The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

expectationlost

but boy were my knees killing me, 3 hour film bring back intermission i say, i just needed to straighten my leg for a minute that's all

it'd make the film more enjoyable for everyone, everyone could go to the toilet, get their coughing fits out of the way, buy more junk and people wouldn't be shifting in their seats to relieve the uncomfortableness as i was

got there in my seat 3 minutes before 3:40 left at 7 that and trailers and ~9 minutes of star trek, i was in my seat 3 hours 20 minutes

Antar Bolaeisk

expectationlost wrote: »

but boy were my knees kiling me, 3 hour film bring back intermission i say

I wonder if this was the result of it being digital, last three hour film I saw without an intermission was Avatar on it's opening week and that was also digtial.

The cinema I went to see Hobbit in always puts in an intermission if the film breaches the 150 mins mark for the first week as people spend more in the shop.

I'm glad there was none though as I hate intermissions, really breaks the pace of the film and this film certainly didn't need any pace breaking.

FloatingVoter

Last time I saw a flick with an intermission it was Braveheart in Limerick. The intermission suited the movie that time (whenever Braveheart came out first).

There was talk on Sky News about cinema owners getting pissed off with long movies and maybe re-introducing intermissions. Any theatre goer is well used to them. Pre-ordered half time drinks are great fun. Might be a good trick to get people returning to the cinemas.
Idea being you can only fit so many shows in per day, therefore make up for it in profits from the shop / bar etc. Might need a change in licensing laws though for the multiplexes.

johnny_ultimate

Digital wouldn't make any difference for intermissions. The digital prints of Laurence of Arabia and Mysteries of Lisbon in the IFI both had intermissions in the middle (Laurence... actually has an in-built intermission of sorts). I think they're only really tolerable or necessary when the film passes the 180 minute mark.

e_e

I find it odd that studios are seemingly more reluctant to release 3 hour+ films as ever, given the rise in multiplexes and the money that can be made from concessions at the halfway mark.

Not saying every film needs to be over 180 minutes, but I would love more films out of Hollywood that take time and meticulous detail to tell their story. I know some are reluctant but honestly I always savor the event of watching a really long film all the way through.

johnny_ultimate

e_e wrote: »

I find it odd that studios are seemingly more reluctant to release 3 hour+ films as ever, given the rise in multiplexes and the money that can be made from concessions at the halfway mark.

Not saying every film needs to be over 180 minutes, but I would love more films out of Hollywood that take time and meticulous detail to tell their story. I know some are reluctant but honestly I always savor the event of watching a really long film all the way through.

There's very little hope of a widespread return to the mainstream epic, alas. It's all about turnover - filling a theatre as many times a day as they can. Doesn't necessarily make all that much practical sense - given evening showings are the predominant money maker, it's not like there's a huge practical difference between a seven o'clock showing of a four hour film and an eight o'clock of a three hour one - but the executives only see potential dollar signs. It's why they love this idea of films split into two or three shorter parts when one would more than suffice with a slightly extended running time. Not only does it mean 2/3 times the overall gross, but theoretically anyway also maximizing the profitability of the individual films. Audiences have confirmed they're willing to accept this multi-film approach, so it's unlikely to change, especially when the last mainstream extended epic Grindhouse was such a staggering commercial failure.

So the 'long film' is pretty much destined to remain the territory of arthouse filmmakers. Personally, I can't wait to sit down with that copy of Satantango I got for Christmas

e_e

Do it in a double bill with Jeanne Dielman.

Mickeroo

On the flipside its rare to find a big release under two hours these days too.

FloatingVoter

Mickeroo wrote: »

On the flipside its rare to find a big release under two hours these days too.

...agreed, but I've also seen plenty of films that could have fitted neatly in an hour without the extra padding. The Hobbit isn't one of them but I'm sure we all have our nominees.

OCorcrain

There were a lot of things within the film that resonated with me, is it probably my favourite book-film adaptation.

But the whole Celtic/Norse themes within the film really suited it. The melody of "far over the Misty Mountains" for sure had a strong Irish influence regarding the tone and melody, even Thorin had an Irish accent from what I was hearing, and the yearning for their lost homeland and the dragon (the six counties and the Saxon dragon!)

SarahBM

OCorcrain wrote: »

There were a lot of things within the film that resonated with me, is it probably my favourite book-film adaptation.

But the whole Celtic/Norse themes within the film really suited it. The melody of "far over the Misty Mountains" for sure had a strong Irish influence regarding the tone and melody, even Thorin had an Irish accent from what I was hearing, and the yearning for their lost homeland and the dragon (the six counties and the Saxon dragon!)

I don't think the six counties was what Tolkien was getting at, and Thorin's accent was a North England one. Definitely not Irish. But the melody of the misty mountain song a kind of Scottish/Irish folk feel to it.

EoghanIRL

They could have cut some footage out of the movie in my opinion to make it shorter. It is a good movie though , I thought it would have a bit more action but overall I thought it was good .

expectationlost

it was great to have the same orc vioce actors back again, i rewatched the movies and dug out my copy of battle for middle earth over xmas, bfme is a great rts, only c&c is better, all the movies sounds of the orc, "its an urc palace", "over there" have been going off numerous times as i played it along with the eagle sounds, the film hit all those notes, indulged in showing them again, but hey that's lord of the rings.

