The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[PortlandCardFan]

I loved it! I'll go see it one more time in the theater (excuse me 'theatre') I think...

 

[Stout]

Yeah, that's my bad, I totally confused myself. Unfortunately, it gave cheesebeef a good reason to attack. And he ALWAYS grabs those chances.

Anyway, I think you are correct--Stout is basing the film on the simpleness of the book (which isn't "epic"), while I have based it on the previous films (which ARE epic). He added in a ton of stuff referring to LOTR and especially the inevitable coming of Sauron. Nothing wrong with wanting it simple, but there was no way it would be simple, whether it was directed by Jackson or Del Toro, and whether it was one movie or three.

Critics are saying the same thing now that they said about Fellowship--it's hard to assess it without seeing the other two movies.

See, I think Fellowship was easily assessed before seeing the other two movies--it rocked. It is, by far, the best of the movies so far, with ROTK next, Two Towers third, and the first part of the Hobbit a distant, distant fourth--and I hated some of the things Jackson ruined about the Two Towers. At least he nailed the rest of the Two Towers, as far as pacing and the story. Jackson made some puzzling and needless additions to the first Hobbit movie, AND made the pacing and the tie-ins blocky and uneven.

Yes, the Hobbit movie was going to have more of an epic feel to it than the book, but certain things were just sooooooo unnecessary.

Spoiler

There was no reason--NONE--for the massive Orc that Dain (not Thorin) killed in the battle at Moria to be kept alive and brought into the story. The goblins and the wargs were plentiful enemies for that part of the film.

I was fine with adding the elves of Mirkwood looking on at the fall of Erebor, because it sets up the chafing between them and the dwarves later, and minimizes Thorin's sheer greed from the book--he was too ugly greedy to be pictured that way in the movies.

I am also fine with playing out more with the Necromancer (Sauron). Well, playing out anything with the Necromancer, because it all happens outside of the story. It's a good addition (sans the Orcs and all the Radagast crap).

Radagast--kind of fun character, but way too overplayed here. They want to bring him in to help Gandalf with the Necromancer, and that's fine, but he had way, way, WAY too much screen time. If they had minimized his scenes to a short--SHORT--discovery of something wrong in Mirkwood, and the spiders (that was cool), it would have been much better.

And, for whatever reason, Jackson is just in love with falling platforms. Not only has he gone to the well a bazillion times to much, but they're getting too impossible. Those dwarves and Bilbo died about 100 times, but for some reason, nary a scratch appeared.

The tie-in with LOTR was far too hamfisted on top of it. If he had made it more smooth and natural, and placed it at the END of the THIRD movie, I would have loved it. As it was, it was basically fifteen minutes before the movie really started. It is an absolute crime that it didn't start with 'In a hole in a ground there lived a Hobbit'.

And there's more, much more, but I've written a world's record spoiler already

Really, when the movie hit on the Hobbit stuff, the movie NAILED it. The book was initially a children's book for Tolkien's kids, and while it is silly and fun and light a lot of the time (as the movie sometimes was), it has its dark corners too (as the movie sometimes showed). With the addition of some of the actual source material, it could have been pretty cool. Instead of sticking to that, Jackson used too much source material (weird to say that), added in too much stuff that came from the source material, that was neither true nor necessary, and slowed it down and chopped up the pace far too much.

There was no need--none at all--to make this three movies. And I was on board with having more movies! Cut out all the excess crap Jackson drummed up, add the non-Hobbit book stuff from the source material, and make it two movies, and...voila! Two movies, and I think this could have been awesome. With three, the way he's bloated the first one? Ugh.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Yeah, that's my bad, I totally confused myself. Unfortunately, it gave cheesebeef a good reason to attack. And he ALWAYS grabs those chances.

lol... I didn't realize merely asking you about something you said that was really confusing was an attack.

Anyway, I think you are correct--Stout is basing the film on the simpleness of the book (which isn't "epic"), while I have based it on the previous films (which ARE epic). He added in a ton of stuff referring to LOTR and especially the inevitable coming of Sauron. Nothing wrong with wanting it simple, but there was no way it would be simple, whether it was directed by Jackson or Del Toro, and whether it was one movie or three.

Critics are saying the same thing now that they said about Fellowship--it's hard to assess it without seeing the other two movies.

I don't really see them saying the same things at all. Critics lauded Fellowship en masse, with rotten tomatoes giving it a 92% fresh rating and it getting Best Picture, Screenplay, Directing Oscar Nominations as opposed to the 65% rating of The Hobbit and in all likelihood a big zero as far as those Oscar noms just mentioned. Note, this is a disagreement with your statement, not an attack.

 

[Chaplin]

lol... I didn't realize merely asking you about something you said that was really confusing was an attack.

LOL, why is that that neither of us can take a damn joke? Especially with our history? I think it's just one of those mysteries that will stand the test of time, like crop circles and the Bermuda Triangle.

 

[MadCardDisease]

Great, great movie. Saw it in 3D and 48 frames per second. What an experience. Action sequences are the clearest I have ever seen. Just beautiful.

Problem is people are gauging this movie based on the book. I think that's a mistake. This series should be titled "JRR Tolkien's Body of Work," not the Hobbit. Hell, Bilbo was a casual observer for the middle 90 minutes. Not sure what all you people were expecting. The Hobbit was easily Tolkien's most accessible work, even bordering on a book for young children. What grand epic were you expecting? It certainly wasn't the Hobbit, because epic that book was not.

Totally agree! Visually stunning! I'm not a 3D fan at all but this was well worth seeing in 3D.

Can't wait for the next one to come out!

 

[Cheesebeef]

LOL, why is that that neither of us can take a damn joke? Especially with our history? I think it's just one of those mysteries that will stand the test of time, like crop circles and the Bermuda Triangle.

I can take a joke Chap. they just usually have to look like a joke.

 

[Shane]

Man I looooved LOTR... But this did absolutely nothing for me. Like Cheese I fell asleep during first hour and the rest was just very mehhhh!

 

[Mulli]

Loved this.

 

[Covert Rain]

Finally went to see this today with my boy. Reviews were spot on. This was anything but a great movie. It was average compared to the rest of the films so far. It was simply what I feared. Simply put.....bloated. They could have easily cut 30 minutes off this film and it probably would have been better. Not to say it was a bad film but if this film was any indication of where the other 3 are headed, this trilogy will be disappointing for me unless the writing gets better. There was simply no reason to stretch this into 3 films based on the first film. Agree with much of what was said above...start of film was a complete bore but at least that gave me time to get used to the high frame rate version of the film.

In terms of that, it was a mixed bag but I am leaning towards liking it. It took me at least 20 minutes of watching the film at 48 fps to adjust. For those fellow audio/video geeks out there it felt much like smooth motion or similar technologies on flat screens. At first it felt very VIDEO LIKE. I simply hate that on the new flat screens and have that turned off on mine.

Having said that, it's more than that. After my eyes adjusted, it was uncanny how many scenes felt like I was watching the movie through a window. It was that real. The scenery was crisp and like nothing I have ever scene in terms of detail. It didn't come without sacrifice as some of the movie props you could see with too much detail and ended up looking fake to me and some of the makeup when up close. As I sated it takes some getting used to and SOMETIMES I could NOT shake that video feel which I attribute to the lighting challenges with that much detail. All in all, I think I liked it though mostly because some scenes were simply breathtaking. I also have to say it improved the 3D. Because you could see more depth with more clarity, it improves the 3D experience. There are background details I have NEVER scene in a 3D movie like this before.

My final verdict is the movie itself was average which means it was disappointing at least for me. The new 48 fps which could have easily made up for any shortcomings was a mixed bag but did improve the movie for me somewhat not only for the clarity but because I am a 3D fan and think it improved that experience. Had I only seen this in 2D, it would still be impressive in many aspects but not as much for me.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Finally went to see this today with my boy. Reviews were spot on. This was anything but a great movie. It was average compared to the rest of the films so far. It was simply what I feared. Simply put.....bloated. They could have easily cut 30 minutes off this film and it probably would have been better. Not to say it was a bad film but if this film was any indication of where the other 3 are headed, this trilogy will be disappointing for me unless the writing gets better. There was simply no reason to stretch this into 3 films based on the first film. Agree with much of what was said above...start of film was a complete bore but at least that gave me time to get used to the high frame rate version of the film.

In terms of that, it was a mixed bag but I am leaning towards liking it. It took me at least 20 minutes of watching the film at 48 fps to adjust. For those fellow audio/video geeks out there it felt much like smooth motion or similar technologies on flat screens. At first it felt very VIDEO LIKE. I simply hate that on the new flat screens and have that turned off on mine.

Having said that, it's more than that. After my eyes adjusted, it was uncanny how many scenes felt like I was watching the movie through a window. It was that real. The scenery was crisp and like nothing I have ever scene in terms of detail. It didn't come without sacrifice as some of the movie props you could see with too much detail and ended up looking fake to me and some of the makeup when up close. As I sated it takes some getting used to and SOMETIMES I could NOT shake that video feel which I attribute to the lighting challenges with that much detail. All in all, I think I liked it though mostly because some scenes were simply breathtaking. I also have to say it improved the 3D. Because you could see more depth with more clarity, it improves the 3D experience. There are background details I have NEVER scene in a 3D movie like this before.

My final verdict is the movie itself was average which means it was disappointing at least for me. The new 48 fps which could have easily made up for any shortcomings was a mixed bag but did improve the movie for me somewhat not only for the clarity but because I am a 3D fan and think it improved that experience. Had I only seen this in 2D, it would still be impressive in many aspects but not as much for me.

Even having saw this once and being somewhat underwhelmed, as a cinefile, I do think I'll have to plunk down another chunk of change to see what the 48 fps is all about.

 

[Chaplin]

Even having saw this once and being somewhat underwhelmed, as a cinefile, I do think I'll have to plunk down another chunk of change to see what the 48 fps is all about.

I think "fascinating" might be the right word for the 48 fps. It will be interesting to see where this goes, at the very least.

 

[Mike Olbinski]

Okay guys, I finally saw this today and I was kind of worried because I've seen so much bashing of the film, and the reviews have been average, only 65% on RT....but I went in with an open mind anyways.

I LOVED IT. Even got misty-eyed at the end, which isn't a surprise for me anyways, eh BIM?

But seriously...it was long, but didn't feel long. I loved the development of the dwarves...the time spent in Bag End, the singing, the convincing of Bilbo...all of it. I loved the back story of Thorin, the battle at Moria...and of course the meeting of Elrond, Saruman, Galadriel, Gandalf, etc.

I am a fan of the books. I get people being all upset that Jackson is taken a single book and "bloating" it into three, but this is more than that. It's a larger, larger story under the cover of The Hobbit. I'm so excited to see how the Necromancer part plays out and what happens there.

Anyways...I could go on, but I was pleasantly surprised. Was it as great as the Lord of the Rings? No...I felt like some things were off here and there, but I thoroughly enjoyed it anyways

EDIT: I should add, I didn't see it 3D or HFR, and have no desire to.

 

[AZZenny]

It was average---and I love the whole Middle Earth saga. Movie was not much content, all set-up.
But I was distracted throughout because the Dwarf Prince looked shockingly like my 1st husband (a late-adolescent Haight-Ashbury error). Every time the film cut to his face, I froze and had to reorient.

 

[UncleChris]

See, I think Fellowship was easily assessed before seeing the other two movies--it rocked. It is, by far, the best of the movies so far, with ROTK next, Two Towers third, and the first part of the Hobbit a distant, distant fourth--and I hated some of the things Jackson ruined about the Two Towers. At least he nailed the rest of the Two Towers, as far as pacing and the story. Jackson made some puzzling and needless additions to the first Hobbit movie, AND made the pacing and the tie-ins blocky and uneven.

Yes, the Hobbit movie was going to have more of an epic feel to it than the book, but certain things were just sooooooo unnecessary.

Spoiler

There was no reason--NONE--for the massive Orc that Dain (not Thorin) killed in the battle at Moria to be kept alive and brought into the story. The goblins and the wargs were plentiful enemies for that part of the film.

I was fine with adding the elves of Mirkwood looking on at the fall of Erebor, because it sets up the chafing between them and the dwarves later, and minimizes Thorin's sheer greed from the book--he was too ugly greedy to be pictured that way in the movies.

I am also fine with playing out more with the Necromancer (Sauron). Well, playing out anything with the Necromancer, because it all happens outside of the story. It's a good addition (sans the Orcs and all the Radagast crap).

Radagast--kind of fun character, but way too overplayed here. They want to bring him in to help Gandalf with the Necromancer, and that's fine, but he had way, way, WAY too much screen time. If they had minimized his scenes to a short--SHORT--discovery of something wrong in Mirkwood, and the spiders (that was cool), it would have been much better.

And, for whatever reason, Jackson is just in love with falling platforms. Not only has he gone to the well a bazillion times to much, but they're getting too impossible. Those dwarves and Bilbo died about 100 times, but for some reason, nary a scratch appeared.

The tie-in with LOTR was far too hamfisted on top of it. If he had made it more smooth and natural, and placed it at the END of the THIRD movie, I would have loved it. As it was, it was basically fifteen minutes before the movie really started. It is an absolute crime that it didn't start with 'In a hole in a ground there lived a Hobbit'.

And there's more, much more, but I've written a world's record spoiler already

Really, when the movie hit on the Hobbit stuff, the movie NAILED it. The book was initially a children's book for Tolkien's kids, and while it is silly and fun and light a lot of the time (as the movie sometimes was), it has its dark corners too (as the movie sometimes showed). With the addition of some of the actual source material, it could have been pretty cool. Instead of sticking to that, Jackson used too much source material (weird to say that), added in too much stuff that came from the source material, that was neither true nor necessary, and slowed it down and chopped up the pace far too much.

There was no need--none at all--to make this three movies. And I was on board with having more movies! Cut out all the excess crap Jackson drummed up, add the non-Hobbit book stuff from the source material, and make it two movies, and...voila! Two movies, and I think this could have been awesome. With three, the way he's bloated the first one? Ugh.

I pretty much agree with this.

The strongest things I can say are that the scenery, special effects and cinematography are all great. On the dark side, they should have left out all the Frodo scenes, most of the other additional scenes and not made Bilbo so much of a wiener. On the "meh" side of things, I noticed how long it was and actually found myself thinking, "sweet, weepin' gee-a-zuz.... are we going to have Nazis attack next?"

3 out of 5 stars.

 

[Gaddabout]

The 48 fps may be why you fell asleep. Study a few years back about the transition to digital. The 30 fps is why people fall asleep watching TV, but remained engrossed watching old film at 24 fps -- because of the flicker. Without the flicker, the brain was allowed to gradually move towards passivity and, at some point, sleep.

 

[Cardinals.Ken]

The 48 fps may be why you fell asleep. Study a few years back about the transition to digital. The 30 fps is why people fall asleep watching TV, but remained engrossed watching old film at 24 fps -- because of the flicker. Without the flicker, the brain was allowed to gradually move towards passivity and, at some point, sleep.

I've googled all over trying to find this study, however I cannot find anything about it. Do you have a reference for it?

I only ask because, based upon my experience and knowledge in film and video exhibition, it sounds like bupkis.

 

[slinslin]

bloated or not it is still a very good movie for anyone who loves fantasy anyway...

just a few things that concern the movie, the book or both.

1. How did those giant stone trolls manage to tie up all these dwarfs. I imagine them having a hard time to do that with their huge hands.

2. In several scenes Bilbo's short sword does not glow blue despite there being orcs very close, in specific when they climbed trees there were some scenes.

3. The scene where they decided to get off the treee to fight was not well made. 1 second they were all barely grasping the tree and about to fall down and suddenly with a change of heart they get off and fight?

4. This is the book probably but a friend of mine noted why did they not just fly with the hawks from the beginning.


Overall the hobbit is a book for children and it shows in the movie. Radagast, the dwarfs singing in the beginning and other scenes.

 

[Chaplin]

bloated or not it is still a very good movie for anyone who loves fantasy anyway...

just a few things that concern the movie, the book or both.

1. How did those giant stone trolls manage to tie up all these dwarfs. I imagine them having a hard time to do that with their huge hands.

2. In several scenes Bilbo's short sword does not glow blue despite there being orcs very close, in specific when they climbed trees there were some scenes.

3. The scene where they decided to get off the treee to fight was not well made. 1 second they were all barely grasping the tree and about to fall down and suddenly with a change of heart they get off and fight?

4. This is the book probably but a friend of mine noted why did they not just fly with the hawks from the beginning.


Overall the hobbit is a book for children and it shows in the movie. Radagast, the dwarfs singing in the beginning and other scenes.

There were A LOT of goblins and trolls in the movie, so the sword doesn't glow around them.

 

[slinslin]

In the scene on the trees it were clearly orcs..Azog was even there.

Also there were no goblins as far as I can tell. Under the mountain it was a tribe of orcs. The sword did glow when Gollum was far away and eating one of them.

 

[Chaplin]

In the scene on the trees it were clearly orcs..Azog was even there.

Also there were no goblins as far as I can tell. Under the mountain it was a tribe of orcs. The sword did glow when Gollum was far away and eating one of them.

I think I recognized that too, but his sword was sheathed most of the time so you couldn't see it glow blue.

 

[Covert Rain]

I just think they should abandon the stupid idea of 3 movies. It's simply not needed. I would be OK with that approach of the content filling the gaps was interesting. They will need to trim up the last 2 movies if this one was any indication. Shorter running times would definitely be in order.

Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised by the last 2. I hope so.

 

[Cheesebeef]

I just think they should abandon the stupid idea of 3 movies. It's simply not needed. I would be OK with that approach of the content filling the gaps was interesting. They will need to trim up the last 2 movies if this one was any indication. Shorter running times would definitely be in order.

Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised by the last 2. I hope so.

the movie is making money hand over fist, which means they won't need to abandon anything... unfortunately.

 

[AzStevenCal]

It's been my experience that movies that run a little long and get labeled as slow or boring tend to watch better on a good home theater. That said, my wife and I set about to watch the first Hobbit movie last night. I could only get through 38 minutes before I had to call it quits for the evening. What a joke. 38 minutes and not a damned thing has happened yet. I feel like I'm watching a day in the life of a hobbit, at the pace of life. At this rate, it will take me a week to get through this movie. I love returning to this world or I wouldn't even bother.

Steve

 

[AzStevenCal]

So I watched the rest of the movie tonight. I would say that this film showed all the depth and maturity of the 60's Disney movie "In Search of the Castaways" but with little of its charm.

I liked the last 10 minutes of the movie once they escaped from the goblins and the scenes with Bilbo and Gollum were pretty good but other than that, this movie was just bad. It was excessive and puerile and I'm absolutely stunned that it did so well at the box office.

Steve

 

[Stout]

So I watched the rest of the movie tonight. I would say that this film showed all the depth and maturity of the 60's Disney movie "In Search of the Castaways" but with little of its charm.

I liked the last 10 minutes of the movie once they escaped from the goblins and the scenes with Bilbo and Gollum were pretty good but other than that, this movie was just bad. It was excessive and puerile and I'm absolutely stunned that it did so well at the box office.

Steve

It did so well at the box office because people loved LOTR and they wanted to see it. And the next two will do well too. Just like the three Star Wars releases--they made boatloads of money, and they sucked ass.