|
Post by juju on Dec 19, 2012 8:35:30 GMT
I did, last night. Anyone else? What did you think?
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Dec 19, 2012 10:59:05 GMT
I think it's a total rip-off of The Lord of the Rings series!!! But seriously, not seen it yet, and probably won't in the cinema, as I my daughter has trouble sitting still for even shorter films. But is it so that despite the length, it is only half the book?
|
|
|
Post by Sarah W. on Dec 20, 2012 3:45:28 GMT
Only a third of the book. Well, there will be three movies. How they divide it will be up to them.
I liked it for the most part. I loved that they retained some of the songs of the book. I was afraid they would all get cut. I think Martin Freeman makes a wonderful hobbit. And in the main, I think they were more faithful to the plot than they were at the beginning of the LOTR trilogy. I liked beginning the movie with a flashback to Erebor - I had a hard time visualizing what to expect inside a mountain.
I was annoyed at Peter Jackson's need to have an arch-bad guy besides Sauron in each episode. I also didn't like the playing up of tension between Bilbo and Thorin - I don't remember getting that vibe from the book at all. I also didn't think the music was a good as in the LOTR trilogy.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on Dec 20, 2012 8:51:27 GMT
Not yet.. they have it in 3D here, so I may go check it out if I have enough time.. or just wait until someone rips it off in good quality and posts it on The Pirate Bay..
|
|
|
Post by juju on Dec 20, 2012 9:48:38 GMT
*SPOILERS* Apparently it was filmed in 48 rather than the usual 24 (like I have any idea what that even means ), and I found that with 3D as well, the whole thing took on a kind of video game feel, especially in the really fast scenes and battles. And talking of which, I thought there was far too much reliance on battle scenes (it's been years since I read the book but I don't remember that many) and some frankly ridiculous Indiana Jones style escaping-unhurt-on-collapsing-structures to have any credibility. Still, there were some great scenes. The highlight for me was Bilbo and Gollum in the cave, and this line from Gandalf, which I don't even think is in the book: 'Saruman believes that it is only great power that can hold evil in check. That is not what I’ve found. I found it is the small things, everyday deeds of ordinary folk, that keeps the darkness at bay. Simple acts of kindness and love.' Awwww.
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 20, 2012 9:58:19 GMT
Apparently it was filmed in 48 rather than the usual 24 (like I have any idea what that even means ). 48 frames per second so that it doesn't appear to flicker. I didn't know they were doing that now.
|
|
Yuki
Senior members
Posts: 632
|
Post by Yuki on Dec 20, 2012 10:01:50 GMT
Apparently it was filmed in 48 rather than the usual 24 48 frames per second? 24 is the least number of frames per second needed for a video to seem "flowing" as if it's a real life scene I think..
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Dec 20, 2012 19:53:39 GMT
Sounds like the latest in the line of "we've made everything good enough, so we have to make some of the numbers bigger so people think the new stuff is better when it's really hardly even perceptible and we have a product to sell!"
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 20, 2012 20:12:49 GMT
Hm, I don't think so, 24 frames per second is not very good.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Dec 20, 2012 20:43:15 GMT
Ever since the newer TVs and monitors came out (LCD and up), there is no refresh blank anyway so the flicker is almost non-existent anyway as the image on screen is constantly maintained and changed and not repeatedly drawn as with the old CRT devices. Digital projectors also do not flash images on the screen in the old manner either. 24 can be improved upon, but 48 is probably overkill, but is an easier lazy upgrade! NTSC uses 30 frames a second. Digital technology is making a lot of this moot anyway as huge chunks of the screen can go for many frames with no updates anyway. I have recently used an HD TV and was very disappointed with the picture quality as too many compromises have been made to cram more channels into the available bandwidth.
|
|
|
Post by juju on Dec 21, 2012 0:41:40 GMT
Call me old fashioned but I thought the combination of the 48 speed and the 3D was too much. I'm not a huge fan of 3D anyway, and the whole thing had a sort of hyper-real intensity which I didn't find all that pleasant.
|
|
|
Post by Sarah W. on Dec 21, 2012 2:26:32 GMT
and some frankly ridiculous Indiana Jones style escaping-unhurt-on-collapsing-structures to have any credibility. Oh yes - that too.
|
|
|
Post by raspberrybullets on Dec 22, 2012 11:10:30 GMT
I'll only see it for free as I don't want to give Peter Jackson any more money. But after reading some reviews and considering what he did with LOTR I'm not sure I want to see it at all. It sounds like he's really taken out the lovely childish parts of the story and made it all action and more for adults than for kids. Miisa maybe you might want to reconsider letting your kids watch it from what I've heard. As for the 48 frams thing, a friend of mine saw it and she didn't know about the 48 frames instead of 24 but she was complaining that the visuals were too real to the point where you could see it was actors on a stage with costumes. It made it difficult for her to immerse herself in the world. And she said it was too stretched. She also thought that Bilbo was too modernised which she didn't like. I personally can't stomach the idea of watching 3 films to see the Hobbit and seeing all sorts of added scenes when they could have made a lovely film and done it in one go.
