Members Axe_34 Posted December 30, 2012 Members Share Posted December 30, 2012 Originally Posted by HumanFuseBen WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY too much CGI. Its so weird, i watched Return of the King a day or two after, and even though that movie is way older it looked a hundred times better. The high frame rate can suck a dick, i never want to see another movie in 48fps again. Ever. I agree. It looked plastic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ovid9 Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Didn't see it in 3D and I don't think I saw it in 48FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ovid9 Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Didn't see it in 3D and I don't think I saw it in 48FPS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SexWithRobots Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 So who here thought that it was actually going to be good in the first place? The trailers I saw made it look like a steaming pile of monkey poo. I did hear though that it was shot in a different resolution or something which makes it look a bit different. That could explain why things looked fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members SexWithRobots Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 So who here thought that it was actually going to be good in the first place? The trailers I saw made it look like a steaming pile of monkey poo. I did hear though that it was shot in a different resolution or something which makes it look a bit different. That could explain why things looked fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members colejustesen Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 I have to agree with everyone on the CGI... It looked too fake. I watched the HFR 3D version and was a built underwhelmed by it. The eating scene was great IMO, and I loved where the dwarves sang about the Lonely Mountain. The opening sequence and the introduction of the dwarves got me excited for the rest of the film, but honestly that is where my excitement ended.I will see the sequels to it, because I love The Hobbit [which is my favorite book ever], but I don't know if I will see them in HFR again... I probably will see the regular 3D format or the 2D format.Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members colejustesen Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 I have to agree with everyone on the CGI... It looked too fake. I watched the HFR 3D version and was a built underwhelmed by it. The eating scene was great IMO, and I loved where the dwarves sang about the Lonely Mountain. The opening sequence and the introduction of the dwarves got me excited for the rest of the film, but honestly that is where my excitement ended.I will see the sequels to it, because I love The Hobbit [which is my favorite book ever], but I don't know if I will see them in HFR again... I probably will see the regular 3D format or the 2D format.Cole Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TruSlice Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 After seeing the movie, I'm wondering why Jackson decided to call the movie "The Hobbit," after a single book. The movie was indeed great as expected, but waaaaaay too much going on even for 3hrs of film time. Things I cared for: - Was nauseating at first, but the 3D and 48fps grew on me. I feel like I remember more of the movie and the action scenes certainly benefited. - Every character and piece of scenery is spot-on. It's almost exactly what I imagined in my mind when reading the book so many years ago. - The eating and singing scenes in the beginning are some of the most faithful and enjoyable elements of the entire franchise; not much left out at all. - The general lighthearted mood that the movie successfully depicts. I felt as innocent as a child in some scenes, enjoying the story all over again. - Bilbo's reluctance, near-misses with death and uncanny luck throughout the movie are really well-thought out and convey a sense of urgency throughout the movie. It really brings home the point that Bilbo is NOT the sort of creature that should have participated in such a dangerous adventure...ever. - The cinematography was even more breathtaking than the LOTR trilogy. I honestly had a hard time telling what was real and what was fake and after awhile - I didn't care. It was seamless - I simply started loving it. Nicely played. Things I didn't care for: - Thorin's constant close-ups and long side battles with the hounds - Gandalf's wft constant disappearing and reappearing scenes - Radagast's screen time was unnecessary Great film, in many ways it is what it is, probably couldn't do it better myself if I had years of directing experience and near inexhaustible budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members TruSlice Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 After seeing the movie, I'm wondering why Jackson decided to call the movie "The Hobbit," after a single book. The movie was indeed great as expected, but waaaaaay too much going on even for 3hrs of film time. Things I cared for: - Was nauseating at first, but the 3D and 48fps grew on me. I feel like I remember more of the movie and the action scenes certainly benefited. - Every character and piece of scenery is spot-on. It's almost exactly what I imagined in my mind when reading the book so many years ago. - The eating and singing scenes in the beginning are some of the most faithful and enjoyable elements of the entire franchise; not much left out at all. - The general lighthearted mood that the movie successfully depicts. I felt as innocent as a child in some scenes, enjoying the story all over again. - Bilbo's reluctance, near-misses with death and uncanny luck throughout the movie are really well-thought out and convey a sense of urgency throughout the movie. It really brings home the point that Bilbo is NOT the sort of creature that should have participated in such a dangerous adventure...ever. - The cinematography was even more breathtaking than the LOTR trilogy. I honestly had a hard time telling what was real and what was fake and after awhile - I didn't care. It was seamless - I simply started loving it. Nicely played. Things I didn't care for: - Thorin's constant close-ups and long side battles with the hounds - Gandalf's wft constant disappearing and reappearing scenes - Radagast's screen time was unnecessary Great film, in many ways it is what it is, probably couldn't do it better myself if I had years of directing experience and near inexhaustible budget Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Miter Gauge Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by Abouttreefitty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Miter Gauge Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by Abouttreefitty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OverDriven Posted December 31, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by Miter Gauge I don't understand the 48fps = flat lighting comment. I've shot and edited 35mm and super 16 footage in high frame rates before and we lit it as we would 24fps. It looked like we'd lit it normally too. I must be missing something. I don't get it either. High frame rate does not equal different looking footage. I think people are seeing the {censored}ty CG and blaming the look on the unorthodox frame rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OverDriven Posted December 31, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by Miter Gauge I don't understand the 48fps = flat lighting comment. I've shot and edited 35mm and super 16 footage in high frame rates before and we lit it as we would 24fps. It looked like we'd lit it normally too. I must be missing something. I don't get it either. High frame rate does not equal different looking footage. I think people are seeing the {censored}ty CG and blaming the look on the unorthodox frame rate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soundgardener75 Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Just watched i in Real 3D or whatever the {censored} it's called. I enjoyed it because the books totally put me to sleep and this was far better than I remembered it. So sick of all this "the books were so much better" talk tbqh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soundgardener75 Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Just watched i in Real 3D or whatever the {censored} it's called. I enjoyed it because the books totally put me to sleep and this was far better than I remembered it. So sick of all this "the books were so much better" talk tbqh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OverDriven Posted December 31, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by soundgardener75 Just watched i in Real 3D or whatever the {censored} it's called. I enjoyed it because the books totally put me to sleep and this was far better than I remembered it. So sick of all this "the books were so much better" talk tbqh. It's really not that the books were better. It's that this isn't really based on the book at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members OverDriven Posted December 31, 2012 Author Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by soundgardener75 Just watched i in Real 3D or whatever the {censored} it's called. I enjoyed it because the books totally put me to sleep and this was far better than I remembered it. So sick of all this "the books were so much better" talk tbqh. It's really not that the books were better. It's that this isn't really based on the book at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soundgardener75 Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by OverDriven It's really not that the books were better. It's that this isn't really based on the book at all. Well, you'll expect the diehard book fans to chime in pretty soon, guaran-damn-teed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members soundgardener75 Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by OverDriven It's really not that the books were better. It's that this isn't really based on the book at all. Well, you'll expect the diehard book fans to chime in pretty soon, guaran-damn-teed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y0UNGBL00D Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 they didnt finish it in one {censored}ing movie?! far less excited now. {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Y0UNGBL00D Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 they didnt finish it in one {censored}ing movie?! far less excited now. {censored}. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rock Hardness Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by soundgardener75 Well, you'll expect the diehard book fans to chime in pretty soon, guaran-damn-teed. I did chime in. Oh yeah...The Riddle Scene was dead on. Woke up to find a card taped to the mirror - contains two tickets to the movie for tonight. Guess wifey and I are going to see it with my brother's fam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Rock Hardness Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by soundgardener75 Well, you'll expect the diehard book fans to chime in pretty soon, guaran-damn-teed. I did chime in. Oh yeah...The Riddle Scene was dead on. Woke up to find a card taped to the mirror - contains two tickets to the movie for tonight. Guess wifey and I are going to see it with my brother's fam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by OverDriven It's really not that the books were better. It's that this isn't really based on the book at all. I thought it captured the spirit of the book very well while translating it to the format of a high-budget low-risk holiday season movie. I personally could have done without the Michael Bay action scenes in the goblin mines, and without Radagast, but as a prequel to the LotR movies, the Hobbit (the movie) needs to bridge that gap more than the book did, so I get it. What made me really, REALLY angry though is the piece-of-{censored} end titles fauxlk raping of Over the Misty Mountains Cold. {censored}, that was lamer than 10 Transformers movies without Megan Fox in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members MadKeithV Posted December 31, 2012 Members Share Posted December 31, 2012 Originally Posted by OverDriven It's really not that the books were better. It's that this isn't really based on the book at all. I thought it captured the spirit of the book very well while translating it to the format of a high-budget low-risk holiday season movie. I personally could have done without the Michael Bay action scenes in the goblin mines, and without Radagast, but as a prequel to the LotR movies, the Hobbit (the movie) needs to bridge that gap more than the book did, so I get it. What made me really, REALLY angry though is the piece-of-{censored} end titles fauxlk raping of Over the Misty Mountains Cold. {censored}, that was lamer than 10 Transformers movies without Megan Fox in a row. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.