|
|
| Page 12 of 20 |
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
 Posted: Thu, 13th Dec 2012 23:47 Post subject: |
|
 |
| LeoNatan wrote: | | garus wrote: | Just to troll a little. Your review is no more important than those written by nitwits  |
That's not trolling, that's a fundamental right on the internet, to voice one's opinion. People may agree, disagree, troll, call one idiot, praise him, etc., but everyone can post their opinion, and people are to take away whatever they want. I would disagree that, to some members here, zmed's review might be of much greater importance than random reviewers on the internet.  |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Dec 2012 23:48 Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't word that last sentence correctly. 
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Thu, 13th Dec 2012 23:56 Post subject: |
|
|
zmed what if your gripes with the plot issues in the movie are because of the plot issues in the books? I haven't read them. But that's a bit of a miss if it's the script-writers fault.
and the 3d was useless?  that bothers me. Prometheus had outstanding 3d and so did avatar.  i'd be really upset with jackson if he wasted money to shoot the movie in 3d without using it properly
or maybe your eyes aren't suited for 3d.
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 00:05 Post subject: |
|
|
Technically and visually it's a masterpiece. I have never seen better 3D and CGI before this one. As for 48fps, it has a huge plus and a tiny minus. The doubled fps makes some fast scenes even faster, so at times I lost focus completely. Luckily this was mere second or minutes. The plus is that the enhancemenet in definition and sharpness is crazy, it's like going from DVD to Bluray. I of course did not see the 24fps version, so other movies are my reference. It takes getting used to and sometimes it's weird (especially the first 10-15 minutes for some reason), but overall all I can say is "wow" for 48fps. It's like a theater play, you're right in the middle of it.
The biggest problem this movie has is the bad pacing, some bits are really too slow. It's not as epic as LotR and the action is not properly smeared thoughout the movie. I know the book itself is less epic than LotR, but I don't think this should've been a trilogy. Two movies would've been nice, I guess we'll see how the sequels turn out. The cast was excellent, Bilbo is perfectly portrayed and there's huge attention to detail, but sadly it's not as grand as Fellowship (which it should be compared to). I know it's only the start of the series, but it could've been bigger and better (like Fellowship managed).
Recommended to every LotR fan, go for 48fps if possible. And no, it's nothing like the shitty effects TVs use.
8.5/10
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 00:08 Post subject: |
|
|
C/P
BOOOOO! 
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 00:10 Post subject: |
|
|
| WaldoJ wrote: | zmed what if your gripes with the plot issues in the movie are because of the plot issues in the books? I haven't read them. But that's a bit of a miss if it's the script-writers fault.
and the 3d was useless? that bothers me. Prometheus had outstanding 3d and so did avatar. i'd be really upset with jackson if he wasted money to shoot the movie in 3d without using it properly
or maybe your eyes aren't suited for 3d. |
I read the books twice, so I'm fairly familiar with the story, and my only plot-gripe was about a plot-thread that was not in the book, but added just for the movie (maybe it ties to the Silmarils, but I have no intention of reading that ).
Some people may hate Radagast's portrayal in the movie. Some even went as far as calling him the local Jar-Jar, but unlike Jar-Jar, Radagast was funny instead of annoying as fuck, he was helpful and not useless, and most importantly, he didn't overstay his welcome.
You may be right about the 3D. I noticed it quite a bit, but I just didn't get much out of it. A few frantic scenes were made very enjoyable by it, like when they fall down a big slidey tunnel, or a few grand battle scenes, but apart from the rare throw-shit-in-your-face gag, it didn't really add that much for me. Have to admit, of the little 3D I saw since it became popular, this was among the best. Maybe I just got jaded with its gimmicky nature by now.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WaldoJ
VIP Member
Posts: 32678
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 00:13 Post subject: |
|
|
\o/ i was worried there for a sec
| Sin317 wrote: | | I win, you lose. Or Go fuck yourself. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vurt
Posts: 13825
Location: Sweden
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
headshot
VIP Member
Posts: 35872
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 00:55 Post subject: |
|
|
Just got back from the cinema. My friends dont like 3D so we watched it in 2D. The screen was sold out and jam packed not that that was a surprise!
I totally loved the film and it was better than I expected with a surprising amount of LOL moments! The effects were top notch and the visuals breathtaking at times. The only drawback is looking how far they had to go to get to the end of the journey at the end of the film just as it was at the end of Fellowship of the Ring! Looking forward to The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, same time next year! *sigh*
May the NFOrce be with you always.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 09:24 Post subject: |
|
|
I wish the hobbit had been made before and LoTR afterwards. The advancement in CG 
1 and 2 are still amazing.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 14:14 Post subject: |
|
|
Timothy Lottes' (FXAA/TXAA creator, and all around genius) thoughts:
http://timothylottes.blogspot.com/2012/12/hobbit-at-48hz-and-stereo.html
| Quote: | I strongly suggest before you read my opinions, watch the film first and render your own thoughts...
First on the 3D
The far distance is only as far as you sit away from the screen. So I sit in the very back by the projector. If I had the option of watching in 2D at 48 Hz, I would have taken that. I feel like the stereo is a distraction only because sometimes it does not work (for example backgrounds will always be flat) and that pulls me out of the film.
