Rate The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[The Josh]

Radagast by all accounts is a odd duck. Dude loves in a Forrest and doesn't really interact with people he's not gonna be normal. Plus he has to be different than Gandalf and Saruman to stand out. Saruman book or movie doesn't care for Radagast. He'll be in the others at last the next one as I think he leads Gandalf to Dol Guldur to see what's up.

 

[fronkenstein]

Probably due to the differences in the books. Tom Bombadil didn't fit at all in LotR and it stuck out like a sore thumb whereas because The Hobbit was written more lighthearted, it fit more. I wouldn't have cared either way if he were in there or not. He was a small blip on the screen compared to other things. And with this being just part one, we don't know what will come up with that character later, if anything.

I think when all is said and done, and more of this trilogy comes out, some will look back on the first part more positively. That's how I was with Fellowship.

Good points, all. We shall see.

Bombadil/Radegast was only one of my issues...this represents the tonal difference between the books that I don't think Jackson should have carried over to the movies. The movies are only interpretations though and, again only my opinion, but it would have made more sense had the Hobbit followed a similar, more mature tone that TLOTR established. Why? Too many reasons to write about. I think there are probably people on both sides of this. And I can certainly understand being a purist but I stepped off that path some time ago. HyI know, again getting all meta critic about it but whatever.

 

[The Josh]

The Hobbit is not the same tone though as The Lord of the Rings. Making them of the same tone would be a mistake and would get him eaten alive by fans of the book. That's more than say leaving Tom B out that's literally making The Hobbit something it's not. I don't think any fan of Tolkien would be ok with that. I'm by no means a purist before anyone says anything.

Edit: Actually adding the white council stuff, dol guldur, etc gave it an already more serious tone which is all it needs. As I said it would be a mistake to do more but I think the GA would have liked the other as it would have made it more Lord of the Rings redo. Jackson did right by both making it how he did.

 

[rivera2171]

Saw it today in 3D 48 FPS. It was an absolutley incredible experience! I loved watching it in that frame rate. All of the special effects were just fine. The CGI was very well done.
And Radaghast was great. He is a nature loon. Even Saruman says he has a fondness for the mushrooms in the forest. I would think they are of the hallucinogenic variety.

 

[The Ween]

I'm still wondering if it's the theater that makes the difference on the 48fps.

 

[The Josh]

It's possible. One theater that I went to the other day had terrible sound for anyone not directly on screen. So it's totally possible IMO.

 

[The Ween]

It's possible. One theater that I went to the other day had terrible sound for anyone not directly on screen. So it's totally possible IMO.

I have two theaters to choose from and if I want to see 3D I know not to go to one of them because it's always really dark.

Since we had our Christmas at my brother's last weekend, we'll probably go to Denny's tomorrow since it's the only place open. I might have to have a Shire sausage!

Oh, and Denny's is giving away Hobbit cards with every meal. I might have to see if I can talk them out of more.

 

[The Josh]

Normally the that theater has good sound but that room was awful anytime someone wasn't directly on screen. You could hardly hear Saruman during the first part of the White Council bit.

Well, if you can get some extras ill pay ya for a set.

 

[Sachiel]

I hated the HFR and my theater had a bright picture and great sound.

Then it would be even more boring and monotonous.


Instead of the nice, sweeping classical "Hobbit/Dwarf/Misty Mountain" theme, we'd have Hans Zimmer playing with his keyboard and guitar with loud midgets chanting.

Oh, and Gollum wouldn't be understandable and Bilbo would sound retarded and nasally.

Yes, but it would still be amazing.

 

[CelticPredator]

I'm still wondering if it's the theater that makes the difference on the 48fps.

It's not. HFR looks like dump no matter where you are.

If you like movies, and are a fan of movies, and appreciate what a movie is, it'll annoy you.

I come to see a film, not a theme park ride.

 

[The Ween]

Normally the that theater has good sound but that room was awful anytime someone wasn't directly on screen. You could hardly hear Saruman during the first part of the White Council bit.

Well, if you can get some extras ill pay ya for a set.

If I can get an extra set, I'll give it to you!

 

[jedibear]

4/10

Visually stunning.
Over-the-top action.
Bland characters.

No sense of wonder here. Was PJ's heart just not in it?

 

[CelticPredator]

Was Tolkens?

 

[DiFabio]

Some of the scenes in 48 fps were actually pretty good, especially when it came to CGI sequences. Dare I say it looked better than the actual, regular film in some parts.

It was the real people and locations that were jarring and terrible. I couldn't handle actors speeding up and I couldn't handle a majority of the scenes. It made me sick and took me out, especially at Bag End and Rivendell. Things like Goblin town or any special effects sequence looked fantastic though, can't lie.

If there was somehow a way to adjust the 48 frames per second in the actual theater experience so it was only for certain sequences or scenes, I think that might be better.

 

[The Josh]

It's not. HFR looks like dump no matter where you are.

If you like movies, and are a fan of movies, and appreciate what a movie is, it'll annoy you.

I come to see a film, not a theme park ride.

It didn't look like dump to me. It may have to you but remember YOU are not everyone.

 

[The Josh]

4/10

Visually stunning.
Over-the-top action.
Bland characters.

No sense of wonder here. Was PJ's heart just not in it?

Questions for you then.

How was there no sense of wonder?
Why did you think the characters were bland?
Why do you think that his heart wasn't in it? Sorry a fairly ridiculous statement.

My guess is you've never read The Hobbit and expected it to be a redo of Lord of the Rings.

 

[jedibear]

Now, now Josh....I'm not trying to start something here...

Here's little lengthier comment here on the movie from me...

https://www.sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33180&page=693

I'll give it another go later....this first viewing just left me cold.

And....considering that they were looking for another director (and actually had one) to take this on and Jackson was just going to produce....well, not such a ridiculous statement after all, eh?

 

[Cocoboloboy]

4/10

Visually stunning.
Over-the-top action.
Bland characters.

No sense of wonder here. Was PJ's heart just not in it?

I was wondering the same thing about PJ...and actually the same about the other actors that revisited Midle Earth.

 

[The Josh]

Now, now Josh....I'm not trying to start something here...

Here's little lengthier comment here on the movie from me...

https://www.sideshowcollectors.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33180&page=693

I'll give it another go later....this first viewing just left me cold.

And....considering that they were looking for another director (and actually had one) to take this on and Jackson was just going to produce....well, not such a ridiculous statement after all, eh?

Was just asking questions. Not important really. Not sure when you're gonna see it again but read the book. Might help you enjoy it more next time.

 

[fronkenstein]

The Hobbit is not the same tone though as The Lord of the Rings. Making them of the same tone would be a mistake and would get him eaten alive by fans of the book. That's more than say leaving Tom B out that's literally making The Hobbit something it's not. I don't think any fan of Tolkien would be ok with that. I'm by no means a purist before anyone says anything.

Edit: Actually adding the white council stuff, dol guldur, etc gave it an already more serious tone which is all it needs. As I said it would be a mistake to do more but I think the GA would have liked the other as it would have made it more Lord of the Rings redo. Jackson did right by both making it how he did.

I respect your passion Josh but I am a big Tolkien fan and I think the movie as an entertainment piece would have benefitted greatly had they changed the tone. Again, I do understand that many would be on the other side of this.

Adding the council seemed out of place for me as well. Oh well. Hopefully we'll come together about the sequel.