The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

ballygowan1

Hey all

The local cinema is only showing the hobbit in regular 3D. Is it ok to see it like this? Will there be a massive difference?

Liam O

Can't believe Jackson took the stone giant throwaway line in the book so literally actually thinking about it. That whole sequence was very badly done I thought after an interesting enough few scenes at Rivendell.

Professional Griefer

I enjoyed it, was a bit boring before they left, but I enjoyed it none the less.

Anyone mind to tell me what was added that wasn't in the book so far?

Liam O

Professional Griefer wrote: »

I enjoyed it, was a bit boring before they left, but I enjoyed it none the less.

Anyone mind to tell me what was added that wasn't in the book so far?

Spoilering just in case but not really major ones

The whole Gandalf/Radagast/Galadriel/Saruman parts, they didn't exist at all. Frodo obviously was merely a LoTR nod, the pale orc wasn't a character in the book, the thousands upon thousands of goblins that they had to fight through and one thing that was maybe improved over the book when he jumped over Gollum to get out rather than a couple of goblins. Haven't read the book in a while so that's what comes to mind. They hugely changed the troll part too I think but my memory is hazy on that. Thorin's backstory isn't spoon fed to the audience before everything either.

david75

While I did enjoy it I was more disappointed with it than not, and now I'm wondering how much better it would have been if it Del Toro had stayed on board. I can't help but think it would have been a lot more enjoyable.

jaykhunter

How do you think he'd've affected things. Like pace-wise or look/feel of the film?

david75

It definitely would have looked different. I saw a few of his drawings for it in some interview and I was alarmed at the time cos he was imposing a totally different almost ridiculous style to it(the dragon, at least) but upon review I think Jackson was too close to this by far. Some fresh eyes and new ideas would have made these shine in their own right and not just seem like a cynical cash grab.

The whole pacing of it even follows the FOTR template. I'm not sure if this is imply a feeling of familiarity(which would be unneccessary) or that he's just run out of fresh ideas(likely) but it just never ever has that magic Lotr has. And it should. Easily.

Shryke

Liam O wrote: »

Can't believe Jackson took the stone giant throwaway line in the book so literally actually thinking about it. That whole sequence was very badly done I thought after an interesting enough few scenes at Rivendell.

He did the same thing with the eye of sauron.

Grimebox

Liam O wrote: »

Can't believe Jackson took the stone giant throwaway line in the book so literally actually thinking about it. That whole sequence was very badly done I thought after an interesting enough few scenes at Rivendell.

Which line?

Rabies

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!

It's winter in NZ

We get all the big "summer" blockbusters in our winter. It's means our summer is often fairly average for movies.

Liam O

Shryke wrote: »

He did the same thing with the eye of sauron.

Only ever read RoTK and that was about 10 years ago so not really in a position to comment, the eye was quite good in those movies though, the stone giants in this were ridiculous

Grimebox wrote: »

Which line?

I think it was one of the dwarfs saying something like "the stone giants are battling tonight" because of the rocks falling from the mountains.

jpm4

Liam O wrote: »

Only ever read RoTK and that was about 10 years ago so not really in a position to comment, the eye was quite good in those movies though, the stone giants in this were ridiculous



I think it was one of the dwarfs saying something like "the stone giants are battling tonight" because of the rocks falling from the mountains.

Been a while since I read the book and haven't seen the film yet, but I did think that that line actually did refer to stone giants? As in actual Giants.

stevenmu

I saw this the other night and absolutely loved it.

There are other films out there that pack in more entertainment per minute, or that are technically an/or artistically superior. But I haven't see anything in a long time (possibly since LotR) that so captures and exemplifies the magic and wonder of cinema.

I saw it in 3D 24fps, so I do't know what i looked like in 48fps (I'll be going again to see that), but it looked stunning in 3D. And I felt the 3D really added to it. The landscapes, cities and scenery looked beautiful and truly epic, some really breathtaking stuff. This really helped create the feeling of a small group of small people questing through a huge and epic world. And I know many disagree strongly, but I think that when 3D is done well (like it was here) it adds to the immersion in the film.

I felt the story moved along quite well. The LotR tie in stuff at the start was maybe a little unnecessary, but other than that l I liked that it started slowly and took plenty of time to let us get to know everyone. And I liked that it jumped off to show us various back-stories etc. It made you feel at home in the Shire before moving off into the big scary world beyond.

It does deviate from the book quite a bit, but I'm ok with that. Maybe that's partly because it's 20+ years since I read it, but mostly I just want to see the best film(s) possible. And with the exception of the rock giants, I think it all worked pretty well.

I thought it was a magical and wondrous film, that made going to the cinema special again, instead of it just being a big screen to see things explode on.

Nervous Nigel

This and Avatar are the only movies I've seen where the 3D adds to it.

