ChiefsPlanet - Movies and TV The Hobbit

Page 3 of 7

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page

ChiefsPlanet (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)

- Media Center (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=2)

- -

The Hobbit (https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=252015)

sd4chiefs

12-04-2012 09:45 AM

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!! 71% on the tomatometer.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_...ected_journey/

Example: An Unexpected Journey may as well be The Phantom Menace and God help us all if the next two movies aren't better than this one.

Deberg_1990

12-04-2012 09:54 AM

Reviews are starting to trickle out....and it sounds like it has pacing problems....mostly a meh.

Deberg_1990

12-04-2012 12:01 PM

Uh oh....the 48FPS backlash has begun....

The Hobbit's review embargo went up an hour ago, and right off the bat I'm reading all kinds of descriptions of how 48 frames-per-second photography doesn't cut it. It's too new, too specific, too crackling -- a "fiasco," according to a Movieline headline for a Jen Yamato story. TheWrap's Steve Pond called the process "a little disturbing and uncomfortable," and Variety's Peter Debruge said that with 48 fps "everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious."

And MSN's James Rocchi tweeted that we can "blame Tolkien for the dull plotting, but blame Peter Jackson for the ruinous 48fps." Rim shot!

Let me explain something. The 48 fps feeling of discomfort or unfamiliarity, if you insist on that being your primary response, goes away after 20 minutes or a half hour or thereabouts. You get used to it and then it's nothing. It doesn't get in the way, it doesn't call attention to itself -- it's just there. And it's fine.

Let me explain something else. 48 fps is a lot closer to what life looks like with your eyes. It's much clearer and sharper and more vivid than 24 fps, which looks like that special neverland called "cinema" -- a very peculiar world with very specific climates and textures, and all of it fake. No matter what Pond, Debruge, Yamato and Rocchi are telling you, there's nothing wrong, trust me, with a movie looking more vivid and life-like and less like the other-worldly realm of 24 fps, which the harumphs prefer because -- it really comes down to this -- they've been watching it all their lives.

All the harumphs really know is that 48 fps ain't 24 fps, and so they're saying "eff this noise!" But if you can just roll with the new way and stop having a hissy fit about it not looking like 24 fps, it's pretty cool. And it's really ideal for big, empty, drawn-out and wildly bloated movies like The Hobbit because at least it looks so much more gleaming and molecular than 24 fps, like it's happening on the other side of an absolutely spotless glass window.

Let me explain a third thing. Once you've seen a big, empty, splashy, FX-driven film at 48 fps, you'll never again be fully satisfied with seeing a big, empty, splashy, FX-driven film at 24 fps. 48 fps is perfect for comic-book whack-offs, Star Trek or Star Wars flicks, monster movies, vampire movies, pirate movies, adventure flicks, zombie flicks, animated features...anything that isn't straight drama or any kind of impressively written, character-driven adult fare aimed at anyone with a year or two of college.

My personal preference is that straight adult fare should be shot at 30 fps because it looks a lot cleaner than 24 fps and reduces pan blur and makes the action seem smoother. And all the rest of the films (i.e., those described above) should be shot at 48 fps. And believe me, the harumphs will eventually ease up and settle in.

As for The Hobbit itself, it's a major slog. I began looking at my watch at the 25-minute mark, at which point I moaned and muttered to myself, "God...over two hours to go!" It's like being on a long dull plane ride to Alaska without wifi. It's ponderous, meditative and glacially paced, and sporadically or episodically cranked up in the usual Jackson style. The acting is always broad (except for Martin Freeman's low-key Bilbo Baggins), but everything is always frenzied and amplified and compounded with the heroes facing terrible, insurmountable odds, and the action scenes always ending in a cliffhanger with the "oh my God!" rescue never happening until the very last second, and with nobody "good" ever getting seriously hurt, much less killed. They might be unconscious and look dead, but they'll wake up sooner or later.

I knew it would be like this, and it was. Tolkien's "The Hobbit" was a relatively slim volume but Jackson has turned it into a big lumbering trilogy. I really can't bear the idea of watching two more three-hour-long Hobbit flicks...and I don't think I will.

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/...sting_hobb.php

Valiant

12-04-2012 12:37 PM

People that love the book won't have a problem with pacing. Imo.

keg in kc

12-04-2012 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deberg_1990 (Post 9179943)

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/...sting_hobb.php

Scrolling through some more of that blog, the guy reads like your stereotypical self-aggrandizing film snot, who'll be naturally predisposed against anything that might be popular amongst the unwashed masses.

I meant "film snob", but "film snot" kind of works for me.

Deberg_1990

12-04-2012 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by keg in kc (Post 9180064)

Oh i agree....hes a film snob of the highest order. I should have stated that up front. Actually, he was the one defending the 48FPS against other critics who have complained.

The Franchise

12-04-2012 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 9180042)

People that love the book won't have a problem with pacing. Imo.

This.

I don't go to movies because I consider myself a film snob. I go because the story interests me. I'm either going to like the movie or I won't. I'm not going to leave the movie breaking down what the director did or didn't do.

I'll go see The Hobbit because I loved the books and I love Tolkien as an author.

patteeu

12-04-2012 01:38 PM

I can see why a short book stretched into a three-movie trilogy with each movie running nearly 3 hours could potentially have pacing problems. I'm psyched about seeing it and I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the expanded parts add to the overall story.

Valiant

12-04-2012 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9180277)

User reviews on rotten were 95% earlier. So if they actually saw it. That is encouraging.

morphius

12-04-2012 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by patteeu (Post 9180277)

That is my biggest fear, especially with the Hobbit being one of my favorite books.

Deberg_1990

12-04-2012 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 9180595)

User reviews on rotten were 95% earlier. So if they actually saw it. That is encouraging.

Yea, fans will always be more excited about fantasy/genre stuff than uppity critics.

HolyHandgernade

12-04-2012 05:36 PM

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...ected-journey/

Quote:

MrCere reviews ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’

DECEMBER 4, 2012 at 12:01 AM BY MRCERE -
At the first public showing of a movie picture depicting a train coming toward the viewers, people scattered in alarm trying to get out of the way. Or so the story goes. Some will do the same with director Peter Jackson’s new film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.

The irony is that The Hobbit’s titular character, Bilbo Baggins, doesn’t like to take risks in a film that revels in them.

It’s visionary stuff, and Jackson is alone on the frontier with only James Cameron visible on the horizon. The first installment of The Hobbit trilogy is new cinema.

Instead of playing safe and comfortable in lower-risk financial zones, Jackson has pushed the boundaries with 3D, with 48 frames of film per second -– or the digital equivalent — flashing past viewers’ eyes instead of the traditional 24fps. It is definitely different.

The filter of the traditional look of cinema, what we are used to seeing in the dark, is gone. Forever? Consumers will ultimately decide but studios continue to churn out films in 3D despite anything but universal acclaim.

Here, Jackson has gone to such lengths to make the fantastic look real that for many the film will look unreal -– but only if viewers choose to see it in the director’s preferred way. Of the approximately 24,000 theaters that will display The Hobbit: AUJ, around 1,000 will have the technology to display it as it was shot — HFR 3D. But, for those 1,000, hang onto your arm rests, cinema has just leapt forward.

Bilbo Baggins (masterfully portrayed by Martin Freeman in a performance that will be lost amidst the eye-popping action sequences), as many readers will know, relishes his comfortable life in the cinematically familiar Bag End. He is interrupted by a gaggle of dwarves and a meddlesome wizard who for reasons he cannot himself explain, thinks Bilbo needs to travel with the dwarves.

All of this is familiar ground for readers of Tolkien’s original tale. And, as expected, the screenwriters (Fran Walsh, Phillipa Boyens, Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson) make great effort to up the stakes and ramp-up the tension.

People who haven’t been paying attention to the promotional lead-in campaign may be surprised to find that joining Freeman and Ian McKellen’s Gandalf as lead characters in the film is Richard Armitage as Thorin Oakenshield. It’s a role likely to launch Armitage, blessed with an already-fervent fanbase, masculine good looks, and ample ability, into the stratosphere. The character is deeply scarred and tragic. Thorin gives the children’s tale a Shakespearean disaster angle and the film makes the most of it in in ways that may not surprise viewers but will nevertheless delight them.

Andy Serkis returns to work his performance-capture magic as Gollum, and Jackson and his actors reach the peak of performance and technical … well … wizardry in a scene that is the film’s best. Despite being dialog-heavy, it is cinematic magic.

So Bilbo, content to play it safe in a movie that most definitely isn’t, is joined by all these dwarves who despite excellent design and characterization, just don’t have enough room in the movie. Considering Jackson’s Middle-earth legacy, many viewers will immediately begin pondering extended editions and hope for more from these characters.

Then -– especially if they see it in 48 fps -– they’ll want to schedule another viewing. This writer’s initial reaction to the film was wanting to see it again immediately. As of this writing, that has been impossible. Fans, and those who care about film as an art form (and perhaps as a science) will want to view The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in both its incredibly clear new format and as a traditional film.

Others, the Bilbo Baggins of the world, are perhaps better advised to simply see the film as they saw The Lord of the Rings. They will be thrilled with adventure and the interplay of now-familiar movie characters playing again inside the incredible landscapes of Middle-earth. Peering deeper into dwarven culture will come with a (pun-intended) deep satisfaction and they will be thrilled, despite some dark days for fans, back in a delightful rendition of Jackson’s Middle-earth..

It goes without saying that not everybody will like everything. Setting aside technology for a moment, sections of the film that delight some will frustrate others.

In one place Gandalf reuses a familiar story-telling device. For some that will hearken back to the familiar. For others it will seem like a rehash. There are a handful of such moments. The 100% CGI orc Azog may feel cartoon despite (or because of) his technical perfection; he is no Gollum. But putting aside the quibbles, Jackson has delivered a tightly paced action flick that is rollicking fun. He has captured again the magic of Tolkien’s world with his own stylistic, cinematic stamp.

Radagast the Brown is a delight and injects some of the fringe legends of Tolkien’s own hand and some of the lighter tone of the source material into the sometimes dangerously heavy Middle-earth. There is the expanded Goblin Town with its madcap action – more jolly than peilous – which takes license with underground kingdoms. But amidst all this fun we are tossed a dozen decapitations as well creating a puzzle for some parents and sensitive younger viewers. Cate Blanchett casts her graceful spell along with the most welcome Christopher Lee and appropriate the slightly less stressed Elrond from Hugo Weaving, iconic in his own right.

The dead-on casting with exemplary performances from the leads as well as those in small roles make the fantasy feel real more than any technician can -– and the technicians on this film are world-class here. And yes, fantasy films can have exemplary performances and actors selling the fantastic as the everyday, have achieved high-craft in their art. Technically masterful, this adaptation of a classic children’s tale is grand and glorious cinema that is indeed lighter than its Rings cousin but also with nasty battle elements.

What’s more, any discussion about the need for three films or the making the decision to do so based on anything but storytelling merits couldn’t be more incinerated if Smaug himself engulfed the conversation in dragon’s fire. The case for three films is settled.

But being first is difficult. Like Ebay selling its first item in 1995 (a laser pointer if you must know) new things can take a while to catch on. The lion’s share of reviews are going to address the step forward in display technology (including this one!) but the story will sink or swim because of the characters, their situations and the craft with which they are brought to life.

Viewers need to evaluate: Are they Bilbos? Do they want safe, familiar cinema or do they want to go on an adventure at the theater? The comparison isn’t mine originally but I like best the thought that somebody has taken the window out and now we are not looking through the filter of film but looking at the real world. It will take some adjusting.

Will you like it? Well, do you embrace change? Can your entertainment tastes evolve? This is like nothing you have ever seen and it will jar not just your eyes but your brain. The dragon slayers will revel in the new and the adventure. Not every note will ring true for every viewer but whatever else, this movie is about fun and adventure.

And (something that will obviously delight the studio) the real answer to this riddle is that this is a film that cries out to be seen in both formats and compared by the viewer. It is entertaining entertainment but it is also a landmark of technology and a test of crowd behavior. I agree with Jackson and Cameron; this is the future.

Whatever the public and critics conclude, Jackson and his team must be admired for operating on wires high above the crowd with no net or safety line with fearlessness and passion. As for me, I will take that at my cinema experience every time over another action film content to play it safe.

NOTE: Larry D. Curtis spent five weeks on the set during film of The Hobbit and freely acknowledges his opinion of this film is compromised. Further, he is dying to see the film again to have a more informed opinion.

HolyHandgernade

12-04-2012 05:38 PM

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...ected-journey/

Quote:

Staffer Garfemaio reviews The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

DECEMBER 4, 2012 at 12:01 AM BY GARFEIMAO -
TheOneRing.net staffer Garfeimao and long-time TORn friend Nancy Steinman were able to secure tickets to the World Premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey. Here are Garfeimao’s largely spoiler-free thoughts on what she saw.

I am not here to review the technology, this is just going to be a short and sweet commentary on the movie. Martin Freeman is a joy to watch inhabit the role of Bilbo Baggins: you feel everything he feels, and that is all those emotions you read about in the book. Fear, curiosity, courage, homesickness and that sense that he has bitten off more than he can chew.

There are whole chunks of dialogue lifted directly from the book, you will recognize it throughout the film, I had to restrain myself from cheering during at least one of these lines, won’t say which one just yet.

Gandalf is Gandalf, the slightly grumpy, sometimes playful Gandalf the Grey we met 11 years ago is back.

And Richard Armitage as Thorin and Ken Stott as Balin, in particular, shine in their respective roles. You will feel you are in the presence of a King without a Throne. But the kudos really have to go to Andy Serkis as Gollum and Martin’s Bilbo.

The Riddles in the Dark will have you on the edge of you seat, even though you know exactly what happens. It is masterfully delivered, you may even cry (yes, one of many spots I teared up at).

To be honest, yes there are other bits that are a bit confusing and may feel misplaced, but I will want to watch it a second time before I pass final judgement on this film. I loved the ending, it is rather awesome.

HolyHandgernade

12-04-2012 05:41 PM

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...in-the-hobbit/

Quote:

Jackson: Persbrandt to gain larger role in The Hobbit

DECEMBER 3, 2012 at 9:43 AM BY DEMOSTHENES -
Thanks to Ringer Lissuin on the TORn message boards we have the following translation of the article in Swedish paper Nöjesbladet talking about Mikael Persbrandt and his role as Beorn in The Hobbit. Warning: some film and book spoilers!

Peter Jackson tells Nöjesbladet: We’ll bring him in [for] more scenes

On 12 December, “The Hobbit” premieres in Sweden. But Mikael Persbrandt’s character Beorn won’t appear till next year.

“You’ll have to wait for film two to see him”, says Peter Jackson. “I look forward to it in the second film.”

Already the director, Peter Jackson, is looking forward to the sequel — and working more with Mikael Persbrandt. “He has created an extremely strong character,” he says.

For those who read “The Hobbit” it’s no surprise. Bilbo, Gandalf and 13 dwarves embark on a journey where they encounter many adventures in different places. About halfway into the book, they come to Beorn and his house. There are a few important scenes before the party moves on. At the end of the story, Beorn has a large and very important role.

As long as it was two movies, the meeting with Beorn was in the first. Now it’s moving to The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

What can we expect?

“The story definitely has a lot of Beorn in the second and third movie. Mikael is a fantastic actor, absolutely wonderful. We will bring him back here for us to record more scenes for the third film next year. He is so good. Beorn’s the kind of character you want to write more material for”, says Peter Jackson.

The actors talk about Mikael Persbrandt:

Martin Freeman (Bilbo): “He is very good. I wish I had more scenes with him. He was popular among us actors. He is very funny. It would have been fun to play more against him. We hung out a lot. He went back and forth a lot to New Zealand.”

Ian McKellen (Gandalf): “God bless him! Micke was fantastic. I enjoyed being with him. Because his heart is in the theater, like mine, we had a lot to talk about. I hope to see him again soon. I admire him as an actor working in a language other than their mother tongue. Not easy. But Micke speaks English very well. It must be hard to travel back and forth as much as he had do.”

Andy Serkis (Gollum): “He is amazing. The scenes I directed him in, he was extremely bold. He is a very brave actor. He jumped right into it. Technically very interesting things, that he can shift between humans and bears.”

Sure-Oz

12-04-2012 05:44 PM

19 reviews 74% so far on RT

JD10367

12-04-2012 08:53 PM

I have the ultimate setup for the Hobbit. On one side of the hall, I have one of the biggest IMAX Digitals; the image won't be superclear but it'll be superlarge and have amazing sound. On the other side of the hall, I have one of the 48FPS digitals in a midsize theater with good sound, that should provide the clearest picture I've ever seen in my life. I've already recommended to customers that they see the film twice, as I will.

(The only thing I don't like about the 48FPS is that it's going to be physically huge. A 2D film usually takes up between 80GB and 200GB, although longer films like "The Dark Knight Rises" pushed 400GB. This beast, being 3D and 48FPS and long, will probably take around a Terabyte... and, despite the advances in computer storage, it's going to hog up all the space in the drive for that projector.)

sd4chiefs

12-04-2012 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Valiant (Post 9180595)

User reviews on rotten were 95% earlier. So if they actually saw it. That is encouraging.

The 95% is for Users that want to see the movie not reviews.

Hammock Parties

12-05-2012 10:28 PM

WHAT IS THIS

http://i.imgur.com/k7qaz.gif

Pants

12-05-2012 10:33 PM

Tom Bombadil?

NewChief

12-05-2012 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 9184109)

WHAT IS THIS

http://i.imgur.com/k7qaz.gif

Looks like Radagast and a barrow wight?

Hammock Parties

12-05-2012 11:00 PM

Nah I think that's a Ringwraith in noncorporeal form.

Hammock Parties

12-08-2012 01:10 AM

First images from The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

http://www.darkhorizons.com/assets/0019/7797/hob2.jpg

http://www.darkhorizons.com/assets/0019/7799/hob3.jpg

Hammock Parties

12-09-2012 10:29 PM

fuuuuuuuu

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...43627006_o.jpg

Hammock Parties

12-12-2012 11:13 AM

Well, that's interesting.

Quote:

Ok, saw The Hobbit in 48fps 3D last night. No spoilers in this post, just reactions to the technology:

48 FPS has the "Soap Opera Effect" totally in play. Half of the scenes resemble a BBC docudrama or a day time soap opera. It looks cheap (on a grandly expensive scale) and it completely breaks your immersion every few minutes. On vistas and long shots, it looks breath taking. Whenever you're in close and the camera is moving OR a character is moving, it looks cheap and fake. It's even worse when the camera is moving and a character is.

The story is so amazing that I'm trying to warn you. I want you to experience the great story without it being marred by this. I mean, totally see it 48fps for your second viewing, if you want to see where the industry is going to force us to go. But for your virgin viewing, see it in 2D 24 Frames per second. Seriously, you will thank me. It's hard to describe just how bad it looks.

I'm still mulling a lot of it over, but I'll answer any questions you guys have.

Hammock Parties

12-12-2012 06:11 PM

Goosebumps from this. Thrice.

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true"></param><param name="movie" value="https://www.facebook.com/v/10101891258040546"></param><embed src="https://www.facebook.com/v/10101891258040546" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="1" width="640" height="360"></embed></object>

hometeam

12-12-2012 10:38 PM

I'm going to thursday midnight opening tomorrow, even though I have to get up and go to work at 6am.

http://www.reactiongifs.com/wp-conte...Brad_Dance.gif

Hammock Parties

12-12-2012 11:11 PM

**** yeah, me too.

And reserved seating. Don't have to wait in line.

Buck	12-12-2012 11:17 PM

lol I have Fridays off work. I think I'm just gonna go next Friday when opening day shit has died down and watch it with like 10 other people in an empty IMAX theater.

Hammock Parties

12-12-2012 11:28 PM

That's terrible. I love going with nerd crowds and hearing reactions...feeling the murmur of the crowd...the soft weeping around me when the movie ends....

Fire Me Boy!

12-13-2012 02:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 9203997)

That's terrible. I love going with nerd crowds and hearing reactions...feeling the murmur of the crowd...the soft weeping around me when the movie ends....

Good for you, seriously. I hate that shit. I just want everyone to be quiet and let me enjoy my own experience. I don't give a crap about anyone else's experience, and hearing their weeping, hearing some clap, laugh, gasp, whatever, just takes me out of my own and makes them part of it.

:cuss:

007	12-13-2012 03:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy! (Post 9204233)

Yep. That is why I generally go to morning or early afternoon showings. To avoid the damn crowds.

keg in kc

12-13-2012 03:13 AM

I love going in the morning during the week. Sometimes I'm the only person in the theater. Course that's a summer thing.

Fire Me Boy!

12-13-2012 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guru (Post 9204236)

Yep. That is why I generally go to morning or early afternoon showings. To avoid the damn crowds.

Me too. The wife and I like the earliest show on Sunday mornings.

Deberg_1990

12-13-2012 07:29 AM

When i was younger i used to really enjoy the opening weekend Fri/Sat night crowds. Now its just an annoyance, but i tolerate it at times with my kids.

The worst is a film like this one because people will be getting up alot for bathroom breaks, etc...since its so long.

mnchiefsguy

12-13-2012 10:05 AM

Saw it last night in plain jane 35mm film...as for the film content itself, I have two words:

Cinematic Masterpiece

Can't wait to see the HFR 3D tonight!

JD10367

12-13-2012 11:27 AM

Watched my IMAX Digital print this morning. Pretty good flick. I'm not a die-hard Tolkien fan; I read the three "LOTR" books and "Hobbit", once, a long time ago, and found them interesting but tediously written and over-long (which is also how I found the three Peter Jackson "LOTR" films). This one, for Peter Jackson, clocks in at a svelte 2:39, and I was not really bored. When I first heard it would be three films for one book I thought it was more Peter Jackson stupidity but, after seeing this film, I didn't find anything extraneous in it... he told, in 2:39, all that could be told in that time.

If you don't know Tolkien, you might find it a bit silly (rabbits pulling a sleigh with a half-crazed wizard on it? giant birds?). If you like Tolkien a bit, you'll love it. If you love Tolkien, you might be too busy pulling apart plot points ("That wasn't in the book!"). But I think most will be satisfied.

Surprisingly, I found the IMAX Digital image to be a bit blurry and strobe-y. Perhaps I'm already mentally comparing it to the HFR stuff I've seen. From watching the whole film, I think the long-shot vistas in HFR will be stunning, and the action scenes will also be stunning but perhaps vertigo-inducing. I think I'll come in early tomorrow morning and watch it for comparison's sake.

By the way, the 10-minute "Star Trek Into Darkness" prologue was in 3D, and awesome. As was the #3 version of the "Man Of Steel 3D" trailer. Both those films look to be kick-ass.

RustShack

12-13-2012 04:46 PM

Just got done watching all three extended versions of LOTR, amped for tonight!

Sure-Oz

12-13-2012 10:44 PM

I had a free ticket from friends but i was like '**** that'.

5am calls to early for me

Hammock Parties

12-13-2012 11:08 PM

Alright, heading off to The Shire. Will report back.

KcMizzou

12-13-2012 11:41 PM

I'm way too excited for this movie. Geeking out.

Probably wont see it 'till next weekend, though.

Hammock Parties

12-14-2012 04:15 AM

I laughed, I cried, I fistpumped for Gandalf.

Peter Jackson can do no wrong.

Hobbits really are amazing creatures.

Hammock Parties

12-14-2012 04:20 AM

I CAN'T BELIEVE I HAVE TO WAIT A ****ING YEAR FOR THE 2ND PART

**** YOU PETER

Hammock Parties

12-14-2012 04:22 AM

Basically I couldn't stop crying tears of joy and wonder throughout this whole thing.

Jesus ****ing Christ Peter Jackson is a god.

Hammock Parties

12-14-2012 04:24 AM

This is the amazing thing about Peter Jackson. This scene is in the movie.

Quote:

In The Hobbit, Thorin Oakenshield and his company of dwarves found Orcrist and Glamdring in the cave of the three trolls, and Thorin claimed it as his own, while Gandalf claimed Glamdring.[2]

Thorin bore Orcrist throughout most of The Quest of Erebor. It, and Glamdring, was used against the goblins of the Misty Mountains, when they captured the group, yet again renewing their hatred of the elvish weapons

The whole movie is basically a Tolkien fanboy wet dream.

Hammock Parties

12-14-2012 04:45 AM

All I could think of when Gandalf found Orcrist, Glamdring and Sting was EPIC LOOTS EPIC LOOTS EPIC LOOTS

Deberg_1990

12-14-2012 07:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 9206905)

Basically I couldn't stop crying tears of joy and wonder throughout this whole thing.

:facepalm:

Did you see the 48FPS version?

munkey

12-14-2012 03:57 PM

I'm sorry but I have no desire to see this movie...whatsoever...just not interested.

NewChief

12-14-2012 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munkey (Post 9208600)

I'm sorry but I have no desire to see this movie...whatsoever...just not interested.

The Hobbit is the first book I actually remember reading, and it being mine. I was in like 3rd grade, and the librarian gave it to me because I was a voracious reader.

The funny thing is that I was a voracious reader, but I don't remember any book I read prior to that one. Just like with the Lord of the Rings, I will watch this movie because the work it's based on is a major part of the person I am today.

The Franchise

12-14-2012 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 9206906)

The whole movie is basically a Tolkien fanboy wet dream.

:drool:

Can't. ****ing. Wait.

munkey

12-14-2012 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewChief (Post 9208706)

I'm with you...Same age...played D&D and read the hobbit as a kid...I think I'm just burned out on the whole sequel/prequel thing. Jackson should have started with the hobbit and moved on....

Hammock Parties

12-14-2012 05:11 PM

One thing all of you will love...there is not a single drop of love story in this. Not even HINTED AT.

It's like watching an RPG being played out.

EPIC LOOTS EPIC LOOTS EPIC LOOTS EPIC LOOTS

Hammock Parties

12-14-2012 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munkey (Post 9208727)

I'm with you...Same age...played D&D and read the hobbit as a kid...I think I'm just burned out on the whole sequel/prequel thing. Jackson should have started with the hobbit and moved on....

They didn't have the rights to The Hobbit 10 years ago.

Hammock Parties

12-14-2012 05:39 PM

Also, the Jurassic Park 3D preview made my pants so ****ing tight.

007	12-14-2012 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cassel's Reckoning (Post 9208884)

Also, the Jurassic Park 3D preview made my pants so ****ing tight.

JP 3D? JFC When will it end.

Zebedee DuBois

12-14-2012 06:24 PM

Saw the 3D regular framed version this afternoon, about 25 people in the theatre.

I enjoyed it, beautiful vistas, the Gollum-Bilbo riddle exchange was fantastic. I think this actor is a great choice for Bilbo. I did find myself looking at the time during the last hour - I think they could have easily edited out 40 min, and I found the non-Tolkien story parts annoying - but still - I enjoyed it.

Deberg_1990

12-14-2012 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by munkey (Post 9208600)

I'm sorry but I have no desire to see this movie...whatsoever...just not interested.

IM kind of the same way. Just burnt out on Peter Jackson and his Tolkien hard on.

Hammock Parties

12-14-2012 08:59 PM

Then get the **** outta my thread.

kcxiv

12-14-2012 09:13 PM

reading alot of bad shit on this movie or its just ok! hmmm... i may hold off on it.

icepick64

12-14-2012 09:28 PM

I thought it was a great movie, full of action, a very quick 3 hours. Great for any tolkein/lotr fan. I really don't agree with most the critics reviews...

underEJ

12-14-2012 10:18 PM

Liked it alot. Too long. I dont mind long movies but it seemed stretched out. Love Richard Armitage, but I already did, so that's no surprise. I'll see the next one for sure.

58kcfan89

12-15-2012 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by icepick64 (Post 9209431)

I thought it was a great movie, full of action, a very quick 3 hours. Great for any tolkein/lotr fan. I really don't agree with most the critics reviews...

You and me both. I'm a huge JRRT/LOTR fanboy and was concerned about some of the reviews, but thought it was fantastic. Can't wait for the 2nd (and 3rd, right?), too bad it's gunna be an entire year.

mcan	12-15-2012 02:06 AM

The 48 fps 3D Version:

Just saw this, and... I'm depressed. It looks VERY much like those "tru motion" displays you see at Best Buy. You know the ones playing a blu ray of a movie you've seen and loved, but now it looks like you're watching the dailies or behind the scenes video. It just looks... Terrible. It makes acting styles look terrible too. Throughout the whole film I was SHOCKED at how cheesy and over the top all the acting was, and how it just didn't seem like the same style as the LOTR trilogy. I got up and my girlfriend and I agreed. It looked like daytime television, the acting was hokey, and the story was spotty. I mean, these characters ROUTINELY fall thousands of feet, and nary have a bruise. It's bizarre.

So, I causally walked a couple of theaters over and watched about 10 minutes of the 24 fps version. All of the sudden, it seemed warm and natural again. It wasn't an action sequence, so I didn't get a chance to judge the movement, but even the acting seemed better and subtler. I'm holding out hope that this is mostly psychological, and that someday I'll come around. But for now, I think motionblur might be a necessary evil for the "analog warmth" that we have come to love in the cinema. Just my two cents.

BTW, the 3D was stellar. And I'm not usually a 3D fan. It was just the 48 fps that I found jarring. Not just jarring, but really unacceptable.

KCWolfman

12-15-2012 02:14 AM

Liked it, didn't love it.

It is natural that it is a lesser. Certainly, no one believed the energy and newness could be maintained?

sd4chiefs

12-15-2012 10:13 AM

Five things that are not in the Hobbit book.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/14/showbi...html?hpt=hp_t3

When people complain about the nearly three-hour length of the first installment of "The Hobbit" film trilogy because the source book is a slim 300 pages, they're forgetting that much of the story isn't from "The Hobbit" itself -- but expanded from the appendices to "The Lord of the Rings."

That extra material is what justifies the longer time on screen, and answers such questions as where does Gandalf go when he disappears? Why is the wizard helping the dwarves on their quest in the first place? What's so bad about dragons? And so, to put a stop to all those moments when you'd otherwise wonder, "But that wasn't in the book!" here are the five major changes from "The Hobbit" the book to "The Hobbit" the films.

Click on link to read more...

KCWolfman

12-15-2012 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd4chiefs (Post 9210210)

Nice,thanks

Hammock Parties

12-15-2012 11:15 AM

I got the fever now.

http://i.imgur.com/UaUlD.jpg

Hammock Parties

12-15-2012 11:18 AM

We've come a long way.

http://www.scififx.com/wp-content/up.../11/gollum.jpg

mnchiefsguy

12-15-2012 11:28 AM

Here is another review that talks about what was added that was not in the book itself:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...p-of-the-ring/

HolyHandgernade

12-15-2012 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mnchiefsguy (Post 9210409)

Here is another review that talks about what was added that was not in the book itself:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain...p-of-the-ring/

Regarding Azog, and I haven't seen the movie yet, there was some speculation that Azog has been reincarnated to explain the time difference for when he appears in Tolkien's timeline. This is rationalized because Sauron is known as "The Necromancer" in the Hobbit. A Necromancer is a wizard that animates the dead. Has anyone who has seen the movie give their impressions of Azog and the possibility he is a reanimated orc by Sauron/Necromancer?

KCWolfman

12-15-2012 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 9210595)

Nothing to that allusion at all. However, Sauron is definitely the source of the Necromancer. In fact, it is obvious that Azog is painfully alive and not reanimated in any fashion. He has all the scars, wounds, and pains of a living being.

HolyHandgernade

12-15-2012 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCWolfman (Post 9210600)

Thanks, can't wait to go see the film.

Hammock Parties

12-15-2012 01:03 PM

Quote:

also there's no way in hell that fat dwarf managed to make it out of the goblin kingdom alive. I can suspend my disbelief but only so much

LMAO

Urc Burry

12-15-2012 01:08 PM

Alright I really have no idea what I'm talking about with kind of stuff. But is this 48 GPS something that you get used to? Because I remember watching a DVD that I've seen a million times and then watching it on a 120hz tv for the first time and wondering WTF was going on with the picture

Hammock Parties

12-15-2012 01:13 PM

It's 48 FPS. Frames per second is the number of video frames (one frame is like a still image) shown per second during the movie. Football is often broadcast at 60 FPS or 30 FPS, for example. Depends on the network.

And I'm guessing people will get used to it eventually. It's just a little jarring from what I hear.

More frames is never a bad thing.

Urc Burry

12-15-2012 01:14 PM

Oops yeah I meant FPS..autocorrect on the phone

KCWolfman

12-15-2012 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HolyHandgernade (Post 9210607)

Thanks, can't wait to go see the film.

It is not LOTR, but it is beautiful. You can tell the story was meant for a younger audience to catch on as well, but it was a very good movie.

Crush

12-15-2012 11:01 PM

I just got back. It was absolutely awesome. If they keep it up, the Hobbit trilogy will surpass LOTR in my opinion.

JD10367

12-16-2012 01:10 AM

The 48 is definitely something people have to get used to. It did indeed make it seem like a cross between a BBC show and a high quality PS3 game. But the sharpness is unbeatable, the 3D impeccable, the contrast ratio is ridiculous, and any long shots of nature or cityscape is breathtaking. I definitely suggest seeing it in both formats (24 and then 48).

teedubya

12-16-2012 01:24 AM

Took my kids tonight... this was their first exposure to JRRRRRRRR Tolkien's work. My son was blown away... my daughter was a bit creeped out... Some of those trolls, orcs and goblins... along with "Whatever the ****" Gollum is... kinda gross, but overall definitely a beautiful movie. My kids want to watch LOTR now.

AustinChief

12-16-2012 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by teedubya (Post 9211905)

Took my kids tonight... this was their first exposure to JRRRRRRRR Tolkien's work. My son was blown away... my daughter was a bit creeped out... Some of those trolls, orcs and goblins... along with "Whatever the ****" Gollum is... kinda gross, but overall definitely a beautiful movie. My kids want to watch LOTR now.

Gollum(Smeagal) is a Stoor hobbit(the kind that lives near water, like the Brandybucks) that has changed physically over his vastly extended lifespan due to the corruption of the Ring.

(in case you really wanted to know...)

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:54 AM.

Page 3 of 7

Show 80 post(s) from this thread on one page