|
Russian Federation386 Posts
Watched in 3D semi-IMAX (yes there is such a thing) 24 fps.
It was very long, longer than I ever expected. I knew he was splitting the (short) book into 3 films so I though the running time would be reasonable, but apparently Peter can only make 3+ hour movies. There is is a good kind of long and bad one, like in the Hobbit where some scenes are unnecessarily stretched.
Pros:
- scenery is very pretty
- Golum scene is very well done
- intro about dwarf city is good as well and very epic
- I liked the eagles flying scene
- Bilbo is very good, liked him a lot
- Rivendale scene
- score is ok
Cons:
- many times CGI looks fake
- troll scene
- only a couple of dwarfs are memorable, others are just some random dudes
- it could be the (usually awful) Russian localization, but I though some of Gandalf's speeches and lines were very cheesy and out of place
- way too long, some scenes seemed to take forever (dwarfs in Bilbo's house, trolls, warg chase, goblin cave, etc)
- Radagast (wtf?)
- mountain giants scene is just a waste
- goblins. I even thought at first I thought they were orcs, wondered why they were so afraid of the "goblin-slayer" sword heh. The fall in that flimsy pard of the bridge was so unnatural I almost puked.
- the fight by the tree on a cliff is just a giant LOL scene, its so stupid yet tries too hard to be epic. LOL!
I'm sure there is stuff I forgot about.
On the 24 vs 48 fps, as I said I was watching in 24, but I have seen a trailer in 48 and although it wasn't official I thought it was pretty close to what 48 fps would look like. Yes, I know my experience of 48 fps is very limited, but from what I've seen and my experience of movies/tv series/video in general I think I wouldn't like the movie in 48. Simple reasons:
-looks too much like a general cheap TV series. 24 is always associated with the "film look" and 50 (we use PAL in here) with home videos and cheap TV stuff, so watching an epic high-budget movie without the "film look" would diminish the enjoyment a lot.
- in 48 it loses a lot of film magic, I can literally see how fake it all is.
Still, I would like to watch in 48 fps when the movie is available for download just so I can really compare the two. Out of curiosity, more than out of enjoyment of super smooth video.
This is all strictly my opinion, you can flame all you want, I don't care.
|
On December 23 2012 20:09 eX-Corgh wrote:
On the 24 vs 48 fps, as I said I was watching in 24, but I have seen a trailer in 48 and although it wasn't official I thought it was pretty close to what 48 fps would look like. Yes, I know my experience of 48 fps is very limited, but from what I've seen and my experience of movies/tv series/video in general I think I wouldn't like the movie in 48. Simple reasons:
-looks too much like a general cheap TV series. 24 is always associated with the "film look" and 50 (we use PAL in here) with home videos and cheap TV stuff, so watching an epic high-budget movie without the "film look" would diminish the enjoyment a lot.
- in 48 it loses a lot of film magic, I can literally see how fake it all is.
Still, I would like to watch in 48 fps when the movie is available for download just so I can really compare the two. Out of curiosity, more than out of enjoyment of super smooth video.
First of all, that 48fps trailer doesn't do the real 48fps justice. And all this "cheap TV look" stuff simply vanishes after 10-15 minutes of watching the 48fps version. Try it out some day, you'll be pleasantly surprised.
I really, really hope that 48fps (or more, even) will become standard one day, just like HD becomes standard these days.
|
48 FPS is amazing, people who complain about it are stuck in the past. I watched in HFR 3D and it was gorgeous! Might've had something to do with the fact that I go to the cinema less than once a year and as such I'm less prejudiced against HFR.
Trust me, if anyone here is wondering whether you should watch 24 or 48 FPS, go to 48 FPS with an open mind and you'll be blown away.
|
On December 23 2012 20:09 eX-Corgh wrote:
Watched in 3D semi-IMAX (yes there is such a thing) 24 fps.
It was very long, longer than I ever expected. I knew he was splitting the (short) book into 3 films so I though the running time would be reasonable, but apparently Peter can only make 3+ hour movies. There is is a good kind of long and bad one, like in the Hobbit where some scenes are unnecessarily stretched.
Pros:
- scenery is very pretty
- Golum scene is very well done
- intro about dwarf city is good as well and very epic
- I liked the eagles flying scene
- Bilbo is very good, liked him a lot
- Rivendale scene
- score is ok
Cons:
- many times CGI looks fake
- troll scene
- only a couple of dwarfs are memorable, others are just some random dudes
- it could be the (usually awful) Russian localization, but I though some of Gandalf's speeches and lines were very cheesy and out of place
- way too long, some scenes seemed to take forever (dwarfs in Bilbo's house, trolls, warg chase, goblin cave, etc)
- Radagast (wtf?)
