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

[SilverWook]

It's still marketing the first book as if it was a prequel.

 

[Ruz-El]

Originally Posted by SilverWook
It's still marketing the first book as if it was a prequel.

Which is different from creating a new opening to directly tie it in with the other series in a confusing way.
Last I saw Bilbo and Frodo in the movies they were off to the Elf lands on some boat. Then this one starts with no explanation in Bilbo's house, with the old Bilbo instead of the new one on the posters with Frodo wandering around. It was a bit confusing at first to figure out what and when was taking place. Which is something a tagline on a movie poster or book cover doesn't do.

 

[Carlo_M]

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 because even "old" paperbacks were printed well after both books were already part of the popular culture. The Hobbit was published in 1937. The Lord of the Rings was published in 1954. That's seventeen years between the two. The Hobbit was meant as a children's book, written by Tolkien for his kids. While I'm sure somewhere in his mind was the seed that would become The Lord of the Rings, it was certainly nowhere near fully formed. The Hobbit is required reading to the Lord of the Rings. But it is not its prelude. Nor is it it's prequel, in the literal definition of a prequel: something that is written after another piece of work, but whose events take place before said piece of work. The Lord of the Rings is the sequel to The Hobbit. That's the way the books are written. The Hobbit is a self-contained novel. If you gave that book to someone who had never read either, and that person never found out about the existence of The Lord of the Rings, that person would not feel like they were missing out on anything at all (as opposed to series like Harry Potter, or The Dark Tower by Stephen King). This Hobbit movie is clearly not a self-contained work, even after all three are released. It references tons of stuff in LoTR and other ancillary material in Middle Earth. That's the big difference between the movie and the book.

 

[Edwin-S]

'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....

Well, that is hitting the nail on the head, because that is exactly what Jackson always insinuates when any of the characters sit down to smoke a pipeful of longbottom leaf. The suggestion is that longbottom leaf is just code for marijuana, even though Tolkien expressly describes the stuff as a high quality, sought after, tobacco. It is that kind of twisting that really annoys me when it comes to Jackson and company's adaptation of the books. The same goes for the dwarves, who are always depicted as slobbish pigs, guzzling beer so fast that it runs down their beards and mixes with the leftovers from their gluttonous behaviour. Then Oakenshield shows up and carries himself and behaves in such a manner that you have to wonder if he really is a dwarf, since he doesn't seem to share any of the behaviours that seem to be a part of dwarf culture. In fact, Oakenshield seems to have more in common with the elves he, supposedly, despises than he does with his own people. It is just lousy writing, IMO.

 

[Carlo_M]

I'm with you, Edwin. Too often Jackson and Boyens go for the "easy way out" onscreen by oversimplifying things. You give some great examples especially re: the dwarves characterization. On the flip side, while Tolkien did also hold the elves in reverence, they were not without fault, and Jackson's film goes too far in glorifying them as well. For me, their biggest transgression in the LoTR was making Saruman appear as Sauron's lackey. In the books, he saw the power of Sauron as indicative of the side that may prevail, but he definitely had designs on getting power himself and becoming the ruler of M.E., he was not going to be content with being Sauron's lackey. Tolkien's writing, despite being very dense in description sometimes (which is admittedly hard to film), is not short in characterization and character motivation, and that can easily be filmed. What annoys me most is when PJ and Boyens decide they need to change it to "ramp up the tension" when in fact the original version is plenty tense enough, and gives the characters more complexity and less "good guy vs. bad guy" simplicity.

 

[dpippel]

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

I mean a real IMAX theater, with a 60 foot screen. Obviously, The Hobbit wasn't filmed with IMAX cameras.

 

[dpippel]

Originally Posted by Russell G
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.

No, I don't think the EE I saw during my screening had anything to do with "digital matte lines". It was classic dark-object-against-a-light-background EE. It could have been the projection.

 

[SilverWook]

I'm starting to feel like the only person around here who actually enjoyed the movie! My only gripe is I have to wait another year to see Smaug in all his glory. Unless it's pushed back to the third part?

 

[TravisR]

I'm starting to feel like the only person around here who actually enjoyed the movie!

Despite my whining about the HFR, I actually did enjoy the movie alot more than I expected and look forward to the next ones.

 

[TonyD]

I've said several times that I liked it. People coming out have said they liked it. Very few thumbs down

 

[Edwin-S]

Well, I never said I didn't like the movie, but I certainly do not have to like everything that P. Jackson and Company have added to the story or changed in it. This is the guy that didn't bother filming the scouring of the Shire (an important part of RoTK) because of pacing, but now suddenly fills up THE HOBBIT with ream after ream of changes and additions that do exactly that.......destroy the pacing of THE HOBBIT and, even worse, relegates the main character to a second tier status in his own story.

 

[Dick]

I finally got around to this in 3-D at a local Cinemagic theater, having somewhat avoided it due to mediocre reviews. I liked it. I wish it had been filmed before LOTR, as it does feel a bit padded initially and not as weighty in its plot or characters. There was a lot of motion blur during the first half-hour (at least, where I saw it, in Real 3-D, 24 fps), but that decreased as the film progressed. The three glorious things I take away from this experience: 1. Andy Serkis' performance as Gollum during the riddle sequence. 2. The stunning Rivendell sequence in 3-D. In fact, my favorite single shot in this film (and maybe among all 3-D movie shots) is the first one of Galadriel on the Rivendell terrace, as she slowly turns toward the camera, which moves in toward her. The sense of depth and beauty is awesome, as are many of the other shots during these five minutes or so, 3. The Goblin cave sequence. Can't imagine a better one.

 

[Todd H]

I'm starting to feel like the only person around here who actually enjoyed the movie!

I enjoyed it. Saw it twice actually. The first viewing was in 3D HFR and the second was in 2D. MUCH preferred the 2D version.

 

[SilverWook]

It would seem Mr. Jackson was not the first to make a live action Hobbit. Mind blown.

 

[Sean Bryan]

Ha! Yeah, I saw some of that Russian version recently. Just terrible. Makes the Rankin- Bass version look good.

 

[SilverWook]

It's like they filmed a stage play. Maybe this was made for tv, as the few Russian fantasy films I've seen had pretty good production values compared to this. I have to wonder if they actually got the rights to the book? And I like the R-B version.

 

[Todd H]

It's like they filmed a stage play.

So it looks like the current HFR 3D version from Jackson?

 

[Sean Bryan]

It's funny that Bilbo is often portrayed as in his "human 50's". While that is his age as a Hobbit, it is supposed to be more physically equivalent to our "human 30's". That Russian Bilbo looks like he's one scare away from a heart attack. I think the look used with Martin Freeman was perfect.

 

[Tommy R]

There's something very charming about that Russian version. Reminds me of these old tv versions of Snow White and Beauty and the Beast from the 80's I used to watch all the time when I was little.

 

[Greg_D_R]

There's something very charming about that Russian version. Reminds me of these old tv versions of Snow White and Beauty and the Beast from the 80's I used to watch all the time when I was little.

I agree. It's hilarious, but they're doing a lot with a little, and I salute them. Spider stick puppets for the win!