The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Peter Jackson)

[Watashi]

IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/)

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/677285/thumbs/o-THE-HOBBIT-COMIC-CON-POSTER-570.jpg?5

[Watashi]

This was alright. I didn't mind the 48 fps. The only time it looked really weird is when Radagast was riding on his sled-thing. Then it turned into a cartoon.

It's biggest problem is that Jackson tried to match the previous trilogy beat by beat. The rock monster showdown was reminiscent of the Fellowship in the avalanche. Gandalf using the moth to get rescued, etc. Also, the Pale Orc is just another nameless uber-Orc like the other installments had.

Freeman is great as Bilbo, but this film really needed a strong secondary character and I think Thorin failed to be as emotionally convincing as a Boromir or an Aragorn.

[Dead & Messed Up]

This was decent. Reaaaaally broadly-played. Freeman was an excellent choice. As much as the film wants to be The Ballad of Thorin Oakenshield, Bilbo's so much more interesting a hero, thanks in large part to Freeman's nervous tics and gestures and hesitations.

Also, during the big rock-monster battle, I kept hoping for someone to construct a rudimentary lathe.

[Fezzik]

I liked this a lot. My only issue was what Wats mentioned above. Jackson tried too hard to link 'The Hobbit' to the original trilogy via similar moments and a lot of them were completely unnecessary.

It's more whimsical and built on fancy and coincidence than the Rings trilogy, but then so was the original book.

The creature effects were astounding to me. The advances made in the last decade are somewhat staggering.

Freeman was fantastic (so was McKellen, but really, is that a surprise?) and he seems born to the role.

The famous "Riddles in the Dark" scene does not disappoint. Serkis again is mesmerizing as Gollum and the aforementioned creature effect improvements are really put on display here as Gollum's face goes through several realistic contortions while trying to reason out a question, and the emotions shown in his eyes are heartbreakingly real.

The biggest complaints I'd heard about prior to viewing were that it felt long and that the Radagast scenes were "Jar-Jar Binks" awful.

I disagree on both counts. I was surprised when the movie ended. If anything, it felt short (doubly surprising for a Midnight showing), and the Radagast scenes, while they wouldv'e been out of place in the original trilogy, fit perfectly here.

I cannot wait to see it again. There are no 48 FPS screens in town, I think, but I will definitely try to catch it on IMAX.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Also, during the big rock-monster battle, I kept hoping for someone to construct a rudimentary lathe.

"Get off the line, Guy!!!"

[Stay Puft]

I'm excited to see this just because I want to finally go the multiplexes and watch something in a framerate that isn't eyes-bleeding awful.

[Gizmo]

Does this really stand alone as 1/3 of a story but a complete story on it's own? How does it shape up moving forward? Apparently the Gollum scene is in this one, and I remember that being about halfway through the book, not within the first 3rd. Basically, I'm concerned that they stretched a 200 page book into 3 3-hour long movies... How's the pacing and story play out as a first act?

[Wryan]

This is a minor success. There are indeed a few pauses held too long, a few scenes with extra lines. But it seemed okay overall. As a fan, I liked seeing the time taken for character moments. It will be interesting to see if it holds up to repeated viewings. The tone was a wrestle of whimsy and grim, and it wasn't quite hit squarely this time. I think perhaps Jackson and Company's biggest mistake was overshooting the number of Tolkien fans they believed they created with the first trilogy, because this does teeter a little too close to fan-service at times. Going in with the right frame of mind (kids' adventure epic; it's broad but exciting), I think most would enjoy it.

But holy hell are the dyspeptic critics grousing about the 48 fps for almost no reason. I saw none of the oh-my-god artifice that the high frame rate supposedly reveals. It looked fine for the most part. But I also didn't really see much benefit either. I still saw some blur in certain moments of action that surprised me. I attribute that somewhat, granted, to my relatively weak eyesight, though I saw it in a small room and was not far from the screen. The dwarves were not completely anonymous and interchangeable if you were paying the fuck attention. They had more lines than I was expecting, actually. The way the Great Goblin was handled was also incredibly unexpected, ballsack-chin and all.

I would like to see it again in 24 fps and perhaps in IMAX to see how the experience is different. Also, I noted that the wargs and eagles did not talk. I can't help feeling that it's going to be supremely odd and off when Smaug starts talking, mostly because that won't really seem to fit in with the world created so far. I think that is partly due to the vacillating tone; it sorta wants to be kiddie and not at the same time, and that may weaken things in the next movies. There were several elements that called back too directly to LOTR, too obviously even for a kids' adventure.

[eternity]

I was expecting 48fps to be more...noticeable. It looked really nice, though. Definitely preferable to 24.

Other than that, I have nothing good to say about this. A complete misfire in every conceivable way. Three hours of a hobbit, a bunch of dwarves, and a wizard who drops in and out randomly as they run from and occasionally fight some ugly things. The Hobbit is an excellent book, but the decision to drag it out into three films is about as bad as it could possibly be. Tedious, repetitive, and by the time anything interesting happens, I was too bitter to give a shit. Ugh.

It's LOTR's Phantom Menace. The craftsmanship alone saves it from being on the level of the other movie based on a book split into three parts, Atlas Shrugged: Part I.

[Spinal]

Ended up seeing this today because my son wanted to. Thank goodness for Martin Freeman who makes the whole thing watchable. There's a scene here and there that works, but mostly, this is an awkward attempt to reclaim past glory.

[Skitch]

"Get off the line, Guy!!!"

"Don't open that! You don't know if there's any air! Is there air? You don't know!"

*sniff, sniff*

"Seems fine."

[Stay Puft]

But I also didn't really see much benefit either.


I was expecting 48fps to be more...noticeable.

You know, now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure I saw A Liar's Autobiography in the HFR format. I mean, I think the screenings were being advertised as such, but I wasn't sure (and the ticket I paid for was regular admission; wouldn't they charge a premium for it?). I decided it must not have been when I noticed typical low framerate problems.

But now I'm worried it really was 48fps and that just won't be enough. They should have dreamed a little bigger.

[Wryan]

Ended up seeing this today because my son wanted to. Thank goodness for Martin Freeman who makes the whole thing watchable. There's a scene here and there that works, but mostly, this is an awkward attempt to reclaim past glory.

Son like it?

[TGM]

So the high frame rate version of The Hobbit is officially the first movie I've ever walked out on. I went to it purely out of curiosity's sake, but holy shit, I have NEVER been more distracted during a movie. There was no way I was gonna sit through three hours of that shit. It's like the movie was moving in constant fast forward. So unnatural looking, and kept me from enjoying a single second of what I saw.

I'll give The Hobbit a proper chance another time, but my god, STAY AWAY from the high frame rate version!!!! I'm literally shaking right now I'm so pissed off by it. Holy fuck, dude.

[Wryan]

So the high frame rate version of The Hobbit is officially the first movie I've ever walked out on. I went to it purely out of curiosity's sake, but holy shit, I have NEVER been more distracted during a movie. There was no way I was gonna sit through three hours of that shit. It's like the movie was moving in constant fast forward. So unnatural looking, and kept me from enjoying a single second of what I saw.

I'll give The Hobbit a proper chance another time, but my god, STAY AWAY from the high frame rate version!!!! I'm literally shaking right now I'm so pissed off by it. Holy fuck, dude.

How long did you stay before you walked out? Because many, many people reported a seasoning period before their eyes/brain adjusted to it. I myself didn't find any problem with it from the beginning.

[TGM]

How long did you stay before you walked out? Because many, many people reported a seasoning period before their eyes/brain adjusted to it. I myself didn't find any problem with it from the beginning.

I watched a little under an hour. By that point I was already fuming, and for the next half hour after I left my heart was still racing. I've seriously never been so legitimately infuriated by a movie in my life.

[Watashi]

So the high frame rate version of The Hobbit is officially the first movie I've ever walked out on. I went to it purely out of curiosity's sake, but holy shit, I have NEVER been more distracted during a movie. There was no way I was gonna sit through three hours of that shit. It's like the movie was moving in constant fast forward. So unnatural looking, and kept me from enjoying a single second of what I saw.

I'll give The Hobbit a proper chance another time, but my god, STAY AWAY from the high frame rate version!!!! I'm literally shaking right now I'm so pissed off by it. Holy fuck, dude.
Dude. It's not that bad. I enjoyed it and so did a lot of people.

[Watashi]

I think this a pretty decent article that articulates why cinephiles should support this new technology. (http://www.slashfilm.com/high-frame-rate-and-the-hobbit-the-allure-of-middle-earth-is-crystal-clear-at-48fps/)

[TGM]

Dude. It's not that bad. I enjoyed it and so did a lot of people.

