The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Maaa!

Went to see it last night in Dundrum, 24fps 2D. I must say I really enjoyed it and like others I felt it passed really quickly. The opening part in Bag End really set the scene and gave a comfortable amount of time to get to know the characters and have some interaction. You have to remember that this is much more childish, whimsical story with lighthearted scenes as well as the darker parts such as the orcs, necromancer etc. I thought the retrospective of the arrival of Smaug and the Dwarves history was very well put together and gave a great impression of a large civilisation living in Erebor and Dale. The halls in the Lonely Mountain looked fantastic. My main gripe was with the goblin town. The action seemed much too hurried and some of the CGI was questionable. Some of the action looked quite blurred. I intend seeing it in the 48fps 3D to compare. I also don't know if it was just me but the faces of the dwarves (particularly in Bag End) almost looked animated (a bit like Beowulf). As this was in 24fps it was a bit strange. What were peoples opinion of the first sight of Spoiler:

the Necromancer, Sauron (although fleeting)

? Overall I think it is a very good start and I reckon the next one will be much darker and hopefully will be as epic as LOTR (got to wait a bloody year though!!).:(

titan18

Just back from seeing it, and that was pretty bad. It had some bright spots, quite liked Freeman as Bilbo and Armitage as Thorin. McKellan is as reliable as you get, and the Gollum scenes were very nicely done.

The rest was not so good.Stupid childish humour(dwarves at the start in Bilbo's house, the Trolls scene and then the Goblin King), the horrible CGI ( the chase sequence in Goblintown was particularly bad for showing it) or the 2nd half of the film being one set piece after another with increasingly miraculous escapes. Other negatives were the whole Radagast sequence (stupid CGI hedgehog), Rivendell scenes being a bit overlong and boring and half of their company being rather useless and only mentioned whenever Gandalf is counting how many are there. Also, did they blow their whole music budget on the Misty Mountains song, as barring stuff that was from the LOTR trilogy, it just seemed to be that over everything. Started to get really annoying when it'd blare out every 5 minutes, and I quite like the song.

Most disappointing part about it is there's a much better film in there that didn't need to run for as long (and split into 3 films although that's a different argument) and didn't need to have been so immature and childish.

heebusjeebus

Giruilla wrote: »

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.

Exactly how I feel. No annoying Frodo & Sam BS.

krudler

titan18 wrote: »

Just back from seeing it, and that was pretty bad. It had some bright spots, quite liked Freeman as Bilbo and Armitage as Thorin. McKellan is as reliable as you get, and the Gollum scenes were very nicely done.

The rest was not so good.Stupid childish humour(dwarves at the start in Bilbo's house, the Trolls scene and then the Goblin King), the horrible CGI ( the chase sequence in Goblintown was particularly bad for showing it) or the 2nd half of the film being one set piece after another with increasingly miraculous escapes. Other negatives were the whole Radagast sequence (stupid CGI hedgehog), Rivendell scenes being a bit overlong and boring and half of their company being rather useless and only mentioned whenever Gandalf is counting how many are there. Also, did they blow their whole music budget on the Misty Mountains song, as barring stuff that was from the LOTR trilogy, it just seemed to be that over everything. Started to get really annoying when it'd blare out every 5 minutes, and I quite like the song.

Most disappointing part about it is there's a much better film in there that didn't need to run for as long (and split into 3 films although that's a different argument) and didn't need to have been so immature and childish.

..its a children's book.

titan18

krudler wrote: »

..its a children's book.