- mountain giants scene is just a waste
- goblins. I even thought at first I thought they were orcs, wondered why they were so afraid of the "goblin-slayer" sword heh. The fall in that flimsy pard of the bridge was so unnatural I almost puked.
- the fight by the tree on a cliff is just a giant LOL scene, its so stupid yet tries too hard to be epic. LOL!
I'm sure there is stuff I forgot about.
On the 24 vs 48 fps, as I said I was watching in 24, but I have seen a trailer in 48 and although it wasn't official I thought it was pretty close to what 48 fps would look like. Yes, I know my experience of 48 fps is very limited, but from what I've seen and my experience of movies/tv series/video in general I think I wouldn't like the movie in 48. Simple reasons:
-looks too much like a general cheap TV series. 24 is always associated with the "film look" and 50 (we use PAL in here) with home videos and cheap TV stuff, so watching an epic high-budget movie without the "film look" would diminish the enjoyment a lot.
- in 48 it loses a lot of film magic, I can literally see how fake it all is.
Still, I would like to watch in 48 fps when the movie is available for download just so I can really compare the two. Out of curiosity, more than out of enjoyment of super smooth video.
This is all strictly my opinion, you can flame all you want, I don't care.
I take you didn't read the book?
|
Kinda childish at times (Those mountaintrolls, I mean seriously?) and at the end of the movie OMG WTF EAGLES ARE RESCUING US AND KILLING ORCS WHILE THEY'RE AT IT (but not Azog ofcourse, who's just standing there being albino). Goddamn eagles = deus ex machina.
Oh Gandalf is in trouble? Brb summoning eagles.
|
Yea....never liked those eagles..I mean they look awesome and fit the universe.
But C'mon. it just screams of not being able to figure out how to get the characters out of a tough situation he put them in, better make gandalf call some eagles...= / they didnt even fly them all the way to the mountain..
|
- goblins. I even thought at first I thought they were orcs, wondered why they were so afraid of the "goblin-slayer" sword heh. The fall in that flimsy pard of the bridge was so unnatural I almost puked.
goblins are orcs
|
On December 23 2012 21:24 TheRealArtemis wrote:
Yea....never liked those eagles..I mean they look awesome and fit the universe.
But C'mon. it just screams of not being able to figure out how to get the characters out of a tough situation he put them in, better make gandalf call some eagles...= / they didnt even fly them all the way to the mountain..
Well, it'll happen again in the trilogy and it already happened twice in LOTR. It's kind of Tolkiens's goto device if it's about to get really dangerous...
And in the book it is I think explained why they can't fly them to the montains. Eagles are not made to carry people and are exhausted after a short amount of time when carrying a heavy weight like dwarfes. Or at least that is what I think I read somewhere.
|
On December 23 2012 19:08 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 16:19 Forikorder wrote:On December 23 2012 16:18 mierin wrote:On December 23 2012 16:10 Forikorder wrote:On December 23 2012 16:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On December 23 2012 15:57 Forikorder wrote:On December 23 2012 15:54 Telcontar wrote:On December 23 2012 15:41 Dfgj wrote:On December 23 2012 15:18 Valkyriex wrote:
Tolkien just rolled over in his grave when he heard that The Hobbit [1 Book] Is going to be a movie trilology There's no 1 book = 1 movie rule. LotR was published in 3 volumes but they had to cut tons of scenes/condense parts and it still ended up immensely long. The Hobbit was written with a lot of information that was barely touched on + additional appendix information from LotR itself. Although there is no such rule, it's also uncommon for 1 book, as slim as The Hobbit is, to be split up and turned into 3 films. It just reeks of overindulgence. I, like some here, just wanted Bilbo's journey told as closely to the book as possible. I don't particularly mind Jackson touching on the periphery stuff like The White Council, Radagast, and etc, but to blow it up and try and make it into another 'epic' trilogy goes against what I believe to be the spirit of the book. The book is about a small, seemingly insignificant hobbit being caught up in something much bigger than himself. It's about his self-discovery of strength and wits he's always had within himself. It is NOT, at least to me, a sweeping epic akin to the LOTR. you never read the hobbit have you? I have, and I agree with him. What makes you disagree? because theres no way to make that book into one film and do it justice 3 might be a bit much but it definently needs 2 How can it be argued that 1 film = 1 book does the LOTR trilogy justice, but then saying the Hobbit deserves 3 books? Just doesn't compute in my book. 1 film to one book did not do the LoTR trilogy justice it came close though since SO MUCH of the LoTR trilogy was about walking and stuff without much actually happening so there was a good chunk of dead weight that could be cut out If it was 1 film for 1 book, then there would have to be 9 films for the LoTR trilogy. What it seems a lot of people don't know is that the 3 volumes are actually 3 books condensed into 1.
