On October 01 2013 22:43 Eatme wrote:
Hmmmz, looks like alot of annoying jumping and roller-coaster riding again. But I'll still watch it I guess.

Yeah. Its starting to suffer from Pirates syndrome. Every action scene must contain a lot of "roller-coaster" action.

But meh...its still a fantasy movie with a good budget, so cant say no

Dantak

Czech Republic648 Posts

October 01 2013 13:47 GMT

#1429

I was baffled when I've realized that I'm not looking forward to next movie. After watching trailer I felt nothing, which is strange given all the goosebumps I've experienced in other trailers to "Tolkien's movies". Quite sad

.

Well at least the Smaugs voice is great. :-)

ETisME

12904 Posts

October 01 2013 13:49 GMT

#1430

is it weird that I am just not impressed with the CGI shots anymore? Not saying the CGI is bad but they kept pushing awesome looking landscape and buildings to my eyes way too often and I am just kinda tired of it

JimSocks

United States968 Posts

October 01 2013 13:57 GMT

#1431

well, i hope they film it in regular 24p this time. i do admit, the 48 framerate looked good during the CGI sequences (action scenes), but it took me out of the movie everytime it shifts back to normal scenes.

Cyro

United Kingdom20345 Posts

October 01 2013 14:06 GMT

#1432

I find it funny the dances people are doing in the movie industry, shooting to make things look more real, or in the case of 24 vs 48fps, make them seem not real

It's hard to understand the arguments for camera effects and lens flares in Star Trek: Into Darkness as creating an experience as if it were being filmed live, and was intended to be viewed through a camera for maximum realism, while simultaneously having open rebellion against anything over 24fps, because a lot of people seemingly don't like that same realism. Kinda confuses me where we were going this whole time with resolution and such yknow? Do people really want the 9x increase in pixels from 720 to 4k? what about 2.5x increase in framerate? 22.5x as much data as 720p24 would be a big plus for me. Then again - we have the whole debate about if movies should be shot deliberately out of focus, so that the background doesn't grab your attention from the main characters etc. I never got that part, either

HaRuHi

1220 Posts

October 01 2013 14:13 GMT

#1433

"Bilbo with a dribbling nose, and Gandalf as a figure of vulgar fun rather than the Odinic wanderer that I think of."

"It might be advisable [...] to let the Americans do what seems good to them — as long as it was possible [...] to veto anything from or influenced by the Disney studios (for all whose works I have a heartfelt loathing)."

"I recognize [Walt Disney's] talent, but it has always seemed to me hopelessly corrupted. Though in most of the 'pictures' proceeding from his studios there are admirable or charming passages, the effect of all of them to me is disgusting. Some have given me nausea"

Tolkien about Disney.

Why do I bring this up? Because the hobbit was an enormous dissappointment. Not only the often mentioned rollercoaster action scenes, but the dish washing scene, the not so scary ogers, the admittetly kinda cool Radagast...

Has anyone seen the trollphysics slide, where they hook up a generator to the skeleton of newton and produce infinite energy by posting trollphysics and making him rotate in his grave? That was exactly the picture I had in mind when I saw the hobbit.

The trailer on the one hand catches me with that epic music and sleazy dialouge, but I also felt like throwing up when I saw the cgi elves shooting at the dwarfes in the barrels...

Falling

Canada11607 Posts

October 01 2013 14:15 GMT

#1434

On October 01 2013 22:49 ETisME wrote:
is it weird that I am just not impressed with the CGI shots anymore? Not saying the CGI is bad but they kept pushing awesome looking landscape and buildings to my eyes way too often and I am just kinda tired of it

But most of the outside shots aren't CGI. Like they might add in a fantasy specific feature- the actual rock bear head at Carroc at the end of the first. But everything else in that scene where the eagles landed existed. The buildings, sure. It would be nice if they went to the bigatures as the first 3 had a nice mix of new and old technology, but it doesn't really bother me.

In other news, it looks like chapter Fire and Water will be included in this movie.

Musicus

Germany23580 Posts

October 01 2013 14:21 GMT

#1435

Smaug's voice is so fucking sick, holy shit yes yes yes, goose bumps :D.

Shebuha

Canada1335 Posts

October 01 2013 16:31 GMT

#1436

If Smaug doesn't have a sick monologue like the one at 0:38 I'ma be mad salty. His voice is pretty sweet so far though.

itkovian

United States1763 Posts

October 03 2013 01:36 GMT

#1437

+ Show Spoiler +

On October 01 2013 22:29 Storm-Giant wrote:
Main trailer just got released

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbOEknbi4gQ

hahahaha @ that legolas romance scene in the trailer. this would have pissed me off a year ago, but i don't even really care anymore

i'm looking forward to the second movie, i thought the first one was entertaining. you just have to accept that there will be no other value in it than the fun

Serejai

6007 Posts

October 03 2013 01:43 GMT

#1438

At the end of the first LoTR movie I knew the names of all the main characters. I had a favorite, I had a least favorite. I knew the villains

At the end of the first Hobbit movie I knew... Gandalf and Bilbo - two people that I already knew from the LoTR movies. I don't give a shit about any of the dwarves, nor could I tell you any of their names or ranks other than that one was a king.

This just hasn't grabbed me the way LoTR did and I'm not sure I'll bother seeing the next two movies.

Falling

Canada11607 Posts

October 03 2013 02:00 GMT

#1439

On October 03 2013 10:43 Serejai wrote:
At the end of the first LoTR movie I knew the names of all the main characters. I had a favorite, I had a least favorite. I knew the villains

At the end of the first Hobbit movie I knew... Gandalf and Bilbo - two people that I already knew from the LoTR movies. I don't give a shit about any of the dwarves, nor could I tell you any of their names or ranks other than that one was a king.

This just hasn't grabbed me the way LoTR did and I'm not sure I'll bother seeing the next two movies.

You do realize this is an issue that goes back to the source material? Thorin and to some extent Balin are the two standout and Fili & Kili just because they are younger. But what does Gloin really do in the book beyond quarrel with Oin in the first rainfalls before the Trolls. It is difficult to to portray 15 people separately when in the book they were light-heartedly named background characters (Ori, Dori, Nori, Bifor, Bofur, Bombur.) The rhyming scheme of the names helps collect them in our minds when reading, but you don't see that in the movie. I am hoping that the next two movies will further develop what Jackson has started in differentiating the Dwarves... particularly once Gandalf leaves.

shaftofpleasure

Korea (North)1375 Posts

October 03 2013 02:06 GMT

#1440

On October 01 2013 22:57 JimSocks wrote:
well, i hope they film it in regular 24p this time. i do admit, the 48 framerate looked good during the CGI sequences (action scenes), but it took me out of the movie everytime it shifts back to normal scenes.

WTF are you talking about? They've filmed it all in 48p and finished filming before the first installation was released.