The Hobbit Page 32

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • daddygerplex 14 Dec 2012 16:33:12 305 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Reanimator is shorter in the proper uncut version.
  • RobAnybody 14 Dec 2012 16:45:19 890 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    RedSparrows wrote:
    Most of it is Tolkien's content. Except Legolas gaybix, love interests, etc.

    Hurrah.
    Haven't seen the film (and have no intention of doing so) but from what I've read it seems like about a THIRD of the film is Tolkien's work from The Hobbit, while the rest is taken from the Appendices to The Return of the King, (with assorted additional material from Jackson & co) and the rest is purely from Jackson & Co.

    In short, they could have filmed the whole damned book and made it into a three hour film, but greed got in the way.

    As usual.
  • disusedgenius 14 Dec 2012 17:02:32 5,283 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Seems to me that the non-Hobbit stuff is obviously going to be front-loaded a bit. It has to be resolved in time for Gandalf to make it back to the group for the siege of the caves/Battle of Five Armies stuff, after all.
  • Deleted user 14 December 2012 17:26:12
    I remember being insanely excited about seeing the hobbit on film. Loved the book. Then I heard that it is being split into three which leads to only two conclusions, that it is padded to fuck and drawn out or it is loaded with backstory/extra shit that I have no interest in. Either way only serves to ruin the excellent story which is a damn shame.
  • King_Edward 14 Dec 2012 17:30:34 11,454 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    I remember being insanely excited about seeing the hobbit on film. Loved the book. Then I heard that it is being split into three which leads to only two conclusions, that it is padded to fuck and drawn out or it is loaded with backstory/extra shit that I have no interest in. Either way only serves to ruin the excellent story which is a damn shame.
    Those two things are the same thing.
  • thefilthandthefury 14 Dec 2012 17:55:52 24,983 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I don't mind them stretching it out a bit (I'm actually interested in seeing bits from the appendices as I could never be bothered to read them) but they should really have stopped at two movies. I don't see how they can keep it going over three.

    Then again I'm not seeing this until Saturday so can't have a full opinion until then.
  • ZuluHero 14 Dec 2012 18:55:17 4,099 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    The hobbit is my favourite childhood book and I've just seen the film. There's a few omissions and little things happen in the wrong location while some are entirely left out. I liked that the talked about gondolin and the other ages. They've obviously tried to tie it into lotrs as a prequel but it was actually very good. Bit slow at the start, but once it got going the near 3 hours flew by.
  • Toonster 14 Dec 2012 21:18:44 6,842 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Went to the midnight showing last night. HFR IMAX in 3D.

    The movie itself was great. I'm not quite sure where the mixed reviews on RottenTomatoes are coming from; I find them utterly baffling. It is a bit slow at the beginning, but I love the dwarves, and McKellen and Freeman do fine enough jobs that I was entertained throughout. A great start to the trilogy. Also, Gollum's riddle scene was perfectly done, and certainly the best part of the film.

    As for the HFR... I didn't hate it as much as I thought I would, but I still would have preferred seeing it in 24 FPS. While it worked fine for the outdoor bits, the indoor scenes suffered greatly from the effect, giving it that 'soap opera' vibe. Also, some of the chase sequences looked very odd and a bit sped up. I suppose there came a point when I stopped noticing it, but if I stop noticing it, then it begs the question, why have it there in the first place? And whenever I did notice it, it seemed to suck the artistry out of the shot... everything looked tacky and too much like a set, apart from the bits where actual locations were used. It just made me think I was watching a downgraded version of the film.

    I'll still give it a chance, but right now, I just don't see the point. And the film itself was great, so other than that, there isn't too much to complain about. I'd like to let the film itself sink in a little more before I give it a final score, but based on my first impression, I'd give it a solid 8/10.

    edit: oohhh, and I saw the Star Trek preview! It looked fantastic! I wasn't too excited about the film at first, but this convinced me otherwise

    Edited by Toonster at 21:23:53 14-12-2012

    3DS: 0361-6951-2609 (Tom)

  • ZuluHero 14 Dec 2012 21:24:25 4,099 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Incidentally I saw it in 2D, and i only really noticed the Neighbors-effect during one daylight scene at the start. For the majority of the film it was great!
  • RedSparrows 14 Dec 2012 21:34:30 22,299 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Just saw it, normal FPS, non-3D - y'know, normal film.

    Thoughts:



    Liked the backstory - mountain looks epic. Dwarf arrival through Troll section disappointingly slow/not quite right. Things perked up once Misty Mountains hove into view.

    Radagast sums it up for me: glad he's there, happy for the wider-story to be fleshed out (film never dragged for me), but at the same time why did they make him a nut? Eccentric and kitsch aren't the same thing. Not quite right.

    Riddles the best bit. It was good, nothing really wrong other than some pacing stuff. It didn't feel too long (really), or too padded - most of it, IIRC, is in the book, and expanded upon simply by paying close attention to most conversations etc, interspersed with a lot of stuff that is from dwarf history et al.

    I liked the foreboding of the Necromancer.

    The film is definitely aware of the previous LotR films, and features many, many portents. Fair enough. But it wasn't as exciting as Fellowship. That's not necessarily its fault (time, age, story), and doesn't make it a bad film, but nor does it make it a great one - despite the superlative scenery, sets, design etc. As expected.
  • Scurrminator 14 Dec 2012 21:51:26 8,401 posts
    Seen 45 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    ZuluHero wrote:
    Incidentally I saw it in 2D, and i only really noticed the Neighbors-effect during one daylight scene at the start. For the majority of the film it was great!
    I thought all 48fps showings were 3D; that's the main reason for the upgrade really...

    You dare to strike Scurrcules!?

  • Feanor 14 Dec 2012 22:00:52 14,144 posts
    Seen 60 minutes ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    I think I'll see it in 24 fps 2D. Not a big fan of 3D in any form.
  • MrE26 14 Dec 2012 22:08:37 1,930 posts
    Seen 20 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Just got back, went for the standard 24fps 3D version. I loved it. It felt like it had been shot back to back with the previous films, just had that epic LotR feel to it that i loved from the previous trilogy.

    I haven't read the book since i was a kid so the additions & 'padding' didn't bother me at all. Nothing felt out of place to me & i just enjoyed it as a film, rather than an adaptation. The opening act was slow paced but i just enjoyed soaking up that world again. That said, if he does an extended cut this time, he's taking the piss.

    If the next 2 are up to this standard, i'll be very happy indeed.
  • RedSparrows 14 Dec 2012 22:14:49 22,299 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I think the next 2 will be better - this felt a bit too 'foundational' at points.

    Oh, one thing I hated: the 'comedy' dwarf (Ori? Nori?) Terrible, makes Gimli look like Bill Hicks.
  • Savatage 14 Dec 2012 22:47:21 38 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    24fps for me. All the negative reports of the 48fps version have put me off.

    Is it worth forking out for the 3D, anyone?
  • FightingMongoose 14 Dec 2012 23:46:40 496 posts
    Seen 44 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Loved it, don't understand where all the bad reviews are coming from.
  • Tomo 15 Dec 2012 00:02:36 13,893 posts
    Seen 2 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Just seen it myself. 48 fps, 3D.

    7/10.

    Does start off slowly. I fucking hated the dwarves at first, but I think Jackson won me over with them eventually. He worked hard at building their comeradery and it pays off by the end I think.

    There some really excellent action, and it just gets better throughout the film. Gandalf kicking arse was great to see.

    In fact, Gandalf is amazing as always. Mckellen is pretty much flawless as always. The dialogue in this and the LotR films was never exactly Shakespeare, but Mckellen can deliver stilted drama like no one else. He'd be the best thing in it if it wasn't for Gollum. He is truly brilliant. Fantastic, fantastic scene.

    3D is shite in this, I wouldn't bother. I love 3D, so that was a disappointment. To me, it didn't seem to be there all the time. I felt I could take my glasses off and see the same depth much of the time. It was clear at other times, but it felt very fleeting. Prometheus/Avatar/Up were all much better for me.

