|
On December 15 2012 03:16 ACrow wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 21:26 -Cyrus- wrote:On December 14 2012 20:55 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
What I enjoyed most about this movie was the 3D with 48 frames, it was like watching blueray for the first time. That said I still felt, during the most action packed moments, that I want to see this without the 3D as well. Overall it was a good cinema experience. The movie itself had great moments, and some dull ones. As I've read the book I actually like the transformation they made for the screen. 7/10 I feel really sorry for anyone who watches a movie in 3D. Uh okay, thanks. I don't know why you'd say that, but thanks. For anyone who's wondering, the 3D in the movie was more of the subtle kind, not very intrusive, and they didn't use many scenes to specifically highlight 3D + Show Spoiler +(the burning fir cones and the warg chase were the most memorable ones for me) , I think it added rather nicely to the viewing experience. It's also filmed with true stereoscopic cameras, not the more common 3D rendering, so the headache danger should be somewhat less for people susceptible to this.
Did you not find it one big blur during certain scenes where they fought or escaped? I certainly noticed this (3D HFR). Also I kept seeing the difference between what was decorated and what was computer animated. It just became too real, for it to stand out of the rest. Especially upon entering Rivendel. Perhaps it was just me.
|
On December 15 2012 05:35 shepherdxoxo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 03:16 ACrow wrote:On December 14 2012 21:26 -Cyrus- wrote:On December 14 2012 20:55 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
What I enjoyed most about this movie was the 3D with 48 frames, it was like watching blueray for the first time. That said I still felt, during the most action packed moments, that I want to see this without the 3D as well. Overall it was a good cinema experience. The movie itself had great moments, and some dull ones. As I've read the book I actually like the transformation they made for the screen. 7/10 I feel really sorry for anyone who watches a movie in 3D. Uh okay, thanks. I don't know why you'd say that, but thanks. For anyone who's wondering, the 3D in the movie was more of the subtle kind, not very intrusive, and they didn't use many scenes to specifically highlight 3D + Show Spoiler +(the burning fir cones and the warg chase were the most memorable ones for me) , I think it added rather nicely to the viewing experience. It's also filmed with true stereoscopic cameras, not the more common 3D rendering, so the headache danger should be somewhat less for people susceptible to this. Did you not find it one big blur during certain scenes where they fought or escaped? I certainly noticed this (3D HFR). Also I kept seeing the difference between what was decorated and what was computer animated. It just became too real, for it to stand out of the rest. Especially upon entering Rivendel. Perhaps it was just me.
I didn't see it in HFR (unfortunately, would've liked to experience that for myself), so maybe that's why?
|
On December 15 2012 05:35 shepherdxoxo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 03:16 ACrow wrote:On December 14 2012 21:26 -Cyrus- wrote:On December 14 2012 20:55 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
What I enjoyed most about this movie was the 3D with 48 frames, it was like watching blueray for the first time. That said I still felt, during the most action packed moments, that I want to see this without the 3D as well. Overall it was a good cinema experience. The movie itself had great moments, and some dull ones. As I've read the book I actually like the transformation they made for the screen. 7/10 I feel really sorry for anyone who watches a movie in 3D. Uh okay, thanks. I don't know why you'd say that, but thanks. For anyone who's wondering, the 3D in the movie was more of the subtle kind, not very intrusive, and they didn't use many scenes to specifically highlight 3D + Show Spoiler +(the burning fir cones and the warg chase were the most memorable ones for me) , I think it added rather nicely to the viewing experience. It's also filmed with true stereoscopic cameras, not the more common 3D rendering, so the headache danger should be somewhat less for people susceptible to this. Did you not find it one big blur during certain scenes where they fought or escaped? I certainly noticed this (3D HFR). Also I kept seeing the difference between what was decorated and what was computer animated. It just became too real, for it to stand out of the rest. Especially upon entering Rivendel. Perhaps it was just me.
The only thing that I disliked about the 3D HFR was near the beginning, it felt more like a play than a movie it was so crisp. As the movie went on though, it lost that feel and was just amazing. I never found any scene to be blurry (anything but, this film is CRYSTAL clear), but it was difficult to follow just because there was so much going on (probably the same would happen in the 2D).
|
I loved the movie. Saw it in IMAX 3D and I believe it was visually perfect. Story was good and I never found myself saying, "I wish this would hurry up already".
|
I really liked it aswell. Perhaps it was a bit too much action and should have been more focused on the journey but its understandable that do it that way, they need to make movie and that type of movie draws more of the general crowd.
It was a long time since I read bilbo and it was a great feeling when the lines and scenes started tickling your memory.
The 48 fps 3D was awsome, it was almost never used as a cheap " Look, stuff fly out of the screen" but instead it brought wonderful depth to the picture. Everything was also extremely sharp and looked very real.
One thing I've wondered, everyone says that Sting is elven made and therefore glows when orcs are near. How come no other elven made swords do that ?
EDIT: Now that I think about it ( bad memory and long time since I read lotr, bilbo or silmarillion), didn't orcrist and glamdring glow in the books? And the lack of glowing in the films is just an oversight?
|
On December 15 2012 07:48 Intact wrote:
I really liked it aswell. Perhaps it was a bit too much action and should have been more focused on the journey but its understandable that do it that way, they need to make movie and that type of movie draws more of the general crowd.
It was a long time since I read bilbo and it was a great feeling when the lines and scenes started tickling your memory.
The 48 fps 3D was awsome, it was almost never used as a cheap " Look, stuff fly out of the screen" but instead it brought wonderful depth to the picture. Everything was also extremely sharp and looked very real.
One thing I've wondered, everyone says that Sting is elven made and therefore glows when orcs are near. How come no other elven made swords do that ?
EDIT: Now that I think about it ( bad memory and long time since I read lotr, bilbo or silmarillion), didn't orcrist and glamdring glow in the books? And the lack of glowing in the films is just an oversight?
I didn't see the Hobbit yet, but I'm positive those are intentional omissions. Gandalf never says whether his sword has a name in LotR movies, and it never glowed either (aside from the fight with the Balrog, which was clearly his magic, not the sword's), so I decided they intended to make only Sting special, plus Anduril later. It's part of the simplification to make the movie easier to follow for the casual audience. It probably worked, but I always felt saddened by the loss of details like Orcrist and Glamdring (Biter and Beater!), though in many cases, that also served to lessen the importance of any items while arguably increasing the role characters played.
Merry kind of got the shaft though, since his special sword made specifically to combat the Witch King was turned into a normal blade, while Eowyn still gets most of the credit for slaying the Witch King anyway. However, one of my strongest memories of those films was the collective gasp of the audience when the Witch King rose from his slain mount and his black mace came into full view. As for Merry, they just seemed to say, "yeah, maybe that wasn't enough, so we'll throw him in the last battle before the Black Gate even though he's supposed to be healing."
Houses of Healing segment getting all but scrapped (all it is is Faramir and Eowyn holding hands in a pretty garden near the high walls of the city) was kind of a shame too. Okay, must stop before I write a book of things I would have done different...there's already a book to read.
|
I just came out of the movie and it was as good and that type what i wanted to see as someone who has read the tolkien books and loves the world. The time REALLY FLEW when watching that movie.
Watched it 3D HFR. Yeah I guess it's okay, didn't ruin anything. I personally prefer 2d over 3d so and I knew what little probs i have with 3d so nothing was unexpected. It felt overly smooth at start but I guess i got used to it very quickly.
|
I liked the movie in general but felt it was a bit bloated at times. at 2 hrs and 40 mins it's nearing one of the LOTR movies in length, but only covers like 100 pages of the book lol. At several points I just wished they'd get on with it already. Terrific acting however by the actor who plays Bilbo. Can't imagine anyone else in that role anymore! And Saruman's comment about the brown wizard "He eats too many mushrooms!" made me LOL
|
I really enjoyed the movie. Time flew by so fast, i was like "oh its already over?" after almost 3 h :D
From the previews i was kinda worried that it might be too much comedy, but i think it was the right amount. The books are meant to be funny to some extend too.
Radagast the brown was maybe a little bit over the top but i had no real image of him in my head from the books.. so i think its a good way to depict him but a little exagerated.
Maybe i shouldnt have read the book again 2 weeks before i watch the movie because i noticed every difference very knowingly.
