The Hobbit Page 36

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • GuiltySpark 21 Dec 2012 00:33:59 6,385 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I noticed a bit of juddering on panning shots in 2D, I stormed out of the theatre and demanded my goddamn money back.

    Get bent.

  • Pac-man-ate-my-wife 21 Dec 2012 07:45:46 7,010 posts
    Seen 20 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    @Armoured_Bear I saw it on 3D, IMAX but non-HFR and though that it was well done throughout with a couple of points where it was really outstanding. I think the scale of IMAX complements 3D well as encompasses more of your field of vision preventing some of the jarring of perspective I've found on smaller screens.
  • mattigan 21 Dec 2012 10:57:57 1,429 posts
    Seen 3 months ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Didn't like it, didn't dislike it found it to be entirely average as a film. Saw the full fat version, can't say was overly impressed as it just seemed to be the quality I have come to expect at home with HD movies, just bigger.

    My major gripe was with makeup, most of cast looked rediculous with giant rubber noses which for some reason really irritated me, also some of the scenes went on far too long, I'm looking at you 'lets all raid the pantry' scene...
  • BravoGolf Moderator 21 Dec 2012 11:07:19 12,741 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Here's a very informative article on the 48fps in The Hobbit, worth a read if you're interested in that sort of thing.
  • yegon 21 Dec 2012 13:41:46 5,265 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I enjoyed it, but it could easily have been about 40 minutes shorter and better for it. Radegast(sp?) reeked of Jar Jar and some of the cave/goblin sequences felt cut and pasted from LoTR and kidded up for the,err, kids.

    Loved the Gollum scenes, the screen presence was like Heath Ledger in TDK, utterly riveting.

    Edited by yegon at 13:45:16 21-12-2012
  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 21 Dec 2012 14:06:26 10,856 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @yegon A hell of a lot of padding but I really enjoyed it. Off to see it again over the Christmas break (I fell asleep during part of the Shire scenes - full of a cold).

    I thought the inclusion of Sly McCoy as Radagast the Brown was brilliant.

    The Goblin King was a bit of a disappointment for me.

    Looking forward to the next part!

    7/10

    Edited by Ignatius_Cheese at 14:07:56 21-12-2012
  • LeD 21 Dec 2012 14:13:34 6,295 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yeah the Goblin King has got a touch of the Naboo's Boss Nass about him...

    Looking forward to my second viewing in about an hour, with my 12 yrs old daughter! :)
  • Bremenacht 21 Dec 2012 15:01:36 18,242 posts
    Seen 24 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Ignatius_Cheese wrote:
    @yegon A hell of a lot of padding but I really enjoyed it. Off to see it again over the Christmas break (I fell asleep during part of the Shire scenes - full of a cold).

    I thought the inclusion of Sly McCoy as Radagast the Brown was brilliant.

    The Goblin King was a bit of a disappointment for me.

    Looking forward to the next part!

    7/10
    I didn't know it was him. Those bits should have been rubbish but I enjoyed them. The spiders creeping over his house were nice and creepy and set-up part 2 nicely.

    Pretty sure it'll start to grate on a 2nd viewing so soon though.
  • thefilthandthefury 21 Dec 2012 17:33:43 25,018 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Loads of Tolkien purists seem to be really annoyed by Radagast, but I thought he was one of the most interesting characters in the whole damn thing! He was a bit silly, sure, but that's part of the point. An addition that was well worth it imo.
  • GuiltySpark 21 Dec 2012 19:08:25 6,385 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    thefilthandthefury wrote:
    Loads of Tolkien purists seem to be really annoyed
    And at that point, you stop listening to them.

    Get bent.

  • LeD 21 Dec 2012 20:01:02 6,295 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Bremenacht wrote:
    Ignatius_Cheese wrote:
    @yegon A hell of a lot of padding but I really enjoyed it. Off to see it again over the Christmas break (I fell asleep during part of the Shire scenes - full of a cold).

    I thought the inclusion of Sly McCoy as Radagast the Brown was brilliant.

    The Goblin King was a bit of a disappointment for me.

    Looking forward to the next part!

    7/10
    I didn't know it was him. Those bits should have been rubbish but I enjoyed them. The spiders creeping over his house were nice and creepy and set-up part 2 nicely.

    Pretty sure it'll start to grate on a 2nd viewing so soon though.
    It doesn't, imo. Just come back from my 2nd viewing, enjoyed it even more as I thought everything was flowing together naturally.

    1st viewing had to contend with my recollection of the book and also getting used to 'younger' Frodo.
  • GuiltySpark 21 Dec 2012 20:06:21 6,385 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I thought the thing was with the Goblin King that he was meant to be useless? A big oaf ruler (rather than big as in fucking 'ard, like the pale orc, big as in clumsy).

