The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Lightbulb Sun

I found the first hour of the film very tedious. Had a desire to leave it was so dull. The humour was very forced at that point I felt.

Improved after that but never really got into it. Thought the animation of the animals moving was pretty basic and unrealistic. Moments like when they'd hop out and were on the move.

There were some funny moments and the Gollum scenes were good. It could be better with more reflection but I can honestly say it never interested me for many parts of the film.

First time seeing 3D also. Found it quite gimmicky and overrated. Also not too fun for a glasses wearer.

Shryke

Gollum I've never found entertaining in the way I've not found mental illness entertaining.

On phone si keeping this short. Saw it tonight in Cineworld screen 11 and really enjoyed it. Was impressed by how great the HFR worked for the whole 10 seconds into it when I realised that it was the plain old 24 FPS and not the 48FPS version as we were told down stairs.

I don't know if itwas an issue with the screening or one in general but for the majority of scenes the right hand third if the screen looked completely out of focus and almost as if the 3D effect wasn't working properly. It was really distracting and not something I've experienced at a 3D screening before.


The film itself was entertaining as hell and while you could easily trim 30-45 minutes much like with Django Unchained I never felt bored and could easily have sat through another half hour. The cast were all good fun, well bar Nesbitt who I've never liked and who got far too many lines in this. Freeman was really good as Bilbo and his scenes with Gollum were the films highlight.

The use of CGI was nowhere near as bad as people were implying and bar one or two moments it was really top notch. Yes CGI will never replace an actual location or actor and the use of practical FX really helped LotR but there want a hope in hell that Jackson could have shot the Hobbit in the same manner. Every location would have been swamped with press and fans and made it a nightmare to shoot in.

Ill have a much more in depth post on the film when I get home and am sitting at a full keyboard after Christmas.

SirDelboy18

It was fine without being great - which I am not happy with because the book had the potential to result in an outstanding movie. I could have accepted 2 movies, but 3 was complete overkill and incredible studio greed - and it definitely shows. Many scenes drawn out to the point of frustration, an absolutely inexcusable running time, pacing a bit strange at times, and were it not for Freeman then it could have been even less likable.

snausages

Nervous Nigel wrote: »

You'd swear that Darth Vader had shown up in Star Trek the way some people are going on...The Hobbit and The Fellowship of the Ring are inextricably linked.

The Hobbit doffs its hat to The Lord of the Rings to just the right degree in my view.

Sure, they share a link. But The Hobbit, in my view anyway, completely over-emphasises that link and makes it a big focus of the film. Which does it no favours considering how much better LOTR is. In the end though it's nothing that can't be fixed without a fan-edit. It's mostly the prologue and the White Council scenes that offended me. There's a decent 90 minute/2 hour film in there somewhere.

noelfirl

Just saw it earlier this evening, was vaguely concerned given the mixed reviews. Thought it was pretty good, particularly as a lead-in film. 48fps was a bit odd at first, but got used to it quickly enough, although the only noticeable thing for me was that when there was action, everything moved really fast. 3D was quite good apart from a few blurs here and there, and it was at least all natively in 3D.

I didn't think the content was dragged out either. Looks like there might be some artistic licence taken with the battle with the Necromancer, which will hopefully fill out the second film too.

GRMA

Say it today and really liked it. 48fps was a bit odd but you get used to it


can't wait for the next one!

bilbo is so much more likable than frodo

nix

Was a bit iffy about it at the start, felt like i was watching a low budget tv movie for the first 30mins. As soon as they left the shire though it got alot better, kinda wished they held off on sooo much cgi. The goblin king looked pretty **** for the most part and the worgs were kinda sucky too..

Kinda wished they shot it exactly like they did LOTR, considering its in the same world and by the same bloody director

Oscorp

noelfirl wrote: »

I didn't think the content was dragged out either. Looks like there might be some artistic licence taken with the battle with the Necromancer, which will hopefully fill out the second film too.

I think that little dual was with the Witch King of Angmar (ie the head Ring Wraith) rather than the Necromancer. That was my understanding anyway.

noelfirl

Oscorp wrote: »

I think that little dual was with the Witch King of Angmar (ie the head Ring Wraith) rather than the Necromancer. That was my understanding anyway.