6, not 9. And strictly speaking, it was a single book as it was written, split into 6 for publication (condensed into 3 volumes etc etc). You certainly wouldn't suggest giving all of LotR one movie.
As to above, at no point does Gandalf 'call' eagles, that's a Jackson addition.
|
On December 23 2012 20:09 eX-Corgh wrote:
- goblins. I even thought at first I thought they were orcs, wondered why they were so afraid of the "goblin-slayer" sword heh.
Goblins are orcs though, the lord of the ring "orcs" in the movies are just the bigger versions like Uruk-Kai.
Also Radagast sends for the eagles and the leader of eagles was helped by Gandalf(or radagast I forget not) so naturally they would want to return the favour by helping gandalf.
|
I have to agree with most of the points,
*with the new technique some scenes just seem somewhat unnatural is if they were played too fast or somthing is wrong with them
* I also didnt like the troll boss/king, I get it he was there to be funny, but it was just cheesy and silly and written for 5 years old.
* and the eagle rescue is cheesy as always, Gandalf should just summon them at the beginning to carry them right to the end, I have to agree with the deus ex machina rescue
What I like is that he is trying to tell the story in a slow pace, that's a good contrast to the fast action paced stories we are used to nowadays. I hope jackson focuses more on immersion and story telling, because we already know bilbo will survive, and gandalf too so the main focus shouldnt be on their struggle to survive.
|
People really need to stop the bullshit about "Why didn't the eagles..." because if you're saying that you obviously didn't read the books and should understand that the movies don't actually do the eagles justice at all, other than allowing you to see them in their beauty. (simply because eagles are majestic looking birds  )
And the "hobbit seemed childish" is SUPPOSED to be that way so shut up about that lol. It's NOT the LotR.
|
On December 24 2012 02:58 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2012 19:08 kollin wrote:On December 23 2012 16:19 Forikorder wrote:On December 23 2012 16:18 mierin wrote:On December 23 2012 16:10 Forikorder wrote:On December 23 2012 16:08 Cyber_Cheese wrote:On December 23 2012 15:57 Forikorder wrote:On December 23 2012 15:54 Telcontar wrote:On December 23 2012 15:41 Dfgj wrote:On December 23 2012 15:18 Valkyriex wrote:
Tolkien just rolled over in his grave when he heard that The Hobbit [1 Book] Is going to be a movie trilology There's no 1 book = 1 movie rule. LotR was published in 3 volumes but they had to cut tons of scenes/condense parts and it still ended up immensely long. The Hobbit was written with a lot of information that was barely touched on + additional appendix information from LotR itself. Although there is no such rule, it's also uncommon for 1 book, as slim as The Hobbit is, to be split up and turned into 3 films. It just reeks of overindulgence. I, like some here, just wanted Bilbo's journey told as closely to the book as possible. I don't particularly mind Jackson touching on the periphery stuff like The White Council, Radagast, and etc, but to blow it up and try and make it into another 'epic' trilogy goes against what I believe to be the spirit of the book. The book is about a small, seemingly insignificant hobbit being caught up in something much bigger than himself. It's about his self-discovery of strength and wits he's always had within himself. It is NOT, at least to me, a sweeping epic akin to the LOTR. you never read the hobbit have you? I have, and I agree with him. What makes you disagree? because theres no way to make that book into one film and do it justice 3 might be a bit much but it definently needs 2 How can it be argued that 1 film = 1 book does the LOTR trilogy justice, but then saying the Hobbit deserves 3 books? Just doesn't compute in my book. 1 film to one book did not do the LoTR trilogy justice it came close though since SO MUCH of the LoTR trilogy was about walking and stuff without much actually happening so there was a good chunk of dead weight that could be cut out If it was 1 film for 1 book, then there would have to be 9 films for the LoTR trilogy. What it seems a lot of people don't know is that the 3 volumes are actually 3 books condensed into 1. 6, not 9. And strictly speaking, it was a single book as it was written, split into 6 for publication (condensed into 3 volumes etc etc). You certainly wouldn't suggest giving all of LotR one movie. As to above, at no point does Gandalf 'call' eagles, that's a Jackson addition.
