An Unexpected Journey SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

[Quintus 5,399]

I partially agree.

[Brónach 1,302]

It's not greed. It's ego. In the makings off of LOTR you see him trying to make use of footage he likes even if has no real use for it at some point. For example, Aragorn looking at Annatar lol

[Quintus 5,399]

Heh, I liked the idea of that as well.

[Brónach 1,302]

It's an awesome shot.

[crocodile 8,017]

Chaac i thought you were BloodBoal. Oh the irony!

Karol - who agrees about Tintin ending

[KK 3,307]

Watched the film again and I can say I enjoyed it more and realized there were some great stuff here. I think what needs to be fixed is the muddled storytelling of the appendix material and some poor editing up until Rivendell (love the troll scene though!) and the fact that the Azog storyline was given so much prominence. After Rivendell, everything goes in a breeze and its great fun seeing all this spectacle in action.

The emotional sustenance of the film needs work though, could have lingered on it more. And Thorin's slow motion Azog fight is still quite jarring.

There are several other flaws too, that I previously mentioned, but this was the big stuff I think.

It's a far drop from LotR, but I was able to enjoy it more this time around. My friends loved it though.

[Incanus 5,715]

All the discussion on Azog and his purpose in the movie has been interesting to follow in this thread. I completely understand a need for a more immediate villain in the story, who drives the narrative forward as he poses a constant threat to the Dwarves. What I do not understand is their choice of Azog, who should be long dead and buried, to be this villain. Bolg, son of Azog and the king of Gundabad would have been a much more fitting character for this job as he would have had a much more logical and not invented reason to hate Thorin and his family line for killing his father in Moria. I think the second Dwarven flashback could have been fleshed out a bit more and shown Thrór dying in his attempt to retake Moria, the subsequent battle of Azanulbizar and Dain killing Azog (with Thorin's help or even Thorin doing it alone if they didn't want too many new characters introduced). This could have given at first both more mystery to the Orcs, who are trailing the company and a revelation of who Bolg is at the climax of the film, expositioned by Gandalf or Thorin, a realization that it is Azog's son bent on vengeance coming after them. But alas nothing that close to Tolkien was not created but they "resurrected" Azog and use Bolg later for something else.

Oh man they should let me write these films! I'd have Tolkien and film story telling covered!

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

The final pan inside Erebor with Smaug...was one of the worst scenes of CGI. I have EVER laid eyes on. I don't know what happened at Weta for that one. But everything looked like a 90s CGI render...plastic. Plastic gold. Plastic stone. Plastic dragon.

[Incanus 5,715]

The final pan inside Erebor with Smaug...was one of the worst scenes of CGI. I have EVER laid eyes on. I don't know what happened at Weta for that one. But everything looked like a 90s CGI render...plastic. Plastic gold. Plastic stone. Plastic dragon.

In his interview with Ain't It Cool News PJ said it was literally the last shot they did for the film. Harry Knowles wondered about why would they set it to be the last one and PJ joked that he and Weta wondered the exact same thing. So I guess it was executed in a rush.

[Quintus 5,399]

It looked completely fine in 24fps. I'll have another inspection when I go a second time.

[A24 4,345]

Hobbit 65%, AOTC 67%

I don't care what universe you're from, THAT gotta hurt..!

[crumbs 14,318]

Anyone else think the 48 FPS 3D probably put a huge strain on WETA's render pipeline, resulting in the seemingly average CGI? It sounds prequel-esque bad in terms of how cartoony it looks.

Going from rendering 24 frames of CGI per second during LOTR, to 96 frames of CGI per second for The Hobbit is a massive undertaking.

[A24 4,345]

Are the images that clear?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Twice as clear

[A24 4,345]

How about on Sunday?

[filmmusic 1,837]

I haven't seen the film, nor i intend to..

Can please anyone fill me up in what is the general tendency here?

It's a masterpiece, it's just plain good or bad?

because I just read a review in facebook, and I think it's the only review I've ever seen with such bad comments for a big movie!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Jonesy 55]

It's a masterpiece, it's just plain good or bad?

It isn't a masterpiece, but yes, the film is enjoyable.

[Quintus 5,399]

None of the LotR movies are masterpieces, although Fellowship gets closest to it imo.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

All 3 are flawed, yet all 3 are incredibly satisfying.

[publicist 4,643]

Yes, FOTR comes closest, partly due to to the fact that the opening of the storybook lets your imagination run wild - about the perils waiting ahead etc. And Jackson really focused in FOTR, but now the calf has gotten fat and self-satisfied, so to speak, so when i go next tuesday i expect an entertaining blockbuster without a spellbinding story but lots of overlong action sequences, which may be the right thing to se before christmas.

The book isn't that great, either.

[Luke Skywalker 1,795]

ok my thoughts.

I liked the film, better than expected. Since i knew the dwarves and radagast for some time...it was not a real shock...

48 fps looks strange, sometimes it is fine and sometimes it is not. With dialogue scenes you cant tell the differences...but with fast scenes...it's strange.

Radagast fleeing from the wargs looked very strange in 3d. as if it was not part of the film... i didnt like it. also while the 3d looks better... in fast scenes it's very difficult to see deail...or focus on some character....

Gollum has been greatly improved, at last he moves his muscles when he moves his limbs and neck etc...

The CGI landscapes are a great improvement to the series over the miniatures. I didnt feel any fake forest like mirwood in LOTR. Here you can see a real forest.

CGI small birds: awful everyone of them. There were not hummingbirds so i dont know why they flap their wings like that.

CGI bunnies: they move so fast you cant see any detail...

I like the CGI orcs. my gripe with them is that they dont look like the ones in the OT.

The eagles... my god, what a great dissapointment. The models in ROTK were great, and they changed them for this film. The movement of the wings is not that good, and the necks are to long! It makes a curvature more similar to a vulture's neck and it looks awful on a beautiful bird as the eagle. Also the tail feathers are weird. Now they have like to rows of tail feathers instead of just the tail and supracovert feathers. Shame as they are my favourite characters and I was awaiting this scene a lot

Also, they did tintin's falcon rather good. i was expecting perfection here...

I want to see it in 2d and 24fps. Im sure the movie will look more 'natural' and the weird things look normal.

But well, i'm awaiting the second film right now.

PD: it's fun all the dwarves in the prologue had good beards and our protagonists dont...

[Incanus 5,715]

CGI small birds: awful everyone of them. There were not hummingbirds so i dont know why they flap their wings like that.

CGI bunnies: they move so fast you cant see any detail...

The eagles... my god, what a great dissapointment. The models in ROTK were great, and they changed them for this film. The movement of the wings is not that good, and the necks are to long! It makes a curvature more similar to a vulture's neck and it looks awful on a beautiful bird as the eagle. Also the tail feathers are weird. Now they have like to rows of tail feathers instead of just the tail and supracovert feathers. Shame as they are my favourite characters and I was awaiting this scene a lot .

Classic Manuel!

To be honest all those were small fries to me but of course to a person interested in such details they might stick out. The Eagles looked pretty fine to my untrained eyes.

[publicist 4,643]

ok my thoughts.

I liked the film, better than expected. Since i knew the dwarves and radagast for some time...it was not a real shock...

48 fps looks strange, sometimes it is fine and sometimes it is not. With dialogue scenes you cant tell the differences...but with fast scenes...it's strange.

Radagast fleeing from the wargs looked very strange in 3d. as if it was not part of the film... i didnt like it. also while the 3d looks better... in fast scenes it's very difficult to see deail...or focus on some character....

Gollum has been greatly improved, at last he moves his muscles when he moves his limbs and neck etc...

The CGI landscapes are a great improvement to the series over the miniatures. I didnt feel any fake forest like mirwood in LOTR. Here you can see a real forest.

CGI small birds: awful everyone of them. There were not hummingbirds so i dont know why they flap their wings like that.

I like the CGI orcs. my gripe with them is that they dont look like the ones in the OT.

The eagles... my god, what a great dissapointment. The models in ROTK were great, and they changed them for this film. The movement of the wings is not that good, and the necks are to long! It makes a curvature more similar to a vulture's neck and it looks awful on a beautiful bird as the eagle. Also the tail feathers are weird. Now they have like to rows of tail feathers instead of just the tail and supracovert feathers. Shame as they are my favourite characters and I was awaiting this scene a lot

Also, they did tintin's falcon rather good. i was expecting perfection here...

I want to see it in 2d and 24fps. Im sure the movie will look more 'natural' and the weird things look normal.

But well, i'm awaiting the second film right now.

PD: it's fun all the dwarves in the prologue had good beards and our protagonists dont...

You are born for a job in statistics. Maybe a large excel sheet for a comparison of Gollum's face muscles now and then is in order?

[Quintus 5,399]

I wonder what Manuel thought of the story and characters. Actually, no I don't.

[Sandor 797]

Three more hours to go...! Getting pretty excited now...

[Brónach 1,302]

After yesterday I'm feeling disinterested in these films. Oh well. Until next December.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

After yesterday I'm feeling disinterested in these films. Oh well. Until next December.

Why, what happens next December?

All 3 are flawed, yet all 3 are incredibly satisfying.

That's the thing - judged as a whole, I consider the Lord of the Rings film trilogy every bit a fantasy masterpiece.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[alicebrallice 134]

After yesterday I'm feeling disinterested in these films. Oh well. Until next December.

that's exactly how I felt.

it was a weird feeling, really. hyping, obsessing and being overly excited about something for months and months... and then THAT disappointment. jesus christ.

I actually have a hilarious pic of me, how I looked, when walking out of the cinema after the movie. should make it my new avatar.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Oh show us!

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[Quintus 5,399]

Hee hee

[Brónach 1,302]

After yesterday I'm feeling disinterested in these films. Oh well. Until next December.

that's exactly how I felt.

it was a weird feeling, really. hyping, obsessing and being overly excited about something for months and months... and then THAT disappointment. jesus christ.

I actually have a hilarious pic of me, how I looked, when walking out of the cinema after the movie. should make it my new avatar.

I think I'm frustrated because of the amount of good things in the film, and as I expect it, in the others. If the film was total crap, I'd get over it, but that was never going to happen. So it was either perfection or frustration.

[alicebrallice 134]

it wasn't total crap. it had some genuinely awesome highlights. but why would the amount of good things in the film add to your feeling of disinterest? that makes no sense to me so please explain. frustration and disinterest are not the same thing.

but what's a perfect film for you, anyway? I've never seen a flawless film. but I have seen films with flaws that actually contributes to my meaning of perfection. I consider them as charming, or whatever. this film, however, is not one of those cases.

[KK 3,307]

It's because the film has great moments, but its bogged down by such weak storytelling. And I used to love PJ and Boyen's sense of storytelling. I was very disappointed by the Necromancer storyline, it drags and seems like needless Tolkien trivia when it could have been executed to pique my interests more (the Ringwraith attack still bothers me...). And Thorin's story, along with the dwarf history pretty much left me disappointed and emotionally unengaged. Then there's Azog...

Fix those things, and this movie could have been a lot better. Because of these factors, the film takes way too long to start cooking. It's only until after Rivendell (which is halfway into the movie) does the real adventure begin.

All 3 are flawed, yet all 3 are incredibly satisfying.

That's the thing - judged as a whole, I consider the Lord of the Rings film trilogy every bit a fantasy masterpiece.

Flaws they may have, but I consider the whole trilogy a masterpiece as well. And call me a fanboy, but they're still my favourite films.

[Jay 37,370]

The Hobbit book has 19 chapters. When the film series was going to only be two films, the first movie would have covered the first 9 chapters, or about half the book. Assuming each movie would have been about 3 hours, that's about 20 minutes per chapter.

Now that there are three films, the first film covered the first 6 chapters, which is about a third of the book. It appears the logical shopping point for Film 2 is around the end of Chapter 12 too, so each film will be about a third of the story. Anyway assuming each film is around 2:45 or 3 hours we're at 30 minutes per chapter.

So the point is now that we have a Film 1 that covered 6 chapters at 30 minutes per chapter, it would be odd to finish up the saga by cramming the last 13 chapters into one more 3 hour film, you'd only be devoting less than 15 minutes per chapter. There has to be two more films now.

Now here's the other thing. Everything we got in Film 1 was shot during main production, meaning PJ shot 30 minutes per chapter all along anyway (more, actually, with the announced 25+ minute longer EE). That's roughly 10 hours of footage, and he claims he intended to present it as two 3 hour films? I betcha he was planning on doing 3 films all along... there's just no other reason to shoot this much footage!

[Quintus 5,399]

It's because the film has great moments, but its bogged down by such weak storytelling. And I loved PJ and Boyen's sense of storytelling. I was very disappointed by the Necromancer storyline, it drags and seems like needless Tolkien trivia when it could have been executed to pique my interests more (the Ringwraith attack still bothers me...). And Thorin's story, along with the dwarf history pretty much left me disappointed and emotionally engaged. Then there's Azog.

Fix those things, and this movie could have been a lot better. Because of those 3 things, the film takes way too long to start cooking. It's only until after Rivendell (which is halfway into the movie) does the real adventure begin.

All 3 are flawed, yet all 3 are incredibly satisfying.

That's the thing - judged as a whole, I consider the Lord of the Rings film trilogy every bit a fantasy masterpiece.

Flawed they may be, but I consider the whole trilogy a masterpiece. And call me a fanboy, but they're still my favourite films.

Fellowship was mine for a few years. During the trilogy's peak.

Eventually I repented for my sins and allowed Bruce to take my left leg as a piece offering.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[JamieC 13]

Sometimes, the films (or books or music or whatever medium) that prove most frustrating, or not quite as we had imagined or hoped to have been, at first encounter can end up the more enduring stories, becoming better understood as time goes by. Indeed, their imperfections become a part of their fascination. Is there such a thing as a perfect artwork I wonder ?

[alicebrallice 134]

Fix those things, and this movie could have been a lot better. Because of these factors, the film takes way too long to start cooking. It's only until after Rivendell (which is halfway into the movie) does the real adventure begin.

I have no problem with that. now, if the "real" adventure fails to reach the level of realness and quality as it's supposed to, THEN I have a problem.

3 films. hahahahahah, what a joke.

[Quintus 5,399]

Still not getting why some people need to think of a book adaptation in terms of its chapters, the number of which is completely irrelevant as far as translating them into working film language goes.

[Brónach 1,302]

Because The Hobbit is structured as a quest where a series of little adventures happen one after each other. Balancing all of these so it doesn't become boring is essential.

[Jay 37,370]

My numbers make perfect sense because I'm talking about precisely how much stuff PJ is filming per chunk of the main story. The whole reason its 30 minutes per chapter is all the made up stuff

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

That does seem to be the films biggest problem, and unlike Jason I don't believe PJ planned 3 movies all along.

[Quintus 5,399]

Because The Hobbit is structured as a quest where a series of little adventures happen one after each other. Balancing all of these so it doesn't become boring is essential.

Yeah, but ticking off each as one would a chapter when reading isn't necessary. That's not how movies are made.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[JamieC 13]

Have you seen this rather nicely written review of the film ?

http://www.slantmagazine.com/house/2012/12/back-there-again-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey/#more-33227

[Quintus 5,399]

Probably the most gushing one I've read.