The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

G-Money

I see Dundrum has stopped showing it in 48fps version and is just showing the 2D and regular 3D versions now.

Antar Bolaeisk

Heading to this a second time and not a single cinema this end of the world is showing it in HFR. Grrr. Guess I'll have to wait until Desolation to check it out.

SarahBM

No Oscar nomination for Howard Shore. absolute disgrace. >:(

Kirby

To be fair, Shore is a genius and the hobbit has a good score.....but when you compare any of his work to the fellowship score than it is going to be found wanting. It's hard to recreate brilliance like that and everything after it will seem disappointing. I can understand him missing out.

SarahBM

Kirby wrote: »

To be fair, Shore is a genius and the hobbit has a good score.....but when you compare any of his work to the fellowship score than it is going to be found wanting. It's hard to recreate brilliance like that and everything after it will seem disappointing. I can understand him missing out.

I cant! :mad::mad:

I thought the Hobbit score was beautiful. I really was blown away by it, and trust me, I have been listening to the LOTR sountracks since I did my Junior Cert. I havent seen the other films except for Anna Karenina (not impressed at all) and Skyfall (good but not great).

Going to be on a movie binge for the next month.

Poor Shore. really thought he would get a nod.

david75

They'll save all the Hobbit nominations for the final film and it'll once again win everything.

Or not.

Dr_Teeth

Are all the HFR showings over now? I'd really like to see what all the fuss was about.

mitosis

What wound me up, the extended "will I go, won't I go" scenes. I paid to see the fecker go, and we all know he's going to go, so GO!

SmokeyEyes

Interesting to read all the very mixed reviews.

I think The Hobbit suffers a little because with the first LOTR movie Jackson had to condense a huge amount of information into a 3 hour movie so you're constantly entranced and move swiftly from scene to scene with an increasing sense of danger so it's very exciting (the first movie is my definite favourite of the trilogy).

With The Hobbit because he's adding in extra bits and stretching out The Hobbit story line the pace feels a lot different and it doesn't build tension in the same way. I loved the movie but I'm a diehard LOTR fan! However, I don't think it's perfect but I'm taking hope in the fact that Jackson will no doubt be aware of all the criticisms of the movie and he therefore has a chance with the next two to edit and use the pick up shots to create two more movies that will really wow us and get rid of the downfalls of the first one!

krudler

SarahBM wrote: »

No Oscar nomination for Howard Shore. absolute disgrace. >:(

Didn't think it deserved it tbh and I'm a huge fan of his other work. The dwarf theme is excellent but the majority of it is just reused from the LOTR movies

[-0-]

I saw it in an IMAX 3d in the states. No idea what fps it was but it was my first IMAX 3d experience. Some of the 3d stuff was cool, some was really bad. As the famous quote from the LotR trilogy, the movie "feels like butter scraped over too much bread". It was a major disappointment. The book is so much better and I hated the goblin chase - that didn't happen in the book and it was just retarded to be honest. When the movie tried to be funny it failed miserably and most of the jokes just fell on a flat, silent audience.

I said all along that the book can only be made into one movie, and unfortunately that has proven to be true.

A bitterly disappointed 1/5.

jpm4

[-0-] wrote: »

I saw it in an IMAX 3d in the states. No idea what fps it was but it was my first IMAX 3d experience. Some of the 3d stuff was cool, some was really bad. As the famous quote from the LotR trilogy, the movie "feels like butter scraped over too much bread". It was a major disappointment. The book is so much better and I hated the goblin chase - that didn't happen in the book and it was just retarded to be honest. When the movie tried to be funny it failed miserably and most of the jokes just fell on a flat, silent audience.

I said all along that the book can only be made into one movie, and unfortunately that has proven to be true.

A bitterly disappointed 1/5.

How could you possibly fit all the book into just one movie? Unless it's 3 1/2 to 4 hours long I can't see it happening, and who wants to sit in a cinema that long?

MagicMarker

jpm4 wrote: »

How could you possibly fit all the book into just one movie? Unless it's 3 1/2 to 4 hours long I can't see it happening, and who wants to sit in a cinema that long?

Amazingly most books that are adapted to the screen seem to manage. But, just to compare...

LOTR - 1285 pages - Movie Trilogy
The Hobbit - 351 pages - Movie Trilogy

Doesn't really add up tbh.

FloatingVoter

jpm4 wrote: »

How could you possibly fit all the book into just one movie? Unless it's 3 1/2 to 4 hours long I can't see it happening, and who wants to sit in a cinema that long?

Django Unchained and Zero Dark Thirty both clock in near the three hour mark. You can stretch to four hours if you provide an intermission as they used to with the epics like Ben Hur, Gone With The Wind etc.
The Hobbit could certainly be done in two movies but that would rake in less cash.

Mickeroo

jpm4 wrote: »

How could you possibly fit all the book into just one movie? Unless it's 3 1/2 to 4 hours long I can't see it happening, and who wants to sit in a cinema that long?

