or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 26

post #751 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

I'm puzzled at the many comments I've read not only in this thread, but around the internet and even in critics reviews, of the 48HFR making the image look "too fast" and "sped up."
What's up with that? I can't think of any technical reason why that would be the case, or even appear to be the case. Are people being somehow influenced by knowing "it's a higher frame rate" and somehow that get's them to interpret some of the image as "sped up" (as if a higher frame rate equates to images being faster).
Anyone?
(Gonna try to see it this week...only for the 3D and HFR to see it with my own eyes. I couldn't be less interested in it's subject matter unfortunately).
I am also very curios about this reported "speed up". Shouldn't be a possible effect suddenly in the film as people report it happens only in certain scenes.
I doubt Peter Jackson has experimented with some slower framerates here and there. Could it be that there was some technical glib with the framerate, like the two cameras out of sync and they discovered it too late to re-shoot the scenes and tried to recover in post? Or is there some fault in the release transfer that was too late to fix to reach the opening nights around the world?

Hope someone in the media starts to ask about this.
post #752 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

I am also very curios about this reported "speed up". Shouldn't be a possible effect suddenly in the film as people report it happens only in certain scenes.
I doubt Peter Jackson has experimented with some slower framerates here and there. Could it be that there was some technical glib with the framerate, like the two cameras out of sync and they discovered it too late to re-shoot the scenes and tried to recover in post? Or is there some fault in the release transfer that was too late to fix to reach the opening nights around the world?
Hope someone in the media starts to ask about this.

Again, I saw the film not knowing it was the HFR offering. So I had no preconceived notions of what I was watching. Neither I, or my friend who went with me, noticed any of the things people in this thread are complaining about. We both thought the presentation and 3D effect were outstanding. People on this forum often talk about the placebo effect. Frankly, I believe that's a large part of what's going here as far as opinions about this movie when shown in 48fps.
post #753 of 944
Just returned from an IMAX 3D, HFR showing. I avoided reading some of these early impressions so that I would not be overly distracted with looking for the various issues people would surely point out. As someone who has always noticed and been bothered by the motion blur in 24fps film, I was looking forward to HFR. All I can say is bring on 60fps. I was taken aback a bit initially by the look, since it is so different than 24fps, but soon got over it. A couple observations:

1. There have been some questions about whether the version being shown in 3D HFR in digital IMAX theaters is 4K. Based on the lack of detail in a number of long shots, my feeling is that if they are 4K, it's up-converted.
2. Still saw some blur on pans, but not sure if that was shutter speed or artistic intent, or we just need 60fps wink.gif
3. Oh...almost forgot to mention...there was some stuff that was jaw-dropping...
4. And another thing...all the previews were non-HFR 3D (including a spectacular Star Trek preview which excerpted several minutes from the movie) so it was easy to see that the HFR enhanced the clarity of 3D in scenes with motion.

P.S. Didn't notice any "speed up." When I see "speed up" in a film it's usually CGI which I usually chalk up to poor motion capture or simulation, i.e. just not rendering the proper tempo of movement when you do it in a computer.
Edited by Jim S - 12/16/12 at 8:50pm
post #754 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Those I have talked to who have seen it claim the 48HFR has a very similar look to applying CMD or FI on your home display. On my RS45 if I enable CMD 3 or 4, things do look a bit fast and sped up so those comments make sense to me if it looks similar to enabling CMD. When you apply CMD on your RS55 either mode 3 or 4 to film based content, how would you describe the effect?

That's really weird. I have the RS55 and when I employ CMD3 nothing looks sped up, and not once in the countless times I've watched content on store displays with frame interpolation has anything look sped up. So..for me the mystery continues.
post #755 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by R Harkness View Post

That's really weird. I have the RS55 and when I employ CMD3 nothing looks sped up, and not once in the countless times I've watched content on store displays with frame interpolation has anything look sped up. So..for me the mystery continues.

