The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Yes I too watched the movie a week ago. It was a good movie. Superb sound mixing with great picture....:clapping:
 
I watched it yesterday. It was fantastic but felt that 3D was unnecessary.

Sent from my GT-I9100G using Tapatalk 2
 
3D enhanced Life of Pi experience rather than being an add-on. In fact watched it twice in theaters just to soak in the great story telling.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
 
No I am not talking about the necessity of 3D, IMO I don't think any movie needs 3D. I am happy with 2D, just my personal taste. I pretty much watched 3D movies in all the halls in Bangalore and even life of pi i felt 3D kind of killed the movie experience (I watched in Q cinemas Bangalore). Again this is just my personal preference....but PVR iMax was the first hall where I was really impressed with 3D. For me the main issue with 3D was the picture gets dull when you put on the glass. When you remove you can make out the difference......but in PVR iMax i felt the picture of nice and bright and was able to make out the finer details....but the downside is the ticket cost is Rs 500+ :-(

But again i don't think ill ever be a 3D fan :-)

Overall i liked Hobbit, I am LOTR fan and even though this movie had some harsh reviews I liked it, it was almost like reading the book, guess lot of ppl felt the movie is slow....can't wait for the next one !!
 
Last edited:
The Hobbit has been criticized by purists because Peter Jackson took a lot of liberties. In fact, he took a lot of liberties as compared to LOTR trilogy. But I felt that the extra material added in The Hobbit rather enhances the overall appeal.

  • It is a well known fact that JRR Tolkein wrote The Hobbit (or known as There and Back Again - A Hobbit's tale to purists) much before The Lord of the Rings trilogy.
  • He wrote this book in a rather unorganized manner and jotted down as his thoughts came to him. During writing the LOTR novels, he had a much clearer vision of the life and creatures of the Middle Earth, the plot, etc.
  • The Hobbit was often revised later on by JRRT himself.
  • Many things that happened in the LOTR saga (the novels) find their origins in The Hobbit.
  • For the movie fans, the prologue and flashback serves as a very good connect with the plot, characters and general theme of the movie to the LOTR movies.
  • The biggest criticism is that The Hobbit is essentially a children's book. The movie introduces far more violence and action. I still think that this is justified as such a magnum opus can hardly make money on children audience alone. The LOTR movie fans would have expected much more.
  • The second criticism is about making The Hobbit into a trilogy. The book is only about 250 pages or so. LOTR novels were really long and there was a trilogy in the books too. Was it required in this case? I can't say one way or other but at least the first part An Unexpected Journey does not become boring (at least not too boring).
  • To make The Hobbit into a trilogy, Peter Jackson added a lot of appendices from the LOTR trilogy as events happening during Bilbo's adventures. Some characters which are barely mentioned are given a big role in the movie. I think that is OK - the director can take some liberties that make the movie interesting and which do not "murder" the original theme. Here in I would like to cite the example of the movie The Count of Monte Cristo starring Guy Pierce. The makers really "raped" the story (if you excuse the verb in light of recent incidents in Delhi - no disrepect meant).

So while trying not to disclose too many things and adding spoilers, I suggest that people should watch the movie and decide.
 
Yesterday I watched The Hobbit movie in the Sathyam Theatre in HFR 3D(48FPS). Though the movie was good, the 48fps IMHO spoiled the cinematic feel of the movie. I like my panny plasma 3d Tv, so, to me, watching at 48fps felt like watching an LED TV with the Interpolation. The Graphics and sets did not look that impressive in 48fps and the big battle sequences did not have that gigantic battle feeling (which was great in the LOTR). Ofcourse 48fps is the way to the future, but the present (even Hollywood) Directors and Cameramen are not able to bring out the best out of the 48fps. I am a Diehard fan of the LOTR movies. Though I loved the Hobbit movie, the HFR3d was totally disappointing to me, but my 3 friends, who watched the movie with me, liked the 48fps. May be the Plasma Tv lovers will understand what I am trying to say.
Hope to watch the movie onceagain without the HFR 3d, and I am sure the movie will look much better, atleast for me at 24fps.
 
Hi I watched Hobbit 2 times one in HFR (Satayam Cinemas) and 24fps -Atmos at escape (chennai). I first watched it in 24fps with Atmos sound , a a great experience but was disappointed watching it in HFR , went with a very great expectation ,i felt the screen was very dim not able to enjoy like the conventional 24fps (may be our minds a embedded to 24fps picture) still. My feeling is that Hobbit like LOTR should be watched in non 3D with Atmos sound( this was great gave, n real immersive sound.)
 
Saw some clips at 48 fps.
HFR makes the movie look like a reality show on expensive sets.
A lot, lot less dramatic.
My take: "More involving, less enjoyable"
 
Although I am against the 48frame rate movie which i know will spoil the cinematic experience. But I still want to watch this movie because Peter Jackson was saying too much good things about 48FPS. But sad, none of the theaters in Delhi/NCR have capability to play the movie in 48FPS with Active 3D.
 
Wharfedale Linton Heritage Speakers in Walnut finish at a Special Offer Price. BUY now before the price increase.
Back
Top