New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 28

post #811 of 942
12/20/12 at 6:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


Why not enjoy the very seldom opportunity to experience truly epic storytelling on film.

More scenes does not make it more epic.
Reply
Reply

Gear mentioned in this thread:

post #812 of 942
12/20/12 at 7:50am
You can't simply assume that The Hobbit's movie length should equal The FotR's length because in this case the simplistic linear equation doesn't work.

While re-reading The Hobbit two summers ago, I knew that the movie version had to be split into at least two parts. There is perhaps twice as many action scenes (if not more) in The Hobbit compared to the first LotR story. Action scenes take longer to play out on screen than it does on page. Peter Jackson was wise not to try and cram what is a lot more left to present into one three hour movie.

Put another way - there are no "fluff" scenes to artificially pad the length in this initial release in the new series, yet it is already as long as the theatrical release of FotR. Anyone claiming that it should have all been told in one movie needs to also detail what he could have cut to make room for what is at least two movie hours of story left (if not more). Please note that significant cuts would be the same as cutting what was in the book, which makes no sense.

One thing I can't defend however is the third movie until I see it. The entire Hobbit tale can indeed be told comfortably in two movies, but the idea of creating a third to bridge between the two series is a nice thought for fans of the film, but could do more harm than good if not handled properly. We'll see what happens.
Reply
Reply
post #813 of 942
12/20/12 at 8:11am
From what I understand, PJ originally only intended to to do two movies; it was when he decided to include the Necromancer (only mentioned in The Hobbit but who became an in-hiding Sauron in the post-LOTR reworking of that story) that he added a third movie (or expanded the orginal two and split them into three parts).

Tolkien himself wrote the appendices that appear in ROTK, they were part of the integrating of LOTR into the larger overall mythology of Middle Earth. In case anyone doesn't know what they are, here's a quick list of them (page numbers from one of my 1-volume hardcover editions of LOTR):

A Annals Of The Kings And Rulers 1009

I The Numenorean Kings 1009
II The House Of Eorl 1038
III Durin's Folk 1045

B The Tale Of Years
(Chronology Of The Westlands) 1057

C Family Trees (Hobbits) 1073

D Calendars 1079

E Writing And Spelling 1087

I Pronunciation of Words and Names 1087
II Writing 1091

F I The Languages and Peoples of the Third Age 1101
II On Translation 1107

The Chronology is a rather detailed timeline of the Third Age and a short one for the Second Age, greeatly expanding to cover the period of LOTR. It's practically a ready-made outline for the "bridge" movie bertween The Hobbit and LOTR. A couple of notable events listed are Sauron's open declaration of his existence and the final meeting of the White Council.
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

You can't claim that as the one and only rule.
It always becomes a compromise which is as much a budgetary compromise as a question of what to keep of a book and what to cut.
You forget that longer movies cost more money to make too. So the producers calculate how big is the risk of spending more on a films budget compared to what they will earn on a longer version.
Up to a couple of years ago the producers and to some extent the cinema owners didn't want movies to be longer than 130 minutes and before that movies seldom ran over 90 minutes.
This was for two reasons:
Producers didn't think that the public would sit through more than 2 hours movies.
Cinema owners wanted to be able to have a maximum numbers of shows every night.
This changed after some movies had success with longer running time. And cinema owners could charge more for 3D, offsetting some of the reduced number of screenings every night.
Of course there is money involved when a successful franchise extend the last part into two movies. But this is only when the sucess is already secured and the risk is thereby greatly reduced. At the same it is also a possibility to tell a better more extensive story for the film makers because the possibility of a more "generous" budget without risk is there.
I think it is wrong to always say that the only reason is greed. For some producers greed is the only aim, but movies are made by artists that try to make a compromise between their artistic intent and budget restrains.
If you ask any Twilight fan I bet they would wish the movies to go on for ever.
For one; The certainty of success of earning back the budget was not there yet when they started shooting.
The LOTR movies was originally a theatrical release that was shorter then the extended edition later released on DVD and now have been playing in cinemas. A lot of the material used in the extended editions was shot after financial success was secured.
To shoot a trilogy like LOTR is a massive undertaking for a director. It becomes a matter of where does "director fatigue" starts. When is he so fed up of being involved in story world for so many years that his work starts to suffer?
Peter Jackson was still so fed up by the LOTR undertaking ten years later that he really didn't want to direct. Happily he was forced to change his mind.
I wouldn't have minded LOTR a six part series of three hours for each part. But when I see the unevenness of the Harry Potter series because the directors seldom lasted more than one movie, I am happy that the Middle Earth series will have one director throughout.
If Peter Jackson was a enthusiastic about LOTR now as he was when he started, I would applaud him if he shot more addition material for LOTR. But in recent interviews he has said he is so fed up with Middle Earth that he don't want to see another Hobbit ever more in his life. So that won't happen.
In addition; You can't really compare The Fellowship book and The Hobbit Book by counting pages. The Hobbit is much simpler written but tells a story almost as big as the LOTR books.
If Tolkien had lived longer and followed up his late intention of fleshing out The Hobbit story in the same "more adult" darker version as the LOTR we would have been able to compare the length of the books.
Luckily for us Tolkien (or someone else) added much of his ideas for a more fleshed out longer Hobbit story to the appendixes of LOTR which makes it possible for Peter Jackson to tell a fuller story of the happenings in Middle Earth during The Hobbit.
There are also a lot of small stories in the LOTR books that tell about happenings during The Hobbit times. Even a story that could put Aragon and Arwen into The Hobbit movie. Wonder if that will happen in part 3?
What I don't understand is all the people that ask for a shorter version of The Hobbit. Isn't there enough snappy fast-cut action movies out there to enjoy for those that doesn't have the required attention-span?
Why not enjoy the very seldom opportunity to experience truly epic storytelling on film.
Reply
Reply
post #814 of 942
12/20/12 at 9:15am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

More scenes does not make it more epic.
Well, do you really have an argument based on the material that is available?

To give you the direct answer from the film makers to this question;
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Jackson made Fellowship of the Ring into a masterpiece, without splitting up the book into 3 Movies. Why cant the same director do the same thing with the Hobbit?

Del Toro change of heart during development;
Quote:
After his hiring in 2008, del Toro confirmed the sequel would be about "trying to reconcile the facts of the first movie with a slightly different point of view. You would be able to see events that were not witnessed in the first."
He also noted the story must be drawn from only what is mentioned in The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, as they do not have the rights to The Silmarillion and Unfinished Tales.

Del Toro also added (before writing began) that if they could not find a coherent story for the second film, they would just film The Hobbit, stating "The Hobbit is better contained in a single film and kept brisk and fluid with no artificial 'break point'."

By November 2008, he acknowledged that the book was more detailed and eventful than people may remember.
He decided to abandon the "bridge film" concept, feeling that it would be better for the two parts to contain only material from The Hobbit:
when you lay out the cards for the story beats contained within the book (before even considering any apendix material) the work is enormous and encompasses more than one film.

That's why we are thinking of the two instalments as parts of a single narrative. That's why I keep putting down the use of a "bridge" film (posited initially).

I think the concept as such is not relevant anymore. I believe that the narrative and characters are rich enough to fit in two films.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_(film_series)#Third_film
Quote:
Q; Let's start with the books. "The Lord of The Rings" novels are thousands of pages long, but "The Hobbit" is only a few hundred pages. How challenging was it working with less source material this time around?


JACKSON: It is interesting because "The Hobbit" was written for children. J.R.R. Tolkien read it for his own children really, in 1937.

It's a very speedy book. It's like one chapter to read to your children each night. It sort of has this episodic quality to it. And that means that there's not a lot of character development. There's not a lot of conflict or depth in the characters or the story. And we wanted to have a lot of that in the movie.

Because that's the style of films that we make. And I wanted [the "Hobbit" trilogy] to have a sort of synergy with "The Lord of The Rings" films.

So, once we slowed down..we would take one paragraph of what Tolkien wrote...some sequence that he races through...and then we sort of put the character work in there. It sort of expands it a bit.

And we had access to other Hobbit material that's not in the book that he wrote surrounding the Hobbit which we were also able to use as well. So this is like an expanded version of "The Hobbit."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57559059/the-hobbit-peter-jackson-talks-ian-mckellen-and-the-next-two-films/

Peter Jackson explain the reason for extending the movies to tree parts in a Dec.12 interview;
Quote:
Q: You originally intended "The Hobbit" to only be two parts. Why stretch it out to three?

A: "Back in July, we were near the end of our shoot and we started to talk about the things that we had to leave out of the movies. There's material at the end of ‘The Return of the King' (the final part of 'The Lord of the Rings' trilogy) in the appendices that takes place around the time of ‘The Hobbit.'

