Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is swept into a quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug. Approached out of the blue by the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). Their journey will take them into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Giant Spiders, Shapeshifters and Sorcerers. Although their goal lies to the East and the wastelands of the Lonely Mountain, they first must escape the goblin tunnels, where Bilbo meets the creature that will change his life forever: Gollum (Andy Serkis). Here, alone with Gollum, on the shores of an underground lake, the unassuming Hobbit not only discovers depths of guile and courage that surprise even him, he also gains possession of Gollum's "precious"... a simple, gold ring that is tied to the fate of all Middle-earth in ways Bilbo cannot begin to imagine.
Exact technical specs and supplemental features to be included with these upcoming releases have yet to be officially detailed.
It took me a min to get back into the characters again especially when you already know how things end up (ie; Gollum, Saruman) but once the story got going I really enjoyed it. I'll pick this up for sure. Can't wait for the next one.
I got burned with double and triple dipping during the releases of LOTR. I am quite ready to wait until the entire trilogy of The Hobbit extended 3D edition is discounted to around 50 bucks during Black Friday or 2015 or 2016...
I'n not sure why people are complaining they got ripped off with the previous LOTR extended editions. Right before the theatrical Fellowship came out on DVD, Peter Jackson said there would be an extended edition released on the fall. He was right. Also, someone buying the theatrical not knowing of extended editions would have found out after buying Fellowship because it came with a $10 off the extended edition coupon.
At least WB/New Line/PJ told all the fans in advance. You did not have to buy the theatrical.
It looks like they are following the same pattern here. Theatrical release in April, Extended Edition release in October to lead to part 2.
My only little beef is this. In the past, the reason why theatrical releases were released so quickly was to accomodate the video rental market. Video stores are pretty much dead now so why bother with a 2 releases?
Why not have both versions together in one big package in the fall?
To the best of my knowledge 48 fps in 3D isn't supported by the current blu-ray spec so no current players can handle that. IF they update the blu-ray spec in the future it will most likely mean we need new players to view 48 fps 3D
Just as a reminder for anyone holding out for the Extended Editions, if these follow the pattern of the LOTR, it's likely there will be no crossover of special features between the two releases. So if you're completionist enough to want, say, all of the production diaries, they'll probably only show up on this release.
As for me, I double dipped with the original two DVD releases (plus eventual EE Blu-rays), and I'll do the same again here. (And whenever we get HFR BD, I'm sure I'll dip again). But I'm a huge Tolkien geek, so... :\
Why look for a 48fps version. Just run it in full auto motion plus or whatnot on a 120HZ LCD and get a pseudo same effect. Same HORRIBLE Soap Opera effect.... I cant wait to get this on non-48fps format. The 48fps totally ruined it for me....YUCK!
i really wanna get this. I Hope maybe best buy would get an exclusive steelbook like they did with the lord of the rings movies. I might wait for the extended editions. I hate double dipping half of the time.
They haven't even completed the trilogy and already this is one of my favorite films. It'll be hard to hold out for the extended cut, but unless the extended version doesn't come out until all three films are finished in two more years, I think I will.
48 fps 3D must be supported by the Blu-ray players, the TV, and everything in-between INCLUDING the HDMI interface. Currently, HDMI 1.4 doesn't support a 48 fps 3D format, or any 48 fps for that matter.
Thus, it will take a new HDMI spec and a new Blu-ray spec to get this. Just like when 3D came around, you had to have a HDMI 1.4 Blu-ray player, HDMI 1.4 TV, and everything inbetween (receiver, etc) had to pass HDMI 1.4 signals. For 48 fps 3D, it will take a new spec (HDMI 1.5?). With HDMI 1.4, almost no existing devices were upgraded, you had to buy all new gear. The same will likely be true of the next round.
I'll probably get this version, and this version only. Why? Because I feel the movie is overly long as it is, and I can't see how an extended edition would be at all necessary. In fact, I think a fanedit would be very beneficial (Radagast, the underground Goblin chase, and the ending battle could all be greatly trimmed). I know this probably isn't a popular opinion, but from both a book-conscious and filmmaking point of view, the movie is far too drawn out as it is.
I'm very torn. Originally I had said to myself I'll wait for the extended cuts, but now that I've seen the film twice, I don't know that I want one. Sure I'll be curious what's in it, but it's dragging one book across 3 films even more. At least LOTR extended had character moments like Galadriel giving gifts, or Aragorn at his mother's grave contemplating his destiny.
Also, I do want the film in 3D and who know if extended cut will be 3D. So I may cave and pick this up, but I won't sell it until after I've watched the extended edition and determined it's worth it.
WB previously indicated that the extended versions will be released in late 2013 in time to promote the next Hobbit movie which comes out in December, but that announcement was retracted by WB. That doesn't mean there won't be an extended edition later this year though.
Can't wait to own this. I like how people are waiting for the Extended Edition when all I hear is complaints about how long and boring it was. I for one loved every minute. I'll be getting this and most likely all future releases, just like the LotR trilogy.
as much i like this movie a extended edition could be overkill...i saw the theatricall and there are a x instances where the dialogue was stretched it wasnt funny annymore:(...like the "guess what" moment with smiegoll...it was way to long and boring in the end!
a x friends who also saw it felt the same way,but apart from that we love the movie,well done.
My sister warned me of this. She said it was pure junk, and they obviously dragged this out to make more profits.
One film would have been enough, especially considering the already ridiculous running times of Peter Jackson's movies. I trust her, and will stay clear of this.
With a $1bn+ worldwide gross inevitable, this film definitely had a huge fan base, regardless of the negative criticism it also brought. I'll be getting both editions myself and I expect this one to have absolutely no special features, minus trailers or something else worthless. It'll be interesting to view it in 24fps (which I haven't yet), the 48fps was pretty cool with it's hyper-real feel but it did have some drawbacks, the main one being that it took away that "epic movie" feel that was in the original trilogy. Until the new Ultra-HD TVs become more affordable, and the other needed components compatible, people will have to "settle" on the lesser fps rate for now. hehehe
48fps is not a supported spec for Blu-ray, in 2D or 3D. Furthermore, many TVs wouldn't be able to handle it. If you must, watch the 2D version with a 120hz tv using TruMotion or a similar feature for the same effect. I've always avoided it though... it cheapens the production value of the movie and takes away that ethereal movie quality that comes with a 24fps framerate.
I will pick this up, but what a shame Dolby Atmos isn't supported yet on Blu-ray or home theater equipment for those that have hooked up 14.2 systems including front height channels, additional side and rear channels, dedicated rear LFE and a bunch of ceiling channels, ha!
I'm holding out for the "Totally-Middle-Earth Warner's 95th Anniversary-Edition 27-Disc 3D BD/DVD Combo exclusive diamond platinum gold silver bronze rock paper scissors ultimate limited extended special definitive remastered collector's director's cut w/lossless audio, commentaries, interviews, UltraViolet digital copies, CD soundtracks, notepads, post-its, coasters, shot glasses, pewter action figures, full set of replica rings, and a talking Hobbit doll."
I was entertained by the film, but definitely ranks behind the LOtR films. I will wait for the EE as I will be more interested in the extensive production extras that comes with it rather than the light extras that the theatrical cuts are given. Now that is on the assumption that Jackson releases these with the same types of extras as the LOtR theatrical and EE's were given. If the EE for Hobbit doesn't have the extensive production extras, then I may well go the theatrical release. All depends on those extras.
You forgot lossless video. :P
I'm looking forward to this. Regarding the lighter, shallower qualities of the story, Tolkien had written The Hobbit as a children's story. It was when he wrote The Lord of the Rings that he amped things up and wrote a larger, grander, more complex and adult-centric story. I have not read The Hobbit (though I intend to), and I have not seen An Unexpected Journey yet. I do know the facts I stated above, though. Just saying that a faithful adaptation of The Hobbit inherently shouldn't be as dark or deep as one of The Lord of the Rings would be.
Wasn't at all impressed by the 48fps version - it made everything look horribly fake and totally took me out of the movie. This wasn't just a 'getting used to it' thing either - there's a reason 24fps has been used all these years and it's not strictly technical.
I'll probably rent this in anticipation of the inevitable Extended Edition just because I want to see it in 24fps.
Let's get one thing straight. There will not be a 48 fps version on BD this year. They wouldn't work on any set in existence. As someone here said already, you need a 48 fps TV, a 48 fps BD player, a 48 fps BD spec. and a receiver capable of passing a 48 fps signal via HDMI. None of that equipment is available yet (at least to the consumer market). You'll have to settle for now for 3D/2D, and maybe a 4K "superbit" type of disc such as Sony has hinted they are about to offer for the few people who are rich enough to have an Ultra HD set by the end of this year. So now you can all stop asking for something that is just not yet available and may never be.