It's their way of getting from point A to point B and quicker because it is film after all and you have to take certain liberties. With that said, I just saw it and it's reminiscent of Peter's earlier work with Fellowship of the Ring where we're introduced to all the characters and it acts as a prologue for what we're about to see. It does it's job. I enjoyed it, but I wouldn't say it was great or on my top five films of the year. I like the fact they're also testing new technology even though I'm a very old fashioned filmmaker myself.
On December 24 2012 03:49 BlackPaladin wrote:People really need to stop the bullshit about "Why didn't the eagles..." because if you're saying that you obviously didn't read the books and should understand that the movies don't actually do the eagles justice at all, other than allowing you to see them in their beauty. (simply because eagles are majestic looking birds ) And the "hobbit seemed childish" is SUPPOSED to be that way so shut up about that lol. It's NOT the LotR.
Yeah, it's supposed to be a children's book.
|
On December 24 2012 03:49 BlackPaladin wrote:People really need to stop the bullshit about "Why didn't the eagles..." because if you're saying that you obviously didn't read the books and should understand that the movies don't actually do the eagles justice at all, other than allowing you to see them in their beauty. (simply because eagles are majestic looking birds ) And the "hobbit seemed childish" is SUPPOSED to be that way so shut up about that lol. It's NOT the LotR.
There is a difference between Tolien's idea of childish and Jackson's. The eagles in The Hobbit are much less of a deus ex machina than in LoTR. But in Tolkien's work they are perfectly justified by the metaphoric sense of the quest, which isn't present in Jackson's work.
Finally, the didntreadthebook argument in a topic about the movie is kinda dumb.
|
On December 24 2012 03:34 Holy_AT wrote:
I have to agree with most of the points,
*with the new technique some scenes just seem somewhat unnatural is if they were played too fast or somthing is wrong with them
* I also didnt like the troll boss/king, I get it he was there to be funny, but it was just cheesy and silly and written for 5 years old.
* and the eagle rescue is cheesy as always, Gandalf should just summon them at the beginning to carry them right to the end, I have to agree with the deus ex machina rescue
What I like is that he is trying to tell the story in a slow pace, that's a good contrast to the fast action paced stories we are used to nowadays. I hope jackson focuses more on immersion and story telling, because we already know bilbo will survive, and gandalf too so the main focus shouldnt be on their struggle to survive.
Gandalf (in the book at least) cannot summon the eagles, the eagles saw the Goblins and Wolves were doing evil and rescued the dwarves and then Gandalf managed to negotiate transport
its actually impressive that he managed to get them to carry them so far
|
On December 23 2012 21:21 DwmC_Foefen wrote:
Kinda childish at times (Those mountaintrolls, I mean seriously?) and at the end of the movie OMG WTF EAGLES ARE RESCUING US AND KILLING ORCS WHILE THEY'RE AT IT (but not Azog ofcourse, who's just standing there being albino). Goddamn eagles = deus ex machina.
Oh Gandalf is in trouble? Brb summoning eagles.
Im sorry did you just say The Hobbit was a little bit childish at times? The Hobbit?! The famous CHILDRENS BOOK WRITTEN FOR CHILDREN?! What an outrage sir, thank you so much for pointing it out!
However, eagles scene was a tad bit strange, but you have to remember that Gandalf has a special relationship with the eagles, plus if you'd read the book you would know the Eagles were in the area already....
|
Guys, the people complaining about the movie have clearly not read the book nor have any clue about Tolkien's work...
|
On December 24 2012 04:59 fabiano wrote:
Guys, the people complaining about the movie have clearly not read the book nor have any clue about Tolkien's work...
Loi what ?
|
On December 24 2012 05:12 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2012 04:59 fabiano wrote:
Guys, the people complaining about the movie have clearly not read the book nor have any clue about Tolkien's work... Loi what ?
so amny people complaining its too childish, or too slow, or X part doesnt make sense when it does (eagles)
|
On December 24 2012 04:59 fabiano wrote:
Guys, the people complaining about the movie have clearly not read the book nor have any clue about Tolkien's work...
nope just wasn't that great of a movie but keep fanboying Jackson. The last hour of the movie was a complete garbage fest. The entire goblin part save for the Bilbo/Gollum scene, which is still kinda meh since the entire place is illuminated when in the book its pitch black...would have been cooler if he used the blue sword to illuminate around him slowly and build up to him and gollum being able to see eachothers faces, was so bad my god. Then the whole azog warg pack while they are all in a tree on the edge of a cliff is just so poorly done.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