I know a lot of people enjoyed it, but I also know a lot of people who hated it as well. It's just one of those polarizing things, and I happen to fall into the camp who couldn't handle it.

So I suppose I should clarify that I wrote that fresh out of the theater and had to rant. Basically, it's not for everyone, though there's a chance you either might like it, or in some instances, not even notice it at all. *shrug*

[Spinal]

Son like it?

He did, but moderately so. He like to rate things (I swear I did not teach him this) and he gave it 3/5 stars. Yes, I have a child who uses a 5-star system. I have failed.

[Spinal]

Not sure what to think about the high frame rate issue. Some times it looked great and some times it looked like crap. It definitely felt more artificial to me, but I don't know enough about it to understand whether it's worth getting used to or if it's a disaster.

[Wryan]

He did, but moderately so. He like to rate things (I swear I did not teach him this) and he gave it 3/5 stars. Yes, I have a child who uses a 5-star system. I have failed.

:lol:

[plain]

In what is easily the weakest of the LOTR lot, The Hobbit is a bloated, often gorgeous return to Middle Earth that entertains but increasingly fails to engage. This could have been a much tighter and rounded work if 25 minutes or so were cut off; a lot of fat here, as it takes FOREVER to get going. To no surprise, there's less wonder instilled in this prequel, which feels a lot lighter in tone than its predecessors. The film works best when the indiscernible dwarves are engaged in action, rather than sitting around stressing how much they enjoy food. I find it amazing that there will be two more films, which I'm assuming will share the same tiring run-time.

Did not see in 48fps for anyone wondering.

[Spinal]

I find it amazing that there will be two more films, which I'm assuming will share the same tiring run-time.



At least one of them will have the dragon. The other one is going to be a real chore I suspect.

[Qrazy]

At least one of them will have the dragon. The other one is going to be a real chore I suspect.

Prob end with Sauron turning into a big eyeball.

[Sven]

The film works best when the indiscernible dwarves are engaged in action, rather than sitting around stressing how much they enjoy food.

I have a hard time believing this.

[Spinal]

That's the name of the next film ...

The Hobbit: Dwarves Engaged in Action

[Derek]

Dude. It's not that bad. I enjoyed it and so did a lot of people.

It was horrifying (the look of the film, not the film itself), like watching a $300 million soap opera. I expected my eyes to adjust, but they never did. The movement of the real people looks sped up by 50% the entire time and it has a bizarre home movie look despite the impressive CGI/effects. It was incredibly distracting and constantly undermined the reality of the film. I won't be supporting this new technology until there are major improvements made. Strikes as a way of replicating the look of a high-end home movie experience, but in the theater which is simply an ass-backwards way of doing things. I'll be interested to read your article in the morning, but for now I'm going to try to calm myself down and go to bed.

[eternity]

People really need to get over the "soap opera/home video" complaint. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

[Watashi]

It reminded me of watching the BBC versions of Chronicles of Narnia. I think this format works for fantasy stuff. I doubt I could watch a normal film in 48 fps.

[Sycophant]

People really need to get over the "soap opera/home video" complaint. That's not a bug, it's a feature.

Shit feature.

[Stay Puft]

The only reason it (edit: 48fps in general, if my post wasn't clear) looks like a soap opera is because soap operas embraced the future a long time ago. Like the article Wats linked points out, if it (The Hobbit) looks like a soap opera, it's because of things like lighting and staging.

What defines the look of BBC productions for me is not the framerate but the goddawful lighting and use of computer effects (as a cheap, low budget, abrasive crutch). Torchwood is probably the worst thing I've ever seen in my life.

Seriously, go fire up the trailer for The Hobbit right now and tell me those shots of the Rivendell set don't look like a soap opera. They do, and will, at any framerate. Because they look terrible.

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, it's on track to make between 95 and 100 million this weekend which is a december record.

[Wryan]

Seriously, go fire up the trailer for The Hobbit right now and tell me those shots of the Rivendell set don't look like a soap opera. They do, and will, at any framerate. Because they look terrible.

Those shots of the Rivendell set don't look like a soap opera.

Damn, that was easier than I thought it would be. :P

[Dukefrukem]

This was great. I had way more fun with this than any of the previous three Middle Earth movies. Jackson has perfected the pacing. I didn't think the score could ever match that of the original trilogy but it does. That song the dwarfs sing while they are at the shire; that theme stuck with me during the entire journey. My only complaint is Jackson's continued use for forcing ridiculous set pieces. (much like the stampede scene in King Kong) Most of the connections to the original trilogy were short and sweet. Great ending and looking forward to the next chapter.

[Winston*]

Jackson has perfected the pacing.

Man, do I disagree with this. I can see a full hour of this film that could be excised.

[Dukefrukem]

Man, do I disagree with this. I can see a full hour of this film that could be excised.

The movie flew by for me and I'm by no means a fan of this franchise.

[Dukefrukem]

Also, I was really happy to see Guillermo del Toro helped write this and give some input on the new orc designs. Loved how the hid the design of the dragon too. If del Toro had any input on that design, I will be very happy.

[Spinal]

Yeah, that's insanity. To praise of all things the pacing? There is so much bloat in this film.

[Dukefrukem]

Yeah, that's insanity. To praise of all things the pacing? There is so much bloat in this film.

And I'm saying there isn't any. What would you have liked to be cut? I can think of 37 scenes that could be cut from Fellowship. They didn't even fuck around in Rivendale very long.

[Winston*]

And I'm saying there isn't any. What would you have liked to be cut? I can think of 37 scenes that could be cut from Fellowship. They didn't even fuck around in Rivendale very long.

Everything before Gandalf meets Martin Freeman's Bilbo
Everything involving Radagast
Everything involving The Pale Orc
The meeting between Gandalf, Saruman and Galadriel.

For starters.

[Dukefrukem]

No, seriously what would you like to be cut? When you say: "Everything involving The Pale Orc" I cant' take you seriously.

[Spinal]

Dish washing. I want 100% less dish washing.

[Winston*]

No, seriously what would you like to be cut? When you say: "Everything involving The Pale Orc" I cant' take you seriously.
Why?

[Watashi]

Dish washing. I want 100% less dish washing.
Aw, I liked that scene.

[Winston*]

I don't have a problem with the dish washing.

[Dukefrukem]

Aw, I liked that scene.

So did I!

[Dukefrukem]

Why?

Because he was a fantastic villain that will most likely will carry through for the entire trilogy. They didn't pull a George Lucas, introduce a sinister villain and kill him off in the same episode! ( I was holding my breathe there during the tree fire fight). We have history on the pale orc, we have a sense of brutality, we had a first encounter fight (which reminded me of Empire a bit) and we have revenge for our protagonists. Plus, that whole fire fight scene was give purpose to Bilabo and why he is even on this journey to begin with. Everything about the Pale Orc was fantastic esp, his makeshift prosthetic arm.

So when you say all of that needs to be cut from the movie... well what would you have left? The dish-washing scene and a wizard that talks to animals.

[Winston*]

I think the Pale Orc is symptomatic of several of the film's major problems.

The revenge back story serves to further foreground the uninteresting Thorin Oakenshield as the film's lead character when the focus should be on the journey of the titular Hobbit.

His function in the narrative as pursuer works to help replicate the beats of Fellowship rather than casting this film in its own mold.

Having Bilbo redeem himself through saving Thorin from the Pale Orc by killing another orc undercuts an important aspect of his character: that the qualities through which he will prove himself are different from that of his dwarf companions.

Also, he's just not an interesting character to me. All Orcs are brutal. So what? I agree he looks cool.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I'd cut the opening history of the dwarves, or at least save it for later and abridge it further. I'd cut about half to two-thirds of that goblin cave escape scene. I'd cut the rock monster thing, which is neat, but ultimately doesn't impact the story in any meaningful way and lessens the sense of stakes. I'd trim Radagast (and get rid of the birdshit, seriously).

[Winston*]

I liked at the start how it's established that Bilbo is writing his book for Frodo and he opens by explaining what a hobbit hole is. That's like me writing a book and beginning it by explaining what a house is.

[Spinal]

I liked at the start how it's established that Bilbo is writing his book for Frodo and he opens by explaining what a hobbit hole is. That's like me writing a book and beginning it by explaining what a house is.

:lol:

[Dukefrukem]

Anyone else get the sweet Hobbit posters at the midnight release of IMAX? Or the free Dust Lands book? Anyone read that? Worth it?

