The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) (1 Viewer)

[Quentin]

I'm over my disappointment in Jackson's decisions regarding The Hobbit. I thought the first film suffered from bloatiness, and I'm sure this film will suffer as well. But, I'm dropping my expectations and just preparing to have fun with what we have!

At least Smaug looks ridiculously scary! Is Cumberbatch doing Smaug's voice? I see his name on the credits, and I was wondering.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm over my disappointment in Jackson's decisions regarding The Hobbit. I thought the first film suffered from bloatiness, and I'm sure this film will suffer as well. But, I'm dropping my expectations and just preparing to have fun with what we have!

At least Smaug looks ridiculously scary! Is Cumberbatch doing Smaug's voice? I see his name on the credits, and I was wondering.

Now all we need is Thorin to yell "Khaaaaaaaaan!" when he sees the dragon.

 

[Quentin]

Now all we need is Thorin to yell "Khaaaaaaaaan!" when he sees the dragon.

Don't go there!!!

 

[Tim Glover]

After seeing that teaser...,this is certainly not your fathers Hobbit. Peter Jackson taking "based on Tolkien's The Hobbit" very very loosely.

 

[Robert Crawford]

I'm over my disappointment in Jackson's decisions regarding The Hobbit. I thought the first film suffered from bloatiness, and I'm sure this film will suffer as well. But, I'm dropping my expectations and just preparing to have fun with what we have!

At least Smaug looks ridiculously scary! Is Cumberbatch doing Smaug's voice? I see his name on the credits, and I was wondering.

Yes, he is.

 

[Carlo_M]

After seeing that teaser...,this is certainly not your fathers Hobbit. Peter Jackson taking "based on Tolkien's The Hobbit" very very loosely.

Yeah not to repeat myself too much from earlier in this thread, but I've basically started viewing this as not a Hobbit adaptation, but more of a Lord of the Rings Prequel featuring events from the Hobbit and other ancillary Tolkien material, with a sprinkling of some s#$t that Jackson & Co. just plain made up. That's how I can derive a bit of enjoyment out of the movies, which otherwise would be a *horrible* adaptation of The Hobbit, or There and Back Again.

 

[Malcolm R]

Yeah not to repeat myself too much from earlier in this thread, but I've basically started viewing this as not a Hobbit adaptation, but more of a Lord of the Rings Prequel featuring events from the Hobbit and other ancillary Tolkien material, with a sprinkling of some s#$t that Jackson & Co. just plain made up.

That seems like pretty much the way Jackson & Co described the films during production. I don't think they ever tried to claim otherwise.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Warner Brothers has officially announced the release of the extended edition for November 5th. http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/07/31/76235-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-extended-edition-release-dates-content-pricing-announced/

It's 13 minutes longer. I think the theatrical version would have benefited from more streamlining and less padding. However, I also think it could have used more Bilbo stuff, and I'm hoping this directs more focus toward him. I know that the scene with Bilbo and Elrond in Rivendell will be added.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

We announced it this morning as well...

http://www.hometheaterforum.com/topic/325428-whv-press-release-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-extended-edition-blu-ray/

 

[Emanuel1]

What are the items that the main characters used during the journey in the book the hobbit?

 

[Sean Bryan]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand your question. What do you mean by "items"?

 

[RobertR]

That being said, I really disliked The Hobbit....

...and I was reminded as to how much dislike I had for it when I finally
sat and watched the 3D Blu-ray this past weekend.

There are two major problems with the film as far as I am concerned.

The first problem is that it's more of the same of what we have seen
already. Best way to describe the experience is...been there, done that.

The second problem is the greed involved in expanding this book out to
three films. It was unnecessary to do. As a result, The Hobbit took too
much time to tell its story. In fact, I found it a complete bore to sit through.

I am hoping that the next two installments that follow will be better paced.
Hard to imagine having to sit and watch an extended version of what has
already been released --- and this is coming from someone that prefers the
longer editions of The Lord of The Rings.

Watching the trailer reminded me how gorgeous Jackson's creations can be to simply look at. It's too bad those gorgeous visuals don't serve a non-bloated, non-redundant story. I wonder if someday, someone will do a fan edit that actually tells the story of Tolkien's The Hobbit.

So what happened to the much-ballyhooed 48 fps process used for the first movie? Online articles make no mention of it. Can we assume that audiences simply didn't go for it?

 

[Edwin-S]

That seems like pretty much the way Jackson & Co described the films during production. I don't think they ever tried to claim otherwise.

Then why call it THE HOBBIT and not THE LORD OF THE RINGS:The Prequel?

Anyway, the decision to bloat this story for financial gain was made and there is nothing that can be done about it, other than to not see the films. Might was well go along for the ride. Smaug looks seriously badass in the film, so sitting through Jackson's bloated storytelling will be worth it just to see him.

 

[Emanuel1]

What are the items that the main characters used during the journey in the book the hobbit?

 

[Chris Gerhard]

I sure don't understand the whining about greed, making the Hobbit into three movies is just greed. What nonsense, this is a for profit business and that is a business decision or artistic decision, I don't care. I don't know whether taking three films to tell the story is necessary or will be more profitable than one or two, but I do know it is a business decision made by companies that are for profit businesses. Even if I had read The Hobbit and had my idea of how the story should be presented on film, I would defer to Jackson and the others involved with these films, they know what they are doing, I don't and neither does anybody whining about their decisions here.

If three films are too much, don't go to the theater or don't buy the home video releases and if the market for these films agrees with that position, profits won't meet expectations or losses will be the result. Nobody is being forced to spend a penny on The Hobbit, this isn't a situation where greed can force someone to spend money on something, resulting in excessive profits. If this business decision pays off, people choose to spend their money, my hat's off to the filmmakers, they must have provided a quality product at a fair price. My guess is that the films will be a success and will result in an acceptable return on investment but we will know that answer in a couple of years.

If some small group wants to whine about greed, I hope they also walk into the grocery store and point at items on the shelf and claim greed, everything in the store is provided by a company hoping to make a profit on the sale, including Newman's Own where the profits are used for charitable purposes. A grocery store is actually a place where greed could force people to spend more money than necessary, unlike watching movies, we have to eat to survive. Competition prevents that in most countries, with adequate choices and food supplies so that doesn't happen. There is no place in the universe where greed forces people to spend their money on entertainment choices.

 

[Mikael Soderholm]

I'm not whining about greed, PJ and his companies are free to try to make all the money they want in the best way they see fit, but I'm sad about certain artistic decisions, ie. making this book into three quite long movies. I'm sad because I think they would have been better as two, but I actually also think they could have made more money that way, Two Hobbit movies plus one other movie could have made more (or at least cost less, ie. been more profitable) than three Hobbit movies will, but I may be wrong of course...

Personaly, loving the universe, and the LotR movies, I saw the first Hobbit not theatrically (unlike LotR), but on blu rental, and I will not buy it, or the extended edition. I might see part two in a theater, time permitting, else on blu, and based on that, I'll decide whether the third is worth the effort at all.
That was not the case when the LotR movies came, then I saw them opening week, bought the extended DVD on release date, and waited eagerly for the next.

'But you must do what you feel is right, of course.'

 

[Aaron Silverman]

So what happened to the much-ballyhooed 48 fps process used for the first movie? Online articles make no mention of it. Can we assume that audiences simply didn't go for it?

I sure did. It vastly improved the 3D effects.

FWIW, if I want to see a film of just The Hobbit, there's a perfectly good one out there, and it's all of 75 minutes long.

 

[RobertR]

I sure did.

That's nice, but it says nothing about how audiences in general reacted. We know that New Coke and the Edsel were failures regardless of the fact that some people bought them.

 

[Brandon Conway]

Hobbit 2 & 3 and the Avatar sequels will all be 48fps.Sent from my VS920 4G using Tapatalk 2

 

[SilverWook]

Are there more theaters equipped for 48fps now than last year?