|
On December 20 2012 03:21 Striker.superfreunde wrote:Srsly, does anybody had the same experience with 48 frames (HFR)? It looked and felt like watching a theater play. It takes so much illusion out of the movie, and i probably won't watch hfr unless there comes a real good 100% animated movie. HFR will fit to them so much better. Sorry for going offtopic into the hfr debate 
That's my main issue with Blu-Ray and HD in general. The image is so crystal clear that a lot of the illusion is lost (and CGI usually looks way more fake because of it).
|
On December 20 2012 07:37 Falling wrote:
One thing I absolutely loved was Gandalf and Bilbo's first scene. It played so close to the original text... so good.
This. I had a huge grin on my face for that whole scene. Beautiful.
|
On December 20 2012 08:22 Blitzkrieg0 wrote:
I just don't find that system logical. I don't want to be moved by an action movie and it doesn't need to have a deep meaning. That isn't the point of an action movie and as such I'm not going to take off points for such a thing.
I'm not taking off points. I'm trying to put the movie on a scale from 0 to ten, 0 being the worse, 10 being the best. There are entertainment movies that are smarter than Die Hard (hello Titanic-9 by the way), and i'm pretty sure there are better action movies out there, who also have a meaning. I just don't have watched much.
On December 20 2012 08:23 Vorenius wrote:
My point was, that if the highest an action movie can score is 8, then you are rating action movies on a scale of 1 to 8.
Based on the movies you listed as ones you really enjoyed, I doubt there are many fantasy movies that would even score higher than 6-7 in your book. So now you are giving The Hobbit a score of 4 out of the possible 6 it could achieve as a movie in the fantasy genre.
And you still claim that you use the same scale for all films. :s
There is no reason why an action movie couldn't get a ten. It's improbable, but far from impossible.
As for your other point, it's pretty uninteresting. If all the movie of a particular subgenre happen to suck, it's my fault. I mean, if the best blaxpoitation deserve a 6, are you going to argue I should give it a ten ? Because you know, in the subgenre of movie adaptation of the Hobbit directed by Peter Jackson, i'm rating out of 4. And now suddenly, the Hobbit deserves a ten according to your "logic".
Edit : I give The Thin Red Line and Deer Hunter ten, if that's helps convincing you I have nothing against action movies.
|
On December 20 2012 08:32 dudecrush wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 07:37 Falling wrote:
One thing I absolutely loved was Gandalf and Bilbo's first scene. It played so close to the original text... so good.
This. I had a huge grin on my face for that whole scene. Beautiful.
Me too. I went to see it with my brother and whenever there was an easily recognizable line from the book we looked over at each other with banana grins on our faces  Really enjoyed it even if it wasn't exactly the book. And for the people saying that it was childish, it is supposed to be as the book was written for a child. (one of Tolkien's relatives, not sure which one)
|
On December 20 2012 09:09 autoexec wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2012 08:32 dudecrush wrote:On December 20 2012 07:37 Falling wrote:
One thing I absolutely loved was Gandalf and Bilbo's first scene. It played so close to the original text... so good.
This. I had a huge grin on my face for that whole scene. Beautiful. Me too. I went to see it with my brother and whenever there was an easily recognizable line from the book we looked over at each other with banana grins on our faces Really enjoyed it even if it wasn't exactly the book. And for the people saying that it was childish, it is supposed to be as the book was written for a child. (one of Tolkien's relatives, not sure which one)
I agree, the parts where direct lines from the book fit in nicely, or songs were added, were some of my favorite parts of the movie. That all came together to make the Gollum scene fantastic, but aside from that, I quite enjoyed the Bilbo/Gandalf/Dwarves scenes from the start of the movie.
But again, a book for children need not be childish.
|
I found it quite enjoyable. Three hours of dwarves going from roller coaster to roller coaster with some extra Tolkien lore thrown in. I'll take it!
|
This was one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. It seemed like someone had the idea that the story of the Hobbit wasn't dramatic enough and that the solution was talking orcs. Seriously? Oh, and the random tension between Bilbo and Thorin.
It wasn't so much that it was a terrible film; from an objective standpoint, things looked pretty good. It just hurt me to see the plot of my favorite childhood book so needlessly and carelessly abridged. By the time the (wtf?!) wargs were chasing that rabbit sled I was half in a coma. Although some parts of the book were rendered in a decently faithful manner, I in no way was expecting to see a movie about fighting orcs. Once they were out of the Shire, that's basically what it was.
Though, the first 45~ minutes were amazing. That part of the movie was everything I expected from the movie adaptation of the Hobbit and more.
|
On December 20 2012 09:58 Fontong wrote:
This was one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. It seemed like someone had the idea that the story of the Hobbit wasn't dramatic enough and that the solution was talking orcs. Seriously? Oh, and the random tension between Bilbo and Thorin.
It wasn't so much that it was a terrible film; from an objective standpoint, things looked pretty good. It just hurt me to see the plot of my favorite childhood book so needlessly and carelessly abridged. By the time the (wtf?!) wargs were chasing that rabbit sled I was half in a coma. Although some parts of the book were rendered in a decently faithful manner, I in no way was expecting to see a movie about fighting orcs. Once they were out of the Shire, that's basically what it was.
Though, the first 45~ minutes were amazing. That part of the movie was everything I expected from the movie adaptation of the Hobbit and more.
What do you mean Orcs that can talk? orcs could always talk? or do you just mean a way for them to dramatize it?
|
I don't really like to read, much to my detriment in various aspects of my life, and I have a tough time remembering anything about the original Lord of the Rings trilogy I pretty much come into this with very little knowledge of the Middle-Earth universe and The Hobbit especially. Therefore I can't really say I hated much as far as the adaptation goes since I don't know how the original book plays out.
However, I do agree with a lot being said here regarding the conflicting seriousness of the overall film. The "That's What Bilbo Hates" song with the jovial dwarves was appropriate for the scene. Then later on we get to the snot in the troll stew which, again, I think was alright considering how they were portrayed as low wit and the ilk. But the crack the goblin king made was simply horrendous and I can't say I liked the character at all. He didn't feel serious enough for the role of goblin king, the putrid sack of fat protruding from his neck was rather distasteful and could have gone without, and ending with the comment he made totally ruined the latter half of the scene for me. And finally... Saruman's joke at Radagast...
Then there were some things that felt out of place to me. The stone giants felt all wrong. I don't know what sort of significance they play in Tolkien's universe but the introduction with the huge boulder being tossed directly at the band for seemingly no reason made me greatly confused. Then it was made apparent some stone giants were fighting each other for some unknown purpose and then half of the group got smashed between a rock and a hard place but come out without so much as a scratch... all to seemingly lead them to the goblin cavern trap. Completely unnecessary I find.
Then the eagles scene towards the end I also disagreed with. Here I felt he could have stayed more true to the book by showing a scene with an eagle perched on top of a cliff overlooking the wargs chasing Radagast and then have them come save the dwarves near the end. To me it would have been just as clear, if not more so, that the eagles were there to help them and they just don't come out of nowhere because a fucking moth told them Gandalf had summoned them for assistance.
I did enjoy Radagast's scenes including his rabbit sled which reflects back on his personality such that using another animal, say, a fox would not as foxes generally echo a cunning personality. He also tied the necromancer into the whole story fairly well so he did have a purpose. I just wish he had a slightly bigger role than as bait later on.
Overall I enjoyed the movie and I can't wait to see what happens next.
|
I enjoyed the movie, but not as much as I was expecting. I saw the 3D HFR version. Here's my thoughts as somebody who isn't comparing the movie to the book, since I haven't read it in forever:
Pros:
- I actually like the nod to LOTR movies in the beginning with Frodo. I like the idea that this series of movies begins on the exact same day that the LOTR movies did.