48 Hz
My feeling from watching the Hobbit is that 48 Hz increases the ease at which film can fall back into the uncanny valley. 48 Hz raises the skill required. When it works, it feels much more real than 24 Hz, but when anything subtle is wrong, it is very easy to spot, and will distract from the experience. At the very beginning of the film for example, the tempo feels wrong, as if the movement is just slightly too fast. I have a feeling they adjusted some scenes to fit by scaling the video temporally before mastering the audio? Other parts, including CG parts, felt natural to me.
I wish the film industry would skip 48 Hz and move right along to 96 Hz or 120 Hz so they can skip either digital projectors holding the frame, or scanning projectors scanning the 48 Hz two times at 96 Hz, or worse temporal up-scaling to 60 Hz and then holding 60 Hz or scanning 60 Hz two times at 120 Hz.
Anyway looks like 48 Hz is a required stepping stone to something better, and I'm happy some are taking the risk and venturing forward. |
TWIN PEAKS is "something of a miracle."
"...like nothing else on television."
"a phenomenon."
"A tangled tale of sex, violence, power, junk food..."
"Like Nothing On Earth"
~ WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY CAN ONLY BE SEEN ~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CHTUOgYNRzY
Last edited by consolitis on Thu, 24th Jan 2013 17:42; edited 1 time in total
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Werelds
Special Little Man
Posts: 15098
Location: 0100111001001100
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 14:29 Post subject: |
|
|
| zmed wrote: | | I read the books twice, so I'm fairly familiar with the story, and my only plot-gripe was about a plot-thread that was not in the book, but added just for the movie (maybe it ties to the Silmarils, but I have no intention of reading that ). |
It's from the unfinished stories as well as Silmarillion - as far as I'm concerned a good thing, since there's much more to the whole universe than just LotR and The Hobbit
As for your little gripe:
 Spoiler: | Whenever the morgul knife is referred to, what they mean is the Witch King's knife. There are more than one (as each of the Nazgûl has one), but his is the deadliest. If you read older prints of the LotR trilogy, it's spoken about a bit more elaborately and Tolkien in fact specifically refers to the Witch King's knife  |
Sounds good to me anyway, I'm gonna see it next week. Fuck the pace, I like the sound of it being slower. As much as liked LotR, a huge number of details and even plot arches were left out compared to the books (older prints at least, "youngest" copy I've read is 1964). Had they tried to get it all they would've needed at least 5-6 films. Compared to LotR, The Hobbit has much more details pressed into that one little book (more conversation in LotR mainly), so a trilogy may not be a bad thing to me; although I suspect that the last one will be a bit more action
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
headshot
VIP Member
Posts: 35872
Location: UK
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 14:48 Post subject: |
|
|
| Spoiler: | The necromancer in the movie, is that meant to be Sauron? |
May the NFOrce be with you always.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Fri, 14th Dec 2012 15:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| headshot wrote: | | Spoiler: | The necromancer in the movie, is that meant to be Sauron? |
|
| Spoiler: | Yep, it's before he regains most of his power and flees to Mordor. |
| Werelds wrote: | | Fuck the pace, I like the sound of it being slower. As much as liked LotR, a huge number of details and even plot arches were left out compared to the books (older prints at least, "youngest" copy I've read is 1964). |
If you thought the pacing of the extended editions of LotR was fine, you'll also be OK with teh pacing in this one. I thought it was right since they try to begin a story (though the action sequences could've been used better as I said above). The theatrical cut of this one is like the extended cut of the LotR movies. I think most peiople had a problem with the 'sudden' end, but that's inevitable since it's the beginning. As someone who's read the book several times, I know what awesomeness is yet to come, so the ending leaves a somewhat bitter taste. Understandable, but still a bit shitty.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HoLyMaN
Posts: 1000
Location: With the survivors of a plane crash
|
| Posted: Sat, 15th Dec 2012 00:51 Post subject: |
|
|
Just got back from the cinema....loved every sec of it want MOAAARRRRR!
gollum scene was top!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LeoNatan
☢ NFOHump Despot ☢
Posts: 73196
Location: Ramat Gan, Israel 🇮🇱
|
| Posted: Sat, 15th Dec 2012 01:02 Post subject: |
|
|
| consolitis wrote: | Timothy Lottes' (FXAA/TXAA creator, and all around genius) thoughts:
http://timothylottes.blogspot.gr/2012/12/hobbit-at-48hz-and-stereo.html
| Quote: | I strongly suggest before you read my opinions, watch the film first and render your own thoughts...
First on the 3D
The far distance is only as far as you sit away from the screen. So I sit in the very back by the projector. If I had the option of watching in 2D at 48 Hz, I would have taken that. I feel like the stereo is a distraction only because sometimes it does not work (for example backgrounds will always be flat) and that pulls me out of the film.
48 Hz
My feeling from watching the Hobbit is that 48 Hz increases the ease at which film can fall back into the uncanny valley. 48 Hz raises the skill required. When it works, it feels much more real than 24 Hz, but when anything subtle is wrong, it is very easy to spot, and will distract from the experience. At the very beginning of the film for example, the tempo feels wrong, as if the movement is just slightly too fast. I have a feeling they adjusted some scenes to fit by scaling the video temporally before mastering the audio? Other parts, including CG parts, felt natural to me.
I wish the film industry would skip 48 Hz and move right along to 96 Hz or 120 Hz so they can skip either digital projectors holding the frame, or scanning projectors scanning the 48 Hz two times at 96 Hz, or worse temporal up-scaling to 60 Hz and then holding 60 Hz or scanning 60 Hz two times at 120 Hz.
Anyway looks like 48 Hz is a required stepping stone to something better, and I'm happy some are taking the risk and venturing forward. |
|
Nothing new here. The problem is, equipment cost. High-quality, high-framerate cameras are very expensive, and this would mean a lot more film (when not shooting digital). It also has ripples for the entire pre, production and post, as sets, miniatures and costumes have to include a lot more detail as the temporal resolution rises, as well as CGI has to be a lot more precise and convincing as well as a lot more frames have to be rendered. Trivial things such as ADR and audio sync is also a lot more harder. And no IMAX digital cameras, which in itself is not worth it. Temporal resolution vs. much more detail in 24Hz, I'd take the IMAX. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 15th Dec 2012 09:57 Post subject: |
|
|
i didnt see the movie yet, but i cant see how they are gonna fill 3 movies with the source material - after all, the hobbit was a much shorter story than its sequel.
(unless they add a humongous amount of extra scenes and exposition)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 15th Dec 2012 11:05 Post subject: |
|
|
THe LotR movies used one book worth of material at most, so it's perfectly possible. They didn't use all the material in tthe three books for LotR, that would've been impossible.
| LeoNatan wrote: | | Temporal resolution vs. much more detail in 24Hz, I'd take the IMAX. |
I've been to three IMAX viewings in my life, so not much, but Hobbit at 48fps had much more detail.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
headshot
VIP Member
Posts: 35872
Location: UK
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 15th Dec 2012 20:48 Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't like the HFR stuff. It kinda felt like they're fastforwarding the movie - waste of money. Oh, and I've read the book in 1998 and I think it has about 350 pages... I don't know, but I think they could have put everything in one movie... or two movies, but not 3? dafuq....
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Aeon
Posts: 8700
Location: Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sat, 15th Dec 2012 21:46 Post subject: |
|
|
I've seen it too today, 24FPS in 3D and it was amazing! Can't wait for the other two. I'm glad that I didn't see the HFR version, I can't imagine it would be a better experience.
Intel i7 6700K, RTX470 Super, Kingston HyperX Fury 32GB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
vaifan1986
Posts: 4638
Location: Birthplace of the necktie.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| Posted: Sat, 15th Dec 2012 22:43 Post subject: |
|
|
My only gripe was the fighting scenes - felt way too Disney-like what with the complete lack of blood. I know it was pretty much the same in LOTR but it just felt more jarring somehow in this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zmed
Posts: 9234
Location: Orbanistan
|
| Posted: Sat, 15th Dec 2012 23:28 Post subject: |
|
|
| inz wrote: | | My only gripe was the fighting scenes - felt way too Disney-like what with the complete lack of blood. I know it was pretty much the same in LOTR but it just felt more jarring somehow in this. |
That's because they managed to hide the wounds there. A quick decapitation and immediately cutting away to a new angle showed brutality without gore. Now they linger on the wounds, and the lack of blood and guts are all the more obvious and pulls you right out of the experience.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Przepraszam
VIP Member
Posts: 14491
Location: Poland. New York.
|
| Posted: Sun, 16th Dec 2012 01:53 Post subject: |
|
|
Would love to see the movie but after checking tickets, they are $20 ;\ but I still want to go
and now I have quick question, which one should I go to see, IMAX or RealID 3? All those terminology they put when booking tickets is confusing shit out of me
nvm, the cinema i wanted to go only have RPX RealID3 with Digital 3D..whatever fuck that means
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Doh!
Posts: 1361
Location: Wellhigh DK
|
| Posted: Sun, 16th Dec 2012 03:40 Post subject: |
|
|
So finally saw it in 3d with the HFR and I was in shock after the first 3 minutes due to the 48fps made it look fucked up. It was not as bad after that - but really I would have liked to have seen some lesser movies in 48fps, before watching the Hobbit. But stunning none the less.
The first movie spans the first 100 pages circa and I had zero problems with pacing in this movie and there was alot more action than I was ever expecting.
It most have been a hard job going from the written material in LOTR to The Hobbit, but I think they did a great job creating actual characters of the dwarfs and the background story was great as well.
And superb link up to LOTR - when all 6 films are out, I wonder if that epic saga will over be outdone in my life time.
In my book The Fellowship of the ring is 10/10, so The Hobbit is a small 8/10 from me.
There are two kinds of people I can't stand in this world. People who are intolerant of other people's cultures, and the Dutch.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ankh
Posts: 23342
Location: Trelleborg
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| Page 12 of 20 |
All times are GMT + 1 Hour |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB 2.0.8 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
|
 |
|
