"The Hobbit" (film)

[Neil]

Am I the only one who's a bit "oh dear" about this? Getting a trilogy out of 'The Lord of the Rings' makes sense, but 'The Hobbit' isn't that big a book. I think there is a real danger in turning the story into an overlong stretch. Isn't just the first film basically "The Hobbit" and then the next two are extrapolations of that based on other ideas and writings of Tolkien - eg: The Silmarillion?

[shootemindehead]

Sorry Neil, I don't know. If that's the case, then it might work. But, I thought that the first film's subtitle was "An Unexpected Journey" and the second was "There and Back Again", which are indications that they were concerned with 'The Hobbit' only. The abandonment of that may do more harm than good, since a lot has been shot already, based on the two film principle.

[krisvds]

Definitely not the Silmarillion. The Tolkien estate still own all the rights to that book and will not let Jackson and co near it. They aren't fans of the LOTR films either ... From what I understand the wealth of material justifying a third film refers to the notes and appendixes attached to LOTR. There is a timeline in there somewhere explaining what happens inbetween The Hobbit and LOTR, it's just not THAT detailed. Screenwriters will have to turn it into a coherent film. I'm worried about that since the material they added and changed in LOTR wasn't that good either. I'm mainly talking about deopping the scouring of the Shire, adding all the romance with Aragorn and Arwen, the Warg attack in Two Towers, ... Those films worked best IMO when they stayed as close to the source material as they could. (Mines of Moria!) I guess turning the Hobbit into a trilogy is based more on, making dollars than it is an artistic choice?

[bassman]

Grab your walking stick...

[AcesandEights]

Grab your walking stick... I'm already doing deep knee bends and stretching in preparation.

[shootemindehead]

Can Not Wait

[Neil]

Mixed opinions at AICN! First third is confused, and generally the plot feels very stretched out! http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59869 But there are kinks to work out. Many, many kinks. So many that I wonder if Jackson wishes he could've delayed shooting AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY another year while they figured out how to eliminate the occasional and terribly distracting undercranked effect of actors zipping around like coked-up Mack Sennett characters. Also, while the clarity can be awe-inspriring, it has a tendency to make the sets look cheap, the armor chintzy, and the makeup barely worthy of an Asylum production. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY in high-frame-rate 3D is a deep, vicious pendulum swing between transporting and flat-out unwatchable - and it's impossible to fully adjust to the format because you never know when it's suddenly going to look like a demo reel. - - - Updated - - - ...but a more positive review from Cinemablend - http://www.cinemablend.com/reviews/T...rney-6201.html I saw An Unexpected Journey in the much-touted 48 frames per second and in 3D, an experience I recommend, but maybe only on second viewing. I never adjusted to the look, which makes everything feel more real and closer to you, an effect that's utterly bizarre when seeing giant trolls or goblins or even a band of tiny dwarves. The technological experimentation may have helped Peter Jackson get excited about a smaller-scale return to Middle Earth, but its effect on the movie is harder to gauge; it's fascinating seeing familiar characters like Gollum move with an unbelievable realness, but also nearly impossible to feel as swept away by this journey to an imaginary world. When Jackson took on The Hobbit after Guillermo del Toro dropped it in 2010, it seemed like an obligation more than the passion that drove him to make the original trilogy. But for its occasional moments of excess and unhurried pace, An Unexpected Journey is proof that Jackson still has a knack for stories in this world, and that he may have more surprises in store as the rest of this new, unexpected trilogy unfolds.

[rongravy]

I liked it quite a bit. I also never looked at my watch the whole time, and that's always a good sign. Can't wait for the rest. Alot of trailers: Man of Steel, Lone Ranger, Pacific Rimjob, to name a few. Lot's of big budget hoohaw to choose from. Great night, nobody made a peep during the movie, they were all riveted, as was I. It was almost like going back home... A+.

[EvilNed]

Just came back from the cinema. Loved it! In my view, superior to the LOTR films. They were too serious, whereas this one is a bit more playful. It's more of an adventure, albeit a rather epic one. 48fps however is so pointless. I didn't get it. It made the film look cheap and like a Hallmark TV-special in places.

[wayzim]

Just came back from the cinema. Loved it! In my view, superior to the LOTR films. They were too serious, whereas this one is a bit more playful. It's more of an adventure, albeit a rather epic one. 48fps however is so pointless. I didn't get it. It made the film look cheap and like a Hallmark TV-special in places. Dude, LOTR was meant to be serious, where The Hobbit was considered more a children's book - thus the difference. I saw it yesterday afternoon, and ultimately like Jackson's take of the first part of The Hobbit. Freeman played the younger Bilbo quite well, and after the movie wrapped I find myself humming 'Song of The Lonely Mountain. ' Can't wait for the next installment. Wayne Z

[AcesandEights]

Saw it last night and loved it. I was only put off by the silliness of one character and the bit of accompanying story arc. Freeman shined and his timing was spot on with his delivery, and the dude who played Thorin was perfect for the role. And damn, that Misty Mountains song gave me goosebumps!

[EvilNed]

Dude, LOTR was meant to be serious, where The Hobbit was considered more a children's book - thus the difference. I saw it yesterday afternoon, and ultimately like Jackson's take of the first part of The Hobbit. Freeman played the younger Bilbo quite well, and after the movie wrapped I find myself humming 'Song of The Lonely Mountain. ' Yeah, I got that. But the films were laughably dramatic. I could not, for the life of me, take them as serious as the filmmakers wanted me too. When Aragorn stopped and shouted to Legolas "What does your elf eye see?" I giggle. Hardly the intended reaction, I'd wager. And the films are riddled with these types of moments.

[krakenslayer]

Wasn't the greatest fan of the LotR movies (although that improved from "detest with a passion" to "find passably interesting" after I read the novels), but I saw The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey last night (in 2D 24p, as cinema should be) and really enjoyed it. They nailed the atmosphere of the book, and it was generally a fun, exciting, engaging, rousing ride. I loved the song too, and I liked how the intro tied it in with the beginning of LotR. My only criticism, and this is something in common with most huge budget adventure movies these days, was the severe emphasis upon totally accidental hair's-breadth escapes from absurdly dangerous situations -   Bilbo falling down a deadly chasm, sliding smoothly graduated surfaces all the way down and landing safely in a patch of mushrooms; hundreds of tons of rock falling down a cliff face and somehow missing every single character on ledge directly underneath; characters being smashed against a mountain but ending up safely inside the only open crevasse in the mountainside; the falling ring landing on Bilbo's finger by sheer chance at just the right moment to save him; etc. etc. etc. It's fine to do this kind of thing once or twice in a movie for the "OOOFT!" effect, but when it becomes so commonplace, it erodes any subsequent sense of peril, by constantly reminding the audience of the fact that the central characters are totally immune to every threat that is thrown at them. Also, I felt some scenes went on too long (the party, for example), which I think is a symptom of stretching the plot out to three episodes. It only needed two, at an absolute maximum. But that's money for ya.

[AcesandEights]

the falling ring landing on Bilbo's finger by sheer chance at just the right moment to save him; In this one instance, as we kind of saw in lotr, as well, I tend to see this...   as the lost ring wanting to be found; sort of part and parcel of its cursed nature. I thought that was supposed to be assumed, but [dalton]opinions vary[/dalton].

[Neil]

Saw it over the weekend and really enjoyed it. Didn't find any of it slow or particularly cheesy. My two main problems with it probably are though:- 1) It seems to unnecessarily leave the source material for no good reason, mostly for the worse. eg: The trolls didn't work as well as the book, and "riddles in the dark" played out a little differently to the book, and certainly wasn't "in the dark" at all 2) Hanna-Barbera physics! This really annoyed me in a couple of places as there was simply no need for it. Characters getting thrown around, and falling huge distances without the slightest problem. eg: When the group fell through the cave floor. In the book this didn't happen, but on the screen they drop down hundreds of feet of rock faces without the slightest problem. Or the stupid sliding bridge falling 1000ft without a problem. Silly and completely unnecessary! Looking forward to the next installment. Bring on Beorn!