The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers)

[Tiberius]

Set Harth wrote:

---

It's starting to feel like something like that is happening.

Or people are looking for reasons to hate the film.

I hope you don't think that I was looking for a way to hate the film. On the contrary, I loved LotR and I'm looking forward to seeing the Hobbit. I just felt that the HFR technique didn't work right yet.

[JarodRussell]

HFR is just a technical aspect. Criticizing it for HFR is like criticizing it for color, surround sound, screen resolution or even screen size.

[Mark de Vries]

Klaus wrote:

---

It certainly does feel like the reaction of people here to HFR is widely disparate... some like it, some are neutral [my reaction], and some hate it completely.

I wonder if there are variations between the way different theaters project it, like the brightness issue in 3D bulbs...?

I've got another option: I didn't notice it. Then again, I don't see 3D either (with 3D glasses, I see the movie like regular 2D). It's my eyes being wonky, so maybe that's why I don't notice the HFR either.

[RoJoHen]

Finally got around to seeing it this afternoon. My only real criticism of the film, as many others have stated, is that certain scenes, especially the opening sequences in The Shire and some of the battles, are far too drawn out. Peter Jackson needs a lesson in editing. That said, I really did enjoy it. I saw it in 2D, and I honestly have no idea if it was HFR or not. It looked great either way, and I'm looking forward to the next two parts.

I also think my theater had the volume turned down a little bit, as I had to strain to hear some of the dialogue, but I doubt that was an issue with the film itself.

I'd probably give it a B.

[Set Harth]

Mark de Vries wrote:

---

I've got another option: I didn't notice it. Then again, I don't see 3D either (with 3D glasses, I see the movie like regular 2D). It's my eyes being wonky, so maybe that's why I don't notice the HFR either.

I've gotta ask: if you can't see 3D why would you pay extra to see a 3D film? Did you feel like making a donation to the struggling film industry?

RoJoHen wrote:

---

also think my theater had the volume turned down a little bit, as I had to strain to hear some of the dialogue, but I doubt that was an issue with the film itself.

I had the same problem, but more toward the beginning of the film.

RoJoHen wrote:

---

I saw it in 2D, and I honestly have no idea if it was HFR or not.

If you saw it in 2D, it wasn't HFR.

[Alidar Jarok]

Gov Kodos wrote:

---

The best one can explain the difference between LOTR and The Hobbit is to say different authors, Frodo and Bilbo. In the real world, stuff changed

While that's a good in-universe explanation, the question is if it's the right artistic choice. Tolkein, imo, thought it wasn't, which is why he tried to make the Hobbit more serious as time went on.

[Gov Kodos]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

While that's a good in-universe explanation, the question is if it's the right artistic choice. Tolkein, imo, thought it wasn't, which is why he tried to make the Hobbit more serious as time went on.

Tolkien likely would have liked to have re-written The Hobbit more extensively. The Humphrey Carter biography notes Tolkien's later distaste for the aspects that talked down to children and material that was -too like contemporary delusions about 'fairy stories'- (paraphrased from the bio) The Hobbit wasn't originally part of the world of The Silmarillion, but was drawn into LOTR and The Silmarrilion over time and revision, and I wouldn't be surprised if Tolkien would agree with you about revising more, but he could revise endlessly as he was a perfectionist at heart about his Middle Earth.

[Hunter X]

Set Harth wrote:

---

If you saw it in 2D, it wasn't HFR.

The theatre I saw it in was advertising three options:
1. 3D and HFR
2. 3D and no HFR
3. 2D and HFR

Interestingly, I just checked their listings against and they've dropped the 2D HFR option, so maybe they made a mistake in saying they offered that in the first place.

[JD]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure it would have had to have been. AFAIK there is no 2D HFR version.

[Hunter X]

It would be funny if other theatres have made the same mistake, and viewers have come out complaining about the "fake" look of HFR in their supposed 2D HFR viewing.

[RoJoHen]

Set Harth wrote:

---

If you saw it in 2D, it wasn't HFR.

Fair enough. I honestly never cared enough to pay attention to such things. There were a few parts, however, that I could tell were definitely intended to be see in 3-D. There was a brief moment during the battle with the Goblins where the entire scene looked almost intentionally distorted, as if I was watching it with the wrong type of eyes.

[Set Harth]

Hunter X wrote:

---

The theatre I saw it in was advertising three options:
1. 3D and HFR
2. 3D and no HFR
3. 2D and HFR

Interestingly, I just checked their listings against and they've dropped the 2D HFR option, so maybe they made a mistake in saying they offered that in the first place.

I would tend to think so, especially since "2D and no HFR" should have been one of the options even if "2D HFR" had been a real option.

RoJoHen wrote:

---

There were a few parts, however, that I could tell were definitely intended to be see in 3-D.

Now when I go back and watch the LOTR films I keep seeing scenes that appear to be well suited for 3-D. For example there's this firework effect in the beginning of FOTR that becomes a fan of firework-spears shooting straight at the viewer.

[Skywalker]

Set Harth wrote:

---

Now when I go back and watch the LOTR films I keep seeing scenes that appear to be well suited for 3-D. For example there's this firework effect in the beginning of FOTR that becomes a fan of firework-spears shooting straight at the viewer.

That would have been cool to see.

In one of the production diaries for The Hobbit, Jackson actually said that he would have filmed LOTR in 3D if the current technology had been there at the time.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

All right, here it is.

The BIG question, no joke.

I haven't read the book in forever, so that's why I can't answer it, but this reviewer has the same feat I do, that we won't actually see Smaug in all his splendor until the third film. What do you guys think? In spite of the title of the second film, I'm afraid it's going to just tease us.

[Mr Light]

No way, Movie 2 will be all about Smaug, the way Two Towers was all about Saruman. Movie 3 will be Battle of 5 Armies.

I just read the book and there's not a lot of events between Frying Pan and Smaug. You've got Beorn, spiders, elves, Laketown, that's it!