In regards to the longer version when it comes out next year on DVD and Bluray - I can't see where the extra 20 mins are going to be slotted in. I can't offhand think of anything that's been left out of the Hobbit portions that appeared onscreen...so unless there's far more LOTR backstory???
To answer part of my own question...looking at some of the material on Youtube buried in trailers, it looks like Bilbo wanders round Rivendell a little, and at one point goes upstairs in the Library and sees the Shards of Narsil sitting waiting...
To answer part of my own question...looking at some of the material on Youtube buried in trailers, it looks like Bilbo wanders round Rivendell a little, and at one point goes upstairs in the Library and sees the Shards of Narsil sitting waiting...
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Has the extended version been given a release date yet?
Apparently in the US the HFR has the highest per-screen average takings, which could bode well for the future of the format if it sticks like this throught the run.
Just got back from seeing it. It was amazing. Great 3D as well! I didn't even notice the fast frame rate.
It's not as epic as Lord of the Rings. It's a very simple story, but I enjoyed it so much I didn't want it to end. Really good humour without it going over the top.
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Has the extended version been given a release date yet?
Warner Bros. released a press statement a while ago giving various home media release dates through 2013, and the Extended Edition was into the third quarter of 2013...but they've since retracted it.
Warner Bros. released a press statement a while ago giving various home media release dates through 2013, and the Extended Edition was into the third quarter of 2013...but they've since retracted it.
i remember the LOTR Extended Editions came out around the end of the year after their release,i just hope they do what they did then and bundle them with a Weta Sculpture
Have to say, I do get laughed at for doing this too But every time I see a film as "crowded" with detail as this, I'm still getting new stuff out of it...
Today, for instance, as I didn't have to watch what was actually going on in the end scenes quite so intently - I only noticed for the first time that the top of the Carrock is shaped like a bear!
Entirely appropriate, given the first few scenes next December!
Went to see this earlier today and regarding the movie itself I will say that I thought overall it was very decent indeed. It admittedly wasn't quite as strong as any of the entries in the LOTR trilogy but despite that still managed (IMO) to be very entertaining.
As for the version I saw, well I went out of my way to see this in 48 fps (as I was interested to see just how good or bad it was compared to the standard 24 fps format) and can confirm that it was definitely different:eek:.
It was certainly a positive that the image quality was much, much sharper than in any 3D flick that I'd seen previously but unfortunately that wasn't really enough to offset the negative impact that it had on the special effects.
Basically it was like looking through a window & watching this movie being filmed rather than viewing the finished product. The sets looked liked sets, the prosthetics looked like prosthetics and whenever digital images were combined with real life elements they didn't blend in at all.
In addition to this, 48 fps gave this flick a cheap made for TV vibe so all in all I ended up viewing this as an interesting experiment (visually speaking) but one that didn't really work (IMO at least).
That said, the strange visuals didn't get in the way of me having a really positive experience so I'd still say this is well worth catching over the next couple of weeks...
Went to see this earlier today and regarding the movie itself I will say that I thought overall it was very decent indeed. It admittedly wasn't quite as strong as any of the entries in the LOTR trilogy but despite that still managed (IMO) to be very entertaining.
To be fair - it was never going to be Like it or not, The Hobbit simply wasn't a "strong" as story as The Lord Of The Rings.
As a standlone kids' yarn it's excellent....if you come to it with an entirely unprejudiced eye But once you read the LOTR you realise that Thorin's Quest and party was "all at sea" among all the forces and historical trends moving around them Jackson has done a good stab at contextualising the Quest for Erebor in Late Third Age Middle Earth...and I've a feeling both the extended version AND the next two films will add to it greatly.
For example - having studied the trailers this evening, there's Gandalf's trip into Dol Guldur coming up...now that we know it's not in THIS film!
The HFR does take time to get used to but I think the technology has potential and it'll improve over time, it'll be interesting seeing used in say a sci-fi film or a superhero film, neither which are grounded in reality, I would watch a nature documentary in HFR as the landscape shots for The Hobbit were stunning,
The point with HFR is that the sets didn't look real, the problem is further compounded by the 3D effect which separates the elements, usually foreground and background making everything look like a badly lit backdrop.
The film though was surprisingly better than I expected, it may have lacked the depth the original movies had it wasn't nearly as bad as the critics made it out to be.
Went to see this earlier today and regarding the movie itself I will say that I thought overall it was very decent indeed. It admittedly wasn't quite as strong as any of the entries in the LOTR trilogy but despite that still managed (IMO) to be very entertaining.
As for the version I saw, well I went out of my way to see this in 48 fps (as I was interested to see just how good or bad it was compared to the standard 24 fps format) and can confirm that it was definitely different:eek:.
It was certainly a positive that the image quality was much, much sharper than in any 3D flick that I'd seen previously but unfortunately that wasn't really enough to offset the negative impact that it had on the special effects.
Basically it was like looking through a window & watching this movie being filmed rather than viewing the finished product. The sets looked liked sets, the prosthetics looked like prosthetics and whenever digital images were combined with real life elements they didn't blend in at all.
In addition to this, 48 fps gave this flick a cheap made for TV vibe so all in all I ended up viewing this as an interesting experiment (visually speaking) but one that didn't really work (IMO at least).
