awepittance Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I have to say, even though I didn't like it much I'm psyched to watch the extended editions of this (if there ever is such a thing) at home. Even though it's a long film, it felt kind of rushed, and without the 3d and 48fps to pull me out of the story, maybe I'll like it more. Yes, the things that are supposed to enhance the film experience for me act like a barrier and make me think more about the medium and presentation, instead of just letting me enjoy the story. i felt the same way, i think i'd enjoy it a lot more unhindered if the presentation was exactly the same as LOTR. and to me the movie didn't feel overly long at all, but i do agree it had pacing issues, i think they decided to make this 3 films instead of 2 literally 6 months before it hit theaters which i would argue is why it has those issues. That has to seriously fuck up the pacing, and tension of a film, and i think it shows here. Things did feel 'rushed' instead of too slow, i think the opposite of what the reviewers are saying is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 yes, agreed. Needed more room to breathe. But I'm guessing it could have been handled more effectively in the same amount of time, too. I don't know why people complain about length. Do we complain about the length of a season of Breaking Bad, or the first season of Twin Peaks? The problem is not overall length, it's just pacing. Maybe I'm old but my favorite scenes were the council chat in Rivendell (it wasn't even that good but I was starved for some interpersonal drama by that point), and the riddle session with Gollum (which is the high-point of my childhood memories of the book as well). But I don't know why they didn't spend more time developing the dwarves' personalities, after such a long-winded set up (introducing each by name, the dishwashing scene, etc). I guess maybe there's not much in the book, I don't recall. But if you're going to go to the trouble to introduce 13 supporting cast members, at least give them some distinctive qualities besides appearance, please. When you think of what Time Bandits accomplished with very little exposition, the shortcomings are even more glaring... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Oh I didn't mention the cut during the climax of the scene with Gollum - that really pissed me off. Talk about deflating tension. They should have allowed the scene to play out further before cutting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Which cut exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lumpenprol Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 i seem to recall that right after gollum is defeated in the riddle challenge they cut back to the goblin king shenanigans and I went wtf! Could just be making it up tho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Oh I think I remember it, it was a bit vulgar that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 I liked it. I like it more than the Lord of the Rings movies. I think it does what it should do and that is bring to life the tolkien universe. I wish i was a kid, If i had seen it as a kid i would be totally amazed. I think it's the best fantasy movie made or at least that i have seen and remember. It was too dark, probably 3d's fault, and I don't think it works as a movie, it's not paced right and whatnot but it's fun. It's funny that gollum had better facial expressions than any of the actors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 But I don't know why they didn't spend more time developing the dwarves' personalities, after such a long-winded set up (introducing each by name, the dishwashing scene, etc). I guess maybe there's not much in the book, I don't recall. But if you're going to go to the trouble to introduce 13 supporting cast members, at least give them some distinctive qualities besides appearance, please. When you think of what Time Bandits accomplished with very little exposition, the shortcomings are even more glaring... This struck me as well, I don't remember much about the book, but i do think there was more about the personalities of the Dwarves, I remember liking the brothers for some reason, but I recall why, i think they were funny in the book or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 We'll probably get to know them better in the two other movies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eh Speedy Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 ...poorly casted actors... Really? Who? Martin Freeman, for one. I don't mind him as an actor, but he was totally unconvincing in this film. I suppose the question on how convincing an actor could possibly be as character from a fantasy novel should be taken in to consideration, but even Elijah Wood, with his watery and longing stares directly in to the camera was far more convincing in his role as a hobbit. Also, every Dwarf, particualrly Thorin. The scene that I mentioned, where he steps off of a burning tree, looked like a Creed video. The slow mo, the hair blowing in the wind. Almost puked. Freeman, really? I wasn't getting any of that at all. I just couldn't get over how right he was for the part. Didn't seem out of place at all. Elijah Wood - too pretty for a Hobbit, and also too obviously American even if you didn't already know it. I'd even go as far as to say you could have switch Sean Astin and Elijah's parts. And every Dwarf? Idk man, I'm just not following ya. Most of them looked pretty Dwarfy to me, aside from those two guys - one looking like a regular human and the other w/ a nice big silly mustache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eh Speedy Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 One of my fave scenes was how well the Dwarf song by the fire was done. The movie sold me right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cult fiction Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 did you all (reid, lumpenrol and face culler ) see it in 48fps? if so what do you think? I saw it in 24fps/2-D as part of a company morale event. Looked like a regular movie with a mix of excellent and half baked CGI. Going to see it again in 48fps/3-D/4k after Christmas to compare... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gaarg Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 A question for any hardcore Tolkien fan (if there are any out there): Can you imagine a perfect Hobbit movie for you and how close/far is this one on a scale of 1-10, 1 being the farthest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FLA FUR BIS FLE Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 ...poorly casted actors... Really? Who? Martin Freeman, for one. I don't mind him as an actor, but he was totally unconvincing in this film. I suppose the question on how convincing an actor could possibly be as character from a fantasy novel should be taken in to consideration, but even Elijah Wood, with his watery and longing stares directly in to the camera was far more convincing in his role as a hobbit. Also, every Dwarf, particualrly Thorin. The scene that I mentioned, where he steps off of a burning tree, looked like a Creed video. The slow mo, the hair blowing in the wind. Almost puked. Freeman, really? I wasn't getting any of that at all. I just couldn't get over how right he was for the part. Didn't seem out of place at all. Elijah Wood - too pretty for a Hobbit, and also too obviously American even if you didn't already know it. I'd even go as far as to say you could have switch Sean Astin and Elijah's parts. And every Dwarf? Idk man, I'm just not following ya. Most of them looked pretty Dwarfy to me, aside from those two guys - one looking like a regular human and the other w/ a nice big silly mustache. Well of course I know that Elijah Wood is American. With all of my gripes aside with some of his acting skills, this didn't really keep me from having an emotional reaction to his story arch. I felt the opposite about Freeman. This isn't an isolated event though. I felt the same way about his role in The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy. There is just some kind of disconnect that I can't really put my finger on, like he is doing exactly what the director tells him, rather than making it feel like the role was his. Absolutely zero gravity to his actions, especially when it came to Gollum. On that note: Gollum/Smeagol has been turned in to a caricature of a caricature. There was something EXTREMELY cartoonish about him in this one. He looks great in terms of CGI.. but I don't know. I am not sure if you read the book, but he is kind of fucking spooky in The Hobbit. Even more so than in the LOTR. I think what people forget is that the dude lives in the roots of a mountain, murdering and eating goblins and fish. I understand it is hard to change peoples perspective on Gollum after already being familiar with the character from LOTR, but something was missing in those scenes between Andy Serkas and Martin Freeman. Lastly, the Dwarves... My BIGGEST gripe which they clearly changed is that THORIN is the oldest Dwarf in the company, not Balin. But to sell the movie they had to have Aragorn #2. Same goes for the younger Dwarves. They chose sex appeal for character depth, and it all felt wrong to me. I know I am probably too attached the books, but it is really hard for me to move beyond these details. Also, why the mildly retarded Dwarf? Not needed. The whole troop of Dwarves had enough mishaps in the book to make up for the slapstick they added in the film. In fact, in the books, none of them carry any weapons and are relatively defenseless and reliant on Bilbo to solve their problems for them until much later. I know this doesn't play much in to the image we have of someone like Gimli in LOTR, but you have to keep in mind that these Dwarves were homeless and without many resources for a long time. They come from two totally different settings for the most part. I know I am seriously nitpicking, but I think this ultimately (for me at least) reflected in how the story played out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eh Speedy Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 No, I know you know he's American, but if someone didn't already, it would be pretty obvious he wasn't a British actor. I think J.K. Rowling did it right when she made it a must that all of the roles in Harry Potter had to be played by British actors. Maybe that's why I liked Freeman. Hobbits are like the blend in, go w/ the flow types if I'm getting the right impression. They're like the mild mannered wallpaper of Middle Earth, and therefore Freeman. Right or wrong, that was my ultimate conclusion w/ him. I'll get to the book and then probably wonder the same things you're talking about, eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 just FYI, the Hobbit is not being shown in 4k resolution anywhere. Since most of the projectors capable of going up to this resolution can't do both 48fps and 4k at the same time, they've opted for the 48fps instead. It makes sense, but it's unfortunate. Even Skyfall and Girl with the dragon tattoo were shown in 4k at theaters that had the technology. I also doubt that they took the extra time to render it in the 4k resolution especially considering the rendering times are extended for the extra 24fps. Even if your theatre has advertised 4k as a selling point, the best you're going to get (unless you are lucky and see one of the handful of theatres showing Skyfall in 4k) is an upconverted 2k resolution movie similar to how a blueray player up converts normal DVDs to 1080http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=544434;sb=post_time;so=DESC;forum_view=forum_view_collapsed;guest=59911262 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cult fiction Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Uncompressed 4096 × 2160 x 3 bytes per pixel x 48 x 2(for 3-D) ~= 2.5gb per second. Apple's Thunderbolt, one of the fastest widely available consumer transfer mechanisms that I know of, can do 10 Gbits/sec, which is 1.25 gb/sec. So I guess I can understand why it's a bandwidth problem... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 that explains it then , i'd personally prefer to see it in 4k in 2d in normal 24fps. That is definitely possible with bandwidth limitations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cear Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I can't believe they would show videos uncompressed, do they? oO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cult fiction Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I can't believe they would show videos uncompressed, do they? oO They're certainly stored compressed but you have to decompress the frame at some point before you show it. I guess I'm assuming they are decompressing and then transferring, but if the decoder is built into the projector the bandwidth could be much higher. PCI Express could handle it. That said, they'd be tying their incredibly expensive projector to a CPU/GPU setup that is going to be out of date in 2-3 years, so I suspect decoding is handled externally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 so after wasting a shit load of time on the internet, i finally found a definitive answer. This movie was a 2k master, NO theatre on the planet is playing it in 4k, not even at the official premiere itself. I have to say I'm really disappointed by this, because while 48fps is divisive and not everybody likes it, doubling the screen resolution of the film would have been appealing to most people automatically, simply because most people haven't seen anything that high quality before. 48fps resembles TV/video too much, where as 4k resolution resembles the equivalent of a digital 70mm sharp Imax production, which is universally praised for it's vast amount of detail. from the Red forumshttp://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?90146-Is-Hobbit-3D-in-4K-48fps-realhttp://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?90770-The-Hobbit-at-48fps Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Heh, my bad. I thought it looked super-crisp, and I was seated pretty far up front. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J3FF3R00 Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Saw it tonight. I doubt what I say will have any major spoilers. Last night, a friend of mine told me that it was shit and that the 48 fps made every little flaw in SFX and makeup completely noticeable. I really wanted to like this film, so I opted to go see it in 2D, 4K 24fps (your standard theatrical presentation) at one of my favorite theaters (mostly due to it's sound quality, leg room and location). I really enjoyed it. I thought it was fucking awesome. I was way into it. The beginning intro bit moved really slow, but as soon as they were on their journey I was totally hooked. The part that really solidified the fact that the movie had me 100% was the mountain/rock giant fight bit. That shit was waaay cool. I was totally stoked. I think that ultimately, they did a great job of keeping the tone of the LOTR trilogy, but embracing the fact that this was a totally different story... meanwhile, building upon what was already established in the world of the trilogy, in order to eventually segway into those 3 films. Sort of a tricky task if you ask me. I really liked the characters. I thought the Bilbo dude was perfect casting, in terms of having him grow into Ian Holm's shoes (although, granted, clearly an inferior actor). Even though I thought he was lackin in emotional delivery, he was still very watchable and very believable as a young Ian Holm. Even his voice was a dead ringer. Also, from what I remembered of the book, the book was much goofier and light-hearted than the film, which I think is actually a compliment for the film. I like that the LOTR trilogy goes to dark places and has some graphic violence, which I do feel this one definitely delivers on. I think, at the end of the day, it is a really fun movie and anyone who loved the triology, with a little bit of perspective, will really enjoy this one. 9.5/10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 since you saw it in 24fps I'm curious, did any of the film presentation seem 'off' to you? Such as jittering during panning shots or odd motion blur? Reason i ask is because digital effects were employed to give the 48fps master a traditional 24fps look. Repeating myself from earlier (as i often do) if you simply just dropped 24 frames out of the 48 the movie would end up looking like the opening scene to Saving Private Ryan, so i'm very curious if they achieved a unnoticeable traditional 24fps look from the down-conversion they did. Even Peter Jackson claims that it (the down conversion from 48 to 24) looks slightly different from a normal movie shot in 24fps, but he claims he prefers it. and not to be a nitpicking dick-wad but what you saw was 2k resolution. The only movies that have been shown in 4k so far in the cinema are Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and Skyfall (in very few theaters) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silent Member Posted December 19, 2012 Share Posted December 19, 2012 Am I the only one that didn't like the mountain fight? It was so weird, it just came out of nowhere and everyone in the film acted like nothing special had happened, and there wasn't really any exposition to make sense of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.