The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

krudler

Fluorescence wrote: »

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..."

It's the opening of the book isn't it, being all self referential n sh1t. I liked the opening, tied it into Fellowship nicely.

Thargor

Hi, cant stand 3D but I want to see The Hobbit in 48 FPS or whatever it is, where is the best place in Dublin to do this? Thanks...

Fluorescence

krudler wrote: »

It's the opening of the book isn't it, being all self referential n sh1t. I liked the opening, tied it into Fellowship nicely.

Yeah, he reads the first few lines from the book, but it didn't really feel right after going "So Frodo, there was this dwarven city etc etc etc"

Overheal

i thought the wide shots of the landscape were cool but yeah after 3 hours I definitely had a noticeable, if mild discomfort in my head/eyes.

johnny_ultimate

Thargor wrote:

Hi, cant stand 3D but I want to see The Hobbit in 48 FPS or whatever it is, where is the best place in Dublin to do this? Thanks...

There is no 2D 48 FPS alas. It's either standard 3D, 48 FPS 3D or standard 2D.

Thargor

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

There is no 2D 48 FPS alas. It's either standard 3D, 48 FPS 3D or standard 2D.

Ah right, that sucks, is there much of a noticeable difference between the 2 does anyone know?

johnny_ultimate

Thargor wrote: »

Ah right, that sucks, is there much of a noticeable difference between the 2 does anyone know?

Yes, the difference between the two 3D versions would be massively noticeable. Whatever about loving or hating the 48 FPS presentation, you couldn't possibly not notice it.

Thargor

What were the glasses like for it? The ones I saw Avatar and Avengers with were pitch black for me, like cheap sunglasses, absolutely ruined the films. Any improvement here?

Teyla Emmagan

Thargor wrote: »

What were the glasses like for it? The ones I saw Avatar and Avengers with were pitch black for me, like cheap sunglasses, absolutely ruined the films. Any improvement here?

Those were the ones I got anyway!

GodlessM

Oh my, I was dreading coming onto this thread expecting a load of people who had not read the book complaining that it wasn't as dark as Lord of the Rings, but it's great to see the film get the credit it deserves. Cudos to boards.ie.

Good cinematic moments and yet 90% faithful to the book and LoTR appendices. Great fluid action sequences and enough humour to hold over the fact that it was a children's book without making it feel like a children's movie; can't say I had anything to complain about. Saw it in 2D and from what I've heard that was the better choice.

Just can't wait to see it again now, and moreso, next December's second part.

Thargor

Last question, whats the best screen in Dublin to see it in 2D?

snausages

I think Desolation could be a lot better. It will have Smaug as the main lynchpin to the action so it should be a lot more focused, not to mention more like the novel. This one veers widly between slapstick and darkness. Only occasionally does it recall the gentler style of the book, like during the opening exchanges between Gandalf and Bilbo.

Maaa!

Dundrum 2D very good. Have not seen 3D 48fps but my brother went to Cineworld Imax and it had all sorts of problems with sound volume and synching in the 48fps. Ended up getting free tickets it was so bad.

Elessar

I'm going to see this today hopefully.

Can anyone tell me what cinemas in Dublin are showing the HFR version? Only one I can see atm is Cineworld Parnell street and Dundrum? Anything northside?

DesperateDan

Thargor wrote: »

What were the glasses like for it? The ones I saw Avatar and Avengers with were pitch black for me, like cheap sunglasses, absolutely ruined the films. Any improvement here?

The glasses are different, you don't pay for them and they are certainly lighter than the RealD 3D glasses. It took a solid 45 mins to get used to the HFR but once I was it really looked incredible, particularly for me the riddles scene and the goblin king.

With such a high frame rate it's difficult for the cg to not look like a videogame at times, sometimes everything was just too fluid

All in all though excellent and will go and see it again, if you have any doubts about which cinema to go to, do the imax, I'm literally going there for every movie I can now

Sad Professor

I'll write up all my thoughts some other time, but I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised. Once it gets going (which takes quite a while) it's very entertaining. The actors are excellent, especially Freeman, and Shore's music is just as rousing as it was 10 years ago. I saw it in 2D and didn't notice any major visual problems, though it's a bit too sharp and generally inferior to the very filmic look of the original trilogy. I'll try and check it out in HFR before its cinema run ends.

As a film I'd rate it slightly below King Kong (which I really liked), though not a patch on LOTR. As with King Kong, Jackson's indulgence gets the better of him, especially when it comes to visual effects. Having said that, I can understand how after several years of tightly woven Chris Nolan-style blockbusters many people may find Jackson's leisurely pacing with its rambling detours and endless action sequences refreshing. However, I suspect most people (myself included) will have had quite enough by the time the third film comes rolling around in 2 years time.

calabi yau

It was absolutely brilliant. Thank God for that. Brilliant. 10/10

Heroditas

Just back from watching it on the IMAX screen in Parnell Street.
There is a bit of a thread through the film that I simply didn't like. I know why it was done but I just wasn't a fan of it.
Putting that aside and the fact that some scenes were a tad unnecessarily long, it was highly enjoyable.
I almost felt drunk coming out of it. What a screen!!!

Heroditas

ahnowbrowncow wrote: »

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?

The spiders would have detected his power (after all, he is a Maiar) and that would have fended them off.
I think it was to show that despite him appearing to be absent minded and slightly senile/mad, he's actually very powerful.

Nervous Nigel

Just saw the 3D 48 FPS version on Screen 1 in Dundrum.

Nothing short of breathtaking.

It's like you're there at certain times.

calabi yau

calabi yau wrote: »

It was absolutely brilliant. Thank God for that. Brilliant. 10/10

OK, I may have been a tad over exuberant last night. Its just that after the turgid rubbish that was The Avengers and TDKR and the disappointment that ensued after seeing those films, it was fantastic to be truly entertained by a film again this year.

I'd maybe review my review downwards to 9/10. I loved that it was so intertwined with FOTR. I had watched FOTR the night before so it was really like I was watching the prologue to that film. I thought the Dwarves in Bag End was excellent, I loved all the scenes in Rivendell, especially the meeting between the four powers, it all felt so magical, and after that then it was all edge of the seat action and a perfect finish.

I also loved the narrative at the start, I though it was really necessary as the story is a long one with many parts and players past and present.

The point I would dock is for the whole troll scene, stealing the horses etc. I thought it could have been better, but maybe if I watch it in context of the whole film again I mightenjoy it more. Also Martin Freemans performance was a bit one dimensional i thought, could have been played with more emotion. Nesbitt was hillarious though, definitely wanted a bit of Bilbo. I also thought the pale orc was extremely menacing.

All in all, an excellent romp and I can't wait to see it again. Btw, I just watched in boring 2d so maybe I didn't notice thecgi as much. I just such a relief to see a great film this year. I will never follow another reviewer / critic again, my opinion has never been further from the general concensus as it seems to be with films this year.

pixelburp

As with all the blockbuster threads, at this stage I doubt I'm going to add anything original to the discussion; suffice to say that whilst in the main I enjoyed the whole thing to a point, I found the sheer length of the film made it borderline impenetrable. I don't think there's any legitimate reason Hobbit #1 should have been the length it was, Jackson is just continuing his inability to understand how brevity can be a good thing. It's clear this 3-part experiment is nothing more than misplaced love by Jackson & utter greed from the studio.

I'll add my thoughts to the separate HFR thread, but I found that whole element deeply distracting. The 3D itself was utterly pointless (restricted to the requisite arrows & detritus flying towards the screen) and the high framerate consistently broke the illusion created by the FX; I'm not dismissing the HFR tech just yet, but its use shouldn't be brought into films that rely on the power of illusion from the offset. A friend of mine remarked that it just made the SFX-driven setpiece scenes feel like a videogame.

When my ass regains some feeling, I will check out the 2D print because I spent so much of my time consciously ignoring the HFR distraction, I can't see how it wouldn't adversely affect my enjoyment of the film. Certainly come #2 I won't be attending the 3D/HFR version

Liam O

There's a serious pacing problem imo. Adding in stuff is great but it's very much at the expense of the fun element from the book. They gave away pretty much every character in the first 5 minute summary of the fall of Erebor. The only characters who haven't already been introduced are movie 2/3 spoilers

Beorn and the laketowners

The whole wood elf storyline wont be as surprising as if they were just introduced at the time. The fun element is pretty much gone and Jackson appears to be trying LotR mark 2 instead of the Hobbit. The ridiculous amount of

Goblins in the mountain and the contrived storyline with the big white orc

serve no purpose other than to replace the childish elements of animals talking while having something to do with the time lost by not having these things. The thing with the ring is interesting too as in the book

he's very open about it and hasn't shown anyone yet.

Showing

Smaug

at the end also gives away some of the effect that seeing him later for the first time would have.

It's a good movie, just not the one I wanted them to make from the book. Overlong and even with that terrible characterisation of the dwarves which should have been focused on more. The only ones that I'd know if I hadn't read the book would be Fili, Thorin, Dwalin, Balin and maybe Kili and Bombur. Everyone else I'm not sure who is who which is scandalous after that long a film.

krudler

I'm pretty sure some of the dwarves didn't have a line after the initial dinner scene in Bilbo's house. the fat one with the ginger beard? can't remember him doing anything other than falling over a lot. and the deaf one. did one have an axe in his head?

Heroditas

Liam O: regarding introducing characters, he didn't introduce

Dáin Ironfoot. However, he wasn't able to do this easily because, as you said, he introduced the ridiculously contrived "Pale Orc" nonsense. In the books, it's Dáin who slew Azog at the gates of Moria, not Thorin. Once I saw how the Battle of Azanulbizar was done, I was hard pressed not to groan out loud in the cinema because I could already guess how Jackson intends the third Hobbit film to end. Yawn!

Liam O

The LotR reunion was a bit off-putting as well I thought, it made it obvious they were making it into another LotR movie rather than the story of the Hobbit. Bilbo is nothing like he is in the book too. There's no real scope for character transformation like in the book, they never really get across his character at the start and the fact that he

went willingly

is a bit jarring. In the book there is a sense that Gandalf is up to some mischief and he

coerces Bilbo into going on the trip

. In this the character of Gandalf is very unGandalf-like it's similar to what they did to Dumbledore in the HP movies, Gandalf doesn't seem like the omnipotent and enigmatic being that he is in the book.

TobyRyan

Sad Professor wrote: »

I'll write up all my thoughts some other time, but I have to say I was very pleasantly surprised. Once it gets going (which takes quite a while) it's very entertaining. The actors are excellent, especially Freeman, and Shore's music is just as rousing as it was 10 years ago. I saw it in 2D and didn't notice any major visual problems, though it's a bit too sharp and generally inferior to the very filmic look of the original trilogy. I'll try and check it out in HFR before its cinema run ends.

As a film I'd rate it slightly below King Kong (which I really liked), though not a patch on LOTR. As with King Kong, Jackson's indulgence gets the better of him, especially when it comes to visual effects. Having said that, I can understand how after several years of tightly woven Chris Nolan-style blockbusters many people may find Jackson's leisurely pacing with its rambling detours and endless action sequences refreshing. However, I suspect most people (myself included) will have had quite enough by the time the third film comes rolling around in 2 years time.

I thought it was only 2?

Dont get me wrong I really enjoyed it, I was beside myself when the music started. Smeagol was brilliant so were the Wargs, the lot. How can he possibly drag it out for another 2 films though?

Fluorescence

TobyRyan wrote: »

[/B]


I thought it was only 2?

Dont get me wrong I really enjoyed it, I was beside myself when the music started. Smeagol was brilliant so were the Wargs, the lot. How can he possibly drag it out for another 2 films though?

Cause it's Peter Jackson :pac:

Vokes

Liam O wrote: »

The only ones that I'd know if I hadn't read the book would be Fili, Thorin, Dwalin, Balin and maybe Kili and Bombur. Everyone else I'm not sure who is who which is scandalous after that long a film.

To be fair,

I think that's because those are the only dwarves of any real consequence in events in the rest of the book, so it's not surprising that PJ gave them more screentime then the rest.

johnny_ultimate

On the subject of 'lack of danger'... I still am irritated how many times Jackson pulled cheap deus ex machinas on us. With the exception of Bilbo (who does have a few character victories) no-one really achieves anything. The dwarves especially. At least five times they're 'saved' from imminent death at the last minute by some external force - elves, Gandalf (twice), Bilbo, eagles... They're a right shower of uselessness, to be honest. It wouldn't bother me once or twice (its used sparingly in Lord of the Rings), but the fact that you know they're going to be rescued in a lazy way each and every time absolutely destroys the dramatic tension of the film. Even in Fellowship, all the characters got their own little victories, however minor. And they were ultimately overwhelmed by antagonistic forces. While the source material of The Hobbit of course denies such developments, it alas does not make for compelling screen action when the risk factor is basically about zero. And having a dozen characters who, despite never proven claims to the contrary, are to all extents and purposes absolutely useless does not make for a strong cast of action heroes. This will hopefully change in the next two installments, but hopefully Jackson will have some more elegant dramatic tricks up his sleeve too rather than repeatedly resorting to the same tricks as opposed to actually having his characters rise above the situations and achieve something of consequence. So far, only Bilbo has been gifted with any sort of character development or scenes of personal triumph. Elsewhere, it's just as if all the stuff that happens is of little of no consequence, and everyone gets out of danger and winds up back with the group no matter how forced the reasons are. That's just bad screenwriting IMO, although hopefully it will be more satisfying overall when the story is completed.