[Boner M]

This review rules. (http://cinemarave1945.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/the-hobbit-peter-jackson-2012/)

[Skitch]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – (a.k.a. My First Trip With Forty-Eight Frames Per Second). I’ll start with the cons. In scenes of conversations or close ups, what I’ve heard is accurate, it doesn’t look good. At all. It indeed looks like some cheesy British soap opera. I also noticed any time there was the slightest shutter of camera movement. With such a fast frame rate, if the camera operator breathes hard you will notice. Also, regular movement looks very strange in these scenes. A hobbit walking across his home looks jerky and possessed. It may just be a lighting issue. I don’t expect it new tech to be perfect right away, there must be a learning curve.

Now the pros. In the action scenes, scenes with lots of CGI…the frame rate was incredible, and brought an amazing amount of clarity. This was essential for the 3D (which was very nice and enjoyable but not mindblowing-Avatar-ness). I demand that all future 3D action scenes be filmed in high speed. It was so clear, I could see every single detail. I may be way off base here, but would there be an issue (considering most theaters are digital projection now) having the action scenes in 48 FPS and the conversations in 24 FPS? Maybe it’s not realistic. It should also be noted that I plan to see this film in 24 FPS to fully formulate/validate these opinions.

I hate to throw a rating on this film, as it is only the first act. Sure, it was a great time, but I noted several spots of discontinuity where I assume Peter Jackson made cuts for theatrical release.

Also, the damn giant birds always screw up these movies. It’s a major nitpick, I know, but c’mon.

Gandolph: “Let’s go on an adventure!”
Bilbo: “We’ll die.”
Gandolph: “Naaaaaah. We’ll be okay.”

15 minutes later…

Bilbo: “We’re screwed!”
Gandolph: “No we’re not! I grabbed a moth!”
Bilbo: “What?”
Giant Bird: “Yo.”
Gandolph: “Thanks giant birds! Hey, since you took us a hundred miles in about ten minutes, would mind dropping us off at that mountain over there?”
Giant Bird: “No can do, bro. It’s about the journey. Give us a shout if you’re gonna have a big battle on Up-A-Creek-Cliff again.”
Bilbo: “Dammit, my feet hurt.”


Yay.

[Wryan]

I liked at the start how it's established that Bilbo is writing his book for Frodo and he opens by explaining what a hobbit hole is. That's like me writing a book and beginning it by explaining what a house is.

I never got the impression that he was writing it for Frodo (though it eventually went to him, and then later to Sam, to continue the story). It's essentially a memoir. Cue the scene in FOTR in Rivendell when Frodo meets Old Bilbo again and sees how far he's come in writing down his story (looking very much like something kids would enjoy, btw).

Book Thorin is not that interesting. He's a bit of a single-minded ass, actually. Revenge is probably the cheapest way to try to wring interest out of a character, I'd grant you, but you can't really just excise why he's on his quest in the first place. And gold isn't enough of a reason. So they pumped up the "reclaiming the homeplace" and revenge aspects. I thought this first movie balanced Bilbo and Thorin rather evenly, which is to say too much toward Thorin overall. He should get less emphasis, I agree, but it remains to be seen how the other movies will wrap things up. Clearly they want to give Thorin more reason to be there, and I didn't really have a problem with it. I thought the "lost nomads" feeling added to the dwarves was a nice touch. (The scene with Balin talking to Thorin about creating a home for their people that didn't have to bother with gold/"reclaiming" anything; the scene in the mountain between Bilbo and Bofur when the former wants to leave. Those are two really well-done scenes.)

Left field, but did anyone find it just too disgusting to see how the Pale Orc "fixed" his arm? Geez. Glad they didn't zoom in on it. That was nasty.

[Winston*]

I never got the impression that he was writing it for Frodo (though it eventually went to him, and then later to Sam, to continue the story). It's essentially a memoir. Cue the scene in FOTR in Rivendell when Frodo meets Old Bilbo again and sees how far he's come in writing down his story (looking very much like something kids would enjoy, btw).

In the film he says he's writing it to Frodo.

[Wryan]

In the film he says he's writing it to Frodo.

Mmm, if you mean the "My dear Frodo...you asked me once blah blah blah..." stuff, that could easily just be a kind of introduction to his memoir. If my grandfather wrote his life story down and gave it to me, it could be said to be "for me" but also written so that others can read it and understand it.

Eh, whatever. I didn't have a problem with that part. :)

[Sxottlan]

Also, I was really happy to see Guillermo del Toro helped write this and give some input on the new orc designs.

Yeah, What's His Name the Defiler was clearly a bulked up version of the old vampire in Blade 2.

[Morris Schæffer]

Well, there may be pacing issues, but I can't say I was bummed out by the length at all as it was rather wonderful to be back in this universe. I was constantly looking forward to the next scene, the next majestic vista or action piece or, indeed, the riddles in the dark scene.

Pardon me, but this is a breathtaking motion picture. And yes, I saw the 48fps variant. 3D was sumptious, possibly the best I've seen so far. Give me a few more of these HFR flicks and I may not even want to go back although it probably won't add much in, say, a courtroom drama.

It'll never happen, but would be great if they would re-release the old movies a few years down the line using the 48fps process.

That being said, The Hobbit is inferior to all three Lord of the Rings movies.

[Sycophant]

Could there be any benefit from converting a film shot 24fps to 48fps? Where are those other million frames gonna come from?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Could there be any benefit from converting a film shot 24fps to 48fps? Where are those other million frames gonna come from?

I don't think you can do it. Computer interpolation for the intermediate frames would be insanely costly, and doubling up the frames, the way hand-drawn frames are usually "shot" at 12fps and double-printed to match 24fps, kinda defeats the purpose of pursuing more clarity/information.

[Neclord]

I don't think you can do it. Computer interpolation for the intermediate frames would be insanely costly, and doubling up the frames, the way hand-drawn frames are usually "shot" at 12fps and double-printed to match 24fps, kinda defeats the purpose of pursuing more clarity/information.

Isn't this done on-the-fly in most HDTVs these days, though? You just add 24 frames and let the computer do its tweening thing, bam, you're done. You can even get a 3D conversion crew to move pixels around, and then remix the whole audio track for Dolby ATMOS and D-BOX. Charge $25 a ticket and I think we've got ourselves a tidy profit on our hands.

[Sycophant]

Ew.

[Neclord]

I had to vomit up that evil somewhere.

[[ETM]]

I loved it. I expected all kinds of superfluous padding from Jackson, but there's so little of what was on screen that could have easily been cut. I'm a Tolkienite and I adored the opening with Erebor flashbacks, the ties to the LOTR trilogy were logical and fit well with the tone. Radagast was definitely not Jar Jar. Now I really want to see the rest of the cool stuff in the sequels. I also really missed 48fps, as the fast movement strobe effect was overwhelming in action scenes. It's the biggest issue with 3D.

I'm definitely seeing it again, and so are most of the people I know.

[Dukefrukem]

;456407']I loved it. I expected all kinds of superfluous padding from Jackson, but there's so little of what was on screen that could have easily been cut. I'm a Tolkienite and I adored the opening with Erebor flashbacks, the ties to the LOTR trilogy were logical and fit well with the tone. Radagast was definitely not Jar Jar. Now I really want to see the rest of the cool stuff in the sequels. I also really missed 48fps, as the fast movement strobe effect was overwhelming in action scenes. It's the biggest issue with 3D.

I'm definitely seeing it again, and so are most of the people I know.

Agreed and rep.

I dont know of these fps issues since I intentionally sought out a 2D showing.

[Yxklyx]

...
Everything involving Radagast
...
For starters.

100% the reverse reaction to this comment. I thought the Radagast scenes were some of the best in the film - they felt fresh, new and original. The movie would be much less without them.

Saw this last night. I enjoyed it though it suffers from being too similar to LOTR. Lots of scenes and dialogue seem copy and pasted from the original trilogy. It doesn't feel fresh and new. Too over-dramatic in parts especially towards the end - but that's Jackson's staple. It wasn't TOO bloated, I think cutting 10-15 minutes worth of scenes would have improved it. 8/10.

P.S. Saw it in 2D.

[Dukefrukem]

Anyone else get the sweet Hobbit posters at the midnight release of IMAX? Or the free Dust Lands book? Anyone read that? Worth it?

So I'm the only one who got a free copy (http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Red-Road-Dustlands-Book/dp/1442429992/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1355757813&sr=8-2&keywords=dust+lands)?

[Yxklyx]

Everything before Gandalf meets Martin Freeman's Bilbo
...
Everything involving The Pale Orc
The meeting between Gandalf, Saruman and Galadriel.

...

Yeah, I would have cut these too - but the last one I'd have cut because what we got just wasn't well done. I think the scene is needed for the second movie but didn't amount to anything as is.

[TGM]

Just saying, but shouldn't the Hobbit thread in "upcoming movies" still stay open? After all, there's still 2 more Hobbit movies to go...

[Spinal]

Just saying, but shouldn't the Hobbit thread in "upcoming movies" still stay open? After all, there's still 2 more Hobbit movies to go...

Hmmm ... good point. And the thread title is actually probably more accurate now.

[Boner M]

My god this was boring. Everyone's justifying their ticket price with their ratings, right? Didn't see it 48fps, dunno what I missed/dodged.

[D_Davis]

I keep seeing "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Boner"

But I've ruined it.

[Derek]

My god this was boring. Everyone's justifying their ticket price with their ratings, right? Didn't see it 48fps, dunno what I missed/dodged.

No no no, you're thinking about it all wrong. It's dullness is a feature not a fault. You have to embrace it.

[Raiders]

No no no, you're thinking about it all wrong. It's dullness is a feature not a fault. You have to embrace it.

You keep making cryptic statements about your opinion on this film but no rating yet. Did you like it or not?

I am seeing this over the upcoming weekend. Strange how my enthusiasm has just never really gotten very high considering I am certainly among the board's biggest LOTR fans.

[Watashi]

You keep making cryptic statements about your opinion on this film but no rating yet. Did you like it or not?

I am seeing this over the upcoming weekend. Strange how my enthusiasm has just never really gotten very high considering I am certainly among the board's biggest LOTR fans.
Ed Gonzalez is one of the biggest LOTR fanboys out there and he liked The Hobbit quite a bit.

His review is pretty awesome. (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/6732)

[[ETM]]

I find the local reactions so far mostly baffling. I expected negativity, but this is too much.

[Rowland]

Ed Gonzalez is one of the biggest LOTR fanboys out there and he liked The Hobbit quite a bit.

His review is pretty awesome. (http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/6732)Keith Uhlich really liked it too. (http://app1.srv.letterboxd.com/keithuhlich/film/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/) On the flipside, you have a scathing excoriation like that by Walter Chaw (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2012/12/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey.html#more), and most people falling somewhere in the middle. Truthfully, I'm still really excited to see this, and I have high hopes, I really want to like it.

[Lazlo]

You keep making cryptic statements about your opinion on this film but no rating yet. Did you like it or not?

I am seeing this over the upcoming weekend. Strange how my enthusiasm has just never really gotten very high considering I am certainly among the board's biggest LOTR fans.

I'd count myself as one of those huge LOTR fans (taken as one big movie it's in my top five of all time) and I was a bit nervous about The Hobbit and my excitement was certainly muted. I guess I was worried that it wouldn't stack up. But it totally does. Not long into it I was like, "Oh yeah, I love this place and I'm super glad to be back here again" and from there on I was totally on board. If there's a complaint to be made, it's the creaky nature of the Bilbo/Frodo prologue that tries too hard to make connections back to the previous films. Nevertheless, the movie is super fun, well-crafted, adventurous in both new and pleasantly familiar ways, and hints at the underlying danger to come in just the right ways. I couldn't be more thankful to get to spend however many more hours exploring Middle Earth with these characters and filmmakers.

For the record I saw it in IMAX. Plan on going 48fps sometime in the next week or so.

[Sven]

Is there a point where old Bilbo's face computer morphs into the young Bilbo's face? Or vice versa?

[Spinal]

Is there a point where old Bilbo's face computer morphs into the young Bilbo's face? Or vice versa?

No.

[Sven]

No.

Missed opportunity. Maybe they're saving it for the third one.

[Qrazy]

Missed opportunity. Maybe they're saving it for the third one.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-h2MkuJJS3t8/UIWBUsMrQ-I/AAAAAAAAA1I/mFEV3x2Hy6g/s1600/gandalf_falling.jpeg

Frodo... Earn this. Earn it.

[Skitch]

I agree the beginning with old Bilbo and Frodo seemed forced, but I'm not gonna worry about it until I see the complete trilogy. It may prove to tie everything together nicely.

[Henry Gale]

So much to say about this, and most of it about the HFR.

Maybe it was just that I had just sat through several minutes of regularly projected 3D trailers beforehand, though it's more likely because of having watched more than two decades of 99% films at 24 frames per second, but the second the projector switched from that usual window with the regular lens to the one with the shiny 48-frame spewing one, I (or more specifically, my vision) had a viscerally negative reaction to it. I had an awkward, unexpected head rush, but entirely stemming from my eyes, and it agitated me so much, even from just the high-speed company credits, that once the opening images of Bilbo began to unfold, I was completely against what I was seeing. I was thinking "Fuuuck this. No way am I sitting through three hours of this.", "I am never seeing something this way again", "This is not film.", "Who though this looked good?", and so on. I was appreciative of most the core images I was seeing, but not the consistency in which they were being illustrated.

But then, after those opening sequences, something changed. I'm not sure if it was actually my eyes slowly adjusting to a presentation of film they had never had to before, or simply coming to terms in my head with this consistency of frames being a way in which a film could feasibly occupy, but I began to actually get lost in it.

The brighter the sequence, the more hand-held and jerky the camera movements, and the faster images whisked across the screen in those environments, things remain extremely problematic, directly picking at the part of my brain that hates the look of shitty faked 120hz Auto-motion on high-def televisions. But the more somberly lit the sequence, the smoother, more CG-enhanced and leisurely paced the movements of the camera and images within the frame unfold, the more mesmerizing the 48 frames accommodated them are. There's an odd elegance to the visual energy of certain sequences, even when it's slow, it'd fluid and startlingly in the moment, even if as I saw them, they didn't necessarily find themselves sitting in the usual part of my mind of watching a film.

James Cameron has hinted that he wants to shoot the Avatar sequels at 48 frames, and maybe even closer to 60 if he can. And I didn't think I'd be saying this, but I actually think more frames might be the way to go. There's still a lot of kinks to work out with this, and for that first portion of the film I did deeply reject the idea, but I'm now extremely curious to see where filmmakers can potentially take this from here. It absolutely enriches the 3D in a way that gives the film an incredible illusion of being uniquely tangible, especially in the shots outside of Gandalf, Saruman and Galadriel's meeting in the round, pillared building on the cliff, and the consistently vivid look of the final goblin battle on-the-run. I'd argue that for action in particular, the added frame rate drastically reduces the modern action issue (especially with 3D) of jerky camera movements and fast movement of battles looking like a muddled sea of angered blurriness. Jackson stages and frames the fighting at just the right distances and speeds to let the audience zone in on any one movement and see it unfold as if it were happening on a set.

And that might turn some off as a philosophical sort of spin on how an already fantastic story should present itself to feel genuine and play to what we already expect from more real, human stories filmed in a standard way, and maybe by thinking it looked that way I was automatically taken out of the movie in a way other than what was intended, but the whole idea is such a foreign concept visually that either way that it remains something I can't help but recommend people see, even if it ends up infuriating them.

So for a first test of this idea, it managed to slowly win me over in the course of three hours. It definitely won't do that for everyone, and I'm not suggesting that films other than ones like The Hobbit or Avatar or Star Wars or Tron or animated films, big superhero epics and anything in between should dive into it any time soon, but for now, I think it's a weirdly cool new tool to have in the back pocket of filmmakers' oeuvre, and one that I can only see improving over time.

Oh, and I really liked the movie, as bloated as it may be. It felt like watching an LOTR Extended cut in the theatre, and not just in the theatre, but in beautiful 3D with a crazy, insanely crisply rendered digital with double the frames. Frames, you ask? Well, let me take a moment to tell you about that...

[Skitch]

Well said HG, and I agree. I thought it felt like Jackson shot and learned along the way...it got progressively better...or did I just adjust to it? No way to say for sure until we watch more HFR films.

[megladon8]

Funny.

When the first trailer came out I said that I got the distinct vibe that it was just recycling shots and dialogue from the LoTR movies, as if to say "hey! Remember Lord of the Rings? Weren't those movies great? We hope this reminds you of Lord of the Rings! Those were great movie!"

Lo and behold, that is one of the most consistent complaints I have read about The Hobbit - that it seems too intent on matching the beats and scenes of Jackson's previous trilogy.

[DSNT]

I saw it in regular 3D.

I understand that he took the supplemental material, added it to the film and bloated it up a bit, but I think between doing this and using the LOTR style, he is trying to say that these trilogies equate to each other. In reality, LOTR was done just right, while Hobbit is a fun, more active, faster-paced and shorter tale. What I saw on the screen was not The Hobbit, but Lord of the Rings: The Prequel.

For what it was, I didn't hate it. In fact, I voted yay because the first and third acts really worked for me. I found myself getting bored in the middle and even drifted off during the animal magician scenes.

The last hour was good. This part of the movie should be about developing the relationships, which is what they did with Bilbo and Thorin, even if it seemed artificial (was that the only reason for the stone monsters?). The relationship might have been a little smoother had those birds showed up about an hour before, but they must have been getting Peter Jackson's coffee.

Gollum was fun, as always.

6/10

I have hope that the next two could be better.

[Derek]

You keep making cryptic statements about your opinion on this film but no rating yet. Did you like it or not?

Sorry, I didn't mean to be cryptic. I figured my tirade on the 48fps presentation gave me away, but no, I didn't like it. That said, it has its entertaining stretches, I thought the pale orc was an effective if not altogether compelling villain and for as much as it moved from set piece to set piece (mountain battles winning out as most random and unnecessary battle scene in recent memory?), it was never all that painful to watch due to the bloat a la King Kong and Lovely Bones. I'd like to see it in 2D at some point to see how much of my experience was ruined by my complete distaste for the 48fps aesthetic.


;456773']I find the local reactions so far mostly baffling. I expected negativity, but this is too much.

I find it baffling that when a film has 70% approval here vs. 65% on RottenTomatoes and a 58 on Metacritic, someone can still complain that MCers are being overly harsh.

[Morris Schæffer]

About the 48fps, the whole soap opera complaint, I wasn't bothered by it, but I think I understood them the most in the opening 25 minutes in Bilbo's home. Here, everything is comparatively ordinary, just like in soap operas which are ordinary all the time, and take place indoors all the time, but when The Hobbit opens up, when the dwarves and Bilbo embark on their adventure, I was pretty much floored by every frame.

[Sxottlan]

I'm glad I avoided this whole 48 fps thing. I called ahead to the theater to ask when I could just see a damn good old fashioned 2D 24 fps screening. I wanted to just simply enjoy the film.

And I really enjoyed this film, flaws and all. And there are plenty of them.

Honestly, I was starting to worry after we were past the halfway mark. It had started well, but honestly most of it felt like a faint echo of The Fellowship of the Ring (more on that later). However the final 45 minutes or so really brought it to a very strong close. So imagine a hot mozzarella stick pulled apart with the crunchy and juicy ends and a stringy middle starting to droop. Better eat it all fast. Why would you even pull apart a mozzarella stick to begin with? That's just not right. Bad metaphor, bad.

To break it down:

-I loved loved the opening flashback. Just ate it up. I'd say it is almost as good as the great prologue that opened FOTR. Part of this is because I thought we didn't see much of dwarf culture in the original trilogy except for Moria. Here I was absolutely blown away by the design of Erebor. It was like the Emerald City went underground. Just the damn front door was breathtaking. The prologue was well paced and quickly summoned sympathy for the dwarves.

-The prologue also highlighted something else: when this film was focused on new locations and characters, it really took off. So the same went for Dale and Dul Guldur. Really fascinating. Wanted to see more. It's unfortunate that really so much of the film took place at locations we had already seen several times before. It contributed to that somewhat stale feeling.

-Really I can't fault Jackson and the writers. I mean, it's not their doing that The Hobbit and FOTR shared many similar stops along the way. I'm no Tolkien expert, but it's always seemed to me that The Hobbit was a dress rehearsal for LOTR. Tolkien writing both groups as heading east will create the sense of deja vu. When the movie went to new locations, my interest immediately went up. I think I'm anticipating the next two films more because we'll see Lake-Town and the Mirkwood elves' kingdom and other new locations.

-I was surprised by how much I liked Radagast the Brown. Seeing another wizard apart from Gandalf and Saruman was just a cool moment, one I was not expecting. Other wizards are discussed at one point. It was kind of like when we saw new Jedi and Sith in the last trilogy. I like that there are different types of wizards, even with his bird crap head. I'm particularly impressed that he held off the Witch King.

-All of the performances were pretty good, especially Martin Freeman as Bilbo. No problems with the acting.

-Pacing was a big issue once the film settled down for the dwarves' arrival at Bilbo's house. It works well as a comedy of inconveniences and seeing an entirely too polite person be put upon, but that probably could have been shored up a little. Part of my problem with pacing is that as this was the first time I've seen the movie, there was an unintentional tension as to when the film would end. For awhile there I seriously thought the film was going to end after the meeting of the White Council, which would have been incredibly anti-climatic. We certainly hear the familiar strings that we heard at the climax of the first two films, but then it kept going to what I always thought would be the best natural ending to Film One.

-This is starting to get real nitpicky, but that last bit reminded me of how the score appeared to just take many of the musical cues from the previous films. I think the only new bit was the very memorable dwarf theme.

-Special effects were pretty darn good, but it seemed the actors' sight lines when they talked with people of different stature looked off sometimes.

That's all for now. I'm falling asleep as I try to type this. More later if I can.

[Morris Schæffer]

On three occasions, Gandalf steps in and saves the day:

1. When he rescusitates Thorin
2. When he splits the rock and petrifies the trolls.
3. Whe he calls in the eagles.

Maybe that's a bit too much wizard-intervention.

[[ETM]]

On three occasions, Gandalf steps in and saves the day:

1. When he rescusitates Thorin
2. When he splits the rock and petrifies the trolls.
3. Whe he calls in the eagles.

Maybe that's a bit too much wizard-intervention.

1. I don't think it was that big of a deal. Think of it as wizard CPR. It's not like he was dead, but needed a bit of care to regain consciousness.
2. He didn't petrify the trolls, he just helped Bilbo with his plan.
3. This is something I wish they elaborated on in the film: that the Eagles are sentient, intelligent creatures, with names and hierarchy, and that their help is an enormous privilege, because basically they serve the "Gods" directly, and don't answer to anyone in Middle earth. I mean, I've already seen "Why don't they just fly to Erebor?!" jokes from people still unfamiliar with the books.

[Dukefrukem]

On three occasions, Gandalf steps in and saves the day:

1. When he rescusitates Thorin
2. When he splits the rock and petrifies the trolls.
3. Whe he calls in the eagles.

Maybe that's a bit too much wizard-intervention.

I liked this. He didn't do enough in the original trilogy. Plus the characters were downplaying him the entire time- saying he was just a fireworks expert and wasn't a really wizard.

[Spinal]

It reminded me of this:

zFuMpYTyRjw

[Morris Schæffer]

;456950']1. I don't think it was that big of a deal. Think of it as wizard CPR. It's not like he was dead, but needed a bit of care to regain consciousness.
2. He didn't petrify the trolls, he just helped Bilbo with his plan.
3. This is something I wish they elaborated on in the film: that the Eagles are sentient, intelligent creatures, with names and hierarchy, and that their help is an enormous privilege, because basically they serve the "Gods" directly, and don't answer to anyone in Middle earth. I mean, I've already seen "Why don't they just fly to Erebor?!" jokes from people still unfamiliar with the books.

they weren't about to get cooked alive in that scene where Gandalf intervenes? What was Bilbo's plan again? Convincing the trolls that the dwarves weren't a tasty treat? And he was succeeding?

About point 3, I'm among those people, but remember nothing from the novel pertaining to the eagles. So I think you're right.

[Grouchy]

I planned on seeing this tonight, but I just keep staring at the running time and thinking "no way I'm gonna be entertained by 1/3rd of The Hobbit that lasts this long". It's like butter scraped over too much bread.

Mostly I just want to see the HFR and form an opinion.

[[ETM]]

they weren't about to get cooked alive in that scene where Gandalf intervenes? What was Bilbo's plan again? Convincing the trolls that the dwarves weren't a tasty treat? And he was succeeding?

Buying time until what the trolls themselves mentioned happens to them?


About point 3, I'm among those people, but remember nothing from the novel pertaining to the eagles. So I think you're right.

Gandalf never actually summoned the Eagles in Tolkien's works, and the confusion regarding their seemingly deus ex machina role stems from the unfortunate need to have a plot device (moth-o-gram, or MMS - moth message service) to replace behind the scenes happenings. Gandalf had once saved the lord of the Eagles from a poisoned Orcish arrow, and the Eagles acted on their own, honoring that debt.

[[ETM]]

I planned on seeing this tonight, but I just keep staring at the running time and thinking "no way I'm gonna be entertained by 1/3rd of The Hobbit that lasts this long". It's like butter scraped over too much bread.

Mostly I just want to see the HFR and form an opinion.

It's not 1/3 of The Hobbit. It's much more than that, and yet it's not even 1/3 of the cool stuff from The Hobbit. This was definitely the difficult one of the three films, as I can totally see how the other two will have no trouble filling up the running time without "padding".

[Lazlo]

;457032']Buying time until what the trolls themselves mentioned happens to them?



Gandalf never actually summoned the Eagles in Tolkien's works, and the confusion regarding their seemingly deus ex machina role stems from the unfortunate need to have a plot device (moth-o-gram, or MMS - moth message service) to replace behind the scenes happenings. Gandalf had once saved the lord of the Eagles from a poisoned Orcish arrow, and the Eagles acted on their own, honoring that debt.

Yeah, this is one of the shortcomings of the film and it surprised me that Jackson would forgo having the eagles speak as they do in the book. If we're going to expand the story, why cut anything out? Having a brief conversation between the eagles and the company could have solved the idea that the eagles are just a cheap way out.

[Ivan Drago]

Finally saw this, but not without something stupid happening. Despite paying to see The Hobbit in 2D, going into the theater marked that it was screening The Hobbit, and sitting through a half-hour of trailers, our projectionist accidentally played Breaking Dawn: Part 2. Me and the group I was with immediately ran to the front, let the ticket employees know, and they went to a manager, who was able to correct the mistake (and hopefully fire our projectionist), and play The Hobbit from the beginning.

Overall, it is a bit overlong, and it took a while for me to get into it (mostly thanks to that mistake), but I enjoyed it. Glad to be back in Tolkien's universe. I'll probably see it in 48fps when I go back to Nashville.

[Henry Gale]

I find it odd that so many keep talking about this trilogy as "a short book hopeless stretched to three movies" even though The Hobbit story itself is going to wrap up with the next film, and the third part will be something of an original story using more pieces of the appendices that will act as a bridge of sorts between the The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings series.

When this was originally going to be two parts, the first half was just the book (a reduced version of what we see in "An Unexpected Journey" containing the "Desolation of Smaug"), and the second film was just "There and Back Again" as we'll likely still see it with added bits from the new spurt of filming.

[Sxottlan]

I find it odd that so many keep talking about this trilogy as "a short book hopeless stretched to three movies" even though The Hobbit story itself is going to wrap up with the next film, and the third part will be something of an original story...

Is that confirmed that this is still how these films will unfold?

I remember hearing about that when it was two films.

[Yxklyx]

Is that confirmed that this is still how these films will unfold?

I remember hearing about that when it was two films.

Pretty sure this is not the case. Death of Smaug and Battle of Five Armies will be in the last film. The second film will likely feature more of the White Council and an attack against Dol Guldur which in the timeline of The Hobbit occurs before Smaug's Death.

[amberlita]

I planned on seeing this tonight, but I just keep staring at the running time and thinking "no way I'm gonna be entertained by 1/3rd of The Hobbit that lasts this long". It's like butter scraped over too much bread.

Mostly I just want to see the HFR and form an opinion.

I see what you did there.

Yeah, this was mostly boring. First 2/3 were fairly dull and I fell asleep for a few minutes, which I never do (I woke up and there were trolls on screen, no idea how they got there). Though in my defense, I had approximately 15 minutes sleep the night before.

The final third just whizzed along though. Right after the Shadow of the Colossus incident, I was totally into it. And Andy Serkis continues to be the MVP of these movies. The Bilbo-Gollum scene was just wonderful. Remarkable marriage of acting and technology the way he can be at once dreadful and unnerving but, on a dime, turn effectively sympathetic and sad.

Enjoyed it, but was overall disappointed. As expected.

[Wryan]

Is that confirmed that this is still how these films will unfold?

I remember hearing about that when it was two films.

I'm pretty 100% certain that Smaug dies in second movie, and Battle of Five Armies is in third to wrap up the story. Then comes the "original" material bridging the movies, which should be....interesting to see, I guess. I just hope we don't get a scene of Gloin and wife holding a squalling baby and saying, "Let's name him........................... .................Gimli."

[Yxklyx]

I'm pretty 100% certain that Smaug dies in second movie, and Battle of Five Armies is in third to wrap up the story. Then comes the "original" material bridging the movies, which should be....interesting to see, I guess. I just hope we don't get a scene of Gloin and wife holding a squalling baby and saying, "Let's name him........................... .................Gimli."

That's a possibility but Smaug is built up as the main villain so I'd expect him to be in all three.

[Milky Joe]

This was okay. The film worked best when it stuck to the source material and didn't go off on its own stupid thing. So everything between Logshield and Big Orc just got an eyeroll from me. Why is Thorin the only attractive dwarf? I didn't even think attractive Dwarves existed. It all just seemed really contrived. The best parts were when it stayed in Bilbo's perspective, as Martin Freeman was terrific. I see a lot of people complaining about Radagast but I actually loved all of his bits. Wizards = cool. More wizards doing wizardy things, if you please.

One thing that was distracting for me was all of the super-old actors playing characters who are supposed to be younger than they were in LOTR movies. McKellan was fine as he appears to be in great shape, but Ian Holm looked like he could hardly move, let alone act. It was kind of sad. That's just a nitpick though. Overall I was Not Offended by this, as I was expecting to be. So that's good.

[Henry Gale]

Pretty sure this is not the case. Death of Smaug and Battle of Five Armies will be in the last film. The second film will likely feature more of the White Council and an attack against Dol Guldur which in the timeline of The Hobbit occurs before Smaug's Death.

I mean, I'm not very familiar with the book, but everything the cast and crew have said, along with the first officially released image of The Desolation of Smaug appearing to be Bilbo staring Smaug down on a giant pile of gold coins, seem to indicate that the next film will deal solely with the dragon and his demise.

But who knows, we'll likely get a trailer attached to Unexpected Journey's Blu-rays and DVD's and then a more thorough collection of footage from there to give us a better indication of just how far they may go.

Right now, after such mixed buzz, I'm just happy that I enjoyed this film as much as I did to care about two more of them.

[Lazlo]

One thing that was distracting for me was all of the super-old actors playing characters who are supposed to be younger than they were in LOTR movies. McKellan was fine as he appears to be in great shape, but Ian Holm looked like he could hardly move, let alone act. It was kind of sad. That's just a nitpick though. Overall I was Not Offended by this, as I was expecting to be. So that's good.

I agree with you here, for sure. Holm looked like a corpse and Wood falls prey to the problem of having been 19 when LOTR was shooting and now he's over 30. He's almost more distracting than Holm. I was also worried the first time you see McKellan, but you're right, he ends up looking as great as ever. I'll be interested to see if they do anything worthwhile with the Bilbo/Frodo stuff later to justify the creaky, distracting prologue.

[amberlita]

This was okay. The film worked best when it stuck to the source material and didn't go off on its own stupid thing. So everything between Logshield and Big Orc just got an eyeroll from me. Why is Thorin the only attractive dwarf? I didn't even think attractive Dwarves existed. It all just seemed really contrived. The best parts were when it stayed in Bilbo's perspective, as Martin Freeman was terrific. I see a lot of people complaining about Radagast but I actually loved all of his bits. Wizards = cool. More wizards doing wizardy things, if you please.


He's not the only attractive dwarf. The young, dark-haired one with the bow and arrow wasn't bad.

Still, it did kind of bother me, the respective Aragorn 2.0 and Legolas 2.0 they seemed to be going for.

[[ETM]]

Thorin and both his young cousins - Fili and Kili - are handsome.
And the Aragorn - Legolas thing didn't occur to me. Didn't bother me either.

[Sxottlan]

Saw it for a second time today. Just as enjoyable as before, but I definitely focused in on the parts that I thought could be cut:

1. Jumping back to the "present" with Bilbo and Frodo from the Erebor flashback before going back to young Bilbo. Frodo going off to meet Gandalf could have come at the very end of the last film instead.

2. Radagast suddenly having amnesia. And then having a bug in his mouth. Confusing. Later Saruman says mushrooms messed up Radagast. Ah okay.

3. Dwalin looking on disapprovingly as the others bury the gold. I like that he seemed to be disapproving of it, but then to have one of the dwarves elaborate on what they're doing. Unnecessary.

4. At the Council meeting, I'm not sure why Gandalf didn't open the meeting with the sword to begin with.


Why is Thorin the only attractive dwarf? I didn't even think attractive Dwarves existed. It all just seemed really contrived.

I dunno. I liked that they tried to diversify their look. I couldn't even imagine how confusing it would be if they all looked like Gimli.

I'm wondering if in the next films we'll get more focus on some of the other dwarves who barely had a line in this film. I forgot that Gimli's dad was one of them.


I see a lot of people complaining about Radagast but I actually loved all of his bits. Wizards = cool. More wizards doing wizardy things, if you please.

Agreed.

[Wryan]

If you bunch the dwarves into familial groups, you can see that they tried to give them vaguely similar appearances, starting with the noses for one. That's why Thorin/Fili/Kili look almost un-dwarf-like. I like that touch.

[KK2.0]

I googled the actor that plays Kili, Aiden Turner, and he's more attractive in character to me. The same effect happened with Aragorn/Viggo, though.

Overall I understand the criticisms but i can't deny I had a great time with this movie, I've watched the 24fps version so maybe that's why the first hour or so didn't bother me since i could focus on the movie without being distracted and i loved the intro about Erebor, even the meeting with the dwarves with the singing, dish washing and everything. Pretty much just as I remember from the book.

The little prologue with Ian Holm and Elijah Wood bothered me though, they felt a little off, I don't know, and it was an even bigger contrast when Martin Freeman and Ian Mckellen showed up, these two on the other hand felt completely right from the very first dialogue.

About pacing, this felt like getting an extended version from the very start, I'm not even a Tolkien purist and the only extended version I think improved upon the theatrical was The Two Towers, but I actually enjoyed to know a bit of the Azog story and it helped build up for the final battle and flesh out Thorin a little more, although he was a though sell as a hero.

Now I'm dying of curiosity about the 48fps, I need to watch it again.

[TGM]

This was MUCH better on a regular viewing!

My review (http://cwiddop.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-hobbit-unexpected-journey.html)

[Yxklyx]

My biggest problem with this movie is that there are many instances where dialogue and scenes seem to be copied from the Lord of the Rings films.

Just one example: what (and how) Gandalf says to Thorin when they approach Rivendell is hearkening back to what Gandalf says to Pippin before meeting Denethor in LOTR. There seemed to be such instances every 10 minutes.

[Qrazy]

I'm a huge fan of The Lord of the Rings films and I thought this was a piece of crap. More thoughts to come later I guess.

[Dukefrukem]

Saw it for a second time today. Just as enjoyable as before, but I definitely focused in on the parts that I thought could be cut:

1. Jumping back to the "present" with Bilbo and Frodo from the Erebor flashback before going back to young Bilbo. Frodo going off to meet Gandalf could have come at the very end of the last film instead.

2. Radagast suddenly having amnesia. And then having a bug in his mouth. Confusing. Later Saruman says mushrooms messed up Radagast. Ah okay.

3. Dwalin looking on disapprovingly as the others bury the gold. I like that he seemed to be disapproving of it, but then to have one of the dwarves elaborate on what they're doing. Unnecessary.

4. At the Council meeting, I'm not sure why Gandalf didn't open the meeting with the sword to begin with.



For number 4, I don't think he expected Saruman to be there, nor did he expect such resistance.

Interesting that you didn't bring up the mountain scene. That can most definitely be cut.

[Qrazy]

For number 4, I don't think he expected Saruman to be there, nor did he expect such resistance.

Interesting that you didn't bring up the mountain scene. That can most definitely be cut.

Remember when Bilbo was falling but then he was saved but then that guy was falling? God this movie was bad.

[Sven]

Remember when Bilbo was falling but then he was saved but then that guy was falling? God this movie was bad.

That moment wasn't as bad as shield surfing. Just saying.

[Dillard]

I may have liked this one better than any of the Lord of the Rings. I LOVED that it took a while to get going. The opening hour was perfectly matched with the way Tolkien started the book - in tone, especially. I just like spending time around these characters when there's no frying pan and no fire.

Some other things I liked:

-I haven't heard many mention how fantastic Ken Stott was as Balin, especially when telling the story of Thorin and the pale Orc.
-Bilbo and Gollum's riddle scene is a better scene than any Gollum scene in the LoTR series. The good/bad Gollum plays perfectly. Love to see how passionate he is for figuring out a puzzle. If there's one thing that's endearing about Gollum, it's when he gets excited about something and here Gollum figuring out Bilbo's riddles is a joy to watch. Martin Freeman is excellent as he tries to figure out how to outsmart this strange creature.
-The dwarves', especially the fireside song, were done incredibly well. Could easily have been a hokey thing, trying to set tunes to Tolkien's lyrics, but they established the dwarves' sense of camaraderie and shared identity in 1. Joking around and 2. Storytelling through song. The songs were the perfect introduction to the dwarves.
-I loved the theme that Jackson brought out about home/homelessness, and how one's identity is tied to one's home. I can't remember how much Tolkien played with this, but it certainly came out as one of the stronger themes in the film. Bilbo connects with the dwarves because of a shared value of home.
-Gandalf is as likable and personable as ever. I love Gandalf's affection for hobbits. The line (something like): "I'm afraid he gives me courage" is beautifully played. Gandalf isn't just a superhuman warrior here; more than ever, he's a bumbling, down-to-earth human-like character who loves the underdog and life's simple pleasures.

Cons:

-I could take or leave the fight scenes.

Honestly, this universe has never been about the fighting for me; it's all about what happens in between the action sequences, which are often bloated and stupid and where the CGI starts to creak.

Overall, an excellent start to what I expect will be a great series.

[Mara]

You know, I'm normally very tolerant of children in theaters, but the kid behind me was so bad that not only was he grabbing my seat and rocking it back and forth, he actually leaned forward and grabbed fistfuls of my hair. Twice.

Once I moved, the film was good fun. I'm glad my expectations were a little tempered, because it let me relax and enjoy it. The fight scenes were a little too plentiful and repetitive, and the film draws heavily on nostalgia, but it's still a sweet, exciting little fantasy. Freeman was so perfectly cast it hurt my heart a little bit.

[transmogrifier]

Seeing this today. IMAX, HFR 3D.

Watched the 1977 Hobbit movie a couple of days ago and hated it. So that is probably to the new version's advantage.

[Qrazy]

That moment wasn't as bad as shield surfing. Just saying.

It was worse man. Shield surfing was stupid badassery but then it was over. The double falling was manufactured drama of the worst kind because nothing was ever at stake.

[Yxklyx]

It was worse man. Shield surfing was stupid badassery but then it was over. The double falling was manufactured drama of the worst kind because nothing was ever at stake.

Yeah, totally agree with Qrazy on that scene. It was just plain awful (I had to close my eyes and pretend it wasn't happening) - how did that get past the editor? Jabez Olssen I'm looking at you - though from the docs from LOTR it seems that PJ has major editing control, which is always a bad idea for a director.

[Winston*]

https://twitter.com/hobbitwilliams

[Mara]

Watched the 1977 Hobbit movie a couple of days ago and hated it. So that is probably to the new version's advantage.

This scared the ever-loving crap out of me as a child.

[EyesWideOpen]

Radagast was easily my favorite part. I think my reason for liking the original trilogy so much more is because each of the traveling party is unique and interesting. In The Hobbit the only dwarf that is given a personality is Thorin and he's a douche. Everyone else is just a description (the fat one, the old wise one, the young one, the 70's moustache one, etc). Freeman was fantastic as expected and McKellan the same. Action scenes just like in the original trilogy were my least favorite parts. I much prefer the forest and Rivendale stuff.

[transmogrifier]

Crystal clear and fluid, I had no problem at all with the HFR technology. My wife, who usually gets sore eyes when watching 3D, came out of it with no after effects at all.

As for the movie itself....it was merely okay. The biggest problem is that it is such a retread of things we have seen before in the LOTR series, particularly Fellowship, meaning there just wasn't the sense of wonder this time around.

Instead, this time the "and then, and then, and then" story structure started to drag (and enough with last-minute rescues by outside forces! This is obviously a problem with the source material, though), but with one huge exception - the riddles scene, which Jackson wisely doesn't cut away from until it was resolved. The acting work between Serkis and Freeman is exceptional, and it is the only time the film really transcends the dutiful cataloging of the book (though the prologue of the dwarf history comes close - excellent staging of the dragon attack). My main issue for the middle section of the film is that Bilbo is sidelined from anything of interest for a long period, just relegated to a series of blatant "REACTION SHOTS" to establish that, yes, or titular hero is still there. Freeman does a great job with Bilbo in the opening act (which I thought was much more engaging than I had been lead to believe) that it is frustrating that he doesn't have much to do for a lot of it, and there are really no other compelling characters to replace him - except, of course, for Gollum.

Actually, the "acting" of a lot of the CGI creations was excellent all the way through.

Man, they need to do something about the eagles - why hasn't Jackson actually explained their history and role in Middle Earth to prevent the nagging annoyance (in the films) that they are convenient plot devices? A huge mis-step, I think.

Finally, I'm glad that this is not just one film, because with all the stuff that actually happens in the story (at least what I gleaned from the horrible 1977 movie) cramming it all into 3 hours would have been a hectic mess. This is still a bit of a hectic mess in its own right, but God, I can't imagine another 4 or 5 ADVENTURES on top this in the same movie.

[MadMan]

I liked it, but I do agree that the non-action material was the best thing about this movie. The dwarves singing about the Misty Mountains, for one thing, was one of my favorite parts. I wish I could remember who cracked a good joke about how the director's cut of this movie will feature 40 minutes worth of riddles between Bilbo and Gollum, heh. More than likely the next two installments will be superior to this one, but I was still entertained and I would gladly view this in theaters again.

[Mal]

WTF I enjoyed this very much. I think I'll see it again in regular 2D - 48 fps is something that I don't see working for many movies, but never did I think it took away from my own experience. Gollum's scenes were easily my favorite - and Rivendale is glorious... can I vacation there?

[Rowland]

I was nodding off during the wizard council scene in Rivendell, so I can't for the life of me recall what the hell they spent forever solemnly chatting about. Something to do with the wizard who had bird shit on his face? Why did the dwarves and Bilbo sneak off during this scene, did they know that Elrond and Sauramon didn't approve of whatever it was, or did I just imagine a conflict here while I was dozing off? And why did etc. etc. Zzz...

[D_Davis]

Sl7w2Z0vGpA

[Qrazy]

Sl7w2Z0vGpA

Masterpiece.

[MadMan]

Apparently 29 people and myself included on this site like CNN's "Worst Movie of the Year." Sweetness. They be trolling, man (and I only heard about it via RT, as I avoid CNN like the plague).

[Dukefrukem]

30!

And it's in my top 10. I'd watch this over any of the previous LotR movies.

[Wryan]

I acknowledge that tumblr may be useful for more than just pop culture noodlings from fanboys, -girls and -atics, but it's more fun to just sit back and watch other people repurpose things:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/2d0f4fa79becccc86c2a9dcd52e927 48/tumblr_mfzlr0yfaY1r1a44jo1_128 0.jpg

And/or find some damn decent fanart:

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbt5j9sZqe1qead1xo1_128 0.jpg

Also, a nearly unfathomable fandom has grown up around Lee Pace's seconds-long moments of bitchery that has resulted in some choice retoolings:

http://25.media.tumblr.com/012a5bfe24bbdcaf050a4d6ff58c1d 87/tumblr_mg1zarIwot1qgrxgmo1_400 .gif

[MadMan]

I'll admit that I didn't recognize Lee Pace in this movie until later on. Same goes for the 7th Doctor (McCoy).

[Stay Puft]

Was sure I'd hate this. Actually enjoyed it.

But that despite the many things working against it, which are numerous. Bloated, for sure. Weird tone that sometimes feels like The Hobbit, but more often feels like The Lord of the Rings: The Prequel (as one poster put it well). Should be standing on its own two feet, not recycling beats from previous films, which just feels sort of desperate and sad.

HFR 3D action scenes, though. Goddamn. The action in this film isn't even particularly impressive, but the clarity of motion and depth of detail offered by HRF 3D makes them revelatory (in full agreement with Skitch here). Martin Freeman was fantastic. The scene with Gollum was great. They nailed many individual moments. Loved the music and the dwarf song. Didn't even recognize James Nesbitt as Bofur, almost lost my mind when I realized it was him.

Not a great film but I'm actually looking forward to the sequels now.

[Stay Puft]

Biggest problem with the film, though (not counting the writing): the wildly inconsistent look. HFR 3D does work against this film sometimes.

The prologue is terrible. There's something to be said for virtual cameras whipping past digitial environments in cinema standard blur-o-vision. I never question the logistics, but these shots look absolutely ridiculous at 48fps. A lot of this is just down to Jackson's aesthetic and penchant for whizzing cameras, which makes me want to fucking vomit. The prologue is filled with nonsensical close-ups of Smaug tossing dwarves against cave walls and the camera panning around corners at speeds that make it impossible to gather geographical bearings.

But Jackson also uses blue screen effects as a crutch this time around, and the 3D works against these shots more than anything. Deep focus shots, particularly during action scenes, look impressively rich and detailed, but there are tons of shots in this film of a physical set in the foreground and an out of focus digital backdrop, the 3D rendering everything in the foreground with depth and the blurry background as basically a flat fucking blue screen picture. So that it looks exactly like a bunch of actors standing in front of a blue screen. The scenes of Thorin fighting Pale Orc in the campfire story were the most egregious in my memory, but any reverse shot in a dialogue scene was equally bad.

The lighting in many of these shots is terrible. Other shots look utterly fantastic. The special effects are sometimes painfully lousy, other times close to masterful. Compositing is definitely the biggest problem, so that weirdly shots that are either entirely indoors, or entirely computer effects, are the most consistent and thus least offensive.

HFR 3D is definitely going to take some learning. I'm much more excited to see it in a normal-ass two-hour movie that isn't crammed full of virtual cameras and blue screens and CGI.

[Wryan]

Hmm, apparently I was wrong. I didn't see HFR the first time. The theatre lied to me or didn't know. I tried again at another place, and the effect/the difference was immediately apparent. It really does look unnaturally sped up a bit, but after a short while I adjusted to it and didn't notice it at all, though sometimes when it cut to a new scene, it would rush forward slightly for a short bit.

The HFR is a thoroughly mixed bag. When it's great, you're with characters in Middle Earth. When it's shit, you're watching actors on a set. I thought it was very slightly more effective overall than not, though. The clarity is incredible sometimes. Hopefully, by the time the next movie rolls around, they'll have a better sense of it and can correct for certain things....and perhaps trim off some of the fucking agonizingly-held moments.

[Kurosawa Fan]

This was better than I expected. I caught a regular 2D showing with my son this morning. My only real complaint is a bit of "been there, done that" feeling in certain areas (I still find those giant eagles to be illogically employed and massive copouts). Otherwise, it moved quickly for a three hour film was entertaining, and Martin Freeman was fantastic. It suffered a bit in the beginning from a lack of real stakes (something Fellowship never had to work through), but that vanished quickly as the journey progressed. I really liked seeing a far more demented, sinister Gollum. That was the highlight of the film for me.

[Wryan]

I really liked seeing a far more demented, sinister Gollum. That was the highlight of the film for me.

Anytime we got a shot of his illuminated eyes, I had a serious wave of Descent wash over me. Way creepy.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Anytime we got a shot of his illuminated eyes, I had a serious wave of Descent wash over me. Way creepy.

Definitely. When he backs up and turns his head to see Bilbo stuck between the rocks, I got a genuine chill.

[[ETM]]

Yeah, the Riddles in the Dark scene was fantastic. It comes at a point in the film where the more casual viewers are already groaning and looking at their watches, so it's awesome when you suddenly get that feeling that the whole audience is staring at the screen almost without making a sound.

[Mr. McGibblets]

So many bad decisions in this movie:

Framing it with a pointless scene. Frodo means nothing to this story. Also, weird to have a different actor playing Bilbo. Far too many concessions were made to making this fit with the LotR movies.

Making Thorin the central character. And making him look basically human. I guess it was too much to have an ugly dwarf as the lead, but he's basically playing Aragorn-lite, and his main characteristic is staring in to the distance in a pained way. This should have been Bilbo's story.

The story with the Orc. When Jackson said that he didn't want to cut any of the material, I didn't know that he meant stuff that he had written and added just for the film. This is the story of a journey to somewhere; they don't need to be chased the whole way. It kills the pacing of the whole trip.

The groan-worthy cut from Gandalf telling the dwarves about Radagast to the scene with Radagast. If all of that needed to be included, it could have been a flashback after they encounter him.

[Scar]

Eh.

I like the white orc. The rest of it, I don't know.

[Grouchy]

Isaw this on regulard 2D on my computer screen and liked it, even a lot, actually. I didn't feel like it was that long lenght.

Everytime Saruman referred to Radagast's brain being destroyed by mushrooms I laughed.

[Gizmo]

Wife rented this tonight. Was pretty boring, and I liked the Hobbit book when I read it. Just drug and drug and lots of talking. It picked up about 2 hours in, so maybe there's hope for the next film. I feel the first 2 hours could have been tightned up to around an hour or so -> set up journey, go on journey, encounter hardships. This was set up setting up the set up for the journey, setting up getting to setting up the journey, set up journey, start journey, stop and talk a bit, continue journey, talk a bit more, some dwarf wizard with dead animals(?), continue journey, finally stuff happens.

[Grouchy]

I don't want to defend Jackson since I also think that the three-movies idea is overkill. But that kind of plot structure is typical of Tolkien's works. Journey, journey, journey, monster, journey, journey, journey, talk, journey, journey, journey monster until it ends.

[Winston*]

Journey, song, journey,song, journey, monster,song,journey, journey, song, journey, talk, journey,song, song, journey, song, journey monster until it ends.

Fixed.

[Boner M]

Just drug and drug and lots of talking.
That would've been better.

[EvilShoe]

Just watched this, and I dunno. Freeman carried the whole thing, but I can't think of a non-monetary reason why there are going to be three movies of this.

Also Gandalf: stop deus ex machina'ing it up in there, yo.