The Hobbit Page 38

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • cubbymoore 2 Jan 2013 22:05:52 36,503 posts
    Seen 16 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    It is quite annoying really. It's not hard to have those eagles come in and it not be a deus ex machina, but they don't even bother. Have some kind of repercussion of using them, so that you can tell they had no other choice but call upon them, and also a bit of foreshadowing wouldn't go amiss either.
  • FWB 2 Jan 2013 22:19:25 45,170 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    beastmaster wrote:
    So, about that bit in The Hobbit...:-)
    Ah, basically the Eagles are godly creatures who don't give that much of a fuck, but will help out if needs must.
    Helped but were dicks about it after, dropping them an impossible place to get down from.
  • silentbob 2 Jan 2013 22:35:02 29,025 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    So, I thought the 3 film thing was taking the piss. I was really worried that HFR would make the entire thing look like a $300M episode of 3D Neighbours. I was worried that a book I loved as a kid had been shat on by a hairy Kiwi and, by association, then pissed on the LOTR film trilogy (which I'm rather fond of).

    Thankfully, I liked the fact that the opening act took it's time. It felt measured and necessary given the sheer number of characters that had to be introduced. It also had the effect of easing me gently back into the world again. In fact, I had no issue with the pacing at all and once leaving the shire it fair zipped along with some superb action and welcome appearances from favourite characters.

    Performances and casting I thought was excellent and even inspired in places. Sylvester McCoy was, surprisingly, particularly brilliant. Martin Freeman's performance too was, free as it was from his usual Gurning, quietly noble and charming.

    So, it was left to HFR to shit on the parade in glorious 48FPS fluidity. It very nearly did. But even my initial overwhelming desire to stand up and shout back at the projection booth "MY EYES YOU FUCK!!" waned midway and I have to admit that it lends 3D a degree of realism and solidity I've not seen before. Ultimately though, when the side-effect is completely undermining subtlety and artistry to the photography, screwing with hues, colour and contrast and leaving you with the feeling that you've just watched the movie as an old school DVD extra, it can quite frankly fuck right off!

    So, it's a testament to my enjoyment of the Movie itself that it didn't matter much by the time the credits rolled. By then I kind of didn't want it to be the end.

    The very worst thing of all in fact, was discovering that Vue have become Cadbury's corporate bitch and have stopped selling Maltesers as a result. The massive shiny cunts!

    Edited by silentbob at 22:42:53 02-01-2013

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 22:39:10
    People complained about the slowness of Fellowships opening too, but I loved all that too. Fighting so hard here not to watch the screener.
  • beastmaster 2 Jan 2013 23:01:19 11,802 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I found the dwarf that looked like Robbie Savage a bit of a distraction.

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • Deleted user 2 January 2013 23:02:28
    Sexually?
  • beastmaster 2 Jan 2013 23:05:42 11,802 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    :-)

    No, but I was expecting him to kick a few orcs to death.

    The Resident Evil films. I'm one of the reasons they keep making them.

  • FWB 2 Jan 2013 23:05:43 45,170 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    They are always searching for a back passage. Tolkien was obsessed.
  • brokenkey 2 Jan 2013 23:13:28 7,117 posts
    Seen 23 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I saw it at the Imax in Southampton. Imax clearly is allowed to be different sizes in different places, it was much smaller than the last one I went to. But on the other hand it only cost 8.75.

    Film was good, pacing was a bit off. More of a kids movie than LotR trilogy.

    3DS 3497-0122-1484
    XBL/PSN/NNID: CptnBrokenkey

  • Bremenacht 2 Jan 2013 23:27:57 19,367 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    There's only the 3 proper IMAX cinemas isn't there? Digital IMAX places sound like they simply remove the first 4 rows of (crap) seats and bring the screen forward. (Not been to one myself)
  • disusedgenius 2 Jan 2013 23:58:59 5,524 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    silentbob wrote:
    Ultimately though, when the side-effect is completely undermining subtlety and artistry to the photography, screwing with hues, colour and contrast
    That makes no sense whatsoever. Sounds more like a shoddy projector.
  • Razz 3 Jan 2013 00:39:43 61,593 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I used saw this in glorious 48fps (HFR) 3D. I had a one of those 120hz ambilight TVs for a while so I knew what to expect. I really enjoyed the increased framerate on the big screen. It really adds that extra realism that I've often found missing from CGI heavy films. Can understand why some won't like HFR but for me it is the holy grail and I will find it hard to watch another film without it.

    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    Steam/PSN/XBOX: Razztafarai | 3DS: 1246-9674-8856
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

  • silentbob 3 Jan 2013 01:11:28 29,025 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    In all honesty, this had occurred to me especially with the over-hot contrast in some scenes.

