Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
Official Hobbit Review Thread #28 - Please post all Hobbit movie reviews in here (or why not re-post yours?)

Superuser / Moderator

Dec 19 2012, 11:48pm

Post #1 of 15 (877 views)
Official Hobbit Review Thread #28 - Please post all Hobbit movie reviews in here (or why not re-post yours?) Can't Post

FYI, we'll probably keep these going through sometime next week to give Aussies, parents with kids getting out of school, and everyone else who hasn't seen the movie yet a chance to post their reviews. If your review is back in one of the first review threads, feel free to re-post it here for reading and discussion.

Also, don't forget that you also stand a chance of winning something special by submitting your own review of The Hobbit - An Unexpected Journey to TORns official reviews section.

Thread 1

Thread 2

Thread 3

Thread 4

Thread 5

Thread 6

Thread 7

Thread 8

Thread 9

Thread 10

Thread 11

Thread 12

Thread 13

Thread 14

Thread 15

Thread 16

Thread 17

Thread 18

Thread 19

Thread 20

Thread 21

Thread 22

Thread 23

Thread 24

Thread 25

Thread 26

Thread 27

Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.

Ataahua's stories

The Shire

Dec 19 2012, 11:53pm

Post #2 of 15 (506 views)
My Hobbit movie review. [In reply to] Can't Post

Ok being a fan of the book i was excited when The Hobbit was released on big screen, I did a short movie review of the film on youtube. Please feel free to watch and tell me if you agree with my views on the movie or not. Thanks



Dec 20 2012, 12:09am

Post #3 of 15 (538 views)
I've seen it twice. [In reply to] Can't Post

Many complaints about the film seem to be, at the end of the day, complaints about the source material. The critics, mainly comparing it with LotR, say that it's not grand and epic enough, the serious themes of LotR are just not there, the characters are not as well-developed, it's episodic, it's got a silly humour, there are SONGS, for goodness' sake, there are too many dwarves. BUT, they admit that Bilbo is a delightful character and Riddles in the Dark is the stand-out moment. Just what I thought when I read The Hobbit after reading LotR first.

Somehow, rather than blaming Tolkien, they are blaming PJ and have refused to see just how hard he's worked to iron out the problems of the book.

I thoroughly enjoyed this film, seen both in 24fps 3D and HFR (which I liked). And I really admire PJ for what he has tried to do here. And what do I think he has tried to do? I think he is trying to mend the "broken back" of the book by blending the whimsicality of the first part of the book with the more epic nature and change of tone of the second half. This, of course, by the time the three films have been seen, will then allow us to segue seamlessly into LotR without a feeling of discord.

So, the first hour of the book presents us with a lovely trip back to Bag End, which I totally enjoyed (but which many of the critics found boring and long-winded). To me, it was a great piece of immersive scene-setting: we get to know and understand Bilbo and are introduced to the dwarves and their quest. And there's some delightful silliness and short songs too - JUST LIKE IN THE BOOK!

But, PJ cleverly brings in some epic overtones by allowing Old Bilbo to tell you all about the dwarven kingdom of Erebor and the coming of Smaug and how the elves of Mirkwood turned their backs on a homeless people. (I'm really looking forward to Thranduil and Co who, I'm certain, will be portrayed with an icy and unpleasant side - shock, horror!) The dwarven underground kingdom is beautifully and grandly realised and I want to go back there. Smaug is quite a terrifying force even when you only catch glimpses of him. All this ups the scale of TH and makes it more than a jolly adventure story; plus you learn about Thorin's tragic history.

As soon as you set out on the journey, a lot of the whimsicality disappears and it becomes more serious as we begin to edge into LotR territory. PJ tries hard with the character development: the relationship between Bilbo, Thorin and Gandalf is done well and he has begun to give us a more rounded picture of some of the dwarves: Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili, Bofur, Ori and Dori get the most attention this time around and I'm sure the others will get their turn in the later films.

Again, a touch of the epic comes in when Balin tells Bilbo why they follow Thorin and gives an emotional and moving account of the Battle of Azanulbizar when he became Oakenshield. Loved Ken Stott as Balin.

Radagast the Brown and the evil doings of the Necromancer are brought in here. I didn't like Radagast but it's not padding as a lot of critics will realise by the second film.

After a beautiful return to Rivendell, the critics were a bit more pleased because the action is non-stop. Goblin-town is very well done, Barry Humphries' voice-over for the grotesque Great Goblin is excellent, and, of course we have the riddle scene with Gollum even better than ever.

The final warg-chase and showdown with Thorin's nemesis, Azog, the Pale Orc who earlier decapitated his grandfather, is very exciting. PJ has changed the story a bit to make it into an over-arcing story-line and it is this which gives the first film some shape. It is PJ's attempt to create more than a series of episodic events and it helps to put the spotlight on Bilbo and Thorin's relationship. I didn't really mind the CGI.

The very last shots make you feel that you want to watch the second film next week.

The Hobbit is an entertaining, humorous, exciting and well-realised film with great acting from everyone, especially Martin Freeman who is a perfect choice for Bilbo and Richard Armitage who is outstanding as Thorin. This is the Thorin I always had in my head when reading the book once I got past the silliness and lack of characterisation of the first half. He absolutely exudes power, even if he is, as the Great Goblin says sneeringly, "king of nothing." He shows why these dwaves are willing to die for him. The characterisation is all in his bearing and in the eyes: the pain, the suffering, the despair, the feeling of failure but also the arrogance and the anger. If you don't look into his eyes, you will miss so much.

And the HFR? My husband and I both thought this was great although we didn't notice a HUGE difference. The images seemed clearer, there was a lot of depth and it seemed easier on the eyes than regular 3D. I'd be more than happy to watch any film in this.

Grey Havens

Dec 20 2012, 12:32am

Post #4 of 15 (501 views)
A part of me died when I read this part! [In reply to] Can't Post

In Reply To
problems of the book.

Choose your words carefully! Wink

Vocalist in the semi-progressive metal band Arctic Eclipse

Superuser / Moderator

Dec 20 2012, 1:23am

Post #5 of 15 (412 views)
Thanks for reposting this. :) / [In reply to] Can't Post


Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."

"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.

Ataahua's stories

Registered User

Dec 20 2012, 2:27am

Post #6 of 15 (462 views)
The Discovery and Adventure Are Not There [In reply to] Can't Post

