Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Either way, I'm sure you'll have a blast! Please do a mini-review when you get a chance!
Either way, I'm sure you'll have a blast! Please do a mini-review when you get a chance!
The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*
- Thread starter The Ringer
- Start date
Help Support Collector Freaks Forum:
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 11,044
- Reaction score
- 15
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
wrong..do a mega review!...Lucky, lucky boy!...enjoy it!
Either way, I'm sure you'll have a blast! Please do a mini-review when you get a chance!
wrong..do a mega review!...Lucky, lucky boy!...enjoy it!
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Off to dinner and the show...got to drive carefully...
Off to dinner and the show...got to drive carefully...
agen_kolar
Super Freak
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
...waiting impatiently...
...waiting impatiently...
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
AICN reviewed this; you guys don't wanna read it....seems like the typical B.S. AICN 'review'
AICN reviewed this; you guys don't wanna read it....seems like the typical B.S. AICN 'review'
jye4ever
Broke and happy
Sire
Freaked Out
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
AICN are consistently well off the mark with their reviews.
I remain unworried that this will completely and utterly rock.
AICN are consistently well off the mark with their reviews.
I remain unworried that this will completely and utterly rock.
mike14
Freaked Out
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Review from an Australian newspaper for those interested
https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/hobbit-adaptation-a-dark-spectacular-adventure-20121204-2assx.html
Review from an Australian newspaper for those interested
https://www.theage.com.au/entertainment/movies/hobbit-adaptation-a-dark-spectacular-adventure-20121204-2assx.html
Seph Stampede
Super Freak
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2011
- Messages
- 450
- Reaction score
- 5
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=70850
Six not too spoilery clips. Can not wait for this movie.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/nailbiter111/news/?a=70850
Six not too spoilery clips. Can not wait for this movie.
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2008
- Messages
- 35,160
- Reaction score
- 2
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2010
- Messages
- 11,044
- Reaction score
- 15
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Says the guy who insists HFR is going to suck with the Hobbit despite having never seen it.
Says the guy who insists HFR is going to suck with the Hobbit despite having never seen it.
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Those clips were cool. Most of the reviews i'm reading are saying it's just shy of LOTR quality, but still a great ride... Which is exactly what i expected, can't wait!
Those clips were cool. Most of the reviews i'm reading are saying it's just shy of LOTR quality, but still a great ride... Which is exactly what i expected, can't wait!
Last edited:
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Seeing way to many comparisons to the SW prequels in reviews.
Seeing way to many comparisons to the SW prequels in reviews.
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2008
- Messages
- 32,452
- Reaction score
- 3,147
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Seems like too much CGI and green screen, honestly, I could sort of tell by the contrast lighting in a lot of the scenes, especially Rivendell. All the orcs and goblins are CGI? Sounds like the Clone Troopers and Battle Droids in the prequels.
The orcs and Uruk-Hai in LOTR were amazing. All actors, all stuntmen, all prosthetic/make up work. Lurtz, Gothmog, Shagrat, Grishnakh, Ugluck, the grunts, they were all real. Sort of disappointing. Why not just continue the monster effects that were done before? Nobody complained?
No way am I going to write this off over a few reviews though. I'm still excited and looking forward to it.
Seems like too much CGI and green screen, honestly, I could sort of tell by the contrast lighting in a lot of the scenes, especially Rivendell. All the orcs and goblins are CGI? Sounds like the Clone Troopers and Battle Droids in the prequels.
The orcs and Uruk-Hai in LOTR were amazing. All actors, all stuntmen, all prosthetic/make up work. Lurtz, Gothmog, Shagrat, Grishnakh, Ugluck, the grunts, they were all real. Sort of disappointing. Why not just continue the monster effects that were done before? Nobody complained?
No way am I going to write this off over a few reviews though. I'm still excited and looking forward to it.
- Joined
- May 31, 2011
- Messages
- 19,880
- Reaction score
- 287
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Agree Difabio, I'd have liked them to stick to the make-up route and ditch the special effects as much as they could on goblins etc.
Agree Difabio, I'd have liked them to stick to the make-up route and ditch the special effects as much as they could on goblins etc.
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Excellent review; much more well-rounded than the AICN drab......those ****ers have too much of an agenda at times
Excellent review; much more well-rounded than the AICN drab......those ****ers have too much of an agenda at times
Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread
Saw it, and I enjoyed it so much it pains me to have to say right off the bat that this is going to be a very controversial production. Jackson and Philippa Boyen attended last night's screening and sat for questions, and most of what I have to report will be about their comments, not about who and what made the final edit. I'm glad I knew relatively little when I went in, and I hope my fellow Freaks can avoid spoilers and hustle their butts into theatre seats when this opens in 10 days.
It has been said by many fine directors that 90% of their job is to cast the picture right. Jackson couldn't have found a better Bilbo -- or, I think, a better Thorin. With the trilogy's Gandalf and Gollum back in action, the cast has four strong anchors, and the remaining dozen dwarves are all distinct, strong personalities. The art direction, makeup, costumes, and post-production CGI are as convincing as they were in the trilogy. And the lighting will probably be just as beautiful in the 24fps version. Jackson confirmed that there is a 24fps version; when filming started there wasn't a theatre in the world capable of showing what they were shooting at 48fps. I imagine there are many theaters that still can't handle a non-standard film print.
3D is itself still an acquired taste; this picture was shot in true 3D and is, I think, easily the equal of Avatar in using the depth of 3D to fully compose each image, rather than for "thrusting" effects. It doesn't often spit things out at you, rather, it pulls you in. Jackson commented that the remaining step in bringing this technique to full effect is still months away -- laser projectors that will brighten the screen, though this film seems plenty bright.
The real controversy will be Jackson's experiment with the frame rate. He told the audience he'd begun exploring while making a short film segment for Universal's King Kong ride. The Kong short was shot at 60fps. It sounded as though he really viewed the increased frame rate here as an extension of the 3D. He still clearly believes in it, and it may be that it simply takes some getting used to. But the complaint that's been heard is one I found to be true. There are moments when the film seems to look like a television show, and it does take you out of the story. I felt it in action sequences; a friend felt it in the close-ups. I should note that I went into the screening with the mistaken belief that the film was only partly shot in 48fps, like Christopher Nolan's partial use of Imax cameras in The Dark Knight. I didn't notice anything different until midway through the arrivals of the "unexpected guests" at Bag End. And for long stretches I thought I was watching normal 24fps film, before something would suddenly strike me as, well, video. I honestly don't feel I have a handle on how to describe this viewing experience. But I'm afraid it will prove to be a distraction for many viewers. It might be real, but I don't find it beautiful.
Asked about the additional material, Jackson indicated that most of it came from the appendices at the end of ROTK, and that prior to his death Tolkien was weighing whether to write a new revision of The Hobbit to tie it more closely to the trilogy; the new film may be closer to what Tolkien himself envisioned than we have any right to expect. Philippa Boyen added that the material in the actual book may make for a quick read, but it is actually time-consuming on screen. They both seemed to take pleasure in having been able to not cut so much as is usually necessary for a film adaptation, though Jackson did say in response to a question that, yes, there will be extended editions on DVD one day. The material to do it is there. (I don't have an exact timing, but I think The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is already about 2 hours 20.) The journey of the dwarves and their plus-one proves to lend itself pretty well to additions. Everything they pass along the way provides a natural gateway to a song, or a tale, or an encounter.
My greatest curiosity going in was simply how the film would treat the One Ring itself, since the audience already knows what it is and will regard it with apprehension. In the book, it was simply a magical ring, a secret weapon, and a typical fairy-tale element, and readers didn't learn until later its true nature. As it turns out, knowing more than the characters do is itself a pleasure.
I'm really sorry say so much about the filming technique, and don't want to leave the impression that the film adaptation itself is anything but a joy to behold. I think fans will love the movie, but probably prefer the standard 24fps print. I'm looking forward to that version when I see this film again.
Yes, there are some nice casting surprises. You'll have to see it for yourself to experience those. No spoilers here.
Saw it, and I enjoyed it so much it pains me to have to say right off the bat that this is going to be a very controversial production. Jackson and Philippa Boyen attended last night's screening and sat for questions, and most of what I have to report will be about their comments, not about who and what made the final edit. I'm glad I knew relatively little when I went in, and I hope my fellow Freaks can avoid spoilers and hustle their butts into theatre seats when this opens in 10 days.
It has been said by many fine directors that 90% of their job is to cast the picture right. Jackson couldn't have found a better Bilbo -- or, I think, a better Thorin. With the trilogy's Gandalf and Gollum back in action, the cast has four strong anchors, and the remaining dozen dwarves are all distinct, strong personalities. The art direction, makeup, costumes, and post-production CGI are as convincing as they were in the trilogy. And the lighting will probably be just as beautiful in the 24fps version. Jackson confirmed that there is a 24fps version; when filming started there wasn't a theatre in the world capable of showing what they were shooting at 48fps. I imagine there are many theaters that still can't handle a non-standard film print.
3D is itself still an acquired taste; this picture was shot in true 3D and is, I think, easily the equal of Avatar in using the depth of 3D to fully compose each image, rather than for "thrusting" effects. It doesn't often spit things out at you, rather, it pulls you in. Jackson commented that the remaining step in bringing this technique to full effect is still months away -- laser projectors that will brighten the screen, though this film seems plenty bright.
The real controversy will be Jackson's experiment with the frame rate. He told the audience he'd begun exploring while making a short film segment for Universal's King Kong ride. The Kong short was shot at 60fps. It sounded as though he really viewed the increased frame rate here as an extension of the 3D. He still clearly believes in it, and it may be that it simply takes some getting used to. But the complaint that's been heard is one I found to be true. There are moments when the film seems to look like a television show, and it does take you out of the story. I felt it in action sequences; a friend felt it in the close-ups. I should note that I went into the screening with the mistaken belief that the film was only partly shot in 48fps, like Christopher Nolan's partial use of Imax cameras in The Dark Knight. I didn't notice anything different until midway through the arrivals of the "unexpected guests" at Bag End. And for long stretches I thought I was watching normal 24fps film, before something would suddenly strike me as, well, video. I honestly don't feel I have a handle on how to describe this viewing experience. But I'm afraid it will prove to be a distraction for many viewers. It might be real, but I don't find it beautiful.
Asked about the additional material, Jackson indicated that most of it came from the appendices at the end of ROTK, and that prior to his death Tolkien was weighing whether to write a new revision of The Hobbit to tie it more closely to the trilogy; the new film may be closer to what Tolkien himself envisioned than we have any right to expect. Philippa Boyen added that the material in the actual book may make for a quick read, but it is actually time-consuming on screen. They both seemed to take pleasure in having been able to not cut so much as is usually necessary for a film adaptation, though Jackson did say in response to a question that, yes, there will be extended editions on DVD one day. The material to do it is there. (I don't have an exact timing, but I think The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is already about 2 hours 20.) The journey of the dwarves and their plus-one proves to lend itself pretty well to additions. Everything they pass along the way provides a natural gateway to a song, or a tale, or an encounter.
My greatest curiosity going in was simply how the film would treat the One Ring itself, since the audience already knows what it is and will regard it with apprehension. In the book, it was simply a magical ring, a secret weapon, and a typical fairy-tale element, and readers didn't learn until later its true nature. As it turns out, knowing more than the characters do is itself a pleasure.
I'm really sorry say so much about the filming technique, and don't want to leave the impression that the film adaptation itself is anything but a joy to behold. I think fans will love the movie, but probably prefer the standard 24fps print. I'm looking forward to that version when I see this film again.
Yes, there are some nice casting surprises. You'll have to see it for yourself to experience those. No spoilers here.
Similar threads
