EPT[Movie] The Hobbit Trilogy - Page 51
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
sambo400
United States378 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On December 28 2012 01:07 Medrea wrote: Thats because documentaries have a distinct lack of after filming effects thrown in. Like motion blur. It has nothing to do with framerate. If you want the 24 FPS muddy-mess you can throw in twice the motion blur (because double FPS) and voila you have the same effect back. It has nothing to do with framerate and everything to do with post production. Shh i'll stay with my 29.97 interlaced 525 lines being shot from a CRT shooting electrons in a line going up or down XD. Documentaries also tend not to do as many whip-pans and out of frame cuts as any given pg-13 movie with violence in it. Also i hate the trend of trailers at first it was just fade the black all day with a voice over trying to be dramatic. But now it's that plus a fucking annoying loud bass like sound playing every like 3 seconds. There really isn't a downside to adding more frames how you shot movies doesn't change or have much consideration for more frames but why use 48 when 60 is just right there. Sure it's double the standard which used 24fps err 23.976 or w.e depending on what was used to film it i just find the 48 to be lack luster and arbitrary in a digital age when 60 is just right there. Films should just stop being weird by itself standard even if there are underlying reasons. | ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
On December 30 2012 10:33 semantics wrote: Shh i'll stay with my 24fps interlaced 480 lines being shot from a CRT shooting electrons in a line going up or down XD. Documentaries also tend not to do as many whip-pans and out of frame cuts as any given pg-13 movie with violence in it. Also i hate the trend of trailers at first it was just fade the black all day with a voice over trying to be dramatic. But now it's that plus a fucking annoying loud bass like sound playing every like 3 seconds. I blame Batman Dark Knight Rises for this. Was badass the first time, and annoying by everyone trying to imitate it for trailers. | ||
|
The Chief
Australia138 Posts
Movie was great, enjoyed it immensely, didn't feel all that long for me even with those annoying glasses on, yes i am a lord of the rings fan, no i don't give a shit if it strays from the book, movie was great, easily one of the best movies to come out in the last couple of years. | ||
|
The Chief
Australia138 Posts
| ||
|
bluQ
Germany1724 Posts
Anyways nice movie. Seen for itself being a movie, it is again an awesome piece of fantasy movie and the next genius strike from Peter Jackson. Compared to the books it feels ... a bit off. Too many little unneeded changes (gollum not sensing bilbo, bilbo "touching" gollum, gollum losing the ring, dwarves apear in the night etc.pp.) Compared to general movies which came out this year: 10/10, compared to LotR epicness 9/10, compared to the book 6.66/10 | ||
|
NKB
United Kingdom608 Posts
| ||
|
Patriot.dlk
Sweden5462 Posts
Really liked some of the details they did like goblin warts and whatnot | ||
|
Galek
Poland234 Posts
Radagast. I don't even... It's good that at least it somehow fits the "fairy" atomsphere of Hobbit. Like people are saying, movie is really decent, even better if you haven't read the book but seen LotR movies. Definitely worth watching but for Tolkien's lore fans, there might be moments of wtf is this. Even though I don't really like the fact that its going to be trilogy, I'll definitely wait for next two. | ||
white_horse
1019 Posts
| ||
|
wajd
240 Posts
I actually thought the movie slowed down as it went on, and the beginning went by fast. Think this is one of those movies where critics hate it but everyone else loves it. What's the main complaint - "It's too long..."? Sorry I'm a grown up and have a mature attention span. I'll sure to be at the midnight for 2nd one  | ||
|
UdderChaos
United Kingdom707 Posts
| ||
|
ETisME
12387 Posts
the only two scenes that I didn't completely expect was the storm giants and the ring was used the part about Solomon was really funny, he just got completely ignored by everyone lol | ||
|
anycolourfloyd
Australia524 Posts
longer != better i love lotr lore, so i should have been appreciating the fact that they wanted to pack more stuff in. i think in the end though, i have no time for lame hollywood shit. the number of cliffhanger scenes drove me to exasperation. maybe the book was like that, i can't remember. but when you've seen that shit a million times in a million different movies, you don't need it a million times in the same movie. edit: i dunno if i'm just cynical but tbh the only reason i see the hobbit being made into three movies is pure $$$, and this also kinda took away from the enjoyment for me.. | ||
|
LiamTheZerg
United States523 Posts
On December 31 2012 07:46 white_horse wrote: pacing was too slow, especially in the beginning. I've read the book but after hearing the script, I can tell this movie is completely dense to someone who hasn't read it. Words like "gondolin", "mithrandir"? Nobody knows what the hell they mean. All the new filler stuff wasn't as bad as people told me. Except the part with radagast. That was completely useless. mithrandir is what they called gandalf, seems pretty obvious as a reference to him. think it was in lotro too | ||
|
FalconHoof
Canada183 Posts
Saw this movie the night it came out and I was very impressed. Im disappointed that its a 3 part movie, but in all honesty, it's a pretty damn good film. Also, very accurate to the book. My one complaint: + Show Spoiler + OMGWTF SHOW ME SMAUG!!!! That is all I wanted to see...or maybe a Star Trek trailer!!!! grrrrrr....haha | ||
|
CrazyBirdman
Germany3509 Posts
On December 31 2012 09:16 ETisME wrote: I thought the plot was quite predictable, which is a shame because I haven't even read the book. the only two scenes that I didn't completely expect was the storm giants and the ring was used the part about Solomon was really funny, he just got completely ignored by everyone lol In the second half it gets a little less predictable don't worry. No complete story turnaround but a bit more variety. I mean in the first one there ist little actual story to speak of, they basically walk from the Shire to the Carrock (the rock on which they stand after their escape) On December 31 2012 07:46 white_horse wrote: pacing was too slow, especially in the beginning. I've read the book but after hearing the script, I can tell this movie is completely dense to someone who hasn't read it. Words like "gondolin", "mithrandir"? Nobody knows what the hell they mean. All the new filler stuff wasn't as bad as people told me. Except the part with radagast. That was completely useless. Mithrandir was mentioned in LOTR as well the Gondorians called him that way and Gondolin is referred to with mentioning their king and showing off the legendary swords. Two of those are known to even the non-reader with Glamdring and Sting which makes Gondolin seems like an old and important place with lots of history. Additionally I really like how there are these little things for the readers of the books, like when Gandalf mentions the two blue wizards or Saruman refers to the five wizards as Istari. And I actually kind of like Radagast, he is a fun character whose sillyness is even mentioned in the film itself by Saruman. And he actually connects the Necromancer and dwarf story which gives his character purpose. After watching the film now three times I really come to love the scene where Gandalf tells Bilbo that all great story deserve to be embellished (damn the last time I watched it in german and now I forgot the word he used in the OV). That scene for me explains all the hilarious and over the top action we continuosly see in the movie and gives the notion that in the end Bilbo is telling us the story he experienced rather than someone writing a documentation of what objectivly happened. It makes it really feel like the way I felt when first reading the book back when I was about 10 years or so. | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
On December 31 2012 09:42 LiamTheZerg wrote: mithrandir is what they called gandalf, seems pretty obvious as a reference to him. think it was in lotro too Yup, Faramir and some Gondor warriors called Gandalf, Mirthrandir, in The Return of the King. What white_horse said is true since the original trilogy mentioned terms, people, etc without going into detail. Another example would be when Elrond mentioned the Men of Numenor in The Fellowship of the Ring and so did Faramir before his suicide attack on Osgiliath. On December 31 2012 10:01 CrazyBirdman wrote: Mithrandir was mentioned in LOTR as well the Gondorians called him that way and Gondolin is referred to with mentioning their king and showing off the legendary swords. Two of those are known to even the non-reader with Glamdring and Sting which makes Gondolin seems like an old and important place with lots of history. Yup, and Elrond said "my kin", so the audience will make it out for themselves that it is an ancient Elven city. | ||
|
white_horse
1019 Posts
The part about radagast made me feel like I was watching a disney movie. A wooden sled pulled by rabbits? What the fack. Peter jackson must have been high when he green-lighted that idea. | ||
|
zoLo
United States5896 Posts
| ||
| ||