Pretty sure return of the king was 3 1/2 hours?

FloatingVoter

Mickeroo wrote: »

Pretty sure return of the king was 3 1/2 hours?

3 hrs 21 mins

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_lord_of_the_rings_the_return_of_the_king/

jpm4

Mickeroo wrote: »

Pretty sure return of the king was 3 1/2 hours?

I know it was and it was an ass number! Why do that here if it doesn't make sense artistically and commercially?

jpm4

MagicMarker wrote: »

Amazingly most books that are adapted to the screen seem to manage. But, just to compare...

LOTR - 1285 pages - Movie Trilogy
The Hobbit - 351 pages - Movie Trilogy

Doesn't really add up tbh.

Am not talking about it being a trilogy....I don't really agree with that myself. Am talking about the argument that it should have been one film when there is plenty for two films. Quoting pages numbers does not get across the amount that is covered in the book. There is a lot.

MagicMarker

jpm4 wrote: »

Am not talking about it being a trilogy....I don't really agree with that myself. Am talking about the argument that it should have been one film when there is plenty for two films. Quoting pages numbers does not get across the amount that is covered in the book. There is a lot.

Page numbers are a pretty accurate reflection of how much is covered in a book.

Jesus.

snausages

jpm4 wrote: »

How could you possibly fit all the book into just one movie? Unless it's 3 1/2 to 4 hours long I can't see it happening, and who wants to sit in a cinema that long?

Gone with the Wind was 1000 pages long and its film was close to 4 hours long. A much more compact and less dense book like the Hobbit doesn't need that kind of runtime. It's not like every single event in the book is worthy of inclusion in the film.

Not to mention that the '78 animated version already did it in 70 minutes, albeit with some plot digressions. It's perfectly possible. I don't see why everyone thinks that a fairly simple kids book needs some kind of grand telling for it to work on screen.

jpm4

MagicMarker wrote: »

Page numbers are a pretty accurate reflection of how much is covered in a book.

Jesus.

So going by the logic that page numbers denotes the amount of movie time an event should be given, a rough estimate gives the battle of 5 armies about 6 minutes of run time in a 3 1/2 hour movie. Why would Jackson do that? Can't see that going down well for anyone with fond memories of Helm's Deep (which also got far more run time than in the book).

Jesus indeed.

jpm4

snausages wrote: »

Gone with the Wind was 1000 pages long and its film was close to 4 hours long. A much more compact and less dense book like the Hobbit doesn't need that kind of runtime. It's not like every single event in the book is worthy of inclusion in the film.

Not to mention that the '78 animated version already did it in 70 minutes, albeit with some plot digressions. It's perfectly possible. I don't see why everyone thinks that a fairly simple kids book needs some kind of grand telling for it to work on screen.

You're right it is perfectly possible by chopping and changing etc but that 78 animated version is a completely different time, place, budget, expectations etc etc. That was never going to happen here. What annoys me are people who say that any notion except one film is clearly stupid.

MagicMarker

jpm4 wrote: »

So going by the logic that page numbers denotes the amount of movie time an event should be given, a rough estimate gives the battle of 5 armies about 6 minutes of run time in a 3 1/2 hour movie. Why would Jackson do that? Can't see that going down well for anyone with fond memories of Helm's Deep (which also got far more run time than in the book).

Jesus indeed.

Er, no. I'm not saying a 350 page book, if adapted to a 3.5 hour movie, means x amount of pages for a specific event should correspond to x amount of minutes in the movie. That's just retarded. A good director will be selective when it comes to choosing what from the book gets into the movie and how much screen time is necessary.

What I'm saying is there can only be x amount of information contained within x amount of pages, and there is no reason why The Hobbit has to be adapted into 2 or 3 movies when every other book of similar length can be successfully adapted into 1.

SarahBM

I myself take LOTR films and LOTR books as 2 separate entities. I dont think you can directly compare every single little detail and I think the same should apply to the Hobbit. Why cant people just enjoy the film without tearing it asunder and nit-picking over whether this or that were in the book or not.

I really enjoyed the Hobbit film as a film. I loved the Hobbit book as a book.

I was dying to go see the film again, but now I have seen so many postmortems done on it, how could I possibly enjoy it as much as the first time round. In fairness!

Artful_Badger

It would be possible to make one movie from the book however that doesnt mean 3 movies are unnecessary. There were also extended LOTR movies which pushed out the hours considerably and still a hell of a lot of stuff omitted which could have been done. If LOTR were a six part epic I dont think it would have lost any of its appeal. Maybe for the "I want now" crowd who need everything spoon fed in the same standard format but for those who enjoy good movies and good stories it would just have extended the scale of the epic.

It doesnt need to be done in 3 movies the same way it doesnt need to be done at all. But it is being done and it is being done in three movies. Considering the first one was brilliant and there is still plenty of stuff left to make another two brilliant movies and that Peter Jackson in the genre has a proven history of being excellent at his job then I cant see any reason the other two will be crap.

snausages

jpm4 wrote: »

So going by the logic that page numbers denotes the amount of movie time an event should be given, a rough estimate gives the battle of 5 armies about 6 minutes of run time in a 3 1/2 hour movie. Why would Jackson do that? Can't see that going down well for anyone with fond memories of Helm's Deep (which also got far more run time than in the book).

Jesus indeed.

That's the thing about adaptations. The director/screenwriter is free to choose what events should works best as the focus of the film. The Two Towers is an interesting one because of how Jackson took both the beginning and ending of the novel and moved them to the other two films, where he thought they would work better. And he was right. Boromir's death was the perfect logical closure point for Fellowship.

But LOTR was a sprawling epic. The Hobbit is a much simpler tale about a plucky hobbit and his adventure with dwarves. If anything I would say the focus given over to Helms Deep and Pelennor Fields in the other films is a good enough reason why The Hobbit should steer clear of any epic showdowns if it wants to forge an identity distinct to that of LOTR. I'm rehashing something I said elsewhere but I find it impossible to justify the epic treatment this book is being given. Honestly, I would prefer if the big battle at the end of the book was treated the same way Tolkien treated it. Purely as an aside to the main action of the novel. I'm burnt out on big, epic battles. Had enough of them tbh.

jpm4

MagicMarker wrote: »

A good director will be selective when it comes to choosing what from the book gets into the movie and how much screen time is necessary.

Completely agree.

MagicMarker wrote: »

What I'm saying is there can only be x amount of information contained within x amount of pages, and there is no reason why The Hobbit has to be adapted into 2 or 3 movies when every other book of similar length can be successfully adapted into 1.

Eh....this assumes every book is basically the same in terms of content if they are the same length and have they all successfully been adapted? Don't agree. There is no reason it can't be 2 films for both artistic and (obviously) commercial reasons (unlike say the last Twilight where it seems to be entirely commercial reasons) .

This is just descending into having-the-last-word-ery now so think am done.

jpm4

snausages wrote: »

That's the thing about adaptations. The director/screenwriter is free to choose what events should works best as the focus of the film. The Two Towers is an interesting one because of how Jackson took both the beginning and ending of the novel and moved them to the other two films, where he thought they would work better. And he was right. Boromir's death was the perfect logical closure point for Fellowship.

But LOTR was a sprawling epic. The Hobbit is a much simpler tale about a plucky hobbit and his adventure with dwarves. If anything I would say the focus given over to Helms Deep and Pelennor Fields in the other films is a good enough reason why The Hobbit should steer clear of any epic showdowns if it wants to forge an identity distinct to that of LOTR. I'm rehashing something I said elsewhere but I find it impossible to justify the epic treatment this book is being given. Honestly, I would prefer if the big battle at the end of the book was treated the same way Tolkien treated it. Purely as an aside to the main action of the novel. I'm burnt out on big, epic battles. Had enough of them tbh.

Fair enough it's all just your opinion though - there is no reason why the Battle of 5 Armies should not be an epic really. People loved Helm's Deep so Jackson would be nuts to do something similar. The money men would also have a big say in the matter I would imagine.

snausages

jpm4 wrote: »

People loved Helm's Deep so Jackson would be nuts to do something similar.

That's the problem I have with it. There's a fine balance to be met between giving something back to the fans and making a great movie. I think as the years have gone on Jackson has become a little less restrained and more likely to indulge them even at the cost of taking away from the film's focus.

Scenes like the Mountain giants in this are incredible but they contribute little of anything to the film. I don't think the film would have suffered much if he left it out.

Good article on that here btw: http://entertainment.time.com/2012/12/18/the-worlds-biggest-hobbit-why-peter-jackson-should-not-have-supersized-bilbo/

Mickeroo

I think its hard to fully judge An Unexpected Journey until we've seen the other two films. At the moment I think maybe 2 films would have been a better option. As it stands I couldn't help but feel this was the first hour a half of a better film stretched out. There's enough in the book to justify 2 films imo as I think some of the stuff in the book that gets glossed over needs to be fleshed out in the film a bit, otherwise audiences would feel a bit cheated when it gets to the battles etc.

I dont think I actually posted up my views on the film when I saw it on opening weekend.

I liked it quite a bit despite the awkward pacing, and trying too much to emulate Fellowship which were the two main issues I had with it. Riddles in the Dark was the highlight for me, the low point was probably the over long Bag End scenes.

In general I think reviews that called the film flat out awful were a bit hyperbolic, its definitely not up to LOTR standards but its still pretty good imo.

I'm hoping to go see it again before it ends its run. Does anyone know if The Eye in Galway are still showing the HFR version? Might take a drive up to see what its like.