Total Film: The Modern Guide to The Movies

abyjohnmathew · #1 15-12-2012, 12:16 PM

I am pretty sure that I am not the only one here who complaints about the film's unreasonable duration of 170 minutes. Tolkien's Hobbit was relatively sweet & short, an to adapt it for a 3 part franchise was way too risky and confusing. Seems like Hobbit became the sacrificial lamb for Peter Jackson's frustration to unexplore the entire middle earth of LOTR. Jackson already proved his talent in making decent amalgams of live action & CGI and Hobbit is no different. Well treated with technology, Hobbit would have been a minor classic if Jackson had kept an eye on the watch during the editing process.

We don't have 48fps theaters in our country. If anyone watched in 48fps, kindly say how the effects & 3D are in the latest technology. I am coming across divisive opinions so far !!

dojj singh · #2 16-12-2012, 11:10 AM

Gandalf was on the telly this morning saying that how he has seen it twice and was impressed by how good the picture was without the picture quality taking away from the actual film.

Along the way saying that the human eye "see's" in 60 fps and the next Avatar will push that envelope.

I am certainly going to watch it in 3D but if the cinema isn't 48 capable then why will it cost so much more?

TheGuyver · #3 16-12-2012, 11:01 PM

Watched The Hobbit this afternoon. Really enjoyed it. Only watched in 2D. The cinema was showing 48fps.

jaykays hat · #4 17-12-2012, 09:21 AM

I'm not a fan of 3D but this must be seen in 3D to see the full effect of the superb visuals. This was a welcome return to Middle Earth, a return that I enjoyed immensely. Although the film is 3 hours it didn't seem to drag. Freeman is very good as Bilbo and Sir Ian is on top form again.

Firedragon76 · #5 17-12-2012, 10:36 AM

I thought it was too long and the non-book scene to please the fans of the trilogy was unnecessary.

I watched the 48fps version. Didn't get sick, but there was a scene at the beginning where I could only see different shades of gold and the first shots of The Shire were a bit dizzying. Apparently my eyes adjusted after a few minutes though because I only had the blurry experience once again, right after the break.

I thought the colours and resolution were crazy in a good way, but the 3D actually looked like it did in the 80s. The scenery shots looked as if someone had pushed different set pieces in front of one another, not natural at all. I know someone who watched it in 3D 48fps and then in 3D 24fps the next day and she said the 24fps-version looked a lot more natural.

The movie itself was underwhelming to me, to be honest. It was a nice movie to have watched once, but I don't have any desire to watch it again.

fortunesfool · #6 18-12-2012, 12:11 AM

Pointless, over-long and a headache inducing CGI blancmange.

Some fun to be had along the way but it's a movie about a bunch of dwarves traipsing for miles to reclaim their home from a dragon, while some people tag along.

That story DOES NOT require three, three hour movies.

LOTR's at least had a story, a heroic journey, a sense of good fighting against overwhelming evil. This is a road trip.

It's not all bad. The scenes with gollum are great, some fun to be had with the dwarves, and Sylvester McCoy is fun as Radaghast the Brown, but Jackson has lost his mind to CG. The set pieces are all, silly, retard physics, over-edited cartoons. The films big finale with the Goblin King etc is just relentless. It's never a good sign when you're repeating in your head 'Please be over soon, Please be over soon'.

Firedragon76 · #7 18-12-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fortunesfool

That story DOES NOT require three, three hour movies.

My sister has never seen the trilogy, but she re-read The Hobbit recently and she just looked at me after the credits and asked 'How in the hell are they going to draw out the story so there are two more of these?'. I've never read the book but her reaction and yours are making me scared of what's to come. I'll definitely watch the next ones in the 24fps version though, that much is clear.

Zippykins1 · #8 20-12-2012, 07:38 PM

confronted with so many options - 2D, 3D, 48fps 3D and Imax - I decided to go with the 48fps 3D to see what it was like. I immediately remembered that I'm not a big fan of 3d and having to balance a pair of the glasses over my normal specs but nevermind.

At first the 48fps is just weird - remember the first time you watched something in HD on telly - it just felt a bit too real? So like that, you do eventually get used to it - at some points eg racing through the trees it doesn't work all that well. So if I go again, which I probably won't, I'll see what it looks like in 2d.

To the film itself, I was never a big lord of the rings fan but liked the event nature of them coming out every Xmas, and I guess this has a similar feel, but by the time they get to the third one I think they will have strung it out too far.

I thought the start and end were the best bits, dragged a bit in the middle. Martin Freeman was really great and i still fancy the pants off Richard Armitage even dressed up as a dwarf.