    The 48 fps took me a LONG time to adjust to. I really disliked it for a long stretch but by about 2 hours in, I accepted it. Feelings were mixed amongst my friends. One loved it, another hated it. The picture was absolutely crystal clear though. A lot of the outdoor scenes don't seem to have so much post processing on to me and the vistas look like you are staring out of an open window. Indoors though and up close you could see the actors were caked in make-up. The prosthetics on the dwarves were quite noticeable and the interiors often looked like a set rather than other-world. I think the picture is almost too crisp - the fantasy became reality a wee bit much.

    All in all, thoroughly worth a watch. Going to book my ticket for next year now...
  • Toonster 15 Dec 2012 00:27:50 6,842 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    One thing I forgot to mention was that we got these posters for free at the entrance. Definitely made me feel better about the inflated ticket price!

    3DS: 0361-6951-2609 (Tom)

  • ZuluHero 15 Dec 2012 02:55:58 4,099 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Scurrminator wrote:
    ZuluHero wrote:
    Incidentally I saw it in 2D, and i only really noticed the Neighbors-effect during one daylight scene at the start. For the majority of the film it was great!
    I thought all 48fps showings were 3D; that's the main reason for the upgrade really...
    Ahh that'll explain why generally it was really good. My bad for thinking the 2D one was shot at 48 too. There is one scene right at that start that looks a bit TV movie - but i guess that could be down to bad compositing.

    Edited by ZuluHero at 02:59:27 15-12-2012
  • beastmaster 15 Dec 2012 07:53:25 11,325 posts
    Seen 13 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I think my biggest problem with it was the start. For me, it got really good from the troll cooking scene onwards.

    I have somewhat reluctantly agreed to see it again in the same format in early Jan with a few mates. However, I think I'm going to find the start more of a drag. Or I may even enjoy it more.

    I hated TDKR on first viewing. I now that it's a decent film after a few viewings.

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

  • RedSparrows 15 Dec 2012 10:28:39 22,299 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I think the start will be better on repeat viewings. I liked the prologue, it was, sadly, Bag End that was the letdown. And the troll scene was all wrong. After that it perked up.

    In my head it's very patchy, I haven't yet reached an overall view.
  • Lexx87 15 Dec 2012 12:29:45 20,869 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Have I missed something, or, um. Why are there different variations of the film now in FPS? That sounds insane.

    My brain is fucked today so I may be confusing myself.

    Speak the truth hussy!

  • Deleted user 15 December 2012 12:50:28
    You've not been paying attention the last 2 or so years then?
  • Lexx87 15 Dec 2012 13:12:54 20,869 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    To anything to do with this film or film in general, no :D

    Speak the truth hussy!

  • thefilthandthefury 15 Dec 2012 13:45:50 24,983 posts
    Seen 26 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I only found out about the FPS a week or so ago to be fair, but that's because I refuse to watch trailers or read any information about any film or game that I'm already interested in.
  • RedSparrows 15 Dec 2012 16:48:59 22,299 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I saw it at 24, so makes no difference to me.
  • Lukus 15 Dec 2012 16:56:03 19,050 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Just thought, this 48fps malarky will increase the space needed on DVD won't it. And seeing as the extended editions came on 2 discs each for just the films that doesn't bode well.
    Presumably the 48fps versions will be bluray only...

    Edit- Actually, thinking about it again, will it make any difference in space at all, if DVDs are encoded to the the TV's refresh rate anyway?

    Mal? MAL?! He'll know.

    Edited by Lukus at 16:59:53 15-12-2012

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Lexx87 15 Dec 2012 17:01:37 20,869 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Can someone explain why i'd want to see a film at twice the speed please.

    /stupid hat on

    Speak the truth hussy!

  • Deleted user 15 December 2012 17:01:39
    From what I can gather, no BD player supports 48fps anyway, nor does any consumer TV (the vast majority refresh at 60/120 only) so there'd be dodgy interpolation going on. You'd need a new player AND a new TV to be able to use the damn things. I suspect they won't even bother releasing the 48fps version on home media.

    Edited by meme at 17:02:21 15-12-2012
  • Orange 15 Dec 2012 17:01:49 4,741 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Saw it in 2D and really enjoyed it, more so than Fellowship. Audience clapped it as well at the end, which is unusual round here. See no reason to bother with 3d let alone 48fps for this.
  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply