The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

snausages

Mickeroo wrote: »

In general I think reviews that called the film flat out awful were a bit hyperbolic, its definitely not up to LOTR standards but its still pretty good imo.

I don't think I read any reviews calling it awful, just that it wasn't all that good either. I had fun watching it anyway. If I've reacted extremely negatively it's because it's a film that should have easily been so much more and I'm frustrated by the decision to stretch it out and fill it up with other stuff.

Antar Bolaeisk

SarahBM wrote: »

I myself take LOTR films and LOTR books as 2 separate entities. I dont think you can directly compare every single little detail and I think the same should apply to the Hobbit. Why cant people just enjoy the film without tearing it asunder and nit-picking over whether this or that were in the book or not.

I really enjoyed the Hobbit film as a film. I loved the Hobbit book as a book.

I was dying to go see the film again, but now I have seen so many postmortems done on it, how could I possibly enjoy it as much as the first time round. In fairness!

I went to see it a second time last night (can't beat free cinema ) and enjoyed it much more than the first time, the pacing felt better for some reason.

I still hate Radagast and his rabbit powered sleigh though.

MagicMarker

jpm4 wrote: »

Eh....this assumes every book is basically the same in terms of content if they are the same length and have they all successfully been adapted? Don't agree. There is no reason it can't be 2 films for both artistic and (obviously) commercial reasons (unlike say the last Twilight where it seems to be entirely commercial reasons) .

I never said it can't be 2 films, I just said that there's no reason it couldn't have been made into 1 movie, simple.

DirkVoodoo

Pulled this from the reviews sub-site as it didn't really conform to the rules:

"Second to none"

Good review though.

I enjoyed beings transported back to middle earth, but while I feel I could spend hours immersed in Tolkien lore, I just saw snippets of King Kong on TV and Jackson is truly suffering from a severe case of Lucasitis, which cause the head to get sucked right up into the rectum. There are far too many overly long sequences, and overused close-ups of a terrified hero fearing the end...before being saved by someone leaping in from off-screen (this is ridiculous in the final fight and was used much more sparingly in LOTR).

There is long and well paced and long and boring...the Hobbit was the latter for me. What should be a nice and straightforward tale for children has been grotesquely and artificially stretched into something resembling, but never quite achieving, the epic scale of the Lord of the Rings.

Martin Freeman was brilliant as Bilbo, but I never really warmed to the Dwarves or their quest, it just doesn't seem to have any consequence or importance, perhaps because we never get a proper glimpse of what they are up against, save for the addition of that shark-like Orc who, as far as I know, doesn't feature in the book until the end and while he provided a decent opponent, it was not enough to distract from the lack of Smaug.

I wanted to hate this movie for what it represents, but I loved being back among old friends, seeing such a beautifully crafted world. But oh how I was bored!

I really hope and pray that there might be a reverse-extended addition following the DVD release. The Hobbit: contracted edition, into one 2.5 hour movie. I wish!

Toast

Is there anywhere in Dublin still showing the HFR version? Cineworld were advertising it last week but all mention has been silently dropped from their website during the weekend. Looks like Les Miserables got bumped to the imax screen. Same for the isense in the point village. The Omniplexes seem to have dropped it entirely. I know Liffey Valley might be showing it but that's massively out of my way. This was the first weekend I had free since it came out and it would appear everything left is 24fps.

expectationlost

there was definitly alot of last minute saves in all the films

tylerdurden94

Toast wrote: »

Is there anywhere in Dublin still showing the HFR version? Cineworld were advertising it last week but all mention has been silently dropped from their website during the weekend. Looks like Les Miserables got bumped to the imax screen. Same for the isense in the point village. The Omniplexes seem to have dropped it entirely. I know Liffey Valley might be showing it but that's massively out of my way. This was the first weekend I had free since it came out and it would appear everything left is 24fps.

Checked a couple places but I don't seem to see any 48fps I'm not missing anything am I and it's just run it's coarse with only 2D/3D remaining?

Sad Professor

Vue is still showing it in HFR.

tylerdurden94

Sad Professor wrote: »

Vue is still showing it in HFR.

Bit of a trek for me, kinda interested in seeing it but have a Cineworld Unlimited card and don't really see the justification in paying the extra €€€ in Vue for it will more than likely catch it in 3D instead, cheers for the heads up.

Agricola

Saw this again in 2D last night, after seeing it in Imax on release. I found it incredibly jerky and off putting! I originally found the 48fps version unrealistically smooth as if the film was on fast forward in some sections, until I got accustomed to it. But now going back to 24fps version, the juddering which I have spent my life watching in films seemed to really stand out like a sore thumb.

The early sections in Erebor where there are a lot of panning shots following the movement of the dragon almost gave me motion sickness. The image is much less crisp and clear also. I suppose for those that prefer the soft focus fantasy look it works much better but not for me. It felt like going back to B&W after seeing a color film. Have to say Im sold on this new tech.

Zubeneschamali

Agricola wrote: »

But now going back to 24fps version, the juddering which I have spent my life watching in films seemed to really stand out like a sore thumb.

But the 24 fps version of the Hobbit is much, much worse for flicker on panning shots than a normal movie.

snausages

Is there any possibility if a 48fps release on DVD or bluray?

Sad Professor

Agricola wrote: »

But now going back to 24fps version, the juddering which I have spent my life watching in films seemed to really stand out like a sore thumb.

As discussed earlier, it's not a fair comparison as the shutter angle/speed Jackson used would have resulted in choppy motion when converted to 24fps, which it seems he disguised as best he could with digital motion blur. Films shot for 24fps don't look that way.

snausages wrote: »

Is there any possibility if a 48fps release on DVD or bluray?

Blu-ray doesn't support 48fps. Current HDTVs don't either. However, they've two options that I can see for taking advantage of the higher frame-rate: convert it to 50p, resulting in a 4% speed-up, or convert it to 60p, resulting in a judder. We've only had smooth, correctly pitched and judderless 24fps playback since the arrival of Blu-ray, so both would be considered a backward step. For this reason I suspect the 2D Blu-ray will just be 24p.

al28283

The whole idea of 48fps is to get people back in cinemas by giving them something they can't get by buying a dvd or downloading from the internet. They won't even try release 48fps version on dvd.

Agricola

Sad Professor wrote: »

As discussed earlier, it's not a fair comparison as the shutter angle/speed Jackson used would have resulted in choppy motion when converted to 24fps, which it seems he disguised as best he could with digital motion blur. Films shot for 24fps don't look that way.

Ah I didnt release that the 24p version was a sub par botch. I expected it would be the same as regular releases. That makes sense. I couldnt believe how bad it looked really.

Sad Professor

al28283 wrote: »

The whole idea of 48fps is to get people back in cinemas by giving them something they can't get by buying a dvd or downloading from the internet. They won't even try release 48fps version on dvd.

True, but 3D was designed to get people back into the cinema as well and it hasn't stopped them releasing 3D Blu-rays. If HFR is their latest attempt to make the theatrical experience more appealing then it's pretty pathetic considering soap operas and live sports have been using higher frames for years.

This is where I think Cameron, Jackson et al are misguided. They think they are protecting the cinematic experience but all they are really doing is eroding the already fine line between cinema and television. So far nothing that they've come up with can't be replicated in the home. The only person in Hollywood who seems to have the right idea about this is Nolan.

Agricola wrote: »

Ah I didnt release that the 24p version was a sub par botch. I expected it would be the same as regular releases. That makes sense. I couldnt believe how bad it looked really.

I thought it looked okay, but like you said, the panning shots were really bad. I experienced quite a bit of eye strain during those scenes, more than I've ever even experienced with 3D.

Sad Professor

As I predicted a couple of months ago, part 3 has been pushed back to December 2014.

Antar Bolaeisk

Sad Professor wrote: »

As I predicted a couple of months ago, part 3 has been pushed back to December 2014.

I think this is actually a good thing, it feels right and proper at this stage to have a December release.

chillywilly

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but does anyone know of any cinemas still showing The Hobbit?

rednik

chillywilly wrote: »

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but does anyone know of any cinemas still showing The Hobbit?

Check out here.

http://www.rte.ie/ten/cinema_listings.html?movie=167097

david75

So I guess in officially a geek now. I bought sting. It's the Frodo version, with the elvish inscription. Bilbo's version in the Hobbit is a little bare.

PirateShampoo

david75 wrote: »

So I guess in officially a geek now. I bought sting. It's the Frodo version, with the elvish inscription. Bilbo's version in the Hobbit is a little bare.

Dunno the Bilbo one looks sweet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sweVgx1zL7w

david75

Didn't like that one. Though it is cool. Trying to decide between Glamdrings right now.. the noble collection one has a beautiful plaque

But the UC one fits more with the plaque I got with Sting...any help appreciated:)

PirateShampoo

The top one has a nicer stand but the bottom one has a nicer looking grip. I would go for the top one.

Antar Bolaeisk

david75 wrote: »

Didn't like that one. Though it is cool. Trying to decide between Glamdrings right now.. the noble collection one has a beautiful plaque

But the UC one fits more with the plaque I got with Sting...any help appreciated:)

I'd probably get the bottom one, the plaque for the top one is just too busy for my taste and detracts a bit from the sword itself.

The lightsaber version of Sting looks and sounds horrendous

david75

I agree about the too busy aspect. But it just looks so cool!!

Yeah. Lighty uppy swords are a bridge too far I reckon.

david75

This is gonna get ugly. Hundreds of Millions at stake
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/03/13/69899-warner-bros-claims-tolkien-estate-breached-hobbit-contract/

Jimmy Iovine

I remember visiting Mont St. Michel in the North of France about 8/9 years ago and there was a sword shop on the road leading up to the abbey. It had every sword you could imagine, including almost all of the ones used in the Lord of the Rings. I was amazed at the detail in them.

They were going for upwards of €150/200. Unfortunately, I only had enough to buy an ice-cream. Would love to go back (if the shop is still there) and buy all of them :pac:.

O/T: Mont St. Michel is well worth a visit. It's magnificent there.

david75

Forbidden planet and sub city had some for a while but they were way too expensive. Cheaper to get em online sadly.

david75

So I got Anduril in the post today. Serious customs charge. Worth it though. It's intimidatingly big. Beautiful though