|
|
|
Post by robert on Dec 22, 2012 14:36:46 GMT
I think what upsets me the most about it is Hollywood's(or even Mr. Jackson's vision) insistence of creating some specific, universal foe, or villain. It is trying to make this Necromancer, which was only mentioned in passing in the Hobbit, as this. Furthermore, the book, and even the cartoon which successfully realized this, had several foes, or groups of foes, that did not have some universal plan, but whose chief goal was to kill or detain the adventurers on the basis of greed or hatred of race or revenge.
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Dec 26, 2012 1:59:07 GMT
I saw it in 3-d today, and it was too much - too distracting from the story. I wish I'd saved a couple of bucks and seen the regular version. I also didn't know I was only going to see 1/3 of the story, so I was a bit shocked when it ended abruptly.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Dec 26, 2012 15:04:37 GMT
Yeah, I think I'll wait until I can see all thee in one go on DVD.
|
|
|
Post by Fr. Gruesome on Dec 28, 2012 11:42:20 GMT
As I am a jolly decent sort, I led a contingent to of the young parishioners to the local multiplex to view the Hobbit. I thought that the opening sequence of Erebor was stunning. I did find the 3D a bit challenging and for some bits stopped wearing the specs - long shots of the car chase for instance don't really need it. Speaking of the car chase - why does Sir Peter feel the need for these - whoever animated the rabbits really knew their stuff: they were delightful, including the largest of them beating his back paw on the ground as an alarm when some Orcs arrived.
I was greatly pleased that some sections of the dialogue were in Old Orcish but I wonder why they thought we would need sub-titles?
One scene though made the 3D worthwhile: Galadriel framed in an archway against a deep, deep sky in Rivendell. Apparently, as it flicked up I said 'wow' too loudly ... and made people around me giggle ... especially the young parishioners.
I really enjoyed the early sequence in Bag End with Old Bilbo and Frodo, it was very cleverly stitched to the beginning of LOTR(F) and wonderful to have much more sense of exploring Bag End. The eagles were fabulous. I endorse the escape sequence comments above although I thought that the conception of the Orc caves was very good - and how nice to see Sir Les Patterson's cameo as the Goblin King.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 18:27:15 GMT
I hope nobody will hate me for saying this, but Frank and I watched the 3-D-version in England and we both loved it. We knew it wasn't going to be like the book so we were prepared for it being different and we really enjoyed it. Sorry to say that. Does that make us ignorant and stupid? *looks sheepish*
|
|
|
Post by tangent on Dec 30, 2012 21:03:27 GMT
Not at all, if you can adjust your mindset and enjoy it for what it is then why not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 30, 2012 22:05:16 GMT
That's what we already did when we were planning to watch it. We knew it was going to be different from the book and decided not to compare it with the book.
|
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 31, 2012 11:15:07 GMT
We usually wait until they come out on DVD and rent the movie for 2 €. We never download movies from the internet.
|
|
|
Post by Miisa on Dec 31, 2012 12:00:20 GMT
I have Netflicks and that is brilliant for watching movies and Tv shows, but it only has stuff that is a little older. I will probably end up buying the set of three DVDs when they come out.
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Dec 31, 2012 19:23:41 GMT
Of course, the best way to cut the costs of going to the cinema is not to buy their snacks! (I typed "snakes" the first time)
|
|
|
Post by Fr. Gruesome on Dec 31, 2012 21:12:24 GMT
Always go with your instinctive reaction ...
|
|
|
Post by jayme on Dec 31, 2012 22:23:42 GMT
The snakes cost more than the movies!
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Dec 31, 2012 23:51:18 GMT
I once went to the cinema with a friend who offered to pay for some pick'n'mix. I was staggered by the cost of what I had got and, in spite of me offering to pay some, to his credit, he insisted on paying the lot. I've never bought any at a cinema since!
|
|
|
Post by Fr. Gruesome on Jan 1, 2013 16:22:12 GMT
I am going to go and see the Hobbit again on Friday night, 2D this time ...
|
|
|
Post by Alvamiga on Jan 1, 2013 17:29:25 GMT
I always take a set of the 2D glasses I made when I go to see 3D films. Can't sit through a whole one without getting a headache coming on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 1, 2013 18:10:21 GMT
When we watched "Dredd" in the cinema a few weeks ago, we bought snacks there and decided to indulge a little. I almost got a heart attack when I heard what we had to pay for two "small" cokes (0.5l), a small bag of popcorn and a bag of sweeties: 18 € and a few cents! The sweeties did last for a week, but when we went in Birmingham, we bought the snacks elsewhere and took them into the cinema.
|
|