- I loved the riddle scene.
- Loved everything that happened at Rivendell (sp).
- The potrayal of Bilbo was very well done.
- I loved the first 30-45min of the movie and in general liked the first half (minus Radagast). After that though...
Cons:
- EVERYTHING involving Radagast was horrible. The chase scene literally had me cringing.
- EVERYTHING involving the goblins and the goblin king was horrible. From the kings death to the stupid way in which the dwarfs fought their way out of the mountain, to the ATROCIOUS scene where they fall down safely on that piece of wood, it was the worst thing done in any of the LOTR/Hobbit movies...
- Too much CGI. Too much BAD CGI.
- Bilbo has never held a sword, yet in his first fight he is parrying like a master and even 1shots a warg.
- The rock giant scene was stupid, unbelievable and unnecessary (Even for LOTR standards).
- Everytime Wargs were involved stupid/unbelivable things happened.
- Too many dramatic poses and seemingly slow motion face shots (usually of Thorin)
- The childish script/scenes detracted heavily from the "epicness" of the movie... much of it wasn't funny, it was corny.
- HFR made it look like a broadway play = can tell when scenes are fake. It's "too real looking" to take seroiusly imo. DO NOT WATCH THE 48FPS.
7/10 ... still Middle Earth and Gandolf.
Why didn't the eagles/hawks just drop the fuckers off at the mountain, not 20miles away from it?
|
I am amazed to find myself thinking this was truer to the book than the trilogy was. Sure they added the white council stuff, tweaked Azog, tweaked the troll scene, did the moth as Gandalf's eagle call thing and what have you but that was all pretty truly minor compared to some of the changes in the trilogy.
I agree with a lot of the comments I had read about it feeling like an extended cut. There were certainly more than a couple "low value" scenes. The opening dragged and spent way too much time with old Bilbo and Frodo. The giants should have been skipped. A few things here and there could have been trimmed slightly. It 'should' have come in at just over 2 hrs to maybe pushing 2:15. It wasn't a 2:38 worthy thing for a theatrical cut. I don't mind as someone who always prefers the extended stuff but I can see this as one of the good complaints for the contrarians.
I liked the more serious tone. They had to do that. They couldn't have released it as a kids movie. The problem was that they let it 'slip' a couple times which then felt awkward.
I did not mind Radagast at all. He's another addition, sure, but he worked. He was well enough implied in the book and makes sense as another appendex/silmarillion inspired addition. As for his character and portrayal I more disagreed with Saruman's disregard for him than the "crazy hippie istari" thing they made him. Crazy hippie works for Radagast.
I am confused at the apparent decision to apply integrated casting to Smaug. He is a CGI dragon, what exactly is the point of making him black? His name is weird too. Sm-AU-g...what was wrong with Sm-OW/OU-g? Sounds too much like 'smog' in an american accent? Were they worried climate denial tinfoil hatters would say that the movie was trying to make a political message by having a BBEG with a name that sounds like smog?
The thing I take meaningful issue with in a negative way is the sound track. They greatly overused the main theme. When the more bombastic version of it that they used for an action sketch every time kicked in around the third time and onward it really felt overdone and 'dry'.
I liked it but overall it didn't feel as good as the lotr trilogy adaptation.
Random blip that I thought was particularly well done: Bilbo not killing Gollum.
Edit: As someone who has always taken issue with movies having too much motion blur whenever a lot of motion was happening (I don't get sick or anything, just mind it the same way I hate if a game I am playing drops down to 24 fps) I loved the 48 fps. To all the nay-sayers I say learn to like what is objectively superior. It shouldn't be that hard, what with being objectively superior from a technical standpoint and all. Drop the "bad because it is different from what I am used to" stuff.
|
48fps isn't bad because it is different, it is bad because it makes it look like a stage-play, not like some epic movie. The scenes where they are using a green-screen look MUCH WORSE in 48fps because it is so obvious that it is fake. However, the "real" scenes look that much better.
The problem for using 48fps in this movie? So much of it is fake/CGI, which makes so many scenes look like a high-school production.
48fps would be awesome in a movie like Bourne.
|
Ok, how do you feel about seeing this movie in IMax?
|
Okay is this movie recommended?
|
I liked the movie A LOT. I've always felt The Hobbit is much less about epicness than LotR is, and the movie, IMO, has the same spirit, it's a lot more about the characters and the adventure on a more personal level than LotR, which is more about epicness and "the world is at stake"
Really enjoyed it, the visuals are beautiful, actors are mostly good on their role, and it has the correct amount of cheesiness in it.
9/10 and fuck all the whiners! 
|
Poll: How would you recommend viewing The Hobbit?2D (35) 56% HFR 3D (21) 33% I Max 3D (7) 11% 63 total votes Your vote: How would you recommend viewing The Hobbit? (Vote): I Max 3D
(Vote): HFR 3D
(Vote): 2D
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 21 2012 03:06 fifasnipe2224 wrote:Poll: How would you recommend viewing The Hobbit?2D (35) 56% HFR 3D (21) 33% I Max 3D (7) 11% 63 total votes Your vote: How would you recommend viewing The Hobbit? (Vote): I Max 3D
(Vote): HFR 3D
(Vote): 2D
I'll be able to answer this perfectly quite soon.
I watched it at the IMAX 3D at my first watch, going to watch it in HFR next weekend and later I'll watch the 2D.
Edit: Hided the poll.
|
On December 20 2012 09:58 Fontong wrote:
This was one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen. It seemed like someone had the idea that the story of the Hobbit wasn't dramatic enough and that the solution was talking orcs. Seriously? Oh, and the random tension between Bilbo and Thorin.
It wasn't so much that it was a terrible film; from an objective standpoint, things looked pretty good. It just hurt me to see the plot of my favorite childhood book so needlessly and carelessly abridged. By the time the (wtf?!) wargs were chasing that rabbit sled I was half in a coma. Although some parts of the book were rendered in a decently faithful manner, I in no way was expecting to see a movie about fighting orcs. Once they were out of the Shire, that's basically what it was.
Though, the first 45~ minutes were amazing. That part of the movie was everything I expected from the movie adaptation of the Hobbit and more.
I do agree it was a bit overdone at times, especially with the rabbit sled that you mentioned, but I quite enjoyed it. I've talked to some people who said the first 45 minutes (or just the beginning) were too slow and didn't move. To be honest, I enjoyed both the beginning and the added parts (although my favorite scenes were the ones taken right out of the book). I guess it really comes down to what you wanted to get out of the movie.
|
I watched this at an IMAX 3D theater last night, which probably inflated my enjoyment of the movie lol...
Anyways, I really liked this movie though I don't think it's quite as good as the other LOTR movies.
|
I don't understand all the 48fps haters. I mean, yes, it looks different, and it reminds you of a play or - gasp - real life, but the only reason you don't associate 48fps with a movie is because you've been watching 24fps movies all the time. (And some of you probably watched soap operas in higher frame rates all the time, too.  ) It is odd at first, but once you get used to it.. holy crap, it is so. much. better.
Yes, the CGI was not all that good at times, and it shows more in 48fps. But saying that 24fps is therefore better is like saying that HD is bad because you can see too many (badly created) details. Call me crazy, but I'd rather force the film people to do a better job with their CGI.
It took me 10-15 minutes until I got used to the higher framerate, and then I stopped noticing. And somehow everything just looked better. The scene with Gollum and Bilbo was just incredible in 48fps, it showed that they took a lot more work working on Gollum than working on most other CGI effects. Some other effects weren't nearly as good, and some were quite fake (especially those wide shots with a bunch of CGI dwarves/orcs/rabbits moving around), but I'm sure they look just as fake in the 24fps version.
Seriously, guys. Get used to 48fps. It's better in every regard, and it will ultimately force filmmakers to make better quality films.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
