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

[Felix Martinez]

Saw the HFR 3D one week after watching the standard 2D version. Had a great viewing experience with the 2D, and really liked the film as well. For the HFR 3D viewing...I thought the 3D was fantastic, but unnecessary. If anything, it brought out the seams of layers during FX sequences, which are many. Noted exceptions were the interactions of the characters of different sizes/scale - this was absolutely flawless. HATED the HFR. It looked like something between beautifully shot behind the scenes HD video and the most amazing video game ever rendered. I felt like I was a part of the production, not a part of the fictional world. I'm stunned that anyone thinks HFR looks good for anything other than sports, video games, documentaries/nature, etc.

 

[TonyD]

I'm not stunned. I think it looked stunning. I loved it and I've spoken to many who have said the same thing at the theater were I work. Very few complaints although today we had a 12 year old boy leave because he was nauseous.

 

[Todd H]

I'm stunned that anyone thinks HFR looks good for anything other than sports, video games, documentaries/nature, etc.

We're seeing the homogenization of entertainment play out right before our eyes. Movies will looks just like video games, which will look just like HD video, all shiny and super clear. Everything has to look perfect. Personally I think it sucks but kids today love it. Sent from my iPhone 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Scott-S]

I am not a kid, buy I say "the clearer, the better". I have yet to see the HFR (will try again this weekend) but the LFR 3d looked pretty blurry and not even as good as the Blu-ray LOTR set as far as sharpness. Any improvement from the HFR would be a great improvement.

 

[Carlo_M]

I had no problems with the 3D 48fps showing of The Hobbit. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who, despite owning two 120hz capable TVs, disables all of that functionality to get pure 24fps from his Blu-rays. I really don't like the "hyper real" look of 120hz (effectively 120fps "faked" by the TV) and 48 fps definitely has that hyper real look as well. But knowing that's how The Hobbit was filmed, as opposed to upconverted, I wanted to give it a try. It took my brain about 20-30 minutes to adjust but after that I was fine. I don't know if it varies theater by theater, given that I think all 3D 48fps showings were digital as opposed to film, but my showing was super-sharp. No blurriness whatsoever. And certainly miles ahead of any blu-ray I own.

 

[dpippel]

Caught The Hobbit in 48fps IMAX (real IMAX) 3D day before yesterday. Despite the running time and the "Lord of the Ringish-ness" of what Jackson has done, I liked it despite myself. Despite some very noticeable edge enhancement I though it looked good and the presentation was immersive. I'm still disappointed that this story will be dragged out over ANOTHER 5+ hours of film, but I'm actually looking forward to the next two movies. DAMN YOU PETER JACKSOOOOOOOOONNNNN!!!!

 

[Carlo_M]

Just curious about what you mean by real imax? Was the hobbit shot in IMAX? I didn't see edge enhancement in my showing.

 

[Citizen87645]

Google 'liemax'

 

[Bryan Tuck]

Of course in my mind, "real" IMAX means an actual 70mm IMAX print in one of the original "ground up" IMAX theaters, which means it couldn't be HFR. But I know some of the older, bigger houses have had the newer IMAX digital projectors installed in them recently. This has gotten really confusing.

 

[Ruz-El]

So I saw The Hobbit last night in glorious 3D Non-IMAX but HFR 48fps. Jesus, what a mouthful that is to type! I'm a bit miffed by it. Here are some thoughts:
People who are snarky and saying it looks like a soap opera are right. It does look like a shot on video soap opera. It's not a bad thing though, it's the best looking, sharpest, prettiest video you will have seen. Some are saying they are seeing edge enhancement but I call foul on that. The picture is so sharp that the digital matte lines in some shots are noticeable because everything in frame is so sharp and in focus, there's no grain to manipulate and hide the techniques.
Even more impressive is the CGI matches the insanely, almost supernaturally natural looking picture. I would declare this the greatest CGI yet put to a movie.
The film looks very small. I think there's a problem with the focal length on these lenses or something*. It reminded me of making my own movies on the HI-8 tape format. Things either looked too cramped or too distant, never looking like a proper movie due to the stock lens. That's at play here. Due to this and the insane clarity that given the subject matter makes the whole thing rather theatrical, means it always looks like a low budget video affair. The best looking low budget video you've ever seen, but low budget all the same. It never feels "epic" like the LOTR films. Hell, The Master felt like epic film making and there's barely a fist fight in that one. With all the action set pieces in this one it should of felt bigger, but it doesn't.
Which means the real problem is Peter Jackson. I guess he's just not talented enough to pull it off. Technology beat him. That and the story itself is plodding. It just kind of goes on and on. By the time it gets interesting, an hour plus at least into the picture (Rivendale), I was pretty much ready for it to just end. The extended cuts of the LOTR films didn't feel this long. It's a film called "The Hobbit", yet the title Hobbit comes off as a secondary character in this. Just an excuse to get the adventure rolling and mostly just putters around mugging uncomfortably.
It's flat out a movie where everything is there to make a great film, it just ends up not working. 2.5/5
*I am by no means an expert as far as the camera technology is concerned and am most likely using the terms incorrectly.

 

[Edwin-S]

I saw the film in regular 3D a couple of days ago. On one hand, I liked that I got to revisit Middle Earth. On the other hand, I still feel this film is misnamed by calling it THE HOBBIT. Everything Bilbo does in this film is a sideshow to Peter Jackson's ego trip in trying to turn a small adventure story into an epic on the scale of LORD OF THE RINGS. The film is bloated with elements that didn't need to be in there, but I will concede the point that I wasn't bored. The time passed relatively quickly and I didn't suffer from "sore ass syndrome" which is a tell-tale sign for me that a film has been too long and boring by half. There were the typical Jackson additions that I could have done without. For example, I thought the bird crap in Radagast's mop was uncalled for and the "escape" scene where he is supposedly leading Azog's crew away from the dwarves was just clumsily and poorly executed. Not only did it look bad; it always seemed like Radagast was so brainless that he was constantly putting the goons he was supposedly distracting almost right on top of Gandalf and crew. It was just dumb. In fact, anything related to Radagast should have been cut. There should have been some quicker method of showing that something was occurring at Dol Guldur without that throwaway Radagast sequence. The film wasn't bad, but it isn't great either. Nothing that occurred has changed my mind that stretching the book to three films is nothing short of unmitigated greed to milk fans of Tolkien of as much green as possible. I'll give it that two films would have been more than enough to do the job of telling the story of THE HOBBIT. Three films is just too much. However, the fact is that we aren't getting THE HOBBIT with these films. We are getting a mini retread of LOTR in which somewhere a hobbit has a part..

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm not going to put down everything I thought about the film (too tired, and I'm sure you all don't really want to know that badly ) but I will agree with the sentiment that some have written: This movie is less an adaptation of the book "The Hobbit" then it is the Prequel to the Lord of the Rings (movies). To explain: when Tolkien wrote The Hobbit, it was a children's book written for his kids. LoTR wasn't much more than a tickle in the back of his brain, I'm sure. Jackson is clearly drawing from much ancillary material to create his Hobbit movies, as well as including tales alluded to in the LoTR books which weren't filmed for the movies. I think PJ's intention behind the way he's making this new trilogy is that in ten years, a viewer can watch The Hobbit and then The Lord of the Rings and consider it to be The Saga of Middle Earth.

 

[Ruz-El]

I think it's safe to say by the first 10 minutes of the movie that this is a prequel to LOTR and not an adaptation of The Hobbit. I found it confusing at first, since it is basically the start of "Fellowship of the Ring" from a different viewpoint. Wasn't expecting that and it threw me for a bit of a loop at first trying to place when it was happening. Which certainly didn't help me to get all that engaged in the monotonous first third of the film...

 

[TravisR]

This movie is less an adaptation of the book "The Hobbit" then it is the Prequel to the Lord of the Rings (movies).

And even then, you want (but don't need) to have seen the LOTR movies first. Such as when Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett each appear, they give them an introductory shot that lets the more casual viewer think "Oh look, it's X from the other movies".

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by TravisR
And even then, you want (but don't need) to have seen the LOTR movies first. Such as when Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett each appear, they give them an introductory shot that lets the more casual viewer think "Oh look, it's X from the other movies".

Good point Travis.
This film is a bit of a mess... it's trying to catch a fire that's no longer burning bright.

 

[DaveF]

For example, I thought the bird crap in Radagast's mop was uncalled for and the "escape" scene where he is supposedly leading Azog's crew away from the dwarves was just clumsily and poorly executed. Not only did it look bad; it always seemed like Radagast was so brainless that he was constantly putting the goons he was supposedly distracting almost right on top of Gandalf and crew. It was just dumb. In fact, anything related to Radagast should have been cut. There should have been some quicker method of showing that something was occurring at Dol Guldur without that throwaway Radagast sequence.

Yes. That chase, and Radagast throughout, made no sense to me. I didn't understand how he was so addled as to be unable to tell Gandalf what was wrong with his forest, and ten minutes later he was giving a detailed narration of the problems.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by DaveF
Yes. That chase, and Radagast throughout, made no sense to me.
I didn't understand how he was so addled as to be unable to tell Gandalf what was wrong with his forest, and ten minutes later he was giving a detailed narration of the problems.

'Cause Radagast was all flipped out man, and Gandalf had to have smoke bowl man so he could chill out! Sarun the white explained later that Rad was a far out 'shroom freak so Gandalf must of known he had to bring him down by seeing his red hot aura.
Yeah, the drug jokes, don't even get me started....

 

[SilverWook]

I think it's safe to say by the first 10 minutes of the movie that this is a prequel to LOTR and not an adaptation of The Hobbit.  I found it confusing at first, since it is basically the start of "Fellowship of the Ring" from a different viewpoint. Wasn't expecting that and it threw me for a bit of a loop at first trying to place when it was happening. Which certainly didn't help me to get all that engaged in the monotonous first third of the film...

All the old paperbacks, (including my own copy) have "The enchanting prelude to The Lord of the Rings" right on the cover. So it's hardly a new idea to view the material that way.

 

[Sean Bryan]

While I certainly don't think it needs it, I'm curious what the extended edition will add. My hope is that it adds more Bilbo-centric stuff. I did read about one scene that will be added between Bilbo and Elrond at Rivendell. I liked the movie, but it never quite clicked for me like any of The Lord of the Rings films did, even after 3 viewings. But I actually think there is a much better film in there if the fat was cut away and it was made more Bilbo-centric. Once the extended edition is out, I'd love to take a crack at a "fan edit". Generally, I think fan edits are lame, but I really think this movie could benefit from a good amount of trimming (and maybe some Bilbo additions from the extended cut).

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by SilverWook
All the old paperbacks, (including my own copy) have "The enchanting prelude to The Lord of the Rings" right on the cover. So it's hardly a new idea to view the material that way.

That's no different from "By the author of...", unless your paperback has a new Chapter One dealing with Bilbo about to start writing about his journey while Frodo checks the mail...