"We were thinking, this is our last chance because it's very unlikely we're ever going to come back to Middle Earth as filmmakers. So we talked to the studio and next year we're going to be doing another 10 to 12 weeks of shooting because we're now adapting more of Tolkien's material."

Q: At what point did you decide you would direct the film yourself after originally handing it to Guillermo del Toro?

A: "At the time (we wrote the script), I was worried about repeating myself and worried that I was competing with myself. I thought it would be interesting to have another director with a fresh eye coming in and telling the story. But after Guillermo left, having worked on script and the production for well over a year at that stage, I was very emotionally attached to it. I just thought, this is an opportunity I'm not going to say no to."

http://movies.yahoo.com/news/minute-director-peter-jackson-shooting-hobbit-100203326.html

Bonus for those that are interested in visiting the enormous technical challenges and developments in shooting The Hobbit; http://www.fxguide.com/featured/the-hobbit-weta/
Edited by coolscan - 12/20/12 at 9:37am
Reply
Reply
post #815 of 942
12/20/12 at 9:39am
Coolscan, what are the filmmakers supposed to say?

"When we were writing the script we saw an excellent opportunity to milk the cow dry, since this opportunity will not come back."
Reply
Reply
post #816 of 942
12/20/12 at 9:53am
You wanna go to Rotten Tomatoes and read some of the reviews that mirror what I'm saying, Mr. Oh Great Authority on Movie Making?! I went there to see if I was crazy for thinking I thought about the movie, and its the same things, no payoff, just a set up for the next movies...I mentioned several live action movies besides the heroes...it doesn't have a "masterpiece"score in there...and these are opinions I respect way more than yours!

Look...heres the very blunt, point blank period BOTTOM LINE...leaving you hanging at the conclusion of each episode was HIS intention...ITS A F...UP INTENTION!!! It has NO place in a movie theater!! F...WHAT HE WANTED!!! There, F...what he wanted!!! Directors learn this all the time!! The Last Air Bender was what M. Night WANTED!!! The actual movie goers said F...what he wanted, and he' s been hated ever since!!

The director of Frankenweenie WANTED a claymation tune in black and white! the AUDIENCE said F...what he wanted and it bombed!!! John Carter, F...what he wanted, lost a half billion dollars!!!

This isn't small time network TV, where you can pull that crap, in the theater, you are DUE a payoff-even if its a secondary part of the story- for the FRIGGIN INVESTMENT you put in to those 3 HOURS!!! Thats what I wanted, and F...what the director wanted!! The one armed Orc is NOT in the book, and its not rocket science that he was supposed to have been the payoff you DESERVED for this one movie that you put a 3 hour emotional INVESTMENT in!!! The movie made 80-some million, on the low end of projections on opening weekend, when the high end was over 100M, so the the word of mouth was not good, there was too many OTHERS that said F...what he handed me!! It will underperform in the US!!!
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
When the giant birds come to rescue the group from the MOVIE'S VILLAIN at the end, all Jackson would have had to do was have one of them pick up the VILLAIN as well and DROP him into the abyss!! He didnt need a whole other climactic battle! Still unknown whether he died or not, but that ONE little detail gets the movie a D instead of a B+! For Jackson not to see that opportunity to REWARD the moviergoer's INVESTMENT shows a highly overrated director! The Orc is NOT in the book, NOTHING is written in stone that h cannot be "defeated" here, and ANOTHER secondary villain (coulda been from the very same Orc army!!) rises for part 2!!! The dragon is written in stone as untouchable the first movie!

Lastly, in your fanboyish defense and idolization of Jackson and this movie, you defend a villain NOT in the book and not written in stone NOT being killed or at LEAST defeated in this first movie in which he is BUILT UP to be the main secondary antagonist! By my count, there's countless dwarves killed or defeated as the dragon invades the castle, and hundreds of goblins killed during the escape fron the goblin king! The body count is 1000 bodies NOT written into the book and NO bearing on the trilogy! Yet you dont have a problem with THOSE deaths, but you seem to have a problem with the death I wanted, the ONE death that NEEDED to happen reward the movie goers 3 hour investment! All 1000 deaths aren't in the precious book, have NO bearing on the other 2 upcoming installments OR the 3 LOTR movies that this predates!! So if you have a problem with this ONE death, lets also have a problem with the OTHER 1000 that did die!! Lets not kill anyone, alright?? Everybody lives! Because thats not the BOOK says! Wouldn't make sense, but lets go with that!!

Almost forgot about the Orcs and Dwaves who DIE during their war in the flashback!! UH OH biggrin.gif!! So there was 1500 DEATHS!! UH OH, gotta rewind the tape and check every body to make sure that death was OKAY biggrin.gif!! Got my BOOK in hand reading every line to see if it was okay for Orc X and Dwarf #30 to die in this movie!!

Edited by AndreHD - 12/20/12 at 12:23pm
Reply
Reply
post #817 of 942
12/20/12 at 10:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


What I don't understand is all the people that ask for a shorter version of The Hobbit. Isn't there enough snappy fast-cut action movies out there to enjoy for those that doesn't have the required attention-span?
Why not enjoy the very seldom opportunity to experience truly epic storytelling on film.

Truly epic storytelling does not always translate well to film though. Also, while The Hobbit is certainly a classic, I always found the LOTR to be a much more compelling story and my opinion has not changed seeing them both translated to film. It is not about making The Hobbit a "snappy fast-cut action movie", but making it so we actually care about the characters and what is going on and this to me is where the film failed and why it just FEELS long. I just did not care about any of the new characters within reason which made the film FEEL long. Even the returning characters felt a bit uninspired and bored reprising their roles..........almost like everyone is just OVER the LOTR thing in general at this point. In LOTR, I cared about the characters and I could even relate to the general trials and tribulations and various themes that were explored with friendship, love, good, evil, etc..........The Hobbit just translates as a more shallow experience overall (same as the book IMO) and this is amplified even further with how this was translated to film to some degree. The other thing is there was just this underlying sense of passion to the acting and films in general with LOTR which does not seem to be there with The Hobbit from my perspective for whatever reason.

To keep this in perspective, I still enjoyed the movie and it is still a great story, but it just has nowhere near the depth of LOTR which is why I feel it is not grabbing people as much in some cases. The Hobbit is a good movie, but it is not an "epic" movie experience IMO. I did not come out of The Hobbit feeling like I did with ANY of the LOTR movies where I felt I had truly experienced something special as far as movies go. LOTR WAS and IS a crowning achievement of cinema and is truly special in comparison. Again though, I still thought The Hobbit was fun and it was great being back in that atmosphere. I will certainly still be adding the blu ray to my collection when it hits and am really curious to see the 3d at home and hear the audio cranked up on my system to give it a better evaluation.
Edited by Toe - 12/20/12 at 10:14am
Reply
Reply
post #818 of 942
12/20/12 at 10:53am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Coolscan, what are the filmmakers supposed to say?
"When we were writing the script we saw an excellent opportunity to milk the cow dry, since this opportunity will not come back."
No.
They just tell the truth as you have seen.
Reply
Reply
post #819 of 942
12/20/12 at 11:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Truly epic storytelling does not always translate well to film though. Also, while The Hobbit is certainly a classic, I always found the LOTR to be a much more compelling story and my opinion has not changed seeing them both translated to film.
I think nobody's arguing that LOTR is a much more compelling story.
Doesn't mean it can't be epic movie storytelling, even if it will not match LOTR in the end.
Quote:
It is not about making The Hobbit a "snappy fast-cut action movie", but making it so we actually care about the characters and what is going on and this to me is where the film failed and why it just FEELS long. I just did not care about any of the new characters within reason which made the film FEEL long. Even the returning characters felt a bit uninspired and bored reprising their roles..........almost like everyone is just OVER the LOTR thing in general at this point. In LOTR, I cared about the characters and I could even relate to the general trials and tribulations and various themes that were explored with friendship, love, good, evil, etc..........The Hobbit just translates as a more shallow experience overall (same as the book IMO) and this is amplified even further with how this was translated to film to some degree. The other thing is there was just this underlying sense of passion to the acting and films in general with LOTR which does not seem to be there with The Hobbit from my perspective for whatever reason.
For me LOTR didn't really feel satisfactory before the Extended editions was released. The theatrical editions just felt too light. Never seen the theatrical editions after they where in the cinemas, they felt that much uninspiring compared to the book.
Quote:
To keep this in perspective, I still enjoyed the movie and it is still a great story, but it just has nowhere near the depth of LOTR which is why I feel it is not grabbing people as much in some cases. The Hobbit is a good movie, but it is not an "epic" movie experience IMO. I did not come out of The Hobbit feeling like I did with ANY of the LOTR movies where I felt I had truly experienced something special as far as movies go. LOTR WAS and IS a crowning achievement of cinema and is truly special in comparison. Again though, I still thought The Hobbit was fun and it was great being back in that atmosphere. I will certainly still be adding the blu ray to my collection when it hits and am really curious to see the 3d at home and hear the audio cranked up on my system to give it a better evaluation.
I think we must add the possibility of some "Character Fatigue" after having revisited LOTR several times over a decade. The characters we loved ones because they where fresh and new becomes somewhat repetitious over time, and The Hobbit doesn't really have some new central characters to attach too. We also intimately know on film what will happen to them in their "future".
The Hobbit story also lack all the conflicts and drama between characters that LOTR have.

The Hobbit part 1 is just the introduction to two more movies. Lets give the whole series a chance to play out before it is compared to LOTR.
Edited by coolscan - 12/20/12 at 11:15am
Reply
Reply
post #820 of 942
12/20/12 at 11:27am
The Hobbit part 1 is just the introduction to two more movies. Lets give the whole series a chance to play out before it is compared to LOTR.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Did we really need Thorin Oakenshield, son of Thráin, son of Thrór, slowed down into slow motion to demonstrate to us his heroic nature when he takes on Mr BigBad at movie's end? We got that sort of thing over and over in Retrun of the King. Yes, we get it. Weighty things going on here. But my memory of The Hobbit was of a much less weighty story, more of a fairy tale with bits of terror here and there.

Jackson has already set the tone of the series with the way he did this film. I can't see him turning around and making it less... pretentious? Maybe that's too mean. Maybe less grave and sefl-concious. But I fear this is what the money people demanded: Lord of the Rings, Part 0. And his Kong demonstrated that, having earned the power to shape films pretty much the way he wants them to be, he seems unable to dial it down when needed. He just piles in more and more stuff. More and more emotional highs, like the ending upon ending in Return of the King, until we are worn out.

Del Toro would have probably given us a better film, but doubtlessly a whole lot weirder one. I suspect this is the main reason he departed.
Reply
Reply
post #821 of 942
12/20/12 at 11:36am
Just wanted to provide a simple bit of feedback as I was able to make some time to see the movie yesterday morning.

I will say I thoroughly enjoyed it. My expectations were low after reading lot's of negative reviews but I must say I disagree with all of them. If you were in the theater tapping your feet waiting for the next action scene, then you are not patient enough for this film. I simply sat back and enjoyed the story. I did not feel any part of the film dragged on. Personally, I think if the movie was shorter, we would've read complaints that the movie felt rushed and unfinished. It's clear part 1 is designed to set the stage for the next 2 parts. From the director's view, this was necessary to properly tell the story.

I will add that I did not see this in HFR (High Frame Rate) but did sneak into the adjacent theater and took a sneak peak at the HFR version for about 20min and I didn't really dig it. I can see how watching the HFR version can distract you from enjoying the story. Just looked too much like video. Couldn't really get into it.

Anyway, for those that haven't seen it, sit back and enjoy the story and skip the HFR version. smile.gif This is a must see for any LOTR and Hobbit fan.
Edited by adidino - 12/20/12 at 2:54pm
Reply
Reply
post #822 of 942
12/20/12 at 12:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by adidino View Post

Anyway, for those that haven't seen it, sit back and enjoy the story and skip the HFR version. smile.gif This is a must see for any LOTR and Hobbit fan.

If you didn't see HFR then you are totally missing the boat here. You missed the whole effect of the story telling and you need to go back and see it again in HFR. Okay, I'm totally kidding about that. People always want to jump on someone's back about one thing or another. I never have done that so I wanted to be first this time just to see what it was like. biggrin.gif

Seriously, you mentioned that if it had been shorter that you think if would have felt rushed. I never thought about that until now and thinking back, I think I'd have to agree with you. I felt the pacing was fine; although I do think it was at the fringe of almost too long and it definitely set the stage. Regarding your experience with HFR, I do think you cut out about 10 minutes too soon to let the effect absorb. I also think you went in looking solely at the HFR effect instead of getting absorbed in the story and letting HFR help you along the way. Presumptive on my part to be sure so please forgive me for that.
Reply
Reply
post #823 of 942
12/20/12 at 12:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post


I think we must add the possibility of some "Character Fatigue" after having revisited LOTR several times over a decade. The characters we loved ones because they where fresh and new becomes somewhat repetitious over time, and The Hobbit doesn't really have some new central characters to attach too. We also intimately know on film what will happen to them in their "future".
The Hobbit story also lack all the conflicts and drama between characters that LOTR have.
The Hobbit part 1 is just the introduction to two more movies. Lets give the whole series a chance to play out before it is compared to LOTR.