That said, the strange visuals didn't get in the way of me having a really positive experience so I'd still say this is well worth catching over the next couple of weeks...
Isnt that what real life is like? I look out of my window and watch cars and people walk by with no blur, no judder, totally smooth.
The HFR experiment is to try and get this real life perception as being the norm.
If people wish to associate Jackson use HFR with cheap looking soaps, then they are doing themselves a great disservice.
If people wish to associate Jackson use HFR with cheap looking soaps, then they are doing themselves a great disservice.
Of course, if the norm had been that big budget things used higher framerates, and lower budget ones used low framerates, then if a film tried to shoot in 24fps, that would be derided as "cheap soap opera vision".
I admit I do laugh at the irony of people saying HFR looks cheap and 24fps looks expensive, when 24fps became the standard because it was the cheapest they could go at the time!
Comments
*cries* (stop rubbing it in :P)
I haven't got time to see it until after the 21st
Aww, remember, good things come to those that wait!
The film's good but the HFR reminded me every 5 minutes I was looking at a shaky film-set inside a studio. Distracting.
It doesn't work for me. It's a fair criticism of the film I feel.
Thanks. I can't believe how many movies I've missed this past year or two. Stupid new business!
I'm thinking, though, that the HFR issues might be a personal thing and maybe affect those who are sensitive to such things.
Like the difference between US and UK TV. Some people can tell the difference while others can't.
To answer part of my own question...looking at some of the material on Youtube buried in trailers, it looks like Bilbo wanders round Rivendell a little, and at one point goes upstairs in the Library and sees the Shards of Narsil sitting waiting...
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Has the extended version been given a release date yet?
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3587&p=.htm
It's not as epic as Lord of the Rings. It's a very simple story, but I enjoyed it so much I didn't want it to end. Really good humour without it going over the top.
Warner Bros. released a press statement a while ago giving various home media release dates through 2013, and the Extended Edition was into the third quarter of 2013...but they've since retracted it.
Even though he was well out of place chronologically?
i remember the LOTR Extended Editions came out around the end of the year after their release,i just hope they do what they did then and bundle them with a Weta Sculpture
I was too busy looking at other stuff - did he squeeze himself into the Dale sequence, or perhaps as a dwarf in Erebor?
Ooh I am going back on Tuesday. Will look out for him. I loved him as a corsair!
Phylo, was he
If so, I thought that was my imagination....
AND he was the bearded, clumsy drunk in the Prancing Pony!
Yep! He was there...
...but he showed up better in 3D than 2D
Have to say, I do get laughed at for doing this too But every time I see a film as "crowded" with detail as this, I'm still getting new stuff out of it...
Today, for instance, as I didn't have to watch what was actually going on in the end scenes quite so intently - I only noticed for the first time that the top of the Carrock is shaped like a bear!
Entirely appropriate, given the first few scenes next December!
As for the version I saw, well I went out of my way to see this in 48 fps (as I was interested to see just how good or bad it was compared to the standard 24 fps format) and can confirm that it was definitely different:eek:.
It was certainly a positive that the image quality was much, much sharper than in any 3D flick that I'd seen previously but unfortunately that wasn't really enough to offset the negative impact that it had on the special effects.
Basically it was like looking through a window & watching this movie being filmed rather than viewing the finished product. The sets looked liked sets, the prosthetics looked like prosthetics and whenever digital images were combined with real life elements they didn't blend in at all.
In addition to this, 48 fps gave this flick a cheap made for TV vibe so all in all I ended up viewing this as an interesting experiment (visually speaking) but one that didn't really work (IMO at least).
That said, the strange visuals didn't get in the way of me having a really positive experience so I'd still say this is well worth catching over the next couple of weeks...
To be fair - it was never going to be Like it or not, The Hobbit simply wasn't a "strong" as story as The Lord Of The Rings.
As a standlone kids' yarn it's excellent....if you come to it with an entirely unprejudiced eye But once you read the LOTR you realise that Thorin's Quest and party was "all at sea" among all the forces and historical trends moving around them Jackson has done a good stab at contextualising the Quest for Erebor in Late Third Age Middle Earth...and I've a feeling both the extended version AND the next two films will add to it greatly.
The film though was surprisingly better than I expected, it may have lacked the depth the original movies had it wasn't nearly as bad as the critics made it out to be.
Like I said, I allowed myself to be totally immersed in it, like I was a floating disembodied head along for the ride.
I'm sorry it doesn't work for you. I guess its a totally personal thing.
Isnt that what real life is like? I look out of my window and watch cars and people walk by with no blur, no judder, totally smooth.
The HFR experiment is to try and get this real life perception as being the norm.
If people wish to associate Jackson use HFR with cheap looking soaps, then they are doing themselves a great disservice.
Of course, if the norm had been that big budget things used higher framerates, and lower budget ones used low framerates, then if a film tried to shoot in 24fps, that would be derided as "cheap soap opera vision".
I admit I do laugh at the irony of people saying HFR looks cheap and 24fps looks expensive, when 24fps became the standard because it was the cheapest they could go at the time!
It's not "real life" if the rocks look like they're made of plastic and you can see the cocking makeup on his face.