[QUOTE="Ixion, post: 5960558]The critics aren't exactly gushing (RT now stands at 73%), but most of the normal folk seem to have really enjoyed it.
It will be interesting to see how RottenTomatoes and IMDB differ with this movie.[/QUOTE]I haven't actually checked that much, this time. I kinda just went off a review or two that I read.
To their credit, I'm not sure why this movie and possibly the next 2 are nearly 3 hours. That might be the core of the issues.
It will be interesting to see how RottenTomatoes and IMDB differ with this movie.[/QUOTE]I haven't actually checked that much, this time. I kinda just went off a review or two that I read.
To their credit, I'm not sure why this movie and possibly the next 2 are nearly 3 hours. That might be the core of the issues.
[QUOTE="RedDragon7, post: 5960619]To their credit, I'm not sure why this movie and possibly the next 2 are nearly 3 hours. That might be the core of the issues.[/QUOTE]
There are two reasons for extending it to a trilogy:
1) I'm not sure if you've read the book, but Gandalf continuously leaves the group to take care of other business, which is not elaborated upon at all in the book. However, in the Appendices of Return of the King, Tolkien explains what Gandalf was doing. So all of that will be shown in these movies, and that sub-plot turns out to be a pretty big deal.
2) More importantly, The Hobbit is a very fast-paced book. There's a war in the book that only takes up two pages, just to give you an idea. So in order to flesh everything out as much as LOTR, more time is needed.
So it makes sense in theory, but yes, some of the reviews do feel the movie is too long and padded.
There are two reasons for extending it to a trilogy:
1) I'm not sure if you've read the book, but Gandalf continuously leaves the group to take care of other business, which is not elaborated upon at all in the book. However, in the Appendices of Return of the King, Tolkien explains what Gandalf was doing. So all of that will be shown in these movies, and that sub-plot turns out to be a pretty big deal.
2) More importantly, The Hobbit is a very fast-paced book. There's a war in the book that only takes up two pages, just to give you an idea. So in order to flesh everything out as much as LOTR, more time is needed.
So it makes sense in theory, but yes, some of the reviews do feel the movie is too long and padded.
I've read about a third of the hobbit, maybe more. There are many moments in the book that either don't need to be in the movie or could be sped up. For instance reviews are criticizing the movie for being repetitive. They keep getting in these little messes and then get out. Get trapped and escape.
I get that Jackson is putting in other stories but movies need to be concise.
We'll see how it goes, but as it stands this one book is getting the same treatment at the entirety of the LOTR trilogy. Could be a bit much.
Tapatalk
I get that Jackson is putting in other stories but movies need to be concise.
We'll see how it goes, but as it stands this one book is getting the same treatment at the entirety of the LOTR trilogy. Could be a bit much.
Tapatalk
Well, that's what happens in the book. It's a lot more whimsical than LOTR, and doesn't have as focused of a plot.
A lot of the negative reviews have said that Tolkien's book is part of the problem. So basically, if you like the book, I'm assuming you'll like the movie.
But I agree that three long movies sounds like a bit too much. Personally, I would have preferred two 3-hour movies, which was the original idea.
A lot of the negative reviews have said that Tolkien's book is part of the problem. So basically, if you like the book, I'm assuming you'll like the movie.
But I agree that three long movies sounds like a bit too much. Personally, I would have preferred two 3-hour movies, which was the original idea.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Ixion, post: 5961000]Well, that's what happens in the book. It's a lot more whimsical than LOTR, and doesn't have as focused of a plot.
A lot of the negative reviews have said that Tolkien's book is part of the problem. So basically, if you like the book, I'm assuming you'll like the movie.
But I agree that three long movies sounds like a bit too much. Personally, I would have preferred two 3-hour movies, which was the original idea.[/QUOTE]
I guess we'll wait and see.
A lot of the negative reviews have said that Tolkien's book is part of the problem. So basically, if you like the book, I'm assuming you'll like the movie.
But I agree that three long movies sounds like a bit too much. Personally, I would have preferred two 3-hour movies, which was the original idea.[/QUOTE]
I guess we'll wait and see.
[QUOTE="Ixion, post: 5961000]Well, that's what happens in the book. It's a lot more whimsical than LOTR, and doesn't have as focused of a plot.
A lot of the negative reviews have said that Tolkien's book is part of the problem. So basically, if you like the book, I'm assuming you'll like the movie.[/quote]It is the book, indeed. We'll see whether it should've been "adapted to the big screen" or whether the more literal translation works.
Yep.
A lot of the negative reviews have said that Tolkien's book is part of the problem. So basically, if you like the book, I'm assuming you'll like the movie.[/quote]It is the book, indeed. We'll see whether it should've been "adapted to the big screen" or whether the more literal translation works.
Yep.
Currently at 27 fresh and 9 rotten on RT (75%).
I've read most of the reviews and these are the common pros and cons...
Pros:
-Very good acting
-Stunning locales, cinematography, and visual effects
-Great cast of characters
-A strong sense of fun
-Impressive set pieces
-Gollum scene is terrific
-Howard Shore nails the music again
Cons:
-HFR is distracting
-The length will test your patience
-A bit too much filler
-Visuals can overwhelm the narrative
-Story is a bit unfocused
I've read most of the reviews and these are the common pros and cons...
