or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Page 2

post #31 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

LOL.
Make mine a "double."biggrin.gif

I'd go for a triple!

Seriously, I do like long movies as long as it serves the story and the character arcs. But if it's long for length's sake and feels like the editors went out for a smoke and just hit the "auto pilot" button in Avid... I get irked. Yes... irked. biggrin.gif
post #32 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

I'd go for a triple!

Seriously, I do like long movies as long as it serves the story and the character arcs. But if it's long for length's sake and feels like the editors went out for a smoke and just hit the "auto pilot" button in Avid... I get irked. Yes... irked. biggrin.gif
This Hobbit project became a money grab pretty early on in the process...

The book itself is very short in comparison to the LOTR.
It basically has material for one movie and that's about it.
I did a numerical analysis of this in another thread....no one disputed it.wink.gif
post #33 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokilarry View Post

Each individual book of The Lord of the Rings is about 3 times the length of The Hobbit. They did a great skit on Saturday Night Live last week about how many movies are being made out of The Hobbit. They stretched it out to something like 15.

That skit was hilarious I thought! The Hobbit would have worked SO much better as one movie overall I think. It feels so padded right now that I just started to loose interest sitting there watching it which I hate to admit as I LOVE the LOTR movies.
post #34 of 357
Jackson is using material from The Return of the King appendices to stretch the whole thing out to three movies. My copy of the book doesn't have them so I don't know what's there. I figured I would just see all three Hobbit movies before I buy a copy of The Return of the King that contains the appendices.

I thought The Hobbit was great. I was pulled into the movie from the first frame. It was the fastest three hours I've spent in the theater in a long time. I was actually bummed when it ended, I could have gone for more!
post #35 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

That skit was hilarious I thought! The Hobbit would have worked SO much better as one movie overall I think. It feels so padded right now that I just started to loose interest sitting there watching it which I hate to admit as I LOVE the LOTR movies.
+1
post #36 of 357

This movie was shite.  Not complete shite but shite none the less.  PJ took what could have easily been an amazing epic fantasy and ripped it to shreds with retarded, completely over the top, comic book style action, and buffoonishly ridiculous and/or totally Hollywood cliche character design.  I loved the LOTR movies and although PJ made a few unnecessary and detrimental changes, they still managed to capture the essence of the books quite well.  With this first Hobbit movie it seems like he decided to take all the bad stuff he did with LOTR and multiplied it by 10 rolleyes.gif.  What a complete waste....

 

 

ron

post #37 of 357
Unless theres an alternate ending added, I wont bother with this. Weak ending destroyed the entire 3 hours. The one-armed antagonist of the movie doesnt have a scratch on him when the credits roll..."to be continued" kinda thing. This villain, that they had built up the entire movie as in hot pursuit of the protagonists, is unscathed...it felt like a half done movie.
post #38 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokilarry View Post

Each individual book of The Lord of the Rings is about 3 times the length of The Hobbit. They did a great skit on Saturday Night Live last week about how many movies are being made out of The Hobbit. They stretched it out to something like 15.


i liked the 15th movie where all they show is the characters assembling an ikea dresser
post #39 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreHD View Post

Unless theres an alternate ending added, I wont bother with this. Weak ending destroyed the entire 3 hours. The one-armed antagonist of the movie doesnt have a scratch on him when the credits roll..."to be continued" kinda thing. This villain, that they had built up the entire movie as in hot pursuit of the protagonists, is unscathed...it felt like a half done movie.

Though I agree with others that Jackson made some big stylistic and scriptwriting blunders with The Hobbit so far, I do realize that this is the first part of a trilogy. They aren't going to wrap things up like they were three separate movies... it's one story told in three parts (one could argue that two would have been a lot better since the novel was much thinner to begin with plot wise).

What you were left with, AndreHD, was a cliff hanger (quite literally).
post #40 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Hitchman View Post

they could and should have left out the entire Radagast sequence IMHO

The tone. The look. The movements. Everything was just off. Covered in crap, and it didn't mean anything in the scope of the movie except to pad time and take the audience out of the movie. That was a real headscratcher.
post #41 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

The tone. The look. The movements. Everything was just off. Covered in crap, and it didn't mean anything in the scope of the movie except to pad time and take the audience out of the movie. That was a real headscratcher.
Dude, it's algebra: pad time = $1,000,0000,000
post #42 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

i liked the 15th movie where all they show is the characters assembling an ikea dresser

Who would not pay to see the Dwarfs and wizard put together Ikea furniture?
Quote:
Originally Posted by R11 View Post

This movie was shite. Not complete shite but shite none the less. PJ took what could have easily been an amazing epic fantasy and ripped it to shreds with retarded, completely over the top, comic book style action, and buffoonishly ridiculous and/or totally Hollywood cliche character design. I loved the LOTR movies and although PJ made a few unnecessary and detrimental changes, they still managed to capture the essence of the books quite well. With this first Hobbit movie it seems like he decided to take all the bad stuff he did with LOTR and multiplied it by 10 rolleyes.gif . What a complete waste....

That stuff was required for the stereovision effects and of course unnecessary in mono films like LOTR.
post #43 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by wuther View Post

Who would not pay to see the Dwarfs and wizard put together Ikea furniture?
OK, you have a point there....biggrin.gif
post #44 of 357
The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Disappointment !
post #45 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

I'll take a wild guess and say March 19th wink.gif

Hey Morpheo looks like the date might change they have taken it off Amazon.
post #46 of 357
Was that date ever confirmed by the studio, or was it merely a placeholder? I would have expected an announcement to include more than just a date.
post #47 of 357
Found this article about the French blu-rays. Nice steelbooks.

http://collider.com/the-hobbit-blu-ray-details/
post #48 of 357
Thread Starter 
...I've updated the OP with the official synopsis, cover art (both 2D and 3D), and special features...
smile.gif
post #49 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

my god, it's already streched thinner than gold leaf.

Don't you mean like butter scraped over too much bread? wink.gif
post #50 of 357
Is it just me, or are most of those extras just the video blogs they already released during production?

I have a strong suspicion I'm going to skip this release in favor of the Extended Edition (which is there the real BTS docs were on the LOTR releases).
post #51 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Is it just me, or are most of those extras just the video blogs they already released during production?

I have a strong suspicion I'm going to skip this release in favor of the Extended Edition (which is there the real BTS docs were on the LOTR releases).
Like with LOTR, you can expect WB to try to milk every last penny out of this franchise.wink.gif
post #52 of 357
Oh, I have no doubt of that.. lol. But I really did enjoy the film, I just don't want to double-dip this time around like I did with the original LOTR DVD releases.
post #53 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by lokilarry View Post

So, has anyone heard when the actual release date is? Amazon is still showing as not available. You can't even pre-order.

Still waiting to find out too.
post #54 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jedi2016 View Post

Oh, I have no doubt of that.. lol. But I really did enjoy the film, I just don't want to double-dip this time around like I did with the original LOTR DVD releases.

i remember them making it pretty clear that there would be extended lotr editions following up the theatrical dvd releases, so people could avoid double dipping. have they said anything about a later extended edition of the hobbit?
post #55 of 357
I saw the 48FPS 3d version in the theater and I enjoyed it alot. I'm more than happy to sit through a long film that slowly draws you into the world then most wam bam thank you mam films these days. I liked the Original trilogy and felt this one fit right in and I don't see what the complaining is all about.

I like long epic movies, they are pretty rare these days.
post #56 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by swanlee View Post

I saw the 48FPS 3d version in the theater and I enjoyed it alot. I'm more than happy to sit through a long film that slowly draws you into the world then most wam bam thank you mam films these days. I liked the Original trilogy and felt this one fit right in and I don't see what the complaining is all about.

I like long epic movies, they are pretty rare these days.

The complaints have little to do with the length or pacing of the movie, but with the wheat-to-chaff ratio being so very low. We would prefer it to be edited down, not because our butts hurt, but because we saw so much worth editing out. And besides, IMO the pacing of this film was very fast and quite comparable to the pacing of your modern breathless multiplex blockbuster. Nothing at all like a slow-paced noire or a long epic from decades ago.

Ultimately it's a matter of subjective tastes. I'd love a three-hour, slow-paced film based on the Hobbit if I felt it had even two and a half hours of content in it. I just felt this one barely had one hour of content, if that. YMMV.
Edited by CatBus - 2/12/13 at 10:41am
post #57 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

The complaints have little to do with the length or pacing of the movie, but with the wheat-to-chaff ratio being so very low. We would prefer it to be edited down, not because our butts hurt, but because we saw so much worth editing out. And besides, IMO the pacing of this film was very fast and quite comparable to the pacing of your modern breathless multiplex blockbuster. Nothing at all like a slow-paced noire or a long epic from decades ago.

Ultimately it's a matter of subjective tastes. I'd love a three-hour, slow-paced film based on the Hobbit if I felt it had even two and a half hours of content in it. I just felt this one barely had one hour of content, if that. YMMV.
+10000
post #58 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

The complaints have little to do with the length or pacing of the movie, but with the wheat-to-chaff ratio being so very low. We would prefer it to be edited down, not because our butts hurt, but because we saw so much worth editing out. And besides, IMO the pacing of this film was very fast and quite comparable to the pacing of your modern breathless multiplex blockbuster. Nothing at all like a slow-paced noire or a long epic from decades ago.

Ultimately it's a matter of subjective tastes. I'd love a three-hour, slow-paced film based on the Hobbit if I felt it had even two and a half hours of content in it. I just felt this one barely had one hour of content, if that. YMMV.

maybe an hour and a half, but certainly not 3
post #59 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by CatBus View Post

The complaints have little to do with the length or pacing of the movie, but with the wheat-to-chaff ratio being so very low. We would prefer it to be edited down, not because our butts hurt, but because we saw so much worth editing out. And besides, IMO the pacing of this film was very fast and quite comparable to the pacing of your modern breathless multiplex blockbuster. Nothing at all like a slow-paced noire or a long epic from decades ago.

Ultimately it's a matter of subjective tastes. I'd love a three-hour, slow-paced film based on the Hobbit if I felt it had even two and a half hours of content in it. I just felt this one barely had one hour of content, if that. YMMV.

+1

I'd only change that the complaints do in fact have to do with the length of the movie, and to some extent, the pacing. But only because of the aforementioned "wheat to chaff" ratio being so very low. I hated the 48fps with a fiery passion, but my main complaint was that at the conclusion of the movie, going to my car, I didn't feel as though I'd actually watched the beginnings of a story unfold, and I definitely didn't feel as though I'd spent three hours watching three hours of substance on screen.
post #60 of 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by lordcloud View Post

. I hated the 48fps with a fiery passion.
I had been waiting for years and was very excited to see it in action.
Unfortunately, it didn't work with The Hobbit.

Maybe someday, someone will make it work on the big-screen, but PJ didn't (IMO).
Avatar 2, perhaps?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey