The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey 3D

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Chimpcheng, Dec 21, 2012.

?

Your vote:

  1. 0 stars

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. 1 star

    7.4%
  3. 2 stars

    7.4%
  4. 3 stars

    14.8%
  5. 4 stars

    40.7%
  6. 5 stars

    29.6%
  1. Chimpcheng

    Chimpcheng Yup... Giant cow head... Supporter

    I was a huge fan of "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, I devoured the Director/Extended Cuts on DVD, lapped up the extras, grabbed myself the Gollum special and pined after the replica swords and other props. Afterall, the books are the grand daddies of fantasy.

    It was with optimism that I rolled up to the cinema to pour my eyes on the latest film. I didn't go see the higher frame rate (HFR) version so I can't comment on the controversy, but I did see it in 3D.

    The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was unexpectedly dull...

    Middle Earth looks as gorgeous as it always been and starts, as with the original trilogy, in The Shire and the beginnings of a quest.

    We are reintroduced to Bilbo Baggins, Gandalf, Frodo as well as a full company of newbies namely a raucous team of dwarfs who take part in a spectacularly ill conceived song and dance number - well it might as well have been.

    This is essentially the same film as "Fellowship" and throughout its near 3 hour running time it felt very "samey", but also strangely dull. You get battles, you get (fantasy) history, you get spectacular vistas and special effects, but it was weirdly lacking, especially for the first hour to an hour and a half.

    Speaking of special effects its a bit of a mixed bag. The heights of The Hobbits and dwarfs are more consistent - if you watched the original trilogy you will know that they changed heights wildly. Middle Earth looks amazing, as mentioned, but sometimes the effects were very console gamey - the goblins, the Pale Orc and the wargs were very guilty of this.

    The 3D adds absolutely nothing. It's not bad, it's not good, it just isn't a 3D type of film.

    However, just as I was about to write off the film as "meh", Gollum happens...

    I won't say much but maaaaaaan, Andy Serkis pretty much saves the film for me.

    This review sounds very negative (the film has gotten mixed reviews in the press) but, like "Fellowship" it simply serves as an introduction to the trilogy and that is how it should probably be viewed, not as a standalone film. The ending, of course, sets up what will hopefully be a fantastic second act!

    Roll on Xmas 2013.

    3/5 Stars.
     
    Last edited: Dec 21, 2012
  2. John Titchen

    John Titchen Still Learning Supporter

    I enjoyed the film (though I thought it could easily have taken some cuts), but I made a deliberate decision to see it in 2D normal frame rate. Personally I find that 3D always detracts from my enjoyment of a movie.
     
  3. Chimpcheng

    Chimpcheng Yup... Giant cow head... Supporter

    I was keen on seeing the HFR version but the available showing was on a little too late for us, so we grabbed one of the 3D regular shows. As mentioned, the 3D does nothing worthwhile, at least nothing "Avatar-scale" worthwhile.

    As for cuts... Apparently Jackson has hinted at extended versions on Blu-Ray...
     
  4. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    I saw it in 2d to avoid all the gimmicky crap. Thought the ending dragged a bit, and on secdon viewing the mine scene could of been shorter. That said I really liked it. Thought Morgan Freeman did an awesome job and I really liked that song they sing. I was enough of a lotr nerd a few years back that it carried me through the slower scenes. I will however say that a flanged mace to an unprotected skull from a hulking orc on the back of a charging warg leaving a small cut instead of a mashed pulp totally destroyed my immersion. Even for the lotr films that was a silly decision. Oh I also liked that they didn't show all of Smaug. See what I mean? Complete nerd boner overload carried me through the dull parts :p

    Also
    I haven't read The Hobbit. What's the deal with the pale orc? From the mouth scars I got really excited thinking he was the Mouth of Sauron but I hear he's made up so the film has an antagonist?
     
  5. warriorofanart

    warriorofanart Valued Member

    Azog, depreciated as the Pale Orc (or goblin), was the de facto king of the Mines of Moria after the Dwarves were driven off by the Balrog. There's no mention of Azog being pale in the books, if I recall correctly.

    Azog came into the history of Middle Earth when he slew Thorin's grandfather Thror. Thror came with his servant and was exploring the mines when the goblins set upon him. They tortured him and then Azog cut off his head and branded his name on him. He spared the servant so he can tell the Dwarves of the line of Durin, specifically Thorin's father, what has come to pass and that Azog is the King of Moria.

    That was the beginning of the war of Dwarves and Orcs. After a long war Azog was slain by Dain son of Nain. This was all before The Hobbit, so Peter Jackson changed it obviously. I am sure Azog will be the main antagonist during the Battle of the Five Armies.
     
  6. Chimpcheng

    Chimpcheng Yup... Giant cow head... Supporter

  7. Zabrus

    Zabrus Valued Member

    They extended to cover 3 films. In 2 it would have been enough.

    I did see the HDR version, and you notice it specially in the 3D, which is crisper, and the movements don't cause that 'sea sickness' effect as much as in some other 3D.
     
  8. kunderemp

    kunderemp New Member

    Btw,
    it is Martin Freeman, the guy Watson from BBC TV 'Sherlock' not Morgan Freeman of Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy ;p

    I would like to agree that 3D was only gimmick since I have seen several 3D movies e.g. Life of Pi (and I compare with 2D one), Captain America, Ice Age 3 and all of them disappointed me in the sense of 3D sensation. I didn't felt the difference between 3D and 2D.