Sorry, should have been clearer. The Necromancer was shown in passing in the background after that dual. As far as I remember, in the Hobbit book, Gandalf and the White Council's encounter with and driving of the Necromancer from Dol Guldur was glossed over, but I get the feeling source material from the Silmarillion/the LOTR appendices will be used to include scenes covering that arc in either the 2nd or 3rd film. Benedict Cumberbatch is apparently down to do the voice and motion capture for the Necromancer, so I at least hope that's what will happen.

Mickeroo

noelfirl wrote: »

Sorry, should have been clearer. The Necromancer was shown in passing in the background after that dual. As far as I remember, in the Hobbit book, Gandalf and the White Council's encounter with and driving of the Necromancer from Dol Guldur was glossed over, but I get the feeling source material from the Silmarillion/the LOTR appendices will be used to include scenes covering that arc in either the 2nd or 3rd film. Benedict Cumberbatch is apparently down to do the voice and motion capture for the Necromancer, so I at least hope that's what will happen.

Cumberbatch is doing Smaug not the necromancer I thought. Or is he doing both?

Roar

Mickeroo wrote: »

Cumberbatch is doing Smaug not the necromancer I thought. Or is he doing both?

Both

WolfForager

nix wrote: »

Was a bit iffy about it at the start, felt like i was watching a low budget tv movie for the first 30mins. As soon as they left the shire though it got alot better, kinda wished they held off on sooo much cgi. The goblin king looked pretty **** for the most part and the worgs were kinda sucky too..

Kinda wished they shot it exactly like they did LOTR, considering its in the same world and by the same bloody director

Ha, if you think the wargs look bad in the Hobbit, go back and watch The Two Towers :pac:

snausages

WolfForager wrote: »

Ha, if you think the wargs look bad in the Hobbit, go back and watch The Two Towers :pac:

Their appearance was pretty brief though. For the most part the CG in the old films hasn't dated too badly. Smeagol still looks great so long as he's in motion and there's not too much light on him. It's only when the camera is allowed to settle on him for a long time that the spell is broken.

Although that's just on my dvds, I guess it wouldn't look so great in 1080p. I wouldn't want to watch the films in HD anyway tbh.

Sarz91

Went to see it last night in Cineworld out in Parnell street. Been waiting a while to see something on an IMAX screen. Gave us a 10 minute trailer for the new Star Trek film too. There was this "calibration" advert about IMAX just before the film started. Funny thing is, as soon as the film began, the right projector was completely out of sync with the screen and the left projector. We ended up watching this blur for about 15 minutes before they fixed it.

Unlike a lot of people I really liked the 48 fps. It could be due to the IMAX but I dunno I felt it was really clear. The 3D is probably the best 3D i've seen in a film, this again could be due to the whole IMAX thing. All in all I thoroughly enjoyed the film. My girlfriend really enjoyed it too, which is saying something believe me.

johnny_ultimate

On the topic of CGI and 3D, Life of Pi is a fascinating contrast to this. Ang Lee's bold and creative use of technology puts Jackson to absolute shame, frankly. If The Hobbit made me hate the artificiality of CGI world building and the continued redundancy of three dimensions, Pi made me realise how much of an asset the very same techniques can be in more artistically ambitious hands.

Lamper.sffc

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

On the topic of CGI and 3D, Life of Pi is a fascinating contrast to this. Ang Lee's bold and creative use of technology puts Jackson to absolute shame, frankly. If The Hobbit made me hate the artificiality of CGI world building and the continued redundancy of three dimensions, Pi made me realise how much of an asset the very same techniques can be in more artistically ambitious hands.

Bit like Dredd

TheDoc

Off to see this tonight in 2D. Still on my 3D embargo and am never watching another 3D film again, even if it means missing some big ones.

Thankfully Coolock has a 2D showing. Have to say not really "Gee'd" up for this. I enjoyed the original LOTR but after watching the trilogy again recently realised that it didn't hold well anymore with me.

A film of Hobbits and Dwarves most likely will annoy me throughout aswell, as an 8 year WoW gamer, I despise Dwarves

Grimebox

TheDoc wrote: »

Off to see this tonight in 2D. Still on my 3D embargo and am never watching another 3D film again, even if it means missing some big ones.

