The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ::: Dec. 14th, 2012

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-19869374

Quote :

Hobbit premiere to take place in 'Middle Earth'

Next month's world premiere of The Hobbit will see New Zealand's capital Wellington renamed Middle Earth, after the film's fictional setting.

The city will spend 1.1 million New Zealand dollars (£557,800) preparing for the event on 28 November.

The film is the first in a trilogy, with director Peter Jackson returning to JRR Tolkien's novels after his hit adaptations of Lord Of The Rings.

Jackson lives in Wellington and filming took place throughout New Zealand.

Other plans for the premiere at the Embassy Theatre include a red carpet stretching 500 yards through the city centre, Hobbit artwork and an artisan festival.

The first of the trilogy, which stars British actors Martin Freeman and Sir Ian McKellen, is subtitled An Unexpected Journey.

Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown revealed that the city will be officially renamed "The Middle of Middle Earth" for three weeks around the premiere, to reflect its position at the heart of New Zealand's film industry, which now employs more than 3,000 people.

The new name will be reflected on postmarks on letters and the main local newspaper as the city "has been integral in bringing the fantasy world of JRR Tolkien to life on the big screen".

Jackson said he was "thrilled" about the plans.

"Nowhere else in the world does a premiere quite like Wellington, and I'm very grateful for the support of the Mayor, the Council and all Wellingtonians," he added.

"It's special showing any film to an audience for the first time, but even more so when it's in your home town."

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is due for world-wide release on 14 December, with second film The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug due in December 2013.

The final instalment The Hobbit: There and Back Again is expected to be released around July 2014.

Oh man. Everytime I think my great southern land is a bit weak when it come to its national identity, I remember that our near neighbours have a national identity that revolves around being "not Australia" and a fantasy movie series.

Jesus Christ. I'm on the short list who couldn't give two s***s about these movies.

The Boring Bit

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Jesus Christ. I'm on the short list who couldn't give two s***s about these movies.

I'm with ya.

Jack Wade wrote:

The White Tuxedo wrote:

Jesus Christ. I'm on the short list who couldn't give two s***s about these movies.

I'm with ya.

I fear it'll be nominated for Best Pic, and I've made it a completely arbitrary point of seeing all of the Best Picture nominees.

I hate fantasy.

I, for one, welcome our new barefoot overlords.

I hate Hobbits most of all. Gandalf is fine, but he's Sir Ian.

I'd like to engage in a little Hobbit genocide.

The soundtrack is bloody great, as were the LOTR soundtracks (why are the 007 ost so lacking in comparison). And I am on countdown to the Hobbit.

saint mark wrote:

The soundtrack is bloody great, as were the LOTR soundtracks (why are the 007 ost so lacking in comparison). And I am on countdown to the Hobbit.

I'll always stand by the music and production design on the LOTR films.

Plus Sir Ian, Sir Christoper, and Brad Dourif who should be knighted.

So yeah, gonna see THE HOBBIT tomorrow. Never would have gone to the midnight showing but I got an invite so I might as well. Don't know jack about this movie besides a bunch of dudes going on an adventure...

In defense of the Hobbit, it is by far the superior of Tolkien's books. This is coming from a person that has a hard time getting invested in the other three because of their knack of force feeding an entirely different world, cultures, and history down your throat. The Hobbit is actually quite entertaining especially when Smaug is added into the mix. However, Jackson got Hobbit happy and took the best part of the Hobbit (its brevity) and threw it out the window. We'll see if it can stand three films or even one.

Part 3 should be titled THE HOBBIT: WRINGING CASH FROM A STONE.

Chief of SIS wrote:

In defense of the Hobbit, it is by far the superior of Tolkien's books.

It's more digestible than Tolkien's LORD OF THE RINGS, but it's nowhere near as emotionally rich.

Good ol' Alan Jacobs takes on THE HOBBIT:

Quote :

My review of The Hobbit in one word: Meh.

My review of The Hobbit in twelve words: Freeman’s magnificent, but the human story is overwhelmed by video-game aesthetics.

I was pretty close to the fourth of the four Hobbit-anticipating camps I presented the other day, but it turned out that I only got to spend about an hour-and-a-half in Middle-earth, and had to spend the rest in a Tolkien-trademarked version of World of Warcraft.

Your Next Challenge: Avoid Being Crushed by the Stone Giants!
Your Next Challenge: Escape from the Goblin King!
Your Next Challenge: Fight the Pale Orc and His Wargs!

Except it wasn’t my challenge at all: all I could to was watch the dwarves bounce around from horror to horror. My hands felt empty and useless without the controller they so obviously needed. Video-game aesthetics are built around the assumption of manual activity: they work far better when you have something to do. I didn’t really want to sit passively and watch Peter Jackson play with his Xbox but that’s what I felt was happening to me for much of the second half of the movie. All I could do was sigh and wait for Peter to finish so we might return for a while to something like a human story.

I'm off work on Monday, so I might go and see this then ... the review I read that said that it was a 2-hour movie utterly unnecessarily padded out to 2 hours 50 minutes was more than a little off-putting, though.

I hate every single one of you that has seen it.


Damn you Australia, damn you to Hell.

Based off the overly defensive comments on Deadline from Tolkien/Jackson fans I am assuming this is as dull and the 48 fps as terrible looking as it is claimed to be.

Also I miss when Deadline had comments from people who knew what they were talking about but eh, c'est la vie.

Didn't end up seeing the midnight showing so I'll probably go tonight. I'm actually very interested in seeing how this 48fps looks, so yeah I'm willing to give that format a shot.

Saw this in standard 3D on Friday night and came away a tad bit disappointed. There's way too much CGI, the 3D seemed dark and gets blurry when there's a lot happening onscreen, Jackson's direction is often times too flashy, it's poorly paced, the action is cartoonish and overall it's just too damn long of a movie. Even with all the problems, though, Jackson and (especially) Howard Shore were somehow able to bring a smile to my face and make Middle Earth come alive once again. It's a decently fun adventure, just don't go in expecting a LOTR-quality film. And see it in 2D.

I've never read the novel, but just by glancing at the Wikipedia summary of the story, I predict that the second and third films will be quite a bit better, just based on content alone.

Just got back from the 3D 48fps screening...

So, technical stuff first: It was very jarring during the first couple of seconds. I really did not know what to expect with this format, it can't be told but shown. My first reaction just based off the opening logos was "OH FUCK". Then the actual 48fps shoot footage, "OH FFFFFFFUUUCK." I found it very distracting, but not as distracting as the group of teenagers around the corner that did nothing but chat and giggle to eachother for the first 30 mins, THAT excruciating! For many years I hear everyone complain about people chatting in theater, but I never had that experience until now. I wanted to rip their fucking heads off like a troll.

I'm rambling. Back to 48fps. Yeah, again it was very jarring for the first 15 minutes. I can definitely imagine a lot of film aficionados will hate it. But to be honest, I actually started to go along with it as the film went by. It would still hit me at some points but it never really killed the film for me. Most positive thing I can say about it is that it WORKS for 3D. Not sure if it would in normal 2D format, but it gets rid of a lot of problems previous 3D releases had. It seemed a lot more palpable in this frame rate. So yeah, if this is the future of 3D films then I'm all for that, but for normal 2D films I'll prefer the old fashioned 24fps thank you.

Worst to say about it? Not sure if it was right for THE HOBBIT. Might have been great for a sci-fi film with a very clean environment as opposed to an old Middle Earth adventure. For the next two films I'll likely just watch the 2D releases. Too bad it wasn't shot on film.

As for the movie itself? Well, I enjoyed it. The could have easily cut a lot of fat as some scenes just go on longer than they should, but overall I enjoyed it as an escapist fantasy that looked nice and colorful with Howard Shore enhancing the experience. This is no LOTR, but as dr strangelove says it's a decently fun adventure at its best.

Saw it today, and while there are some changes to the story that I can't say I'm entirely happy about, nevertheless, it all pales into insignificance against the eye candy. Yeah, Kili is incredibly gorgeous, but he doesn't get a look in next to Thorin. Seriously. If Aragorn had looked like Thorin (like he was bloody supposed to, at least in every fantasy I ever had since I was 9), then I would have been a huge fan of the LOTR films instead of finding them tedious in the extreme.

Oh - and I've always disliked the Elves. Smug pointy-eared bastards with their poncy starlight and love of the sea.

Anyway - the film. Difficult. Parts were just a tourist advert for NZ, no doubt. Pretty, spectacular, blah blah - gimme more plot. Some of the plot messing was disappointing. Would be far better to start the whole thing with the immortal words, "In a hole in the ground, there lived a Hobbit....". And there are a couple of unnecessary unfunny 'gags', rather like the terrible 'dwarf tossing'. Really, Jackson. It ain't big, it ain't clever, and it ain't impressive.

The sword fights are good though, I will give 'em that. Although the escape from the goblins was a bit Super Mario with extra Goblin, it was amusing. Thorin's backstory - well, it gives me the opportunity to lust over the Sexiest Dwarf Ever, but still..... Ah well, to hell with it. Gives me a chance to lust over Thorin - I ain't gonna complain.

So - it's okay really. Yeah, I wanna see it again, but that's cus I'm a slut for Thorin. I really am that shallow. As a film, though - could have done with better pacing, less adverts, half the number of helicopters f'rinstance.

Loved the movie, I loved it as did the kids.

Easily the most beautifull shot movie of the year, imho.

I was expecting something pretty bad, but this was fairly fun and enjoyable. In the same league as LOTR, however? Not even close. Don't expect to see The Hobbit sweep up 11 Oscars. The story just doesn't have the emotional kick to it. I expect there'll be plenty of dry eyes once the third movie wraps up.

On that matter, it's disappointing that Jackson pretty much sold out and isn't making a serious attempt to adapt the book. It could've - and should've - been one movie. Instead we get filler, filler and more filler. And we'll have two more movies brimming with filler. But I guess Jackson's the one with the knighthood, not Tolkien.

Oh yeah, the CGI was pretty horrid. Frankly there was way too much of it. The action was extremely cartoonish in comparison to much of the stuff in LOTR (though I guess it reflects the fact that the novel was intended for a younger demographic).

No standout performances, for me at least, though I'm impressed Christopher Lee is still on the job. Good on him.

I liked the main theme. Shades of Poledouris' Conan. Other than that, the score was fairly unremarkable and barely fresh. Much of it was recycled from LOTR, after all.

But anyway, complaints aside, it's entertaining enough. Just don't expect to see something that holds a candle to what Jackson achieved a decade ago.

I found the long chase scene in the underground Orc (or were those Goblins) city too busy;

seeing it on the big IMAX screen, there was a few part on the screen that looks like needed more cleaning.