Kyleripman
Member
Edmond Dantès;46027046 said:
No Sebastian?
I'm surprised Frodo is only 3 min.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey |OT| In a hole there lived a hobbit SPOILERS
- Thread starter Edmond Dantès
- Start date
- Status
No Sebastian?
I'm surprised Frodo is only 3 min.
You sir, are correct.
Grinchy
Banned
Do you remember specific examples? I only ask because I felt the same way and was wondering if we noticed it at the same parts.
At the very start Old Bilbo looked like a sped-up penguin walking through his house.
Watched it for the second time, now in HFR 3D and I loved it even more. The action sequences,
in particular, looked considerably better. Slow movements however, like a sword being put in a chest, were kinda weird. First 20 minutes I really had to get used to it. But overall I'd say it's definitely the best way to see this movie. The visuals are incredible in 2D, but in HFR it's insane.
I'm amazed how this movie just... flies by. Second watch and I couldn't believe it when the credits rolled. 3 hours, feels like 1.
goblin lair underground
I'm amazed how this movie just... flies by. Second watch and I couldn't believe it when the credits rolled. 3 hours, feels like 1.
I too noticed old Bilbo at the beginning, but I experienced a similar thing when I first saw 48fps online for the first time. I figure if I had watched the Bilbo beginning straight after finishing the film, it would look natural.
I've said it before, but 48fps makes stunt fighting dodgy and heck. If you ever see behind the scenes footage of stunt fights, you can see the punches are pulled, hits not connecting etc. 24fps then naturally masked this. 48fps does not. The early sequence where
the Dwarves fight the Orcs
OmegaTreeFish
Banned
To be fair the film without credits is really about 2 and a half hours. I have only seen it once and felt it paced pretty well and it didn't feel that long at all. The first 40-50 mins def felt longer than the rest though but thats simply because it was the set up part.
Didn't know where to ask this but I had a question about the plot of the LOTR.
Is it explained how after 2000 years or so how Sauron comes back at all? I know he needs the one ring to regain his physical form but how does he resurface even as the eye? What led to that? Because from the back-story that I understood in those 2000 years or so where Gollum had the ring, there is no Mordon or Sauron's forces. They only appear in LOTR after the ring has been discovered.
I haven't read the LOTR books and finished reading the Hobbit a few months ago. I have seen all three of the LOTR movies even as recently as two weekends ago when TNT had all three on. But I can't seem to remember any explanation as to how Sauron is back in any form.
Or did I just gloss over something simple and explained?
Also why does Sauroman or Sauron want to go into epic battles again the race of Men or Elves? If he gets the ring isn't all the fighting pointless? He can just rule all beings.
Is it explained how after 2000 years or so how Sauron comes back at all? I know he needs the one ring to regain his physical form but how does he resurface even as the eye? What led to that? Because from the back-story that I understood in those 2000 years or so where Gollum had the ring, there is no Mordon or Sauron's forces. They only appear in LOTR after the ring has been discovered.
I haven't read the LOTR books and finished reading the Hobbit a few months ago. I have seen all three of the LOTR movies even as recently as two weekends ago when TNT had all three on. But I can't seem to remember any explanation as to how Sauron is back in any form.
Or did I just gloss over something simple and explained?
Also why does Sauroman or Sauron want to go into epic battles again the race of Men or Elves? If he gets the ring isn't all the fighting pointless? He can just rule all beings.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
Sauron was in the process of reforming his body over that time period. He didn't need the One Ring to do it. As long as the One existed his native power was still in existence.
The Eye was a Peter Jackson invention. In the book it's just a metaphor for his reach via his spies and those under his will.
The power of the one would not allow him to control all the beings of Middle-earth, just those who were leaders amongst their people. That was the plan but it didn't go according to his plans.
Gollum had the One for 500 years, and Sauron thousands before it was taken from him.
He had also been rebuilding his forces during that period before openingly declaring himself as Sauron the Great after the events of The Hobbit.
Dunno if this has already been discussed, but did anyone else remember when Elrond said something about "400 years of hard fought peace"? Seems like Jackson and co flubbed that line because looking through the timelines I can't see how that number makes any sense or what it's referring to.
He's supposedly in the background of one of the flashback sequences for half a second, but I think that's it.
I don't know. I think this resembles an eye. In which case Alan Lee invented it
I think, even in that illustration, the eye of Sauron was never anything more than a metaphor, rather than a literal entity or visual representation.
The artist probably just thought a kind-of-sort-of eye would make for a striking and thematically resonant image.
Chuckie
Member
I'd agree with you were it not for one passage (not a vision..something Frodo and Sam actually see)
Certainly not a flaming eyeball on top of a tower, but still a real representation of it.
Galadriel
She was still beautiful but those crows feet and cheeky bones didnt help.
Saruman
Why didn't they apply same makeup or effect to
Galadriel
Seen it twice, both IMAX 3D but one was HFR and the other was traditional 24fps. The 24fps version felt more epic while the HFR version was clearer and looked more "real". Not sure which I prefer at the end of the day. Wife does prefer the HFR version, and we are seeing it again like that tomorrow.
I don't get the hate for the first 50 minutes, I just love those characters, and Martin Freeman is an amazing Bilbo, so the build up is very enjoyable to watch for me.
I don't get the hate for the first 50 minutes, I just love those characters, and Martin Freeman is an amazing Bilbo, so the build up is very enjoyable to watch for me.
Edmond Dantès;46051714 said:
Thanks for the answers!
So if I understand it correctly this is how it went down:
1. Sauron was rebuilding himself over the thousands of years
2. Bilbo finds the ring and keeps it
3. Sauron is finally back enough and build his forces enough that he can begin his attack and look for the ring again
4. It just so happens to be that the ring is with Bibo and then Frodo when Sauron is ready.
Correct? If so were the Elves and other races aware that he was rebuilding himself and his forces and that eventually he would be out to attack? In the movies it seems like they were all surprised to find him resurgent but in later scenes the way Mordor is visualized it seems pretty obvious that bad shit be happening there.
Its one of the things that bugged me while watching the movies, how everything seemed to be happening all at once all of a sudden. And I always assumed Bilbo taking the ring and being careless with it had something to do with Sauron emerging.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
The wise knew but we're still doubtful until
The events of The Hobbit involving The Necromancer.
Yeah, it gave Sauron a presence that - in my opinion - is slightly more necessary in a visual medium. You can get away with it in literary form, but to have your main antagonist just be an omnipresent terror on film tends to just be a let-down and cheap way to lead the audience on.
I suppose if they'd wanted to, they could have just had Sauron be represented through the ring itself and have Frodo constantly hearing voices like he and Gandalf did in Bag End when Frodo was asking Gandalf if Sauron had been completely destroyed. But again, audiences like memorable villains, and making the "eye" literal was a way to satisfy that. It's also just super-unique from a film perspective, Sauron isn't like every other film bad guy.
Plus, having the eye be literal allowed Jackson to give a very palpable indiction to audiences that Sauron had truly been defeated when Barad-dûr collapses and the eye explodes at the end of Return of the King.
Futurevoid
Member
DAT Music.Loxley said:
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Dumb audiences needs that kinda thing. Yay.
I still haven't seen this because not even a single one of my friends wants to see it. Not particularly fond of watching a 3 hour film alone either.
I did have a very short window of opportunity to watch it last saturday but blew that chance. Now I'm wondering if I'll even bother prior to home video release...
What's the thread concensus anyway ? good / bad ? HFR or regular 3d ? inquiring minds would like to know.
I did have a very short window of opportunity to watch it last saturday but blew that chance. Now I'm wondering if I'll even bother prior to home video release...
What's the thread concensus anyway ? good / bad ? HFR or regular 3d ? inquiring minds would like to know.
Darth Pinche
Member
I don't think there is a consensus on this one, especially given the various formats you can see it in. I think it is worth seeing in the theater and I liked the HFR but can see it may not be everyone's cup of tea.
Just go see it, a movie theater is never the same as home video.
Just go see it, a movie theater is never the same as home video.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Damn thats pretty quick, these days you dont seem to get many leaked but for such a high profile release its pretty big.
Before anyone suggests otherwise i have already gone to see it in 3d HFR (which was amazing overall) so there
Actually, the Lord of the Rings films have pretty consistently hit the internet within a month of their release. I remember all of their academy screeners were available via torrent/fileshare before February.
As far as the movie itself is concerned, it seems like the majority of GAFers who have seen the movie enjoyed it overall, and don't get what the hell critics are whining about. Some feel it's not up to par with any of the LotR films but still think it's a good movie, while others have said they enjoyed it more than any of the LotR films. So a pretty wide range.
There isn't really a consensus on the HFR 3D, some absolutely loved it, while others hated it. Honestly I just don't think enough of us have seen it in HFR to really even form a consensus.
maquiladora
Member
$759m worldwide. Bomba.
Yep, I'm sure the WB execs are crying themselves to sleep.
"Guys, the film only made 3/4's of a billion dollars in a month, however will we go on?"
Candeldandel
Member
Speaking of The Hobbit's box office, TheOneRing.net has a good write-up of how critics and "analysts" have been greatly over-exaggerating The Hobbit's "poor" performance at the box office.
At least someone agrees with me that The Hobbit is not, in fact, a box office disappointment if it doesn't quite reach one-freaking-billion dollars in a month.
At least someone agrees with me that The Hobbit is not, in fact, a box office disappointment if it doesn't quite reach one-freaking-billion dollars in a month.
Honestly as far as critics go if they, for example, complain that there are too many dwarves they should be ignored. If all they talk about is HFR then they should be ignored. If they call the White Council a blatant cash in and being absolutely useless then well you get the idea. I remember reading a review that complained that he felt like the specter of death hung over the party and how that was bad because obviously no one will die because it's based off a children's book. There are a lot of bad reviews out there and frankly a lot of them can be straight up ignored.
Don't think anyone was claiming it would be a literal bomb to the point where WB loses money.
But I think the expectation was that it would be the top grossing movie this year. And that can still happen but poor reviews and lower than expected domestic returns dampened those expectations.
But I think the expectation was that it would be the top grossing movie this year. And that can still happen but poor reviews and lower than expected domestic returns dampened those expectations.
I don't get all the hate. It's as if people want this to fail. I still hear so many complaints about being expanded to three movies, even from friends who are die-hard fans of the first trilogy. My thought is who cares? If PJ can pull off three great movies, more power to him.
(That Office spoof was surprisingly good.)
(That Office spoof was surprisingly good.)
Certain people don't like it. Its not hate for the sake of hating. And expanding a single book into a trilogy does sound forceful, but they aren't hating.
That said I just came back from my first viewing, and while I didn't love or even like the LOTR movies that much (never read the books), I really liked this movie.
I didn't find it long or boring, the CGI was surprisingly weak at some parts, but overall it moved well and was enjoyable. I read the book in preparation since I assumed the reason I didn't like LOTR as much as everyone else was because I hadn't read the books. Funny thing...I found reading the Hobbit to be a chore and thought the additions in the movie worked to make the story so much better.
mattiewheels
And then the LORD David Bowie saith to his Son, Jonny Depp: 'Go, and spread my image amongst the cosmos. For every living thing is in anguish and only the LIGHT shall give them reprieve.'
Could someone with knowledge of the book say how much of this movie stuck strictly to the book and how much was extrapolation, percentage-wise, I guess? I hadn't read the book for a long time but don't remember half the exchanges in this movie from it.
Candeldandel
Member
Yeah, I don't get this either. I mean, shit, you don't have to like it, but trying to ruin it for other people is pretty petty behavior. I may not like Skyfall, but I'm not gonna hope it fails; I just won't talk about it.
At this point, I really don't care what other people think, because I know that I love it, so what does their opinion matter? Especially if it's ultra-negative
BruceLeeRoy
Banned
Yeah, I don't get this either. I mean, shit, you don't have to like it, but trying to ruin it for other people is pretty petty behavior. I may not like Skyfall, but I'm not gonna hope it fails; I just won't talk about it.
At this point, I really don't care what other people think, because I know that I love it, so what does their opinion matter? Especially if it's ultra-negative
Your a balanced individual. We don't care for your kind in these parts!
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Yeah I think there are a LOT of things wrong with the movie, that pretty much all revolve around too much CG and some scenes that should have been cut out, but it was still one of the movies I still enjoyed watching the most in 2012. A lot of movies sort of make me wonder if I'll enjoy it or not until the thing just falls down and I realize I won't like it, but in this case I was in for the ride right away. So I'm looking forward to the sequels, even if I never thought LotR was awesome, it was always better than watching a lot of other crap, like SKYFALL BARF.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Basically any time their journey gets harder or delayed it's been fuddled with. 50%.
There's a lot of little stuff, but this is most of the bigger stuff that was added and not in the book:
- The intro scene with Old Bilbo and Frodo
- The prologue depicting Smaug attacking Dale & Erebor
- The sequence with the three trolls was evolved into a full-on action sequence (it was much simpler in the book).
- The flashback sequence depicting the The Battle of Azalnulbizar (where Azog gets his hand cut off and Thorin gets his "Oakenshield" moniker).
- Literally every single scene involving Radaghast, he's not in the book at all. This includes his investigation of Dol Goldur, the scene with him and the spiders in his house, etc.
- Azog being a primary antagonist throughout the film(s). In the book he actually did die at the Battle of Azanulbizar like Thorin suggests.
- The scenes involving Galadriel, as well as the White Council - not the in book.
- The Stone Giant encounter was made to be a big action set-piece in the film, when it's just one or two sentences in the book.
- The escape from Goblin Town was greatly expanded upon in the film to (another) big action set-piece.
- While the Wargs chasing the dwarves up the trees did happen in the book, Thorin's final 1v1 battle against Azog was also an invention of the film (because, again, Azog is long-dead at this point in the chronology of the books).
TLDR; Anytime there was a battle or action set-piece of any kind in the film, just assume it didn't happen in the book and was inserted by Jackson & Co. to liven up the screenplay. Because bare in mind that AUJ really only covers the first six or so chapters of The Hobbit - chapters in which no real "action" in a Hollywood sense occurs. After that (in the book) is when shit really starts to hit the fan.
#1 defender
Member
Could someone repost the graphic that shows how long each scene in the film lasts? I've looked back 15 pages (100ppp) and couldn't find it, maybe it was posted in the other thread.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
1) Opening Logos
2) Old Bilbo Intro
3) Erebor/Dale Prologue
4) Old Bilbo & Frodo
5) Bilbo & Gandalf
6) An Unexpected Party
7) The Journey Begins
8) Azanulbizar/Moria Flashback
9) The Five Wizards
10) Radagast The Brown
11) Gandalf Leaves
12) The Trolls
13) A Troll-Hoard
14) Radagast & Dol Guldur
15) Warg-Scouts
16) Rivendell & Moon Runes
17) Azog The Defiler
18) Dwarves Chilling
19) The White Council & Dwarves Leaving
20) Into The Wild & Stone Giants
21) Cave & Bilbo Leaving
22) Captured By Goblins
23) Riddles In The Dark
24) Gandalf To The Rescue
25) Brass Buttons
26) Goblin Town Escape
27) Bilbo Escapes
28) Bilbo Joins The Company
29) Burning Trees
30) Flight Of The Eagles/Carrock
31) Smaug
#1 defender
Member
Edmond Dantès;46108070 said:
Very appreciated, thank you!
By the way, did you ever end up posting your full review of the film, or are you still musing over it?
- Status