The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

[Highsteppa]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I think Peter Jackson is making them so long to make up for the lost revenues he was "cheated" out of from LOTR. With the lawsuits that flew around in the mid 2000's, it probably got expensive.

[Highsteppa]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

-how can I tell it's filmed at 48 fps? I mean, what is the effect of filming it like this?

At 48 frames per second, movement looks more "natural" and realistic. You'll notice it when you're seeing it on the screen.

It's kind of hard to describe, but it looks almost like you're watching a live teleplay instead of something recorded with regular film stock (think of how the old Dr. Who episodes looked in the sense of image quality back in the Tom Baker era vs. how Dr. Who is filmed now - it looks more like the old Tom Baker Dr. Who). It takes a bit of getting used to, since we've been watching 24 fps recorded material for the longest time and it is a bit jarring, but I think if this is an accepted future of technology and considering the clout that Peter Jackson's WETA studio has now - it's a safe bet this could become the standard in the near future.

[feather]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Was the 3D better because of the 48fps?

[Highsteppa]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I really didn't think the 3D added anything huge to it. It's a nice perk to have when seeing it in the theater, but as far as image quality it doesn't really do anything for me. I'd be more interested in seeing how it would look in 2D and comparing the two (which probably won't happen for me until the DVD comes out - I have no desire to see this a second time just for the unnecessary length of the movie alone).

[feather]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

The Telegraph's Robbie Collin gave it two out of five stars, stating that it is "so stuffed with extraneous faff and flummery that it often barely feels like Tolkien at all – more a dire, fan-written internet tribute".


Clocking in at a running time just shy of 3 hours, An Unexpected Journey's length has been coming under much scrutiny from critics, with FilmSchoolRejects' Rob Hunter branding it an "overly long slog", with the first half’s pacing "more akin to a near-death turtle than an adventure film featuring heroes on a quest". The Daily Mail's Chris Tookey gave it three out of five stars, branding it "unduly long and overblown" whilst telling fans of Jackson's Lord of the Ring's trilogy that, if they were expecting another "cinematic triumph", they would need to "lower their expectations".

The Hobbit Receives Mixed Reviews | CraveOnline

[Haziel]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Today I went to see "The Hobbit " I wasn't expecting much from it and here I was thinking that it was going to be another "The Phantom Menace" or "Caravan of Courage". Well I was wrong... its definitely one of the best movies of 2012. The best is that this movie has a personality of its own meaning that its not a residue of LOTR... Peter jackson nailed it again bringing back the adventure film genre. I'll be watching it again pretty soon.

[floridaorange]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

^favorable!

[rainman]

Re: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Watched this opening weekend and was not impressed. I feel the actors didn't have the chemistry that was shared with TLOTR films. Mixed emotions on this one as I know the point was to tell the story but it seemed so much effort went into the telling of the story other aspects were left out. Visually pleasing, but it just seemed more of going through the actions of getting the film out than anything else. Read the books as a child and watched all the films on the big screen; however, I will not be spending any money to see the next two films in the series. They could have left out all the fluff and told the entire story in 3 hours in my opinion, but that wouldn't be as proffitable now would it? One word, disappointed.