The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

nyarlothothep

The Hobbit is like Skyrim, it features a beautifully realised world yet it's somewhat superficial. However not every film needs to be a 2001 or a Godfather. It's essentially pleasant, a pleasant diversion or form of escapism, and it's quite good at that, the leisurely pace is also a nice break from the usual fastly edited fare. Due to my preference for more self contained narratives which eschew the cliched plot device of the ultimate battle against good and evil on a world or galactic stage, I think I might prefer this to LOTR. I certainly enjoyed the lack of action and the absence of tight editing, it allowed me to get immersed in the dream world of the film. I hate the current trend towards fast editing and constant action and because they're making it into 3 films, this has, at least with the first film, an advantage in that things move more slowly and it's more immersive/dream-like as a result and there are plenty of opportunities to expand upon the lore/characters/world rather than rushing through plot details. I generally don't like anything these days but this film did not offend me so thumbs up.

Roar

I thought that Radagast could have been cut out completely (also saving us from the worst CGI I can think of in a major film for a long time - those stupid rabbits and the hedgehogs) as he added absolutely nothing to the film. And I think the first warg/orc attack (before they go into the secret passage that leads to Rivendell) could have gone too.The director's cut is just going to add even more redundant nonsense to the run time!

But those quibbles aside, I quite enjoyed it - Freeman was perfect as Bilbo, really added depth to the character. And I just enjoyed being in Middle Earth again. I'd happily see it again

Necronomicon

Roar wrote: »

I thought that Radagast could have been cut out completely (also saving us from the worst CGI I can think of in a major film for a long time - those stupid rabbits and the hedgehogs) as he added absolutely nothing to the film. And I think the first warg/orc attack (before they go into the secret passage that leads to Rivendell) could have gone too.The director's cut is just going to add even more redundant nonsense to the run time!

But those quibbles aside, I quite enjoyed it - Freeman was perfect as Bilbo, really added depth to the character. And I just enjoyed being in Middle Earth again. I'd happily see it again

I think they needed Radagast

as foreshadowing for the Necromancer arc.

I do agree though, his inclusion prefaced the film's worst CGI -

that merry chase he led the orcs on that allowed the others escape to Rivendell.

It was horrendous.

johnny_ultimate

Yep Radargast at the very least could have been handled more elegantly if not excised completely. I get what the whole 'hedgehog resuscitation' sequence was about, but the fact is we were still watching a ****ing CGI hedgehog getting resuscitated for a good five-ten minutes :pac: And the rabbit-drawn sledge? Ahem. Also think the big exposition scene in Rivendell really dragged the film down. The extended version is going to be a real slog I'd imagine.

cena

I didn't like the film at all. than again I feel asleep during it

jaffacakesyum

Haven't read through any of the thread so I apologise as I'm sure it's been discussed but did anyone see this in 48fps? Saw it in 48fps and 3D in Imax and I must say I loved the movie itself although I think a lot of parts could be cut out. The scenes with Gollum were brilliant

However, 48fps was....odd at the beginning! Maybe it just took getting used to but in the first few scenes it made the buildings look so fake. It was like being on set.

Fluorescence

Is the IMAX screen in cineworld showing the movie in 48fps?

Outkast_IRE

jaffacakesyum wrote: »

Haven't read through any of the thread so I apologise as I'm sure it's been discussed but did anyone see this in 48fps? Saw it in 48fps and 3D in Imax and I must say I loved the movie itself although I think a lot of parts could be cut out. The scenes with Gollum were brilliant

However, 48fps was....odd at the beginning! Maybe it just took getting used to but in the first few scenes it made the buildings look so fake. It was like being on set.

I would of loved to of seen 48fps, none in cork though !!
Gollum scenes were amongst the best in the film, they were to the point with no filler. Gollum had a real menace/sadness about him.

However the scenes that ran parallel with the dwarves escaping the mountain were pretty poorly put together imo, it was just fast action shot after fast action shot with dwarves on multiple levels of the wooden platforms running along........some of the shots were so quick it was hard to tell what was happening before another shot came in..... They were trying to convey the vast numbers of goblin behind the dwarves and how they were fleeing but for me it just didnt come together right.

doubledown

WolfForager wrote: »

Edited by PJ himself, who also edited LOTR.

Jackson does not cut his own films, and hasn't done since 1987's Bad Taste. Yes, he HAS final cut and the editor would be working under his instructions but he is not the editor himself.

jaffacakesyum

Fluorescence wrote: »

Is the IMAX screen in cineworld showing the movie in 48fps?

I saw it in the Odeon beside the O2 and it had IMAX, 3D and 48fps. Everything you need

To be fair once I got into it I did think the picture quality was great and it made the 3D MUCH better than it usuall is (I usually hate 3D in cinemas - think it looks terrible).

Oh, also..it's been a while since I've read The Hobbit - what was going on with Radagast and the dead hedgehog again? Why did it suddenly make the spiders go away?

ALSO, did not realise James Nesbit would be in the movie

jaykhunter

Fluorescence wrote: »

Is the IMAX screen in cineworld showing the movie in 48fps?

Yep, sure is, watched it there tonight. It's worth going to see such different techs of film together at once - takes a bit of getting used to but the clarity is just unbelievable. Some of the shots are absolutely sumptuous. Looking forward to seeing it in 2D/24fps to contrast. I wonder if the colours are different.

Teyla Emmagan

I loved it. If I was ten years old it would actually have blown my mind, but I still really enjoyed it. There were a few epic action sequences - particularly in the second half, it was an onslaught of set pieces. I would have prefered to see it in 2D though, 3D out in Liffey Valley just hurts your eyes after a bit.

Giruilla

I completely expected this film to be awful, and wasn't planning on seeing it as I really disliked LOTR ROTK.. but this film blew me away.. absolutely perfect I thought. Thought the film was perfectly paced and I didn't even want it to end. Martin Freeman played Bilbo to an absolute T. I haven't felt so immersed in a film world in a long time and think this was thanks to the nice slow start to get to know the characters.

Think the majority of criticisms of this film have been unfair due to critics been clearly unhappy with the decision to make the film into three parts thus not giving the film a chance.

I for one can't wait for the next two parts!

maximoose

Saw it in Cineworld IMAX on Saturday, while the picture and clarity was incredible I kinda thought it took away from it! It's odd....and I can't really explain it but I think that for something like this ie Fantasy the technology takes away from it a little and it doesn't LOOK like a movie, more like fan fiction or something

That said, I enjoyed the movie. A little overlong, a bit too much CGI when it wasn't needed

Pale Orc

, but biggest gripe I think is that I just didn't warm to any of the dwarves and wasn't rooting for them - but that could be just me.

Also, NI accent just does not belong on the big screen. Cringed every time I heard James Nesbitt speak :pac:

norrie rugger

People also need to remember that, essentially, this is a children's film. The parts with Radagast and the hedgehog etc play perfectly into this.

norrie rugger

maximoose wrote: »

Saw it in Cineworld IMAX on Saturday, while the picture and clarity was incredible I kinda thought it took away from it! It's odd....and I can't really explain it but I think that for something like this ie Fantasy the technology takes away from it a little and it doesn't LOOK like a movie, more like fan fiction or something

That said, I enjoyed the movie. A little overlong, a bit too much CGI when it wasn't needed

Pale Orc

, but biggest gripe I think is that I just didn't warm to any of the dwarves and wasn't rooting for them - but that could be just me.

Also, NI accent just does not belong on the big screen. Cringed every time I heard James Nesbitt speak :pac:

I found that reading the book (and so far in the film) that I did not root for the dwarves until

Mirkwood and the Elves

gregers85

Seen the HFR version last night! taught it was awesome!! took a few minutes for the eyes to adjust but after that was good to go!! really enjoyed the film too! way better then i was expecting!!!

beardedmaster

maximoose wrote: »

Also, NI accent just does not belong on the big screen.

Think furnace.. with wings!

Linguo

Went to see this Friday having tried desperately to avoid all the bad reviews cause I really didn't want it spoiled as a massive LOTR fan!

Well the three of us loved it! Sure the pace is distinctly slower than LOTR but I loved how it started, the perfect beginning in my opinion, I thought Martin Freeman was a brilliant match for a young Bilbo and I honestly could have sat there watching them all night as I was so happy to be back in Middle Earth!

Gollum was incredible and the detail on him this time was beautiful, I thought the amount of CGI was the same really as LOTR as I had been terrified the movie would lack the beautiful details of LOTR but they were still there, for example, I'd move into Bag End tomorrow, it's perfect!

Overall, it does lack a little of the epicness of LOTR simply because the tale itself is smaller, but I really enjoyed it and am planning our next trip to see it!

Agricola

Made the trek to Dublin to see this in Imax. The clarity of the 3D was amazing. No darkness issue, just crisp and clear and bright. I still prefer the pin sharpness of digital 2D "I think" but this runs it close.

The 48 frames was a case of finding it very weird early on. The moment Ian Holm comes on screen and starts moving around, you get the feeling you're watching something on fast forward at 2x. I have a TV that does motion blur enhancement and it was like looking at a giant version of that. The old judder is consigned to the bin.
Just listening to Peter Jackson getting interviewed and he mentions how the high frame rate really helps the viewer to buy into the 3D. I have to agree with him there as I always found the 3D in films up to now to be a distraction more than anything else, but not so this time.

It doesnt really help you buy into the world though. There is a definite issue in the early part of the film of Bag End looking very like a movie set. The fast movement and clarity really puts a magnifying glass onto sets and props. I even found myself thinking that some of the dwarve's makeup was a little unconvincing, something I never though about the characters in the LOTR trilogy. Jackson has said he wants to create an immersive realism with 48 fps, like a window into Middle Earth. I think he values that more than making something look classically cinematic. It only seemed to be an issue early on, you get into it and get swept up in it, so I guess hes right on that score.

Tech stuff aside, enjoyed the film. Yes, it could have been shorter but Im not complaining. If they could have released the LOTR extended editions in the cinema, Id have taken them over the theatrical cuts, so Im happy getting more context. Its great for fans of the lore, but it was too long for everyone else no question.
The lighter tone is interesting. Apart from all the joking, cockney trolls and Dame Edna as the Goblin King, there is a noticeable shift with the fight sequences. Whereas in in FOTR for example there was a genuine sense of menace while the fellowship travelled through Moria, in this theres a more light hearted feeling to everything.

Even when the trolls have them on the spit, or the goblins have them captured, theres never a feeling that someone terrible is about to happen.

When it does venture into the darker stuff, like the Gollum section, its all the better for it.

Still a good if slightly long winded start to the trilogy.

Teferi

This was visually stunning. It's definitely the best 3D in a movie I have ever seen.

Gollum looked fantastic and Serkis stole the show again.

phil1nj

Took the kids to see this last night (the 3D version). Thought it had some great set pieces and was visually stunning - some of the New Zealand sceneray is absolutley gorgeous. All in all I did enjoy it but I also found it a bit of a slog at the same time (I was one of those who wasn't too happy when I found out it was going to be 3 movies instead of 2) but once the credits rolled I got a nice tingly feeling of having something to look forward to next christmas a la the original LOTR trilogy cinema releases.

Bringing the missus to see it during the week. Will opt for the regular 2D version for that outing methinks.

krudler

Gahhh now I'm torn whether to see it in 2D or 3D

norrie rugger

If you are going to see it in 3D I think that you have to see it at 48FPS.
No brightness loss, no eye strain and will make the Dimensional Tax (extra cost to ticket) more worthwhile

Frank Black

norrie rugger wrote: »

If you are going to see it in 3D I think that you have to see it at 48FPS.
No brightness loss, no eye strain and will make the Dimensional Tax (extra cost to ticket) more worthwhile

Really?
How does the 48fps overcome the polariod tint required on the glasses?

norrie rugger

black francis wrote: »

Really?
How does the 48fps overcome the polariod tint required on the glasses?

I'll correct that. Everything os so clear and colourful that there was no perceived brightness loss, for me

Tar.Aldarion

I want to see this in 2d tomorrow, are the 2d showings in 48fps?

Giruilla

Anyone else think The Hobbit was far more entertaining than any of the LOTR's?

I felt this captured the humour and emotion the book perfectly whereas the LOTR just took itself far too seriously and went overly melodramatic.

pontia

is liffey valley showing it in 48fps in 3d

Frank Black

pontia wrote: »

is liffey valley showing it in 48fps in 3d

Yep - It's showing all three versions.