Fierce_LiNk Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 So, just got back from seeing this with some friends. It was alright. I can't really tell what I thought about it. Alright probably sums it up for me. It doesn't/didn't capture me in the same way that the Fellowship or Two Towers hooked me. Maybe on repeated viewings I'll grow to love it.
BowserBasher Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Went to see this and was absolutely amazed with it. I saw the 3D 48fps version and loved it. Everything is so clear, crisp and smooth. Yes, there are a few moments where you can clearly see that there are visual effects shots but other than that it just looks beautiful. Gollum looked amazing, I know he looked great by the Return of the King, but I'm sure they have outdone themselves. The Goblin King, same, the trolls, all looked amazing. I had gone with a friend that I know, didn't know about the whole 48fps thing. I just asked them if they were OK with 3D and booked the 48fps time. Not once did they say that anything looked bad or out of place because of the 48fps. I wonder if it just boils down to the fact that we know about it and are looking for it. Though saying that, as I said, there are some parts that are clearly visual effects and seem to stick out. I can't wait now for the next part. Just seeing the last scene Going into the Lonely Mountain and seeing all that gold, then seeing Smaug wake, the eye open, left me wanting more
ReZourceman Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Surprised this has such a low score on Metacritic, I thought it was pretty good.
Cube Posted December 16, 2012 Author Posted December 16, 2012 Surprised this has such a low score on Metacritic, I thought it was pretty good. People are bitching about how HFR looks different, and how it has been turned into three films, not understanding the extra Hobbit content at the end of LotR or that one of the reasons why LotR is so long is all the background information and the immense amount of detail.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) Basically, people are idiots wanting to complain about everything in order to sound smart. Being unabashedly excited about a film (or anything, for that matter) almost seems to be looked down upon nowadays by some sort of "cultural elite". Edited December 16, 2012 by Dannyboy-the-Dane
Ramar Posted December 16, 2012 Posted December 16, 2012 Saw it today in 2D, bit disappointed my friend didn't want to watch 3D and I have no idea what fps it was. But the film was great, really enjoyed it and I shall probably go watch it again. Must read the book.
Shorty Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 I really enjoyed the film, a lot. It was just more LotR for me, or more specifically, more Fellowship of the Rings. But I really struggled to get past the HFR. From the outset it was just so strange, one of the weirdest cinematic experiences I've had. I agree it made everything look crystal clear, but I don't think it was for the better. The opening scenes were the worst (which worried me a lot), the camera rotating around Thrór was jerky and way too fast, other ECUs on non-faces (eg the sword, the map, Bilbo writing) were just moving too fast because the pan couldn't keep up with the movement. When there was an overhead shot of the extras in Erebor, you could make out too much detail - every gormless extra's face looking awkwardly half-into the camera. Fake conversations looked fake, sets looked like sets. CG fighting looked great, but during the flashback fight against the pale orc, whenever the camera focussed on two actors in costume, you could tell they weren't really hitting each other. Fortunately as the story progressed the CG and fantasy backdrops and characters increased which tied in with getting used to the effect. Very much enjoyed the film, not sure how they're going to stretch it out but, despite all the added content - it all felt in line with the lore and never felt particularly slow. Occasionally the pacing was mismatched (fight, fight, fight, escape, escape, fight, COMEDY!, escape, escape...) but again that added to the HFR distraction. A solid 7. Will watch the second one at 28fps and 2D.
EEVILMURRAY Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 People are bitching about how HFR looks different, and how it has been turned into three films, not understanding the extra Hobbit content at the end of LotR or that one of the reasons why LotR is so long is all the background information and the immense amount of detail. That explains why the Lord of The Rings films (an epic fantasy works) were made into three films. Not really why The Hobbit, a children's book has been split into three films. Apparently they're throwing in some Silmarillion stuff so it doesn't look like too much of a cop out.
Daft Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 I have no inclination whatsoever to see this. I think I'm getting old.