Good points and fair enough. wink.gif I am looking forward to part 2 as well as it could change my feelings one way or the other when considering both parts as a whole.
Reply
Reply
post #824 of 942
12/20/12 at 1:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

If you didn't see HFR then you are totally missing the boat here. You missed the whole effect of the story telling and you need to go back and see it again in HFR. Okay, I'm totally kidding about that.People always want to jump on someone's back about one thing or another. I never have done that so I wanted to be first this time just to see what it was like. biggrin.gif


You almost got me there. As a started to read this... I was like "c'mon now... " lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Seriously, you mentioned that if it had been shorter that you think if would have felt rushed. I never thought about that until now and thinking back, I think I'd have to agree with you. I felt the pacing was fine; although I do think it was at the fringe of almost too long and it definitely set the stage. Regarding your experience with HFR, I do think you cut out about 10 minutes too soon to let the effect absorb. I also think you went in looking solely at the HFR effect instead of getting absorbed in the story and letting HFR help you along the way. Presumptive on my part to be sure so please forgive me for that.

I do admit I did sneak into the next room strictly to compare the HFR vs 24 frames since I already experienced the story. You could be right that I needed to spend more time with it and maybe it's but I just didn't like the feel of it. I was very open to it when I walked in and told myself this could be a positive step towards the future but It just felt like I watching the same movie in video instead of film. Didn't feel like a new experience to me.
Reply
Reply
post #825 of 942
12/20/12 at 2:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Coolscan, what are the filmmakers supposed to say?
"When we were writing the script we saw an excellent opportunity to milk the cow dry, since this opportunity will not come back."

You keep making the same snarky comment without once addressing what several of us have explained already... unlike the books in the LotR trilogy, the Hobbit novel has too many events for a film maker to try and squeeze it into one movie.

You obviously haven't read it by the way you keep trying to chalk it up to greed. Yes they want more money, which is true for 99% of all movies ever made. But even if you had read it, I repeat my challenge - what should PJax have cut from this first Hobbit movie in order to fit the (many) events remaining in the book? Where is the trimmable fat that you imply is in the first film to make it artificially long in ways not in sync with the novel?

They have at least 1.5 - 2.0 hours of story left to tell based on where the movie cut off when compared to the book. I mean, there are a lot of important characters that still haven't been introduced, let alone developed so that their scenes can be played out.

You would do best to re-read the quotes from del Toro posted above that matches almost exactly with what I said earlier from my own reading of the book... It had to be at least two movies because there are so many action scenes that can fly by quickly when reading, but take longer to play out in film.
Edited by joeblow - 12/20/12 at 2:34pm
Reply
Reply
post #826 of 942
12/20/12 at 5:51pm
Saw it last night with the GF in HFR 3d. While im sure the movie is good, I cant give an accurate review of the film because I just couldn't stop thinking "Man HFR sucks, I wish we saw it in regular 2d". I absolutely hated it & will never see another movie in that frame rate. It had the feel of a made for tv movie and not an extension of the LOTR universe that Jackson created and is loved by many. While I'm sure many will love it for all of its added clarity, I cant help but feel that if its not broke dont fix it.
Reply
Reply
post #827 of 942
12/20/12 at 11:57pm
Joe good filmmaking is to remove stuff that isnt needed in the movie. You don't need 3 movies to make a good hobbit film. Just like you didn't need Harry Potter and the deathly camping movie.

The reason why they do this is because the fans are willing to pay for no matter how bad the actual end result is.
Reply
Reply
post #828 of 942
12/21/12 at 12:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Joe good filmmaking is to remove stuff that isnt needed in the movie.
I couldn't agree with that more:
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_488_20-rejected-scenes-from-the-hobbit/
Reply
Reply
post #829 of 942
12/21/12 at 7:11pm
Heh, I had to walk away from this discussion for a little, because...it was really getting on my nerves smile.gif.

But the point I was making is, forget what freakin' Jackson WANTED to do for a second. I wanna rob a bank, doesnt make it the RIGHT thing to do. If you DONT want to do a weekly network television series, or a 3-part sci-fi channel mini series, that fine. You'd rather do a 3 episode story for the movie theater. Thats fine! But once you have made that decision, you have to throw away the small time television rules (and mentality) and KNOW the rules of of the box office...OR FOR THAT FACT...ANY kind of PAID entertainment!

If you go to football game, and the announcer says "get ready for the 4th quarter!", THEN announces that "nevermind what I just said...GOODNIGHT". You would be sitting there in your seat wondering what the heck was going on?! You KNOW theres more games coming until the end of the season, but you still deserved a conclusion to THIS game smile.gif! Football, wrestling, the dolphin show at the wildlife park, it doesnt matter!

This has been done before! Tarantino did it! The mans not an IDIOT! He had common freakin' sense to know that EVEN though the first movie, Kill Bill, was merely the first chapter, he had better provide SOME kind of payoff for THAT movie! People are paying! People are putting time aside! People are investing 90-120 minutes of time!

Jackson should KNOW...that there will be MORE than LOTR fanboys who will try the movie! If it was only fanboys, his movies would bomb! To think that way is a small time television mentality! Sci Fi channel! He had to know there would be a broad range of moviegoers in the theater. Some fanboys, some who never saw the LOTR movies, some who never read the books or it was a long time ego, and those simply looking for a 3-hour escape!

Thats WHY, no matter if its a 3-episode story, you have STRUCTURE it so each INDIVIDUAL movie CAN stand out as its own separate entity!! This movie has to be sold as a single blu ray disc in 3-4 months!!

You accomplish this the way the other talented directors did, develop a story WITHIN each movie that you can end WITHIN those individual movies, without compromising the BIGGER story! Tarantino wrote "O-Ren" into Kill Bill to simultaneously send you home satisfied and complete with the movie you JUST saw, while the conclusion is in the works! He ended one story and continued the BIGGER one! He did BOTH!! Jackson could only do ONE!

Now, if Jackson is incapable of structuring a multiple-movie series like this, then HE'S to blame! HE'S the overrated director! Fanboys are blaming the audience for feeling cheated biggrin.gif!! BLAME HIM! He had a story WITHIN his bigger story, and he was unable provide some kind of payoff to that! End of story!

UPDATE...I had to go read the LOTR Fellowship script, because I KNEW this man wasnt stupid enough to do business this way, it was a huge oversight. In the original LOTR, the MAIN villian is the original owner of the ring. Cant defeat him until part three. How he rewards you TODAY...like, RIGHT NOW? After you've sat in there 3-hours? A new breed of Orc, the "Uruk-H
ai", who pursue the protagonists! The leader is killed, defeated, goodnight, still 2 more LOTR movies...for whatever reason here, he was unable to do here what realized he had to do there!
Edited by AndreHD - 12/21/12 at 8:09pm
Reply
Reply
post #830 of 942
12/22/12 at 1:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MovieSwede View Post

Joe good filmmaking is to remove stuff that isnt needed in the movie. You don't need 3 movies to make a good hobbit film. Just like you didn't need Harry Potter and the deathly camping movie.
The reason why they do this is because the fans are willing to pay for no matter how bad the actual end result is.

For the third time, examples please of what you would cut in the first film to fit the 90 - 120 minutes of content not yet told from the book?
Reply
Reply
post #831 of 942
12/22/12 at 10:06am
Quote:
I absolutely hate Frame Interpolation but I really enjoyed the 48fps effect.

I just don't know how you can tell the difference. Both FI and HFR equates to "Soap Opera Effect" and that is what people hate about FI and HFR as well.
Reply
Reply
post #832 of 942
12/22/12 at 11:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

I just don't know how you can tell the difference. Both FI and HFR equates to "Soap Opera Effect" and that is what people hate about FI and HFR as well.
But there is a difference. This movie was shot at 48 fps. 48 real frames of information. Frame interpolation is artificially adding frames between frames via some means that are beyond my knowledge.
Reply
Reply
post #833 of 942
12/22/12 at 1:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoney Jackson View Post

But there is a difference. This movie was shot at 48 fps. 48 real frames of information.
Correct.

Quote:
Frame interpolation is artificially adding frames between frames
As I understand it, the frames are simply "doubled."
Reply
Reply
post #834 of 942
12/22/12 at 1:59pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Correct.
As I understand it, the frames are simply "doubled."
There's more than that to it though. I've read that the "motion-flow" or whatever uses some technology that guesses what the in- between frame will look like.
Reply
Reply
post #835 of 942
12/22/12 at 3:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoney Jackson View Post

There's more than that to it though. I've read that the "motion-flow" or whatever uses some technology that guesses what the in- between frame will look like.
The video processor creates a frame?confused.gif
Reply
Reply
post #836 of 942
12/22/12 at 4:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

