|
On December 16 2012 00:14 Tennet wrote: To those complaining about Gandalf, he's a wizard he arrives precisely when he means to.
He's not just a wizard, he's a maiar (angel-equivalent in catholic mythology).
|
To be fair, IIRC he complained that he wass late and afraid he would not get there on time a few times on the books. But the "Wizard saving the day at the last minute" is really exactly what happens in this part of the book.
|
I hope 48 fps becomes the new standard. Low framerate is actually one of the reasons I stopped watching movies altogether.
I'd be home or at a friends doing stuff thats always 60 fps or greater, and then sit down watch a movie thats 24 fps, that shit was super jarring going from smooth quality to mad motion blurring. I finally just had enough of it and generally dont watch any sort of live action movie.
All the action is just motion blur with someone shaking the camera.
|
On December 16 2012 01:16 Medrea wrote: I hope 48 fps becomes the new standard. Low framerate is actually one of the reasons I stopped watching movies altogether.
I'd be home or at a friends doing stuff thats always 60 fps or greater, and then sit down watch a movie thats 24 fps, that shit was super jarring going from smooth quality to mad motion blurring. I finally just had enough of it and generally dont watch any sort of live action movie.
All the action is just motion blur with someone shaking the camera.
This reminds me that when they were filming Lethal Weapon 4 they had to constantly remind Jet Li to move as slow as he can because the camera was unable to capture his movements
|
I highly recommend the movie. I'm a huge Tolkien buff, one of those that are really stuck in the details. And the movie worked for me.
The Hobbit was fun, it had great moments and I absolutely cannot wait to see the next episodes. The Erebor scene was probably also my favourite. I like that they brought in Radagast, and especially Saruman's criticism of him. That was tricky and required a lot of imagination on their part. Hare-driven sleighs were definitely on the edge but i made Radagast very memorable. It's interesting to realize through a hint or lull that this goofy-looking character is actually a being similar in power to Sauron or the Balrogs.
I definitively am not looking forward to book 2 and all the spiders... Jackson is arachnophobic an knows exactly how to pull those strings in his fellows...
Go and see it, enjoy the films ^^
|
On December 16 2012 01:35 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 01:16 Medrea wrote: I hope 48 fps becomes the new standard. Low framerate is actually one of the reasons I stopped watching movies altogether.
I'd be home or at a friends doing stuff thats always 60 fps or greater, and then sit down watch a movie thats 24 fps, that shit was super jarring going from smooth quality to mad motion blurring. I finally just had enough of it and generally dont watch any sort of live action movie.
All the action is just motion blur with someone shaking the camera. This reminds me that when they were filming Lethal Weapon 4 they had to constantly remind Jet Li to move as slow as he can because the camera was unable to capture his movements
Yeah see thats just dumb. Thats content we could have been watching. I think we are ready for an improvement.
|
I thought the movie was really good, just what i was expecting, a more light hearted and smaller adventure than LotR but still a great return to the Middle Earth. Seeing again characters like Gandalf, Elrond and Saruman was nice too.
I hope they do more lore flashbacks like the Erebor and Smaug story, it was one of the parts i enjoyed the most.
|
that was a grreat movie 9.5/10. make sure to go pee before the movie starts though
|
They should have made 48 fps for non-3d as well, since 3d just ruins the entire movie tbh
|
im glad they casted so many NZ actors, they will do an excellent job, and it will give them exposure, theres some really unknown actors playing big roles.
|
On December 16 2012 01:08 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 00:14 Tennet wrote: To those complaining about Gandalf, he's a wizard he arrives precisely when he means to. He's not just a wizard, he's a maiar (angel-equivalent in catholic mythology).
Not a romanian? Well close enough.xD
|
I really liked that Jackson put in a bunch of stuff that wasn't in the book, the whole Azog plotline is cool (even though it's not true to canon) and same with the necromancer/Radagast stuff. I wasn't really sure what to expect as far as what would actually be included in this movie and it delivered with some surprises. Overall I really enjoyed it, and I'm a huge LotR fan.
|
On December 16 2012 02:08 Cinim wrote: They should have made 48 fps for non-3d as well, since 3d just ruins the entire movie tbh
I liked the 3D. It wasn't over the top, there were only a few parts where I really noticed the 3D, and they were really well done.