    However, Jackson has spoken about his method of shooting at 48FPS bouncing off of rig-attached mirrors which lead to the need to over-saturate make-up and sets to compensate - although this was less to do with HFR specifically and more the look he wanted. I'll reserve judgement until after my inevitable 2nd and 3rd visit to another cinema.

    The artistry I referred to was more to do with the romantic cinematic look we're brought up with. I've read articles in the past which refer to the mind's suspension of disbelief having a framerate threshold. The closer you approach reality in a moving image, the less likely your brain is to accept it as escapism and fantasy. For my money it's mainly just that. I don't go to the cinema to get closer to real life, quite opposite.

    So when I say it removes the artistry, what I mean is that 48FPS is closer to artisan. It looks solid, not pretty. This goes in general for the differences between shooting on Celluloid Vs. DSLRs and their precise, rigid and realistic accuracy. You can tell if something has been shot digitally, and I'm usually not a fan. 48FPS+ merely exacerbates the issues.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Kosmoz 3 Jan 2013 01:16:15 7,735 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Re: eagles.

    The reason they don't just fly all the way there on eagles is pretty obvious to me. Without going on the whole adventure Bilbo would just be the same hobbit that he was at the start and be no where near ready to take on a dragon. He needs to experience the things that he does in order to prepare him for what is ahead. I thought that would have been pretty obvious on a gaming forum. He doesn't take the eagles all the way there because he needs to level up before he can take on the final boss.

    Every girl I ever kissed I was thinking of a pro footballer.

  • disusedgenius 3 Jan 2013 01:24:50 5,524 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    silentbob wrote:
    In all honesty, this had occurred to me especially with the over-hot contrast in some scenes.
    I only say as the first time I saw it was at a shitty screen with (what I assume was) a bad bulb, the second time at a really nice HFR modern screen and the difference was astounding - the second viewing looked fantastic whereas the first was quite the visual struggle. I certainly didn't see much wrong with the film in terms of pure visuals with the 48 fps (in terms of the grade and whatnot).

    Personally I'm somewhat leaning towards thinking that people's issues with 48fps isn't an inherent issue with the format, more of a learned experience type thing. Will take a few more of them to come out before I'm sure though.
  • Khanivor 3 Jan 2013 01:44:35 41,106 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I really liked the pacing at the start, (have not long got back from finally seeing). But I must admit that I was waiting for it to end. And waiting. And waiting. By the time they finally got off that fucking tree I'd about given up. Then Jackson pulls out the emotion bag at the end and made me forgive it all.
  • Khanivor 3 Jan 2013 01:44:40 41,106 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Post deleted
  • silentbob 3 Jan 2013 01:47:23 29,025 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I think it'll end up being both. I had this discussion on the way back from the Cinema, I made the same point that our association with >24FPS is how we're brought up currently. HFR is linked to lower quality production values experienced on good old PAL 50Hz/ NTSC 60Hz broadcasts for stuff shot on video.

    I am however getting somewhat irritated with Jackson, Cameron and the WETA cronies dismissing criticism of the format with comments like "people said the same about black and white Vs colour.." and I'm not convinced it's the same thing at all.

    Anyway, I look forward to seeing the movie again whichever format it happens to be in.

    Edited by silentbob at 01:47:47 03-01-2013

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • ecu 3 Jan 2013 05:21:22 77,232 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Finally saw this tonight, HFR 3D on normal screen. I thought it was absolutely brilliant, the cinematography is just incredible and the 48fps really improved the experience for me. The higher framerate helped the fantasy atmosphere of the film, I'm not sure it wouldn't be jarring in a more realistic type of film. For minor complaints, you could see them juggling the lighter tone of the film while trying to keep it in the same canon as the LOTR films, but who gives a fuck really? Martin Freeman is extremely likable and Sir Ian is literally Gandalf. Yeah I'll take another two of these please.

    Edited by ecureuil at 05:23:32 03-01-2013
  • Khanivor 3 Jan 2013 05:29:18 41,106 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Finally saw it tonight too. Regular 2D. I thought the film looked incredible. Seems to me a bundle of post-production effects work went into every shot. Everything had a, well, fantastical look to it. A vibrancy of colour that made things seem so fantasy real. If that makes sense. The models looked so much better too, as if someone in an effects dept figured out you should try and balance the colours and lighting of all elements; make them blend together. It also seemed like they gave the Gollum scenes extra time on the render farm as he looked so fucking real, especially while perched on his rock as he was losing the riddle game. Incredible. The smoothing on all the old cunts looked so much better than the plastic Dude from Tron. Maybe a touch overboard on Saraumon; Lee's forehead looked smoother than a Lego mini-figure.

    I loved the start of the movie. Set the tone so well. Take your time to get going if you've got nine hours of a movie about a bunch of people going for a long walk. Saying that, come the end I was ready. That last cliffhanger felt like it was dragged out longer than the end of ROTK EE.
  • evild_edd 3 Jan 2013 07:58:28 3,170 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Saw this on NYE. Standard 2D.

    Thoroughly loved it. Should probably be a little grateful for all the pre-release negativity: the lowering of expectations only made my (and my wife's) enjoyment of the film all the sweeter :0)

    Given all the concerns and barbed remarks from the critics regarding the pacing, I felt the running time flew by. Performances all round were great. Just loved it.

    Having said that, both my wife and I are massive fans of the LOTR films, watching the extended cuts at least a couple of times a year. Jackson would've had to do something very wrong for us not to have enjoyed it.

    The only let down came from my bladder, which demanded a mid-film dash to the toilet and my missing the party's arrival at Rivendell. Oh, and the cinema itself was naff. Never again will I go to Odeon at Hatfield: charged extra for paying by debit card and then had to pay for parking. Should've stuck with Cineworld Harlow which is significantly better.

    Why look, it's a blog:
    http://www.edwardlaven.blogspot.co.uk

  • Deleted user 3 January 2013 08:00:47
    Razz wrote:
    I used saw this in glorious 48fps (HFR) 3D. I had a one of those 120hz ambilight TVs for a while so I knew what to expect.
    Wut?
  • silentbob 3 Jan 2013 08:38:55 29,025 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Aargh. wrote:
    Razz wrote:
    I used saw this in glorious 48fps (HFR) 3D. I had a one of those 120hz ambilight TVs for a while so I knew what to expect.
    Wut?
    Quite. Interpolated 120Hz+ != 48 discrete frames per second.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • warlockuk 3 Jan 2013 09:28:35 19,213 posts
    Seen 13 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think he means that some TVs can make movies look like TV shows... the HFR made the Hobbit look less like a movie and more like a play to me; swings and roundabouts but enjoyable overall.

    I'm a grumpy bastard.

  • silentbob 3 Jan 2013 09:43:54 29,025 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    warlockuk wrote:
    ... the HFR made the Hobbit look less like a movie and more like a play to me; swings and roundabouts but enjoyable overall.
    I've heard that comparison too and I guess it's quite apt. But for me, that would also ruin what I love about Movies. Looking like a play means you feel as though you're looking at actors on a stage, that's not what movies are about in the most part - at least for me.

    VR News: www.roadtovr.com -- Follow us on Twitter.

  • Deleted user 3 January 2013 09:48:38
    The thing is, we talk about what movies look like as it's a standard thing, but it isn't. Compare a movie from the 20s, to one from the 40s, to one from the 60s, to one from the 70s, to one from the 90s and they all look and feel completely different. They're all "cinematic" in their own way, but each era has its own interpretation of what that means.

    And while I agree that 48fps looks a bit funny, having seen The Hobbit I can now accept that it's something I could probably get used to, especially if filmakers start making films bit differently to create a new definition for cinematic for the 2010s and beyond. Part of the issue with it currently is that The Hobbit is very much made in the same style as LotR, and so the change to 48fps is more jarring.
  • GuiltySpark 3 Jan 2013 09:52:12 6,460 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Surely there's a difference between 120hzerting Corrie and a film that has been filmed in 48fps though, qualitywise?

    Get bent.

  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 09:53:06 61,045 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    The video/film/digital transition was particularly jarring, yes.

    Like collateral for instance.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • CharlieStCloud 3 Jan 2013 10:00:03 5,368 posts
    Seen 14 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I am completely and utterly baffled towards some of the middling reviews 'The Hobbit' received ... the key words were 'too long', 'three separate films, waa-waa, why?!', 'too much padding' (it is called making the most of the given material) and 'oh, it is way too long!'.

    Tell me, why is this 'too long' when The Dark Knight Rises is just as long? They are both a shy over 160 minutes.

    Whilst I'd happily agree that The Hobbit could be done in a tightly woven three and a half hour film (albeit with considerable haste and a fair bit of editing), it is now bringing in all the little nods towards the Lord of the Rings trilogy as well as short stories from other books in Tolkien's lore.

    This for some is a bit tut-worthy however, it is one big love letter to Tolkien and his world ... and I kind of cherish that to be honest.

    I saw the film in HFS on an IMAX screen in 3D and I was convincingly blown away. Yes, the indoor scenes at the beginning was like watching a film set at times, which had a bit of charm and yet, once they begun their journey outside, it was spellbinding.

    These are the kind of films that very rarely comes along and I just love soaking it all up.

    Hurry along next Christmas!
  • nickthegun 3 Jan 2013 10:01:49 61,045 posts
    Seen 2 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Its because if you dont like the material and/or the filled in backstory, the pace is absolutely glacial.

    I liked it. I like the lore, I liked the filled in gaps. If you dont I can totally see why you would just want it to get a fucking move on.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    My man gives real loving that's why I call him Killer
    He's not a wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am, he's a thriller

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply