The Hobbit
- Started
- Last post
- 84 Responses
- robotinc0
It was lots of fun. 48 fps was awesome. In your face motion blur!
- cannonball19780
Not as many "themes" as LOTR. This one seemed more about the thrill of adventure and that's it.
- inteliboy0
I enjoyed it. But it wasn't a good film. Completely missed the point of what makes The Hobbit what it is.
- detritus0
they've filmed it all, right?
if so - fuck 'em for staggering releases out over years.
shitheads.
- pango0
gonna watch it tonight. what kind of drugs should i be on?
- Miguex0
Watched it last night.
In my opinion, that 'soap opera' look is due to lighting and color grading, not fps.It is more noticeable on the 'daylight' scenes, but everything else is ok. Give the man credit for trying something different!
People usually hate on these things only because they are different, we've all seen it over the years. The good thing is that (as every designer knows) it's easier to downgrade / scale down in quality than it is to do the opposite, so it's not even a big deal. Go watch it at an old theater or wait till it comes on vhs.
- i dont get what's the problem? it just looks more lively? more joyful?k_temp
- jtb260
@Cygnus - I've seen it twice now and I agree, with the lack of substance. The first 30 minutes seemed really thin.
That said I thought it was a boat load of fun once it got moving. Though I could have done with less time running through the cave toward the end. No idea how they do 3 films. I guess they'll spend a lot of time on the necromancer.
3D looks way better @48fps. Didn't care for 3d in the imax, overall it felt unnecessary and distracting.
- qoob0
" What the 48 frame-per-second projection actually means is flat lighting, a plastic-y look, and, worst of all, a strange sped-up effect that makes perfectly normal actions—say, Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins placing a napkin on his lap—look like meth-head hallucinations. Jackson seems enamored of 48 fps, but I can't imagine why. To me, it turned the film into a 166-minute long projectionist's error. I wanted to ask the projectionist to double-check the equipment, but really, I should just ask Jackson why he wanted his $270 million blockbuster to look like a TV movie."
Ouch!
- prophetone0
it was great. entertaining. amazing cintog and fight scenes. prob plenty to complain about but honestly i'm concerned about getting my $10 worth and it delivers the goods. good as lotr? nope, but hey it's either this or guilt trip...
- trooperbill0
orcs look well different. maybe the influence of sauron makes them more gross.
cant help but think the film ends in the same way the first lotr film does... running out of a cave
- pango0
don't know what's the fuzz... looked fine to me.
- Miguex0
I thought 3D looked cool but my eyes were hurting by the middle of the movie. I think hollywood is pushing the 3D experience on a last attempt to try to lure people into theaters. I personally don't enjoy it as much as I did back in highschool, where I would go see any movie they played. Now with people texting next to you, or eating tortilla chips in the middle of the movie, or just talking loudly w friends... kinda gets annoying.
I much rather watch a movie at home nowadays. 3D is cool to see once or twice but I don't think it's necessary. (I thought In Coraline was amazing though.)
- I agree, Coraline was one of the few movies that really took advantage of 3Dukit2
- youngdesigner0
Live interview with Peter Jackson
- monospaced0
but, but... real life is like 480fps
- PonyBoy0
*enjoyed it
- cruddlebub0
Am going today with the lady... Hope it's a goodun
- you'll enjoy it. 3 hours went by in a flash for me.pango