The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

KJ says the 3D is distractingly flat.

The Hobbit is a children's book, so it's more of a children's movie (aside from all the slash-and-hacking), so I was willing to forgive those scenes (although there didn't have to be quite so much of them). They were just the sort of thing that would amuse me as a child.

I tend to agree that it was unnecessary, but I enjoyed that part and felt like it added something to my understanding of their characters and old!Bilbo's view of his adventure. Plus, it was probably useful for the casual viewer who needed a quick reminder of who Bilbo was and what this whole Hobbit thing was about.

Meh. I'm rooting for the dragon.

I always root for the dragon. :thing:

Who has character development? Arguably Bilbo. No-one else.

What story? "Group of people set out on a quest" sums up the whole thing, apart from the finding of the Ring. A sequence of mostly consequence-free events is not a story, not really.

In other words, Ricky would have preferred to have seen "The Hobbit" written and directed by Terrence Malick.

No, it probably would have been just fine if Jackson hadn't been determined to stretch the material out over nine hours.

Thorin does, without a doubt. Indeed, him accepting Bilbo is one of the key themes of the work.

That would be 'part one of three.'

And then we're back to the same problem, where things are spread so thinly across three movies that the individual parts (or at least the first of those) have very little real content.

henryhill is going to be the Dayton3 of LOTR movies.

No, I like the LoTR movies. I didn't like The Hobbit.

Yeah, to be fair there are others who find the LotR movies to be bad in spite of the massive amount of money they made, and all the popularity and critical acclaim they have. So I guess the shoe is on the other foot for some people.

Saw it yesterday and give it a sold A! It was deliberately paced and took it's time to set up the story, and I didn't mind at all because it was still entertaining. I also had zero problems with the changes and additions Jackson made to expand the story. Yes, there were things that could have easily have been cut to condense the whole story into a single movie, but again it doesn't bother me because he is immersing the audience back into the world of Middle Earth, and I don't mind staying awhile and enjoying myself. It was a lot of fun, and I enjoyed it.

So sue me.

I watched at 24fps in 3D. I wanted to enjoy the movie for what it was and not be distracted by the new format. I do plan to see it again, this time at the HFR just so I can compare the differences. But overall, I just wanted to enjoy the movie first before checking out the new technology.

Yeah that's the best way to do it. See it normally first, watch with the gimmick later.

Saw it at 48fps, 2k on Saturday. It wasn't bad, but I think there are some cinematography rules that have yet to be understood and fleshed out for 48fps movies. I'll have to see a movie in 2D at 48fps to be sure, if one is ever made. If I'm right, Peter Jackson got a fair amount right, and a lot of it very wrong, which is unsurprising because it's experimental.

While pans are great - better than at 24, especially non-level or curving pans - strafes* are horrible and jarring. Zoom is good - again better than at 24fps - but moving the camera forward and back is not (there is a distinct possibility this is 3D-based rather than framerate-based). POV chases likewise (and ditto that it might be a 3D thing). All of this runs pretty much contrary to a lot of normal modern camera techniques.

*not sure this is actually the filmmaking term, I'm getting it from first-person shooter games - what happens when you hit A or D as opposed to moving the mouse left or right (which would be panning).

Oh, and 3D on 2k is (surprisingly) better than IMAX 3D, and I figured out why: you can't see the whole screen with each eye in IMAX, so that's why I thought it looked flat before. The 3D on a regular screen was top-notch.

Watched it at 48fps in 3D. Slightly strange to begin with, seemed like everything was zooming at fast forward speed but then the pace seems to settle.
The movie itself was okay. Not a patch on any of the LoTR movies but it was a mildly entertaining movie although punctuated with moments that dragged on and on unnecessarily. It's got huge standards to live up to and I just don't think there's enough material for Jackson to work with that could ever match what he did with LoTR.

I still haven't seen the movie yet, but the Denny's menu isn't too bad.

Saw it with the whole family yesterday (ordinary 3D). In French, but we saw all the LOTR pics in French the first time around, too. Loved every minute of it.

It is a bit faster-paced than the book, which is not at all like the LOTR. The Hobbit is background material, the build-up the the War of the Ring. People seem to forget this, and expect the Hobbit to be like the LOTR films themselves. But it's like seeing a film about the 30s, and how various things led up to WW2: It won't be at all like seeing a film about Pearl Harbor, or D-Day, or something like that.

But the "Middle Earth feeling" was there all the way. Absolutely loved it. The characters are very, very believable. It is very faithful to the spirit of the book, though there are some changes (which, personally, I think Tolkein himself could have made as well, if he had already invented the stuff in LOTR when he wrote The Hobbit) that help understand better the backstory to LOTR.

The only thing I was slightly disappointed about was the length. I was hoping for a full three hours, and the actual run time wasn't much over two and a half or so. But it was still a lot of fun.

Really looking forward to the next two.

The dragon is an odds-on favorite to cover the spread...

At one point, Tolkien was actually considering a re-write of The Hobbit that would have eliminated the brief reference to mountain giants completely . . . and then Peter Jackson gives it several long minutes of screentime!

I loved it. So much that I've now begun spending hours on end during my Christmas Holidays reading into the history behind Middle Earth. Fascinating.

I've seen it twice, will probably see it a third time before its all over and done with.

Win.

^^^
In regards to Tolkien, one of the things that pissed me off was of the portrayal of the deliberations of the White Council.

The White Council was aware of the return of Sauron 600 years before the events of The Hobbit. It's the entire reason that the Istari were sent to Middle Earth. While I understand the need to foreshadow Sauruman's betrayal, having him speak as if there is "no enemy" and such shows a lack of respect for the source material on Jacksons bahalf in this instance.

Saw The Hobbit last night with my brother...
We both liked it...
In 2 years, in 2014, a cinema close-by will do a 2 day trilogy marathon:
day 1 The Hobbit trilogy, day 2 The Lord Of The Rings trilogy...
It's pretty much garantueed that we will be going then...

Talk about nit-picking! Why introduce characters that no one knows and that does nothing to advance the story? This is a movie, not a book.

You two sound like the moronic Harry Potter fans who bitch and complain that every single little detail from the books wasn't in the movies. Yet you also complain that the movie is already too long with lots of padding.

Make up your minds!