The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

heebusjeebus

Jeez, I came out well impressed there. Far better than I had anticipated and the 3 hours rushed by.
It was great to be back in Middle Earth again and the peaks and valleys some reviews were complaining about were not something that troubled me.

Saw the movie in Movies @ Dundrum and it said over the door it was "The Hobbit HFR" but I couldn't really tell a difference.
The action was a lot better in this than in the original LotR movies. There were less shakey-cam battle shots and a lot more sweeping mid range shots instead.

The CGI was fantastic in some scenes and only the wargs let it down (not as bad as the wargs in the Two Towers though).

All in all, I'll watch it again in a heartbeat (in 2D this time) and cant wait for the second movie next year.

lertsnim

e_e wrote: »

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:

Similar happened in Dungarvan this afternoon but they played it eventually. I liked the film and I never was bored watching it. The HFR was a bit odd though but after getting used to it I really liked it.

bronxbull67

I have to say I enjoyed the film immensely and the nearly three hours flew by. Of course not all of the dwarves have much to say nor are their characters fully rounded but it is entertaining nonetheless.
I did feel that old Bilbo and Sarumans voices were older than the LOTR but that may have been just my imagination as visually they were excellent.
New Zealand once again is shown in all its glory and I look forward to The Desolation of Smaug in a years time.

Josey Wales

I saw The Hobbit earlier at one of the HFR 3D showings. I was surprised by how well I took to the look. I've seen 48fps footage before and always found it very strange. I guess sitting through something so long you just get used to it. The clarity that it brings to the image is stunning in some scenes. Particularly any panning shots of New Zealand.

One of the issues with such clarity is that I found the CG just didn't stand up to the extra scrutiny. It was great to see battle scenes so clearly. There were many parts when the film looked ugly and it seemed the sets were cheap looking. There were times when it was distracting as it seemed the film was running fast but I know that wasn't the case.

As for the film itself I was underwhelmed by it and maybe even bored at times. There wasn't any scene in this movie as exciting or iconic as the troll cave in Fellowship or the death of Boromir in The Fellowship.

heebusjeebus wrote: »

The CGI was fantastic in some scenes and only the wargs let it down (not as bad as the wargs in the Two Towers though).

I think it is a bit unfair to compare CG created over ten years ago with the effects of today.

heebusjeebus

Josey Wales wrote: »

I think it is a bit unfair to compare CG created over ten years ago with the effects of today.

I'm not really though. I'm saying that the wargs were the worst CGI in the Hobbit and they happened to be the worst CGI in The Two Towers.

ScrubsfanChris

What cinemas in Ireland if any, have showings in 48fps?

Josey Wales

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

What cinemas in Ireland if any, have showings in 48fps?

Cineworld on Parnell Street and Odeon at The Point Village.

ScrubsfanChris

Josey Wales wrote: »

Cineworld on Parnell Street and Odeon at The Point Village.

Thanks, none in the south then?

No luck at The Gate or Mahon Omniplex..

krudler

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

What cinemas in Ireland if any, have showings in 48fps?

Limerick Ominplex and The Eye in Galway do

lertsnim

ScrubsfanChris wrote: »

Thanks, none in the south then?

SGC Dungarvan has the 48fps showings

cherryghost

Thought it was ok. Stupidly long unneccessary scenes were a bore, but the important bits, the one relative to the actual storyline, were rather enjoyable. 7/10, deducting 3 marks just for those scenes. The cast were excellent, visuals were excellent, sound was excellent.

dirtyden

The overall impression for me of this film is that Jackson was much more concerned about how it looked rather than how it flowed.

So much un-necessary footage. Some of the set pieces were fantastic but there was no flow. It seemed like a collection of unconnected set piece scenes.

Whilst i did not walk out of the theatre disappointed I will have no intention of seeing the remaining 2 parts. Nice to look it, but completely soulless.

cherryghost

What did everyone make of

The dinner scene at the beginning. Complete waste of time, almost put me off the film completely before it finally started to settle a bit once they were approaching Rivendale

and

The Gollum scene. WHY?! What was the ****ing point making a 20+ minute Golem scene that was just terrible in every conceiveable way?

heebusjeebus

cherryghost wrote: »

What did everyone make of

The dinner scene at the beginning. Complete waste of time, almost put me off the film completely before it finally started to settle a bit once they were approaching Rivendale

and

The Gollum scene. WHY?! What was the ****ing point making a 20+ minute Golem scene that was just terrible in every conceiveable way?

The "Gollum scene" is the lynch pin of the entire series of movies.
Why was is so terrible for you?

ricero

Really enjoyed it, was great to be back in middle - earth again

VinLieger

cherryghost wrote: »

What did everyone make of

The dinner scene at the beginning. Complete waste of time, almost put me off the film completely before it finally started to settle a bit once they were approaching Rivendale

and

The Gollum scene. WHY?! What was the ****ing point making a 20+ minute Golem scene that was just terrible in every conceiveable way?

Cannot understand your problem with either of these as they are such key points in the book and although he may not have kept to the book exactly they were done well, in fact i thought the whole chase part between the trolls and rivendell was crap, it simply was there to help enforce the threat of the new villain whose name i couldnt be bothered remembering

Basq

Maybe I wasn't expecting too much, but I loved it.

Was it as good as any of The Lord Of The Rings movies? No, probably not.. but that's a tall order IMO.

But was it as disappointing at TDKR? In my opinion, not even close.

There was an overload of CGI, but it didn't hurt it and wasn't too distracting. The cast were all great - particularly Nesbitt, Armitage and Freeman.

Standout scenes were Riddles In The Dark and the three trolls (

didn't Bilbo have the ring at that point in the book?

).

It's a different film to Lord Of The Rings, but it's unmistakenly Jackson - who let's face it, seems to thrive in Middle Earth.

Will write more tomorrow but on iPad now.

PS - watched it in 25fps 2D by the way.

jim-jam

I really loved the film.

I was looking forward to the stuff taken from the appendices rather than the main narrative but I really enjoyed that as well. It was CGI heavy but I didn't really notice until it came to

the Goblin King and Azog, who looked awful

.

Casting seems to be spot on. I wasn't completely sold on Freeman when he was announced as Bilbo but he did a great job.

I'm really looking to seeing more of Dol Guldur and the White Council stuff.

FortyFour

heebusjeebus wrote: »

Saw the movie in Movies @ Dundrum and it said over the door it was "The Hobbit HFR" but I couldn't really tell a difference.

yeah, me too, and i literally noticed no difference at all.

with all the fuss there's been over this i'm wondering now if it was really projected at 48fps in dundrum. because if it was then imo you'd have to be a completely obsessive videophile to notice any difference from any other 3d movie. and i somehow doubt all the regular dudes at comic con fit that description, surely they're all just normal joes who have the aspect ratio set wrong on their tellies. all these mainstream movie bloggers having these fierce debates...

johnny_ultimate

If you didn't notice it, then it is really unlikely that you saw it in 48 FPS. It's obvious and disorientating from the second the distributor logos appear on screen. Whether you liked or hated it is one thing, but I honestly cannot imagine anyone could not notice how startlingly different it looks to any film you've ever seen before.

FortyFour

And curiosity about the hfr was the main reason i was interested in the hobbit in the first place, so i went in expecting something very noticable.

I'd be interested to hear from anyone else who saw one of the hfr screenings in dundrum, whether you noticed any difference at all from, say, the avengers or prometheus, or any other big 3d movie of this year.

Fooker

I think it certainly could have been edited better. The opening I think could have been arranged better. The whole bit with Frodo I think was unnecessary. It should really have started with the "in a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit".

The introduction of Gandalf could have been done more cleverly and it didn't seem to flow well to the dwarf feast, which itself was too long.

The stone giants I think could have been left out, even if it meant being untrue to the book(That ship has sailed).

I don't think the Necromancer story arc fits that well into the story and Rhadagast's character seems a bit at odds with the tone of the movie.

