| MadTheSwine73 05.01.2013 14:10 |
Saw it yesterday. I thought it was great! I haven't read the books, but apparently it's not the same. Thoughts? |
| pittrek 05.01.2013 14:22 |
I loved the movie, hated the framerate |
| waunakonor 05.01.2013 17:45 |
Wait, a movie that's not the same as the book it's based on? Well, I never! |
| MadTheSwine73 05.01.2013 22:59 |
waunakonor wrote: Wait, a movie that's not the same as the book it's based on? Well, I never!Haha, very funny. I read all the Harry Potter books and saw all the films, and although a lot of material was removed, no significant material was added. However, I was reading that The Hobbit actually has several things added to it. Apparently Saruman and Radagast were not in the book, but they are both in the film, playing pretty significant roles. |
| tero! 48531 06.01.2013 02:58 |
I haven't read the book (or watched the movie), but you'd expect a LOT of material to be added to a 300 page book to make it into 3 x 3 hours of movies, especially considering that Lord of the Rings was about 300 pages per movie. I suppose the best way to do this would be to add the material from Tolkien's other Middle Earth books? |
| tomchristie22 06.01.2013 05:56 |
pittrek wrote: I loved the movie, hated the framerateI'm the same, I didn't mind the movie (didn't think it was great or anything), but the 48fps gave me motion sickness. |
| catqueen 06.01.2013 07:13 |
I went and one of my friends had to leave cos he felt so sick (it was 3d, and kinda hard to watch bits of it, although it was brilliant). I enjoyed it, but it's too long -- LOTR needed to be that long, but this was just drawn out and not like i expected. I loved the book, and i enjoyed the movie, but it's a long time since i read the book. If i had just reread the book, i think i would have been a bit irritated at some of the movie, cos it isn't the same. |
| brENsKi 06.01.2013 10:22 |
i've managed to get to middle-age without the hobbit, lord of the rings and the f**king harry pot-head series, think i'll managed somehow. easy as it is to avoide the books and films when at cinema, once they port to TV it's difficult to avoid |
| Hangman_96 06.01.2013 13:25 |
I saw it a few days ago. Nice movie, I liked it. It even seemed to me better than The Lord of the Rings. |
| Holly2003 06.01.2013 15:00 |
Oi! We already have a movie thread, completely dominated by GratefulFan and me, so this would've been a welcome addition to that! Never mind, we shall continue our Siskel & Ebert / Statler & Waldorf routine without you :p So, The Hobbit. I watched the 3D version and at first I found it very hard to concentrate on the story. The picture quality was like one of those cheapo history channel documentaries about ancient Rome or Greece. I suppose that's due to the 48fps style? Can't figure out how they spend so much money and yet made it look so cheap. Perhaps it was just too realistic: such high definition picture quality makes you feel like you're really there -- not in Hobbitland but actually on the set watching it being filmed. And of course that means the magic is lost. But it did get better, a bit. The scene with Bilbio and the Gollum worked really well, with the Gollum being a bit more frightening than in the LotR trilogy. The battle scenes were okay but again a little too much like standing behind someone to watch them play on a Playstation. Overall I was a bit disappointed, but I suppose some of the novelty has worn off a bit. |
| Saint Jiub 06.01.2013 15:53 |
Holly2003 wrote: Oi! We already have a movie thread, completely dominated by GratefulFan and me, so this would've been a welcome addition to that! Never mind, we shall continue our Siskel & Ebert / Statler & Waldorf routine without you :p So, The Hobbit. I watched the 3D version and at first I found it very hard to concentrate on the story. The picture quality was like one of those cheapo history channel documentaries about ancient Rome or Greece. I suppose that's due to the 48fps style? Can't figure out how they spend so much money and yet made it look so cheap. Perhaps it was just too realistic: such high definition picture quality makes you feel like you're really there -- not in Hobbitland but actually on the set watching it being filmed. And of course that means the magic is lost. But it did get better, a bit. The scene with Bilbio and the Golem worked really well, with the Golem being a bit more frightening than in the LotR trilogy. The battle scenes were okay but again a little too much like standing behind someone and watching the play on a Playstation. Overall I was a bit disappointed, but I suppose some of the novelty has worn off a bit. That golem was a brute and hard as stone. In fact he was stone. Oh, you meant Gollum |
| Holly2003 06.01.2013 16:28 |
No idea what you mean (whistles nonchalantly) ... |
| Saint Jiub 06.01.2013 19:48 |
Alrighty Then |
| tomchristie22 07.01.2013 03:12 |
Holly2003 wrote: I suppose that's due to the 48fps style? Can't figure out how they spend so much money and yet made it look so cheap. Perhaps it was just too realistic: such high definition picture quality makes you feel like you're really there -- not in Hobbitland but actually on the set watching it being filmed. And of course that means the magic is lost.I think that's pretty much it - the 'hyper-realism' of the image makes it paradoxically look cheap and fake for aforementioned reasons. I'm sure people would adapt to it with time though, even if it means set, make-up etc. quality having to improve too. |
| YourValentine 08.01.2013 08:57 |
I loved The Hobbit and LOTR as a child but I did not like LOTG trilogy much and neither did I like The Hobbit much. It's probably not so bad as action-fantasy-film but it totally lacks the charm of the Tolkien books that was so absorbing that it made me miss classes as a child. It is always a risk to watch the film version of a beloved novel but while in LOTR I only had smaller issues with picking action scenes (the whole second movie) over very interesting characters who where totally left out, I think The Hobbit is all about squeezing as much money as possible out of a successful film series. You can make more out of a character like Bilbo if you have nine hours instead of re-introducing charcters from LOTG just for the heck of it. And the dwarves did not even look small as if it was too much effort to make them look "dwarf-sized" I watched the film in normal frame rate and 2D, so I did not get sick - how strange is that. |
| brENsKi 08.01.2013 09:46 |
can't be many instances of children playing truant in order to read something - is this ^^^ a world first :-) |
| john bodega 08.01.2013 11:02 |
I reckon people might get used to faster frame rates in time. I know that when I got my most recent television, I was very distracted by how 'fast' everything seemed because of the refresh rate. All of the movies I own on DVD seemed to look like cheap shit. I got used to it in the end. No idea what the Hobbit looks like, I can't be fucked going to see it. |
| mooghead 08.01.2013 11:50 |
|
| matt z 22.01.2013 05:10 |
Never read the books as a child. More crime novels and school issued stuff. The film was exciting. Didn't like the songs added to pad it for children (probably a studio decision from the suits) I DID however love Anthony Kiedis as a dwarf role . Peter Jackson has come a long way. Too bad he didn't revive some tunes from MEET THE FEEBLES |