Heroditas

WolfForager wrote: »

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)

I wonder if they'll throw in a bit about Gollum leaving the Misty Mountains and eventually ending up in Mordor.

MagicMarker

This bored me to tears, I didn't even make it half way through. Zzzzzz

G-Money

Went to see this earlier and was really, really surprised. I liked it a lot and it held my attention more than LOTR I think!

Liam O

Went for a second time yesterday and despite the opening sequence appealing to me more the same problems are all too prevalent with regards to it being overlong. A lot added in that didn't need to be, the whole Pale Orc story should have been shelved along with a lot of the goblin escape, should have been a lot less goblins there. Stone giants should be gone too and the bag end scenes shortened. There is a good first hour of a 3 hour film film in there but not much else.

krudler

Finally saw it in 48fps, the criticisms of the Bag End scenes looking like a stage play are warranted but I thought some of the shots looks amazing, especially the panning vista shots and some of the stuff in goblin town. Its only really during any handheld or quick movement scenes it looks jarring. Definitely helped with the blurry mess some of the 2D shots were

expectationlost

the stone giant bit i was just reminded of the scene in the previous movies of sauran blasting the mountain to knock gandalf off it as he hugged the wall

or was there another scene later of them walking along a mountain path

Nervous Nigel

expectationlost wrote: »

the stone giant bit i was just reminded of the scene in the previous movies of sauran blasting the mountain to knock gandalf off it as he hugged the wall

What scene was that?

snausages

That was in Fellowship, it was Saruman who did it. I thought the same. There's a lot of callbacks like that in the film.

What's the deal with 24fps? People say some of the action looked blurry, is that a byproduct of filming in 48fps?

al28283

Why can I remember almost nothing from this movie???

Sad Professor

snausages wrote: »

What's the deal with 24fps? People say some of the action looked blurry, is that a byproduct of filming in 48fps?

Most likely, yes. I haven't seen it in HFR yet, but yeah, some of the motion was very blurry in 24fps 2D. It was most noticeable during fast pans. I assume the 48fps footage when converted to 24fps looked strobey, so they used digital blur to try and make the motion smooth.

Footy101

Such a slow slow film. Yes, it was beautifully shot, a handful of good scenes etc but can't see myself watching it on DVD when it comes out nor will it compete with LOTR in terms of longevity. Bad call making it a trilogy I'm afraid.

Zubeneschamali

Footy101 wrote: »

Bad call making it a trilogy I'm afraid.

I don't think this film suffers from it being a trilogy - this episode has enough in it for a Part I. It is the next one which is most likely to suffer. This film is just a bit too long.

Now it's true that Jackson cut three bits of plot from this movie (Beorn, Mirkwood and the Elves) once he decided it was a trilogy, but if he had done that and kept it at two hours, it would have been fine. Lose 40 minutes of Radagast and the Council, nd I'd have loved it.

krudler

Sad Professor wrote: »

Most likely, yes. I haven't seen it in HFR yet, but yeah, some of the motion was very blurry in 24fps 2D. It was most noticeable during fast pans. I assume the 48fps footage when converted to 24fps looked strobey, so they used digital blur to try and make the motion smooth.

I saw it n both 24fps 2D and HFR 3D, and the biggest change for me was during the Radagast chase, you can actually see whats happening in it, and any of the aerial shots with people running while the camera is panning, it looks incredibley clear in 48fps. I'm not sold on 48fps but I can see where it has its advantages

Sad Professor

krudler wrote: »

I saw it n both 24fps 2D and HFR 3D, and the biggest change for me was during the Radagast chase, you can actually see whats happening in it, and any of the aerial shots with people running while the camera is panning, it looks incredibley clear in 48fps. I'm not sold on 48fps but I can see where it has its advantages

Yeah, but the 24fps version was obviously compromised as a result of shooting in 48fps, so it's not really a fair comparison.

Higher frame rates have been around for years, hence how they are able to slow down a football match and show you a pass in slow motion without it looking like a big blur. Before The Hobbit, did anyone watch a film and wish that it looked like live sports?

krudler

Tbh given a choice between regular 3D and 48fps I'd take the 48fps, some shots were horribly jarring but there are a few which are actually incredible looking, the shots of the eagles flying near the end were stunning. I'd love to see something like a BBC nature doc or Samsara in that format.

Artful_Badger

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I don't think this film suffers from it being a trilogy - this episode has enough in it for a Part I. It is the next one which is most likely to suffer. This film is just a bit too long.

Now it's true that Jackson cut three bits of plot from this movie (Beorn, Mirkwood and the Elves) once he decided it was a trilogy, but if he had done that and kept it at two hours, it would have been fine. Lose 40 minutes of Radagast and the Council, nd I'd have loved it.

I dont think any will suffer, I think there is plenty to fill all three movies. You have the story of the council ousting the necromancer (which needed Radaghast and the council meeting to set the stage for it). Then you have Mirkwood, Beorn, arrival at the mountain etc for the travelling party.

The Death of Smaug and the battle of the five armies would be enough to fill the final movie surely.

snausages

That's another issue with this trilogy itself. You can't just pour in a load of disconnected events into a film just to fill out and occupy the narrative and then expect it to turn out good. Desolation will probably be better than this though.