View Full Version : The Hobbit (Movie)
So, what do you think from the trailer you have seen? Also, has anyone been watching the Video Blog? (https://www.youtube.com/user/Thehobbitstuff)
Am I the only one who is more than a little concerned at the cheap, burlesque portrayal of the almost-anime-looking Dwarves? Also, why in flying-&*#$'s sakes did they change Gandalf's? staff? Are we to believe that between the Hobbit and the LotR he was given a new staff?
That said though, a lot of people have been giving them heat for the singing, but I for one think it was excellent. People forget that they are not supposed to be professional singers. It is supposed to just be ordinary people singing. Songs and poetry were a huge part of the Hobbit, and it would be wrong not to feature it in the movie.
So what's your opinion?
The trailer makes it seem that while it will be a great fantasy movie, it does not have that...unique LotR feel it. More like a regular fantasy epic.
Still it will be nice to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
And yeah I find that song quite fitting with the mood.
The trailer makes it seem that while it will be a great fantasy movie, it does not have that...unique LotR feel it. More like a regular fantasy epic.
Still it will be nice to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
And yeah I find that song quite fitting with the mood.
I agree. I will definitely still watch it, and will probably like it/not mind it, but I think it is missing that touch that the LotR had: subtlety. LotR (at least the first two films...the third one lost that touch too I think) portrayed things in a subtle, and realistic (for the fantasy setting) way, trusting to the viewer to understand and appreciate it. Return of the King lost that almost completely, and it looks like this will too. If I could name one thing that made LotR so much different (and so, so much better) than other fantasy movies out there, it would be subtlety. (not that awesome visuals didn't help, but again, their subtlety was one of their strengths that made the visuals so appealing)
Gregoshi
01-09-2012, 18:15
First off, it is a teaser trailer - note that nothing is really said or shown about the story other than Bilbo is supposed to go on an adventure. I thought the dwarve's song was excellent and just like I'd expect to hear from a dwarf, kind of a deep droning. It looks like there may be a light-hearted feel to it like the book as there was a brief shot of the dwarves cleaning up the dishes ("Because that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!"). I'm anxious to see what Smaug looks like - I'm expecting to be wowed after the job they did with the balrog and the ents.
I didn't notice Gandalf's staff was different, but I can't believe it won't be explained somehow in the movies if they have gone to the trouble to change it. There are a couple of opportunities in the movies for Gandalf to have lost his "old" staff - the Battle of Five Armies and his trip to Dol Guldor the find out about the Necromancer, but I don't believe the loss of his staff are mentioned in any of Tolkien's writings. At the same time, I wonder why Jackson would see fit to change the staff if it was not written by Tolkien as it is such trivial thing.
I'm still quite excited about the movies.
At the same time, I wonder why Jackson would see fit to change the staff if it was not written by Tolkien as it is such trivial thing.
One of the things I do like about Jackson in regards to this franchise is he always does something for a specific reason in order to advance the story telling of the books, even if its doing something outrageous and contrary to what happened in them. Elves at helms deep to show the elves were still in the fight, despite their fight occurring "off camera" in the book comes to mind as the biggest example of that.
Vladimir
01-09-2012, 19:14
Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
Maybe I am just a hardcore, but I cannot help get upset when they go and change something like that with no apparent reason. It is not going to make or break the movie, but it still ticks me off.
Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
I beg to differ. In a gay man, I think, his staff is what others will look at first off. :clown:
Gregoshi
01-09-2012, 20:00
Elves at helms deep to show the elves were still in the fight, despite their fight occurring "off camera" in the book comes to mind as the biggest example of that.
I was thinking about that just yesterday (I'm re-reading the books right now). Just to nit-pick, the elves would have most likely sent help to Minas Tirith to fight Sauron, not Helms Deep.
Maybe I am just a hardcore, but I cannot help get upset when they go and change something like that with no apparent reason. It is not going to make or break the movie, but it still ticks me off.
This is why I'm wondering if there will be a story element in the movies to explain the change in staff - the LotR staff was already made, so why make a new one if not necessary?
Vladimir
01-09-2012, 20:27
I was thinking about that just yesterday (I'm re-reading the books right now). Just to nit-pick, the elves would have most likely sent help to Minas Tirith to fight Sauron, not Helms Deep.
This is why I'm wondering if there will be a story element in the movies to explain the change in staff - the LotR staff was already made, so why make a new one if not necessary?
Exactly. I'm not so much of a purist to think the movie should follow the book exactly. Elves at Helm's Deep had a much greater emotional impact and fit better into the elves' departure. The quicker they show up and fight, the quicker you can move the departure story.
I'm more worried about the massive number of dwarves reducing the film to a parody of itself. Gimli was great but a bunch if miniature Scotsmen running around may be too much. Producers need to account for visual impact and Peter Jackson's portrayal received a great amount of praise from hardcore fans. I'm confident in his abilities. (Is he directing this???)
The real question is, what the :daisy: is that scene with Galadriel touching Gandalf's hair all about?
The staff isn't that much different. Still a gnarled wood staff, slightly different at the top. The original prop probably got gifted to someone or lost.
Papewaio
01-10-2012, 08:44
Hobbit had a hobbit, a wizard and a dozen dwarves.
It was also far more a children's tale.
atheotes
01-10-2012, 11:13
Agreed. Hobbit will not be similar to Lord of the Rings. Atleast i hope so. Because the feel of it is a lot more fantastical and much less gloom, doom and valor.
I must say i am not impressed with the dwarves' make up. looks artificial when compared to Gimli.
Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
I had to do it, click at your own considerable risk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QAlt4Sfl7Q
OT it will at least by worth your time
As others have pointed out, The Hobbit has a different feel than the LotR trilogy (although for me, no less enjoyable), and I wouldn't expect that to be any different for the film versions thereof. I'm very much looking forward to them.
(I just don't see why Jackson had to invent a female elf character out of whole cloth. Is adding seemingly superfluous gender variation truly necessary to driving the story?)
Vladimir
01-11-2012, 14:18
As others have pointed out, The Hobbit has a different feel than the LotR trilogy (although for me, no less enjoyable), and I wouldn't expect that to be any different for the film versions thereof. I'm very much looking forward to them.
(I just don't see why Jackson had to invent a female elf character out of whole cloth. Is adding seemingly superfluous gender variation truly necessary to driving the story?)
Yes, because female elves are hot!
You know I don't think hot is the correct term. I mean had there been a Megan Fox Galadriel, that might've been hot.
Cate Blanchett is just beautiful.
Vladimir
01-11-2012, 16:06
You know I don't think hot is the correct term. I mean had there been a Megan Fox Galadriel, that might've been hot.
Cate Blanchett is just beautiful.
Semantics. They all mean "want to have sex with."
Vladimir
01-11-2012, 16:06
Double
I was thinking about that just yesterday (I'm re-reading the books right now). Just to nit-pick, the elves would have most likely sent help to Minas Tirith to fight Sauron, not Helms Deep.
This is why I'm wondering if there will be a story element in the movies to explain the change in staff - the LotR staff was already made, so why make a new one if not necessary?
I am actually currently re-reading the books as well. (not the Hobbit, though I should have started there since the movie is coming out. :P)
Exactly. I'm not so much of a purist to think the movie should follow the book exactly. Elves at Helm's Deep had a much greater emotional impact and fit better into the elves' departure. The quicker they show up and fight, the quicker you can move the departure story.
I'm more worried about the massive number of dwarves reducing the film to a parody of itself. Gimli was great but a bunch if miniature Scotsmen running around may be too much. Producers need to account for visual impact and Peter Jackson's portrayal received a great amount of praise from hardcore fans. I'm confident in his abilities. (Is he directing this???)
Exactly, while the Hobbit is a much more light-hearted book, the Dwarves were a bunch of battle-hardened exiles who were traveling in a group of only 13 to retake Erebor. These guys are pretty darned cool and pretty capable. (not to mention confident) Jackson was able to use Gimili for more light-hearted moments in LotR without making fun of him or cheapening his character extensively. From what I see in the trailer is seems like Jackson is making fun of the Dwarves and trying to portray them in a very silly way. That is not right at all. The men, Hobbits, and elves got their chances to shine in LotR; this should be the Dwarve's chance. He should not be making fun of them and belittling them.
(and yes BTW, it is Jackson directing)
The staff isn't that much different. Still a gnarled wood staff, slightly different at the top. The original prop probably got gifted to someone or lost.
No, actually, it is quite different. It looks like a cheap flame spiral made of wood. Don't get me wrong though, that is actually not my objection, my objection is that it is quite noticeably different...and it should not be. Also, I highly doubt that the original was gifted or lost and those good craftsmen could not easily recreate it.
The tone shouldn't be too similar to LoTR. The Hobbit had a very differently feel to it, much more whimsical and fantastic (though it did have some serious parts). I like what i've seen.
I agree that the Hobbit movie should feel a lot different, but I don't think that parodying the Dwarves and portraying them as ridiculous is the best way to do that. I also don't think that cheap, anime-like make-up and costumes help at all.
I must say i am not impressed with the dwarves' make up. looks artificial when compared to Gimli.
QFT
As others have pointed out, The Hobbit has a different feel than the LotR trilogy (although for me, no less enjoyable), and I wouldn't expect that to be any different for the film versions thereof. I'm very much looking forward to them.
(I just don't see why Jackson had to invent a female elf character out of whole cloth. Is adding seemingly superfluous gender variation truly necessary to driving the story?)
Why is Galadriel and Legolas in it? Because rather than sell his movie off its own merit (or lack thereof, as time will only tell), Jackson or the movie's producers are trying to sell it on the LotR success, thus they bring back the characters people are used to. If you ask me, it is a really bad idea. Even if he pulls it off alright (which we have yet to see), it would still be better without it.
Yes, because female elves are hot!
lol Vlad, Arwen looked like a horse and Galadriel like a skeleton! Jackson's casting choices were absolutely awful for the female elves. The woman, Eowen, who was not supposed to be nearly as pretty was sooo much hotter.
I maintain that hot and beautiful are two entirely different things. (But that relative, as are most things, depending on the person in question)
They all mean "want to have sex with."
This for me, is a definition of hot.
Beautiful does not necessarily mean hot IMO. To me it means grace. The kind of stuff that makes one want to write poems...or at least wish that they could write poems.
Like Vuk said, and I agree, Miranda Otto seemed hot to some degree.
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel is simply beautiful (I don't think she looks skull like. Although she should probably cover those ears :shrug: ). To me atleast.
No, actually, it is quite different. It looks like a cheap flame spiral made of wood. Don't get me wrong though, that is actually not my objection, my objection is that it is quite noticeably different...and it should not be. Also, I highly doubt that the original was gifted or lost and those good craftsmen could not easily recreate it.
Hobbit trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0k3kHtyoqc) - cheap flame spiral made of wood, Fellowship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Vyhve9gtg) - cheap flame spiral made of wood :shrug:
I agree that the Hobbit movie should feel a lot different, but I don't think that parodying the Dwarves and portraying them as ridiculous is the best way to do that. I also don't think that cheap, anime-like make-up and costumes help at all.
I think the problem with all the dwarves is reference. In the LotR movies, the hobbits and Gimli could be shot at angles to diminish their height against the other characters. With The Hobbit, there won't be tall humans and elves in frame very often, so we will be comparing them (human sized actors) against scenery and themselves. Not sure he pulls it off, in the trailer at least.
Why is Galadriel and Legolas in it? Because rather than sell his movie off its own merit (or lack thereof, as time will only tell), Jackson or the movie's producers are trying to sell it on the LotR success, thus they bring back the characters people are used to. If you ask me, it is a really bad idea. Even if he pulls it off alright (which we have yet to see), it would still be better without it.
I could see why both would be in the movie, but bit roles at best. Legolas is Thranduil's son, so his presence in Mirkwood is logical. Galadriel could be visiting Rivendell. But major roles, no.
Hobbit trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0k3kHtyoqc) - cheap flame spiral made of wood, Fellowship (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p1Vyhve9gtg) - cheap flame spiral made of wood :shrug:
Look again. The one in LotR has twisted, knotty branches on the top, and if they are supposed to resemble fire, it is in a very abstract way. It comes across as looking a lot more like a naturally occurring piece of wood than the one in the hobbit, which looks like it was perfectly sculpted to look like flames and not anything that could naturally occur. If it was not wooden like Saruman's, or made of carved wood like Gandalf the White's that would be one thing. The way it is portrayed though is as if wood naturally grew perfectly into the shape of a spiraling flame. It does not look at all like it was carved like Gandalf the White's. Maybe I am nit-picking, but it looks cheaper to me. As I said though, my primary objection is that they changed it, not what they changed it too.
a completely inoffensive name
01-12-2012, 09:03
Latest Hobbit trailer looks sick.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGF5ROpjRAU
Sorry Subo for stealing your joke. :)
The dwarves' song is haunting...I've listened to like a hundred times....
I wish they'd put the entire song in the movie...
Papewaio
01-12-2012, 22:50
The dwarves in the Hobbit (book) are quite comical. The scene with the trolls is humorous.
They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
So whilst the movies aren't 1:1 with the books. The dwarves in the hobbit book are far more funny the Gimli in LoTR book.
After all one wandering dwarf is a lot more pathetic then a hardcore group of dwarves. One is a hobo the other is a drunken party.
The dwarves in the Hobbit (book) are quite comical. The scene with the trolls is humorous.
They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
So whilst the movies aren't 1:1 with the books. The dwarves in the hobbit book are far more funny the Gimli in LoTR book.
After all one wandering dwarf is a lot more pathetic then a hardcore group of dwarves. One is a hobo the other is a drunken party.
You are right, the dwarves did and should add a lot of humor, but not in a way that belittles them so. They look less like a group of hardcore warrior dwarves getting drunk and partying and more like a group of 5 and 10 year olds on Sesame Street. Did I forget to mention their ridiculous, cheap appearances?
a completely inoffensive name
01-13-2012, 01:58
They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
Tom Bombadil (sp?) would have ruined the movie. The quest would suddenly become meaningless when they ran into what is essentially Tolken putting himself into the story. Oh an entity that has been around since middle earth began? And he is so superior to everyone else the ring is meaningless to him? Yeah, audiences wouldn't have understood the significance.
Vladimir
01-13-2012, 13:45
You are right, the dwarves did and should add a lot of humor, but not in a way that belittles them so. They look less like a group of hardcore warrior dwarves getting drunk and partying and more like a group of 5 and 10 year olds on Sesame Street. Did I forget to mention their ridiculous, cheap appearances?
And the staff. Don't forget the staff!!!
Why is Galadriel and Legolas in it? Because rather than sell his movie off its own merit (or lack thereof, as time will only tell), Jackson or the movie's producers are trying to sell it on the LotR success, thus they bring back the characters people are used to. If you ask me, it is a really bad idea. Even if he pulls it off alright (which we have yet to see), it would still be better without it.
I can understand Legolas' appearance in the movie, since (as drone pointed out) he is the son of Thranduil, King of the elves' realm in northern Mirkwood. Given that, it would be natural enough for us to see him in action. (Indeed, I would have been genuinely surprised if Legolas *didn't* show up in the film.) Of course, the fact that roughly 90% of Earth's female population seems to want to do naughty things to Orlando Bloom (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MrFanservice?from=Main.EstrogenBrigadeBait) might have factored into this as well... ~;p
Galadriel's appearance is a little harder to justify, but not impossible. My guess is that she'll be involved in the White Council's efforts to deal with the Necromancer (a.k.a. Sauron) at his fortress of Dol Goldur in southern Mirkwood. Given both Galadriel's longstanding involvement with the White Council, and her realm's relative proximity to Dol Goldur (I believe Lothlorien is only several days' hard ride south of the fortress), it would make a certain amount of sense for her to have a somewhat larger role than might be otherwise assumed...particularly if Gandalf & Co.'s efforts to take out the Necromancer is given more screen time than in the book.
I remain puzzled by Jackson's desire to create an entirely new (female) elf character, though. It still strikes me as being a hackneyed attempt at "gender balance".
lol Vlad, Arwen looked like a horse and Galadriel like a skeleton! Jackson's casting choices were absolutely awful for the female elves. The woman, Eowen, who was not supposed to be nearly as pretty was sooo much hotter.
Actually, I *loved* Cate Blanchett being cast as the Lady of the Wood! (Indeed, she was my favorite casting -- second only to Sir Ian McKellen as Mithrandir.) Her portrayal of Galadriel was very much how I'd always envisioned her.
I'd never say that Liv Tyler looks like a "horse" (I've always found her to be pretty), but I do feel she was the wrong choice to play Arwen. The role called for someone who looked young (at a "mere" ~500 years old, Arwen was considered barely more than an adolescent by elf standards), yet could still seem wise beyond her years. Unfortunately, when played by Miss Tyler, Arwen just came off looking like an elvish "Daddy's girl".
I loved Miranda Otto as Eowyn. Not because she was easily the hottest of the three main female characters (although I do concur with that assessment), but because IMHO she pulled off very well the combination of fierce courage & spirit combined with grim determination/despair that was the signature of Eowyn's personality (especially prior to her slaying the Witch-King at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields). I get shivers every time I stare into those gorgeous, icy-blue eyes of hers!
Drunk Clown
01-15-2012, 21:13
You kidding me? Eowyn was so mediocre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_BEJ1q96NI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
When she makes that cry when thrusting here sword in the witch-king's face (at 0:25), it just wants to make me facepalm.
To quote the Urban Dictionary (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Eowyn) article-
She slew the Witch-King AND got the guy.
She might look weird in this scene. I always felt so. but she looks hot in Two Towers.
This is a corny video. But tell me she does not look better than elven girls in the scene where she ties up her hair.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKrz1dhP4UI&feature=related
Galadriel's appearance is a little harder to justify, but not impossible. My guess is that she'll be involved in the White Council's efforts to deal with the Necromancer (a.k.a. Sauron) at his fortress of Dol Goldur in southern Mirkwood. Given both Galadriel's longstanding involvement with the White Council, and her realm's relative proximity to Dol Goldur (I believe Lothlorien is only several days' hard ride south of the fortress), it would make a certain amount of sense for her to have a somewhat larger role than might be otherwise assumed...particularly if Gandalf & Co.'s efforts to take out the Necromancer is given more screen time than in the book.
Ah yes, I had forgotten about that storyline. It's been a long while since I read "The Hobbit", I usually skip it when I decide to re-read the Tolkien books.
Actually, I *loved* Cate Blanchett being cast as the Lady of the Wood! (Indeed, she was my favorite casting -- second only to Sir Ian McKellen as Mithrandir.) Her portrayal of Galadriel was very much how I'd always envisioned her.
I'd never say that Liv Tyler looks like a "horse" (I've always found her to be pretty), but I do feel she was the wrong choice to play Arwen. The role called for someone who looked young (at a "mere" ~500 years old, Arwen was considered barely more than an adolescent by elf standards), yet could still seem wise beyond her years. Unfortunately, when played by Miss Tyler, Arwen just came off looking like an elvish "Daddy's girl".
I loved Miranda Otto as Eowyn. Not because she was easily the hottest of the three main female characters (although I do concur with that assessment), but because IMHO she pulled off very well the combination of fierce courage & spirit combined with grim determination/despair that was the signature of Eowyn's personality (especially prior to her slaying the Witch-King at the Battle of the Pelennor Fields). I get shivers every time I stare into those gorgeous, icy-blue eyes of hers!
Well, I don't agree with your take on the elf women, but I definitely agree about Eowyn. Lots of women could have been hot in that role, but very few could have acted it well. Still fewer who could act it well and be hot. :P Miranda Otto was perfect in that role.
You kidding me? Eowyn was so mediocre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_BEJ1q96NI&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL
When she makes that cry when thrusting here sword in the witch-king's face (at 0:25), it just wants to make me facepalm.
Begone fool! ~;)
Seriously though, pause that vid at 0:22. 'nough said.
As far as her acting goes, it was spot on. I doubt any other woman could have pulled her role off so beautifully.
Ah yes, I had forgotten about that storyline. It's been a long while since I read "The Hobbit", I usually skip it when I decide to re-read the Tolkien books.
Same here, last time I read the Hobbit was in 2004 or 2005. :P I am reading the LotR now, and then I am gonna reread the Hobbit, though I guess I should have done it the other way around. I have read the LotR 8-10 times, and the Hobbit only twice though. :P I definitely have my favorites.
The Stranger
01-16-2012, 16:35
shes not that hot...
cate blanchet, though also not exactly hot, is more beautiful imo
shes not that hot...
cate blanchet, though also not exactly hot, is more beautiful imo
No, not in the massive oiled, Dolly Parton boobies porn video type of way. She is hot in a very different way which has more to do with her attitude and her eyes then with her figure.
The Stranger
01-16-2012, 18:37
3433
hot (or angelina jolie or adriana lima)
3434
(weirdly) cute (also think of julia roberts or camerion diaz)
3435
Beautiful
The Stranger
01-16-2012, 18:37
sorry dblpost
Same here, last time I read the Hobbit was in 2004 or 2005. :P I am reading the LotR now, and then I am gonna reread the Hobbit, though I guess I should have done it the other way around. I have read the LotR 8-10 times, and the Hobbit only twice though. :P I definitely have my favorites.
I think my problem is that I start with LotR, then move on to The Silmarillion, and by the time I slog through that I'm done with Tolkien for a while. I should probably read The Hobbit first...
The Stranger
01-16-2012, 22:50
i like Silmarillion best of all.
Gregoshi
01-16-2012, 23:12
i like Silmarillion best of all.
I think I'm with you on that one. It puts the epic in epic. :2thumbsup:
I think I'm with you on that one. It puts the epic in epic. :2thumbsup:
I remember I read that once when I was a little kid, but to be honest, I don't remember much about it other than I did not like it as much as LotR. (though maybe that is because I had a harder time understanding it...which I remember I did.)
i like Silmarillion best of all.
Don't get me wrong, I like it as well. But the style is part LotR and part Bible, and after the appendices and timelines my mind wanders to something else. Completely on the opposite side of the Tolkien spectrum from the Hobbit.
I remember I read that once when I was a little kid, but to be honest, I don't remember much about it other than I did not like it as much as LotR. (though maybe that is because I had a harder time understanding it...which I remember I did.)
That's probably because The Silmarillion reads more like a history book, rather than a proper novel. It's still a good read, but don't expect your standard story narrative as in The Hobbit or the LotR trilogy.
The Stranger
01-17-2012, 13:12
the start is hard to get through, being biblical and all but then it gets EPIC!
The Stranger
01-17-2012, 13:15
3433
hot (or angelina jolie or adriana lima)
3434
(weirdly) cute (also think of julia roberts or camerion diaz)
3435
Beautiful
3440
:yes:
Article :10 minute screening at 48 fps (http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html)
So what's the deal I don't understand. Higher number of frames per second is supposed to be good, far as I know. Makes for a smoother 'motion'. And yet everyone is saying that a high fps video looks choppy. :confused:
Article :10 minute screening at 48 fps (http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html)
So what's the deal I don't understand. Higher number of frames per second is supposed to be good, far as I know. Makes for a smoother 'motion'. And yet everyone is saying that a high fps video looks choppy. :confused:
I don't know, he says it actually is really realistic, and that that is the problem. Sounds like it is so realistic that it is showing up all the faults in the make-up, costumes, and CGI. Maybe it is better suited for a more realistic action film and not for a fantasy film where everything is fake.
That is one point he makes but in the end he also states, (I quote)
It just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings
It would appear that this was done solely so that the movie could use this new-fangled 3D tech.
That is one point he makes but in the end he also states, (I quote)
It would appear that this was done solely so that the movie could use this new-fangled 3D tech.
Yes, but I interpreted that to mean that it look cheap because you could see all the imperfections. Maybe I was wrong. Either way, I will give the first movie a try. If it is no good, I will just not bother with the second. I wish people would get over the 3-D craze. Honestly, it kind of sucks. The only time I really appreciated 3-D was when I was watching Wrath of the Titans and rocks started falling down toward the camera. I was sitting there dodging them and the people beside me were looking at me like I was crazy. That was pretty cool, but overall I would have like it better without 3-D.
Crazed Rabbit
04-25-2012, 21:45
That is one point he makes but in the end he also states, (I quote)
It would appear that this was done solely so that the movie could use this new-fangled 3D tech.
The 'cheap' issue is due to movies being screened at 24 fps since almost the beginning, solely as a cost cutting measure (higher fps=more film used).
But soap operas and the like are, IIRC, shot at a higher than 24 fps. So when people see high fps in a movie they associate it with low production soap operas because that's all they've ever seen in high fps before.
It's a sort of mental delusion forced on movie audiences. But once we see more movies take advantage of the great viewing experience 48+ fps offers it'll go away.
I only heard about 48 fps for The Hobbit today, and now I am definitely going to watch this in theaters.
CR
The 'cheap' issue is due to movies being screened at 24 fps since almost the beginning, solely as a cost cutting measure (higher fps=more film used).
But soap operas and the like are, IIRC, shot at a higher than 24 fps. So when people see high fps in a movie they associate it with low production soap operas because that's all they've ever seen in high fps before.
It's a sort of mental delusion forced on movie audiences. But once we see more movies take advantage of the great viewing experience 48+ fps offers it'll go away.
I only heard about 48 fps for The Hobbit today, and now I am definitely going to watch this in theaters.
CR
Yeah, I was really wondering how 48 fps could possibly be worse. Thankfully for me, I don't watch TV, so I won't have any bad associations.
Actually really looking forward to that movie. I cannot say I expect too much of it but it'd be nice to see the story made into a movie anyways =)
It's been 80 years at 24 fps, I say give the new tech a chance. Even if people are saying it's absolutely horrid (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RAO_xw_knw).
They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
Who's existence makes no sense what so ever in terms of the plot. And is the typical example of the meandering mess that the Fellowship of the ring can be at times. Peter Jackson did everyone a favor by excising him whole sale from the movie.
Vladimir
04-26-2012, 20:25
I completely understand the criticism. People don't want real life in movies, especially fantasy movies. The crisper movement means there is less art to it and the brain can't abstract as much. Plus, like Lemur posted, people have been doing it for so long it's familiar.
I can see the difference and am glad they're improving the frame rate, although I've always been concerned about the artificiality of using frames. Why isn't it done per pixel, or is it already? "Movies" are still old-fashioned moving pictures.
It will take time for audiences to move on and filmmakers to make it more visually appealing.
Mouzafphaerre
04-27-2012, 03:22
Not gonna watch it even if the whole world praises it. Yes, I'm biased. :yes:
HopAlongBunny
04-27-2012, 08:56
Now all we need is the pre-quel: Silmarillion; shot with a cast of 1000's ala the The Ten Commandments.
What good is mythology w/o a creation story?
The Silmarillion would probably do better as a soap opera considering it's scope. They'll have to write a lot of extra content for individual stories to prevent it from looking like a documentary (ala Walking with the Dinosaurs....and Walking with the Elves just won't be as interesting).
Seriously though, if done properly a soap based on Silmarillion would be a hit.
The Stranger
04-27-2012, 13:21
ill ring HBO, though perhaps there are not enough nude scenes in it for their taste.
Vladimir
04-27-2012, 17:48
ill ring HBO, though perhaps there are not enough nude scenes in it for their taste.
Ewwwwww. Look at all the hobbits and dwarves in the movie. My God man! :toff:
HopAlongBunny
04-28-2012, 00:49
My first reaction was &^#@!! Soap Opera!!!???
But you are right. The pantheon makes it a family dynamic complete with a black sheep. Sibling rivalry keeps the plot moving and the poor little creatures below "humanize" the story.
It has it all: treachery, betrayal, heroism, altruism, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat; wonderful stuff :)
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.