The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey

galyons · « **on:** 17 Dec 2012, 07:05 pm »

I am a big Tolkien fan! I first read the Hobbit over 50 years ago and have reread the book and the Ring Trilogy several times. I have visited the Tolkien archives at Marquette University several times. The archives include the original manuscripts of the Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, along with copious notes.

I am a huge fan of Peter Jackson’s handling of the Ring Trilogy movies. In my opinion, the best book-to-movies ever produced. I have patiently endured the trials and tribulations of bringing this latest effort to production. That said…

If you want to cut to the chase, The Hobbit, An Unexpected Journey is, in a word, horrible.

The movie is violent CG run amok, slaughtering both story line and character development in the name of heavy handed computer graphics technology. The 3D and doubled frame speed lend a computer game aspect to the film that is childish and actively irritating. The screen writing is maladroit, plodding the poor characters from one fight scene to the next mucking through non-Tolkien story elements that were added simply to be able to drag this atrocity out to a trilogy. A TRILOGY.... for the shortest of the Ring based books??? If you want to spend nearly 3 hours watching a mindless video game, in which you cannot participate, you may enjoy this movie. For me… I am, yet again, hoping someone will do a movie of The Hobbit, but now, likely not.

thunderbrick · « **Reply #1 on:** 17 Dec 2012, 07:17 pm »

Heard a discussion on NPR this morning that for movies betting on large foreign sales, dialog is kept to a minimum to make it easier dub into other languages.. Never thought of that; maybe the spaghetti westerns were a good example of that.

toocool4 · « **Reply #2 on:** 17 Dec 2012, 07:31 pm »

I have to say I agree with you galyons, they are just dragging it out. It was rather disappointing and yes I did see the 48FPS 3D version.

How can they drag out the shortest book over 3 films, I tell you how by boring us to death.

viggen · « **Reply #3 on:** 17 Dec 2012, 07:36 pm »

Saw it last weekend. Didn't like it at all. Too much panoramic pans. Too much of the same music repeated over and over again. I actually fell asleep during the movie cuz it was so boring. The 3D isn't even worthwhile.

wushuliu · « **Reply #4 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 01:55 am »

I loved it. I was prepared to not like it because of all the mixed reviews, but I thoroughly enjoyed it. The 3D is terrific, but the film is just as good in 2d. I will check out the HFR version later - I hear the 48fps is the real weak spot. As for CGI. I don't see how anyone can complain about the CGI in this film after watching the LOTR. They must not remember the borderline ridiculous Casper the Mountain King and friends ghost CGI that took up a chunk of ROTK. Same for the campy photoshop special effect that happens every time Frodo or Bilbo slip on the ring. There has always been some cheesy CGI, effects work tucked in this series.

I think the pacing is perfect and the characters very well fleshed out. You can't expect to get to know all the dwarves, it's just not possible. I am impressed that they fleshed out as many as they did. Radagast the Brown was a treat and wonderfully played by Sylvester McCoy.

As a Tolkien fan I embrace any opportunity to spend time in Middle Earth. Any fan frankly should be grateful they get to see Erebor, Thranduil, and the Necromancer. Without Peter Jackson involved there would be zero. ZERO chance of getting this much lore on screen. THAT'S why it's stuffed to the gills. You complain now, but you will be happy ten years from now when you are ready to curl up with a comfy marathon. Think any other studio or filmmaker would have even bothered making LOTR more than one movie back in 2000? Or would have made The Hobbit any better than a money grab like Taken 2?

I think people are spoiled now. I for one appreciate jackson taking 10 yrs. of his life to bring these films to the screen with as much skill and integrity as he has. It's a minor miracle. What's happened is everyone's cherry has been busted on LOTR and there's just no putting that back in the bottle. The Hobbit was never going to be able to top that experience.

S Clark · « **Reply #5 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 02:52 am »

There were things to like, and things not to like. I give it 3 stars. The film was clearly padded in places to make it stretch. Sometimes the padding was positive (scenes w/Radagast), sometimes not (dwarves burping and bitching about the food in Rivendale). It's a movie for fans, but not for those wishing to experience "The Hobbit" for the first time- read the book instead.

galyons · « **Reply #6 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 03:35 am »

Quote from: wushuliu on 19 Dec 2012, 01:55 am

The Hobbit was never going to be able to top that experience.

Exactly...I expected the same fine hand with the Hobbit book...instead I got the "Acme Anvil"! Glad you enjoyed it!!!

Cheers,
Geary

Rclark · « **Reply #7 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 04:01 am »

I haven't seen it yet, but I am dissappointed in that they couldn't make a single film to cover this single book. Talk about a money grab.

IMO even though I haven't seen it the best Hobbit movie will always be the animated feature they made long ago.

Anyway, three movies for the Hobbit? Seriously? Why aren't there then NINE LOTR movies? I really don't even care to go see this one, I'll wait to rent it. Meh. Big time.

wushuliu · « **Reply #8 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 04:21 am »

Quote from: Rclark on 19 Dec 2012, 04:01 am

I haven't seen it yet, but I am dissappointed in that they couldn't make a single film to cover this single book. Talk about a money grab.

IMO even though I haven't seen it the best Hobbit movie will always be the animated feature they made long ago.

Anyway, three movies for the Hobbit? Seriously? Why aren't there then NINE LOTR movies? I really don't even care to go see this one, I'll wait to rent it. Meh. Big time.

This from the guy who said Avengers should have been cut by an hour!

Rclark · « **Reply #9 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 04:49 am »

.. exactly? It should have been done in one movie, not three, my whole point...

And the Avengers did need an editor bigtime. I stand by that.

wushuliu · « **Reply #10 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 05:42 am »

Quote from: Rclark on 19 Dec 2012, 04:49 am

.. exactly? It should have been done in one movie, not three, my whole point...

And the Avengers did need an editor bigtime. I stand by that.

If you don't want to see dwarves juggling for five minutes, it's probably not the film for you.

Another thing - The Hobbit along w/ its 48fps is pointing to the future of movies as event pictures in 3D w/ high frame rate and longer running times. Not sure if I agree with it, but that's the push Jackson and Cameron are making. In fact I am sure they want even higher frame rates because it improves the 3D experience. So longer running times and bloated filmmaking is only going to get worse. Part of what makes me okay with longer running times (in general) is that here in L.A. I have to fight long lines and 30+ min of commercials and promotional programming. You can't just walk in 10min. before the movie starts in Burbank. And I'm not willing to go through all that hassle for a 100min. movie...

Can't wait to move back to Minneapolis.

Rclark · « **Reply #11 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 05:44 am »

Oh man, really? Count me out.

wushuliu · « **Reply #12 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 05:50 am »

Quote from: Rclark on 19 Dec 2012, 05:44 am

Oh man, really? Count me out.

Yeah, this is not the movie for you.

viggen · « **Reply #13 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 11:16 pm »

I fell asleep during the food scene.

I also think Avengers movie could be better edited. I can do without most of the middle-age teen angst between the heroes before they finally decided to work together.

wushuliu · « **Reply #14 on:** 19 Dec 2012, 11:33 pm »

Going to go a little wonky: Just saw the HFR 48fps version and wow - depending on taste, one will either like it or hate it. I hate it. Basically the movie looks like video. Like the most expensive BBC Video production from the 1980s. If you are the person who likes how new TVs can make movies look like soap operas then with the 48fps it's your birthday. I don't know what Jackson was thinking. No one is going to pay that kind of money to watch Days of Our Hobbits in the long run. Actually I can see why he went for it: CGI creatures and 3D look much, much better in this format. In fact the CGI creatures look better than the live action. Here's why:

I just found out The Hobbit was shot with the RED HD camera. I knew something was not right today when I noticed that the resolution of live action scenes seemed to be lacking. You can see the slight pixelation in certain scenes. And some scenes I kept thinking the resolution in the LOTR films was much better. All these scenes that bugged me were live action. Anything with CGI was incredible. Part of the reason I went to the 48fps was because I was a little unsatisfied with the regular 3D and now I know why.

