The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Saw it tonight in RealD HFR. I'm glad I got to experience that, because I know now to avoid it in the future. CG action looked incredible with it, but everything else felt like a video recording of a stage play or an old BBC production.

As for the film itself, it suffered from an unevenness that never corrected itself, imo. Add to that all the uninteresting "action" sequences, way too many unnecessary scenes, and just a general incoherence... it was pretty disappointing to say the least.

I find this to be these to be fairly accurate reviews:
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-review/
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/12/the-hobbit-movie-review/59903/
 
Barry_Green said:
Agreed; the faster frame rate has always looked horrible for narrative, but I was hoping that maybe there would be some magic that would happen through the combination of the faster frame rate and the 3-D. For me, at least, that didn't happen; the faster frame rate still looked as horrible as always, and although the 3-D was smoother and more watchable, it was still more a distraction than an enhancement to the experience, IMO.
Click to expand...

I cannot understand any film maker preferring the soap opera look to 24p. The only explanation I have for Jacksons' fascination with HFR is that he's a freak for 3d and everything else takes a back seat to producing crystal sharp 3d.
 
Having watched the 48fps 3D version and found some of the effects "cheap" I will go and watch the 24fps 2D version as soon as I've got rid of this stinking cold I've brewed up.

I will only comment on the pacing / editing after watching all three parts of the film.
 
You're a brave, patient man : )

daveswan said:
Having watched the 48fps 3D version and found some of the effects "cheap" I will go and watch the 24fps 2D version as soon as I've got rid of this stinking cold I've brewed up.

I will only comment on the pacing / editing after watching all three parts of the film.
Click to expand...
 
Just saw it with my young daughter. PJ could have cut down that long charades scene, it didn't do anything apart from separating the battles.

I was only really aware of the video look on closeups of some faces, made the makeup very noticeable.
Serial episodes should always end on bigger, better and more ferocious cliff-hangers than the Hobbit Part 1 did. PJ should take a leaf from the old Saturday aft movie serials, Part 1 looked like the end of one 7 1/2 hour reel which is being cut into 3 equal parts.

3D is coming of age, faster than a lot of people thought. They're learning that it definately needs excellent surround sound sfx and music.
Great to see our locals in the credits, we both enjoyed it.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
I started watching The Fellowship of the Ring again.

It is interesting to note the feel of texture and authenticity in the original compared to this film. In some ways, The Hobbit feels like what the Star Wars Prequels were to the original Trilogy in terms of visual style and to some extent, tone.
 
I wonder if the birds that flew the Hobbit and his group to safety, might be related in some way to the flock that flew in the final few frames of Avatar.
First Hitchcock, then Cameron now PJ.

Keep up, in your show arrange for a giant group of Pterodactyls to arrive and fly the leads to safety.

Cheers.
 
Last edited:
As old, in fact as the original Hobbit published in 1937. Read the book, it's all there, except in the book, the eagles (Gwairhir in fact) have quite a conversation with Gandalf.
 
I just saw this today I really liked it, it wasn't as good as the Lord of the Rings but it was still a great movie. I don't see why people are complaining about the 44 frames per secound I didn't notice any diffrence at all.
 
fobers95 said:
I don't see why people are complaining about the 44 frames per secound I didn't notice any diffrence at all.
Click to expand...

Perhaps that is why you're confused about people complaining, if you didn't notice anything.

To many of us, 48fps looks like a video frame rate that we finally escaped in the last few years as 24p became ubiquitous across the cameras we use.
 
Or you didn't see a 48fps version. There are also 24fps screenings out there (which I highly recommend over the 48fps version); if you saw the 24fps version it indeed didn't look any different than the LOTR series. You specifically have to go to an "HFR" screening to see the 48fps version.
 
The only thing that I really noticed that was diffrent between the Hobbit and LOTR series was the fight scenes and the orcs and goblins looked diffrent. I may not have seen the 48fps version, I did see the 3D version though.
 
Barry_Green said:
Or you didn't see a 48fps version. There are also 24fps screenings out there (which I highly recommend over the 48fps version); if you saw the 24fps version it indeed didn't look any different than the LOTR series. You specifically have to go to an "HFR" screening to see the 48fps version.
Click to expand...
Having now seen The Hobbit in 24fps 2D, 24fps 3D & 48fps 3D, I agree that 24fps 2D is definitely the most enjoyable way to see the movie.

The 48fps was not as terrible as I expected (it did help to clean up the 3D a bit), but the more I see 3D, the more I cannot stand it.

As strange as it sounds, I feel that 3D actually removes depth from a movie's visuals, as it makes it impossible to focus on the small background details that bring life to a movie's world.
 
fobers95 said:
I may not have seen the 48fps version, I did see the 3D version though.
Click to expand...
There is definitely a 3D 24fps version. I would bet that's the one you saw, if you didn't notice a hugely different aesthetic caused by the 48fps. They charge an extra $5.00 per ticket for the 48fps version where I'm at.
 
After reading everyone's opinions here and elsewhere I went and saw the 2D version in 24p. Loved it !!! (Thanks to everyone for the heads up.)

On a non-techinical level though – I love how Peter Jackson can pull out a story arc that is all but buried in Tolkien's writing.
(*slight spoiler*)
For example
  • Thorin's lake of faith in Bilbo's abilities becomes (for me) the main arc that ties The Hobbit together.
And this is one of the things I love about how PJ is handling these films, LOTR included which I saw recently
  • Gollums schizophrenia - I never picked up on this in the books but the films showed me it was there all along such as Gollum always referred to himself as 'us'.
  • Gollums motivation for leading Frodo to Shelob goes back to the rock pool where he thinks Frodo betrayed him but unbeknowst to Gollum/Smeagol, Frodo saved him from Faramir's arrows.
... and countless other arcs.

Go Peter Jackson !!! :thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:
 
Peter Jackson is great at telling a story, I loved the beggining to the Hobbit showing how the dwarves were once a mighty and powerful race and then everything changed. Gollum is one of my favorite charachters out of LOTRs and The Hobbit. I am curious on how they made Martin Freeman look so small because he really a lot taller than that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top