• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Hobbit - Official Thread of Officially In Production

Status
Not open for further replies.

kingocfs

Member
More comments on 48fps from some dude, also mentions there are basically
2 prologues.
Calls the humor "goofy."

48 frames per minute is essentially harsh-looking and disconcerting...until it isn’t. It’s incredible how discordant and off-putting the increased frame rate appears to the human eye initially, but as Jackson himself has asserted, audiences will tend to forget (and or tolerate) once they’re absorbed into the story (though admittedly, it takes about a good hour and the experience will be both subjective and divisive). And becoming engaged in 'The Hobbit' once the adventure truly starts isn’t difficult. In fact, by the third act when the action is at its thunderous peak the 3D/48 fps visuals are wholeheartedly spectacular and ravishing. Indeed, a few moments of panoramic action vistas are as stunning and gorgeous as anything seen in “Avatar,” “Hugo” or “Life Of Pi.”

http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplaylist/review-despite-a-self-indulgent-goofy-opening-the-hobbit-rallies-to-become-another-dazzling-action-adventure-epic-20121204

Just realized he wrote "per minute." THAT would suck.
 

Daft_Cat

Member
Some of the early Fellowship of the Rings reviews:

Heck, Richard Roeper gave the movie a thumbs down because he thought it was just too long. Unanimous critical acclaim, was not from Fellowship of the Rings.

Oh...so I see you took me a bit too literally.

No, my point was, early reviews are not necessarily something you should judge a movie from.

Fair point..but there's still something a little bit disheartening in some of these complaints.
 

Kud Dukan

Member
Some of the early Fellowship of the Rings reviews:







Heck, Richard Roeper gave the movie a thumbs down because he thought it was just too long. Unanimous critical acclaim, was not from Fellowship of the Rings.

You're just posting those to make me feel better.

Thank you
 

lucius

Member
IGN Review 7.9 it, he saw it twice not in IMAX though, actually some interesting things in the full review.
 

nomis

Member
I'm starting to think that this is in Peter Jackson given-too-much-free-reign-mode, and ending up releasing what could have been the extended cut as theatrical.

That just means I don't have to wait a year to watch the movie that I wanted to watch in the first place. Fuck pacing. Fuck running time. I want to see as much of this world as possible.
 

Kud Dukan

Member
Another review from Screendaily: http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/...icle?blocktitle=Latest-Reviews&contentID=1479

Director Peter Jackson’s return to the land of Orcs, Dwarves, Elves, Wizards and Hobbits turns out to be a happy homecoming. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey recaptures much of the epic spectacle of the filmmaker’s massively successful Lord Of The Rings trilogy, smoothly setting in motion another large-scale adventure that will be carried forward in two subsequent films over the next two years. Boasting an appreciably dark tone and a seemingly endless array of visual astonishments, this Hobbit suggests that, nine years removed from his last J.R.R. Tolkien adaptation, Jackson has lost none of his ability to deliver this sort of brawny mainstream entertainment, even if a bit of déjà vu hovers over the proceedings.
 
If you see this film in the new HFR/48 fps format, you’ll likely break into lively discussion, as well. I’m sure the film’s visual appeal is on a par with Jackson’s other work, but with HFR 3D you’ll be too taken with the strangeness of the new format to compare. Is 48 fps good? It isn’t a case of good or bad. It’s an aesthetic choice, like Michael Mann’s use of video in ‘Public Enemies.’ I never “got used to it.” In fact, I found it a distraction. When Ian Holm was giving his early exposition, I couldn’t hear a word of it, because everything looked so unusual and that’s what held my attention. Here are some things you can expect:

- When people run, they look like they are on the ‘Benny Hill Show.’

- Fire looks weird. This doesn’t matter too much when it is just a burning hearth, but when it is dragonbreath or hurled, flaming weapons, it is a problem. As a result, a moment that should read as triumph ultimately comes across as goofy. It looks so strange and unusual (as do many of the special effects) that it looks somewhat. . .cheap.

- Anything shot in daylight looks like a BBC production from the 1970s. The movement is too smooth. And yet, when the camera moves, too, it looks somewhat jerky.

- You really recognize the cuts between exteriors, effects shots and sets. There’s a scene on a cliff where Storm Giants fight that probably looks terrific in the traditional format. Watching it here all I could think about was “oh, that’s them on a set. Oh, that’s an effects shot. That looks like an actual mountain. Ooh that cut brought us back to the set again.” I’ve watched the similar Misty Mountain sequence in ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ many times and I never once considered our heroes being on a set – I fully suspended my disbelief and thought they were in peril.

People interested in tech should see ‘An Unexpected Journey’ in 48fps (which is being marketing as HFR 3D). People just looking to see a great movie should just see it in 24. Of course, anyone looking for a great movie will be disappointed. ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,’ despite its many gimmicks, is just an okay movie.


See, everybody wins, AstroNut!
 
Reviews are about what i expected, PJ just don't have the same material to work with and he's gone bonkers with special effects post LOTR, also sounds like Weta Digital were rushed a bit and some of the work is sloppy. I just hope the forests look good, forests looked like ass in LOTR because they were too stubborn/cheap to shoot outside New Zealand.
 

apana

Member
Matt McDaniel from Yahoo gives his impression:

http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie...-ve-seen-welcome-return-middle-050025086.html

Higher frame rate definitely changes the experience

The biggest technical difference between "The Hobbit" and the old films is that it was shot and in some theaters will be projected in the new 48 fps (frames per second) 3D system. The new cameras shoot twice as many individual images than traditional film methods, with the goal being a smoother and more immersive experience. And while the new presentation does make the 3D easier on your eyes, losing the traditional "film flicker" does fundamentally change how you view the movie.

It takes a while to adjust to the effect (the first few scenes almost looked like they were in fast motion), and even after you get used to the effect it never does look like "a movie" as we've come to understand it. Some shots do create an astonishing effect like you really are there, but others just look like you're watching a really expensive HDTV. It was a worthwhile experiment to try making a film in the new system, but theatrical features are probably not the best format for the technology.
 
I think "not as many powerful emotional scenes as LotR" is going to be a common complaint
until movie 3.

Ya, I think this is true. I think people tend to look back on LOTR as an entire series instead of a film by film basis. There was lots of time and hokey moments at the start of FOTR and ultimately it all paid off by the end. It's an investment in the following two movies.

I'm sure that we'll look back once the series is done and appreciate it all as a cohesive whole. That's what LOTR is for me. I didn't appreciate the Shire moments in FOTR until I was done the series and the whole feeling of the Shire and the Shire music had really deeply instilled that nostalgiac sort of feeling in me. In terms of first viewings, my rating of the series would go ROTK > TTT > FOTR. If you ask me now after having viewed them again, it would be ROTK >= FOTR >>>> TTT. If they spend 40 minutes in the Shire, I'll be perfectly happy, but I think we all have to recognize that not everyone has those same associations that LOTR fans do.

I also believe that the following films will be more polished as PJ will have had more time to fine tune them, both in terms of scene editing and technologically.
 
Seems to be getting mediocre reviews, I expected mediocrity since it's Jackson afterall but I also expected reviewers to overlook it's mediocrity in favor of hype; which can only mean the film is so bad that even the hype can't save it. Oh dear.
 

Jacob

Member
It sure did. I've been saying all along that the biggest thing The Hobbit films had going against it was those films. They are a tough act to follow.

Yet somehow each of the LOTR films managed to meet those expectations, not just for audiences but for critics as well. It was hardly a case of disconnect between ordinary theatre-goers and high-and-mighty film critics. Return of the King was one of the top 10 best-reviewed movies of the decade.

http://www.metacritic.com/feature/the-best-movies-of-the-decade

Obviously The Hobbit has to deal with some very high expectations, and I can't say I'm surprised by the response after following the production for four years, but it's not like a mixed critical reception was inevitable. Either way though, I'm still hyped and will undoubtedly see the movie at least twice. But the reviews so far are in line with many of my worries about the films.
 
Will be interesting to watch this film just to see how far Jackson has gone off the deep end, King Kong and Lovely Bones was pretty far but it sounds like this (and the rest of the trilogy) might take it to a whole new level.
 

Branduil

Member
Reviews are about what i expected, PJ just don't have the same material to work with and he's gone bonkers with special effects post LOTR, also sounds like Weta Digital were rushed a bit and some of the work is sloppy. I just hope the forests look good, forests looked like ass in LOTR because they were too stubborn/cheap to shoot outside New Zealand.

What?
 
lol here come the doom & gloomers.

Don't listen to the reviews. Watch the film and make up your own mind!
But the film doesn't come out for over a week! What do you expect us to do, NOT talk or think about the movie??? Our brains would implode!

So there is a cheaper place to shoot LotR-style forests?
The Pacific Northwest! Plenty of different forest styles in the regions around Seattle.
 

jb1234

Member
I never went into this film believing that it would be better than FotR because that movie is fucking awesome and I don't want overinflated expectations. I'm sure it'll be a fun, entertaining movie with lots to admire.
 

Shepard

Member
I never felt the book would work as a movie as well as the Lord of the Rings. Should be an entertaining time, nevertheless.
 
Heh - some of the folks here probably already know this, but I didn't realize it until just now - they have the rights to film only the material directly found in The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings books, they aren't allowed to put anything in that isn't in those sources. But luckily, all the extra material that isn't in The Hobbit that Peter Jackson wanted to film, was added to the Appendices to Return of the King in the 70's, so it's kind-of a technicality that they have the rights to the extra material. I'd bet the Tolkien group wishes they could go back and reword that contract, because they probably only wanted stuff taken directly from the stories in those books.
 

Loxley

Member
A lot of the reviews thus far have praised Armitage and said that Thorin is great (same with Freeman and Bilbo) . Good to hear :)
 
I will probably LOVE the movie just because it's return to middle earth. I honestly could watch the shire scenes for an hour without anything happening exept Gandalf taking a poop. Just the trailers and tv spots show me that this is my movie of the year even if it is a total trainwreck.

I have really good tolerance for apparently the worst movies ever made. I adore all the POTC movies and think Spider Man 3 is a good movie. I dunno if its a blessing or a curse. The thing about Hobbit I'm conserned about is HFR, not the film itself. I have no idea if I'll like it or hate it but the die has already been tossed and I'll see it in HFR the first time around.
 

LowParry

Member
So we have a theater with Dolby Atmos. Just a regular showing. I'm pretty interested in this new way of sound so looking forward to see what happens with The Hobbit.
 
Some of the early Fellowship of the Rings reviews:


Heck, Richard Roeper gave the movie a thumbs down because he thought it was just too long. Unanimous critical acclaim, was not from Fellowship of the Rings.

Roeper's review of FotR is one of the worst things ever.

Of course once the series turned out to be popular he changed his tune the following year with TTT.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Reviews so far have done nothing to dispel my worries about story bloat and drift. I'm reading The Hobbit to my kids - we read On the Doorstep tonight - and this is NOT a long story. Would make a bang up three hour movie. So I'm very worried that the story only gets as far as it does in part 1 and goes on for two more. I have no idea how you get two more films from where this ends off.
 

Loxley

Member
For those genuinely concerned about the reviews, bare in mind they'll be coming in for the next two weeks. Besides, the first rush of reviews for any highly anticipated movie are almost always comprised of the people who want to rush out and tell people either how astoundingly brilliant the film was, or how utterly shitty/disappointing it ended up being. It's easy click-baiting at its finest.
 

Rootbeer

Banned
I wonder how much the 3D and HFR are affecting the reviews. Films with 3D tend to score lower (well, maybe with the exception of animated stuff), and now we have to factor in HFR as well.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom