"The Hobbit" (film) [Archive]

Neil

27-Sep-2010, 02:20 PM

But Neil does not share that opinion. Therefore you are WRONG, sir! :p

Not at all... What we seem to see here is the kind of reaction I can't fathom.

If we consider the LOTR trilogy, there's no denying they were incredibly well made and original films. The outcome of that film making may not have been to some people's liking, but to then dismiss them as "boring drivel" for example, just seems unfair in the extreme!

Next, "Avatar". Yes, the story was simplistic in some ways, but again, it was fairly solid and original piece of film making in many ways. So to dismiss it as, "AVATRASH" (in capitals) just comes across as juvenile and unfair really.

In short, I have no problem with someone not enjoying any of the films being discussed. It's when it goes beyond that and we simply enter the realms of irrational, polarised opinions I find I start questioning the logic behind the thought process?

"Boring drivel" equates to 1/10 to me? "AVATRASH" (in capitals) similarly equate to something in the same area... Really? That bad? Really? Or are we seeing knee-jerk opinions without any rationale in there?

AcesandEights

27-Sep-2010, 02:33 PM

Well and rationally said, Sir!

bassman

27-Sep-2010, 02:52 PM

Neil

27-Sep-2010, 03:52 PM

Hey....I didn't say boring drivel or Avatrash. Why you quoting me? WTF dude? :p

Avatrash is a bit harsh, but I can see why DJ thinks LOTR is boring. I agree with that. It doesn't mean they're necessarily horrible films, just that we find them to be boring. I've got a friend that was bored to tears with Ben Hur, but that doesn't mean he thinks it's awful.

I wouldn't say the LOTR films are awful, they're just not my cup of tea. Then again....there are alot of people out there that think if they don't enjoy a film, that automatically makes it the worst film ever. Quite often not the case. *cough*LAND*cough*.

Those particular quotes were not from you :)

I apologize if I jumped at peoples throats, but I get really narked by people really bashing something unfairly simply because it wasn't their cup of tea (as you put it).... There are loads of truly terrible bits of work out there far FAR worse than anything discussed in this thread, yet those will not get half the diatribe aimed at them.

And let's remember, one word levelled at LOTR in this thread was "drivel"? How is that in anyway fair or considered? Really? It just reaks of a binary opinion. I didn't like it, so it was "trash" or "drivel!" Never mind the gargantuan production task. Never mind the gargantuan writing task. Never mind the gargantuan filming task. Never mind that so very many aspects of it worked well.... Nope... "drivel"...

bassman

27-Sep-2010, 04:03 PM

And let's remember, one word levelled at LOTR in this thread was "drivel"? How is that in anyway fair or considered? Really? It just reaks of a binary opinion. I didn't like it, so it was "trash" or "drivel!" Never mind the gargantuan production task. Never mind the gargantuan writing task. Never mind the gargantuan filming task. Never mind that so very many aspects of it worked well.... Nope... "drivel"...

I understand what you're getting at but at the same time HOW a film is made shouldn't really effect how one enjoys the final product. I can appreciate that it was a HUGE task for Jackson & Co, but if the final product puts me to sleep....well....it's boring. Regardless of the sleepless nights the filmmakers poured into it.

Then on the other hand, as you pointed out, I wouldn't call it "drivel" or the worst film series ever. I would much rather watch the LOTR trilogy than some other things, but every time I do....I end up checking my watch hoping for it to end. I think I would probably have enjoyed it more if they weren't quite as long. And I'm talking about the theatrical cuts! No way I will watch the extended cuts...

DjfunkmasterG

27-Sep-2010, 04:30 PM

Not at all... What we seem to see here is the kind of reaction I can't fathom.

If we consider the LOTR trilogy, there's no denying they were incredibly well made and original films. The outcome of that film making may not have been to some people's liking, but to then dismiss them as "boring drivel" for example, just seems unfair in the extreme!

Next, "Avatar". Yes, the story was simplistic in some ways, but again, it was fairly solid and original piece of film making in many ways. So to dismiss it as, "AVATRASH" (in capitals) just comes across as juvenile and unfair really.

In short, I have no problem with someone not enjoying any of the films being discussed. It's when it goes beyond that and we simply enter the realms of irrational, polarised opinions I find I start questioning the logic behind the thought process?

"Boring drivel" equates to 1/10 to me? "AVATRASH" (in capitals) similarly equate to something in the same area... Really? That bad? Really? Or are we seeing knee-jerk opinions without any rationale in there?

I'm sorry but 9 hours of film with people doing nothing but walking... and I am not jumping on the clerks band wagon here I am stating what is painfully obvious from the trailers and feedback, not too mention finally sitting down and watching them after hearing all this hype of how great they are has led me to form the opinion that they are boring drivel.

Avatar aka AVATRASH Other than some ground breaking technology in filmmaking there is nothing in that film that is worth the praise it receives, in fact it was so bland even the Academy awarded his ex-wife with Best Picture because The Hurt Lock is great filmmaking on a budget Cameron probably had for craft services.

CG, and 8ft tall smurfs do not make a good movie. Aliens, that was a great movie. Avatar, it was just eye candy using a recycled story ripped from a Disney flick. Sorry but JC doesn't get brownie points for Avatar just because he spent $360,000,000 making it... especially when his ex spent $11,000,000 making a much better film and shooting on extremely outdated technology (16mm)

I refuse to ride the wave or wagon of praise for a flick simply because it looked good in IMAX.

AcesandEights

27-Sep-2010, 04:41 PM

I'm sorry but 9 hours of film with people doing nothing but walking...

Did you expect me to read past that rotten hyperbole, DJ? :duh:

"I found it rather boring" and then listing the reasons why it was not to your taste would have worked better :D

DjfunkmasterG

27-Sep-2010, 04:43 PM

Did you expect me to read past that rotten hyperbole, DJ? :duh:

"I found it rather boring" and then listing the reasons why it was not to your taste would have worked better :D

Should have kept reading...

bassman

27-Sep-2010, 04:46 PM

"Even the trees walked!"

:lol:

AcesandEights

27-Sep-2010, 04:49 PM

"Even the trees walked!"

:lol:

That was a funny fucking line.

LouCipherr

27-Sep-2010, 04:56 PM

DjfunkmasterG

27-Sep-2010, 05:00 PM

I have to agree with Dj on all points relating to LOTR & Avatar. Can't stand any of 'em.

Although, since it's just based on one persons opinion (mine) there's no reason to go into why, because what's the point in discussing opinions, right?

:shifty:

I guess opinions aren't welcome anymore.

I will make you all a deal... You guys respect my opinion that I think LOTR, Survival, Land, and Avatar are total garbage and I will respect your opinions that you guys think most of the films listed are decent. :lol:

blind2d

27-Sep-2010, 05:04 PM

Funnily enough, I just watched the Hurt Locker at a friends' house the other night, and was surprised at how fuckin' good it was.
With that said, I... liked the LOTR tril. by New Zealand. Sure there was walking, but there was also a ghost army at the end killing giant elephants. I don't think any other film can boast that. Also Boromir arrow scene was just raw.
Anyhow, I'm looking forward to the Hobbit film, since I grew up with that story, and we'll see how it goes.
Oh yeah, and I haven't seen Avatar, but if anyone breaks into my house and forces me to watch it under pain of death, I certainly won't argue.

AcesandEights

27-Sep-2010, 05:06 PM

I guess opinions aren't welcome anymore.

I will make you all a deal... You guys respect my opinion that I think LOTR, Survival, Land, and Avatar are total garbage and I will respect your opinions that you guys think most of the films listed are decent. :lol:

That's fine, I just can't stand the old must hate anything popular/mainstream line of thinking. It's just bandwagoning of a different sort, to me.

bassman

27-Sep-2010, 05:10 PM

That's fine, I just can't stand the old must hate anything popular/mainstream line of thinking. It's just bandwagoning of a different sort, to me.

Whats worse is if you genuinely don't like something that's currently the big craze.....you're accused of bandwagoning. :p

It's a lose/lose situation, i'm afraid.

blind2d

27-Sep-2010, 05:11 PM

I think you can win by declaring yourself a fan of something retro, completely unrelated, and somewhat obscure... like, say, Gigantor.

Neil

27-Sep-2010, 05:49 PM

I understand what you're getting at but at the same time HOW a film is made shouldn't really effect how one enjoys the final product. I can appreciate that it was a HUGE task for Jackson & Co, but if the final product puts me to sleep....well....it's boring. Regardless of the sleepless nights the filmmakers poured into it.

Then on the other hand, as you pointed out, I wouldn't call it "drivel" or the worst film series ever. I would much rather watch the LOTR trilogy than some other things, but every time I do....I end up checking my watch hoping for it to end. I think I would probably have enjoyed it more if they weren't quite as long. And I'm talking about the theatrical cuts! No way I will watch the extended cuts...

Fine! You don't get on with it... And putting it in context you'd give it a 4/10 or maybe 6/10 for effort?

Meanwhile some of the comments on this thread suggest it's right down there with an Asylum production or something!

AcesandEights

27-Sep-2010, 05:52 PM

Meanwhile some of the comments on this thread suggest it's right down there with an Asylum production or something!

Lord of the Walking Midgets?

DjfunkmasterG

27-Sep-2010, 06:09 PM

Fine! You don't get on with it... And putting it in context you'd give it a 4/10 or maybe 6/10 for effort?

Meanwhile some of the comments on this thread suggest it's right down there with an Asylum production or something!

Megashark versus Giant Octopus was more entertaining then any of the LOTR films

LouCipherr

27-Sep-2010, 06:35 PM

Whats worse is if you genuinely don't like something that's currently the big craze.....you're accused of bandwagoning. :p

It's a lose/lose situation, i'm afraid.

This.

Megashark versus Giant Octopus was more entertaining then any of the LOTR films

I dunno about that, but Sharktopus was certainly more entertaining. :lol:

Neil

27-Sep-2010, 07:48 PM

Afraid I'm going to pick you up on some of this :)

I'm sorry but 9 hours of film with people doing nothing but walking...
My memory might be fading, but I definately do remember a whole load of other stuff happening? But if making up a strawman argument helps your case, so be it :)

Avatar aka AVATRASH Other than some ground breaking technology in filmmaking there is nothing in that film that is worth the praise it receives, in fact it was so bland even the Academy awarded his ex-wife with Best Picture because The Hurt Lock is great filmmaking on a budget Cameron probably had for craft services.
So going by your point of reference then, it was a great movie as it was right up there against it?

8ft tall smurfsThey were blue... And the analogy ends there... But it's an excuse to throw in yet another cheap dig. It certainly fits in nicely with the rest of the analysis you've thusfar put infront of us.

Sorry but JC doesn't get brownie points for Avatar just because he spent $360,000,000 making it... especially when his ex spent $11,000,000 making a much better film and shooting on extremely outdated technology (16mm)
No money really shouldn't come into it at all really... Yet there you are seemingly knee-jerking because of the money?

I refuse to ride the wave or wagon of praise for a flick simply because it looked good in IMAX.
And now we get to the crux... So you knee kerk to try and equal out all the generally favourable thoughts about it?

You do realise you've backed up your basic insults of these films, with non-points or just more insults? I rest my case M'Lord...

LouCipherr

27-Sep-2010, 07:53 PM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kl2GKlgG_Xc/SOse7AGa5qI/AAAAAAAAAgo/HrGCN8Sy5U8/s400/facepalm.jpg

AcesandEights

27-Sep-2010, 08:07 PM

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kl2GKlgG_Xc/SOse7AGa5qI/AAAAAAAAAgo/HrGCN8Sy5U8/s400/facepalm.jpg

http://cdn3.knowyourmeme.com/i/000/041/955/original/Haters_Gon_Hate.jpg?1267548025

How could I not post this pic as a reply? That kid is pimpin'!

