Rate The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Collector Freaks Forum

Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Rank the movie


  • Total voters
    201
  • Poll closed .
I killed them all.

Anyway, movie's still good. Same score applies.

But....but but but....the movie doesn't look that good to me. 48fps converted to 24fps is better...but I can still see it. The characters have some unatural movement from time to time, especially The Goblin King.

But, it's not bad. For the most part, I can see everything, the action scenes were crystal clear, for me anyway, and slowing everything down improved the CGI. Especially the Gollum stuff.

Everything is so bright and digital looking. Eh. I wish they color corrected it as well.

Still, a better experience then 48fps. (My review of the film was the same. It hasn't changed, other then I wish that 80% of that Elvish city scene would get cut. None of it is important to the plot of THIS film.)
 
I'm sure it's come up in the other thread, but I still laugh (well, internally), when I think about the first battle with Azog, that has the dwarf "hitting" an orc and missing by at least a foot.
 
for shame! For shame! For shame!!!

woman-shaking-finger.jpg

Goota love Oscar season, just DLed Django (which I did pay for) and Skyfall screeners :yess:
 
Saw it in all three formats and there is nothing about the 24 that made me personally think about the 48. CP I think your so fixated on that the 48 is crap it's colored your opinion.

The cities name is Rivendell by the way. The Rivendell stuff is important to the time line of The Hobbit. So it's fine as is and as far as I know they will add a little more in the EE.

Stick to Michael Bay CP. :nana:
 
I'm sure it's come up in the other thread, but I still laugh (well, internally), when I think about the first battle with Azog, that has the dwarf "hitting" an orc and missing by at least a foot.

I noticed that as well and like you did chuckle. I don't quite know how they didn't notice that little bit.
 
LOL I bet a few who voted negatively also did it for the fact that no hot women were in it...LOL...A couple of skinny elf chicks were in it for a few seconds but...
 
I killed them all.

Anyway, movie's still good. Same score applies.

But....but but but....the movie doesn't look that good to me. 48fps converted to 24fps is better...but I can still see it. The characters have some unatural movement from time to time, especially The Goblin King.

But, it's not bad. For the most part, I can see everything, the action scenes were crystal clear, for me anyway, and slowing everything down improved the CGI. Especially the Gollum stuff.

Everything is so bright and digital looking. Eh. I wish they color corrected it as well.

Still, a better experience then 48fps. (My review of the film was the same. It hasn't changed, other then I wish that 80% of that Elvish city scene would get cut. None of it is important to the plot of THIS film.)

Until you see the next one, or all three we won't know the true significance of alot of things in the first film.

Did you see this in just 24fps or 3D?
 
LOL I bet a few who voted negatively also did it for the fact that no hot women were in it...LOL...A couple of skinny elf chicks were in it for a few seconds but...

2 of those #1 votes shouldn't count. Eli was just being a smartass and that Gotogai troll hasn't ever posted.

I'm not too sure about fosing. :lol
 
Until you see the next one, or all three we won't know the true significance of alot of things in the first film.

Did you see this in just 24fps or 3D?

24fps only.

Saw it in all three formats and there is nothing about the 24 that made me personally think about the 48. CP I think your so fixated on that the 48 is crap it's colored your opinion.

The cities name is Rivendell by the way. The Rivendell stuff is important to the time line of The Hobbit. So it's fine as is and as far as I know they will add a little more in the EE.

Stick to Michael Bay CP. :nana:

At least he'll shoot in the correct format. :lecture

Actually no. My opinion on the film is still the same. I like it. It hasn't changed.

But since the world really isn't my bag, it's not a film that really gets more then "Yeah, it was good. I liked it." I can't really find much else to talk about other then the performances, which I enjoyed. And the action.

But the frame rate stuff is far more important to me, because it could change everything about film as we know it. Which is something I may not want.
 
Correct format for some. Maybe not for others.

I'm glad you like it. I didn't say that had an impact on the film (story) though.

That's cool. That's why I don't expect you to understand what is or isn't important to the events.
 
Gave it a 6. While i enjoyed watching it, it was a bit slow at times, and it didnt draw me in as much as Fellowship.
I also found that it was very similarly structured to fellowship, 'tells story at start about dragon/ fotr gave story of sauron, then scenes in the shire, then meet up at elven kingdom, then trudging through the mountains (by the way the rock giants baffled me, they meant nothing to me as far as story goes), then down into the mines fighting orcs, then they get out and see their mountain in the distance, just like in the others where they start towards mount doom. it was all too familiar, and i didnt care at all for the characters too.
 
But I enjoyed the tale of Bilbo and the crew. That's actually why I enjoy the Hobbit so much more. It's a singular story that is really mostly character based. And that's more up my ally.

Thorin and Bilbo are becoming great characters. Not there just yet...but hopefully their arcs will come full circle in the last flick.
 
Back
Top