Overall I did enjoy it alot. It wasn't brilliant, but it was alot better than I had feared. certainly the whole 3d thing was blown way out of proportion. The movie should have been cut earlier and there was too much action upon action at the end.

I thought the acting was very good in general. I think the reviews have been affected by rose tinted glasses, 10 years is a long time to put the LOTR on a pedestal.

heebusjeebus

I'll also say this for the "HFR" showing in Dundrum, I had no eye strain after it which is impressive considering it's nearly 3 hours long. I remember feeling hungover coming out of Avatar.

Mitch Connor

heebusjeebus wrote: »

I'll also say this for the "HFR" showing in Dundrum, I had no eye strain after it which is impressive considering it's nearly 3 hours long. I remember feeling hungover coming out of Avatar.

Was told prior he movie that it was def the HFR, and no reason to think I was being lied to, but I would agree that I didn't really notice it. there were a few scenes where I thought things looked a bit odd, but for the majority of the movie I just thought it was a really crisp and clean image.

s_carnage

Saw it yesterday and have to say I thought it was great. Couldn't believe when the final credits came up as it didn't feel like that long of a film at all. Really got sucked into it and can't wait for the next one.

Frank Black

Saw this yesterday evening - the 3D 24 FPS version.

First off, it helps if you've low expectations going into it. I'd read a lot of negative comments prior to the film and wasn't expecting it to be amazing.

The main problem with the film is nothing to do with CGI or frame rates - a discussion which has clogged up this thread and bored me to tears - it's the pacing.

45mins could have been easily cut and the result would have been a far superior movie.
It was nice to go back to The Shire and see some of the old characters from the original trilogy, although surely I can't be the only one to find Cate Blanchett's performance unintentionally hilarious, I mean even the way she turns around to face people is over-the-top.

I can't understand a previous poster's comments about the Gollum riddle scene - it's the key scene of the book and puts in motion the events of the LOTR. I thought it was fantastically done. In some ways, that is the most frustrating thing about the movie. There are loads of glimpses of how good a director Jackson is, and how great a movie it could have been - if only someone could have reigned him in a bit.

Regarding the 3D - I for one thought it added nothing. If I was to watch it again I'd opt for the 2D version.

beardedmaster

heebusjeebus wrote: »

Jeez, I came out well impressed there. Far better than I had anticipated and the 3 hours rushed by.
It was great to be back in Middle Earth again and the peaks and valleys some reviews were complaining about were not something that troubled me.

Saw the movie in Movies @ Dundrum and it said over the door it was "The Hobbit HFR" but I couldn't really tell a difference.
The action was a lot better in this than in the original LotR movies. There were less shakey-cam battle shots and a lot more sweeping mid range shots instead.

The CGI was fantastic in some scenes and only the wargs let it down (not as bad as the wargs in the Two Towers though).

All in all, I'll watch it again in a heartbeat (in 2D this time) and cant wait for the second movie next year.

Hear hear. I was at the 9pm showing last night in Dundrum and I thought the film was amazing. I am a long-term fan of the books, having read the Hobbit, LotR, Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales when I was in primary school (yes.. I'm one of those). I guess you could call me a die-hard Tolkien fan, but my expectations of this film were very high indeed, particularly due to all the hype in the making of these in comparison to the LotR trilogy.

Great to see Gollum again! Seeing him, perfectly content in his habitat, so to speak, was refreshing, as opposed to all the time searching and longing for the Ring. He's been there for hundreds of years, and you get a feeling that he was enjoying Bilbo's company as much as he was looking forward to eating him. He has his little cave, and his little boat, and of course the Ring.. he's as happy as larry! The effect of his loss of it, even from that scene, is apparent, and I very much enjoyed watching it. The riddles scene itself was very well done, I thought.

The CGI graphics of the film seemed perfectly good to me, the usual very high standard. As I said before, I went to the 9pm showing in Dundrum that was in 3D, and said to be in HFR.. I noticed no dizziness or disorientation in watching the film.. so either I accustomed to it very quickly and didn't find it a problem, or Dundrum told me a big fib in saying which version they were playing. The picture was extremely clear of course, and the landscape shots mindblowing.

I am bewildered by the people who didn't like the length of the scenes in the Shire, or the scenes of the Dwarves in Bag End. You get to see enough action in the these films, so why not just let the characters actually have some craic for once! Especially the fact that this is the first film of six in Middle-Earth, let alone of the Hobbit trilogy, which I feel should be taken into consideration.

As for the flashbacks/history/mythology aspect, with the history of the Dwarves, I was amazed at how well it looked and how the race was shown. The story was told in such a way that you get a proper insight into the plight of Durin's folk after the loss of Erebor.. and after seeing Elves and Men fight so much in the LotR trilogy, it was great to see a large-scale battle with Dwarves in it for once (they should have been in the Battle of Dagorlad with the Last Alliance at the beginning of FotR.. but that's another matter..)

The only minor gripe I would have from a film perspective was that I think, like some others here, that the Company is not well fleshed-out enough yet. Nori, Dori, Oin and Gloin have yet to really do or say anything that makes them distinguish themselves from each other, with the exception of Oin's ear-trumpet thing. However, having read the various character-bios online that they put out as part of the the leadup to the film, there is a good deal there about each of the characters - I can only assume that we will get to know them much more as the films proceed.

As for the changes from the source material, having Azog kill Thror as part of the battle instead of before it was well done, it certainly added to his death from a dramatic point of view. And having Azog as an active antagonist, hunting the company, I thought was a welcome change, adding a more consistent feel rather than just generic Orcs chasing the company.
However, since Azog was only wounded in the Battle of Azanulbizar, and not killed by Dain, I am wondering how they are going to portray Dain in the forthcoming films as the warrior he is in the book. Dain Ironfoot is pretty much put forward as the staunchest, mightiest warrior the dwarves have got, having in the book killed Azog when he was only child by their standards. I have a feeling that he may have a role to play in the second film as far as the Azog goes, as Azog's son, Bolg, is already mentioned as being cast, so presumably will play the original role that he did as the leader of the Orcs in the Battle of Five Armies.

All in all, of course, I am amazed at how much I enjoyed the film, and will go to see it again whenever I next get the chance.

beardedmaster

And by the way, Dundrum have confirmed on their Facebook page that the screening at 9 last night in Screen 1 was indeed 48fps. I thought as much.

maquiladora

48fps - I was very concerned going into this, but I was surprised how quickly I adjusted to it. After maybe 5 minutes in I was used to it. Absolutely loved it. The smoothness it gave to camera movements and the level of clarity & detail in wide shots and action scenes was amazing to behold. Several moments left me feeling awestruck. It's not perfect, some of the early stuff did feel weird before I got used to it, but the advantages it brought to me way exceeded those minor negatives.

3D - I don't know how it would have looked in 24fps, but in 48fps it was the best, most immersive 3D I've seen yet. Thankfully 95% of the time it's not the 3D type that is 'stuff jumping out at you', it's much more a feeling of depth. I found no messy, blurry sensations even with the fastest of camera movements with so much stuff going on on the screen. And after nearly 3 hours I had zero eyestrain. So for me it was the best 3D experience I've had so far.

The film itself - Went in with low expectations after the very mixed reviews. But I absolutely loved it. It had a different tone and feeling from LOTR, but still very much within the same cinematic world. The only thing I didn't like was Radagast - too goofy, but he isn't in it much so not a big deal. Loved pretty much everything else. Bilbo was perfect. Gollum was incredible. Balin and Thorin were my favorite dwarves. Gandalf the Grey proves again that he is so much better than the White. It really did feel like being back in Middle Earth in the best possible way. Almost all the CG looked astonishing to me, and sadly makes a lot of the stuff in LOTR look very dated in comparison.
So many stand out scenes. I really need to see it again.

Tar.Aldarion

are all showings in cineworld 48fps?