• Ever thought it'd be cool to have your art, writing, or challenge runs featured on PokéCommunity? Click here for info - we'd love to spotlight your work!
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.
    Register

The Hobbit (And 48 fps)

Wandering~Leaf said:
I truthfullly kind of liked it, except for the fact that it didn't really have that "Lotr fantasy" atmosphere like the trilogy did. Not only that, but Gandalf used more magic/power in that movie than he did out of all the trilogy movies combined. I just hope the second movie is better...
Click to expand...
Not even a little bit, I agree. Perhaps the only moments that it felt remotely like genuine Lord of the Rings fantasy was when the characters were in the notable cities, Erebor and Rivendale. Only then it was because the cities were an entire fantasy world all their own. On another note, Gandalf absolutely used magic more in this movie than ever, but perhaps it's a foreshadow? Maybe the overuse of magic causes something to happen that discourages extensive use in the future... Now I'm mildly curious. :x
 
Not even Erebor, for me. It reminded me waaayyy too much of World of Warcraft. But on the magic part, maybe? I'm not very sure...I haven't read the Hobbit in a year, but I can't recall anything like that...who knows. I guess we'll see when the next movie comes.
 
It's not that good because you didn't actually watch the Hobbit movie.


What you ACTUALLY watched is a 3 hour prequel to the hobbits movie, which will be released next year!


///

That's what you get when you take a something that's a third of LOTR in number of books, yet you decide to make the same number of movies with it.
 
I thought it was decent, I enjoyed it I suppose. I don't think the "increased" quality is noticeable, tbh, and I couldn't care less.

It was quite odd watching The Hobbit AFTER LOTR, I must say.
 
Keiran777 said:
I thought it was decent, I enjoyed it I suppose. I don't think the "increased" quality is noticeable, tbh, and I couldn't care less.

It was quite odd watching The Hobbit AFTER LOTR, I must say.
Click to expand...
I saw it in 48fps and I hardly noticed a difference in it compared to a regular viewing experience as well. It's all hype, I believe. And I agree, I think The Hobbit movie(s) should have been made prior to Lord of the Rings rather than after. Where is the sense in making the sequels before the prequels? v__v;
 
Antemortem said:
I saw it in 48fps and I hardly noticed a difference in it compared to a regular viewing experience as well. It's all hype, I believe.
Click to expand...
Ahh I agree entirely. It basically felt like paying £2.50 extra for three fancy letters to tell people about. I'd heard reviews that the new framerate made the movie seem too realistic and that it was an incredible step forward in cinema so I was expecting great things from it, but I could hardly tell the difference between it and a regular shooting. Maybe it's just because I'd hyped it up too much in my head beforehand so when I actually went it was just a big disappointment compared to what I'd hoped, but it's not something I'd really pay extra for again.
 
HFR took a little bit for me to get used to, but my eyes adjusted accordingly.

My opinion though...it's a bit of a double-edged sword. While it can enhance certain special effects, at the same time it makes certain other fake things (like CGI) look even more fake.

I love the movie itself, but for me HFR is a mixed bag.
 
Livewire said:
Yup. Just imagine if you could take the greatness that was the LOTR trilogy and add in today's CGI and effects. Dear God almighty.
Click to expand...
Absolutely! I was just watching the LotR movies on Christmas Day and admiring the CGI and special effects even then - what was it, 2002? - and was considering how amazing they would be if they were made in more recent times. My brain can't even contain it tbh

AlexOzzyCake said:
Ahh I agree entirely. It basically felt like paying £2.50 extra for three fancy letters to tell people about. I'd heard reviews that the new framerate made the movie seem too realistic and that it was an incredible step forward in cinema so I was expecting great things from it, but I could hardly tell the difference between it and a regular shooting. Maybe it's just because I'd hyped it up too much in my head beforehand so when I actually went it was just a big disappointment compared to what I'd hoped, but it's not something I'd really pay extra for again.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I was kind of the same way. A new breakthrough in cinema? That must be great! Got my hopes up much too far so the fall was more painful, unfortunately. The experience of the movie was still fantastic, but I don't feel like the realism of the movie was any more or any less. Hell, it's a fantasy adventure, how real could it possibly get?
 
I watched it last night and I found it to be great! The only downside for me personally, is I found the beginning (as in the storyline) dragged onto a little as well as having seen it in 3D, I was expecting tons of it, but not much really popped out of the screen besides birds and fireball pinecones. I think if more of the 3D popped (meaning, came right out toward the audience) it would have been much more intense. But other than those things, I enjoyed it thoroughly. Golem was particularly amazing -- I definitely loved that segment, and I'm especially looking forward to part two! (There will be one! It's overt.)
 
I saw it last week! I originally didn't want to go, because i'm not much of a fan of the series, but im glad I did. It was really good and worth seeing! Just a tad bit long, but still good!
 
Why stretch it into three movies? There was no valid reason behind this.

The movie was frustratingly paced -- though not as much as Fellowship. The story had no momentum: repetitive action scenes, some characters weren't properly portrayed, the 'adventure' was way too long and formulaic. In no way was it better than any of the LotR trilogy for me. I didn't really fancy the 48fps; I noticed a lot of character looked beyond real and that ticked me off. It might get voted for best picture because of the hype.

It wasn't a bad watch, but it wasn't a great one two. I'd wait for the trilogy to be released then watch it again.
 
I watched it in 48 frames per second with someone else. I had felt sick before the film had even begun, and I had to run to the toilet 3 times during the screening.
It wasn't a very nice experience :L
He didn't even know I was sick =P
It was a good movie though, for what I saw. I preferred the Fellowship and I haven't fanned over the series since I was younger, but I have to say that it was nice to see Gollum again.
 
I don't think I watched it in 48fps, but I loved the movie all the same! I have read the book, and at first I didn't realize it would be split into 3 movies..
They mostly followed the book (from what I remember),
Spoiler:


But I actually really enjoyed it, it was at a good pace (nowhere near as rushed as the Harry Potter movies). When I first read it would be in 3 movies I thought.. 'wooah, that's like 1 for 100 pages, this'll drag on a bit..', but, as previously said; I loved it. It. Was. Totally. Amazing!
 
I really enjoyed the film and it was quite visually stunning. Peter Jackson has done it again. He was snubbed by the Academy, but in the long run that doesn't matter to me. They usually pick a whole bunch of films that I have no interest in. I feel like it being split over there movies will really help tell a complete story, so I'm quite excited for this. Jackson is such a great director, so this will just be wonderful!
 
Mac said:
I really enjoyed the film and it was quite visually stunning. Peter Jackson has done it again. He was snubbed by the Academy, but in the long run that doesn't matter to me. They usually pick a whole bunch of films that I have no interest in. I feel like it being split over there movies will really help tell a complete story, so I'm quite excited for this. Jackson is such a great director, so this will just be wonderful!
Click to expand...
This is pretty much my thoughts entirely. I was pretty p'd off when I saw the Academy's reaction to the Hobbit, it deserved much more recognition than it received. Whilst the HFR perk didn't add too much to the quality, that shouldn't take away from the fact of it being an outstanding and incredibly gripping movie which seems to be looked over a lot amongst all the quality/expectation complaints. There's also common complaints of the story not needing three films to tell the story, but I have no idea about that since I haven't read the book haha. Though judging by the first film I don't think this is an issue - it didn't feel too padded out or dragged on or anything of the like when I watched it. I just can't wait for part 2.
 
So I finally saw it last Monday and loved it. I love how more of the Tolkien legendarium was explained than in LOTR, and the familiar faces like Hugo Weaving and Kate Blanchett made it feel familiar and more of a continuation in a giant LOTR saga than a prequel 10 years later. And visually, it was incredible. I saw it in IMAX 3D (Against my wishes) but even still it was a good movie, I got used to the 3D after awhile. If only the original Trilogy had this kind of VFX and editing, holy crap.
 
Expanding the Necromancer plot is seriously the only way I can see them extending it to three films.

Sort of like how Two Towers and Return of the King switched back and forth between Frodo/Sam and the rest of the cast.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top