The Hobbit....so Excited

1313234363747

Comments

  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    Dai13371 wrote: »
    Just got back from a HFR 3d viewing. It was the most epic thing I have ever seen on a big screen.

    *cries* (stop rubbing it in :P)

    I haven't got time to see it until after the 21st :(
  • Dai13371Dai13371 Posts: 8,071
    Forum Member
    Karis wrote: »
    *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!
  • roger_50roger_50 Posts: 6,894
    Forum Member
    Dai13371 wrote: »
    I read somewhere that the prosthetics are jarring in their rubberyness, that the CGi would be too smooth. Utter poppycock.
    Nah, disagree. It's not poppycock at all.

    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.
  • KarisKaris Posts: 6,380
    Forum Member
    Dai13371 wrote: »
    Aww, remember, good things come to those that wait!

    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.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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...
  • PinSarlaPinSarla Posts: 4,072
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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?
  • James2001James2001 Posts: 73,419
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3587&p=.htm
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 374
    Forum Member
    PinSarla wrote: »
    Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Has the extended version been given a release date yet?
    Late 2013 just before Desolation.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 529
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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.
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So did noone else notice Sam Gamgee?

    Even though he was well out of place chronologically? ;)
  • GARETH197901GARETH197901 Posts: 22,291
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    By the way, did anyone happen to notice if Peter Jackson put himself into the film this time???

    I was too busy looking at other stuff - did he squeeze himself into the Dale sequence, or perhaps as a dwarf in Erebor?
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    By the way, did anyone happen to notice if Peter Jackson put himself into the film this time???

    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!
  • HogzillaHogzilla Posts: 24,116
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    So did noone else notice Sam Gamgee?

    Even though he was well out of place chronologically? ;)

    Phylo, was he
    in Hobbiton, as Bilbo left?

    If so, I thought that was my imagination....
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Will look out for him. I loved him as a corsair!

    AND he was the bearded, clumsy drunk in the Prancing Pony! ;)
    If so, I thought that was my imagination....

    Yep! He was there...
    When the Gaffer spoke to Bilbo as he ran past, you could see Sam working at the back of the garden over his shoulder

    ...but he showed up better in 3D than 2D ;)
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ooh I am going back on Tuesday.

    Have to say, I do get laughed at for doing this too :p 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!
  • RAZORBACKRAZORBACK Posts: 371
    Forum Member
    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...
  • phylo_roadkingphylo_roadking Posts: 21,339
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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!
  • XIVXIV Posts: 21,495
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    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,
  • Alt-F4Alt-F4 Posts: 10,960
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    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.
  • Dai13371Dai13371 Posts: 8,071
    Forum Member
    roger_50 wrote: »
    Nah, disagree. It's not poppycock at all.

    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.

    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.
  • Dai13371Dai13371 Posts: 8,071
    Forum Member
    RAZORBACK wrote: »
    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.
  • James2001James2001 Posts: 73,419
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dai13371 wrote: »
    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!
  • Alt-F4Alt-F4 Posts: 10,960
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Dai13371 wrote: »
    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.

    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.