Jump to content
Jay

An Unexpected Journey SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

Disappointed by the reviews, but at least it helps to temper expectations somewhat. "Riddles in the Dark" was always the scene I was most looking forward to, and I'm so happy to hear all the great things about it even in the negative reviews, so I'll go in looking forward to it all the more. Some of the comments on the stone giants scene have got me really excited too.

I liked Drew McWeeney's review over at HitFix: "Is 'Very Good' Good Enough for The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey?"

Coming from the type of reviewer I tend to look for with films like these. Someone who was clearly a big, gushing fan of the original trilogy expressing level-headed observations of what doesn't work, while still providing encouragement about what does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly, I'd urge anyone to stick with 24fps in this instance. Save that brand new sensory shock for another movie, one you care much less about.

Christ, you haven't even seen the film, but you already urge everyone not to see it in 48 fps?! What the hell, man?

Would people please not panick like a flock of hens?

Yeah, because the resoundingly ecstatic reaction to 48fps so far wouldn't be any cause for concern at all. Go for it smart man! Those who heed the warnings of others are fools!

What I find most telling is that from all the sources I've inspected, not a single one complained about nausea or headaches.

At this stage gkgyver I'd have thought common sense might have kicked in.

Reading back, I see you say you aren't interested on the reviews; but it's no spoiler to pass on in a friendly manner that every single official review I've skimmed over so far (I tend to avoid detail, seeking just a general impression, RTs summary page being very useful for that) have one unavoidable thing in common: the new frames per second technology is bad. It actually damages the film. They openly advise against it, almost as if they're disappointed they feel they must. It's suggested that the movie might be a significantly better experience in 24fps.

If you wish to ignore that, that's up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I love the movie I'll definitely go back and see it the Jackson way.

I'm an obsessive compulsive about seeing a movie for the first time and I go to lengths to ensure that I give myself an optimum viewing experience. My girlfriend just sighs and goes along with it, knowing full well what I'm like. I used to go to the theatre to absolutely maximise my chances of enjoying a movie, but with the numerous distractions and annoyances in those places nowadays I've slowly retreated back to my sofa and 46" plasma. At first I was VERY keen to see this film in 48fps, but now that significant doubt as been cast on its ability to immerse and that it might even 'break' the experience, the spell , is enough for me to change my mind, at least for that all important first viewing . In that respect the technology potentially becomes an unwanted distraction to me - like a person checking Facebook, or burying their fist loudly into their popcorn. Things which affect my "maximum impact" obsession, of which I'm completely open about.

Some of you guys are anal about cue micro edits and alternate takes availability; I'm a bit like that about cinema visits. That's all it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I actually understand where you come from and I've been through it repeteadly.

In order to achived maximum impact, I've even avoided seeing a classic film for quite a while until I really felt I wanted to see it (my film viewing choices depend of my raw appetite of the moment, if it's not what I want I won't enjoy it nearly as much.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also really shocked that people let their former anticipation turn into the opposite, ranging from fear, dissapointment and even intense hate, just because a couple of reviews were released. I'm not going to read any of them, I won't go into this film with a preconceived mindset like some sadly do now.

+1.

I have to say two words about the critical reception: F You!

F YOU!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not read them for years, but they used to better and less excitable than Empire.

I am also really shocked that people let their former anticipation turn into the opposite, ranging from fear, dissapointment and even intense hate, just because a couple of reviews were released. I'm not going to read any of them, I won't go into this film with a preconceived mindset like some sadly do now.

+1.

Oh the IRONY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly, I'd urge anyone to stick with 24fps in this instance. Save that brand new sensory shock for another movie, one you care much less about.

Christ, you haven't even seen the film, but you already urge everyone not to see it in 48 fps?! What the hell, man?

Would people please not panick like a flock of hens?

Yeah, because the resoundingly ecstatic reaction to 48fps so far wouldn't be any cause for concern at all. Go for it smart man! Those who heed the warnings of others are fools!

What I find most telling is that from all the sources I've inspected, not a single one complained about nausea or headaches.

At this stage gkgyver I'd have thought common sense might have kicked in.

The point is that you haven't seen a single coherent scene from the film, in HFR or not. And then some reviews mention that it can be distracting, and not only do you give the movie the finger, you also say you would strongly advise others to not see it in 48fps.

If you want to talk about common sense, I say common sense should tell me that a reaction like yours is stupid and unfounded.

Being sceptical is fine, but punishing yourself or your anticipation or deliberately taking enjoyment out of the experience before you even take a seat at the theatre, and all that because of some mixed reviews ... No thank you.

I won't have critics influence my mindset going into a film like this. The last time I let them do that was before Skyfall ("best Bond movie in decades") and that was a bomb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll see the film before making more assumptions based on the reviews. I even will watch it in the 3D HFR as I first intended and perhaps after that in regular 2D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Truly, I'd urge anyone to stick with 24fps in this instance. Save that brand new sensory shock for another movie, one you care much less about.

Christ, you haven't even seen the film, but you already urge everyone not to see it in 48 fps?! What the hell, man?

Would people please not panick like a flock of hens?

Yeah, because the resoundingly ecstatic reaction to 48fps so far wouldn't be any cause for concern at all. Go for it smart man! Those who heed the warnings of others are fools!

What I find most telling is that from all the sources I've inspected, not a single one complained about nausea or headaches.

At this stage gkgyver I'd have thought common sense might have kicked in.

Being sceptical is fine, but punishing yourself or your anticipation or deliberately taking enjoyment out of the experience before you even take a seat at the theatre, and all that because of some mixed reviews ... No thank you.

I won't have critics influence my mindset going into a film like this. The last time I let them do that was before Skyfall ("best Bond movie in decades") and that was a bomb.

Congratulations on your shiny new unwaveringly clear mindset. I'm proud of you. I hope it's not a fad, you know, like when it suits you or somethin'.

With this movie, we are both looking for very different things. Nobody is punishing anybody, though. It's called savvy, so reign your neck in a bit.

The point is that you haven't seen a single coherent scene from the film, in HFR or not. And then some reviews mention that it can be distracting, and not only do you give the movie the finger, you also say you would strongly advise others to not see it in 48fps.

If you want to talk about common sense, I say common sense should tell me that a reaction like yours is stupid and unfounded.

Firstly, please don't attempt to exaggerate my words or tone, it's a cheap approach to an argument. I'm not "giving the finger" to anything. That clearly implies I'm vehemently against the movie, which I am not. That would be silly. Knock that shit on the head, cheers. Secondly, you obviously do not understand the definition of the word "unfounded". You use it like I'm pulling shit out of thin air, making foolish assumptions about the new technology based on nothing but my own non-existent personal dislike of it. You're exaggerating and glossing over what I have clearly and calmly spelt out earlier out in an effort to further enforce your own views - which are by all accounts quite obviously irritated by my own newly serious reservations towards the technology. But the truth is my concerns are not unfounded at all. The clear, widespread EVIDENCE: the plain speaking word-of-mouth on the matter is indisputable. That means it is anything but unfounded. Again, don't twist what I've said; don't ignore the important parts of my reasoning, cheers.

When it boils down to it, I am simply exercising caution with what might possibly be the most fundamental shift in cinema since the advent of colour. I'm being careful not to potentially ruin a film I so want to love. If you think that is "stupid", then you should see my wisdom: It'd seemingly blow you the fuck away.

48fps could in the end turn out to be the best thing since sliced bread, the dog's bollocks. But just for now I'm not willing to test it out on the filmic prequel to The Lord of the Rings.

And my apologies for the late edit. My daughter cut me off short earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'll see the film before making more assumptions based on the reviews. I even will watch it in the 3D HFR as I first intended and perhaps after that in regular 2D.

You're badass, Inky! Go for it!

Yes I am known for my reckless nature in these parts! I will do it! To 3D HFR and glory!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly, please don't attempt to exaggerate my words or tone, it's a cheap approach to an argument. I'm not "giving the finger" to anything.

Anyway, the reviews suggest it's as I feared; Jackson's indulgent bloat he became prone to - the very same undisciplined fat which marred King Kong forever - has by all accounts filtered through into these movies. That to me at least is extremely damning. And he wants to extend it to THREE movies?

If the rest of the reviews don't perk up I may yet skip this at theatres. I despise boredom in movies which long overstay their welcome.

40mins before the journey even begins is stupid. In fact it's just bad mannered!

King Kong all over again. How long was it before they reached the island in that?

Bah! Colour me annoyed. 24fps it is, after the Christmas rush.

If I come across cranky here it's because I'm deeply frustrated about the fact that Jackson has apparently not learned a single thing from his King Kong criticism and actually let his rampant self belief taint the upto now hallowed film franchise with his unmistakable and undisciplined swagger.
What a difference a day makes!

Ooo what a drama!

Yes, Jackson tainted LotR forever with a movie you haven't seen.

Talking about cheap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hate to disappoint Boaly, but I'm not feeling it, sorry. Probably because from where I'm sitting gkgyver seems to have trouble either understanding English thoroughly or just certain expressions within in it. Apparently nobody is permitted here to express considerable displeasure at the critical reaction an anticipated but potentially mediocre film is getting pre-release or voice disappointment about something which by many accounts has failed to live up to its predecessor without him assuming that to mean the person has shown utter, immovable contempt for it till the end of time. I mean, how dare I complain that The Hobbit is getting not so great reviews, right? Heh, don't be daft. Also, isn't he a bit of a fanboy of this stuff anyway?

Of course I've criticised Jackson - especially in regards to pacing: I always have done, for years. I'm consistent. See, that's the thing here: I'm going off past proven form on the man - Jackson is known to be acutely prone to the things I take issue with. It's educated forecasting on my part, I've seen enough movies to spot the early signs, to garner a canny idea of what to expect in advance. Call it experience. What's gkgyver placing his assured trust in, his own blind optimism? That's a fools game if you ask me - especially in this instance. Whilst gkgyver enjoys going to some effort cherry picking quotes and deploying them out of the greater context of my broader thoughts on Jackson and his style, I'm perfectly content to shrug and chuckle at the petty ignorance in his pursuit of throwaway one-upmanship - his purposeful decision to gloss over my greater reasoning as explicitly spelled out by myself in this very thread (as well as my objectively thought out comments in the "How will you see The Hobbit" thread earlier today) being to me the very meaning of what it is to be "cheap". Yeah, he's rarely interested in engaging with people he disagrees with on level terms, historically. He even threw his toys out the pram and left in a major huff over it one time years ago because we laughed at his aliens on earth conspiracy theory, snigger. Took him another couple of years to sneak back in under the radar. Like his aliens apparently did.

Anyway I'm bored now (aren't you?). To close, I'll wrap up a final time in the most straight forward terms I can and because I would like to swing some clear positivity back into my court: I'm very concerned about the slack editing in The Hobbit and I don't want to risk spoiling the experience further with this massively controversial new technology they've used. I love the franchise too much and a betting man would at this point most definitely bet against it. My hope being that the goodness which shines through in good ol' 24fps really does help lift the film and make me walk out the theatre grinning like crazy, not grimacing with frustration. Because yes, that would indeed taint the legacy of the original trilogy, and nobody wants that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the film ends up being too long I won't be surprised. I've felt that way about a lot of Jackson's work, especially King Kong. He got away with it in LOTR because those books were so dense and large in scale that they each required a 3+ hour film. But even there I thought it stretched it unnecessarily in a few places, most notably the ending (or endings) of Return of the King.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not the old endings of RotK discussion! Frodo's story ends at the Grey Havens, so that's where the trilogy ends.

It's not the content I take issue with. It's the way it's edited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure I follow the editing argument. Some "tightening" won't result in a significantly shorter movie, unless you're talking about wholesale cutting scenes. The scenes that don't work at the end of RETURN OF THE KING have little to do with duration or editing, but instead with Jackson's confounding directorial decisions. The reunion at Frodo's bedside, for example, has some of most tedious use of slow-motion I've seen.

In general, I actually like that Jackson takes his time and let's his shots linger. It may make the weak scenes weaker, but it makes the good scenes stronger to a much greater degree. Jackson's flaws stem more from writing and occasional artificial quality some scenes have, which, I would guess, are the ones he doesn't innately have a sense for how to convey.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am intrigued about Azog and Bolg and how will they fit into the story at this point. The Warg riders harry the Dwarf company before they reach Rivendell but it will remain to be seen, who is behind these attacks, Orcs bearing a grudge or the Necromancer.

Of course Azog should be long dead at the time of the Hobbit and appear only in flashbacks but I guess Bolg (his son) is now the new Orc villain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Azog should be long dead at the time of the Hobbit and appear only in flashbacks

Not if he was resurrected by an orc shaman!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course Azog should be long dead at the time of the Hobbit and appear only in flashbacks

Not if he was resurrected by an orc shaman!

I am hoping this will not happen in the films. I mean really hoping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Birds of a feather but I will valiantly complain about these deviations from the novel that PJ thinks to be a great idea. Foolishments I tell you, foolishments! :stick:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't stop you diving head first into Boals full of spoilers now though, does it. You and your comrade won't actually watch these movies at all.

You'll analyse them. Extract the bits you want with a pair of teasers and a microscope before leaving the spent bloody carcass to rot in the alleyway behind the theatre.

BloodBoal: "Hey Incy, check out these juicy spoilers! They don't half stave off the boredom something great! Come on in, the waters lovely!"

Incy: *SSSPLASH!*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will watch this film with great interest. And I will happily praise the aspects that deserve the praise as well. So back off Quint!

I think in the anticipation and hoping for the film to be good and faithful adaptation the designs and plot twists that do not remain faithful to the novel tend to raise ire very easily. The situation will most likely change when I have seen the film.

Or I will wallow in the horror of Radagast and Azog for eternity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Incanus, it's nothing personal. It's just because seeing the eager consumption of spoilers to hugely anticipated movies such as this never fails to irritate me. I'm an irritable person.

Datameister calls it being rubbed up wrong, I believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll analyse them. Extract the bits you want with a pair of teasers and a microscope before leaving the spent bloody carcass to rot in the alleyway behind the theatre.

:crymore: :crymore:

I take back every bad thing I've said about PJ and this film.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will be avoiding these threads before I see the film, which is probably some time next week. I will however be participating in the music discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the contrary, Alice. From what I can gather you're a refreshingly well rounded participant in all things Hobbit hype.

Unlike myself, when I got my knickers in a bit of a twist after I saw the reviews.

I guess... but what I do feel now is that my excitement and hype for this movie has cooled down ALOT this week... much more than I'd like. I don't know, could have something to do with all the unfavorable reviews or maybe I'm just sick of constantly being fed with new photos, TV spots and other news which adds to me feeling like I've already seen the thing.

gotta start getting my excitement up again. seeing this on tuesday, after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've managed to remain almost completely spoiler free having only seen the odd pic in here and the original trailer for the film. I haven't even heard the score (decided I'd prefer to let it wash over me with the movie). Hopefully I'll get to see it sooner rather than later. But yeah, excitement levels are decidedly muted now, which is a shame since I usually love to jump on board the party train and shout CHOO CHOO!

I was a complete maniac in the days before each LotR instalment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...