The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Johnny_Fontane

any reports from the new imax screen in cineworld?

maquiladora

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

any reports from the new imax screen in cineworld?

I loved it. First time I was in there so can't compare to how it was before. Sound was great. Screen filled my field of view perfectly from the center about 3/4 ways back. Any closer or a bigger screen would have been too much I think.

maquiladora

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

are all showings in cineworld 48fps?

IMAX and screen 9.

qz

Johnny_Fontane wrote: »

any reports from the new imax screen in cineworld?

I'm off to see it at midday. I saw it in Swan last night in regular 3D and loved the movie. More than a few goosebumps at the sight of Rivendell or the ring making its appearance. I'm looking forward to IMAX!

Roar

I know this is being very nitpicky, but I was really disappointed that the shot of Bilbo picking up the ring wasn't identical to the one from FOTR

Basq

Roar wrote: »

I know this is being very nitpicky, but I was really disappointed that the shot of Bilbo picking up the ring wasn't identical to the one from FOTR

But it also wasn't Ian Holm picking it up..

beardedmaster

Basq wrote: »

But it also wasn't Ian Holm picking it up..

For that reason, part of me hopes that they edit later editions of FotR to have footage from this film as Martin Freeman as young Bilbo, for that very scene.
It's not like in Return of the Jedi when they got rid of the dude who played ghost-Anakin.. Ian Holm still gets to be old Bilbo and now has more in the films than ever!

Basq

beardedmaster wrote: »

It's not like in Return of the Jedi when they got rid of the dude who played ghost-Anakin.. Ian Holm still gets to be old Bilbo and now has more in the films than ever!

It was strange to see the actors all looking considerably older.. even at the start where Frodo puts up the sign "No Admittance - Except On Party Business" and is essentially set just before Fellowship starts.

Fooker

Anyone else who thought for a split second that Galadriel was going to lean in for the kill with Gandalf? Intense stuff.

Tusky

To the people saying they didn't notice any difference with the 48fps projection - you obviously did not see it in 48fps. Honestly, even someone with a passing interest in film would notice it. It's not something that lurks in the background, this is immediate, jarring and totally at odds to way we normally watch films. I'd be interested to know if some cinemas are advertising their screenings as 48fps, but actually showing in normal frame rate...

heebusjeebus

Tusky wrote: »

To the people saying they didn't notice any difference with the 48fps projection - you obviously did not see it in 48fps. Honestly, even someone with a passing interest in film would notice it. It's not something that lurks in the background, this is immediate, jarring and totally at odds to way we normally watch films. I'd be interested to know if some cinemas are advertising their screenings as 48fps, but actually showing in normal frame rate...

Ya, it was confirmed to me by Movies@Dundrum that it was 48FPS and other than the lack of eye strain, I didn't notice much difference.
Will try and catch it in 2D and see what that's like.

RaoulDukeHST

I went to IMC and had no joy in seeing it in 48FPS - they had problems with the projector. I think this could be a more widespread issue?

krudler

beardedmaster wrote: »

For that reason, part of me hopes that they edit later editions of FotR to have footage from this film as Martin Freeman as young Bilbo, for that very scene.
It's not like in Return of the Jedi when they got rid of the dude who played ghost-Anakin.. Ian Holm still gets to be old Bilbo and now has more in the films than ever!

Eh no, dont give them ideas. There's one shot of Ian Holm playing the younger Bilbo in FOTR, leave it alone.

beardedmaster

I don't particularly mind if they do it or not, tbh.
I just thought of it as an idea of something they could do. Only the small continuity-obsessive part of me would actually actively want them to do it...

Spon Farmer

Hi guys,

There is a question I need to ask about The Hobbit and movies in general.

In "sweeping" shots in the 2D Hobbit, (e.g. the Company evading the orcs and Radaghast sledding around leading the orcs "away") or fast moving action filmed from a distance (e.g. the collapsing bridges in the cave battle near the end), the movie gets very blurry. It did not happen at all during similar moments in the prologue sequence.

I've seen this happen a lot, for example the frost giant battle in Thor 3D, the "sweeping shot" just before the bird dies at the start of Cabin in the Woods, to name just two.

I don't recall it happening in Star Trek, Crystal Skull, the New Spider-Man or Avengers.

And it doesn't happen on the DVD's or iTunes version of any film.

It is usually very brief and not really an issue but it did affect my enjoyment of The Hobbit last night. I didn't get the chance to say anything to staff (who are a decent bunch at my local cinema), but is this just the way cinema is or is it my eyes? Or is it the projectionist not setting up right?

Cheers.

Spon Farmer

In regards, to the appearance of Ian Holm and Elijah Wood - I thought is was unnecessary and way too long.

Freeman and Holm look nothing alike.

That isn't an issue in regards to the two trilogies, except for the fact that Holm is plonked in at the start of this movie.

And did anyone else think the Rivendell meeting between the four "elders" was bizarrely limp? I can't really explain it except there was something a bit off about Christopher Lee - like he was just reciting the lines and not even trying.

And the balls/bum humour was way out of place.

Other than that though, the movie was great - Freeman and the Dwarves were awesome.

heebusjeebus

Spon Farmer wrote: »

And the balls/bum humour was way out of place.

The snot joke was class though.

Spon Farmer

heebusjeebus wrote: »

The snot joke was class though.

"Up the jacksie" and "out of my arse(I can't recall what it actually said)" is a bit lowbrow.:rolleyes:

eviltimeban

Saw it in 3D last night (don't think it was 48 though), and I really enjoyed it. I thought it was probably more immediate than FOTR, more earthy and not so much wishy washy stuff. The "oh Mr Frodo" stuff from LOTR really put me off those movies and there was none of that in the Hobbit.

The dwarves were excellent. Before seeing the movie I thought that trying to keep up with 13 dwarves was going to be hard work, but they get introduced very well and they make the movie what it is.

The cgi was good, Gollum looked far better than he did in LOTR, and I had no problem with the 3D. I'd say if you saw it in 2D you wouldn't lose anything as it didn't really add a huge amount.

The only criticism I'd have is that it seemed to just go from action sequence - quiet bit - action sequence - quiet bit... you know, lots of big set pieces one after another. I think a second viewing would be good to get into the plot a bit more (not that there was much of a plot tbh).

Overall I'd say 8/10.

Spon Farmer

eviltimeban wrote: »

The dwarves were excellent. Before seeing the movie I thought that trying to keep up with 13 dwarves was going to be hard work, but they get introduced very well and they make the movie what it is.

Agreed, they were all good, but only a handful got any real screen time. Hopefully the next one shows more of the others.

Freeman was great too.

eviltimeban wrote: »

The cgi was good, Gollum looked far better than he did in LOTR, and I had no problem with the 3D. I'd say if you saw it in 2D you wouldn't lose anything as it didn't really add a huge amount.

I have to disagree here.

There was a wonky moment with the trolls in one shot and when that one troll pick up Bilbo, it was like it was holding a doll. It was just like the scene in ROTJ where the rancor eats the pig guard.

That 1983 - should be a lot better now in 2012.

And there was a few moments in the goblin battle where Gandalf and the Dwarves looked like models or action figures getting tossed about.

ricero

Barry humphries as the goblin king was great craic

qz

Saw it today at midday in Cineworld - not a very enjoyable cinema experience overall. I was in two minds for the longest time as to whether or not I actually enjoyed seeing the 48fps in front of me, so much so that I couldn't even concentrate on the film itself. It is so sharp and crystal clear and it produced some amazing shots, but ultimately I'm glad I saw it last night in regular 3D so I could just sit back and enjoy what I was most looking forward to - the story. I can understand critiques of it making the film look too fake. It is very bizarre. Some of the 3D was brilliant, however, and if an arrow or a warg was flying towards the screen I'd have to blink or flinch as it really felt as if it was popping out.

Also, the sound in Cineworld was all over the shop. Once or twice it cut out completely and left the place in total silence. Then during riddles in the dark, it BLARED out until the end and it was almost unbearably loud. From then on also, it was noticably out of sync. I'd have been seriously pissed off if it was my first time seeing the movie that I waited 9 years to see. In all fairness to Cineworld, they handed out free admission tickets to presumably another IMAX screening of our choice. The 10 minute preview of Star Trek: Into Darkness beforehand was wonderful.

The long in the short - for films 2 and 3 I'll be seeing them in regular 3D before going to see them again in 48fps. Oh and to all the "grazers" out there rustling their popcorn and shovelling it into their face for the entire duration of the movie - die.

Liamalone

lmao poor folk trying to eat during a film, unheard of :P

qz

Liamalone wrote: »

lmao poor folk trying to eat during a film, unheard of :P

Don't be smart. I had popcorn too, but I didn't fúcking try and whisk the popcorn into a liquid in the bag with my hands and open up packet after packet of God knows what.

Oranage2

Pretty good though we've seen it already from peter Jackson in lotr, also Martin freeman i think was the wrong choice, he can do witty sarcastic really well but that's it and bilbo should be about character development.

I've read the book so it may have ruined some bits cause i knew what would happen.

Overall 8 out of ten.

ricero

Was just thinking after the hobbit triology ends what next ? Any other middle earth tales to be made into film or could the some writer make a new story

Gbear

ricero wrote: »

Was just thinking after the hobbit triology ends what next ? Any other middle earth tales to be made into film or could the some writer make a new story

The Silmarillion is basically a history text of the beginning of the world of Tolkien from the year 0 up until a few thousand years before the Hobbit.

Because most of the characters are immortal they gloss over time (perhaps thousands of years at a time) with lines like "for a time they were content".

It's a little like the Tolkien bible. It talks about the various gods, the deeds of the Elves in those times, the main bad guy Morgoth - you've heard him mentioned briefly in LOTR ("a Balrog of Morgoth") - Sauron's mentioned a few times but he's only Morgoth's second in command.

It's mostly presented as individual stories. Taking one of them would probably be analagous to doing a story about David and Goliath or Moses.


It'd be difficult to make anything out of them tbh, let alone a feature film.

titan18

Gbear wrote: »

The Silmarillion is basically a history text of the beginning of the world of Tolkien from the year 0 up until a few thousand years before the Hobbit.

Because most of the characters are immortal they gloss over time (perhaps thousands of years at a time) with lines like "for a time they were content".

It's a little like the Tolkien bible. It talks about the various gods, the deeds of the Elves in those times, the main bad guy Morgoth - you've heard him mentioned briefly in LOTR ("a Balrog of Morgoth") - Sauron's mentioned a few times but he's only Morgoth's second in command.

It's mostly presented as individual stories. Taking one of them would probably be analagous to doing a story about David and Goliath or Moses.


It'd be difficult to make anything out of them tbh, let alone a feature film.

Out of the tales, they could possibly create something out of The Fall of Gondolin, or perhaps more likely the Beren and Luthien story. They'd need a good bit of work done to them to make it work but potentially workable

Tar.Aldarion

maquiladora wrote: »

IMAX and screen 9.

Any way to tell what screen it will be in when booking? Any in 2d? 3d always takes away the colour and clarity but I don't mind 3d in general..

Herb Powell

Spon Farmer wrote: »

"Up the jacksie" and "out of my arse(I can't recall what it actually said)" is a bit lowbrow.:rolleyes:

Well they were trolls.