That is interesting. Apparently you just perceive the effect differently vs the way a lot of us see it. I know exactly what they mean when they say sped up as it looks like that to me with CMD setting 3 on my RS40 and RS45 and the store displays I have seen. I cant stand what this does for live action film based content, but I do like it for some things like animation and I am looking forward to using it for 3d with my new BenQ 7000 for animated titles. smile.gif

Sounds like you will be just fine seeing The Hobbit this way though which is good news for you!
post #756 of 944
Thread Starter 
I saw it at the Natick Jordan's IMAX 3D (5-story screen) so I guess that would be 24fps.

The movie was OK. It did seem to drag a bit (especially the scenes with Radagast), and I have no idea how they're going to fill close to 6 more hours of material.
post #757 of 944
48fps and 3D was silky-smooth. The movie looked a lot more "real" and considering most of the characters were fantasy, this made for quite a visual treat. Not sure how anyone could complain about the 48fps, but since it is a bit different it does not surprise me to hear complaints. If you have a chance to watch it in the high frame rate and 3D, I would certainly recommend it over the other versions.
post #758 of 944
Saw it in 24fps regular 2d digital. Movie was good. It felt too much like FOTR. Can someone answer this for me
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
What bugs me is Gandalf and his darn eagles. If he has access to those things why not just fly them to the destination? I feel like the eagles are a cop out and shouldnt be used at all in the movies.

If they are going to be used at least explain why they dont use them to get where they need to be rather than flying them as get away vehicles only to be dropped off at a location to continue to fight towards the destination.

Also the riddle section with Golem was just drawn out wayy too much. You could tell this was a time filler.
post #759 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidML3 View Post

Saw it in 24fps regular 2d digital. Movie was good. It felt too much like FOTR. Can someone answer this for me Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
What bugs me is Gandalf and his darn eagles. If he has access to those things why not just fly them to the destination? I feel like the eagles are a cop out and shouldnt be used at all in the movies.
If they are going to be used at least explain why they dont use them to get where they need to be rather than flying them as get away vehicles only to be dropped off at a location to continue to fight towards the destination.
Also the riddle section with Golem was just drawn out wayy too much. You could tell this was a time filler.

LOL....I certainly had the same question but ultimately just chose to come up with my own reasoning associated with them being "territorial". There were a few moments in the movie that I had a "why don't they just...?" moment. Perhaps it was in the book and as I told my friends walking out of the theater, I probably should have read the book again as a refresher. It's been a lonnnnng time. And my thing with the "riddle" scene was that it was very difficult for me to understand his dialogue.

As far as my two cents are concerned with the movie itself. I thought it was great. Not the best ever kind of thing but still great. I really liked the HFR and tip my cap to Peter Jackson for taking the risk. It wasn't perfect and it's not for every movie (at least not yet), but I personally feel this was the right movie to do it with and the right time. Some have noted that it has a PBS documentary look to it, which I would agree with but on a much higher scale. Having said that, it was much more of an enhancement rather than a distraction. While realizing the smoother look, I never focused on it except for the few scenes when I got pulled out because you could tell it was a set or model design. I found this to be the case most drastically on the sweeping outdoor camera pans, which also for those reportedly getting sick is likely why. If roller coasters make you squimish then these few scenes are probably gonna have a similar effect.

When Radagast was being pulled through the forest, anybody else start thinking about Star Wars: Return of the Jedi speeder bikes in HFR? biggrin.gif

At any rate, I recommend viewing this film in HFR. It was a fun, new experience. Like I said, it worked far more than it didn't. Frankly, I wasn't super enthused to see the Hobbit but the HFR I was highly curious about and made it worth the price of admission. But as many have stated, three movies.....wow....just not seeing it.

Updated....There was no Star Trek trailer for me. Man of Steel was awesome though!
post #760 of 944
The Gollum scene was pretty accurate to the book, not simply a "time filler".
post #761 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

At any rate, I recommend viewing this film in HFR. It was a fun, new experience. Like I said, it worked far more than it didn't.

Well said...I agree. I had the same issue with understanding the dialogue in the riddle scene. I believe there was a banner before the extended Star Trek trailer that said it was an IMAX exclusive.
post #762 of 944
So I saw it today at the AMC Theaters on 34th st, NYC... LIEmax and HFR.

First of all, pixels were blatantly obvious in all scenes and particularly with long shots. I was dead center of the theater and found it to be terribly distracting. Not a chance in hell is that screen 4k. What a disgrace that such images can be called IMAX.

Second... I will never again go to an HFR presentation. It was like watching a video game. I felt like I was living a fantasy version of DOOM or DUKE NUKEM. The only time HFR worked was when there was a sweeping helicopter like pan that would have turned to much in normal 24fps. And yes, I noticed that weird sped up movement in the oddest of places while the story was set in the Shire. After a while I sort of tuned it out.

As for the film... rolleyes.gif I went in thinking it might be fun (based upon word of mouth from people I know) but sadly, I found it to be a bloated bore. There was no sense of danger and certainly no suspense. Yeah, it OK. But for the love of Christmas, OK is not damned near good enough! By the way, how many times were the characters thrown around on rocks and cliffs without even the slightest bit of injury?

The book is favorite, but it could be told in one 2.5 hour film. Not three of them!

Jackson had best pick up the pace in the next two films and that means CUT THE FAT! This one could have lost 30 minutes and no one would have missed it.
post #763 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

So I saw it today at the AMC Theaters on 34th st, NYC... LIEmax and HFR.
First of all, pixels were blatantly obvious in all scenes and particularly with long shots. I was dead center of the theater and found it to be terribly distracting. Not a chance in hell is that screen 4k. What a disgrace that such images can be called IMAX.
Second... I will never again go to an HFR presentation. It was like watching a video game. I felt like I was living a fantasy version of DOOM or DUKE NUKEM. The only time HFR worked was when there was a sweeping helicopter like pan that would have turned to much in normal 24fps. And yes, I noticed that weird sped up movement in the oddest of places while the story was set in the Shire. After a while I sort of tuned it out.
As for the film... rolleyes.gif I went in thinking it might be fun (based upon word of mouth from people I know) but sadly, I found it to be a bloated bore. There was no sense of danger and certainly no suspense. Yeah, it OK. But for the love of Christmas, OK is not damned near good enough! By the way, how many times were the characters thrown around on rocks and cliffs without even the slightest bit of injury?
The book is favorite, but it could be told in one 2.5 hour film. Not three of them!
Jackson had best pick up the pace in the next two films and that means CUT THE FAT! This one could have lost 30 minutes and no one would have missed it.

That would be Radagast the Fat
post #764 of 944
Seen this twice now; once in Imax3d, and again in 3D HFR... loved the film, being a Tolkien fan from way back. I loved all of the material, most of it from the book(s), and was glad there was time to bring more of Tolkien's work to the screen. It was something missing, IMHO, from the LOTR films (necessarily; to put everything on screen, it would have to have been more like a miniseries like Game of Thrones - something I can easily imagine HBO doing someday). The scenes with Gollum were fantastic, with nearly all of the riddles used verbatim. Both Martin Freeman and Andy Serkis were amazing. Freeman's Bilbo was a better realization of the character than Elijah Wood's Frodo, for me... the former being a more seasoned performer, speaking with his native dialect.

As far as the PQ was concerned, the HFR 3D (regular, not IMAX) was like nothing I've seen on film before, and I'm not sure I like it as well as the standard framerate to which we are accustomed. While the sense of "being there" was pretty incredible, there was a definite SOE going on, with many of the outdoor shots - especially the ones at night, or with low lighting -looking like they were filmed on a set, with the backgrounds not looking quite right. I did not notice anything as being "sped up"; that would make no sense. A higher framerate does not equal fast motion, but rather a clearer view of what is happening in-frame.

I have read a lot of complaints about the CGI not looking as realistic in HFR, but I did not find it phony-looking at all (with the exception of some of the backgrounds, as referred to earlier). In fact, Gollum was as near to real as any CGI character I have ever seen.

