The Hobbit Movie

[The Flâneur 33]

Great film. Does the frame-rate detract from the look and feel of the film? does it fuck. Martin Freeman is brilliant, Nesbit doesn't have a chance to ruin anything and Gollum is again, outstanding. Jackson has taken some fackin liberties with the novel, but all for good reason, except perhaps...

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

Rock-man fight? nah, not for me

 

9.5 Bird-shit beards out of 10.

[SCOUSE TAPAS 521]

Its good to see so many giving it good reviews.

 

Got to say though it must only be losely based on the book as it is impossable to make three full length movies based on a 320 page story.

[Flying Pig 58]

What part of the film does Freeman put Gareth's stapler in the jelly?

[Unrighteous 952]

Questioning The Hobbit's faster frame rate technology - Arts & Entertainment - CBC News

 

More Brilliance from Peter Jerkoff.

 

 

Peter Jackson has been making the rounds in defence of the faster frame-rate technology he's adopted for his much-anticipated The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey — and film writer Jason Gorber warns "it will freak you out."

 

Still, unlike the host of fellow critics, colleagues and movie industry insiders who have also seen the movie, the Toronto-based writer is a fan of Jackson's use of High Frame Rate (HFR) 3D for his adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's classic novel.

 

"It's a completely new experience," Gorber, who writes for online movie site Twitchfilm, told CBC News.

 

"It frees up the image in a way that I think is disruptive for some people — certainly off-putting — but once you actually get into it and sort of accept the images that you're seeing [as] being very different, you absolutely embrace the world."

 

Doubles standard frame rate

With HFR 3D, films are shot and projected at 48 frames per second, double the standard rate of 24 fps. Proponents argue that the increased rate is much sharper and closer to what the human eye sees. However, early murmurs of discontent emerged at a preview of The Hobbit for theatre owners this past spring and earlier this month, as film reviewers began to take in preview screenings.

 

Gorber has seen the HFR 3D version of The Hobbit (there is also a standard version) twice now, including at a recent U.S. film event where Jackson himself introduced the screening and immediately acknowledged that some people in the audience "will hate this."

 

Though he knows some 'will hate' The Hobbit in HFR 3D, Peter Jackson backs the technology and defends using it for his new film. (Evan Agostini/Associated Press)

However, Gorber did not and he sees the technology being adopted more widely in the next few years. He described the new, boundary-pushing technology as a change in presentation — albeit a dramatic one — no different than the difference between IMAX and 35mm film. Also, he feels that HFR 3D's doubling of the standard frame rate better blends elements popular in large-scale blockbusters — like computer-generated effects — with traditionally shot live action scenes. The CGI character Gollum "looks tremendous" alongside Bilbo Baggins, for instance.

 

"In terms of the integration of the character playing against Martin Freeman [as Bilbo], 48 [frames per second] and 3D do a remarkable job of tying those two together," Gorber said.

 

What will audiences think?

Even actor Elijah Wood, who starred in Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy as Frodo Baggins, has admitted that it took several screenings of The Hobbit before he became a fan of and accustomed to the faster frame rate. Whether audiences will flock to or flee from the movie will be seen this week, when it debuts in cinemas Friday.

 

"As a theatrical experience, this is the way to see The Hobbit," Gorber concluded, adding the caveat that "it may not be the way to first see The Hobbit."

 

"It will take some time for people to figure out," agreed Paul Salvini, chief technology officer for Christie Digital Systems Canada.

 

About 85 per cent of Canadian movie theatres use the Kitchener, Ont.-based company's digital projectors, he said, and the bulk of those projectors are capable of showing HFR 3D.

 

Ultimately, "it's about telling a story, fundamentally trying to tell a great story and trying to use all of the tools and techniques available to make that viewing experience as incredibly immersive and powerful as possible. High Frame Rate is simply one more tool for the filmmaker," Salvini said.

[Cardie 1,401]

Great film. Does the frame-rate detract from the look and feel of the film? does it fuck. Martin Freeman is brilliant, Nesbit doesn't have a chance to ruin anything and Gollum is again, outstanding. Jackson has taken some fackin liberties with the novel, but all for good reason, except perhaps...

Warning! The following content is NOT WORK SAFE. Click the Show button to reveal.

Rock-man fight? nah, not for me

 

9.5 Bird-shit beards out of 10.

 

Did you see it in the 48fps though, i don't know what cinemas are showing it in 48 but i thought it was very few.

 

A mate said pretty much the same as you and what he thought was 48 was really 24

[redheart 1,095]

Just saw this in high frame rate 3d. The 3d is pointless and the high frame rate does not work. It looks like poorly filmed TV movie shown on an early model hd tv. The pacing is poor and some of special fx are Rooney. 4/10

[Redder Lurtz 3,263]

Already booked to go & see it again at the Imax on Monday night. Very surprised at the odd poor review. Suppose it would be a dull world of we all liked the same things though.

[Cardie 1,401]

Not sure, i enjoyed it but the frame rate and 3d made some of the fight scenes seem a little benny hill.

 

Wasn't sure about the cockney trolls, or the scene in the mountain when they're escaping.

[RedKnight 6,020]

Saw it in 2D. Liked it but it's too long, it's not a big book and it feels stretched too thinly over 2hrs+. The performances were all great but the white orc chasing them down felt tacked on and beneath the movie. Overall when it comes down it my biggest problem is that in comparison to the quest from Lord of the Rings the Hobbit can only feel like a comedown. When you open up with the greatest stakes then anything else will feel a little less perilous. It's good though, just not great.

[Redder Lurtz 3,263]

Been to see it again tonight at the Imax in Bradford. Never been there before; it's immense.

 

Never been to see a film twice at the cinema before but wanted to experience the Imax with a film I knew I'd enjoy. Still loved the film but Hobbited off my face now. Imax for part 2 I reckon.

[Gav 515]

Took a days leave and booked Mezz tickets for tomorrow lunchtime in the Local Cinema....small VIPish style screen in the cinema..Cant fucking wait

[Scott_M 6,846]

I went last night. It's Ok. It wasn't bad, but it certainly isn't at the level of the original trilogy.

 

Negatives - The bit in The Shire at the start was too long, the song they sing when cleaning the dishes is beyond gay, there are too many dwarves (I know there are 13 in the book but hardly any of them get any screen time to develop as they're own character, hence I didn't really care about them & was hoping a couple of them would die), there's too much action (again, you don't really invest in the characters because they are constantly being chased), James Fucking Nesbitt and his stupid fucking moustache, it all felt a bit rushed, there are too many locations from the Fellowship Of The Ring and the White Orc looked like a retarded engineer from Prometheus.

 

Positives - The prologue is exellent, despite not being allowed any emotional connection with the characters the action is pretty good, the Gollum scene is brilliant & I've been told that the latter part of the book is better so the other films should be better.

 

I sound like I've slated it there. It's Ok but I was disappointed, it's somewhere between Narnia & LOTR in quality rather than the a film that sits right alongside the original trilogy.

 

5 / 10.

[Sut 356]

Isn't that white orc the one armed limper with the facial defect from Return of the King?

[Cardie 1,401]

Isn't that white orc the one armed limper with the facial defect from Return of the King?

 

Nope the rotk one was some random pig zombie looking fella.

[Sut 356]

Nope the rotk one was some random pig zombie looking fella.

 

Just looked him up - Gothmog. I'd just wondered if he was to become deformed in a later film and then turn up again 60 years later in Sauron's army. The ROTK one still has both hands.

[Gav 515]

I went last night. It's Ok. It wasn't bad, but it certainly isn't at the level of the original trilogy.

 

Negatives - The bit in The Shire at the start was too long, the song they sing when cleaning the dishes is beyond gay, there are too many dwarves (I know there are 13 in the book but hardly any of them get any screen time to develop as they're own character, hence I didn't really care about them & was hoping a couple of them would die), there's too much action (again, you don't really invest in the characters because they are constantly being chased), James Fucking Nesbitt and his stupid fucking moustache, it all felt a bit rushed, there are too many locations from the Fellowship Of The Ring and the White Orc looked like a retarded engineer from Prometheus.

 

Positives - The prologue is exellent, despite not being allowed any emotional connection with the characters the action is pretty good, the Gollum scene is brilliant & I've been told that the latter part of the book is better so the other films should be better.

 

I sound like I've slated it there. It's Ok but I was disappointed, it's somewhere between Narnia & LOTR in quality rather than the a film that sits right alongside the original trilogy.

 

5 / 10.

 

Christ ,have you even read the feckin book .How can you say a song thats critical to the story is "A bit gay".jesus..better avoid the next movie because that will have a lot more songs...and as for too many dwarves,again ,its a critical part of the book .How would they manage the Beorn scene,or the spiders scene in the next movie with only 4 dwarves and a hobbit....you are correct on Nesbitt though,his stupid accent is the only thing that pissed me off

[Gav 515]

Im a rather big Tolkien fan,and the Hobbits my favourite book of all time (currently reading it to my kids) and after the amazing job jackosn did on LOTR my expectations were quite high and fuck me but he really did meet them..Breathtaking middle-earth scenery,Rivendell was simply a joy and it really pleased me to see just how true to the book Jackson stayed.The attention to detail was bang on and some of the fight scenes were very well done ,especially with the Goblins.And even though he was involved only for a short while,does anyone doubt the influence Del Toro had on this movie? The Goblin King is almost a fatter version of Pans Labyrinths pale man and Azog the Defiler is also another design thats clearly based on him too.Overall A masterpiece,he held true to the book,pillaged the LOTR appendixes well and delivered again.

This movie probably won't sit well with those that haven't read the book ,or read it a long time ago...LOTR is definatly easier for the non-fan to get into .Oh and that was a pretty decent performance from Freeman too

[GodWearsNumber9 2]

Gotta say, I was a little disappointed. I didn't HATE it, but it was a letdown for me. I think it's just too damn long. They've basically turned 100 pages of a book into a 3 hour movie, and a lot of it drags.

 

Martin Freeman was damn good though.

[Redder Lurtz 3,263]

Gav knows.

 

I'm still amazed reading that some people thinks it drags.

[Gav 515]

Gotta say, I was a little disappointed. I didn't HATE it, but it was a letdown for me. I think it's just too damn long. They've basically turned 100 pages of a book into a 3 hour movie, and a lot of it drags.

 

Martin Freeman was damn good though.

 

See,I just dont get that attitude at all ..sure it took 3 hours just to get to the Parth Galen Battle in LOTR like and no-one now is claiming that was too long.If anything I feel that some of the scenes could have been a lot longer (probably will be for the extended dvd)..For instance the Troll scene was very rushed......Likewise the Cave riddles scene could've been a lot longer too

The Hobbit is a very deceptive book,it may be smaller than LOTR but it is a lot more top heavy with very discriptive smaller skirmishes that give way only to a page or two but are very important events unlike LOTR which has vast battles.

Jackson for me has done Tolkien proud..he's obviously a fan ,and more obviously has read the books inside out and he's holding true to the books.He also appears to have a format that worked for LOTR that I think he's applying to the Hobbit.Slow first movie ,character building the main characters,setting the plotline and the main players before ending with the epic battle..he's set the Hobbit up the same way...the battle with the spiders for the second movie before the finale of the battle of the 5 armies...in 2 or 3 years ,after the 3rd movie has been seen ,nobody will be bitching about length of time,gay songs or that cunt Nesbitt

[Gav 515]

Gav knows.

 

I'm still amazed reading that some people thinks it drags.

 

Same here ,I just don't get it all.I feel that a lot of the critics have either never read the book , or not read it for a long time and its influencing their opinions...I cannot wait for the super dooper extended version comes out like the LOTR one...the extra half hour will be epic Im certain

[Scott_M 6,846]

Christ ,have you even read the feckin book .How can you say a song thats critical to the story is "A bit gay".jesus..better avoid the next movie because that will have a lot more songs...and as for too many dwarves,again ,its a critical part of the book .How would they manage the Beorn scene,or the spiders scene in the next movie with only 4 dwarves and a hobbit....you are correct on Nesbitt though,his stupid accent is the only thing that pissed me off

 

I don't need to read the books, they've made a movie. An average movie which is well below the quality of the original trilogy and didn't come close to meeting my expectations. It also has a super gay song (I'd like to know what the washing up song has to do with the whole story?), too many characters and action, not enough time for the characters to develop and severley lacks the emotional kick expected.

[Whelan 0]

Watched this last night - I thought it was brilliant!

 

I was desperate for more at the end. I think the only problem is that they keep mentioned the 'dark power' and discussing the strange occurances, which isn't as dramatic as it should be as we know that they are right, and how it ends up! That to me is the major problem - the Hobbit sets in motion the themes and back story for the LOTR - but we have seen those films so it does lose a lot of drama.

 

The scene in Rivendell when they are all discussing Sauron with Gandalf and the Elves and Sauruman is a case in point - you are looking sayin 'he's right you know, and that old twat is a lying cunt'. There is no intrigue.

 

But the storyline was a breezze, cinematography is amazing, acting is excellent, Gollum more human and i thought, more scary as a result, and the final hour seemed to last 10 minutes.

 

You do need to see this on cinema though - certainly in the first instance.

[Guest Pistonbroke]

Anyone know when this is this being released on DVD/Bluray?

[Sugar Ape 14,359]

Anyone know when this is this being released on DVD/Bluray?

 

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey DVD Release Date

 

DVD Release Date - estimated Apr 2013

 

I loved it. Absolutely superb film. And I'm not just saying that because I love the book, which I do. I can't fathom anyone giving it 5/10.

 

8.5/10 for me.