All the critics giving meh reviews aren't good fans And I feel like a lot of people didn't get the comedy, forgetting that The Hobbit was written with comedy and as a children's book >.>
|
having read The Hobbit just a few months before this movie, I would say it's just a more hollywood version of the same story. There were a few cliched moments/layers of deus ex machina that I don't recall from the book, and that's mostly what I'm referring to. I got a little bored watching it, to be honest, though retrospectively I think it was a worthwhile watch.
|
just saw it and i really liked it, im a big fan or Tolkiens work. It might not be exactly like the books (like all the lotr movies) but they are still great.
Radagast was pretty hilarious too
|
On December 16 2012 03:16 Alryk wrote: And I feel like a lot of people didn't get the comedy, forgetting that The Hobbit was written with comedy and as a children's book >.>
I don't think people are critizising the humour that's actually from Tolkien: "What do you mean good morning?", the story of Bandobras the Bullroarer Took, etc - but rather PJ's sense of humour which isn't really in tune with how the book is. Radagast's character being the prime example of this.
|
Having not read any of the books but a big fan of the movies I thought this one was great! There were a few parts that kinda dragged but I don't know whether that was because it was 2am+ at the 12 oclock showing or the movie haha. I do think it was probably my favorite movie of them so far (including lotr) The fellowship got boring hardcore everytime I watched Frodo and sam dick around I fast forwarded it when rewatching haha. This movie however I feel does a much better job of filling the space with interesting stuff. I have a feeling the second part will finish the movie then we will be stuck with something like the 3rd lotr a movie that could be done in half the time and about something else for all I care hah.
|
On December 16 2012 03:16 Alryk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 02:08 Cinim wrote: They should have made 48 fps for non-3d as well, since 3d just ruins the entire movie tbh I liked the 3D. It wasn't over the top, there were only a few parts where I really noticed the 3D, and they were really well done. All the critics giving meh reviews aren't good fans And I feel like a lot of people didn't get the comedy, forgetting that The Hobbit was written with comedy and as a children's book >.>
I'm talking about 3d in general, not how they did it. 3D is really not a visually impressive technology at all, and they act as if its new when I saw what they do today 10 years ago almost. I liked the movie as well, even though some of the ''bonus'' storylines they added wasn't as good, it was still really fun, but also had it's dark moments and good combat scenes.
|
On December 16 2012 01:08 Manit0u wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 00:14 Tennet wrote: To those complaining about Gandalf, he's a wizard he arrives precisely when he means to. He's not just a wizard, he's a maiar (angel-equivalent in catholic mythology). Yup, I was really looking forward to seeing Gandalf use more magic than he does in LotR since he can just obliterate stuff.
|
On December 16 2012 00:14 TerransHill wrote: Watched it yesterday, good movie overall but i was still disappointed cause it doesnt come close the Lord of the Rings. 1) It was to long. The book has 300-400 pages and gets splitted into 3 movies with 170 min length. Feels way to streched sometimes. 2) Its to silly and childish. I know that The Hobbit is somewhat for children but the movie goes to far sometimes. I dont remember the orcs being that silly in the book and I also dont remember that their leader is a fat jabba the hutt troll with double chin. The orcs are not menacing and evil like in LotR. They are cutified and u almost feel sorry for them lol. I believe you are referring to the goblins and the goblin king? The orcs you saw in this completely decimated the dwarves that reclaimed Moria and their leader ruthlessly hunts down Thorin for his revenge, they aren't evil?. These are wild orcs and should not be portrayed the same as orcs in LotRs as those orcs were preparing for war under the control of Saruman/Witch king/sauron respectively and massed huge armies to kill men.The hobbit orcs that you see at the end of this movie are just bandits really.
The goblin king is usually the biggest and slightly more intelligent goblin( most goblins are mindless by comparison to men). The goblin king was portrayed this way in the books albeit not as "child friendly" but come on they have Azog(not sure of his name) and the necromancer plus smaug as the main villain for each movie.
Yeah some people will say its too long but you can say that about the lord of the ring films. I loved them though especially the fellowship as it brings each character into their own.
Those who complain about gandalf saving the day should read the book and then realise that gandalf is the second most powerful wizard in middle earth... he killed a fucking balrog people!
|
|
|
|