thebiglebowski Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Been trying to get someone to go with me. Think I've had enough and am just gonna go solo. Going to see the 2D version purposely, though, to try and tone down the main negative comments I've read (unrealistic and/or blurry CG). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seamoney Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 This movie was awesome. Saw it in 2D and was extremely satisfied with how it looked. Already counting down the year till the next one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 That was incredible!!!!!! The speakers were a hair off in the theaeter so it was annoying at first but I just ignored it. I feel these movies are going to tie into the LOTR trilogy so well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebiglebowski Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Do any of the main LOTR characters get mentioned in the Hobbit outside the obvious ones? Obvious ones would be Bilbo, Gollum, Elrond off hand. If not, I wonder if they make something up at the end with Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, and such. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted December 17, 2012 Author Share Posted December 17, 2012 Do any of the main LOTR characters get mentioned in the Hobbit outside the obvious ones? Obvious ones would be Bilbo, Gollum, Elrond off hand. If not, I wonder if they make something up at the end with Legolas, Gimli, Aragorn, and such. movie starts off with frodo and bilbo together, also, the old elf dude and babe are in the movie, other than that I dont recall anyone else from LOTR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 17, 2012 Share Posted December 17, 2012 Galadriel, Frodo and Saruman appear. Radagast the Brown from the LOTR books makes an appearance. I am going to see it in 2D in a few hours. I think I will like it more than 3D. Everything looked fake. I believe Gimli and Legolas are going to make cameos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burntwolf Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 i saw it in IMAX 3D HFR 48fps and hated the look of the 48fps. movie was ok but i don't ever want to watch that 48fps crap again. maybe in a nature doc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
konk Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I saw it in 2d and thought everyone looked real. I dozed off during Gandolf and elf queen, but thought it was pretty good. Didn't really seem that long. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudeboydh Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I thought it was excellent. The only complaint I had is that my eyes had a little trouble focusing on the 3d, which has never happened to me with a 3d movie before. Maybe I was sitting too close, but reading some of these other comments, I'm begining to think that it was the way the movie was shot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kyacrash Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I thought it was excellent. The only complaint I had is that my eyes had a little trouble focusing on the 3d, which has never happened to me with a 3d movie before. Maybe I was sitting too close, but reading some of these other comments, I'm begining to think that it was the way the movie was shot. that definitely happened to me too. I thought it was my contact lenses, or the 3d glasses or something, but looks like maybe it was the movie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billya Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I saw it in 48fps and my eyes didn't really adapt to it, but it wasn't much of a problem. It was totally different though! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 Just got out of seeing it a second time and it made me like it more. They nailed Sméagol once again. The performance is amazing. Andy Serkis is pro. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted December 18, 2012 Author Share Posted December 18, 2012 he really is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Team Avatar Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 I didn't like the 3d, and I also dozed off a bit, but I was tired. I loved it, in general. My only complaint at first was that it seemed so "fantasy" whereas the LOTR trilogy seemed so real, but I realize it was intentional. Since the Hobbit is a recollection, everything is supposed to be more fantasy like. I also watched the trilogy sunday, extended, so I'm all middle earth stoked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 18, 2012 Share Posted December 18, 2012 The Hobbit is supposed to be fantasy like at first. It will get darker as the films go on. They are trying to show that it is a more peaceful time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lexicondevil Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The LOTR movies are classics and I hoped that The Hobbit would be the same. Maybe I just expected too much, but I went in purposely not knowing anything about the movie, though I did read the book back in the 4th grade, and couldn't believe Peter Jackson directed it. Why do so many directors these days feel the need to go beyond overboard with action? It's like everyone is trying to make a Michael Bey movie with no storyline and harrowing scene after harrowing scene. Just kinda gets numbing and stale really fast. I would recommend not seeing this in 3-D. I wasn't sitting that close and it was still too much in 3-D. Funny that the story, as it was presented in the movie, was one dimensional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2012 Share Posted December 28, 2012 The studios push for a lot of action to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It sucks. I would rather watch people with swords and stuff fight than watch car explosions and half-naked women molesting cars though. I agree that 3D is bad. Makes everything look like a cheap cardboard cutout. All of this 3D tomfoolery is getting old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbalism15 Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I'm going in with no expectations, I think everyone is just disappointed because they were expecting LOTR Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexH. Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 Watched it last night, was not disappointed it was pretty good blah blah blah BRETT FROM FLIGHT OF THE CONCHORDS WAS IN IT!! AND THERE WAS A WILHELM SCREAM!!![/spoiler] trifornais 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trifornais Posted December 30, 2012 Share Posted December 30, 2012 I've now seen it in 24fps 3D and 48fps 3D. 48fps was really hard to get used to and made it feel quite cheap and corny. I still loved it but my main problem is the switch to using so much CGI for shit they didn't use it with during LOTR. I'll probably see it a third time, whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
000000 Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I saw it in 48fps and really enjoyed it. As a film kid I was really skeptical (and I hate 3D), but I wanted to see it that way cause I figured he had shot it like that for a reason. It did take some getting used to, and I'm not sure it really added or detracted anything from a 24fps version. It did help the 3D look a lot less choppy, especially in some of the faster shots and action scenes. The CGI was my biggest problem with the 48fps version because a lot of the time it looked extremely fake. Even small things like fires in a fireplace just looked obnoxiously cheesy (and thats probably the only way I would've found out it wasn't actually a real fire). I really can't see 48fps becoming the new standard in the next 10-20 years, but if the technology picks up and the effects get better, it might be what saves the 3D trend from dying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cymbalism15 Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I saw it in 48fps and really enjoyed it. As a film kid I was really skeptical (and I hate 3D), but I wanted to see it that way cause I figured he had shot it like that for a reason. It did take some getting used to, and I'm not sure it really added or detracted anything from a 24fps version. It did help the 3D look a lot less choppy, especially in some of the faster shots and action scenes. The CGI was my biggest problem with the 48fps version because a lot of the time it looked extremely fake. Even small things like fires in a fireplace just looked obnoxiously cheesy (and thats probably the only way I would've found out it wasn't actually a real fire). I really can't see 48fps becoming the new standard in the next 10-20 years, but if the technology picks up and the effects get better, it might be what saves the 3D trend from dying. That's the biggest gripe I've heard about the 48fps, and The Hobbit in general, that it looks cartoony compared to the LOTR movies where they used a lot of makeup and props instead of CGI Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShakeyHands Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I saw it in 48fps and really enjoyed it. As a film kid I was really skeptical (and I hate 3D), but I wanted to see it that way cause I figured he had shot it like that for a reason. It did take some getting used to, and I'm not sure it really added or detracted anything from a 24fps version. It did help the 3D look a lot less choppy, especially in some of the faster shots and action scenes. The CGI was my biggest problem with the 48fps version because a lot of the time it looked extremely fake. Even small things like fires in a fireplace just looked obnoxiously cheesy (and thats probably the only way I would've found out it wasn't actually a real fire). I really can't see 48fps becoming the new standard in the next 10-20 years, but if the technology picks up and the effects get better, it might be what saves the 3D trend from dying. I agree about the CGI looking fake. One thing that bothered me about the film was the lighting. I feel like the lighting was too bright and wasn't very realistic, especially in scenes where a light source (or sources) was/were in frame. To my understanding the lighting was done that way to counteract certain effects of both HFR (48fps) and 3d, as 3d films tend to look dim. I didn't like it very much though. Overall i wasn't bothered by the faster framerate, but didn't love it. It helped a lot in the panoramic landscape shots though, those were beautiful. I greatly anticipate seeing more films at 48fps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Posted December 31, 2012 Author Share Posted December 31, 2012 The Hobbit is not as dark as LOTR, so I mean, there is a reason why its not as "serious" as LOTR was... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harryq Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 I (finally) saw this in 48fps 3D, and I thought it looked really good. minor things like flames and that brown wizard's robe when he was in CGI looked cheesy/fake, but important things like people and landscapes looked pretty incredible. I'm curious to see if some of those effects will improve next time around Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.