With everything else there's a sense of "let's throw in a bit of that 3D jiggerypokery and make a few extra quid".

funnights74

I saw this in 3d 48 fps today in the Omniplex in Limerick (excellent cinema btw, hadn't been before but it's a gem), but WOW the 48 fps makes such a difference, the fluidity and clarity of the characters on screen is astounding, it really feels like they are actually right there with you, after this i wonder how many more blockbusters will go back to the 24 fps format.
it's widely reported that the the Avatar prequel/sequel is pushing on further to 64 fps which is amazing. For anyone who can make it to a 48 fps screening, and not all can as not many cinemas can manage this format, i highly recommend, the difficult part will be going back to 24 fps.

jpm4

stevenmu wrote: »

I thought it was a magical and wondrous film, that made going to the cinema special again, instead of it just being a big screen to see things explode on.

Sums it up for me. After the dour realism of the other big films of the year leaving me cold (Dark Knight Rises and Skyfall), it was great to see a film that brought me to another world, and immersed me in it for 2 1/2 hours. It was everything I hoped for really. I am completely biased as I loved the book (which is far from a masterpiece) and knew many of the lines before they were uttered. As an adapation of the book it was hard to fault, the only things that really let it down was the other stuff shoehorned in. I could definitely have done without Radagast the hedgehog CPR giving, bunny riding wizard, or the tedious foreboding dialogue at Rivendell (Galadriel's reveal shot was hiliarious though - she appeared to be turning towards the screen on an invisible revolving disk).

Dwarves were brilliantly realised, the Pale Orc was a good idea, Freeman was good though not amazing. CGI generally of a high standard though occasionaly stood out a mile for some reason (the snails right at the end looked awful).

Can't wait for next Christmas.

DeVore

I went to see this in the Cineplex in Parnell street (back of the Ilac centre?).
Saw it in 3d but not sure what Fps it was, supposedly it was 48 but i didnt see much difference. Could have lived without the 3d which (as always) looks more like several 2d layers to me.

The films pacing was ... odd. The start was too slow, I dont like Sylvester McCoy and I felt sorry for the trolls but in general I enjoyed the movie and felt entertained for my money! The film is a kids movie in the same way that the book is a kids book. Its deep and well written but its much more slap-stick than LOTR and that comes across in the film. The "riding the bridge down the mountain" scene just snapped my disbelief and put me in a "oh, they've jumped the shark now" mood. I think i should probably have looked at it like that from the start but like many I was kinda expecting LOTR 2.0 and for the first part of the film well, thats what we got tbh. So, the rest does jar a little as a result.

Is it possible to see this in 48fps WITHOUT the 3d nonsense?

Sad Professor

No, there's no 2D 48fps version.

Liam O

DeVore wrote: »

I went to see this in the Cineplex in Parnell street (back of the Ilac centre?).
Saw it in 3d but not sure what Fps it was, supposedly it was 48 but i didnt see much difference. Could have lived without the 3d which (as always) looks more like several 2d layers to me.

The films pacing was ... odd. The start was too slow, I dont like Sylvester McCoy and I felt sorry for the trolls but in general I enjoyed the movie and felt entertained for my money! The film is a kids movie in the same way that the book is a kids book. Its deep and well written but its much more slap-stick than LOTR and that comes across in the film. The "riding the bridge down the mountain" scene just snapped my disbelief and put me in a "oh, they've jumped the shark now" mood. I think i should probably have looked at it like that from the start but like many I was kinda expecting LOTR 2.0 and for the first part of the film well, thats what we got tbh. So, the rest does jar a little as a result.

Is it possible to see this in 48fps WITHOUT the 3d nonsense?

You've kind of touched on it there, they made a lot of dramatic effect from things that didn't really need it. In the book the

escape from the goblins

is done in a tense way without them mowing down thousands upon thousands of them. The king goblin looked ridiculous too I thought. The film doesn't know whether it wants to be LotR 2.0 or the Hobbit and it gets caught in a purgatory between the two that doesn't really mix. There were lighthearted moments thrown into LotR and they worked but in this they are trying to convey a sense of doom in a film where none of the protagonist characters

die despite being in immense danger

The book conveys danger without ever appearing that they've escape from an impossible situation and the film so far has been conflicted with how this danger has been portrayed.

jpm4

Liam O wrote: »

You've kind of touched on it there, they made a lot of dramatic effect from things that didn't really need it. In the book the

escape from the goblins

is done in a tense way without them mowing down thousands upon thousands of them. The king goblin looked ridiculous too I thought. The film doesn't know whether it wants to be LotR 2.0 or the Hobbit and it gets caught in a purgatory between the two that doesn't really mix. There were lighthearted moments thrown into LotR and they worked but in this they are trying to convey a sense of doom in a film where none of the protagonist characters

die despite being in immense danger

The book conveys danger without ever appearing that they've escape from an impossible situation and the film so far has been conflicted with how this danger has been portrayed.

Well

Major characters do die but presumably not till the 3rd film

.

The problem about characters escaping from crazy situtaions is far from unique to this film I think - certainly LOTRs had enough of it, but we are in an age now where the audience is increasingly jaded and needs more bangs and whistles and crazy s**t going on to keep it interested. Whack in the CGI and sure it's hard to believe anyone is in any real danger. Seen this in the Star Wars prequels, Star Trek reboot, Iron Man...pretty much any fantasy/sci fi these days. I don't have a problem with this mostly as long as the film has other good stuff to back it up....The Hobbit does, Star Wars prequels don't.

Grimebox

I saw it in the big screen in the Savoy on O'Connel street in Dublin. Did that have it in 48 fps does anyone know? I didn't notice any difference. I might have to go see it again just for that

madds

Going to see the 2D version in LV tmw. Looking fwd to it. May go and see the 3D 48fps version if I enjoy tmw nights viewing.

krudler

funnights74 wrote: »

I saw this in 3d 48 fps today in the Omniplex in Limerick (excellent cinema btw, hadn't been before but it's a gem), but WOW the 48 fps makes such a difference, the fluidity and clarity of the characters on screen is astounding, it really feels like they are actually right there with you, after this i wonder how many more blockbusters will go back to the 24 fps format.
it's widely reported that the the Avatar prequel/sequel is pushing on further to 64 fps which is amazing. For anyone who can make it to a 48 fps screening, and not all can as not many cinemas can manage this format, i highly recommend, the difficult part will be going back to 24 fps.

The omniplex is nice since they did it up, was a dump a few years ago when it was the only cinema in Limerick, try Showtime on the ennis road if you can, best cinema in Limerick by far, the pic and sound quality is superb in every screen

madds

madds wrote: »

Going to see the 2D version in LV tmw. Looking fwd to it. May go and see the 3D 48fps version if I enjoy tmw nights viewing.

Well, as much as I wanted to like this and have been eagerly awaiting it for over a year now it was a big disappointment. Too many characters that were poorly introduced, a plot that I didn't buy into, and several last-second rescues that became tedious by the half way point. It was like Jackson was trying too hard to emulate the impact of LOTR. Will be interesting to see how Jackson receives the audience feedback and if he'll go back to the editing room before the Xmas 2013 release.

cypressg

Just seen it there,can't really complain much besides the few last minute rescues which are a bit dodge-don't remember them in the book but haven't read it in 20 years so they could be in the book?
It's defo a lot better than the soviet version on youtube made in 1985.
Also there's a low budget short feature on gollum called The Hunt for Gollum,also on youtube which I found quite watchable if you're a fan.

Morag

Feck me what with was with all the Timotei shots of Thorin Oakensheild, ok fair enough king to be and hero but the slowmo shots of him were absurd enough that by the 3rd one they were giving me the giggles.

Also what is up with kili looking more like an elf then a dwarf?

Rabidlamb

I was pleasantly surprised after all the mixed reviews.
Only thing that really bothered me was that you never feared any real danger.
Whether on some narrow mountain pass or on the Goblin walkways it just felt like an X-Box Game.

The big fall down the crevasse in the goblin city was straight out of King Kong.
The Fellowship seemed in more mortal danger & the loss of Bowmuir added to that sense of dread, this film had none of that.

Loved the familiar faces at Rivendale & Bilbo's interaction with Golum.
I've not read the books so I'll be intrigued to find out more about the Necromancer.
Not sure why the big guy who lost the arm to Thorin had such poor CGI, perhaps they'll improve that in the further episodes.
Obvious plot hole annoyance of why didn't the birds just fly them all the way to the Lonely Mountain aside I'm looking forward to the next installment.

Overall, 8/10

Mickeroo

Rabidlamb wrote: »

I was pleasantly surprised after all the mixed reviews.
Only thing that really bothered me was that you never feared any real danger.
Whether on some narrow mountain pass or on the Goblin walkways it just felt like an X-Box Game.

The big fall down the crevasse in the goblin city was straight out of King Kong.
The Fellowship seemed in more mortal danger & the loss of Bowmuir added to that sense of dread, this film had none of that.

Loved the familiar faces at Rivendale & Bilbo's interaction with Golum.
I've not read the books so I'll be intrigued to find out more about the Necromancer.
Not sure why the big guy who lost the arm to Thorin had such poor CGI, perhaps they'll improve that in the further episodes.
Obvious plot hole annoyance of why didn't the birds just fly them all the way to the Lonely Mountain aside I'm looking forward to the next installment.

Overall, 8/10

You won't find out more about the necromancer in the book at all. That's the stuff they're using to pad it out into 3 films.

FloatingVoter

Saw it last night - its certainly updated to highlight the ring (and pad out the movie). When I read The Hobbit I hadn't read LOTR yet and although the ring is referenced it plays no important part (apart from invisibility tricks). As far as I recall the Witchking of Angmar played no role in the original text (I can only imagine he is the Necromancer).
Good movie - but they are taking the proverbial to stretch a small kids book of maybe 250 - 300 pages into a three movie epic and its already starting to show.

Mickeroo

FloatingVoter wrote: »

Saw it last night - its certainly updated to highlight the ring (and pad out the movie). When I read The Hobbit I hadn't read LOTR yet and although the ring is referenced it plays no important part (apart from invisibility tricks). As far as I recall the Witchking of Angmar played no role in the original text (I can only imagine he is the Necromancer).
Good movie - but they are taking the proverbial to stretch a small kids book of maybe 250 - 300 pages into a three movie epic and its already starting to show.

The necromancer is

sauron

afaik.