Captain Falcon Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 I watched the HFR version yesterday. It did look incredibly smooth and does seem a bit strange in comparison to the standard 24fps of films. It makes it seem a bit unnatural because your brain is so used to the normal way of things. I also had a bit of a headache afterwards from the 3D, not to mention my ears were hurting from the glasses. Still, thoroughly enjoyed the film and it nicely fills the void that has opened up since RotK. I can see why people might have an issue with the run time but even if you trimmed the fat off of the film, you'd still struggle to come much under 2 hrs unless you got really ruthless with your cuts. I was happy with the length and not once did I feel like anything was dragging on - even the start. And I think people who complain about there being 3 movies (and some moaned about it being 2) seem to forget that in the 280 pages the book lasts for, there is a surprising amont of content and everything happens so much more quickly than with the LotR - and thats before they throw in the LotR appendix material. It had been a while since I read the book but as the film went on things started coming back to me. I liked how they used some very similar shots from Fellowship in showing the new band of characters and the world they were exploring though I thought they'd have had the scene where Bilbo finds the ring match up a bit better with ho it was shown in Fellowship. And just to be even more pedantic, I'd have thought they might have made the cave a bit darker than it was given it's supposed to be pitch black down there. @Shorty - I know what you mean about the fight scene outside Moria - you can see that the actors are nowhere near each other but they are falling over as if they've just been clobbered. I couldn't tell if some of the special effects were a bit ropey or it was the 3D/HFR playing tricks on me. There were times when even genuine sets looked fake. And one overhead shot of them going through the secret passage to Rivendell looked really strange - it wasn't until after the camera changed that I had figured out what I was looking at. Very much looking forward to the Desolation of Smaug now.
Fierce_LiNk Posted December 17, 2012 Posted December 17, 2012 I have no inclination whatsoever to see this. I think I'm getting old. I can understand what you mean. My excitement levels changed throughout the build-up to this. It's definitely worth going to see and it's still a good/great film. From my first viewing, I didn't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed any of the Lotr trilogy when seeing them for the first time. It doesn't have the same amount of mystery, charm or magic as the others. That's what I found. I'd recommend going to see this in your standard 2D edition. Then you can judge the film for what it is, rather than getting caught up in the debate about the visuals, which shouldn't be what we talk about when we analyse this film, imo.
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 The reason the reception is so lukewarm isn't because of the HFPS or because it was split into 3 films... Having seen this today it's pretty damn clear why the movie is getting such "meh" reviews both publicly and critically. This is a movie made by a fan for us fans. Outside of it's context within Middle Earth's mythology, the tale being told in The Hobbit isn't that interesting and as such what I and many of you here see as a true work of love and dedication towards exploring the original material and all it's future and past connections, non fans see as an exercise in futility. The fact that it has a much more childish tone (as does the book) when compared to the LotR trilogy further serves to distance people who aren't familiar with what's being presented here. Where you and I see attention to detail, they see a tepidly prolonged tale of uniteresting minutia. Alienation is inevitable, here. After all, The Hobbit is the simplest of tales, at first glance, and only once you understand how much of an all connecting plot trigger it really is within Tolkien's universe do you truly begin to appreciate it's importance, accidental though it may have been. As a fan, though, the movie more than delivers... it's incredible to see what happens when you actually allow the source material some breathing room. The most obvious example would have to be the Gollum scenes, which were absolutely incredible. Martin Freeman was the perfect choice for Dildo's role, and it's always awesome seeing everyone back to reprise their roles (and it was absolutely awesome to see Bret McKenzie back in his cameo as Lindir). My ONE true complaint has got to be the dwarves' characterization... Half of them look like regular people, and the other half look like something out of Nanny McPhee. What the hell happened there? This movie is one of those cases where attachment will mostly dictate your opinion of it. Personally, it's easily an 8 or a 9. Impartially, I'd give it a 6.5 or a 7.
Mr_Odwin Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 The reason the reception is so lukewarm isn't because of the HFPS or because it was split into 3 films... Having seen this today it's pretty damn clear why the movie is getting such "meh" reviews both publicly and critically. This is a movie made by a fan for us fans. Outside of it's context within Middle Earth's mythology, the tale being told in The Hobbit isn't that interesting and as such what I and many of you here see as a true work of love and dedication towards exploring the original material and all it's future and past connections, non fans see as an exercise in futility. The fact that it has a much more childish tone (as does the book) when compared to the LotR trilogy further serves to distance people who aren't familiar with what's being presented here. Where you and I see attention to detail, they see a tepidly prolonged tale of uniteresting minutia. Alienation is inevitable, here. After all, The Hobbit is the simplest of tales, at first glance, and only once you understand how much of an all connecting plot trigger it really is within Tolkien's universe do you truly begin to appreciate it's importance, accidental though it may have been. As a fan, though, the movie more than delivers... it's incredible to see what happens when you actually allow the source material some breathing room. The most obvious example would have to be the Gollum scenes, which were absolutely incredible. Martin Freeman was the perfect choice for Dildo's role, and it's always awesome seeing everyone back to reprise their roles (and it was absolutely awesome to see Bret McKenzie back in his cameo as Lindir). My ONE true complaint has got to be the dwarves' characterization... Half of them look like regular people, and the other half look like something out of Nanny McPhee. What the hell happened there? This movie is one of those cases where attachment will mostly dictate your opinion of it. Personally, it's easily an 8 or a 9. Impartially, I'd give it a 6.5 or a 7. Hee hee hee.
Shorty Posted December 18, 2012 Posted December 18, 2012 I'd recommend going to see this in your standard 2D edition. Then you can judge the film for what it is, rather than getting caught up in the debate about the visuals, which shouldn't be what we talk about when we analyse this film, imo.That was my thoughts initially. But with all the buzz about it, the Director touting it as the future of cinema, and the odd person thinking it's fantastic, I had to see for myself. Now the second one I will definitely watch in standard 2D...
Mokong Posted December 20, 2012 Posted December 20, 2012 Not read much or any of this thread (yet) But went to see this last night with Joy (she didn't know it was related to LotR...bless...she figured it out pretty quickly though once it started....and got a good surprise when Gollum appeared ) I loved it... I heard some people say it was slow and/or boring in the middle but I loved every minute of itand the 3 hours flew by, didn't even feel it.....luckily too didn't even need to take a piss after finishing my large coke Already planning on saving for the likely epic 6 film Bluray boxset that will come when the 3rd Hobbit film is out....and an 18hour film marathon Shame we gotta wait till Dec next year for part 2, but at least part 3 is July 2014 so not a big gap between 2 and 3 *phew*
nightwolf Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 That was my thoughts initially. But with all the buzz about it, the Director touting it as the future of cinema, and the odd person thinking it's fantastic, I had to see for myself. Now the second one I will definitely watch in standard 2D... I watch it in 2D and I loved it, no sorry, I adored it. I'm a huge fan of the LOTR and Hobbit books, but I made sure to have a slightly non-judgemental mind on this. I will be going to watch it again, in 2D because it's awesome. Sorry folks.
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 luckily too didn't even need to take a piss after finishing my large coke There's no break in Ireland?
Fierce_LiNk Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 There's no break in Ireland? We don't do cinema breaks at half-time in the UK and Ireland. (at least, I'm sure Ireland don't do it) From watching films in Belgium, I'm actually in favour of these breaks. It means that you get less people wandering off at points during the film. Instead, if you need to pop to the loo, you know that there will be a break coming up at some point, so there's your chance.
Cube Posted December 21, 2012 Author Posted December 21, 2012 I would hate breaks in the middle of the film. And with how small cinema toilets are, the break would need to be at least 30 minutes long.
Dannyboy-the-Dane Posted December 21, 2012 Posted December 21, 2012 As often as I do end up drinking too much and thus needing desperately to pee after the film, I don't think I'd like breaks in the film, either.
Ramar Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 As often as I do end up drinking too much and thus needing desperately to pee after the film, I don't think I'd like breaks in the film, either. Same. There's an art to timing when to start that drink so you don't end up running to the loo.
Oxigen_Waste Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 I would hate breaks in the middle of the film. And with how small cinema toilets are, the break would need to be at least 30 minutes long. It's the other way around... cinema toilets over there are small BECAUSE there are no breaks. They're huge over here, 65% of the audiences go there during the break and they're all back before it starts. These are 7 minute breaks I'm talking about. As often as I do end up drinking too much and thus needing desperately to pee after the film, I don't think I'd like breaks in the film, either. That sounds very weird to me. You'd rather be uncomfortable than have breaks in movies? oO Hell it seems such a natural thing to do that I just always assumed there were breaks everywhere, this is the first time I'm hearing of such a thing.
Mr_Odwin Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 There used to be breaks in the UK, when I was really young. Staff used to walk around selling ice creams and stuff during them too. They just kinda faded away over time.
ReZourceman Posted December 22, 2012 Posted December 22, 2012 I'd rather die than have a break in a movie. [/Melodramatic] Joking apart though....surely there is something wrong with you if you can't not go to the toilet for 2 hours?
Recommended Posts