DjfunkmasterG

27-Sep-2010, 08:32 PM

Afraid I'm going to pick you up on some of this :)

My memory might be fading, but I definately do remember a whole load of other stuff happening? But if making up a strawman argument helps your case, so be it :)

You're right. I completely forgot about the gay love story between Sam and Frodo

So going by your point of reference then, it was a great movie as it was right up there against it?

No neil, it was another insult. Sorry to disappoint. The only reason the Academy voted it in was because of the knee jerk reaction to low ratings. Otherwise let us be honest that film didn't deserve squat other than sound and CG.

They were blue... And the analogy ends there... But it's an excuse to throw in yet another cheap dig. It certainly fits in nicely with the rest of the analysis you've thusfar put infront of us.

They were blue and lived in the trees, smurfs lived in mushrooms which were just smaller trees. More to that analogy there ole bean. BTW, yes cheap dig at a cheap shit flick.

No money really shouldn't come into it at all really... Yet there you are seemingly knee-jerking because of the money?

Actually in this case yes especially when you own ex-wife owns you with a film that didn't even cost 3% of what AVATARD did.

And now we get to the crux... So you knee kerk to try and equal out all the generally favourable thoughts about it?

Nope, the movie just sucks. It is over rated, over produced and just overly boring.

You do realise you've backed up your basic insults of these films, with non-points or just more insults? I rest my case M'Lord...

Oh well... had nothing better to do today.

bassman

27-Sep-2010, 08:32 PM

This is going to get interesting....

SRP76

27-Sep-2010, 08:57 PM

I once made a thread entitled "I Hate Hobbits", and Neil didn't get on me about it like this. DJ must have pissed him off.

Neil

27-Sep-2010, 09:09 PM

Anyway... Suspect, with the thought of two high budget films moving to Eastern Europe, the unions will not happen...

DjfunkmasterG

27-Sep-2010, 09:27 PM

I once made a thread entitled "I Hate Hobbits", and Neil didn't get on me about it like this. DJ must have pissed him off.

It is ok, i am a big boy I can take it. :lol:

Pssst.... Neil.... :shifty: Avatar still sucks :lol: :poke:

Danny

27-Sep-2010, 09:33 PM

Nope, the movie just sucks. It is over rated, over produced and just overly boring.

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y91/khazrak/1285618387901.png

Neil

28-Sep-2010, 09:08 AM

Slightly more details article from what I could see - http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/612205/union_problems_holding_up_the_hobbit_peter_jackson s_angry_response.html

Publius

28-Sep-2010, 10:39 AM

You're right. I completely forgot about the gay love story between Sam and Frodo

Admit it, you hate Tolkien altogether. Blasphemer!

DjfunkmasterG

28-Sep-2010, 11:30 AM

Admit it, you hate Tolkien altogether. Blasphemer!

Actually I don't... just don't like the movies.

AcesandEights

28-Sep-2010, 02:21 PM

Actually I don't... just don't like the movies.

You saw the first film, rather enjoyed it, but had a confusing dream about midgets later that night and hated the films ever since.

Admit it!

http://ine.250x.com/images/photoimages/pervyhobbitfancier/image-boromir-2.jpg

kidgloves

29-Sep-2010, 06:51 PM

I loved LOTR. Got all movies in the extended version. Guess I must really like walking then?

DjfunkmasterG

29-Sep-2010, 07:52 PM

I loved LOTR. Got all movies in the extended version. Guess I must really like walking then?

Hey some people enjoy a lot fo exercise... then there are those of us who watch a fat and skinny stoner doing the dumbest fucking shit alive because we find it funny and more entertaining than oh... I dunno... say, 9 hours of walking. :D

Neil

29-Sep-2010, 08:11 PM

I loved LOTR. Got all movies in the extended version. Guess I must really like walking then?

Hopefully they'll offer extended versions of "The Hobbit" too... All the extra story was nice in LOTR...

clanglee

29-Sep-2010, 09:39 PM

and honestly the fantasy BS has worn out its welcome...

What?!?!? Until this past decade, Fantasy had never gotten a fair shake. . . .we got a few good movies here and there, but recently Fantasy has finally been taken seriously as a genre. And I ,for one, am enjoying the benefits. And now, With Game of Thrones being taken on by HBO, I am hoping that deeper and more adult fantasy is finally taken seriously in the cinema as well. I guess the fantasy genre isn't for everyone though, just like the Horror genre isn't.

BillyRay

29-Sep-2010, 09:50 PM

http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/cpstyles/darkvision/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by DjfunkmasterG http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/cpstyles/darkvision/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.homepageofthedead.com/showthread.php?p=246019#post246019)
and honestly the fantasy BS has worn out its welcome...

What?!?!? Until this past decade, Fantasy had never gotten a fair shake. . . .we got a few good movies here and there, but recently Fantasy has finally been taken seriously as a genre. And I ,for one, am enjoying the benefits. And now, With Game of Thrones being taken on by HBO, I am hoping that deeper and more adult fantasy is finally taken seriously in the cinema as well. I guess the fantasy genre isn't for everyone though, just like the Horror genre isn't.

I can see where Deej is coming from - I avoid most Fantasy novels because they seem like warmed-over Tolkein (I'm looking at you, Terry Brooks). Hell, if you read the Dragonlance series close enough you can hear the D20's rolling...

I'd hate to see that happen to Film and TV fantasy, but with the success of LOTR it's a possibility.

