Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

The Hobbit....so Excited


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-01-2013, 14:48
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,764
...assuming that actually happened and you didn't just make it up.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 02-01-2013, 14:49
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
...assuming that actually happened and you didn't just make it up.
No, i swear that it happened, it made my night!
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 15:03
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,764
Well, then he's an idiot. He should have seen for himself that the sets look like sets at 48FPS (which they do IMO) before claiming it as his own view.

I guess there are people out there who always want to attack things regardless and latch on to anything they can find - just like there are people who force themselves to valiantly defend something because a film they like is being criticised, even if they know deep-down there is actually a problem.

Both sides of the 48FPS debate are probably made up of a fair amount of bullsh*ters in this way tbh.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 15:06
Delboy219
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,918
I spoke to a co-workers husband the other day who had seen the film in 2D, hilariously he was trying to make out that the 48fps made the film look "fake" and that "sets looked like sets", clearly regurgitating what he'd read online in an attempt to sound like he knew what he was on about, the look of intense confusion on his face when i told him that all 2D showings are good old 24fps was priceless!
If this is true, i'd have been too mortified for him to even bother with any correcting.
Delboy219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 15:19
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
If this is true, i'd have been too mortified for him to even bother with any correcting.
I've got better things to do with my time than to make up stories on the internet...

Personally i found 48fps to be a bit of a non-issue, but that's not to say that i'm a 48fps apologist, i'll be the first to admit that some of the CGI looked a bit crummy in this format (particularly Radagast's sleigh and the Wargs) and certain bits seemed oddly sped up.

I was genuinely tempted to just let him keep spewing his regurgitated garbage, it was very entertaining, but the look on his face when corrected was worth it
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 15:23
Delboy219
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,918
I was genuinely tempted to just let him keep spewing his regurgitated garbage, it was very entertaining, but the look on his face when corrected was worth it
I'd have been just as embarrassed FOR him, lol. I don't do well in those situations.

I wonder how many others are going around slamming HFR when they haven't even seen it.
Delboy219 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 16:44
Granny McSmith
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Temerant
Posts: 11,318
That's true. Quite a lot of people (the older, less technical minded cinema goers) are seeing it 48fps and aren't even noticing any real difference between The Hobbit and the last film they saw.
That's me! Maybe you see what you look for. Anyway, I was too engrossed in the story to notice any technical problems. Maybe if there had been any serious difficulties I would have noticed, but there just wasn't.
Granny McSmith is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 17:46
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,916
I spoke to a co-workers husband the other day who had seen the film in 2D, hilariously he was trying to make out that the 48fps made the film look "fake" and that "sets looked like sets", clearly regurgitating what he'd read online in an attempt to sound like he knew what he was on about, the look of intense confusion on his face when i told him that all 2D showings are good old 24fps was priceless!
I've only seen it in 2D so far, and I did think that some of the sets looked less real than in LOTR; there also seemed to be some rather blurry moments. I don't know what the reason for that might be.
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 18:32
nck-nck
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 30
I've only seen it in 2D so far, and I did think that some of the sets looked less real than in LOTR; there also seemed to be some rather blurry moments. I don't know what the reason for that might be.
I think it's because the visual effects were made to be viewed at 48fps. I've seen both versions and I thought the big shots of the mines and things looked really blurry at 24fps, too. In 48fps the visual effects look right, everything looks sharp and clear.

Most of the visual effects actually look astonishing in 48fps. I expected to hate it but all the CG characters and environments look amazingly real- unsettlingly real in Gollum's case.

I would never encourage anyone to see the film for the first time in 48fps but if you've seen in at the normal frame rate and can be arsed/afford to go again, I'd say give it another go at the higher frame rate. I didn't really enjoy it the first time i saw it (...i fell asleep) but i went back to see the 48fps just out of curiosity and it knocked my socks off, it's one of the weirdest effects I've ever seen
nck-nck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 18:40
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,916
Yes, I think you're probably right. Because it's made to be seen at 48, some bits don't look right at 24 - makes sense. Maybe that's what the person mentioned above was trying to get at. I'm going to see it again in the HFR 3D (tomorrow, if things go to plan).
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 18:58
Matt D
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 11,512
I'd like to see the HFR version, but none of the cinemas here in Cambridge are showing it Just 2D or standard 3D.
Matt D is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 19:34
CJClarke
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: The Middle of Nowhere
Posts: 7,265
I've only seen it in 2D so far, and I did think that some of the sets looked less real than in LOTR; there also seemed to be some rather blurry moments. I don't know what the reason for that might be.
I'm not certain, but i believe that the 2D 24fps version had a kind of artificial motion blur added to the film to compensate for the downgrade from 48fps. One of my friends who saw it in 48fps and then again in 2D 24fps made a similar comment about there being a strange blurriness to some of it in 2D, he also said that some of the battle scenes looked a bit "flat" and confusing in 2D, whereas the 3D version had more depth and allowed you to take more in visually.
CJClarke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2013, 22:35
asyousay
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 34,187
Has anybody seen the screeners for this yet as its online apparently already .
asyousay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 00:00
mtj
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,322
After reading all the criticism in reviews about HFR I went to see it with a little trepidation, but I thought it was fantastic. Battles and sweeping camera movements over landscapes looked so good - most of the detail in these scenes would normally be lost at 24fps. The only awkard parts were in Bag End and Rivendell during dialogue scenes with panning shots; a little TV-ish.

I'm not sure if HFR is the future, but I think you should always try to watch a movie how the director intended. Whether that be in full-frame for Kubric films, IMAX for the new Batman and in 48fps 3D for this. For better or worse, this was Jackson's vision.
mtj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 00:56
Zaphodski
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 3,954
I think it's because the visual effects were made to be viewed at 48fps. I've seen both versions and I thought the big shots of the mines and things looked really blurry at 24fps, too. In 48fps the visual effects look right, everything looks sharp and clear.

Most of the visual effects actually look astonishing in 48fps. I expected to hate it but all the CG characters and environments look amazingly real- unsettlingly real in Gollum's case.

I would never encourage anyone to see the film for the first time in 48fps but if you've seen in at the normal frame rate and can be arsed/afford to go again, I'd say give it another go at the higher frame rate. I didn't really enjoy it the first time i saw it (...i fell asleep) but i went back to see the 48fps just out of curiosity and it knocked my socks off, it's one of the weirdest effects I've ever seen
I saw the film first in HFR (my friend thought he had booked SFR) and I must say that I found I was analysing the image quality more than enjoying the film. Interesting now having seen the film with my daughter in SFR. HRF certainly improves the wide panning shots however makes the images in static scenes too sharp and almost computer generated. SFR suffers in the wide sweeping shots however looks much better in the static shots. Horses for courses and coin flipping....
Zaphodski is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:21
TheToonArmy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Scotland
Posts: 2,668
Watched it tonight, never since the LOTR have I smiled all the way through a film. Its great being back in middle earth.

I could have watched 9 hours of it, it flew by and when the last scene ended I could have swore I had only been sitting for 1.5 hours.

Anybody have a clue where the next film is going to end.
TheToonArmy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 01:59
Edmond-Dantès
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 372
Watched it tonight, never since the LOTR have I smiled all the way through a film. Its great being back in middle earth.

I could have watched 9 hours of it, it flew by and when the last scene ended I could have swore I had only been sitting for 1.5 hours.

Anybody have a clue where the next film is going to end.
Without giving too much away.

Bilbo will encounter a certain, rather large being. The Necromancer sub-plot will continue and be expanded upon. Thranduil and his Elves will feature prominently. A female Elf will be introduced, who will also play a key part in the next two films. Many new locations never before featured in a live action Tolkien adaptation will be seen. Bilbo will really come into his own. The Arkenstone will set-up another story facet that will be heavily featured in the third film.
Edmond-Dantès is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 10:00
grimtales1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Albans, UK, Team Wagner
Posts: 39,136
I saw The Hobbit again last night Enjoyed it more than the first time I saw it (though I DID enjoy it the first time), Martin Freeman is excellent. The foreshadowing (?) with LOTR is apparent though.
I didnt see it in 48 fps (only ordinary 2D) but sometimes some scenes/shots still stood out for me as actors on a set/against a green screen In LOTR I didnt get that feeling.
grimtales1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 16:01
GARETH197901
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: XBL-JediScho PSN-Gareth1979
Posts: 22,022
I'm trying to remember if in The Hobbit movie Bilbo actually mentions the Shire at all to Gollum. I don't think he does in the book.
he does,he says hes Bilbo Baggins a hobbit of the Shire
GARETH197901 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 17:43
beatrice39
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: North London
Posts: 1,765
I read the book but I refuse to pay £10 on three movies each based on one book. Sorry, but two movies was just about okay but three? I've seen reviews from IMDB and a lot of people either love it or hate it (putting aside that HFR). I'll buy it on DVD or blue-ray when its cheap and make my own decision.

Sorry guys, rant over. I'm still cheesed off about the whole three movie thing.
beatrice39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 18:28
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,916
I'm inclined to think that it was a mistake to use "The Hobbit" as a title. Perhaps they should have stuck with LOTR.

The Lord Of The Rings: An Unexpected Journey
The Lord Of The Rings: The Desolation of Smaug
The Lord Of The Rings: There And Back Again


Or use something like The Chronicles Of MiddleEarth.
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 18:49
grimtales1
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: St. Albans, UK, Team Wagner
Posts: 39,136
I get what you mean - 'The Chronicles of Middle Earth' actually sounds a very good umbrella title for The Hobbit + LOTR, imo
grimtales1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 18:54
LaVieEnRose
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 4,916
I get what you mean - 'The Chronicles of Middle Earth' actually sounds a very good umbrella title for The Hobbit + LOTR, imo
You wouldn't use it now because of the Narnia series, but something along those lines. It would perhaps have lessened the disappointment of some of those who had different expectations of the latest film.
LaVieEnRose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 19:29
mialicious
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: London
Posts: 3,032
The Hobbit was brilliant..it had a lot to live upto and was just as good as LOTR imo.
mialicious is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2013, 19:39
Gill P
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 13,209
The Hobbit was brilliant..it had a lot to live upto and was just as good as LOTR imo.
I agree. Just got back from the cinema and thoroughly enjoyed it. The time just flew by! Aiden Turner!
Gill P is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:11.