Visually, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was very underwhelming to me. I think that a lot of fans want to be on the “48 fps or nothing” bandwagon because the quality content of An Unexpected Journey is lacking. That is the way of internet fanboys: if a movie breaks new ground technologically, that is enough to proclaim its superiority. It’s sad. A movie can look as clear and crisp as state-of-the-art HD football (which An Unexpected Journey unfortunately does): if the content isn’t quality, I won’t have any part of it.
As filmmaking goes, An Unexpected Journey was also very underwhelming to me. As far as prequels go, I think The Phantom Menace was much more exciting and ground-breaking. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey recycles and repeats far too much in the way of music, motifs, story structure, visuals, dialogue, effects (and what else am I missing?) from The Lord of the Rings. It didn’t have to be that way. There is no “leap into the unknown” that would have been appropriate for Bilbo’s decision to adventure with a Company of Dwarves. To create that, Peter Jackson and Guillermo del Toro should have recreated, brand new from scratch, almost everything needed for An Unexpected Journey, or not make the movie at all. With a few exceptions, that is what happened in The Phantom Menace. George Lucas waited until he had the technology, ideas, characters, storylines and most importantly, the inspiration to create a different look for the prequels. It was a brand-new Star Wars universe for a prequel story.
The sweet, comfy flashback of Ian Holm and Elijah Wood is where the movie breaks down for me. The spirit of Tolkien’s children’s novel was discovery, imagination and the freshness of the opening sentence (“In a hole in the ground…”). The magic of Tolkien’s Hobbit is that the reader discovers Middle-earth with Bilbo, without presumption or flashback primers, straight from the first word of the first page. That is the tone that fits the majority of the events in the book. Jackson and del Toro’s movie wants to fit seamlessly with Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies. In doing so it forgets The Hobbit’s original place as a stand-alone book only marginally related to Tolkien’s larger works like The Silmarillion. To gradually unfold the tapestry of Middle-earth (instead of beginning with another head-crushing war flashback) as Bilbo adventures with the Dwarves would have been much more authentic with the spirit of the book.
Most of the remainder of my review now contains spoilers. I think that the Dwarves were very well-differentiated to give them personalities and appearances even where Tolkien did not. My favourite in agreement with others is Ken Stott’s wise and grizzled Balin. Fili and Kili were memorable too, as was Dwalin. Ian McKellen was as usual flawless as Gandalf. But to go through each character already familiar to us from The Lord of the Rings would be too headache-inducing, and that is part of the overall problem with the movie. In a three film series, the story could have built gradually to contain characters like Galadriel and Saruman, but in An Unexpected Journey they are not needed or even necessary. But I think there’s one exception.
Radagast the Brown fits the tone of Tolkien’s Hobbit very well, and I’ve always imagined what his insertion into the book would have read like. In An Unexpected Journey, he’s played very well by Sylvester McCoy, and fits a plot point from the novel like a glove (the discovery of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur.) This is the kind of revision Jackson does very well, and even with the car chase scene with the rabbit-drawn sled, I think Radagast is my favourite new adapted supporting character.
Andy Serkis motion-captured as Gollum is still a triumph of human/CGI hybridization. It’s important to remember that the first and only meeting between Bilbo and Gollum involves no initial malice, scheming, plotting, vengeance or giant spiders. Gollum (disappointed with the half-dead goblin that fell into his cave with Bilbo) wants to eat Bilbo and Bilbo needs Gollum to show him the way out. They play a Riddle Game to see who will get their way. Simple, right? But it’s here that another criticism of the movie’s tone needs to be made.
The Riddle Game is very tense and realistic, and Gollum is given a new layer of personality that replaces his murderous lust with mere mutinous greed, and some welcome expressive Hobbit personality. Bilbo and Gollum share a common ancestry as Hobbits and interact seamlessly with a “racial chemistry” as defined by Tolkien. When Gollum loses his magic ring, the moment is too heavy, with clanking sound effects and obvious “large ring prop” from the first Lord of the Rings movie. It is too derivative.
When he wrote The Hobbit Professor Tolkien didn’t know the magic ring would be the thread with a theoretical sequel. Would it have killed Jackson and del Toro to tone down the cosmic significance of the One Ring and let the moment play out as Bilbo outwitting a pitiful and presently minor villain with his own “precious” (not yet the One Ring)? This continues when Bilbo puts on the ring and chooses not to kill the pitiful Gollum. This should be a moment built slightly and organically, not with a heavy hand and a thematic sledgehammer to the audience’s head. These two points are examples of what I mean by An Unexpected Journey not being true to the spirit of the book. I can handle some deviations from the details!
The finale to An Unexpected Journey is a bro-hug between King Dwarf Thorin Oakenshield and Hobbit-commoner Bilbo Baggins. I was not convinced, though Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman did elicit a tear from me with their dedicated performances. In The Lord of the Rings convincing, paired relationships abounded: Frodo and Sam, Merry and Pippin, Aragon and Arwen, Legolas and Gimli, Saruman and Grima, Gollum and Smeagol, Eowyn and Merry, Gandalf and Pippin. I could go on. In An Unexpected Journey, the only believable effortless chemistry is between Bilbo and Gollum. The weight of Jackson’s obsession with visual and literal continuity with his Lord of the Rings movies overwhelms Gandalf’s scenes with Bilbo and the Dwarves, and the White Council wastes McKellen’s masterful acting on an unnecessary expository scene.
In the first ten minutes of The Fellowship of the Ring, I became confident the audience was in good hands for the rest of the movie, and I was rewarded until the very end of The Return of the King. Jackson’s gift is in balancing emotional character scenes with jaw-dropping visual showcase scenes, and there are a few of those in An Unexpected Journey like the Stone Giants and the Goblin Kingdom, but that is not enough. I think that the many different storylines in the Rings movies balance and intertwine flawlessly, but An Unexpected Journey can’t do that sort of thing and still stay true to the “There and Back Again” spirit of the source material. That is why the movie is fatally flawed, and I’m not confident about the next two, given that the majority of the material is already shot and the tone and tangents of the characters and stories are already set in stone. Smaug and the Battle of Five Armies may be grand special effects achievements, but I think the damage is already done.
Also, I don’t think seeing it in Almighty 48 FPS is going to change my mind. So give it up, fanboys.


Dec 20 2012, 2:37am

Post #7 of 15 (463 views)
My first review [In reply to] Can't Post

*drum-roll please*Cool

This is not going to be as long as I planned, for it will take some time for my feelings to be settled on the film, and there are some points I've already responded to in existing threads, but after seeing the film 3 times (the first 2 in IMAX 3D 48fps, and the 3rd in regular 24 fps) here are my initial thoughts. I am still going back and reading all that I missed in the month or so I've bowed out of the site, in the interests of being non-spoiled--for those who don't know, I still have not bought or listened to even any fragment of the official Deluxe Soundtrack. reviews, both from critics and those on TORN, I am just beginning to read. So the consenus memes/arguments floating around--and no doubt there are many--I don't know the majority of those either. So I'll have to write as if this were 4 AM Dec 14th. Which I could not have done even if I had wanted to that night--was in no fit state to write.

First, let me state my feelings going into the film. I, of course, was in a high state of excitement, despite my outward appearance of calm. I came with 2 friends who were both Tolkien nerds and sci-fi afictionados. Much more "genre-oriented" company than the people who went with me to FOTR. it was funny, reflecting back on fond memeories of the LOTR saga as I experienced it. The IMAX theater, the actual room, where I saw this was the exact same room where I sat, 11 yrs before, for FOTR, 12 yrs for The Phantom Menace where I was inspired to plait my hair with a Padawan braid (the closest I've ever come to dressing in costume for a movie), 15 yrs before for Titanic, and 19 yrs before for Schindler's List. It was not an IMAX screen in 1997. it was converted to an IMAX screen around 1999 or so and remains the only one in my area. There is always the bittersweet feeling you get when you visit a place where you have a long and fruitful history of rich and fond memories. You are aware of the passage of time and where your life was then, on who your friends were and who remains, who has been added, who has left, and where you have been and where you are going as a person. if you are a certain age you are acutely aware of milestones in your life, be they happy or sad. The biggest one for me was the knowledge that the last time I was in this room for an Peter Jackson Tolkien adaptation, my mother was alive and her husband was still my step-father. If one can be too old and still call someone a stepfather. And my sister was....well, still herself....You can hit your thirties and lose your parents and siblings suddenly and unepectedly, and it does age you before your time.mentally, at least, though your appearance does not change. Well, mine has...between 30 and 40, mostly as a result of all that, I've gotten a cuple grey hairs in my bangs. it colors your perceptions and view of the world. Even of past events. I remember following TORN just as breathlessly in the weeks leading up to FOTR. And it seems that at the theater the crowds were tounger, in costume...maybe at my IMAX people were more sober. There were contests. Craziness. Countdowns and silliness and fun. Now, the whole screeing took on a different tone.
(sorry, but at sober times in my life I measure it by happy events if I can...this meant something to me.)

My mind was at different places as I waited for the previews to be over. I remembered, too, a peice I'd written in a thread in Main somewhere back in Oct or so, about what TH meant to the world at a time when it was in so much turmoil. How I hoped history seemed to eerily parallel and I hoped TH as a film would be the solace and comfort TH the children's book was in the late 30's.

When I was a child, I spake as a child...but now I have put away childish thoughts...


Well, so much for philosophy. It's easy for me to go down that road...but I wonder how many more of you who were around 10 yrs ago were in a kind of "the road goes ever on and on" frame of mind, even in the midst of celebration...
i won't bore you any further.

I was going to do a "The Good, The bad, The Ugly" kind of thing, but I may as well get the worst out of the way first.

Since I have discovered it has been such a polarizing issue, I may as well get it over with and state my opinion on the 48 issue. Let me state that my views on 3D, while well known on TORn, played NO PART in my view on the 48 issue. part of the reason why I stayed off TORN for so long was my desire to go into the film so completely unspoiled that I would have absolutely no idea what to expect, not even be tipped off on what to look for or be aware of on any issue. And that meant 48 most of all. I wanted to seperate my views on 48 from those on 3D, if at all possible. I really and sincerely beleived that Peter wanted to do a Technicolr type of thing--lure the downloaders into the theaters again, by upping the ante and giving them something new. I was excited so see what he had wrought, after watching all the vlogs but the last one. And..and...

It fell flat. I, who had never had so much as any kind of adverse reaction to 3D in my life (physically) had one here. In spades. The first half hour, it looked to me like hyper-inflated 3D, but my eyes got used to it. By the time we left the Shire, I thought I could get used to this. The color and vibrancy were fantastic--had a very fairy-tale look and feel, like a 3D Technicolor. (and I LOVE Technicolor and thought it was one of the great tragedies of cinema when, partly for financial reasons, it was discontinued in the early 70s.) But around the Rivendell sequence I developed a splitting headache--I who, as I stated in another thread, had no health problems or vision issues, took no meds of any kind, didn't wear glasses, and had never had any kind of reaction to 3D in my life--regular or "Real" 3D. Unfortunately this ended up souring my first viewing experience, and my friend, who was younger than I and similarily healthy and glasses-free, had full-blown motion sickness when we left, so we had to sit down on a bench for a few minutes and then she had to lean on her husband to get to their car.
The 2nd time I went back, on Sunday, thinking it was me, I had the same reaction, and roughly in the same place in the film. Now I find out that I am far from alone--and not jst among critics with an agenda. Unfortunately, having such a mysterius and unexpected reaction, I of course cannot praise the new format, at least in its current form. IMO This is far from the future of cinema, if Peter does not address certain issues. I discuss these issues more in the "Peter responds to 48 fps Critics" thread which is now on Pg 2.

(To be continued)


Dec 20 2012, 3:30am

Post #8 of 15 (436 views)
The fact [In reply to] Can't Post

that you use the word "fanboys" and "give it up, fanboys" is very telling. I'm continuing my review anyway but now that your review went up at the same time the first part of mine did, and you made some points I disagree with, I have no choice but to address them.

Anyone who continues to use the word "fanboy" or "Tolkien geek" or "nerd" should set off alarm bells. Nobody who takes Tolkien seriously, or who doesn't come to a Tolkien adaptation with preconcieved notions or agenda, uses that word. We take it as an insult. You'll notice that even negative "official" reviewers of the film hardly even use the word or similar terminology anymore. it took a long time for Tolkien fans to be treated in the media with the resepct they deserve--we're not stereotypes of any kind.
There is a poster on here who hates--and that is a mild word--Jackson's LOTR films, he has carved out quite a niche for himself on this site as Devil's Advocate and contrarian, but we have never seen him refer to Tolkien fans as "fanboys." So some respect please.

Secondly: the fact that you unfavorably compare The SW Prequels with TH is telling--not even Time magazine's Richard Corliss could bring himself to do such a thing. And this opinion is coming from that rare soul on TORN who loved the prequels and has defended Lucas's mentality in making them many times. Briefly--while George Lucas waited until the technolgy was right, he proceeded to misuse it (at least in TPM; AOTC and ROTS were vastly superior and 3 of my favorite films of the past 20 yrs) in many ways. Some of your criticims of AUJ are valid, but to imply, for instance, that the character moments in TPM, for example, surpassed AUJ is ridicuous. While the CGI-enhanced surroundings in TPM were spectacular and rightly evoked the magnificence of the Old Republic (a fact lost on those raised on the "lived-in, used universe" of the old SW films and expected to see the same grittiness and squalor in the glory days of the Old Republic, which would, for artistic purposes, have been ridiculous) the acting--if you could call it such--in TPM was cringe-inducing. I thoght it then and still do now. All the characters speak in a monotone, even Liam Neeson for the most part, the whole films says "I acted to a greenscreen."