I have never liked the story of The Hobbit as much as LOTR, so these films are not going to rate as high on my list, or garner as much repeat viewing as Lord of the Rings, but I am very pleased that we will get three films with Gandalf the Grey, instead of the two-thirds of a film we got in the LOTR trilogy... I never knew either of my grandfathers, both of whom died before I was born, and Gandalf (the Grey) has become sort of a surrogate/wishful grand-dad figure to me.

I loved Howard Shore's soundtrack, and all of the callbacks to the LOTR themes; there might have been a little too much re-hashing of the music from the first films, but it did make the film and story that much more comfortable to me... I'm hoping for some new themes when we meet the wood elves, the lake men, and especially for Smaug; and I can't wait for Cumberbatch and Freeman to go at it as Smaug and Bilbo confront each other, given their fantastic chemistry in Sherlock.

May December 2013 come quickly...

(BTW, I saw the first nine minutes of the Abrams' new Star Trek movie, and I and the rest of the crowd could have easily watched the whole thing... really excited about this in May 2013).
post #765 of 944
I saw it today...heh smile.gif...C-...C-... the action scenes (when they got around to that) brought the grade up. Dialogue heavy the first 90+ minutes, but this wasnt my biggest issue with this movie...
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I guess this is what happens when you've ALREADY got a trilogy bankrolled, 2 more movies are guaranteed...when the movie suddenly ends, you feel like they forgot to put in the final act!! There's two villains in the movie. BOTH are still standing, unscathed, when the credits roll...NOTHING is RESOLVED. There had to be an ENDING. To SOMETHING. Avengers is a planned trilogy too. Two villains as well. But ONE is beaten decisively, putting a resolution to the STORY. Doesnt mean that there wont be an Avengers 2, because Thanos wasn't resolved. But you left THAT movie feeling like there was and ending to SOMETHING.

All movies operate this way. King doesn't do that here...no ending to ANYTHING, even if its just a secondary villain. Both villains are still there, thank you for sitting there for almost three hours, so you next year for the sequel smile.gif. Wow...the secondary villain that obviously should have been pushing daisies at the end is still out there...he was battled...just battled...but how do you not kill him or at least DEFEAT him, then the main villain lives, thank you for the last 3hours, come see the sequel next year...how do mess that up smile.gif? Theres still a sequel whether that secondary villain lives or not.

It made you feel the movie was a total waste of three hours, and part two will actually be the ending to part 1 biggrin.gif! Or WILL it be?! They've shown here that they may do a sequel with nothing resolved biggrin.gif! The man was guaranteed 3 movies, so there was absolutely no motivation for any payoff for this first movie.

The big running battle with the army of trolls kept it from getting a D biggrin.gif!

Edited by AndreHD - 12/17/12 at 7:35pm
post #766 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreHD View Post

I saw it today...heh smile.gif...C-...C-... the action scenes (when they got around to that) brought the grade up. Dialogue heavy the first 90+ minutes, but this wasnt my biggest issue with this movie... Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I guess this is what happens when you've ALREADY got a trilogy bankrolled, 2 more movies are guaranteed...when the movie suddenly ends, you feel like they forgot to put in the final act!! There's two villains in the movie. BOTH are still standing, unscathed, when the credits roll...NOTHING is RESOLVED. There had to be an ENDING. To SOMETHING. Avengers is a planned trilogy too. Two villains as well. But ONE is beaten decisively, putting a resolution to the STORY. Doesnt mean that there wont be an Avengers 2, because Thanos wasn't resolved. But you left THAT movie feeling like there was and ending to SOMETHING.
All movies operate this way. King doesn't do that here...no ending to ANYTHING, even if its just a secondary villain. Both villains are still there, thank you for sitting there for almost three hours, so you next year for the sequel smile.gif. Wow...the secondary villain that obviously should have been pushing daisies at the end is still out there...he was battled...just battled...but how do you not kill him or at least DEFEAT him, then the main villain lives, thank you for the last 3hours, come see the sequel next year...how do mess that up smile.gif? Theres still a sequel whether that secondary villain lives or not.
It made you feel the movie was a total waste of three hours, and part two will actually be the ending to part 1 biggrin.gif! Or WILL it be?! They've shown here that they may do a sequel with nothing resolved biggrin.gif! The man was guaranteed 3 movies, so there was absolutely no motivation for any payoff for this first movie.
The big running battle with the army of trolls kept it from getting a D biggrin.gif!