I know, I quite enjoyed the book, but dialogue such as "Up the jacksy" has no place, and the film is still 12s or pg-13 or whatever so not exactly a full on children's film either

snausages

So The Hobbit then. I have watched it and I enjoyed it a little more than I expected, but not as much as I would have liked. It's definitely overlong. The narrative is overburdened with excessive LOTR foreshadowing that has little to no relevance to the plot of The Hobbit. I'd estimate at least an hour is wasted on this twaddle. 48 frames gives it an unprecedented level of clarity but also enhances the artificiality of the film. There's one scene in particular with Radagast on a rabbit sled escaping orcs that reminded me of a similar scene in Return of the Jedi. Anyone who has seen Return and this one in 48fps will know exactly what I mean. 48fps, combined with the effect of 3D, creates an effect where it's perfectly obvious that someone is dragging CG elements across a recorded image of New Zealand countryside (if that makes sense)

But all of that doesn't really matter a huge deal when you can watch it in 24fps. The main problem with the film is not 3D or 48fps. It's the decision to split up a relatively simple story into a sprawling epic. Having seeing it I definitely agree that they've tried to epic-size The Hobbit and the stretch-marks are fairly visible. The film also suffers from a sense of tonal schizophrenia. For the record, I really liked the light-hearted tone to the action sequences. I enjoyed Goblin Town. I enjoyed the scene with the trolls cooking dwarves. Yet all the foreshadowing of a greater evil yet to come and the awful scenes with Saruman just make abundantly clear that this isn't The Hobbit, but part 1 of the LOTR prequel trilogy. The film isn't spoiled by its goofiness but more by its excessive darkness which only works when we get to the Riddle in the Dark sequence, which was excellent. Dear old Bilbo gets sidelined so much that you'd forget it was him telling the story (how does he know all about this Necromancer stuff anyway?)

The film lacks the clear sense of focus that Fellowship and its sequels had. When Fellowship ended Sauron and Mordor were yet to be defeated but the film still achieved its own sense of narrative resolution through Boromir's death, the breaking of the fellowship and Frodo's subsequent decision to destroy the ring on his own. The Hobbit doesn't have a clear narrative arc. It has a number of mini-arcs, most of which do not get resolved. It's definitely a fragment of a whole. I am absolutely delighted that these films are being made and I will likely watch them all, but I find it impossible to agree that it is a story that needs this kind of epic treatment. It's a bit of a bittersweet feeling I guess. Maybe I'll re-read the book. 2/5

Giruilla wrote: »

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.

I don't agree that LOTR was melodramatic. Both The Hobbit and LOTR are completely different in tone anyway so it makes sense that the films would follow suit. Although this one isn't quite light-hearted enough in my view. LOTR needed that sense of darkness. It's a dark story but not without any moments of levity either. It hits a much better balance than this film in my view

Maaa!

I think some of the disjointed editing was a result of the rush to get it finished on time for the release date. Could have had a few changes alright. I did not mention Radagastly earlier. I do think he was a bit cringeworthy. Especially the rabbits and the rather lame (in the realism sense) hedgehog! Could they not have just given him Reindeer or something, like Santa??? What about the Necromancer??? Give us your thoughts

snausages

Both of them were unnecessary I thought. I barely even remember Radagast from the book so he couldn't have been very important. On another note, I thought that all the prologue sequences were totally unnecessary. The framed narrative with Ian Holm (which had a made for TV feel about it) and the backstory of the dwarf's homeland just makes it all the more bloated, especially when the details of the quest are made perfectly clear at Bilbo's dinner table.

Linguo

snausages wrote: »

Both of them were unnecessary I thought. I barely even remember Radagast from the book so he couldn't have been very important. On another note, I thought that all the prologue sequences were totally unnecessary. The framed narrative with Ian Holm (which had a made for TV feel about it) and the backstory of the dwarf's homeland just makes it all the more bloated, especially when the details of the quest are made perfectly clear at Bilbo's dinner table.

I actually really enjoyed the beginning!

I loved it starting with Frodo and Bilbo and it tying in with the preparations for Bilbo's 111th birthday and the start of the first movie was a lovely touch I thought!

Don't think it had a made for tv feel I think it made it feel more connected and will help the movies flow well when you watch all 6 of them together eventually! In an ideal world the ending will be

back at Bilbo's again getting ready for the party so you can watch the end of that and the start of the fellowship of the ring and they'll flow really nicely!

snausages

Linguo wrote: »

I actually really enjoyed the beginning!

I loved it starting with Frodo and Bilbo and it tying in with the preparations for Bilbo's 111th birthday and the start of the first movie was a lovely touch I thought!