As for your criticism that the "pairings" in FOTR were more convincing, and thus the character arcs better, a key difference between the 2 films is that FOTR starts right out of the gate. The pairings are of couse more convincing b/c they're already there when the film starts. Right from the very first shot of them together at Bilbo's party, the audience learns that Merry and Pippin have been friends and fellow troublemakers for a long time. Frodo and Sam have a similar history as friends, even as the non-book audience learned that he worked at bag End for Frodo. Aragorn and Arwen--within seconds of a non-book audience being introduced to them, the film tells us they are at least sweethearts if not an outright item. So there's no awkward introductions, no feeling each other out, no learning to live with each other b/c they're not needed--they're already there. We are embarking on a long journey and nobody knows each other very well yet--at least Bilbo doesn't, and how would you "pair" the Dwaves when peter makes it clear that some of them are meeting after being sperated a long time? The friendships are still to be formed and theywill be deeloped more in TDOS.
by contrast, Bilbo and Thorin's "bro-hug", as you put it, means so much more b/c (or didn't you notice?) Thorin spends the previous 2 hours snidely and rudely dismissing him at every opportunity he gets. It is NOT a "bro-hug" they are in no way "bros"and never will be. It's not even a truce--it's Thorin coming to realize just what kind of person (hobbit) Bilbo is, that he is more than he seems. And not only that--its a foreshadowing to the end of the book, which I won't spoil for those who haven't read it (however few that may be)--the most tear-jerking of all moments. Bilbo says the quest means something to him now that he relaizes how much Home means to him, and tells Thorin that he wants to help him get his home back. That's all the world means to a Hobbit--the simple pleasures of Home. And that maybe moves Thorin so much b/c in thinking about vengeance on Smaug he's forgotten that simple fact as well. This is going to play out gradually over the course of 3 films, how this high moment is fleeting and it all vanishes as Thorin gets the dragon-sickess and he enters a state of Boromir-like madness. How Bilbo maintains his hobbity innocence and simplicity is going to be beautiful to watch..and this is the first step in a so-far perfect character arc. Shore's use of the Coronation theme is brilliant too-audiences may go "oh we GET it!" but that' s only b/c we're not seeing the films in chronolgical order. the ref means nothing to us at this stage.

However your opinion on old Bilbo is spot on. I'm still not sure why Frodo is needed, though old Bilbo, maybe...though now Peter will have to go back and film Sean Astin passing the Red Book on to Elanor now to balance out the bookended 6-film narrative. (And I'd love to see a cameo by a teenage Alexandra Astin playing a grown Elanor!they could do this with genius make-up-though they'd better be careful as 48fps is not kind to any but the very best makeup jobs!)

Now--the music..To continue. I also agree that there aren't enough big Themes, but I wonder if that is b/c there isn't enough material with dramtic heft, or b/c the breaking of the film structure threw a monkey wrench in Shore's composition. I'll have to listen to the offical soundtrack to be sure. To bring up SW--JW did introduce more themes and they were good. But as I recall, all the great stuff didn't come until AOTC. The one memorable new cue in TPM was Darth Maul's theme--the one with lyrics in Sanskrit, introduced at the end scenes of the film. I expect TH trilogy will follow a similar arc--we all know Shore is up to the job. Plus, the musical world of ME revolves around places, just as the book does--NOT people. There will be a Laketown theme, a Lonely Mountian theme, a Smaug theme, etc. There was no choice but to rehash Rivendell b/c it already had a theme!


Dec 20 2012, 5:51am

Post #9 of 15 (407 views)
upon second viewing [In reply to] Can't Post

I liked the film a lot more. Azog history rewrite will always be a problem, but it worked in a limited way. Wish his design was better. Overall it fit LOTR's universe while being slightly different tonally which can be expected.

If LOTR films were made with this technology...my oh my what films they would be.


Dec 20 2012, 12:17pm

Post #10 of 15 (317 views)
Sorry about that, painjoiker, LOL! [In reply to] Can't Post

The fact that TH is a "badly-written" book (and don't forget that Tolkien was finding his way as an author when he wrote this) does not prevent it from being a "good" book or even a great one. I come to the book with a bit of a double-think: one part of me analyses it as a critical English teacher - and that side of me says that LotR is an almost perfectly-written book, but not this one - and the other part of me looks at some of the wonderful set scenes in TH and the creation of Bilbo, Gollum and Smaug and can see why it has given so many people such intense pleasure down the years.

Hope that soothes your pain a bit!


Dec 20 2012, 2:21pm

Post #11 of 15 (302 views)
Sorry [In reply to] Can't Post

But this is not a "fanboy" site.

Tol Eressea

Dec 20 2012, 3:10pm

Post #12 of 15 (299 views)
but we have never seen him refer to Tolkien fans as "fanboys." So some respect please [In reply to] Can't Post


However, on other Tolkien forums, the words fanboys and headles peasants have been heard, when mentioning the people on TORN.

Tolkien fans dont even respect each other.

Kangi Ska

Dec 21 2012, 2:54am

Post #13 of 15 (300 views)
Well now that I have seen An Unexpected Journey four times [In reply to] Can't Post

I feel qualified to review what I have seen. First I would deal with the format of the movie. I have seen it twice in high frame rate 3D and twice in 2D. I would like to see it in high frame rate 2D. I thought the high frame rate improved the 3D viewing but I am still not a fan of 3D. I find it distracting and it lessens my viewing pleasure. I chose a different theater for today's 2D viewing and found it to be greatly improved over my first 2D experience. The images on the screen were much sharper and almost appeared to be in 3D. This leads me to wonder about the quality of projection effecting your movie viewing experience.
Now I would like to deal with the content of the movie. I would start by saying that I enjoyed An Unexpected Adventure more with each successive viewing. The acting is superb. The story runs close enough to the book to not cause any scream-out-loud moments such as I had when Frodo and Sam were drug to Osgiliath in the Lord of the Rings. I thought the Azog pursuit thread worked well though I did not like the Azog character. I agree with those who think a man in prosthetic makeup would have worked better. I kept thinking that the Orc's white skin reminded me of a white Naugahyde sofa I used to own. He was not half as intimidating as Lurtz, the Orc who killed Boramir in Fellowship.
All together I thought that An Unexpected Adventure made a very good start on The Hobbit. KS

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.


Dec 21 2012, 8:56pm

Post #14 of 15 (241 views)
Curious [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi Kanji ... I've known you were not a fan of 3D for some time now, so I am not surprised that you enjoyed the 2D version more. If I am reading between the lines of what you said regarding the HFR improving the 3D viewing some, that you are a fan of & liked the 48fps...?

Regarding different experiences with different experiences at different theatres, I have also noticed that this in the past, and there can be a big difference between different theatres, and sometimes even watching it a week later at the same theatre can sometimes be quite different (usually not as clear & crisp as opening night).

I thought the white Azog was a man with prosthetic makeup and did not realize it was digital until reading your review. I've only seen the film once in HFR 3D, and found it so realistic looking & the CGI so good, that I couldn't tell what was digital or not most of the time! ...Do you know if Azog was a Del Toro creation? Looks kinda like a character he would dream up...

Anyway, I agree that the acting was top notch ... I was on team Freeman from day 1 several years ago (not the James McAvoy team), and so I'm really glad that Freeman has validated my strong position that he would make the perfect young Bilbo. When they went from older to younger Bilbo sitting on the bench smoking, it just felt like it was the same person. I was surprised at how good Freeman was...flawless and better than I thought, even with my high expectations. All of the acting was great. Ian and Andy stepped up their game and the dwarves were all great too. I didn't realize they were just acting until the credits started to roll and I came back to reality ;)

Really can't wait to see the film again (in any format)! Really like what PJ and James Cameron are doing for the film industry with the higher frame rates. Cameron is working with 60fps...do you know if PJ is doing all 3 Hobbit films in 48fps or has there been any talk of 60fps?


"The last words Albus Dumbledore spoke to the pair of us?
Harry is the best hope we have. Trust him."

(This post was edited by sphdle1 on Dec 21 2012, 8:59pm)

Kangi Ska

Dec 21 2012, 9:44pm

Post #15 of 15 (251 views)
Well [In reply to] Can't Post

I do think a 48 frame per second 2D release might sell the high frame rate format. It did seem to improve the quality of the 3D image.
With digital projection there is no film to become fuzzy, blurred, broken, faded or scratched. There is only the quality of the screen and the projector (And its adjustment) to account for the disparity in what is viewed on the screen.
I do not think Azog was a Del Toro design. If it was it might have been taken from an early concept meant for human in prostheses. My main problem was not with the CG but with the color of the ORC's skin. It did not read as natural. There was no translucence, no blood under that hide. The scars should have had a greater contrast from the untouched flesh. I might go along with those who suggest that the Azog plot line might have been a late addition to the movie, added when the split into three parts occurred.
I will be going to see it again with Mrs Kangi over the holiday weekend.

Kangi Ska Resident Trickster & Wicked White Crebain
Life is an adventure, not a contest.

At night you can not tell if crows are black or white.


Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.