You must have hated The Empire Strikes Back as well, then? wink.gif

I'm actually a big fan of movies that don't end with traditional 'closure' moments.
post #767 of 944
I'm going back through all my recent movies that had sequels intended, and how they STILL sent you home fullfilled...Prometheus has a trilogy in mind...the alien's deathship is shot down, its killed, cliff hanger, where's the chick going smile.gif? Underworld Awakening, the villains all killed, cliff hanger, where's the hybrid? Directors dont do this because this is what they were taught in school or anything-they're doing this to simutaneously sell you on the next movie and leave you satisfied with the one you JUST saw biggrin.gif!
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I forgot to also mention the rock giants battling each other! That and the battle to escape the troll army kept the movie from a D grade! The movie as a whole is only half done, and leaves you hanging at the end! The villain that they spent 3 friggin hours building up is STILL walking around Middle Earth somewhere as we speak biggrin.gif! The credits have rolled, and he doesn't have a scratch on him!

Edited by AndreHD - 12/18/12 at 12:21am
post #768 of 944
Just got back from seeing the the movie in HFR. Rejoined the forums to make a comment on this (lost UN/password). Gotta say I'm NOT impressed with the 48FPS. The soap opera effect was hugely distracting for me. Cringingly bad in spots. The movie would be rolling along okay (just okay, because the SO effect was always there in dialog shots) then the SO effect would suddenly be worse on a scene change. Looked like video shot with my Sony Handy-cam. My wife even commented on this, and she's no AV enthusiast by any stretch.

It wasn't all bad. The wide shots were very very nice. The motion, superb.

I don't think this a matter of having to "get used" to 48FPS. Some of the sets looked very fake and it looked as if they hired second rate make up artists for the film. For me it took away from the acting itself. Fake looks, well... fake, period. It's not a matter of "getting used" to it.

Put it this way, if 48FPS had been instituted many years ago, I don't believe I'd be the movie fan that I am today. All the films I grew up with, Star Wars, Blade Runner, The Right Stuff would have not have looked the same. Wouldn't have drawn me in. Can you imagine The Good the Bad and the Ugly in 48FPS? Horrible.

I do like the idea someone posed earlier about a hybrid technique where the sweeping landscape shots and wide angle battle scenes would be in 48FPS and the dialog scenes shot in 24FPS. That would be the best of both worlds.
Edited by MartyM38Super - 12/18/12 at 3:36pm
post #769 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by MartyM38Super View Post

Looked like video shot with my Sony Handy-cam. My wife even commented on this, and she's no AV enthusiast by any stretch.
My thought exactly; due to contrasty "hot-spotting", early exterior scenes looked (24fps) as though they were shot on cheap video.
post #770 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreHD View Post

I'm going back through all my recent movies that had sequels intended, and how they STILL sent you home fullfilled...Prometheus has a trilogy in mind... [/spoiler]

I don't believe you understand the difference between a 'Trilogy', and a '3-Part Continuous Story'.
post #771 of 944
I saw it on Sunday in a Sundance theater in regular 24 fps and it seems my eyes are not as critical as others here. Except for one or two panning scenes I had no problem with the motion in this film and don't see where 3D was important to the story.

