took 18 years.

Overheal

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

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.

Surely it can't be worse than Star Wars III: I think for the first whole 45 minutes of the film (especially everything on that damned space ship) was purely green screen, and it was distracting as hell.

snausages

messinkiapina wrote: »

It's getting some dodgy reviews. I hope it bombs to be honest, they deserve to fail for been so greedy as to try and stretch this thing out to 3 movies at the expense of making the best movie they could have.

It wont, unfortunately. It's such a sadness that they had to prolong and make a mess of what could have been such a good 2 1/2 hour adventure film. The worst thing is that unlike with Star Wars there's no real sense here of any redemption down the line. At least with Phantom Menace there was a chance that the next one might be better, whereas Desolation is still going to be an overlong adaptation of 100 pages or so with maybe some appendices stuff thrown in to muck up the pacing.

38% rotten from 'top critics' on RT atm. 75% fresh from 'all critics'

johnny_ultimate

Several of the film's more critical viewers at the screening on Monday did actually make very unfavorable comparisons to the work of George Lucas. There are some shots when it's as if he has had his wicked way in WETA Workshop. I don't know if it's as bad as Lucas' worst crimes against cinema, but we'll see how the next two films fare (not optimistic, though). And as for rotten tomatoes? Well they have Star Wars Episode III rated at 80%, so take from that what you will...

Also, I'm surprised how few critics seem to understand what exactly HFR is. Only some of the film's visual quirks can be accredited to 48 FPS presentation (although it's clearly one of the most immediately obvious features). While the framerate certainly further exaggerates the fakeness of the film at times, the ultra-clear resolution, post-production grading and unconvincing computer effects of individual frames are different albeit interconnected issues.

krudler

Mellor wrote: »

yeah, forgot about the middle scenes, thought it went from
Serkis fishing, to scene with CGI eyes (the last one Roar posted) or at least I think that ones part CGI.

Still think CGI wasn't a bad choice.


I think you are forgetting about time scale of events here.

Smeagol found the ring, lived in a cave and slowly turned into Gollum. He had the ring for 500 years before he lost it to Bilbo (The Hobbit). The LotR events start 60 years later. So its not really a big chuck of his life. I thought they might have given him more hair, or something different for the hobbit, but I don't think its a continuity error that they didn't.

Bilbo had it for 60 years, and wasn't totally corrupted by it. Still a Hobbit. His aging and hair turning white in fellowship took 18 years.

Doesnt Gandalf say to Bilbo "you haven't aged a day..." when he first sees him in FOTR. I thought the ring was keeping him young, not making him older, its only in ROTK you see him being ancient as he doesn't have the ring anymore. Its a pity Ian Holm couldnt reprise his role as a younger Bilbo, it'd actually make more sense than Martin Freeman being cast, he looks too young now.

Sad Professor

@johnny_ultimate

I obviously haven't seen it yet, but I think a lot of the ultra clearness you describe may be due to the frame rate as well. I don't think we realise just how much blurriness is created by 24fps. I'd be really interested to hear from someone who has seen the 2D version to know if this is a problem with that as well.

Tusky

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Several of the film's more critical viewers at the screening on Monday did actually make very unfavorable comparisons to the work of George Lucas. There are some shots when it's as if he has had his wicked way in WETA Workshop. I don't know if it's as bad as Lucas' worst crimes against cinema, but we'll see how the next two films fare (not optimistic, though). And as for rotten tomatoes? Well they have Star Wars Episode III rated at 80%, so take from that what you will...

Also, I'm surprised how few critics seem to understand what exactly HFR is. Only some of the film's visual quirks can be accredited to 48 FPS presentation (although it's clearly one of the most immediately obvious features). While the framerate certainly further exaggerates the fakeness of the film at times, the ultra-clear resolution, post-production grading and unconvincing computer effects of individual frames are different albeit interconnected issues.

snausages wrote: »

It wont, unfortunately. It's such a sadness that they had to prolong and make a mess of what could have been such a good 2 1/2 hour adventure film. The worst thing is that unlike with Star Wars there's no real sense here of any redemption down the line. At least with Phantom Menace there was a chance that the next one might be better, whereas Desolation is still going to be an overlong adaptation of 100 pages or so with maybe some appendices stuff thrown in to muck up the pacing.

38% rotten from 'top critics' on RT atm. 75% fresh from 'all critics'

I think yea are going way overboard. I agree that the decision to split the film into three was a mistake, and the overuse of CGI is a real problem with An Unexpected Journey, but comparing it to the Phantom Menace is way off. If the Lord of the Rings trilogy had never of been made, I think people would be looking at the Hobbit much more favorably. It's entertaining but flawed. While the Star Wars prequels were just a total mess in so many ways. At least An Unexpected Journey uses plenty of sets, costumes and actors to compliment the green screen (which is definitely overused).

Reviews in the range 3/5 to 4/5 would be bang on for me. 5/5 would be far too generous and either 1/5 or 2/5 is just silly. It's clearly not at that level.

Sad Professor

Sad Professor wrote: »

@johnny_ultimate

I obviously haven't seen it yet, but I think a lot of the ultra clearness you describe may be due to the frame rate as well. I don't think we realise just how much blurriness is created by 24fps. I'd be really interested to hear from someone who has seen the 2D version to know if this is a problem with that as well.

I would've thought that could be an issue alright, even a football looks fake for the first few minutes of a match on one of those TVs with a high refresh rate, even when the input is standard so I'd imagine CGI stuff could well stand out even more horribly.

snausages

Tusky wrote: »

I think yea are going way overboard. I agree that the decision to split the film into three was a mistake, and the overuse of CGI is a real problem with An Unexpected Journey, but comparing it to the Phantom Menace is way off. If the Lord of the Rings trilogy had never of been made, I think people would be looking at the Hobbit much more favorably. It's entertaining but flawed. While the Star Wars prequels were just a total mess in so many ways. At least An Unexpected Journey uses plenty of sets, costumes and actors to compliment the green screen (which is definitely overused).

Reviews in the range 3/5 to 4/5 would be bang on for me. 5/5 would be far too generous and either 1/5 or 2/5 is just silly. It's clearly not at that level.

Reason I mention TPM is that at least those films were original works penned by Lucas himself. Whereas with The Hobbit it's inextricably bound to the telling of a story most of us are familiar with. Star Wars had Darth Vader but it's a little difficult to get excited about There and Back Again's conclusion, other than the fact that we'll be getting a showdown with a Benedict Cumberbatch-voiced dragon. It's not an 'epic' story, so it's hard to justify its 'epic' telling. And I've never really watched the films for the big, epic battle sequences, so the possibility of any of that doesn't excite me either.

On your point about rating, Fellowship is the only film out of the original 3 I'd consider giving a 5/5, the other 2 somewhere between 3/5 and 4/5. If the Hobbit is as bad as all that then a 2/5 doesn't seem so far off the mark but again I try not to put much stock in ratings. Too subjective a system. I think it's something that people pay too much attention to. What worries me is the general trend of dislike towards the film. Even if RT is an unreliable way of measuring critical approval a 38% from 'top critics' doesn't bode well.

edit: scratch that, it's 50% now

Mickeroo

I reckon all the

Necromancer & Battle of 5 Armies

stuff will take centre stage for the other two films to try and make it more epic. Bilbo's plotline will take a back seat of sorts in terms of screentime, much the same way Sam & Frodo did in the other trilogy.

theteal

krudler wrote: »

Doesnt Gandalf say to Bilbo "you haven't aged a day..." when he first sees him in FOTR. I thought the ring was keeping him young, not making him older, its only in ROTK you see him being ancient as he doesn't have the ring anymore. Its a pity Ian Holm couldnt reprise his role as a younger Bilbo, it'd actually make more sense than Martin Freeman being cast, he looks too young now.

The ring was keeping him young. Bilbo appears again in FOTR when Frodo has awoken from the blade wound in Rivindel - just when the fellowship is forming. He appeared to have advanced in age a good bit by that stage. He even says that he's now too old for adventures or something to that effect iirc.

johnny_ultimate

Sad Professor wrote: »

@johnny_ultimate

I obviously haven't seen it yet, but I think a lot of the ultra clearness you describe may be due to the frame rate as well. I don't think we realise just how much blurriness is created by 24fps. I'd be really interested to hear from someone who has seen the 2D version to know if this is a problem with that as well.

Oh, no doubt at all HFR is hugely interconnected with the film's overall look. But there are times when - for whatever reason, and potentially the IMAX regrade - it's as if the RAW RED image hasn't been adapted for screens at all. I wrote down some thoughts on the film's presentation last night, anyway. It's a little geeky and long, but I wanted to try and articulate my disappointment with the film's visuals.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey arrives on screens pre-empted by hype it could not possibly live up to. And yes the film itself is an unwieldy monstrosity - the film's moderately enjoyable last hour barely makes up for the preceding levels of insufferable lore, exposition and general lack of focus. But this isn't a review of that stuff. Instead, I want to discuss the film's tech specs, and why for a variety of reasons The Hobbit emerges as one of the least cinematic and downright ugly films I've seen in recent times (although, unlike The Expendables 2, the cameras were at least in focus).

First, let us consider the much-hyped 48 FPS delivery. I cannot deny it - it's an incredibly disorientating experience from the moment the Warner Bros. and New Line logos appear on screen. We are being invited to temporarily abandon a cinematic look we've spent our lifetimes with, and it's not an easy ask. For the first hour, I was completely unable to get sucked into the film - the startlingly brisk movement was just that weird. I never really fully acclimatised to it - there was regularly something that looked not quite right to pull me right back out. Furthermore, the decision to display in horrible old 3D (which does have more depth than usual here, but is still pretty much aesthetically useless) alongside the HFR significantly neuters the benefits of smoother movement. A rapid camera maneuver may benefit from having twenty four extra frames of breathing space, but it matters little when the viewer's eyes are struggling to focus on the three-dimensional image anyway.

Still, oddly enough I think there's promise in the tech, just not in a fantasy as artificial as The Hobbit. There's a stunning helicopter pan near the start of the film when a character stands atop a real New Zealand mountain - for a brief moment, I could see the potential of a higher frame rate. I temporarily daydreamed about the possibilities of the BBC documentary crews getting their hands on the tech - HFR will lead to some beautiful wildlife documentaries, where attempts to capture reality, warts & all, are truly warranted. But it was but a brief thought, and in its current state the technology is too distracting and rough around the edges to truly 'wow'. 24 FPS is undoubtedly safe and sound for the time being.

But HFR - a very rough draft of a vaguely promising technology though it may be - cannot be held fully responsible for the film's other crippling aesthetic flaws. Full disclosure: I watched this film in Cineworld's Dublin new 'IMAX' screen, which is being heralded by the multiplex like the second coming of Christ. But this is misleading: it's just inferior 'digital IMAX' aka LIMAX. As ever, the aspect ratio is a dead giveaway that this is not the 70mm format that has benefited the likes of The Dark Knight. It's a slightly better digital setup than your usual multiplex screen, yes, but it is far from the overwhelming experience true IMAX offers. This problem has plagued international cinemagoers for years but is a cheeky new trick to further inflate ticket prices in what was already Dublin's most expensive cinema. An IMAX rep at the start of the film promised us a completely immersive experience. An Unexpected Journey is anything but. Anyway, some of the issues I am going to describe may have been exaggerated by the presentation (IMAX regrade and tinker with films for their projectors), but this film without doubt has some major visual issues that would be obvious on any digital projector. Although I probably won't have the enthusiasm to sit through a 2D screening of the film to prove that - the film truly is a slog. Comments are more than welcome for anyone who would like to counter accusations made here with evidence from different format screening. Maybe someone will even be lucky enough to see a print of it!

The ultra-clarity of the film's projection - further assisted by HFR - unfortunately only serves to emphasise the film's fakeness. In trying to heighten his film's sense of reality, Jackson has only drawn attention to its inherent artificiality. Accusations of the film looking like a TV soap opera have been tossed around since the 48 FPS debut earlier in the year, and they're not far off the mark. The film was shot on the RED Epic (dozens of them in this case) - an extremely capable camera in the right hands (if not quite as beloved as the Arri Alexa), as proven by the likes of Holy Motors or The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo. Alas, the film's grading has failed to adequately mask or even effectively utilise the digital qualities of the camera. This is a weird criticism, but the film is way too clean - there is no added film grain, for example, and the colour correction just doesn't look cinematic in the way we're used to. I'm not against progress, but this is a step in the wrong direction, absolutely shattering our suspended disbelief through clarity that constantly reminds us that we're watching an illusion of sets, props and actors. Some scenes - such as the Hobbiton exteriors - actually seem bizarrely overexposed, and the colour correcting team have done a very odd job indeed in some pivotal sequences.

Furthermore, the film is riddled with unconvincing CGI. I, for the record, loved how the Lord of the Rings looked - still the perfect example of how a marriage between practical SFX work and computer imagery could be harmonious and effective. Inevitably - and partly down to the danger of fan invasions of location shoots - The Hobbit has instead been shot predominantly on green screen, with tonnes more computer effects than its predecessor (or, narratively speaking, successor). The result is a film that looks much, much uglier than its older brothers.

Almost everything is CGIed, and only occasionally impressively (Gollum has received a welcome technical upgrade, and there's a spectacular sequence on a stormy mountain later on). This includes animals, rings, backgrounds, creatures, antagonists, action sequences, cities (come back miniatures, all is forgiven!), environmental effects etc... The WETA artists and render farms weren't up to the job, and further exasperated by the issues mentioned above, the effects are constantly distracting. There's only a handful of shots that don't suffer from some distinctly CG element screwing it up - even stuff that looked perfectly fine in LotR. Rivendell, for example, looks horrid here. A rabbit-drawn sled is just ridiculous. Action sequences are downright cartoonish, especially a ludicrous escape sequence through an orc layer (or are they goblins? I lost track amidst all the fantasy bull**** and lore). What happened to the WETA that crafted such a beautiful and compelling Middle Earth a decade ago? Their usually graceful fingerprints are absent here, and you'd be entirely forgiven for assuming that George Lucas had his wicked way with the images in the post-production house. Even the gorgeous New Zealand landscapes are under-utilised - only a few jogs across rolling hills remind us of the country's natural beauty, so well captured a decade ago. An Unexpected Journey is a reminder that we are long overdue a resurgence of practical effects in a digital world. At least Chris Nolan keeps getting the balance right, and the Dubai tower climb of Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol offers further evidence that a real stunt can impress far more than a CGI one can.

The content of the film is a disappointment, but technically The Hobbit is heartbreaking - embracing technology that is insufficient for the job at hand. Yes, HFR shows potential, and is undoubtedly something you haven't seen before. But this is an unwelcome introduction. Elsewhere, the film commits unforgivable crimes against the cinematic aesthetic, and the result is the least cinematic blockbuster I've ever sat through. Digital cinema is not a bad thing when handled correctly. We as cinephiles cannot and should not stand in the way of genuine progress if there are benefits to the artform - we can mourn the death of 35mm and 70mm, but must acknowledge the practical and artistic benefits of ever improving digital cameras and projection. But if The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is progress, then someone needs to get back to the drawing board.

Crooked Jack

So. just back from the hobbit and while it is by no means a bad film its certainly not a great one. the actual story itself is full of potential but the film just feels like lord of the rings light and becomes formulaic and predictable. at least half a dozen times the group is in peril and then saved at the last minute. as for the hfr, its still a technology in its infancy so perhaps we cant judge it yet. it shows some promise here but on the whole is distracting and unconvincing. often the backdrops just feel like sets with actors stood in front of them as if you were at a play. its also clashes with cgi which is a shame in such a cgi heavy film

Mellor

krudler wrote: »

Doesnt Gandalf say to Bilbo "you haven't aged a day..." when he first sees him in FOTR. I thought the ring was keeping him young, not making him older, its only in ROTK you see him being ancient as he doesn't have the ring anymore. Its a pity Ian Holm couldnt reprise his role as a younger Bilbo, it'd actually make more sense than Martin Freeman being cast, he looks too young now.

Not sure if you meant to quote me or somebody else.
It was the previous poster who said the ring was aged bilbo, I was pointing out that he only aged after he lost it.
It's not ROTK when you see him, its the middle of Fellowship as theteal said. In terms of the story, thats 18 years after he gives the ring away and leaves the Shire.

ScrubsfanChris

Going to see in 2D tomorrow. Even critics who liked the film are saying that's better.
But the funny thing is, if I don't like it I might not then go see it in 3D as well

Oafley Jones

Mahon point in cork is listing 2D HFR and 3D 24FPS. Is this correct, I thought HFR was 3D only. As negative as the reaction has been I'm still annoyed I won't get to see this as Jackson intended.

indough

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Mahon point in cork is listing 2D HFR and 3D 24FPS. Is this correct, I thought HFR was 3D only. As negative as the reaction has been I'm still annoyed I won't get to see this as Jackson intended.

I emailed them about that ages ago and they still didnt correct it

ScrubsfanChris

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Mahon point in cork is listing 2D HFR and 3D 24FPS. Is this correct, I thought HFR was 3D only. As negative as the reaction has been I'm still annoyed I won't get to see this as Jackson intended.

I'm seeing it in Douglas cinema and its def in 2D there, seven showings a day as well.

Sad Professor

Oafley Jones wrote: »

Mahon point in cork is listing 2D HFR and 3D 24FPS. Is this correct, I thought HFR was 3D only. As negative as the reaction has been I'm still annoyed I won't get to see this as Jackson intended.

It's a mistake. They aren't releasing it in 2D HFR, only 2D, 3D and 3D HFR. It looks like Omniplex got confused.

e_e

Was at a "screening" this morning in Dundrum. A 40 minute wait with somebody coming in every 10 minutes apologizing that the key to the projector was missing, eventually cancelled and offered refund. Wouldn't have happened with 35MM. :pac:

doubledown

Hi all - I have two spare tickets for The Hobbit in Cineworld at 19:30 tonight in full IMAX 48fps 3D glory.

They were booked weeks ago but my friend is sick and can't make it.

PM me if you want to buy them. Face value. No joke.

First come - first served.

Edit - tickets gone...

Kylo Ren

How are they splitting the three movies lads, in terms of the book?

ScrubsfanChris

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

I'm seeing it in Douglas cinema and its def in 2D there, seven showings a day as well.

Sorry Oafley Jones, misread your post earlier, after seeing the film in 2D it was 25fps from what I could tell.

Anyway, would give it 4/5 and thats a bit generous.

As far as action goes its much less than either 3 of the LOTR films and any foe they do come across seems to be dealt with fairly easily.

But it never felt boring and the 2.5 hours flew by, but I know some people would hate the slower pace :rolleyes:

Handsome Bob

Sorry to say that I found it very tedious, that's the best word I can use to describe it.

johnny_ultimate

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

But it never felt boring and the 2.5 hours flew by, but I know some people would hate the slower pace :rolleyes:

There's a significant distinction to be drawn between a successfully slow paced film, and a tedious, poorly paced slow film. The Hobbit for many, alas, will fall into the latter category.

Psychedelic

Are there any more films to be released in 48fps in the near future? Really want to see what it looks like but wouldn't be able to sit through 3 hours of middle Earth tedium, especially if it looks like crap anyway.

krudler

Psychedelic wrote: »

Are there any more films to be released in 48fps in the near future? Really want to see what it looks like but wouldn't be able to sit through 3 hours of middle Earth tedium, especially if it looks like crap anyway.

I would imagine a few directors are going to be seeing how it plays and watch audience feedback, can imagine the next Transformers movie will be given the cg heavy style of it.

snausages

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There's a significant distinction to be drawn between a successfully slow paced film, and a tedious, poorly paced slow film. The Hobbit for many, alas, will fall into the latter category.

Yeah. I mean you can have a taut, suspenseful flick or one like Lawrence of Arabia which has enough narrative bulk to justify its measured telling of events. Slow is good sometimes, but not all the time

Goldstein

Don't worry all. The problems will be sorted in time for the 29 hour Silmarillion Decalogy.