    However,
    I saw The Hobbit in 3D 48 fps two days ago. I came in skeptic since I hate the crispiness of 48 fps and prefer 24 fps. I still hold that skeptic view in the first minutes of The hobbit but after my eyes got use to that clarity (which I previously though as crispiness), I was blown away.

    Trust me,
    you should either watched it in 3D 48 fps or 2D but avoid 3D 24 fps. :)

    It seemed, for cinema, 3D should be paired with 48 fps or the producer shouldn't tried 3D at all.
     
  9. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    nice catch :p
     
  10. Haakon

    Haakon Valued Member

    I hate 3d movies, unfortunately for me the closest theater only showed it in 3d and the wife and kids like 3d, so I had to suffer through that part. I'll enjoy it more on the big screen at home when I can watch a 2d bluray version.

    Scenery was beautiful. I liked some of the extra scenes and back story, but overall it was WAY longer than it needed to be, and nearly 9 hours to tell the story of The Hobbit borders on the absurd, but isn't going to keep me from seeing the entire thing.
     
  11. Gripfighter

    Gripfighter Sub Seeker

    If the the sequels are spectacular then this will be viewed in hindsight as a more than adequate opening film of the trilogy however it certainly doesn't look that way right now, it very much appears that greed has broken this project before it gets of the ground. As much as I love seeing all the stuff from other middle earth tales that are thrown in to expand the run time (and the idea of seeing stuff that will be thrown in) its very, very obvious that there was no artistic or practical reason for spliting this into multiple movies and that its a decision that's ultimately been taken for financel gain. The story of the Hobbit could have easily been depicted in a three hour run time and it damages the film that it wasn't, its so glaringly obvious it kind of took me out of the film allot. Allot of work will have to be invested into the next too instalments to rectify this.
     
  12. Chimpcheng

    Chimpcheng Yup... Giant cow head... Supporter

    From what I've read, they've finished filming the other two films, now it's all special effects and Blu-Ray/DVD time.
     
  13. Ular Sawa

    Ular Sawa Valued Member

    I watched it in regular. I liked it quite a bit. Not much into the 3d thing.
     
  14. LeaFirebender

    LeaFirebender Ice Bear has ninja stars

    I liked it all right, I just thought the hobbit should have been 1 film all together (2 at the very most). And if they were going to split it, they should have been like 1 1/2 hour films each.

    ~ Lea

    Edit: I saw it in 3D but that's because I went with a group from school. I thought the 3D made it worse tbh
     
  15. Thomas

    Thomas Combat Hapkido/Taekwondo

    I just watched it today (2D version, I'm not a fan of the 3D stuff generally).

    Overall, I had mixed reactions...
    I loved the "feel" of the movie and the scenery and how much of the story they stuck to (especially the songs and such). The added-in/expanded storylines (with Radagast the Brown, the Necromancer, the white orc) and such feel a bit flat at times to me. However, seeing all the actors from LOTR was a lot of fun and well done.

    I like the music, although sometimes it seemed like the same music over and over (the music used for Frodo and Sam throughout LOTR). Some of the action seemed a bit overboard too, going the route of grisly and violent instead of the more downplayed violence of LOTR).

    I liked the opening with Bilbo and Frodo discussing the story may hold some promise as well. It serves to remind the viewer that this story is told from Bilbo's point of view (which makes some of the violence seem excessive).

    Overall, very enjoyable and I hope the next two are even better. 3.5 out of 5 stars.
     
  16. Dan Bian

    Dan Bian Neither Dan, nor Brian

    I watched Hobbit on release day, and was lucky enough to see it 'properly'; ie, in 35mm, 2D (the way movies should be shown).

    As a complete Tolkien nut-job, I couldn't find anything major to gripe about :eek:

    The film held me captive for the entire run time, and I didn't feel that it lagged at all. I loved all of the extra workings that have been added in from the 'Unfinished Tales' and the appendices of ROTK.

    The only two things that I was slightly saddened by:

    1: In the troll scene, Bilbo wasn't stealing the troll's wallet: though I understand the story-telling reasons of what Bilbo was trying to swipe instead. A wallet would have distracted from the goal of rescuing the ponies...

    2: The orcs don't seem to have developed their cockney accents at this point, though maybe the saaf landaan voice is unique to the orcs of Mordor??

    I easily give The Hobbit 5* out of 5.

    Now, I'm off to groom the hair on my feet...
     
  17. cisco_lad2004

    cisco_lad2004 Valued Member

    start was a bit slow, then it Picked up. Plot is simple, but I really enjoyed watching it.
     
  18. Rebo Paing

    Rebo Paing Pigs and fishes ...

    What!? The Hobbit in 3d? I watched it here in Oz and they never even advertised it 3 D .. and we still payed full price. :(
     
  19. Chimpcheng

    Chimpcheng Yup... Giant cow head... Supporter


    As I understand it, the directors "preferred" way of viewing this film is in 3D and HFR. I'd be very surprised if it wasn't shown that way in at least some cinemas over there. In my local, one one screen was showing it as such, but there were multiple screens showing it in 2D and 3D at normal frame rate.
     
  20. boards

    boards Its all in the reflexes!

    It was offered in 3D in my home town.

    Overall I liked the film, I thought it would be amazingly slow given they split a small book into 3 movies but I didn't have a problem with the pacing. A few things in the movie annoyed me as a purist but basically it was good.
     

Share This Page