Thankfully Coolock has a 2D showing. Have to say not really "Gee'd" up for this. I enjoyed the original LOTR but after watching the trilogy again recently realised that it didn't hold well anymore with me.

A film of Hobbits and Dwarves most likely will annoy me throughout aswell, as an 8 year WoW gamer, I despise Dwarves

I saw it in 3D. Added absolutely nothing which is a shame considering the great lengths they went to to film it in 3D

TheDoc

Well caught it last night and really enjoyed it.

Went to the 2D showing and happy I did, you could see the bits they would have made into 3D, and to be honest I'm more convinced as ever 3D is a load of bollox. Can only imagine all the over the top shots in 3D, would be terrible.

Enjoyed the film anyway, obviously had a very similar flow to the first LOTR, but was enjoyable none the less. I always feel like prequels don't really have any sort of balance or ow **** moments, since you essentially know who lives and who doesn't and all that.

But yeah, good film and look forward to the second. Dwarves didnt annoy me as much as I thought they would.

krudler

Read the book again it had been a few years, it flies along, Gandalf shows up on pg3 and they're off on the quest by page 10 or so, sure the Gollum scene is on page 65 or something, thats 2hrs into the movie lol There is a lot of events in the book though that are given little description but have some impact on the plot

Loughc

krudler wrote: »

Read the book again it had been a few years, it flies along, Gandalf shows up on pg3 and they're off on the quest by page 10 or so, sure the Gollum scene is on page 65 or something, thats 2hrs into the movie lol There is a lot of events in the book though that are given little description but have some impact on the plot

That's the problem about doing a book adaptation is you always miss key elements from the book that impact the plot and in this case Peter Jackson is trying to drag out a single book over three movies. This Is why the Book moves much faster than the film did.

Dohnny Jepp

I absolutely loved it. The 48fps was amazing. Seeing the dwarves mine in erebor in the opening scene was awe inspiring. Again in the misty mountains when the camera paned around showing everything it was absolutely amazing.

I have serious man love for peter jackson

WolfForager

lockie1983 wrote: »

That's the problem about doing a book adaptation is you always miss key elements from the book that impact the plot and in this case Peter Jackson is trying to drag out a single book over three movies. This Is why the Book moves much faster than the film did.

Jesus H Christ. The movies do not comprise of just "The Hobbit". Jackson is trying to incorporate other events that we're happening at the time into the movies. While three movies is stretching it a bit, I do not understand how this thread is on page 31 (50 poster/page) and people still do not realise that there's a shed load more source material being used other than The Hobbit.

Rant? Maybe, but ****, is it getting annoying.

mikemac1

I was clearly living under a rock as I went to the film and was expecting the whole story to be wrapped up in that film

Is that it says I when the credit rolls

WolfForager

Desolation of Smaug will include backstory of Gandalf and The Dwarves , Dol Guldur, Thorin's Father and Grandfather etc.

http://www.vulture.com/2012/12/where-was-gandalfs-backstory-in-the-hobbit.html

Also trailer expected mid 2013!

krudler

Did I hear right that part 3 will be out June 2014? One does not simply go to Middle Earth in the summer!

Mickeroo

krudler wrote: »

Did I hear right that part 3 will be out June 2014? One does not simply go to Middle Earth in the summer!

Nice one PJ, first you go making three films and then you ruin christmas 2014 too.

Sad Professor

It wouldn't surprise me if Part 3 gets delayed until December. Assuming Jackson will be doing additional reshoots in early 2014, that doesn't leave a lot of time for them to finish in time for June. Unless he does all the reshoots in early 2013.

strandroad

lockie1983 wrote: »

That's the problem about doing a book adaptation is you always miss key elements from the book that impact the plot and in this case Peter Jackson is trying to drag out a single book over three movies. This Is why the Book moves much faster than the film did.

Yeah, I for one am disappointed. The book was a delightful romp with dark moments and some great character development. It would be much better served by a "new adventure" style adaptation, in one go. The Hobbit is not LOTR and most definitely not the Silmarillion, in my mind it is a mistake to try to turn it into another operatic opus magnum and to stretch and dilute the original so much, turning it into a poor man's LOTR clone.