Don't think it had a made for tv feel I think it made it feel more connected and will help the movies flow well when you watch all 6 of them together eventually! In an ideal world the ending will be

back at Bilbo's again getting ready for the party so you can watch the end of that and the start of the fellowship of the ring and they'll flow really nicely!

I thought it was unnecessary fan-pandering. There's a lot of that in The Hobbit. Lots of nostalgia-inducing cameos that add nothing but bloat. Some scenes just feel imitative of the Ring's trilogy. The Hobbit is a strong enough tale to stand on its own two feet.

Had the Hobbit been made before the Rings then perhaps it would have been much better. As it is it suffers from the same principal problem as Lucas' prequels. Star Wars was bound to this teleology which would end with Vader's turning bad. The Hobbit is trying to establish the origins and explain the significance of characters and events in The Lord of the Rings.

Finished watching Fellowship just now. Now that's a classic. You don't feel the runtime at all.

krudler

snausages wrote: »

I thought it was unnecessary fan-pandering. There's a lot of that in The Hobbit. Lots of nostalgia-inducing cameos that add nothing but bloat. Some scenes just feel imitative of the Ring's trilogy. The Hobbit is a strong enough tale to stand on its own two feet.

Finished watching Fellowship just now. Now that's a classic. You don't feel the runtime at all.

Aside from every time Liv Tyler is talking :pac: that breathless, whispering thing she does is annoying as hell.

snausages

Only bit I really dislike is the Lothorien scenes. They don't take very long anyway.

Fluorescence

Saw it in 48fps 3D today and loved it. The 3d was glitchy as hell though (we all got free tickets to a different film at the end as an apology, that's how bad it was) with the background appearing in front of the foreground half the time. Some of the sequences felt a bit disjointed and unconnected, and a few could have been left out entirely without sacrificing anything (giants fighting, Radagast discovering the Necromancer/running into Gandalf and co spring to mind). Christopher Lee was terrible as Saruman this time round. He was totally unconvincing, which is a shame because I love him as an actor.

Good points: tone was spot on, score was exquisite (great to have Howard Shore back!), Freeman made a wonderful Bilbo, the riddles scene was perfect (and Serkis stole the show with Gollum's heart-wrenching distress at the loss of the ring) and the history of the dwarves at the beginning was told very nicely.


I'll be seeing it again soon in 2d, 24fps so I can enjoy the movie without my eyes getting exhausted and getting a headache from the 3d :P Looking forward to Desolation of Smaug!

Oscorp

snausages wrote: »

Only bit I really dislike is the Lothorien scenes. They don't take very long anyway.

Rivendell?

Outkast_IRE

Oscorp wrote: »

Rivendell?

think they were talking about fellowship

Jimoslimos

maximoose wrote: »

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.

There isn't much character development of the dwarves in the book either, and Bilbo only really warms to a couple of them. Balin and perhaps the younger dwarves Fili and Kili.

I enjoyed the film but can't help wondering if the activities in Dol Guldur could perhaps have been kept in a separate and unconnected film. At least in LOTR the storylines did eventually merge

Also James Nesbitt's character, Bofur, had far too many lines.

ahnowbrowncow

I thought it was ok, bit too childish for me and hence less epic than FOTR. My main grievances were probably Martin Freeman / Bilbo acting like he was in a pantomime, some dwarves not looking or acting very dwarfish and I thought Radagast, one of the maiar, was made look ridiculous.

I didn't get the bit why the spiders were attacking and then ran off after radagast revived the hedgehog?

Allround Predator

Went to see it last night and thought it was really good. Only one or two complaints about the movie, like changes in the story line mainly, maybe they should of left Radagast out of it or giving him shorter scenes. Lot of people complaining that the movie is too long, I disagree, sitting in a cinema for 170 mins is too long, but that is because there uncomfortable stuffy places. I think I would have enjoyed it a hundred times more if I had watch it in the comfort of my own home. Looking forward to watching this movie again when it comes out on Blue Ray.

Maaa!