    Goblins are only a problem when there's a shit-tonne of them. This is why Bilbo's rather awful fight with one of the Goblins showed how fairly useless he is in combat (so later on he can reclaim his masculinity by saving Thorin, and to juxtapose with the battle of wits with Gollum).

    That's how it is set up in the film, only read up until the spiders in the book, and that was a long time ago.

    Get bent.

  • WinterSnowblind 21 Dec 2012 20:31:57 1,235 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Jezmando wrote:
    3 hours of 3 films made from one small childrens book.

    I'm going to have to watch it in a week, just calculating. I'll probably have to be a bit drunk to enjoy it.
    To clarify, it's not just based on the Hobbit. They're including a lot of the side stuff from the Silmarrillion and the appendixes. Things that happened at the same time, but weren't actually in that book. I can see why some people might see it as a bit of a cash grab, but it's not like they're just making sequels out of thin air.

    I do think the movie was slightly too long though. The scenes with "old Bilbo" were almost completely unnecessary and there's a few others that could have been shortened or saved for the Extended Edition.

    I loved it though. Definitely not as "epic feeling" as LoTR but that's how it was always going to be. Even adding in the backstory for the Necromancer and such, it just isn't as big a story.
  • RobAnybody 21 Dec 2012 23:28:50 894 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    There's nothing from The Silmarillion in either Hobbit film as they don't have the rights to use material from that book (although that doesn't stop them making the occasional nod in that direction). Most of the extra padding is from the Appendices at the end of The Lord of the Rings, and from what passes for Jackson's imagination.
  • dominalien 22 Dec 2012 07:54:08 6,860 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    BravoGolf wrote:
    Here's a very informative article on the 48fps in The Hobbit, worth a read if you're interested in that sort of thing.
    I'm set to see this with some friends after Christmas and I'm really interested if the framerate ruins the film for me. FWIW the frame interpolation mechanisms in TVs look awful to me, but said friends see no difference at all. Maybe the new generation, having grown up with this, will no longer appreciate the 24-fpsness of film?.

    PSN: DonOsito

  • Ignatius_Cheese Moderator 22 Dec 2012 09:39:46 10,856 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @RobAnybody not just the Appendices. Jackson borrowed from the Unfinished Tales book to expand and pad out this trilogy.
  • RobAnybody 22 Dec 2012 09:55:28 894 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Ignatius_Cheese wrote:
    @RobAnybody not just the Appendices. Jackson borrowed from the Unfinished Tales book to expand and pad out this trilogy.
    It could well be the case that there are also nods to Unfinished Tales, but Jackson and co apparently only have the rights to use directly sourced material from The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit.

    This is an interesting read:

    http://www.curatormagazine.com/sorinahiggins/embellishment-is-an-understatement/

    Edited by RobAnybody at 09:58:05 22-12-2012
  • Gaol 25 Dec 2012 00:46:55 2,369 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I saw this last night. It kept me entertained but I got the feeling I was watching an extended cut. The Gollum scenes were far better than anything else in the film.
  • binky Moderator 30 Dec 2012 17:37:00 9,626 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Just got back from seeing this and loved it. Good fun from start to finish. Not convinced by the 48fps thing though, made some of the scenes look like 80's bbc drama!
  • FWB 30 Dec 2012 17:47:04 44,572 posts
    Seen 51 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Frame rate wasn't a problem for me. Enjoys the film, but its just an action flick. None of the scenes develop the storyline nor the characters. Just describe a couple of events on the journey. Bilbo's sudden decision to go on the journey is pretty random, given that so much is made of his love of an easy life. Also, every predicament is solved he same way. Gandalf stamps his cane and does some magic. None of the other characters do anything. Quite the cope out, and very repetitive.

    But ignoring all that, it was fun. Shallow, but fun.
  • OnlyMe 30 Dec 2012 19:05:42 3,104 posts
    Seen 12 months ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    To be fair, the book didn't really dwevlve much on the dwarves' backstory or flesh out their characters either. It was all about Bilbo and his journey. The dwarves were more of a band of brothers that were around to protect Bilbo or fight by his side. Also, the book describes his decision to go on the journey to be somewhat like a battle between his Baggins blood and his Took blood. Took being the adventurous type. I thought the movie portrayed that inne battle pretty decently.

    I enjoyed the movie, despite being a bit slow. It's always extra slow you've read the book, you keep wondering how the future events will look like on the big screen rather than just lay back and enjoy the film. It's much easier to enjoy a movie like this the second time around. Which I will once the blu-ray comes out.
  • FWB 30 Dec 2012 20:52:42 44,572 posts
    Seen 51 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Not really bothered about what the book does or doesn't say. Just feel there isn't much behind much of the scenes, as fun as they are.
  • Armoured_Bear 30 Dec 2012 21:00:25 11,183 posts
    Seen 3 minutes ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    I enjoyed this but wish I hadn't bothered with 3D, it looked great in places but just doesn't work and ultimately works against your immersion in the film.
    I've had enough of shitty 3D in the cinema, I'll be doing my best to advoid it from now on.
    Pity 48fps 2D isn't available, twats.

    XBL : ecosse011172
    PSN : ecosse_011172
    NNID : armoured_bear

  • disusedgenius 30 Dec 2012 21:27:45 5,315 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I just got back from seeing it (for the second time) in 3D 48fps - last time it was only in 24. Makes a world of difference, much much better imo. I probably wouldn't bother with the slower 3D version myself, just stick to 2D if that's the case.
  • Deleted user 30 December 2012 21:31:10
    I'm assming this can't be seen in 48fps sans 3D?
  • disusedgenius 30 Dec 2012 21:34:17 5,315 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Not as far as I know.
  • Fozzie_bear 30 Dec 2012 22:47:25 15,530 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    CrispyXUK wrote:
    I'm assming this can't be seen in 48fps sans 3D?
    I'd actively seek out a non-48fps screening. It really does look dreadful and apparently that's the reason.

    Spent 3 hours trying to work out why a very expensive film looked like a children's bbc programme in places. I think it's the frame rate. Nothing blurs and it all just looks... a bit shit.

    3D effect is great in some places, absolutely dreadful in others. At times it looks like someone running on a treadmill in front of a flat screen. It jars to flick from grand and impressive 3D shots to ones which look like cheap TV.

    There's a Monty Python sketch which made a joke about the difference between tv shows shot on video and film. It was funny because it lasted 2 minutes. This is nearly 3 hours.

    No matter what you do with the source material, you'd end up rolling your eyes at the sheer dreadfulness of it all. But it could have been better than this. And, for the love of God, there's no reason why it couldn't be an hour shorter.

    Support the Mowgli Dirty Protest!

  • FanBoysSuck 30 Dec 2012 22:55:24 1,482 posts
    Seen 8 minutes ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Just got back from this and I have to say, 48fps should be standard for 3d now. I get annoyed by stuttering panoramic shots/blur in normal movies but it makes films almost unwatchable in 3d. The higher frame rate fixes this and makes fast 3d scenes watchable. I'm not sure what 48fps film would be like 2d though.

    For the emperor!

  • Lukree 30 Dec 2012 23:03:50 160 posts
    Seen 15 seconds ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I luckily watched the 2d version as having 3d glasses on top of my glasses for 3 hours simply isn't an option.

    Good
    - Scenes with Gollum
    - Smaug (It works really well when you DON'T show too much big baddies. I think though that it wasn't cut so because of movie experience but to leave proper Smaug scener for next parts where they will ruin the illusion by showing too much Smaug...)
    - Radagast was kinda OK

    Bad
    - Too long
    - Felt like cut and paste from LotR
    - Too much dwarves in the kitchen folly
    - Forest trolls scene was stupid
    - Mountain giants (?) scene was stupid and boring
    - Goblins scene was uninteresting, stupid and resembled too much Moria scene from LotR
    - Not really any sense of danger
    - Too long
  • Fozzie_bear 30 Dec 2012 23:18:31 15,530 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Lukree wrote:
    I luckily watched the 2d version as having 3d glasses on top of my glasses for 3 hours simply isn't an option.

    Good
    - Scenes with Gollum
    - Smaug (It works really well when you DON'T show too much big baddies. I think though that it wasn't cut so because of movie experience but to leave proper Smaug scener for next parts where they will ruin the illusion by showing too much Smaug...)
    - Radagast was kinda OK

    Bad
    - Too long
    - Felt like cut and paste from LotR
    - Too much dwarves in the kitchen folly
    - Forest trolls scene was stupid
    - Mountain giants (?) scene was stupid and boring
    - Goblins scene was uninteresting, stupid and resembled too much Moria scene from LotR
    - Not really any sense of danger
    - Too long
    This is spot on. Get this fellow in on Radio 5 when Mark Kermode's on holiday.

    The mountain giants scene is absolutely hilarious. In particular, that and the kitchen scene seem to be conclusive evidence that Peter Jackson is trolling the cinema going public.

    The scenes with Gollum are where it really gets going. The only scenes with any dramatic tension between characters other than "i want to hit that bloke with an axe". Unfortunately, that's about 2 hours or so into the film.

    Comically bad. The fact that it cost me 50 for 2 tickets to see it is the cinema equivalent of the chinese government sending a bill to the families of executed prisoners for the bullets used to carry out the death sentence.

    Support the Mowgli Dirty Protest!

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply