Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[DaveMoral]

Yeah, they had a hard time finding a suitable point to end the two towers film, moving several elements back and forth between in and Return of the King.

The problem is they had that difficulty when they knew it was going to a middle film. Now they had to find two ending points that weren't going to exist previously.

They ended Fellowship of the Ring with something that happens at the beginning of The Two Towers in the books... the Orc attack on the Emyn Muil and Boromir's death.

 

[Marvolo]

They ended Fellowship of the Ring with something that happens at the beginning of The Two Towers in the books... the Orc attack on the Emyn Muil and Boromir's death.

Yep and its because the FOTR book doesnt have any kind of real ending. The TTT book had better ending points, frodo captured, and Gandalf and Pippin riding for Gondor. Too bad Jackson couldnt keep those endings in TTT film.

Personally I think TTT was a bit of a botched job in this area. Yes, I know the cirith ungol moments take place during the siege of gondor but fluffing up faramir's plot in TTT and pushing all that stuff back to ROTK dragged TTT thin and weighed ROTK down imo.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Still doesn't mean a few don't have ADD. It doesn't matter what profession your in they could have ADD as much as a young person and so on.

The poster I quoted said "all" not "few".

 

[moviedoors]

Nope it doesnt but it is hypocritical to let it slide with LOTR trilogy and jump on this film for it.

Give me a break dude. Sometimes it really is a simple as "that one worked for me; that one didn't."

 

[Marvolo]

The poster I quoted said "all" not "few".

Try not to be so literal. It was an exasperated comment about a general consensus among reviewers. I doubt he literally believes everyone and all reviewers have ADD. Least that isnt what I took from his post.

 

[Marvolo]

Give me a break dude. Sometimes it really is a simple as "that one worked for me; that one didn't."

Ive stated just as much countless times in this thread, but when commenting on pace of a LOTR film one should make it clear what works and what doesnt work. These films have pace problems galore. A general statement about pace is lazy reviewing from a professional. I want to know is it pacing like frodo/sam one has a problem with or whether it is a pacing problem of battle fatigue. You know, actually review the film not just say "oh it has pacing problems " That could mean any number of things in a LOTR film. Just to be clear Im speaking of professional critics whom I expect more from.

 

[redhawk23]

I definitely get the sense that its a matter of battle fatigue.

 

[Marvolo]

I definitely get the sense that its a matter of battle fatigue.

Hmm that could be good and bad. The action junkies may find that it makes up for the slower start which could get the film more general audience appeal. It could also be bad because, well, battles over and over blur into a cacophony of noise. I know I get battle fatigue from ROTK which is one reason why I watch the EE despite not caring for many of the additions. It has more down time and character moments for me to take a breath.

 

[Marvolo]

New Gandalf/Bilbo clip in full HD.

trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/

Youtube link

[Yt]ZipIm3ZPmrk[/MEDIA]

 

[jf300]

I saw it last night and absolutely loved it!

It is by no means flaw free (I have no problem with films being long, but don't like it when they feel too long) but it was a massive adventure. Like the previous films, the real star is New Zealand to be honest. They're the shots that stuck with me the most.

Riddles in the Dark was the best scene in the film.

 

[redhawk23]

http://www.slashfilm.com/high-frame...re-of-middle-earth-is-crystal-clear-at-48fps/ A very interesting in depth description of what the High Frame Rate experience was like and how it changed Jackson's stylistic choices and the particular aspects that many people may be finding off putting. Well written article.

 

[Boom]

Just got back. Too tired to post a full review tonight, but let's just say that I was thoroughly disappointed.

 

[Marvolo]

http://www.slashfilm.com/high-frame...re-of-middle-earth-is-crystal-clear-at-48fps/ A very interesting in depth description of what the High Frame Rate experience was like and how it changed Jackson's stylistic choices and the particular aspects that many people may be finding off putting. Well written article.

In those scenes, Jackson’s trademark visceral camera have been set aside in favor of a different approach to cinematography and blocking. Actors are arranged in theatrical fashion, and the movement comes from within the frame, more than from the camera operator. That choice might be a facilitation of 3D, which favors such mise-en-scene. But those elements of lighting and camera movement aren’t Jackson’s typical style, and they don’t look like Lord of the Rings.

I noticed this in the Riddles in the Dark clip but had no idea what I was seeing I just could see that something was different from Jackson's usual style. Thanks for posting the article. Informative read.

 

[marty mcfly]

Just got back. That was... an experience. Saw it in 3D, HFR and while I eventually got used to 48fps, I never stopped noticing it and never enjoyed it. I'm not a fan of 3D in general, but I wanted to watch this the way Peter Jackson had intended. I will probably not be doing that again. No offense, PJ. The HFR made everything look pretty cheap. Scenes that I would imagine had gorgeous cinematography looked like a low-budget soap opera. It's a broken record, you've heard it all before... And it's all true.

The film itself, however, just lacked something... Can't put my finger on it. Don't get me wrong, Martin Freeman was outstanding as Bilbo. He deserves an award for the depth he brought to that character. Great performance.

But the original trilogy had a sense of doom and mortal peril from the first frame. This one felt very silly and often goofy. I never felt like the characters were ever in danger. And, because of the high frame rate, all of the antagonists looked like video game characters, so that also took away from the sense of reality.

I didn't love this movie like I did the original trilogy, but I'm on board for the next two films. I loved how this one fit nicely within the already-established family of films. And, despite its flaws, it is another adventure to Middle Earth, so I'm happy to tag along for the ride.

 

[craigdbfan]

Despite all the critiques about this movie and HFR I think I'm still going to watch this in HFR 3D this Saturday.

Lets hope curiosity doesn't kill the cat.

 

[Marvolo]

Just got back. That was... an experience. Saw it in 3D, HFR and while I eventually got used to 48fps, I never stopped noticing it and never enjoyed it. I'm not a fan of 3D in general, but I wanted to watch this the way Peter Jackson had intended. I will probably not be doing that again. No offense, PJ. The HFR made everything look pretty cheap. Scenes that I would imagine had gorgeous cinematography looked like a low-budget soap opera. It's a broken record, you've heard it all before... And it's all true.

The film itself, however, just lacked something... Can't put my finger on it. Don't get me wrong, Martin Freeman was outstanding as Bilbo. He deserves an award for the depth he brought to that character. Great performance.

But the original trilogy had a sense of doom and mortal peril from the first frame. This one felt very silly and often goofy. I never felt like the characters were ever in danger. And, because of the high frame rate, all of the antagonists looked like video game characters, so that also took away from the sense of reality.

I didn't love this movie like I did the original trilogy, but I'm on board for the next two films. I loved how this one fit nicely within the already-established family of films. And, despite its flaws, it is another adventure to Middle Earth, so I'm happy to tag along for the ride.

The book is silly and goofy so fans of the book who were worried it would be doom and gloom should be pleased.

Here is Spill.com's audio review for anyone interested. May be spoilers.

http://my.spill.com/profiles/blogs/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-audio-review

 

[redhawk23]

Despite all the critiques about this movie and HFR I think I'm still going to watch this in HFR 3D this Saturday.

Lets hope curiosity doesn't kill the cat.

What's interesting is that Slashfilm article I posted and how it points out what most people are reacting to, in addition to the frame rate being weird, is just the change in lighting and blocking and camera movement, at times in fact truly being like like a soap opera (and the HFR just exacerbating that) Those things won't go away with the lower frame rate.

It seems to me that certain things are just off stylistically and the HFR is just the easiest thing to point to.

I'm going to give it a shot though, just because it will be different.

That and the best screen in the area is playing it in that format.

 

[Boom]

Before I go to bed, I just want to say one thing:

Spoiler

Thranduil was genuinely creepy.

 

[jmc]

Yep and its because the FOTR book doesnt have any kind of real ending. The TTT book had better ending points, frodo captured, and Gandalf and Pippin riding for Gondor. Too bad Jackson couldnt keep those endings in TTT film.

Personally I think TTT was a bit of a botched job in this area. Yes, I know the cirith ungol moments take place during the siege of gondor but fluffing up faramir's plot in TTT and pushing all that stuff back to ROTK dragged TTT thin and weighed ROTK down imo.

FOTR was always going to be the easier of the first two films to finish up given it's linear narrative. I agree TTT book had a far more climatic ending but I actually think the ending of the TTT film was about as good as you could have done it given the way TTT and ROTK books are written. There was just no way the Shelob stuff was ever going to occur in TTT film despite it being a great cliffhanger. I'd actually be curious to see a re-edit of films two and three to follow the same structure as books two and three, just to see what it would look like.

 

[craigdbfan]

What's interesting is that Slashfilm article I posted and how it points out what most people are reacting to, in addition to the frame rate being weird, is just the change in lighting and blocking and camera movement, at times in fact truly being like like a soap opera (and the HFR just exacerbating that) Those things won't go away with the lower frame rate.

It seems to me that certain things are just off stylistically and the HFR is just the easiest thing to point to.

I'm going to give it a shot though, just because it will be different.

That and the best screen in the area is playing it in that format.

I'm just wondering if this new found clarity from the HFR is making certain sets and props look too fake if you know what I mean.

Now that would kind of suck and I can see how 24 FPS would be able to conceal it better. Someone in the /film comment section put it nicely:

"48 fps is present tense - like the news and soap operas (which are approximately 60 fps), it appears to the eye that it is happening NOW.

24 fps is past tense. It is a story being told to you. Something recollected, like a memory or a dream. And for me, with fiction, preferable to the immediacy of an experience."

Another good comment:

Without seeing 48fps yet, I have the feeling that it exposes (overexposes?) the craftsmanship of prop and set production methods that have been used for over 100 years. A fake rubber stunt hammer may work in 24fps, but look obviously rubber in 48fps. Perhaps only real objects will look "real" with this type of recording and playback. This has me thinking that high frame rate could be a huge artistic leap for documentaries.

 

[jmc]

^ The 'fake set' issue is something I've read a lot about. That's why I don't like the idea of a frame rate that takes you out of the movie.

 

[jacobed]

It makes everything look incredibly fake.

 

[Marvolo]

I'm just wondering if this new found clarity from the HFR is making certain sets and props look too fake if you know what I mean.

Now that would kind of suck and I can see how 24 FPS would be able to conceal it better. Someone in the /film comment section put it nicely:

"48 fps is present tense - like the news and soap operas (which are approximately 60 fps), it appears to the eye that it is happening NOW.

24 fps is past tense. It is a story being told to you. Something recollected, like a memory or a dream. And for me, with fiction, preferable to the immediacy of an experience."

I've been trying to put my reason for aversion towards 48fps into waord, but couldn't find the words. Well, that right there summed up why I am apprehensive about 48fps.

 

[Marvolo]

To those who have seen it, how was Azog?

 

[redhawk23]

According to io9 they actually did some digital de aging on Elijah Wood. Was that really necessary? I saw set photos and such and it didn't look like he had aged a day!