Also i really liked the background stories for example with Thorin Oakenshield.... maybe it would have been reasonable to give some background on the elves-dwarve wars too.
From the books i think the best part is the journey, so i think its awesome that its 3 movies. In lotr i missed some parts of the books.. i wish lotr was more than 3 movies.
|
On December 15 2012 06:11 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 05:35 shepherdxoxo wrote:On December 15 2012 03:16 ACrow wrote:On December 14 2012 21:26 -Cyrus- wrote:On December 14 2012 20:55 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
What I enjoyed most about this movie was the 3D with 48 frames, it was like watching blueray for the first time. That said I still felt, during the most action packed moments, that I want to see this without the 3D as well. Overall it was a good cinema experience. The movie itself had great moments, and some dull ones. As I've read the book I actually like the transformation they made for the screen. 7/10 I feel really sorry for anyone who watches a movie in 3D. Uh okay, thanks. I don't know why you'd say that, but thanks. For anyone who's wondering, the 3D in the movie was more of the subtle kind, not very intrusive, and they didn't use many scenes to specifically highlight 3D + Show Spoiler +(the burning fir cones and the warg chase were the most memorable ones for me) , I think it added rather nicely to the viewing experience. It's also filmed with true stereoscopic cameras, not the more common 3D rendering, so the headache danger should be somewhat less for people susceptible to this. Did you not find it one big blur during certain scenes where they fought or escaped? I certainly noticed this (3D HFR). Also I kept seeing the difference between what was decorated and what was computer animated. It just became too real, for it to stand out of the rest. Especially upon entering Rivendel. Perhaps it was just me. The only thing that I disliked about the 3D HFR was near the beginning, it felt more like a play than a movie it was so crisp. As the movie went on though, it lost that feel and was just amazing. I never found any scene to be blurry (anything but, this film is CRYSTAL clear), but it was difficult to follow just because there was so much going on (probably the same would happen in the 2D).
I felt the same way. It almost looked like it was animated. But I also agree that over time, it improved dramatically and I didn't notice it by the end.
I thought the movie was great. I loved it from start to finish (especially the connections with the Fellowship etc) but I wonder if it was definitely too long for friends who aren't as into the series (I read everything, own the extendeds XD) but a good job in my opinion 
On December 15 2012 08:58 fuzzy_panda wrote:
I liked the movie in general but felt it was a bit bloated at times. at 2 hrs and 40 mins it's nearing one of the LOTR movies in length, but only covers like 100 pages of the book lol. At several points I just wished they'd get on with it already. Terrific acting however by the actor who plays Bilbo. Can't imagine anyone else in that role anymore! And Saruman's comment about the brown wizard "He eats too many mushrooms!" made me LOL
He's a good actor. Check out Sherlock (BBC Series). He plays Watson, and the guy voicing Smaug plays sherlock; very good if you like detective/mystery stuff.
Did anybody notice that him finding the ring didn't happen like they showed in LOTR? XD
|
On December 15 2012 11:46 Alryk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 06:11 TheRabidDeer wrote:On December 15 2012 05:35 shepherdxoxo wrote:On December 15 2012 03:16 ACrow wrote:On December 14 2012 21:26 -Cyrus- wrote:On December 14 2012 20:55 Boundz(DarKo) wrote:
What I enjoyed most about this movie was the 3D with 48 frames, it was like watching blueray for the first time. That said I still felt, during the most action packed moments, that I want to see this without the 3D as well. Overall it was a good cinema experience. The movie itself had great moments, and some dull ones. As I've read the book I actually like the transformation they made for the screen. 7/10 I feel really sorry for anyone who watches a movie in 3D. Uh okay, thanks. I don't know why you'd say that, but thanks. For anyone who's wondering, the 3D in the movie was more of the subtle kind, not very intrusive, and they didn't use many scenes to specifically highlight 3D + Show Spoiler +(the burning fir cones and the warg chase were the most memorable ones for me) , I think it added rather nicely to the viewing experience. It's also filmed with true stereoscopic cameras, not the more common 3D rendering, so the headache danger should be somewhat less for people susceptible to this. Did you not find it one big blur during certain scenes where they fought or escaped? I certainly noticed this (3D HFR). Also I kept seeing the difference between what was decorated and what was computer animated. It just became too real, for it to stand out of the rest. Especially upon entering Rivendel. Perhaps it was just me. The only thing that I disliked about the 3D HFR was near the beginning, it felt more like a play than a movie it was so crisp. As the movie went on though, it lost that feel and was just amazing. I never found any scene to be blurry (anything but, this film is CRYSTAL clear), but it was difficult to follow just because there was so much going on (probably the same would happen in the 2D). I felt the same way. It almost looked like it was animated. But I also agree that over time, it improved dramatically and I didn't notice it by the end. I thought the movie was great. I loved it from start to finish (especially the connections with the Fellowship etc) but I wonder if it was definitely too long for friends who aren't as into the series (I read everything, own the extendeds XD) but a good job in my opinion Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 08:58 fuzzy_panda wrote:
I liked the movie in general but felt it was a bit bloated at times. at 2 hrs and 40 mins it's nearing one of the LOTR movies in length, but only covers like 100 pages of the book lol. At several points I just wished they'd get on with it already. Terrific acting however by the actor who plays Bilbo. Can't imagine anyone else in that role anymore! And Saruman's comment about the brown wizard "He eats too many mushrooms!" made me LOL He's a good actor. Check out Sherlock (BBC Series). He plays Watson, and the guy voicing Smaug plays sherlock; very good if you like detective/mystery stuff. Did anybody notice that him finding the ring didn't happen like they showed in LOTR? XD
Apparently they fought some guy named Golem in one episode.
|
I thought it was great ^^.
3D HFR is incredible. I'm still unsure about it overall, but the visuals look phenomenal, does take some getting used too though.
Always been a fan of the dwarves so it's great to see them on screen :'), loved it, can't wait for the next film.
|
I think they will have Galadriel lead the charge on Dol Goldur in film 3, and use her ring of power to lay it to waste. This did actually happen, but not during this time, but later during the war of the ring. Moving this to the Hobbit makes very much sense.
|
I really love it, however I felt like they drag the scene in Bilbo's house a little too long. The book is quite short but the movie seems so long lol.
|
On December 15 2012 05:07 TechNoTrance wrote:I really liked it! There were a few things like + Show Spoiler +how Gandalf wasn't the one who caused the trolls to argue until the sunrise that I thought could have been done better. I can't wait to see it again though (in non 3D  ).
yep, they missed this as well. It was really hilarious in the book but too bad idk why they didn't add it in. May be they wanted to focus more on Bilbo.
|
On December 14 2012 20:06 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2012 18:43 Slaughter wrote:On December 14 2012 03:28 corumjhaelen wrote:On December 14 2012 02:41 Steveling wrote:Let's see what the crowd thinks. Poll: How was The Hobbit?Entertaining (51) 72% Expected more (8) 11% On par with LOTR trilogy (7) 10% Horrible (3) 4% Nice but not close enough to the books (2) 3% 71 total votes Your vote: How was The Hobbit? (Vote): Expected more
(Vote): Entertaining
(Vote): On par with LOTR trilogy
(Vote): Nice but not close enough to the books
(Vote): Horrible
On par with the LoTR trilogy doesn't mean much. Wasn't the LoTR trilogy pretty well received? I mean I liked them a good amount. And I thought it was one of my most boring experience in theaters (and I'm not alone). I think something a bit clearer would be more useful.
Obviously you aren't alone but most who saw it probably didn't think that way considering almost everyone I know loved the original trilogy (me included).
I read the books first and was very impressed by the movies considering how most movies based of books are terrible, these ones were amazing.
I can't wait to see the hobbit :D
|
i never even understood what this series was about a ring correct?
|
Is it true that he made 3 films of a book with only 100 to 300 pages ????
|
Saw it in 3D HFR. Absolutely loved it.
Brought back so many memories. Jackson tied in outside content extremely well. Several moments made me get nerd chills of joy.
HFR is amazing. It's immediately noticable. Definitiely a huge jump in quality.
Cannot wait for the next two parts.
Also, tie in to Sauron was very well done (nerd chill moment inc).
|
On December 15 2012 16:32 Holy_AT wrote:
Is it true that he made 3 films of a book with only 100 to 300 pages ????
i think it's supposed to not just be sourced from the hobbit, but also some stuff from the other books (like silmarilion)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
