The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey reactions (SPOILERS)

On the topic of the movie, anyone have issue with the OOPS 48 frame rate?

No ... cause I saw it in 2D! :p

The last 3D film I saw was Avatar, which convinced me I hate 3D, so I'm conveniently withdrawing from the whole 48 fps vs. 24 fps debate. I'm glad I still had the choice to see the movie in 2D -- I have no complaints about the look and feel of the film in 2D, as it equaled or improved on LotR, and the effects did not cause me to suspend disbelief.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No ... cause I saw it in 2D! :p

The last 3D film I saw was Avatar, which convinced me I hate 3D, so I'm conveniently withdrawing from the whole 48 fps vs. 24 fps debate. I'm glad I still had the choice to see the movie in 2D -- I have no complaints about the look and feel of the film in 2D, as it equaled or improved on LotR, and the effects did not cause me to suspend disbelief.

Avatar contrasted by a few subsequent films that used post-production 3D convinced me over time that the Avatar way was the better way forward. For instance, if last year's The Three Musketeers movie had a better script and fewer casting problems, I feel it would have been a great example of how far things have come since James Cameron's 2009 film, which had script problems as well (in that it was almost a placeholder/cliche story ion which to hang the effects). This year we finally have a film made with the best cutting-edge film tech and topnotch source material. I'm happy for the continued advances and find both formats to be fine in their own ways.
 

I find that movies shot and blocked with 3D cameras are usually far better off than post conversion any day of the week. Both real and CGI 3D films using native tech seem to produce much better results. Many of the CGI films from Pixar and Dreamworks look lovely in 3D, while the Resident Evil films look pretty good, if cheesy on some of the shots/plot points. I found that the HFR 3D did wonders over regular 3D, it was brighter, and easier to watch, no headaches on a nearly 3 hour, 3D film for me was a wonder to experience. I usually get mild to medium level headaches from regular 3D films. Took a bit to adjust to the frame rate, experiencing the "phantom" fast motion others did, not sure if it was just me, or the tech still needs(ed) work..

Oh, regarding timelines, didn't Elrond imply at the council in the movie that it'd been 400 years of hard won peace, implying a much compressed timeline.
Smaug took over Eredore 60 years prior to the movie began, and the 400 years should then be the big battle against Sauron...
If that's the case, then the Mirkwood change, and other timeline oddities/re-arrangements from the source material can be glossed over..
 

As someone above mentioned, it might have been nice to:

a) keep the flashback with Azog vs. Thorin.
b) not show the orcs stalking them.
c) keep the orc/warg attack being lured away by Radagast.
d) not show the orc survivors talking to Azog.
e) not have the Goblin King mention to whom he sends his message.
f) have Azog show up as a big reveal in the final scene.
g) *minor* not use the Witch King's music for Thorin. Unless I'm missing something, I don't see why they reused that musical cue.
 

After huge let-downs for me from Prometheus, Dark Knight Rises and Skyfall and huge wins from The Avengers, Lincoln and Silver Lining's Playbook, it was a 50/50 split this year at the box office (which is not good as I'm capitally invested so that is a net loss in my book). I was expecting The Hobbit to tilt the scales toward the former rather than the latter. I was quite wrong and happy to be so. Going in, the major concerns I had were:

- poor pacing
- disjointedness with regards to the tone/mood and plot delivery
- trying to force emotion on the audience

While it wasn't perfect in any of those areas, I thought it was good enough and delivered a better cinema experience than I expected when I walked into the theater. It was quite a fun romp and felt sufficiently "The Hobbit"-ey.
 

Saw it. Really had my doubts. Previews looked like a children's film.

But...this film really charmed me. Loved it.

And, I think it's the closest thing to visualizing classic D&D than has ever been committed to film--including the three Lord of the Rings films.

There's a Quest.

There's a Party.

There's a Journey.

There's a Dungeon.

There's a Dragon.

It's good stuff. Let it charm you, too.
<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
 

And, I think it's the closest thing to visualizing classic D&D than has ever been committed to film--including the three Lord of the Rings films.

There's a Quest.

There's a Party.

There's a Journey.

There's a Dungeon.

There's a Dragon.

Yeah, I always got that impression from the book, too. Not only are there all of the above, there are some truly terrible / silly plans and ideas, some incidents which can only be attributed to appallingly-bad rolls at just the wrong moment, and the party start squabbling as soon as they get the treasure. :)
 

I was definitely a fan. It wasn't a perfect adaption but it was closer to the book than Les Miserables was. In some ways it makes the saga of middle earth seem more unified. I was very skeptical about the pictures of the dwarves but I was impressed with how well the movie handled such a crowded cast. The casting of Bilbo was perfect and, knowing the actor, I am feeling very optimistic about Smaug as well.
 

Just saw it. It was pretty good, though Jackson is clearly milking the book for all it's worth and there were a few times where it felt like he left the camera running unnecessarily.

Frodo at the beginning didn't bother me at all, clearly those scenes were being used as a framing device. It could have been a bit tighter though, some stuff left for the Director Cuts.

It seems pretty clear where Jackson is going with the Azog plot in the movie. In the book, Azog was originally killed at the battle of Nanduhirion (and that was a good scene), and later his son Bolg shows up with a huge goblin army at the end. Jackson seems to be combining the two characters into one (though apparently Bolg shows up in a later movie) and giving Azog a motivation to want to wipe out the dwarves to justify the Battle of the Five Armies later. In the book the goblins kind of just pop up out of nowhere at the end when news travels that Smaug has died, and they're coming for the treasure. Azog as a Big Bad I think is a pretty good addition to the film. The mid scenes with him didn't bother me when I was watching the movie, but maybe it would be better if he wasn't revealed again until the end as some said.

Radagast is probably there to tie things in more strongly with LotR. Umbran already listed the timeline and backstory, so I'm not repeating all that. It was already speculated that Jackson is going to show the White Council's strike on Dol Guldur, so he's probably setting that up. Here though, the threat that the Necromancer (Sauron) poses is still unknown as Mirkwood is only starting to fall into darkness instead of having 2000 years of Sauron's influence tainting it. In the book though, the Necromancer was infamous enough that even Bilbo had heard of him. I too am curious to know about how Gandalf got Thrain's key since he got it from him about 100 years earlier in Dol Guldur. I was disappointed by Saruman's dismissal of Radagast, I was hoping for "Radagast the bird-tamer, Radagast the fool!" Instead we get a line about mushrooms.

Thorin's resentment towards the elves and Thranduil in particular I think will help in the second movie or early third movie, wherever we'll get the Elvenking plot. I always thought it was strange in the book that Thorin was perfectly willing to give the Great Goblin the lame excuse about visiting his kin in the Iron Hills while he completely clammed up with Thranduil since he had no reason to see him as a complete enemy. Here though, if he thinks Thranduil abandoned Erebor at their hour of need and hates his guts over it, it'll make more sense when Thorin is captured and brought before him. And later in the third movie, his hostility towards Bard and Thranduil after Smaug is killed will probably not make him look as much of a dick as he did in the book.

I liked the stone giants myself, though I thought the whole bit about the dwarves actually crawling on their legs was overdone. The troll scene wasn't bad either

Jackson made decent use of some of the songs that were in the book.

But it was still pretty faithful to the source material, much like the LotR films, once again, the weakest parts tend to be where Jackson notably deviates from the books. But unlike the LotR films were the departures hurt things (Faramir draggin Frodo to Osgiliath, Frodo chasing Sam away, Denethor being a crazed decadent madman rather than Sauron manipulating him into utter despair) some of the embellishments like Azog or Thorin's elf grudge look like they'll actually help the plot later.
 
Last edited:

Saw it and thought the pacing was bloody slow in the middle, but had two good set pieces at the end to round things up. I also enjoyed the riddle scene, even though the treatment was much darker than I envisioned. Still, three movies really is quite a stretch for it.
 

Remove ads

Top