The video processor creates a frame?confused.gif
The processor takes information from the frame before and the frame after and constructs a frame it insert between them.
Reply
Reply
post #837 of 942
12/22/12 at 4:18pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by coolscan View Post

The processor takes information from the frame before and the frame after and constructs a frame it insert between them.
WOW, seems quite amazing.
Don't know whether or not it enhances the viewing experience, but the technology sounds very advanced.cool.gif
Reply
Reply
post #838 of 942
12/22/12 at 7:12pm
Just want to be clear on the difference between TV and this movie:

Frame Interpolation on TV sets uses video processing to insert "fake" frames that are computed as in-between the previous and next frame, bringing the frame rate up to whatever the panel can handle (often 120 fps). This is called various things by different manufacturers (TruMotion, MotionFlow, ClearMotion, etc), and it often creates visual artifacts because the processing doesn't always do a great job of guessing the in-between image.

This movie was actually shot at 48 frames per second, and no video processing was used to create "fake" frames. Any artifacts you see are most likely being created by your brain, which is not used to seeing movies in this frame rate. I found that after 15-20 minutes of adjustment, I no longer noticed the frame rate, just the exceptional clarity and realism of the picture. But YMMV, as they say.
Reply
Reply
post #839 of 942
12/24/12 at 5:09am
I saw this at an IMAX in 3D. This was not at a 48fps theater. This was in Portage, IN

Visual:3 out of 5
The 3D was amazing and well done. However, I did not like the fact that my glasses were green/purple (or whatever color)...the casted a weird glare on the lens that I had to keep shifting my head up or left/right to get rid of depending on where the brightness was coming from. The glasses were clean, but I kept thinking why the difference in glasses than when I saw The Amazing Spirder-Man a few months ago (same theater, but not the IMAX screen).

Edit: Also, there was a weird visual distraction throughout...I can only explain it like the actual movie frames were being dropped and replaced with dark frames (like a "skip"). It was not consistent throughout, but it was there.

My wife noticed both the glare and the "skipping" imagery as well.

Sound: 4 out of 5
I take it down one notch because it was too DAMN loud! My family had to put napkin in our ears as ear plugs...I also made a complaint to the usher (a kid all of 16 1/2)...the sound was so unbearable during the preview of Into The Darkness that caused me to contact someone. I am not sure if anything was done, but it was LOUD! and uncomfortable.

The Movie: 4 out of 5
I really liked the story. However, these movies are just too LONG! There were scenes that just carried on and on and on...come on, you made your point, move on. I am now confused on story line after watching the Hobbit and trying to piece it together with the LOTR trilogy and now I must go back and watch (or read a footnote versioin) of the LOTR trilogy to piece somethings together. These movies could easily be 2-2.5 hours rather than what they are...thats right, I said it...I was the stripped down versions....No Extended Directors Cut for me. Give me the foot notes version and some of my life back.

Oh and I would think it would be more effective to have maybe 50 or 100 creatures in these fight scenes...instead of what looks like thousands...really 13 against thousands...and they always seem to out run and live...lets keep it a bit more realistic/real here...just because CGI allows for easy replication to create many monsters attacking doesnt necessarily mean it should be done.

All in all...I liked it, but provide some education on what type of 3D we are seeing, turn down the volume just a tad...and keep these movies a little shorter...and it would be 5's all around for me.

I see a lot of chatter here about Jackson...who cares...and really, who else could have done these books justice...he is the best in my opinion...thank god its not Nolan or Burton or worst M. Night! eek.gif
Edited by kezug - 12/24/12 at 5:18am
Reply
Reply
post #840 of 942
12/24/12 at 8:20am
Well I see alot of mixed reviews. I saw this on a Sunday HFR and soon as the logo hit I could tell the difference. I found the 3d to be outstanding in HFR. I went back Wedsday to compare it to Imax and the 3d was broken, so I saw it 2d. Still enjoyed the movie but it seem less life like then say HFR.
Now for those who dislike it(hfr), I spend WAY to much time infront of a computer for work and play. I found it to be a nice little add and really think short of Avatar in Imax to be some of the best 3d I have seen.

As for the movie, I saw it twice in 5 days, safe to say I liked it. Never wanted it to end. Still can't see why there are 3 movies but ill hold my judgement till then. I think PJ is trying to appease folks who complained about all the stuff left out of LoTR. Either way I will enjoy the ride and let him rob my wallet.

As always YMMV,
Cheers
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home

Gear mentioned in this thread: