[Russian Army Knife]

Originally Posted by Phell

Not only that, but he looks like an entirely different person!


The FOTR prologue only shows Bilbo picking the ring up off the ground. It's not mutually exclusive with the explanation of how he found it there, as it doesn't show that part.


The sequence was changed from the sequence in the book, as the explanation in the movie is both more economical (to film) and more plausible, to be honest. In the book Biblo finds the ring as like a needle in a haystack, the only explanation being "the will of the Ring".


If that still doesn't work for you, Bilbo is notorious fickle in his recounting of the event. The new Hobbit trilogy is being recounted by Bilbo from his POV. The FOTR prologue was ostensibly being recounted by Galadriel, from second hand information.

If that's not good enough, the Hobbit and LOTR books simply don't have 100% continuity, and you have to handwave certain things.

I... know. I think my point was lost. People are saying having Ian Holm be there giving a distractingly different performance was necessary for consistency's sake. I was trying to point out that actors get old and there will never be perfect continuity to begin with. Considering the FOTR tie-in at the beginning of The Hobbit is one of people's most common problems with the movie, there's an argument to be made that reaching for consistency did more harm than good in this case. Like you said, it doesn't really matter.

[Russian Army Knife]

Originally Posted by Phell

Not only that, but he looks like an entirely different person!


The FOTR prologue only shows Bilbo picking the ring up off the ground. It's not mutually exclusive with the explanation of how he found it there, as it doesn't show that part.


The sequence was changed from the sequence in the book, as the explanation in the movie is both more economical (to film) and more plausible, to be honest. In the book Biblo finds the ring as like a needle in a haystack, the only explanation being "the will of the Ring".


If that still doesn't work for you, Bilbo is notorious fickle in his recounting of the event. The new Hobbit trilogy is being recounted by Bilbo from his POV. The FOTR prologue was ostensibly being recounted by Galadriel, from second hand information.

If that's not good enough, the Hobbit and LOTR books simply don't have 100% continuity, and you have to handwave certain things.

I... know. I think my point was lost. People are saying having Ian Holm be there giving a distractingly different performance was necessary for consistency's sake. I was trying to point out that actors get old and there will never be perfect continuity to begin with. Considering the FOTR tie-in at the beginning of The Hobbit is one of people's most common problems with the movie, there's an argument to be made that reaching for consistency did more harm than good in this case. Like you said, it doesn't really matter.

[Phell]

Originally Posted by Russian Army Knife

I... know. I think my point was lost. People are saying having Ian Holm be there giving a distractingly different performance was necessary for consistency's sake. I was trying to point out that actors get old and there will never be perfect continuity to begin with.

Ah. Gotcha.

Originally Posted by Russian Army Knife

Considering the FOTR tie-in at the beginning of The Hobbit is one of people's most common problems with the movie

It is? I actually haven't seen that. Most criticisms I've seen are pretty valid. I just weight them differently.

I don't think Hipster Thor's nitpicks are really representative of most people.

[5EasyPeaches]

Originally Posted by Russian Army Knife

If you're talking about consistency, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Bilbo finding the ring in The Hobbit is completely different than in the LOTR prologue. It's Ian Holm with a stretched-out face (to hide the wrinkles) reaching up a ledge and going, "Oh, what's this?! A ring!" all delighted. In The Hobbit he sees it fall out of Gollum's little pouch and picks it up.

A goofy and basically unavoidable consistency error is much preferable to:

[SuperJuice]

Biggest nitpick: some of the dwarves looked too human, especially Thorin.

[JdlC]

Originally Posted by SuperJuice

Biggest nitpick: some of the dwarves looked too human, especially Thorin.

for me, it's Kili who looks closest to human

Thorin is more Klingon-ish. but i actually kinda like his design especially in motion. or maybe it's because of the actor, there's something "regal" about him

[Milkyjoe]

Originally Posted by SuperJuice

Biggest nitpick: some of the dwarves looked too human, especially Thorin.

That does annoy me. Thorin and Kili and whatever.. look like fat elves.

The one shot of them with Elrond just made Thorin look like some sort of cgi midget.

Its hard to think of this great dwarf warrior who has such a fine featured face. Don't really understand that design decision, unless it was to avoid face make up that might ruin his acting ability.

[Phell]

Originally Posted by Milkyjoe

That does annoy me. Thorin and Kili and whatever.. look like fat elves.

The one shot of them with Elrond just made Thorin look like some sort of cgi midget.

Its hard to think of this great dwarf warrior who has such a fine featured face. Don't really understand that design decision, unless it was to avoid face make up that might ruin his acting ability.

The story requires we take him seriously, grow attached to him, and view him as noble and heroic, not as comic relief. The less like a human ideal something looks, the harder that is to do.

Before you respond to that, imagine if Aragorn had a large bulbous nose and buck teeth, and how that would affect how you feel about him at a glance.

It is sometimes necessary to humanize a non-human character. Gollum was originally much less human looking, but they humanized his features to a greater degree so the audience could identify with him more.

[Mistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Phell

The story requires we take him seriously, grow attached to him, and view him as noble and heroic, not as comic relief. The less like a human ideal something looks, the harder that is to do.

Is it, though?

[Phell]

Originally Posted by Mistoffelees

Is it, though?

Do I really need to point out all the ways they've humanized Wall-E there? I was referring to the noble and heroic in the classic sense, though. The greek hero ideal. Wall-e is a comic character.

Originally Posted by Phell

The story requires we take him seriously, grow attached to him, and view him as noble and heroic, not as comic relief. The less like a human ideal something looks, the harder ( not impossible) that is to do.

Before you respond to that, imagine if Aragorn had a large bulbous nose and buck teeth, and how that would affect how you feel about him at a glance.

It is sometimes necessary to humanize a non-human character. Gollum was originally much less human looking, but they humanized his features to a greater degree so the audience could identify with him more.

There's a reason Superman looks like a greek god, and not like Danny Devito. And trust me, there's a deliberate reason Thorin and Kili are both more humanized.

[SKYCOK4 B.]

Originally Posted by 5EasyPeaches

A goofy and basically unavoidable consistency error is much preferable to:

They'll probably edit him in later...

[greenman]

Originally Posted by 5EasyPeaches

A goofy and basically unavoidable consistency error is much preferable to:

A pretty minor one aswell if you ask me, the Jedi ghsosts scene was really the emotional conclusion to the entire series, plus of course your talking about a new film(that featured Holm) not altering an original film.

Overall I think it'll need to see it again to give a firmer judgement but my first impression was alot of entertaining parts that don't quite add up to a whole aswell as LOTR.

I was actually plesently supprized how far Jackson moved from LOTR though, the Dwaves, the Trolls, the Goblin King, etc were obviously much more cartoonish than anything in LOTR but much more characterful for it IMHO. Without that I think the potential was there for the film to become weighed down by the endless exposition.

[Milkyjoe]

Originally Posted by Phell

The story requires we take him seriously, grow attached to him, and view him as noble and heroic, not as comic relief. The less like a human ideal something looks, the harder that is to do.

Before you respond to that, imagine if Aragorn had a large bulbous nose and buck teeth, and how that would affect how you feel about him at a glance.

It is sometimes necessary to humanize a non-human character. Gollum was originally much less human looking, but they humanized his features to a greater degree so the audience could identify with him more.

I understand it, I just think they took it too far. He didn't look at all like a dwarf, his proportions felt all wrong, especially when you have very dwarven guys standing right next to him. It seemed like they wanted an Aragorn character but were scared of making him like a dwarf at all.

I think it was a mistake.

[Phell]

Originally Posted by Milkyjoe

I understand it, I just think they took it too far. He didn't look at all like a dwarf, his proportions felt all wrong, especially when you have very dwarven guys standing right next to him. It seemed like they wanted an Aragorn character but were scared of making him like a dwarf at all.

I think it was a mistake.

No, they wanted a character who gave an initial impression of an Aragorn character, and they deliberately made one. It's a deliberate design decision.

As I said in another thread, a man who gives you a bunny sleigh and actually has the Dwarves sing "That's What Bilbo Baggins Hates", is not afraid of anything looking silly. If he thought that an ugly dwarfish character would have better served the dramatic element he's trying to emphasize, he'd have done it.

[Viraus]

[ZBigRedDogZ]

[Monster of the Week]

Count me among the unreserved supporters.

The tone felt appropriately distinct from the original trilogy, yet we were still clearly in Middle-Earth.

Freeman is simply fantastic -- I hope he gains much success from these films.

Visually, of course, it's a splendor. Gratuitous Stone Giant sequence included.

A few action scenes were a little cartoony, if I were to pick a flaw, but the flawless execution of the Riddles in the Dark sequence more than excuses any mistakes.

I was giddy (and mournful that we must wait another year) when Smaug's eye opened.

It will likely never top the original trilogy in my eyes (and An Unexpected Journey ranks comfortably below The Fellowship of the Ring), but it certainly proved itself worthy at the outset. Bring on The Desolation of Smaug.

[pluckylump]

I thought it was pretty fantastic. I thought Azog, the Trolls and the Goblin King/other Goblins were just as quality as Gollum. Where Gollum shined wasn't in the technology, but in the performance Andy Serkis gave. The wargs also looked much better than they did in the lord of the Rings, both technically and their design. They looked like wolves crossed with Gremlins. I liked Radagast, although his initial introduction felt out of place, it soon made sense as it became clear what he was discovering. The goblin city was beautifully wretched and spiky.

I think they spent too much time with a handful of the dwarves still, Bofur was getting all the good lines (although I love me some James Nesbitt). I also didn't like the way they started the film or framing it as Bilbo writing the story. The classic opening line didn't fit where it was placed, and the extended content doesn't work if Bilbo is telling the story. The fall of Erebor gets in the way of the film starting. I liked the scenes just fine as their individual parts, but not fitting into the whole film. I also missed Gollum talking about the ring as his birthday present and him showing Bilbo the way out because he thought Bilbo already knew the way out and was just there to steal the ring. It didn't ruin anything, but I missed those things.

[Labrazio]

Originally Posted by pluckylump

I also missed Gollum talking about the ring as his birthday present and him showing Bilbo the way out because he thought Bilbo already knew the way out and was just there to steal the ring. It didn't ruin anything, but I missed those things.

I agree, and it also bugged me that Bilbo didn't get captured by the goblins, along with the dwarves. In the book, he gets lost in the mountain as the dwarves are making their escape. I thought having Bilbo deal with Gollum, the same time the dwarves are dealing with the goblins, then having them both escape, and conveniently meet up outside of the mountain at just about the same time, was a little lame.

[Master King Sexington]

Loved it. Loved the 48 fps as well. Scared to read this thread because I'll probably get a nitpick ulcer.

[Bukama]

Originally Posted by Labrazio

I agree, and it also bugged me that Bilbo didn't get captured by the goblins, along with the dwarves. In the book, he gets lost in the mountain as the dwarves are making their escape. I thought having Bilbo deal with Gollum, the same time the dwarves are dealing with the goblins, then having them both escape, and conveniently meet up outside of the mountain at just about the same time, was a little lame.

Agree. And once you decide to have Bilbo avoid the Goblins, I would have just cut most of the Goblin sequences completely. The Goblin King was a major distraction - I was never sure whether this was supposed to be comic relief or a serious threat to the band. I would have had Bilbo get separated, the Dwarves captured but not really endangered - no dialogue - and then Gandalf rescues the Dwarves and Bilbo catches up with them, with both sides declining to go into detail about their adventures under the mountain. This would have made the final Warg attack seem less rushed and anti-climactic.

P.S. I also would have cut the Rock Giants playing dodge ball. I think in the book they were only mentioned as a legend, sort of like Rip Van Winkle's dwarves bowling and creating thunder. In the end, there were just too many life-threatening challenges too quickly in a row - it undermined the seriousness of the final attack by the Wargs and white Orc.

[AaronWYL]

No, in the book it says Bilbo peeks out of the cave and the Rock Giants were out playing and throwing rocks at each other. I didn't like the sequence in the film much (really the only part), but it doesn't really make it seem like only a myth to me.

The Goblin King to me seems much like the guy with the swords in Raiders. Was he supposed to be super menacing? I don't know, but it was fun. It's much more an adventure story at heart, although it obviously does get quite dark and dangerous at the very end.

[inn0centbystander]

Originally Posted by AaronWYL

No, in the book it says Bilbo peeks out of the cave and the Rock Giants were out playing and throwing rocks at each other. I didn't like the sequence in the film much (really the only part), but it doesn't really make it seem like only a myth to me.

The Goblin King to me seems much like the guy with the swords in Raiders. Was he supposed to be super menacing? I don't know, but it was fun. It's much more an adventure story at heart, although it obviously does get quite dark and dangerous at the very end.

I thought he was hilarious. I loved how zany he was. Singing and dancing and talking nonsense. A true republican goblin.

[Red]

Anybody pick up the "Art of.." book? I ordered it and it looks pretty nice. It even has a replica of Bilbo's contract and Thorin's map.

Checking out the film again tomorrow in 2D. Very excited.

[See-Jay]

Finally saw it today. Given the lukewarm critical response and the fact that this is only the first third of a single story, I was prepared to be underwhelmed by an overstretched story but ultimately I ended up loving it. It took some time for the story to get going (I would've removed Frodo entirely) but once it did, I didn't want it to stop. Such a thrill to be adventuring through Middle Earth once again. I didn't really get the sense that Jackson was drawing out the story, though Radagast and the meeting at Rivendell felt a bit tacked on in spite of being competently woven into the story -- I'm very intrigued by the Necromancer plotline, however. It's been ages since I read The Hobbit but I feel like Jackson really struck a balance between the tone of the book and the tone of his own LOTR trilogy. An Unexpected Journey wasn't quite as strong as those movies, but it's definitely a worthy successor and I'm thoroughly excited for the next two installments. It might be the appetizer before the entree, but it's a damn good appetizer.

[Resistance]

For those of you who have seen it in 24 fps 3D, how was it? Worth seeing in 3D or should I save a couple bucks and see it in 2D?

[Labrazio]

Originally Posted by Resistance

For those of you who have seen it in 24 fps 3D, how was it? Worth seeing in 3D or should I save a couple bucks and see it in 2D?

I thought it was the worst looking 3D movie I've seen. That's not to say that the movie looked like shit, but the 3D didn't do much for it. Most of the time it looked like a pop-up book... like when the characters are outside of Rivendell, it looked like 3D characters standing in front of a flat matte painting.

[inn0centbystander]

Originally Posted by Resistance

For those of you who have seen it in 24 fps 3D, how was it? Worth seeing in 3D or should I save a couple bucks and see it in 2D?

I actually thought the 3D looked great at 24fps and made the effects look better

[RememberTHISguy]

Originally Posted by Red

Anybody pick up the "Art of.." book? I ordered it and it looks pretty nice. It even has a replica of Bilbo's contract and Thorin's map.

Checking out the film again tomorrow in 2D. Very excited.

I'm doing the opposite. I saw it in 2D tonight and I'll be checking it out in 3D 48fps in a few days.

It felt so good to be back in Middle Earth.

[Freebirth]

Saw it in 48fps 3D and really loved the movie. The hfr seemed terrible at first, throwing off the lighting and movement disastrously but improved greatly as it went on. No eyestrain or headache and it looked spectacular on some shots. Sometimes it was odd. Overall it felt like I was watching Birth of a Nation. You can see the incredible potential the medium can offer despite this iteration having a good share of flaws.