AcesandEights

29-Sep-2010, 10:48 PM

What?!?!? Until this past decade, Fantasy had never gotten a fair shake. . . .we got a few good movies here and there, but recently Fantasy has finally been taken seriously as a genre. And I ,for one, am enjoying the benefits. And now, With Game of Thrones being taken on by HBO, I am hoping that deeper and more adult fantasy is finally taken seriously in the cinema as well. I guess the fantasy genre isn't for everyone though, just like the Horror genre isn't.
Well said, Clang! No one is forcing anyone to go see a genre of film they're not interested in.

I can see where Deej is coming from - I avoid most Fantasy novels because they seem like warmed-over Tolkein (I'm looking at you, Terry Brooks). Hell, if you read the Dragonlance series close enough you can hear the D20's rolling...
While I agree with this line of thinking to an extent, some of us really like our fantasy yarns, and, as always, some will find quality where othere find dreck.

hate to see that happen to Film and TV fantasy, but with the success of LOTR it's a possibility.
Did you just say, in not so many words, that you're afraid of hobbit-sploitation? :)

clanglee

29-Sep-2010, 11:35 PM

I can see where Deej is coming from - I avoid most Fantasy novels because they seem like warmed-over Tolkein (I'm looking at you, Terry Brooks). Hell, if you read the Dragonlance series close enough you can hear the D20's rolling...

I'd hate to see that happen to Film and TV fantasy, but with the success of LOTR it's a possibility.

Nah, I don't think that was his point really. . .but I see YOUR point. . . .However, what is wrong with seeing the DnD roots in DL? It was a Dungeons and Dragons module based series. Bah. . I was more of a Forgotten Realms guy myself anyways.

clanglee

29-Sep-2010, 11:40 PM

Did you just say, in not so many words, that you're afraid of hobbit-sploitation? :)
When will it end? http://www.randomperspective.com/images/thumbs/rotkending.jpg

blind2d

30-Sep-2010, 03:09 AM

So obviously photoschlepped.
Fun, though.

BillyRay

30-Sep-2010, 03:46 PM

Nah, I don't think that was his point really. . .but I see YOUR point. . . .However, what is wrong with seeing the DnD roots in DL? It was a Dungeons and Dragons module based series. Bah. . I was more of a Forgotten Realms guy myself anyways.

Well, if I want a D&D based narrative, I'll simply play D&D...

AcesandEights

30-Sep-2010, 03:49 PM

Well, if I want a D&D based narrative, I'll simply play D&D...

What we need is a DM, not another player!

blind2d

01-Oct-2010, 04:06 AM

I volunteer!

clanglee

01-Oct-2010, 09:50 AM

Well, if I want a D&D based narrative, I'll simply play D&D...

Well there has actually been some good stories ripped from role playing games. Salvatore's Drizzt books. . . .Steven Brust got the idea for the Taltos series through his roleplaying group. . .and The Riftwar saga was totally Taken from Feist's gaming group. Role playing is not a bad muse for fantasy really.

Publius

01-Oct-2010, 10:21 AM

What?!?!? Until this past decade, Fantasy had never gotten a fair shake. . . .we got a few good movies here and there, but recently Fantasy has finally been taken seriously as a genre.

Yeah, really! What was the last even halfway decent fantasy movie before 2001, when Fellowship of the Ring came out? Maybe Willow, back in 1988?

clanglee

03-Oct-2010, 08:42 PM

We had Willow. . .and Conan. . . .and Dragonslayer. . those are the only ones of any budget really. Of High Fantasy anyways. There are plenty of Fantasy kids movies.

clanglee

04-Oct-2010, 01:25 AM

What we need is a DM, not another player!

http://www.funnypictures.com/pictures/role-play-answer.jpg

Publius

04-Oct-2010, 10:16 AM

We had Willow. . .and Conan. . . .and Dragonslayer. . those are the only ones of any budget really. Of High Fantasy anyways. There are plenty of Fantasy kids movies.

Yeah there were several good ones in the 1980s, but those were all before Willow. My point is that Willow was the last until the LoTR and Potter movies came out. That was a drought of well over a decade.

Neil

04-Oct-2010, 10:50 AM

Yeah there were several good ones in the 1980s, but those were all before Willow. My point is that Willow was the last until the LoTR and Potter movies came out. That was a drought of well over a decade.

Really? There must have been something surely?

Publius

04-Oct-2010, 11:09 AM

Really? There must have been something surely?

Well, admittedly the "even halfway decent" criterion is rather subjective. :P Here's Wikipedia's list of fantasy films from the 199s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fantasy_films:1990s). Some might rank a few films from this list above Willow. Dragonheart, possibly? Hook? Seems pretty bare to me, though, for fantasy like we're talking about here.

clanglee

04-Oct-2010, 09:18 PM

Well, admittedly the "even halfway decent" criterion is rather subjective. :P Here's Wikipedia's list of fantasy films from the 199s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fantasy_films:1990s). Some might rank a few films from this list above Willow. Dragonheart, possibly? Hook? Seems pretty bare to me, though, for fantasy like we're talking about here.

See, DragonHeart was an attempt at High Fantasy that went all Kiddie. Hook. .was Peter Pan. . more Fairy tale than a High Fantasy. . sword and Sorcery type story. I would say, the 90's were pretty dry.

BillyRay

05-Oct-2010, 02:20 PM

See, DragonHeart was an attempt at High Fantasy that went all Kiddie. Hook. .was Peter Pan. . more Fairy tale than a High Fantasy. . sword and Sorcery type story. I would say, the 90's were pretty dry.

Technically those all fall under the heading of "Fantasy".

To expect every Fantasy movie coming out to adhere to a Tolkeinian or Conanistic vibe is limiting and damaging to the genre.

(Conanistic? I better get some coffee)

clanglee

06-Oct-2010, 08:09 AM

Oh I agree. . all Fantasy. . .but Decent Adult fare? nah. I never expect all Fantasy to fall under that category. . .not at all. . . . .but I would like the continuation of decent movies under that category. I mean. . I love zombies movies, and I want them to make more GOOD zombie movies. But do I think that all horror movies should be zombie movies? I don't remember restricting the entire genre with a desire for more good serious adult fantasy movies. . . .