I was prepared to dislike this movie but ending up enjoying it quite a bit. Yes, it's a little slow in the beginning with character introductions but after that the story moves along nicely. As a follow-up I watched The Fellowship of the Ring yesterday and found many references to things that happened in The Hobbit and thought the two meshed together with little inconsistency. Some of the CGI could have looked better given today's standards and that brought down my final score. Looking forward to the next part of the story. 8 out of 10.
post #772 of 944
A cheap, lazy way to do three movies...I didnt see the LOTR movies, is this how Jackson did that too? When I hear continuous story from now on, I wont bother with the first two movies and see the third, the one thats worth it biggrin.gif!
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The troll army with the king should have been built up to be the villain of this movie. They're only side characters used to build up main villain. The troll army should be the main villain, okay they're defeated. The one-armed orc should have ONLY shown up before the end credits or after the credits! You should have only gotten the flashback where he gets his arm cutvoff, and you think he's killed. Put several hints in throughout the movie that maybe he's not dead. After the troll army is destroyed, they're heading towards the castle of gold credits roll, then a shadowy figure comes out, watching them from afar. Whoa, its the orc they thought was dead! Wow, cant wait for part 2! You accomplishef the same thing without cheating the audience biggrin.gif!
post #773 of 944
^^^ You do know that there is source material for the major plot points, don't you? If the filmakers made that decision, they may as well call it something else because it certainly couldn't be the 70+ year-old story called The Hobbit.
post #774 of 944
Well, if he wanted to do an episodic thing, why didnt he just make this a network TV show biggrin.gif? This isnt primetime tv on thursday night, this is the boxoffice biggrin.gif! He could have CREATED a lame duck villian straight out of the pages of the book, so THIS film was a movie IN OF ITSELF! So if I'm watching this movie on cable or bought the blu ray, I'm feeling fulfilled after watching THIS movie, while I know there was 2 other episodes!

There's Orcs and Trolls in this book/universe. Well...CREATE one badass for this ONE movie for the SOLE purpose of having a payoff at the end! In Avengers, Thanos and Loki are the villains! The alien army is FROM the Marvel mythology that they could throw in as cannon fodder JUST for THIS movie so it has an ending! Are you telling that there isn't ANY sub-factions that could have been thrown in this movie to be despatched?! NOT ONE?! I find that highly unlikely.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
When the Troll king has the Dwarf learder captive? Up until this point, the ONLY sighting of the Orc villain should have been the flashback of the arm getting cut off...when the Troll king tells the Dwarf prisoner that he's gonna inform the Orc villain that he has his enemy...he should have reworded that to, "someone" has a bounty on your head, and I'm gonna collect, but NOT say WHO it is! The Wizard comes, the Dwarves are freed and destroy the entire Troll army. The Hobbit helps THERE, and THAT'S when the he gains the Dwarf leader's respect! They look ahead to the castle in the distance, the dragon's there, CREDITS roll. End of credits, the Orc villain appears, FOR THE FIRST TIME, out of the shadows back at the Troll base. Most of the trools are dead, but the King (or a soldier) is barely alive. He grabs the Troll, like "where is he?!". They...escapede...wizard...he kills the Troll, fade to black, see you next time biggrin.gif! Amazing how they screwed that up!

Edited by AndreHD - 12/18/12 at 8:58am
post #775 of 944
You know I just realized that when I initially commented about my viewing of the movie that I didn't say anything about it being in 3D. I'm not sure if that's good or bad. It definitely wasn't a flat visual and I can only recall one pop out moment. Otherwise, with the HFR the depth was not obvious but yet immersive and smooth, which I would regard as a good thing.
post #776 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeblow View Post

^^^ You do know that there is source material for the major plot points, don't you? If the filmakers made that decision, they may as well call it something else because it certainly couldn't be the 70+ year-old story called The Hobbit.

Exactly.
post #777 of 944
Thread Starter 
Anyone find it a bit ironic this topic started out over 3yrs ago as what was an April fools joke? Nobody believed they could possibly make 3 movies out of The Hobbit (including me). I kept myself in such a media blackout up to movie release that I thought they were still only making it a 2-parter.
post #778 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

Anyone find it a bit ironic this topic started out over 3yrs ago as what was an April fools joke? Nobody believed they could possibly make 3 movies out of The Hobbit (including me). I kept myself in such a media blackout up to movie release that I thought they were still only making it a 2-parter.
Never underestimate the allure of $$$.wink.gif
post #779 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreHD View Post

A cheap, lazy way to do three movies...I didnt see the LOTR movies, is this how Jackson did that too? When I hear continuous story from now on, I wont bother with the first two movies and see the third, the one thats worth it biggrin.gif!
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The troll army with the king should have been built up to be the villain of this movie. They're only side characters used to build up main villain. The troll army should be the main villain, okay they're defeated. The one-armed orc should have ONLY shown up before the end credits or after the credits! You should have only gotten the flashback where he gets his arm cutvoff, and you think he's killed. Put several hints in throughout the movie that maybe he's not dead. After the troll army is destroyed, they're heading towards the castle of gold credits roll, then a shadowy figure comes out, watching them from afar. Whoa, its the orc they thought was dead! Wow, cant wait for part 2! You accomplishef the same thing without cheating the audience biggrin.gif!

Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreHD View Post

Well, if he wanted to do an episodic thing, why didnt he just make this a network TV show biggrin.gif? This isnt primetime tv on thursday night, this is the boxoffice biggrin.gif! He could have CREATED a lame duck villian straight out of the pages of the book, so THIS film was a movie IN OF ITSELF! So if I'm watching this movie on cable or bought the blu ray, I'm feeling fulfilled after watching THIS movie, while I know there was 2 other episodes!
There's Orcs and Trolls in this book/universe. Well...CREATE one badass for this ONE movie for the SOLE purpose of having a payoff at the end! In Avengers, Thanos and Loki are the villains! The alien army is FROM the Marvel mythology that they could throw in as cannon fodder JUST for THIS movie so it has an ending! Are you telling that there isn't ANY sub-factions that could have been thrown in this movie to be despatched?! NOT ONE?! I find that highly unlikely. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
When the Troll king has the Dwarf learder captive? Up until this point, the ONLY sighting of the Orc villain should have been the flashback of the arm getting cut off...when the Troll king tells the Dwarf prisoner that he's gonna inform the Orc villain that he has his enemy...he should have reworded that to, "someone" has a bounty on your head, and I'm gonna collect, but NOT say WHO it is! The Wizard comes, the Dwarves are freed and destroy the entire Troll army. The Hobbit helps THERE, and THAT'S when the he gains the Dwarf leader's respect! They look ahead to the castle in the distance, the dragon's there, CREDITS roll. End of credits, the Orc villain appears, FOR THE FIRST TIME, out of the shadows back at the Troll base. Most of the trools are dead, but the King (or a soldier) is barely alive. He grabs the Troll, like "where is he?!". They...escapede...wizard...he kills the Troll, fade to black, see you next time biggrin.gif! Amazing how they screwed that up!
Is it possible that you have lived through life and didn't know where the source material from the movies came from? confused.gif
So out of ignorance you suggest a director rewrite the plot lines from J.R.R. Tolkien's books which are some of the most famous books in classical literature.
Maybe time you educate yourself. Good starting-point is to see the LOTR movies;Extended versions.
And how would you propose to make the kind of money LOTR made if it was a TV series? rolleyes.gif

Or maybe you are just one of them Internet Trolls? tongue.gif
post #780 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveFi View Post

Anyone find it a bit ironic this topic started out over 3yrs ago as what was an April fools joke? Nobody believed they could possibly make 3 movies out of The Hobbit (including me). I kept myself in such a media blackout up to movie release that I thought they were still only making it a 2-parter.

Yeah, despite the long delay I'm happy that it finally happened. I don't think this first entry of the new trilogy is as strong as any of the previous three flicks, mainly because the new characters aren't as interesting and absorbing as the principals of the LotR trilogy (not Jackson's fault I suppose), but it is a worthy entry into the series all the same.

Hey DaveFi, perhaps you might consider editing the title of this thread to include the movie's full name: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey". That way we can differentiate this one from the future threads for "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug", and "The Hobbit: There and Back Again".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home