There is one thing about Peter Jackson's latest film that I feel is not well understood. Peter Jackson is not making The Hobbit as Tolkien wrote it but rather he is creating the first three parts (timewise) of a six part story. He just happens to use The Hobbit material as his starting point. He has already incorporated a few items that are part of Tolkien's other Middle Earth compilations and I expect that we will see much more of that in parts 2 & 3. In fact I'd be willing to bet that the final part of The Hobbit will seem more like an introduction to his Fellowship of The Ring than a stand alone movie. When the final film is released in the spring of 2014, instead of two trilogies, he will have created an unprecedented, thematically and stylistically consistent six part "Saga of the One Ring". What we will not have is a prequel + main story misstep such as George Lucas created.
"I want the 48 FPS HFR IMAX 3D version I watched in the theaters."
IMAX didn't do anything special to the film except to blow up the resolution on their big screens, in their theaters only. And there were plenty of other places to see the film in 48fps outside of IMAX.
@tman418: You're not going to get it at 48 fps unless you can build your own equipment (?!). Nothing currently on sale to the public can handle 48 fps. Not your tv, not your BD player, not your receiver (HDMI connection). There isn't even a BD spec. yet for it. It is unlikely that a firmware update would be possible. It is going to take brand new hardware ($$$$).
Here is what is surprising me. I stayed away from 48 fps for this movie because all I read about it was negative. No one seemed to like it. Now it seems based on the comments here that some of you did. Could you tell me why? Thanks.
I don't know why people think this movie is boring... I liked it a lot, maybe because I was also fascinated by the 3D 48fps on a screen that is as big as IMAX. The movie did not feel like 2 1/2 hours at all... I actually wanted MORE and when the movie ended, I was like "WTH!" left me hanging.
Came to this post to see if any of the comments above would help convince me to pick this movie up when it comes out... Unfortunately, nothing here has really changed my original view. Compared to the first 3 Peter Jackson films this was a total bore-fest. I see from some of the [voted down] comments above I'm not the only one who thought this. (At best) I'll trade or pay a $1.00 for a digital copy of this snoozer. I'll save my cash for a Blu-ray more worthwhile, and hope the next film is better.
There were many people who didn't like 48 fps with regard to "The Hobbit" because many people believed it made the whole production look cheap, or fake, kind of like a soap opera, or a video game. But other people liked 48fps because it supposedly makes the picture look more clear, especially when the camera is moving or trying to capture fast moving people and objects. Many people said it made the picture look more realistic too.
It's really just a matter of opinion, and you'll have to see it for yourself to make an honest judgement. There might be some theaters still playing this movie in 48fps 3D. But there's always the next Hobbit movie coming out in December, I believe.
48fps doesn't suit well with everyone, and Peter Jackson took a big risk filming it at that frame rate. The closest you can get with 48fps is to turn on the "motion smoothing" or "refresh rate" feature on your HDTV to the max. 48fps is supposedly the speed at which the human eye processes images in real life. Most soap operas as well as sit-coms like "Full House" and "Golden Girls" were/are filmed at 48fps. But on the flip side, that's kind of what makes those productions look cheap, although they do look more realistic. But directors say that 48fps is great for reducing the "strobing" or "jutter" effect that many cameras have, and it captures everything very clearly. In their prime, martial arts action stars such as Jackie Chan, Bruce Lee, and Jet Li had to film their fight scenes sometimes as high as 35fps because they were so fast that 24fps could not clearly capture their fight choreography.
From what I've heard, 48fps looks really good in Digital IMAX. I've seen more than one poster on this thread say they really enjoyed it in IMAX.
James Cameron said that he's "seriously" thinking of filming the next three "Avatar" movies at 48fps, and even 60fps, in order to make the film seem more realistic. He's been urging filmmakers to use higher frame rates. (side note: according to "Avatar"'s wikipedia page, there is supposed to be 2 sequels and then some sort of "prequel").
However, high frame rate filming might not look so good when you're using a blue screen all the time. And "The Hobbit" trilogy is definitely using a lot of CGI and blue screens. Viewers complained that "Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen" did not have the same time of life-like clarity that real IMAX films have, and that may have partially been due to the fact that Michael Bay used a ton a of CGI and just printed it IMAX film. The same rule might apply to films like "The Hobbit." 48fps may look better when you're capturing real people on real, practical sets rather than fake blue screen worlds and CGI monsters.
edelgiud - you do know that you can't play 48 fps in the home, right? No current Blu-ray disc standard, HDMI standard or home display technology supports it. I think 48 fps is horrible for standard 2D. Some even think it is weird even in 3D. I predict this to become a a failed experiment. Makes everything look like a video soap opera.