Publius

06-Oct-2010, 09:54 AM

To expect every Fantasy movie coming out to adhere to a Tolkeinian or Conanistic vibe is limiting and damaging to the genre.

Right, not every fantasy movie needs to fit that mold. But asking for at least one every decade or so doesn't seem so unreasonable.

clanglee

06-Oct-2010, 10:25 AM

clanglee

06-Oct-2010, 10:26 AM

Right, not every fantasy movie needs to fit that mold. But asking for at least one every decade or so doesn't seem so unreasonable.

Personally I would like more than one every decade. . .but I'll take what I can get. Let's get a remake of Hawk the Slayer with some money behind it. . . . .I'd go for that!!

Neil

06-Oct-2010, 12:48 PM

Seems Jackson is confirmed to direct... With a budget of $500,000,000!!!!! dollars :)

Guess they just need to get the unions sorted now!

AcesandEights

06-Oct-2010, 02:21 PM

Seems Jackson is confirmed to direct...
Cool by me :thumbsup: I would have welcomed a slightly different take, but this is still great news in my book.

With a budget of $500,000,000!!!!! dollars :)
That's a shedload of zeros!

bassman

06-Oct-2010, 02:25 PM

Two films at 250 million each. Sounds about right for big blockbusters these days. Hopefully they'll turn out good so Jackson can get back to the smaller films he does best. Still waiting on his promised big budget splatter film...

AcesandEights

06-Oct-2010, 02:33 PM

Two films at 250 million each.

Good point, forgot they were breaking it up and just assumed that the total was for one whopping film, which scared e a bit, because that much money for one film buys waaaay too much green-ghost cgi, for my tastes :D

bassman

15-Oct-2010, 06:38 PM

Officially greenlit this week (http://www.joblo.com/the-hobbit-finally-greenlit-at-last)

In the agreement completed this week, Jackson's deal was finalized and MGM and Warner Brothers agreed to give the project its long-awaited greenlight. The greenlight means that millions of global fans for the revered J.R.R. Tolkien property can look forward to a prequel to ‘The Lord of the Rings,’ which was one of the most successful movie franchises in movie history.

Jackson was already on board to write and produce "The Hobbit." But because of financial turmoil at MGM, which owns half of the franchise together with Warners' New Line Cinema, the project became one of the most torturous in Hollywood history.

I'm surprised MGM is going ahead with it. Being in huge financial trouble and all...

Neil

22-Oct-2010, 09:00 AM

Greenlight :) Jackson directing! So I would hope that means the same team as LOTR :)

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47057

---------- Post added 22-Oct-2010 at 10:00 AM ---------- Previous post was 16-Oct-2010 at 04:37 PM ----------

Cast news...

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/47150

Danny

22-Oct-2010, 09:58 AM

Looking over the Wikipedia list there. . . The 13th Warrior. . . that was pretty decent. . .I wouldn't call it fantasy tho. . . .not really. . . .it was a more "realistic" telling of Beowulf with a tribe of Neanderthals taking the place of Grendle. Still. . .Pretty good movie.

thats a great movie, been on bcc3 a lot recently, totally awesome.

---------- Post added at 10:58 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:04 AM ----------

i think the dude playing biblo was wise to pick it over another series of sherlock, if ones going to make his career known worldwide its gonna be this.

Plus i hear tell Mckellin and serkis are both reprising there roles as gollum and Gandlaf. Because honestly, who else could do the same job as his performance as gandalf the grey?

i'm pretty fucking excited at that. but also get the feeling this could have been in production 2 or 3 years ago if every sorted all this shared license problems and the like faster, y'know?

Neil

22-Oct-2010, 10:35 AM

I'm just not sure Freeman can be 'dark enough' to play some aspects of the story? ie: Some of it will have to be scary etc, and I'm not sure if he can do it?

Danny

22-Oct-2010, 10:50 AM

I'm just not sure Freeman can be 'dark enough' to play some aspects of the story? ie: Some of it will have to be scary etc, and I'm not sure if he can do it?

When was the last time you read the Hobbit? the darkest part would be the trolls, the rest is purely action fantasy and you know certain points like Bilbos seizures where he hits the floor and repeats "struck by lightning!" as a defensive mechanism are gonna be left out.

Neil

22-Oct-2010, 11:07 AM

When was the last time you read the Hobbit? the darkest part would be the trolls, the rest is purely action fantasy and you know certain points like Bilbos seizures where he hits the floor and repeats "struck by lightning!" as a defensive mechanism are gonna be left out.

I know what you mean. It's no where near as dark as LOTR, but a couple of part of it should be 'concerning'. Just as long as it/he isn't hammy all the time...

MoonSylver

22-Oct-2010, 11:20 AM

Plus i hear tell Mckellin and serkis are both reprising there roles as gollum and Gandlaf. Because honestly, who else could do the same job as his performance as gandalf the grey?

Indeed. I've been worried that something would happen to Sir Ian (ain't gettin' any younger y'know...) & we'd be stuck w/ someone else (a la Dumbledore). That would suck.

i'm pretty fucking excited at that. but also get the feeling this could have been in production 2 or 3 years ago if every sorted all this shared license problems and the like faster, y'know?

Yeah, I think (IIRC) it all started bececause New Line tried to stiff Jackson on some sort of royalties he was owed & it snowballed from there . But you're right, w/out all the legal mumbo jumbo & financial issues we could probably be going THIS Christmas to see the SECOND one instead of waiting 'till NEXT Christmas for the FIRST. :( But, I'm just happy they're being done. :) Ever since I read "The Hobbit" I've waited for the day I'd get to see Smaug on the big screen. :thumbsup:

Neil

27-Oct-2010, 08:23 AM

Shooting confirmed to be in New Zealand...

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10683486

Publius

28-Oct-2010, 10:04 AM

When was the last time you read the Hobbit? the darkest part would be the trolls, the rest is purely action fantasy and you know certain points like Bilbos seizures where he hits the floor and repeats "struck by lightning!" as a defensive mechanism are gonna be left out.

Yeah, more likely they're going to take out the lighter, more whimsical parts. Bilbo's "Attercop" song in Mirkwood comes to mind as well. Pity, but I see them considering it too silly for a movie of this magnitude.

MoonSylver

28-Oct-2010, 10:27 AM

Yeah, more likely they're going to take out the lighter, more whimsical parts. Bilbo's "Attercop" song in Mirkwood comes to mind as well. Pity, but I see them considering it too silly for a movie of this magnitude.

I couls see him callling it out as an insult or something, but yeah you're probably right. IIRC there were a lot of "musical numbers" that got cut from LOTR as well.

Neil

21-Mar-2011, 09:08 PM

Filming has started at last!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12803125

rongravy

22-Mar-2011, 01:16 AM

andale. let's go!

CoinReturn

12-Apr-2011, 02:03 AM

http://i.imgur.com/BqwN9.jpg

:D

Some interesting news regarding framerate and 3D:

http://i.imgur.com/qF2m9.jpg

Time for an update. Actually, we've been intending to kick off with a video, which is almost done, so look out for that in the next day or two. In the meantime, I thought I'd address the news that has been reported about us shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 frames per second, and explain to you what my thoughts are about this.

We are indeed shooting at the higher frame rate. The key thing to understand is that this process requires both shooting and projecting at 48 fps, rather than the usual 24 fps (films have been shot at 24 frames per second since the late 1920's). So the result looks like normal speed, but the image has hugely enhanced clarity and smoothness. Looking at 24 frames every second may seem ok--and we've all seen thousands of films like this over the last 90 years--but there is often quite a lot of blur in each frame, during fast movements, and if the camera is moving around quickly, the image can judder or "strobe."

Shooting and projecting at 48 fps does a lot to get rid of these issues. It looks much more lifelike, and it is much easier to watch, especially in 3-D. We've been watching HOBBIT tests and dailies at 48 fps now for several months, and we often sit through two hours worth of footage without getting any eye strain from the 3-D. It looks great, and we've actually become used to it now, to the point that other film experiences look a little primitive. I saw a new movie in the cinema on Sunday and I kept getting distracted by the juddery panning and blurring. We're getting spoilt!

Originally, 24 fps was chosen based on the technical requirements of the early sound era. I suspect it was the minimum speed required to get some audio fidelity out of the first optical sound tracks. They would have settled on the minimum speed because of the cost of the film stock. 35mm film is expensive, and the cost per foot (to buy the negative stock, develop it and print it), has been a fairly significant part of any film budget.

So we have lived with 24 fps for 9 decades--not because it's the best film speed (it's not by any stretch), but because it was the cheapest speed to achieve basic acceptable results back in 1927 or whenever it was adopted.

None of this thinking is new. Doug Trumbull developed and promoted a 60 frames per second process called ShowScan about 30 years ago and that looked great. Unfortunately it was never adopted past theme park use. I imagine the sheer expense of burning through expensive film stock at the higher speed (you are charged per foot of film, which is about 18 frames), and the projection difficulties in cinemas, made it tough to use for "normal" films, despite looking amazing. Actually, if anybody has been on the Star Tours ride at Disneyland, you've experienced the life like quality of 60 frames per second. Our new King Kong attraction at Universal Studios also uses 60 fps.

Now that the world's cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.

Film purists will criticize the lack of blur and strobing artifacts, but all of our crew--many of whom are film purists--are now converts. You get used to this new look very quickly and it becomes a much more lifelike and comfortable viewing experience. It's similar to the moment when vinyl records were supplanted by digital CDs. There's no doubt in my mind that we're heading towards movies being shot and projected at higher frame rates.

Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!

Time to jump in the car and drive to Bag End for the day. Video coming soon!

Neil

12-Apr-2011, 10:58 AM

^^

So I wonder if this means it'll be shown in cinemas at that increased framerate?

Publius

12-Apr-2011, 11:23 AM

Sounds like it depends on how many theaters can support that framerate by December 2012. I hope they do, and there's a compatible theater near me. It seems like the higher framerate could make a big difference in 3D.

Neil

14-Apr-2011, 12:02 PM

Interesting videos starting to appear :)

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150223186041807&oid=141884481557

Danny

14-Apr-2011, 02:07 PM

FfesknLk5uI

holy mother of fucksake i am so excited for this. nuff said!

shootemindehead

17-Apr-2011, 01:51 PM

I can't believe that fucker James Nesbit is in it.

God, I hate him.

Good that Jackson is behind the project though, and a lot of the other guys and gals from the LOTR. Like others, I hope they drop some of the rubbish from the book. I loved it as a kid, but I re-read a few years ago and found it tough going, I have to say. There's a lot of tripe in it that won't transfer to the screen. The best move would be for Jackson to follow the same vibe as his LOTR movies.

Publius

17-Apr-2011, 02:21 PM

Like others, I hope they drop some of the rubbish from the book. I loved it as a kid, but I re-read a few years ago and found it tough going, I have to say. There's a lot of tripe in it that won't transfer to the screen.

Or maybe they could keep the movies faithful to the book, and those who don't care for the book (e.g. think it's full of rubbish and tripe) could just watch some other movie based on something they do like. :p

Neil

17-Apr-2011, 05:05 PM

Or maybe they could keep the movies faithful to the book, and those who don't care for the book (e.g. think it's full of rubbish and tripe) could just watch some other movie based on something they do like. :p

I suspect they'll streamline it and miss some aspects out...

shootemindehead

17-Apr-2011, 09:34 PM

Or maybe they could keep the movies faithful to the book, and those who don't care for the book (e.g. think it's full of rubbish and tripe) could just watch some other movie based on something they do like. :p

If they keep it too faithful though, it'll end up shite.

