The Hobbit Page 27

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 14:48:16 5,333 posts
    Seen 26 seconds ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Not at the time of writing maybe, but he knew there were film scripts and things being made of it (long, long before it actually got made, obviously). He even recommended a alternative take on the structure where the first film followed the Fellowship book, then the next ones were split into separate ones for Frodo/Sam and Aragorn et al to solve some of the issues the adaptations may have run into.

    Edit: Also he was doing it 'as history' before LOTR - which is why you get all those bloody poems about random elves who only appear in the Sarmirillion.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 14:52:10 04-12-2012
  • kalel 4 Dec 2012 14:57:04 87,734 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The point is that just because there is more story that could be told, doesn't mean it should. The best films of books are the ones that recognise the difference in the medium and don't try and adapt the narrative form to allow for every bit of the book to be represented. See Kubrick for more details.

    Not that that's even what they're trying to do here, but the argument that it's justified by all the extra story they need to tell doesn't hold water for me. The Hobbit stands up as a narrative on its own. Not only that, but it's a complete arc that will probably suffer by bring divided into three. Each of those three films will now have to have its own arc constructed. This is really problematic.
  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 15:04:09 5,333 posts
    Seen 26 seconds ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Sure, which is why I think it's nice that they're trying to draw it into the existing LOTR universe, which necessitates a change in tone and not switching slavishly to that of The Hobbit.

    It also means that having Gandalf fuck off for half the film would just be a bit odd, as would all the references to the neuromancer in the woods and all the other references to the world we already know about (which is somewhat at odds to the book, where you weren't meant to have known much about the wider context of the story).

    There's not really much to be lost from splitting the Hobbit up anyway - it's all pretty compartmentalised and almost serialised. Very much 'go there, meet these people, have this little adventure, move on' bed-time reading material. The arc is really part of the overall journey anyway, so the better you do that the better the arc will feel.

    Edited by disusedgenius at 15:04:35 04-12-2012
  • kalel 4 Dec 2012 15:12:29 87,734 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Again, we'll see, and I sincerely hope it works. I wouldn't have already bought a ticket if I didn't.

    My biggest worry is being left wanting more at the end (in a bad way). I really want this to feel like a complete film.
  • disusedgenius 4 Dec 2012 15:18:11 5,333 posts
    Seen 26 seconds ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yeah, same. My worry is more that there's a case of Rowling-itus where no one dares tell Jackson that something is probably worth cutting. You know, like that there Return of the King ending.
  • Lukus 5 Dec 2012 12:10:19 19,116 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Total Film's review is up. 5 stars!

    Sounds really good, but they do tend to buy into the hype of all big films.

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Blotto 6 Dec 2012 11:50:11 2,776 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Reviews have been reassuring, 5/5 from Total Film, 4/5 from Empire.

    There seems to be quite a few positive reviews out there, and though it seems like the opinion is mixed, the criticisms don't get much worse than "It's not quite as good as Lord of the Rings". Many of the reviews qualify their criticisms with "Fans of the series will love it but.." so I'm pretty confident it's going to be good.

    Edited by Blotto at 11:50:40 06-12-2012
  • Zizoo 6 Dec 2012 12:03:10 8,378 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Tickets booked for opening night! :)
  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 12:52:29
    Can't get in opening three of four nights! Will go midweek in daytime on my lonesome.
  • cubbymoore 6 Dec 2012 13:33:26 36,498 posts
    Seen 8 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    King Kong got rave reviews when it came out and that was awful. I'm going to hold off on this.
  • Salaman 6 Dec 2012 14:00:43 19,075 posts
    Seen 14 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I haven't quite followed this but I got an email from my local cinema to tell me it's out soon and in 3 versions. 2D, 3D and 48fps.
    What's with the 48 fps and what difference would it make? I.e. why would I and anyone else who has no clue what it's about care/pay more to see it in 48fps?
  • Tonka 6 Dec 2012 14:07:23 20,446 posts
    Seen 4 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    48fps will make it look like "Days of our lives"

    If you can read this you really need to fiddle with your forum settings.

  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 14:22:21
    Salaman wrote:
    I haven't quite followed this but I got an email from my local cinema to tell me it's out soon and in 3 versions. 2D, 3D and 48fps.
    What's with the 48 fps and what difference would it make? I.e. why would I and anyone else who has no clue what it's about care/pay more to see it in 48fps?
    Double the standard framerate / newtec etc.
  • ronuds 6 Dec 2012 14:44:05 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Blotto wrote:
    Many of the reviews qualify their criticisms with "Fans of the series will love it but..
    they use 'a' instead of 'an' when 'an' was used in the book. An atrocity!"
  • beastmaster 6 Dec 2012 20:55:58 11,418 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    "Hi Film Fan

    Thanks for booking tickets to see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey at ODEON Manchester in IMAX 3D.

    We wanted to let you know that your performance has been upgraded to a High Frame Rate IMAX 3D screening. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first film to be released in High Frame Rate a technological advancement in the cinema going experience".

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

  • Lukus 6 Dec 2012 21:06:48 19,116 posts
    Seen 37 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think I'm going to try and see this in 2D. I've come to the conclusion that, if anything, 3D slightly spoils my enjoyment of films, as I'm constantly thinking about the 3D.
    "Oooh, that bit looked good in 3D... Oooh, that bit didn't look very good in 3D... Oooh, this bit is too dark with the glasses on... Oooh, this 3D is making my inner narrative quite camp..."

    Edited by Lukus at 21:07:12 06-12-2012

    Paintings & Photographs

  • ronuds 6 Dec 2012 21:13:04 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Yep - I'm going no frills on this one. Every time I believed 3D would make a film more enjoyable, I've been mistaken.
  • ecureuil 6 Dec 2012 21:35:09 76,822 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    48fps looks far more fluid and natural, I much prefer it personally. It's disconcerting at first and may give the impression of double speed but you do get used to it.

    How did they end up settling on 24fps anyway? Was it a technology issue, or did film makers decide that was what looked best?
  • ecureuil 6 Dec 2012 21:35:22 76,822 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Good comparison video (not of The Hobbit).
  • Maturin 6 Dec 2012 21:35:39 3,006 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I think it was cost. Lower frame rate = less film needed.
  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 21:38:08
    Decisions, I might go 2d also.
  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 21:40:41
    It wasn't really cost for film like that. The reason it's called the "soap opera effect" is because soap operas film at 48fps (or 60, one of the two) because it's cheaper than 24.

    Edited by meme at 21:44:01 06-12-2012
  • ronuds 6 Dec 2012 21:41:12 21,788 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Can you see it in 2D @ 48fps?

    Good grief, they're going to take up 20 different screens with all of these options.
  • the_dudefather 6 Dec 2012 21:43:06 9,288 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    the magic of 'oh god which retailer do I need to preorder at to get the coolest bonus gun' has finally come to movies!

    (ง ͠ ͟ʖ ͡)

  • Deleted user 6 December 2012 21:46:21
    meme wrote:
    It wasn't really cost for film like that. The reason it's called the "soap opera effect" is because soap operas film at 48fps (or 60, one of the two) because it's cheaper than 24.
    30
  • mrpon 6 Dec 2012 22:00:28 28,927 posts
    Seen 20 seconds ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Lukus wrote:
    I think I'm going to try and see this in 2D. I've come to the conclusion that, if anything, 3D slightly spoils my enjoyment of films, as I'm constantly thinking about the 3D.
    "Oooh, that bit looked good in 3D... Oooh, that bit didn't look very good in 3D... Oooh, this bit is too dark with the glasses on... Oooh, this 3D is making my inner narrative quite camp..."
    Trouble with 2D is, you spend the film thinking "Oooh I bet that bit looked good in 3D""

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • ecureuil 6 Dec 2012 22:17:19 76,822 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    mrpon wrote:
    Lukus wrote:
    I think I'm going to try and see this in 2D. I've come to the conclusion that, if anything, 3D slightly spoils my enjoyment of films, as I'm constantly thinking about the 3D.
    "Oooh, that bit looked good in 3D... Oooh, that bit didn't look very good in 3D... Oooh, this bit is too dark with the glasses on... Oooh, this 3D is making my inner narrative quite camp..."
    Trouble with 2D is, you spend the film thinking "Oooh I bet that bit looked good in 3D""
    For me it's more of an annoyance when you see a scene that's obviously put in there just cause of 3D, usually something being pointed at the camera or flying towards the camera, and it looks stupid and breaks your immersion. I don't expect them to do this in The Hobbit, but I guess they will. For example, having a scene with one person threatening someone else with a sword, and then it goes first person to the other guy, and the sword is pointed right at the camera. Those are the times when 3D feels most gimmicky and it feels like the vast majority of 3D films do this. With The Hobbit being a higher quality film I'm interested in how 3D will be used.
  • Gambit1977 6 Dec 2012 22:32:19 9,709 posts
    Seen 55 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Why am I not 'feeling' this?
    When each of the LOTR movies came out I was mega hyped. But this...
  • beastmaster 6 Dec 2012 22:42:57 11,418 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I am not that bothered about this at all. Still going to see it but not my usual enthusiasm is non-existent. Could be because it's too much of a cash in. Spreading it over three films for the sake of getting more money out of people.

    I suppose the story is also aimed at a younger audience too. Who knows, perhaps I'll be amazed.

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

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply