The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Zubeneschamali

Better than I expected, I enjoyed it a lot.

I'd dump the intro with Frodo and old Bilbo and lose Radagast and the Witch King. The CG orc bosses were terrible.

I could have done without Jackson shoe-horning in stuff he thought was cool in the LotR movies like the orc-boss hunting our heroes, Bilbo's feeble attempt to quit and go home, the eagle-summoning moth, a Council at Elrond's, making Thorin much too young and handsome (just like Aragorn) etc. etc.

But I could have done without most of that in the LotR movies, too.

FloatingVoter

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Better than I expected, I enjoyed it a lot.

I'd dump the intro with Frodo and old Bilbo and lose Radagast and the Witch King. The CG orc bosses were terrible.

I could have done without Jackson shoe-horning in stuff he thought was cool in the LotR movies like the orc-boss hunting our heroes, Bilbo's feeble attempt to quit and go home, the eagle-summoning moth, a Council at Elrond's, making Thorin much too young and handsome (just like Aragorn) etc. etc.

But I could have done without most of that in the LotR movies, too.

Yeah, if they are insisting on a trilogy, a 100 - 120 minute film would have worked. People would still have paid in and it would have cost less to make. But that would have betrayed how slender a book they're working with. I also agree, turning a 4ft dwarf into Aragorn does not work.

johnny_ultimate

FloatingVoter wrote: »

People would still have paid in and it would have cost less to make.

Actually, of all the justifications for making a trilogy - most of which I find completely unconvincing based on the evidence of An Unexpected Journey - commercial considerations are probably the most reasonable of all. The thing about making three films is that the cost of sets, actors, post-production etc... are all spread out over three rather than one film. And naturally you earn three times the box office. Of course its more expensive than making one film, but the costs lower dramatically the more you're able to reuse and the more you're able to offset the initially expensive production infrastructure.

Put it this way - you could make one really expensive film, or three moderately expensive films. $500 million for three films is a better investment than $250 million for one. Revenue will more than make up for the extra costs incurred by an extra six months of production / post-production. It's the same logic Harry Potter, Twilight and The Hunger Games used. It's cynically sensible.

Artistically, I think the reasons for expanding The Hobbit trilogy are weak. Commercially, it makes a horrible sort of sense. When Jackson presented the idea for a third film - or whether the studios suggested it, we'll never know - I think its safe to say New Line and Warners probably didn't object.

FloatingVoter

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Actually, of all the justifications for making a trilogy - most of which I find completely unconvincing based on the evidence of An Unexpected Journey - commercial considerations are probably the most reasonable of all. The thing about making three films is that the cost of sets, actors, post-production etc... are all spread out over three rather than one film. And naturally you earn three times the box office. Of course its more expensive than making one film, but the costs lower dramatically the more you're able to reuse and the more you're able to offset the initially expensive production infrastructure.

Put it this way - you could make one really expensive film, or three moderately expensive films. $500 million for three films is a better investment than $250 million for one. Revenue will more than make up for the extra costs incurred by an extra six months of production / post-production. It's the same logic Harry Potter, Twilight and The Hunger Games used. It's cynically sensible.

Artistically, I think the reasons for expanding The Hobbit trilogy are weak. Commercially, it makes a horrible sort of sense. When Jackson presented the idea for a third film - or whether the studios suggested it, we'll never know - I think its safe to say New Line and Warners probably didn't object.

Totally agreed, as a viewer I can see the money making racket for what it is. As someone who worked as an extra (yup, filmstar me) I can understand the logistical reasons. If I'd been on the board of Warners I'd have said "yeah, lets cream another $2 billion off the suckers".
Doesn't stop it being blatant graft. Still, I was expecting worse and enjoyed the ride.

Zubeneschamali

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Artistically, I think the reasons for expanding The Hobbit trilogy are weak. Commercially, it makes a horrible sort of sense.

I would actually prefer 3 two hour movies to 2 three hour ones, if each movie could be structured properly. This installment would have made a good 2 hour movie.

I'm not sure how he can split the rest of the story into two satisfying segments, though, and I'm sure they will both be too long.

pixelburp

Ultimately, I think people would have been more welcoming of the trilogy idea, if the first film wasn't so horribly bloated & needlessly long. Any arguments from Jackson about making the story a trilogy ring particularly hollow when to me it was obvious the first part needed some serious pruning.

johnny_ultimate

As I mentioned earlier, I'm still cautiously optimistic Desolation... will be the best of the lot, assuming they get Smaug right. It's There and Back Again that I fear will make An Unexpected Journey seem comparatively tightly paced. We'll wait and see, but its film two that will IMO make or break this series, even if the opening gambit was fumbled.

pixelburp wrote: »

Ultimately, I think people would have been more welcoming of the trilogy idea, if the first film wasn't so horribly bloated & needlessly long. Any arguments from Jackson about making the story a trilogy ring particularly hollow when to me it was obvious the first part needed some serious pruning.

If ever a film needed a fan edit... Someone needs to get Topher Grace over the WETA for parts two and three!

krudler

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

As I mentioned earlier, I'm still cautiously optimistic Desolation... will be the best of the lot, assuming they get Smaug right. It's There and Back Again that I fear will make An Unexpected Journey seem comparatively tightly paced. We'll wait and see, but its film two that will IMO make or break this series, even if the opening gambit was fumbled.



If ever a film needed a fan edit... Someone needs to get Topher Grace over the WETA for parts two and three!

I dunno what they're going to pad out the third movie with, I read the book again over christmas and its crazy how fast it moves along, Bilbo meets Gollum on page 68 or something, thats what, 2hrs into the movie?

FloatingVoter

krudler wrote: »

I dunno what they're going to pad out the third movie with, I read the book again over christmas and its crazy how fast it moves along, Bilbo meets Gollum on page 68 or something, thats what, 2hrs into the movie?

Given that he's taken artistic license with the movie, I'd imagine Gandalf having long-winded discussions with Elrond etc. about the suspicious ring that was found and dark forces rising in the East. Maybe even a bit more Frodo towards the end. And Saruman having a mid-wizard crisis or something.

melekalikimaka

WolfForager wrote: »

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.

its the hobbit in name, but not a following of the book, its the book and alot more added to it, which over all i think was the right thing to do

Morag

The Hobbit was a story which was made up for Tolkien's children, it's not going to be as serious as Lord of the Rings, yes some bits are being made darker, and there will be some odd juxtaposition between the two in the movie, which people have already commented on.

As for it seeming the same, well the hobbit came first, it's format was expanded by Tolkien into what became the 3 books of lord of the rings.

snausages

The main climactic centrepiece of the third film will be a big battle. I hate this idea

WolfForager

krudler wrote: »

I dunno what they're going to pad out the third movie with, I read the book again over christmas and its crazy how fast it moves along, Bilbo meets Gollum on page 68 or something, thats what, 2hrs into the movie?

Desolation of Smaug will deal with the White Council confronting the Necromancer, back story of Gandalf and Thorin's Father/Grandfather, Mirkwood, meeting Smaug and all that follows. (There is definitely enough material for this movie)

Not much is known about There and Back Again, speculated that it will deal with the Battle of the 5 armies and more than likely some more Necromancer based stuff. Also speculated that there may be a run up to LOTR, bit of back story.

Also can't forget The Pale Orc and other various bits and bobs that may be thrown in (If you've read through the appendices of LOTR or have a good grasp on Tolkiens universe, you get an idea of how much they could throw in if they wanted to)

Was reading earlier that The Hobbit should be seen as comprising of 3 different plots and AUEJ is the introduction of all three of these plots, which explains it's pacing problem and 'apparent' bloatedness.

I think there's plenty of material to make three movies, but then again this is coming from someone who loved AUEJ and has seen it twice and will probably see it again before it leaves the cinema.

expectationlost

are they no cinema price comparison sites?

we need like hipmunk for cinema tickets with the hassle factor, car parking etc accounted for aswell as 3d hfr imax etc

candy-gal1

Went to see this last week, have to say I found it incredably epic but moreso in a very magical, cosy xmassy way rather than just purely with action scenes galore but not much substance.
Imho this was much better than LOTR, which I love also, but The Hobbit seemed to focus mainly on the characters and very well done scenes tbh which I loved, and the soundtrack was very very awesome and treat for the ears too
Dont get me wrong, the fighting scenes were amazing, but moreso because they were darker and kind of unexpected, 10/10 methinks Thats my next 2 xmassy movies at the cinema sorted with the next two anyway

The Black Oil

Saw it in 2D. I've not read the book.

It looked amazing, the New Zealand landscape is spectacular.

First 30 minutes or so, until they exit the Shire, are a bit baggy, but after that, it starts to find its feet. It does sag again a little in the middle, but recovers. Good to see some familiar faces (hello, Cate Blanchett...), and the dwarves (not all, mind) are pretty good fun, though the trailers made it out to be chock full of humour, which I didn't think it was. Liked the speaking parts of the other creatures 'Dwarf-scum!'

WolfForager

A good article about the reception of AUEJ by critics, explains why the Hobbit isn't a simple affair of heading off to a mountain and getting some gold back and why it is a truly dark affair. Excellently explains that the novel "The Hobbit" as it is, is not the true/only source material.

Note: There are spoilers for An Unexpected Journey in the article also, so beware, also there is a further spoiler about the following movies which I have wrapped in spoiler tags.

Dislike Peter Jackson's The Hobbit? Then You Don't Know Tolkien

Why Critics Will Come to Regret Their Relentless Savaging of the New Film

Despite tentatively positive reviews from The Wall Street Journal, Rolling Stone, National Public Radio, The New Yorker, Entertainment Weekly, and several smaller urban newspapers, if you've heard much about the first entry in Peter Jackson's much-hyped Hobbit trilogy, it's probably that, well, it isn't very good. Right now the nearly three-hour demi-epic, controversially shot at double the frame-rate of most Hollywood features, is sporting a dispiriting 42% on Rotten Tomatoes, the movie-review aggregator that certifies movies as "fresh" or, as in the case of Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, rotten.

What's odd about the naysayers is not their opinions--movie-reviewing, like movie-making, is an artform rife with necessary subjectivities--but how they've gone about substantiating them. If there's one biographical fact avid moviegoers have considered sacrosanct these past few years, it's that Peter Jackson was and is a nerd-king of historic dimensions whose genuine love for all things Tolkien was and is the animating principle behind the Lord of the Rings trilogy and its now-three-part Hobbit companion. Not so, say those scions of the movie-reviewing circuit who've heaped calumny upon The Hobbit; in fact, Jackson's decision to bloat the 310-page children's book into a trilogy on par, in length and cinematic scope, to Tolkien's 1,500-page (in manuscript form, 9,250-page) Lord of the Rings trilogy was entirely a "mercenary" one, according to CNN.

What these critics don't know, and what Jackson most certainly does, is the history of The Hobbit as a text, and of Middle Earth as a holistic construction. While knowledge of the literature behind the film doesn't necessarily imbue the film with automatic cinematic bona fides, it does suggest that, in the long run, critics of The Hobbit will be made to feel rather foolish for their circumspection and (in many instances) their open hostility toward both Jackson and his creation. If there's a reason most critics panning the film don't also encourage moviegoers to avoid it, it's likely that they sense--as they ought to--that future generations will view the effort considerably more kindly, and that therefore The Hobbit is worth seeing now, whatever its infelicities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/seth-a...b_2342591.html

strandroad

WolfForager wrote: »

A good article about the reception of AUEJ by critics, explains why the Hobbit isn't a simple affair of heading off to a mountain and getting some gold back and why it is a truly dark affair. Excellently explains that the novel "The Hobbit" as it is, is not the true/only source material.

Note: There are spoilers for An Unexpected Journey in the article also, so beware, also there is a further spoiler about the following movies which I have wrapped in spoiler tags.

Interesting article, even if the author seems to be a Tolkien uber-nerd himself and chastises the critics from that position, which is rarely objective.

He misses the point though - he can explain why Jackson did what he did with the material, but it doesn't automatically make the movie good and the criticism unfair.

johnny_ultimate

Sorry had to edit that article down, it's not fair on the writer to copy and paste full articles.

But the article is bull**** :pac: The Hobbit should work on its own as a film, not as a piece of Tolkien academia. For the record, I have little to no interest in the insufferable Middle Earth history or lore - in many ways its just the original draft of the reams of formulaic, vapid fantasy that followed - I just think a few decent stories were told within the setting. The Lord of the Rings worked because it told its epic story well - and while the pacing is undoubtedly 'considered', it also doesn't get constantly bogged down by bloat (well, The Return of The King does IMO). In fact, a lot of stuff was excised to deliver a compelling cinematic representation of the story. Tom Bombadil was left out of Fellowship because it didn't serve the story or pacing. If he was in The Hobbit, I'd imagine Jackson would devote a half hour of screentime to the encounter.

The Hobbit is a turgidly paced, tonally uneven film that, for many, is vastly inferior in several respects to its decade old predecessors. Even when not compared to LotR - and they're not like and like, even though Jackson repeatedly seems to insist that they should be - it's a film with countless issues that have been discussed ad nausea on this thread and elsewhere. Not everyone agrees on that, and it's good to hear Tolkien fans and other viewers are digging it. To say that a thorough knowledge of Tolkien's dull appendices is a prerequisite to enjoying the film, however, is a crazy and troublesome presumption from that writer. It should stand or fall as a film on its own merits, loyalty to source material or not. I love Watchmen, to take another example, and the screen adaptation was hugely loyal to it: but I still despises Zack Snyder's film based on its countless stylistic and directorial demerits.

The reason The Hobbit is being critically savaged is not because the critics don't understand or appreciate Middle Earth history in all its minute, sleep-inducing detail. It's because they think its a bad, uneven, disappointing or merely underwhelming film. And I side with them on that one. If the next two films are absolutely remarkable, maybe we will look back on An Unexpected Journey and laugh with hindsight. Maybe what comes next will reinforce initial opinions, maybe it will make it look worse or better by comparison. But I think that's unlikely, because based on my first experiences with it, I just don't think it's a particularly good film.

WolfForager

Sorry about posting the full article, didn't realise it was rules against it!

Anywho, I will concede the fact that the movie does deserve some criticism, however I personally do not feel that it deserved the ravaging it got by critics. If you take a look at some of the ratings:

Rotten Tomatoes (Top Critics): 42%
Rotten Tomatoes (All Critics): 65%
Rotten Tomatoes (Audience): 81%
IMDB 8.4/10

I fail to grasp how the movie can be judged so harshly by critics when it is scoring so highly with audiences. For me personally I'll take the audience ratings over the critics ratings any day because in general I'm nearly always in consensus with the audience. However that's not always the case, most people will look at the papers or highly regarded websites which are for the most part reviewing the movie negatively. My brother who was (and to a degree still is) an avid fan of Tolkein and his works told me that he doesn't think he'll bother going to see The Hobbit even though he loved the LoTR trilogy. Despite myself and various other family members telling him that he'd love it, he's been too heavily influenced by the critics. In general most people who I've talked to loved the movie, some said it was a good way waste a few hours, but very few said that they thought it was a bad movie.

Honestly Johnny I've read your opinions over the course of this thread, and I respect them, but I sadly cannot agree with them. I don't know if it's because your looking at the movie from a more professional point of view than I am, but all I was looking for was a movie that brought me back to the Middle Earth and told an engaging story. Maybe it's because I'm a self confessed Tolkein nerd and love the the history of Middle Earth (which is in stark contrast to you :P), the references to the Necromancer, the Witch King, the White Council and other Middle Earth history and ongoings were sheer gold for me.

In terms of how it stacks up against the LoTR movies, for me it fairs quite well. To use the powerful and fantastically specific ">" symbol, RoTK>FoTR>AUEJ>TTT.

EDIT: Just as a wrap up, if the critics are so far out of touch with the general audience, it would appear to me that they are doing something wrong.

strandroad

WolfForager wrote: »

I fail to grasp how the movie can be judged so harshly by critics when it is scoring so highly with audiences.

The critics judge by the criteria of plot, acting, production, cinematic quality. Some parts of the audience judge by that also, but other large parts may love it purely due to love of CGI/action, Tolkien nerdism, childhood memories of the book etc. Therefore a movie like this can appeal to a lot more people than it would on purely cinematic merits.

johnny_ultimate

WolfForager wrote: »

EDIT: Just as a wrap up, if the critics are so far out of touch with the general audience, it would appear to me that they are doing something wrong.