I know most people won't care, but just like golden ears and gear, I can tell when something was shot on HD almost everytime. The Hobbit fooled me most of the time, but not all of the time. And it's a shame, because I think HD cameras are a notch down in overall quality. I also think unconsciously the end result has made an impact on some of the disappointing reviews of the Hobbit. Not unlike digital vs. analog debate in fact. When you're listening to music and you know something just isn't right. Yeah it's clean and all, but... Speaking of which, even the SOUND had digititis. Not sure what the difference is between the regular 3D audio and the HFR audio but they are not the same. The 48fps audio is flat and just kind of weird.

So it's no wonder films like Avatar look phenomenal in this medium - it's all CGI and you can get all the resolution you want with CGI. The 48fps will be perfect for it. But live action - no way. And now I believe Spielberg and Nolan are 100% right on sticking w/ film. Jackson should have gone with the RAW digital format (not HD) used for Skyfall if anything. THAT looked amazing. HD can be great, but it's just not as good as film.

Rob Babcock · « **Reply #15 on:** 21 Dec 2012, 09:22 am »

I almost saw The Hobbit on Weds! Went out to scrape the ice off my windshield, warmed up my truck and drove across town to see the 10:00 pm showing. When I got to the window to buy a ticket it turns out all they had playing was the 3D version.

So I said "thanks anyway" and left. That sucks! I hate 3D but really wanna see the movie. I suppose eventually it will out in 2D, or I'll wait for the Blu-Ray.

ecramer · « **Reply #16 on:** 25 Dec 2012, 10:15 pm »

MY .02 I liked it Don't think for a minute there is any reason to drag it out to three movies. Only so much filling in the back story is needed. seen the
3d high frame rate. I liked that a lot loved how clear it looked. I'm still in awe of CGI when its done right the orc cave looked real i'm not bitching. and the stone giant fight was great had me flinching a few time. could have done with out the rabbit sled chase as it led nowhere but that's all miner bitches.

Id give it 7.5 id give it an 8.5 if there was only going to be two parts.

dflee · « **Reply #17 on:** 25 Dec 2012, 10:34 pm »

Talked to a LOTR fanatic and they informed me it is actually dragged out into two movies. The third is
something dreamed up to tie in Hobbitt to LOTR. She really liked the movie and put up with the filler
for the substance.

bunnyma357 · « **Reply #18 on:** 26 Dec 2012, 03:26 am »

Quote from: wushuliu on 19 Dec 2012, 11:33 pm

I just found out The Hobbit was shot with the RED HD camera. I knew something was not right today when I noticed that the resolution of live action scenes seemed to be lacking. You can see the slight pixelation in certain scenes. And some scenes I kept thinking the resolution in the LOTR films was much better. All these scenes that bugged me were live action. Anything with CGI was incredible. Part of the reason I went to the 48fps was because I was a little unsatisfied with the regular 3D and now I know why.

Actually I think they were shooting at 5K resolution, which is much higher than HD. The RED is capable of very filmic images if the director chooses - and often artifacts like grain are added in in post to create a film look. But digital does look different than film - not necessarily inferior, although subjectively the differences can make it seem that way if you like the look of film.

Film is definitely going to drop by the wayside for acquisition due to cost and availability, it's already vanishing for distribution. All the major film camera manufacturers are pulling the plug on film cameras in favor of digital. Before long film stock & processing will disappear.

Jim C

jqp · « **Reply #19 on:** 26 Dec 2012, 03:50 am »

Quote from: dflee on 25 Dec 2012, 10:34 pm

Talked to a LOTR fanatic and they informed me it is actually dragged out into two movies. The third is
something dreamed up to tie in Hobbitt to LOTR. She really liked the movie and put up with the filler
for the substance.

My nephew is a huge fan since birth. He pointed out that even things that are in the appendices of the LOTR books appear in this movie. So basically everything ever relating to the Hobitts is in these 3 movies (such as where did Gandalf go when he disappeared for a while in The Hobbit)