Like some gay fantasy musical.

"There is an inn, a merry old inn..."

"Fuck off!"

Danny

17-Apr-2011, 09:52 PM

If they keep it too faithful though, it'll end up shite.

Like some gay fantasy musical.

"There is an inn, a merry old inn..."

"Fuck off!"

so it will be shit if its an adaptation of the hobbit then? :rockbrow:

shootemindehead

17-Apr-2011, 10:26 PM

Well, no. They just have to leave out all the twattery and songs. Keep the dwarves, the dragon, Gandalf, Gollum and the basic story etc.

Bingo!

Don't forget the bingo.

Publius

18-Apr-2011, 09:55 AM

Well, no. They just have to leave out all the twattery and songs. Keep the dwarves, the dragon, Gandalf, Gollum and the basic story etc.

The Hobbit is a children's book. The songs and whimsical elements are what give it its mood, its tone, its character.

shootemindehead

18-Apr-2011, 10:35 AM

Neil

18-Apr-2011, 10:43 AM

The Lord of the Rings was a childrens book too (although less so). But Jackson made the correct decision to leave out the more childish material in favour of dramatic areas.

Hopefully, he'll do the same with The Hobbit.
Yes! I guess it should come across darker/more adult than the book, but somewhat lighter than the LotR films?

Neil

02-May-2011, 08:27 AM

Hugo Weaving is back in his role as the Elrond! Will be nice to see him again!

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/The-Hobbit-Finds-A-New-Fili-Elrond-Returns-Mirkwood-Gets-An-Elven-King-24477.html

Neil

30-May-2011, 09:38 PM

Legolas confirmed in the new film(s)... I'm guessing the second one!

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Orlando-Bloom-Confirmed-To-Return-As-Legolas-In-The-Hobbit-24934.html

---------- Post added 30-May-2011 at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was 27-May-2011 at 07:28 PM ----------

Titles and dates:-

THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, to be released December 14, 2012
THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN, to be released December 13, 2013.

blind2d

01-Jun-2011, 12:28 AM

I saw a neat little making-of video of it at a film festival, um... two nights ago. Good stuff.

bassman

23-Jun-2011, 03:41 PM

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/hobbit%20pic1.jpg

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/hobbit%20pic2.JPG

http://www.joblo.com/newsimages1/hobbit%20pic3.JPG

Neil

27-Jun-2011, 10:59 AM

Empire exlusive - http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=31328

http://www.empireonline.com/images/image_index/hw800/52328.jpg

Publius

28-Jun-2011, 09:53 AM

The stills look great so far. As usual, Jackson has nailed the visuals.

bassman

28-Jun-2011, 12:29 PM

The stills look great so far. As usual, Jackson has nailed the visuals.

It's a photo copy of the previous three films? I really wish Del Toro could have stayed with these two films. Then it probably would have been different enough to get me excited. These pictures look almost like they're taken from the first trilogy. At least try something a bit different...

Publius

29-Jun-2011, 02:35 AM

It's a photo copy of the previous three films? I really wish Del Toro could have stayed with these two films. Then it probably would have been different enough to get me excited. These pictures look almost like they're taken from the first trilogy. At least try something a bit different...

Well, yeah. It's showing the same place as in the the first film -- Bag End in the Shire. It ought to look the same. The Shire means comfort, security, and consistency. I do hope to see some new things in Mirkwood, Dale, and the Lonely Mountain.

Danny

29-Jun-2011, 03:01 AM

Well, yeah. It's showing the same place as in the the first film -- Bag End in the Shire. It ought to look the same. The Shire means comfort, security, and consistency.

Wisdom. Tolkein's main vibe for the Shire was a representation of the middle going on northern england that remained an area that even in a country connected to many grandscale wars- to his mind world war 1 in particular- that remained unflinching and largely unchanged rural countryside. They sort of got this across in the "on hobbits" scene from the first movie. it sort of explains Tolkeins thinking very well and sort of explain the vibe on why jackson would keep it the same. Because come Bilbo's elevnty first birthday in fellowship he probably wouldn't have changed much anyway.

B7GRFnyyzc4

Publius

29-Jun-2011, 08:55 AM

Wisdom. Tolkein's main vibe for the Shire was a representation of the middle going on northern england that remained an area that even in a country connected to many grandscale wars- to his mind world war 1 in particular- that remained unflinching and largely unchanged rural countryside.

At least until the Scouring of the Shire. Single biggest mistake of the LotR movies, IMHO, was leaving that out.

rongravy

29-Jun-2011, 09:48 PM

Dang it, they were showing The Extended Return of the King at the big theater. I was hoping it meant something. I rechecked today, and it was just a one day thing. What up with that? And why not show the other two as well?

Neil

09-Jul-2011, 07:49 PM

New video blog... Definately worth a watch!!

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150314562706807&oid=141884481557&comments

Neil

20-Dec-2011, 11:21 AM

Rumours suggest a trailer later today...

AcesandEights

20-Dec-2011, 02:01 PM

Whaaaaat? Already, eh?

Ok, I'm more than up for it! :thumbsup:

Thanks for the heads up, Neil.

Neil

21-Dec-2011, 08:59 AM

Whaaaaat? Already, eh?

Ok, I'm more than up for it! :thumbsup:

Thanks for the heads up, Neil.This article says tomorrow... So you may have to wait another day!

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=10774366

...but then you've got another year to wait for the film!!!

-- -------- Post added 21-Dec-2011 at 09:59 AM ---------- Previous post was 20-Dec-2011 at 03:39 PM ----------

eM--4UklaL4

Mike70

22-Dec-2011, 01:18 AM

can't wait to see this.

to be honest: i'm even more interested in the second movie.

Neil

06-Jun-2012, 01:19 PM

New video blog - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Hobbit-Video-Blog-Features-Surprise-Cameo-Many-Dwarves-31276.html

Neil

06-Jul-2012, 01:51 PM

After 266 days, filming has completed - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Peter-Jackson-Wraps-Hobbit-Pictures-31748.html

EvilNed

06-Jul-2012, 02:38 PM

Anyone else underwhelmed by the trailers so far? Doesn't look the least bit interesting. While it'll be a massive success due to hype alone, that very same hype and expectations will probably make the film fall flat on itself.

I predict a bombastic production with mediocre entertainment.

Neil

06-Jul-2012, 02:49 PM

shootemindehead

06-Jul-2012, 03:18 PM

Can't wait myself, have to say.

Neil

06-Jul-2012, 03:23 PM

I would much rather watch the LOTR trilogy than some other things, but every time I do....I end up checking my watch hoping for it to end. I think I would probably have enjoyed it more if they weren't quite as long. And I'm talking about the theatrical cuts! No way I will watch the extended cuts...

As we know too well, different people enjoy different things and connect more/less to different to things. I can get LOTR isn't everyone's bag! :)

But every time I've found myself watch LOTR I've been spellbound by it. For me the sheer level of effort that went into producing it oozes out of it. You can feel the effort and love than seemingly went into every scene.

My hope is the same will be said of The Hobbit.

EvilNed

07-Jul-2012, 11:39 AM

I'm party with Bassman here. The LOTR trilogy are way too long, and the latter two installments (particularly part 3) are filled with way too much cheap CGI. The first film, however, is really good. Perfect pacing. Theathrical cut that is. Can't remember Extended.

shootemindehead

07-Jul-2012, 01:00 PM

As we know too well, different people enjoy different things and connect more/less to different to things. I can get LOTR isn't everyone's bag! :)

But every time I've found myself watch LOTR I've been spellbound by it. For me the sheer level of effort that went into producing it oozes out of it. You can feel the effort and love than seemingly went into every scene.

My hope is the same will be said of The Hobbit.

Yeh. The extended cuts get a regular spin in my machine. I love how they were done, especially the first one. Of course there are some things that should have been done differently, some things that weren't done at all, some dodgy effects and some bad dialogue (dwarf tossing and all that shite). But, I really cannot knock Jackson et al for the excellent effort they put into the films.

The inevitable remake in 2 1/2 years time will have its work cut out.

:p

CoinReturn

07-Jul-2012, 08:42 PM

New poster:

http://i.imgur.com/PtGXV.jpg

Kinda boring visually, but whatever, it's just a poster.

Neil

07-Jul-2012, 08:46 PM

I kinda like it... Low-key!

CoinReturn

07-Jul-2012, 08:56 PM

Yeah, "boring" was the wrong word. Not bad at all!

shootemindehead

08-Jul-2012, 01:07 AM

Looks like Wicklow.

bassman

08-Jul-2012, 03:03 AM

:lol:

"from the director of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy"?

I dont mean to be ugly, but really?

Who wouldn't know that? It's a carbon copy of the first three films. Who would honestly look at that thing and think, "I don'e know what that is"

EvilNed

08-Jul-2012, 09:37 AM

Meh.

The Markering department needs to step up, cause I have a feeling this is not an accurate representation of the film itself.

shootemindehead

08-Jul-2012, 01:08 PM

Jesus, I don't know. I like it.

Neil

15-Jul-2012, 02:18 PM

The two films could become a trilogy? - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/57039

Mike70

17-Jul-2012, 05:58 PM

The two films could become a trilogy? - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/57039

sad thing about adaptations of Tolkien's work is that we will probably never see the Silmarillon (which would have to be done as a mini-series). that's the best of tolkien's stuff and the one i go back to over and over. it is an epic, grand story on a scale that Lord of the Rings can't even touch. too bad Tolkien's heirs won't come off the rights. Beleriand done up right, the wars between the high elves and morgoth, the war of wrath, and the story of the silmarils would be awesome to see on screen. i fear though that even if it came to pass, hollywood would reduce it to nothing more than a love story between Beren and Luthien.

i'd also love to see a movie about the Numenoreans.

Neil

24-Jul-2012, 02:17 PM

Interesting blog video:-

S1IqqN2yaZw

bassman

30-Jul-2012, 04:47 PM

Jackson confirms it - fans of the furry footed hobbits will have a trilogy....

It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie - and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.'

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, "a tale that grew in the telling."

Cheers,

Peter J

So now he's turned three films of walking into six? :p

I keed, I keed....

Neil

31-Jul-2012, 12:46 PM

Seems to be official... Extra filming, and we have three films...

https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/an-unexpected-journey/10151114596546558

shootemindehead

31-Jul-2012, 05:39 PM

Neil

31-Jul-2012, 06:36 PM

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

01-Aug-2012, 01:16 AM

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

01-Aug-2012, 05:54 AM

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

19-Sep-2012, 03:54 PM

Grab your walking stick...

c5bvK-pMzJM

AcesandEights

19-Sep-2012, 06:21 PM

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

shootemindehead

19-Sep-2012, 06:46 PM

Can

Not

Wait

Neil

04-Dec-2012, 01:56 PM

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/The-Hobbit-An-Unexpected-Journey-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

15-Dec-2012, 04:30 AM

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

15-Dec-2012, 02:16 PM

wayzim

15-Dec-2012, 05:17 PM

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

16-Dec-2012, 05:57 PM

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

16-Dec-2012, 11:01 PM

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

16-Dec-2012, 11:55 PM

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

17-Dec-2012, 03:43 AM

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 opinions vary.

Neil

24-Dec-2012, 09:55 AM

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!