The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey discussion

Re: The Hobbit - Part 1

DARKKNIGHT said:
Do you know how to find out what frame rate it's in? I've heard bad things so I want to see it in 24.
Click to expand...

This is a list of theatres projecting The Hobbit at 48 fps. As they say, it will probably be listed as HFR 3D at your cinema.

This doesn't come out here until after Christmas but at the moment I think I will be seeing it in 2D at 24 fps and then maybe if I decide to see it again I'll go and see it in 3D at 48 fps just to see what it looks like.
 
Re: The Hobbit - Part 1

Yeah I'm hoping that a theater around here has in in non-3D IMAX. if so, that's how I'll be seeing it.
 
Just got back it was pretty good. I'm fairly certain the theater I saw it in wasn't showing it in 48 fps, so I can't attest to that. If there's one issue it's that there's simply not as much at stake as there is in the lord of the rings trilogy. hopefully in the next two movies, the action has a bit more weight as they deal more with
the Necromancer/Sauron.
 
Saw it. I have very very mixed feelings about the film. It was horrendously over-stuffed, and what I'm ballparking as a whole THIRD of that was unnecessary. It felt like an Extended Edition with a bunch of webisodes spliced in, and had the really uneven pacing you'd expect from such a creation. Hell, most of the stuff leading up to Gandalf's first meeting with Bilbo felt like it could have come much, much later, and the story probably would have had more impact if it had.

That said, the parts that were good were really, really good, and I didn't regret spending money on it or anything. Just a really uneven experience overall.
 
I'm taking 2 10-year olds to see it tomorrow...hopefully none of that prevents me from sitting through it peacefully.
 
Zeek said:
Saw it. I have very very mixed feelings about the film. It was horrendously over-stuffed, and what I'm ballparking as a whole THIRD of that was unnecessary. It felt like an Extended Edition with a bunch of webisodes spliced in, and had the really uneven pacing you'd expect from such a creation. Hell, most of the stuff leading up to Gandalf's first meeting with Bilbo felt like it could have come much, much later, and the story probably would have had more impact if it had.
Click to expand...

To be fair, to an extent this is true of the original trilogy as well. There are fairly large periods of nothing but exposition. I'm hoping that a lot of what seemed unnecessary in this film makes more sense after we see what they are doing with all three. I generally agree that they should have gotten to Gandalf and Bilbo quicker, though I was just happy to be back in middle-earth so I didn't mind too much.
 
DARKKNIGHT said:
To be fair, to an extent this is true of the original trilogy as well. There are fairly large periods of nothing but exposition.
Click to expand...

I myself have no problem with this whatsoever. The world is so huge and detailed that it never becomes boring; I want to learn more about it.

This is also how I feel about Star Wars and Saga.
 
How much screen time does The Necromancer have?
 
Okay, so it's great, but you need to go in expecting something different from LOTR. It definitely has a different feel to it. It's much lighter and is rather quirky and even goofy at times. But I felt that it was mostly done well - the only exception maybe being
Radagast.

I agree that the framing with Bilbo & Frodo's was unnecessary.

And I really don't like the HFR. It bothered me all throughout the film. I'll probably go see it again in 24 fps and in 2D.

But overall, it was so good. Smeago/Golluml in particular was amazing. I'm looking forward so much to next year!


ProjectX2 said:
How much screen time does The Necromancer have?
Click to expand...

He's on screen for about 30 seconds, but there's a whole subplot developing what's going on with him. I'm sure he'll be a bigger presence in the upcoming movies.
 
Last edited:
E said:
I myself have no problem with this whatsoever. The world is so huge and detailed that it never becomes boring; I want to learn more about it.

This is also how I feel about Star Wars and Saga.
Click to expand...

The problem with this in the Hobbit is that it's just kind of...thrown at the viewer. There's no sense of unfolding grandiosity, which I always liked about the story. It starts off small, and is constantly implied to be larger, and eventually Bilbo learns just how large it is. Instead of this gradual process, we're given the entire Dwarven back story right off the bat, and the movie is never allowed to have any mystery. Thorin's passionate attitude towards Orcs is answered immediately. The nature of the simmering conflict between dwarves and elves is answered before it's even a question. Unlike the novel, where Gandalf's departures have a certain mysterious quality to them that contributes to his enigmatic nature, the film just goes ahead and tells the audience what he's doing and what he's after. It kills the suspense. Not all the suspense, maybe, but a great deal of it.

LotR used exposition well, especially in the first film, where it very succinctly says what it has to say and gets on with it. But using the same technique in The Hobbit feels like a betrayal of the story's mood and themes.
 
I didn't like it... the endless exposition was KILLING me, the movie felt like it was on forever. I definitely came in expecting something more like LOTR so that was a problem too. It wasn't bad at all, but it was FAR from being good. (to me)

I wouldn't recommend someone pay to see it.
 
I saw it over the weekend. I definitely agree that it felt long. Of course it IS long, but I generally don't like feeling like it is long, if that makes sense.

That said, I enjoyed it a lot. I WOULD recommend someone pay to see it, particularly in IMAX, because a movie like this needs to be seen in IMAX to be appreciated.

It had just the right amount of eye candy (I loved the mountains battling - very cool) so as to not seem like the movie relies on it. The last 45 minutes or so were especially good as things started to pick up.

I guess you just have to be willing to sit through a lot of set up for the payoff.

One thing I didn't like is where in the story the movie ended. It felt incomplete. I don't mind setting things up for sequels but I don't think movies should end on cliffhangers. Of course I say this not knowing how close they stuck to the book, having never read The Hobbit.
 
Haven't seen it yet but I am curious why they would make the shortest of the books into a 3 movie series. I don't know if I like that or not. I'll have to see how they break it up to really know. Anyone else feel the same?
 
KevinvaMarvel said:
Haven't seen it yet but I am curious why they would make the shortest of the books into a 3 movie series. I don't know if I like that or not. I'll have to see how they break it up to really know. Anyone else feel the same?
Click to expand...

Mainly money probably. It does seem like they are adding a lot of the stuff that happens at the same time as the events in the Hobbit, but that aren't in the actual book, into the movie. I still don't know if they have enough material to warrant three movies. 2 movies I can understand...not sure about 3.
 
Re: The Hobbit - Part 1

Where's the poll?

Loved it. I didn't feel like it dragged at all. When the first hour was over I was baffled by all the critiques saying that it got off to a slow start. I really don't know why people are complaining about adding all of the events that were actually happening during the hobbit into the story. It didn't ruin it for me at all. Just had me going back thinking about what I did know. I guess if you didn't read outside of the main 4 Tolkien books you might feel a bit lost but, then again, they're setting up Sauron who you should know by the LotR trilogy. Things like Radaghast (sp?) were things that I have always wanted explored and shown instead of just sidenotes. Fans should be happy.

For the record I saw it in IMAX: 3D. Not the 48ps.
 
I didn't see it in 48fps and I'm kind of glad because the reviews on it were really bad. I'm still curious what it looks like but I don't want to be distracted in a movie that already requires my undivided attention because of everything going on.
 
I loved it and I love how its foreshadowing into LOTR. So when its done you can have a nice huge marathon. Also I like Bilbo better then Frodo.
 
thee great one said:
So when its done you can have a nice huge marathon.
Click to expand...

Assuming the expanded editions, when they come out, are 4 hours each like LotR...that is 24 straight hours if you were to do a marathon like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top