Any comments on the appearance of

the Necromancer?

MeMeJK1

So I watched the movie yesterday in Cineworld IMAX and really enjoyed it. I was worried because of all those negative reviews but I had a great experience.
As for the 48fps, after the initially getting used to it I thought it was great and can't wait to see more movies in this format.

I loved Bilbo, the dwarves, and Gollum, and I really disliked Radagast.

And am I the only one that thought the elves came across extremely silly? That woman elf with the flute really annoyed me.

All in all a good movie though and I will look forward to the next one.

George99

How can they make 3 films about one short book ?
Although they did start filming 5 years ago apparently.

johnny_ultimate

George99 wrote: »

Although they did start filming 5 years ago apparently.

Nope, principal photography began in early 2011 up until the middle of this year. Pick-ups for the next films (well, probably considerably more than your average pick-ups given they now have an extra two-three hours to fill) are taking place in 2013.

George99

Oh - ok. A friend of mine went to NZ and said they were filming it years ago. Obviously filming something else - I'll have a word ......

Banjaxed82

Gonna check out the Hobbit tonight. What versions will be screened at 48 fps in Cineworld?

Cheers

Sindri

I think the tone was off a bit in places. That takes away from it a bit.

SarahBM

I loved it, I cant wait to go see it again!!!

Im not going to nit pick at the details of what was off and why this or that didnt work.
I was so looking forward to seeing it I thought I might have built it up too much for myself and then be left bitterly disappointed. But this was not the case at all. I felt like I was transported to Middle Earth for 3 hours and I really enjoyed every minute. The time flew!

I saw it in 2D in Savoy (dont know or understand about this 48 fps etc) and I thought it was great. I didnt feel like I was missing out anything.

how long do I have to wait for the Extended DVD I wonder.

I have to say the thing I loved most was the score. absolutely breath taking. Howard Shore is a musical genius. Anyone who has seen the score to the Lord of the Rings being performed live will know exactly what I mean.

krudler

Just saw it, went in with low expectations but I enjoyed it overall. I didn't find it overlong at all tbh its episodic enough where it feels its got enough interesting segments.
Martin Freeman was fine in the role, its nice seeing the other LOTR cast back and the dwarves weren't nearly as annoying as I expected them to be, aside from the really camp one, I can't remember his name, the one with the "up the jacksie" line. Thorin was good if a little melodramatic.

I much prefered the first half to the setpiece laden second, although the Riddles In The Dark scene is fantastic, Gollum has never looked better. I saw it in 2D but I will go check it out in HFR 3D as a lot of the big panning shots looked very blurry and the place I saw it has great digital projection so I want to see how it compares.

As was mentioned before, the digital sheen look of the film detracts a lot, the opening scene with Ian Holm, does he even have pores on his face? he looks like himself and Elijah Wood are made of wax, same in the Rivendell scenes, super duper HD looking and people look like they've had a cgi makeover. But there are some beautiful shots in it too.

Its lighter in tone than LOTR obviously but I never thought it felt childish, and I liked the CGI hedgehog :pac:

Fluorescence

krudler wrote: »

As was mentioned before, the digital sheen look of the film detracts a lot, the opening scene with Ian Holm, does he even have pores on his face? he looks like himself and Elijah Wood are made of wax, same in the Rivendell scenes, super duper HD looking and people look like they've had a cgi makeover. But there are some beautiful shots in it too.

I saw it in 3D HFR and you could count the pores on Martin Freeman's face - it was actually kind of distracting :pac:

krudler

Fluorescence wrote: »

I saw it in 3D HFR and you could count the pores on Martin Freeman's face - it was actually kind of distracting :pac:

Oh in the later scenes where its outdoors and they're all muddied up and stuff the detail on the faces is amazing in closeups, its just the opening with Holm that looked..odd, maybe they did use cgi to make him younger?

Fluorescence

Can't say I thought Ian Holm looked waxy, but then I was just thinking "Why the hell is Frodo here!" and wondering why Bilbo would write a few pages of dwarven history, and then go "In a hole there lived a hobbit..."