Would be just as easy to turn that statement around given how many audience members think of cinema as nothing other than mere mindless distraction, but really a critic is just another viewer: their opinion is purely individual, and you should never let a critical voice overwhelm your own personal reaction to a film. Truth is, the best critics (and there's loads of bad ones) are passionate film fans - much moreso than your average cinema-goer who just checks out the big blockbusters or indeed 'whatever's on'. A professional reviewer might sit through well over a dozen new releases in a week - great, good, mediocre, bad, ugly films of all budgets, genres and languages. This does create a weird sort of situation, where their experiences are undoubtedly removed from the general public - less forgiving than a less frequent cinema-goer may be, although also perhaps at times too eager to jump all over films that are a notch above the sheer amount of mediocrity and sub-mediocrity they have to trudge through. Again, the best are able to retain their sense of passion & perspective and still present honest opinions.

Critical aggregation sites can be a good guide - it's safe to say a universally praised film is worthy of a look, a universally loathed one often best avoided. The best film writers well know what they're talking about, after all. But it's not the be all and end all. I think everyone has dozens of film opinions that are not in line with general consensus. A critical response shouldn't put anyone off watching a film they want to watch, and certainly never be afraid to speak out against a consensus whether its critical or audience. Even the best loved films have their detractors - it shouldn't be any other way.

Oh, and never trust the audience reactions on IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes. Absolute minefields of inane commenters drowning out the sensible ones

david75

Did everyone else forget that Billy Connolly is in this?

snausages

I read that article a few days back and honestly, it doesn't really matter how much attention Jackson pays to the extra material in the appendices if it doesnt work well in a filmic context. I think the guy who wrote it might have misunderstood why this film hasn't been received well. It's not just dry as dust movie boors that don't like it. There are plenty of Tolkien enthusiasts, myself included, who hate the treatment this story has been given. Tolkiens footnotes don't make for compelling cinema. Maybe as a side-project it might have worked but in The Hobbit all it is is extra baggage.

I wouldn't put much stock in IMDB either. It's pretty much an internet hangout for the most devoted and deluded kinds of fanboys. There's no space on AUJ's message board for any kind of balanced and reasonable critique of the film. I remember on the day of release the highest voted user review called it a masterpiece of modern cinema or something similarity hyperbolic. Anyone who though otherwise was a troll or a hater.

It surprises me sometimes how hostile some people get (not on here) over a film's critical reception. All the critics are meant to do is, all they can do, is help inform us if a film is worth watching. Cinema would likely be a much darker place without them even if we don't always agree with then. I think they got it spot on with The Hobbit though.

e_e

WolfForager wrote: »

I fail to grasp how the movie can be judged so harshly by critics when it is scoring so highly with audiences. For me personally I'll take the audience ratings over the critics ratings any day because in general I'm nearly always in consensus with the audience.

I'd much prefer have films that divide audiences rather than ones that go for the safe middle ground. That's where you find the originality, edge and directors who are not scared of losing a few viewers along the way. Much more exciting, inspiring and memorable than movies that just bow down to the viewer's wants.

I liked The Hobbit very much but there's no denying that it's scoring highly solely because it's a well produced, faithful and action packed novel adaptation. Undoubtedly entertaining but it's still deserving of as much scrutiny as anything else and let's face it, there were some far better films in 2012 mainstream or otherwise.

Sleepy

Honestly, my favourite part of that was what I saw in the trailer: the singing in Bilbo's hobbit hole. Unsure as to whether I'll bother watching parts 2 & 3 tbh.

expectationlost

well saw it last night, at imax 3d parnell street it was really wierd at the start, when old bilbao is writing in his book his hands move super fast, but i didn't really notice it at all past that it does look like an afternoon bbc children action/adventure especially with the indoor lighting pretending to be outdoor, it looks cheap but i still know it is high quality.

think the film was much better then the early reviews

darced

This post has been deleted.

snausages

darced wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

IMDB has The Dark Knight and Fight Club in their 10 greatest films of all time. Their top 250 is really just a long list of currently fashionable movies. It's full of comic book adaptations and Christopher Nolan films with a selection of respected classics thrown in. So I can't agree that it's as good a list as you can find anywhere else. They're hardly a discerning bunch. But at the same time it's not a bad place to find a film if you're just looking for something to watch.

hyperborean

I watched this last night and I thought it was a fabulous film, really enjoyed it...everything I expected.

Best film this year so far;)