Pros:
-Very good acting
-Stunning locales, cinematography, and visual effects
-Great cast of characters
-A strong sense of fun
-Impressive set pieces
-Gollum scene is terrific
-Howard Shore nails the music again
Cons:
-HFR is distracting
-The length will test your patience
-A bit too much filler
-Visuals can overwhelm the narrative
-Story is a bit unfocused
Last edited:
[QUOTE="THUGGEDOUT, post: 5963609]Tickets booked for 2D release this Saturday, can't wait![/QUOTE]
You should've gone 3D for this one!
[QUOTE="PeanutButterMunky, post: 5963698]I'm a little bit jelly. I'm debating whether or not to drive an hour and a half to see it in all its high frame rate glory.[/QUOTE]
That high frame rate has me worried a bit because I absolutely hate that 120 fps soap opera look on HDTVs with Puremotion (or whatever your brand of choice calls it) enabled...
It takes away the movie feel.
You should've gone 3D for this one!
[QUOTE="PeanutButterMunky, post: 5963698]I'm a little bit jelly. I'm debating whether or not to drive an hour and a half to see it in all its high frame rate glory.[/QUOTE]
That high frame rate has me worried a bit because I absolutely hate that 120 fps soap opera look on HDTVs with Puremotion (or whatever your brand of choice calls it) enabled...
It takes away the movie feel.
[QUOTE="Wrath, post: 5963759]You should've gone 3D for this one!
That high frame rate has me worried a bit because I absolutely hate that 120 fps soap opera look on HDTVs with Puremotion (or whatever your brand of choice calls it) enabled...
It takes away the movie feel.[/QUOTE]Love it with action scenes or movies set in modern times/future settings (like Transformers etc).
But yeah I get what you mean.
Still, hate the 3d gimmick these days and avoid it when I can.
That high frame rate has me worried a bit because I absolutely hate that 120 fps soap opera look on HDTVs with Puremotion (or whatever your brand of choice calls it) enabled...
It takes away the movie feel.[/QUOTE]Love it with action scenes or movies set in modern times/future settings (like Transformers etc).
But yeah I get what you mean.
Still, hate the 3d gimmick these days and avoid it when I can.
[QUOTE="Wrath, post: 5963759]That high frame rate has me worried a bit because I absolutely hate that 120 fps soap opera look on HDTVs with Puremotion (or whatever your brand of choice calls it) enabled...
It takes away the movie feel.[/QUOTE]
That's not 120 FPS. That's 120 Hertz. It's completely different.
It takes away the movie feel.[/QUOTE]
That's not 120 FPS. That's 120 Hertz. It's completely different.
[QUOTE="admartian, post: 5963762]Love it with action scenes or movies set in modern times/future settings (like Transformers etc).
But yeah I get what you mean.[/QUOTE]Talking about 3D or high frame rate?
[QUOTE="Ixion, post: 5963819]That's not 120 FPS. That's 120 Hertz. It's completely different.[/QUOTE]Technically yes, it's very different. From what I've heard thus far, HFR is an acquired taste.
One thing I'm looking forward to is the PQ that is being raved about.
But yeah I get what you mean.[/QUOTE]Talking about 3D or high frame rate?
[QUOTE="Ixion, post: 5963819]That's not 120 FPS. That's 120 Hertz. It's completely different.[/QUOTE]Technically yes, it's very different. From what I've heard thus far, HFR is an acquired taste.
One thing I'm looking forward to is the PQ that is being raved about.
[QUOTE="RedDragon7, post: 5963980]From what I've heard thus far, HFR is an acquired taste.[/QUOTE]
After reading most of the reviews, I'd say this is how the critical reception to HFR has been going:
40% - Mixed
40% - Negative
20% - Positive
It'll be interesting to see how the general public responds. Peter Jackson said that younger viewers are enjoying it a lot more than older viewers.
After reading most of the reviews, I'd say this is how the critical reception to HFR has been going:
40% - Mixed
40% - Negative
20% - Positive
It'll be interesting to see how the general public responds. Peter Jackson said that younger viewers are enjoying it a lot more than older viewers.
[QUOTE="Ixion, post: 5963819]That's not 120 FPS. That's 120 Hertz. It's completely different.[/QUOTE]
I know, I mixed it up again.
Regardless though, the effect is the same. A 120 Hertz TV repeats each frame of a typical 24 fps movie around 5 times within 1 second while an ordinary 60 Hertz refresh rate only repeats it 2.x times. And that's why the former causes the soap opera effect that is completely unnatural as far as cinematic movies go.
And The Hobbit's 48fps basically goes in a similar direction because that's exactly twice as many frames as with conventional movies. So you would have a similar experience even without high Hertz displays.
I know, I mixed it up again.
Regardless though, the effect is the same. A 120 Hertz TV repeats each frame of a typical 24 fps movie around 5 times within 1 second while an ordinary 60 Hertz refresh rate only repeats it 2.x times. And that's why the former causes the soap opera effect that is completely unnatural as far as cinematic movies go.
And The Hobbit's 48fps basically goes in a similar direction because that's exactly twice as many frames as with conventional movies. So you would have a similar experience even without high Hertz displays.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Wrath, post: 5964074]I know, I mixed it up again.
Regardless though, the effect is the same. A 120 Hertz TV repeats each frame of a typical 24 fps movie around 5 times within 1 second while an ordinary 60 Hertz refresh rate only repeats it 2.x times. And that's why the former causes the soap opera effect that is completely unnatural as far as cinematic movies go.
And The Hobbit's 48fps basically goes in a similar direction because that's exactly twice as many frames as with conventional movies. So you would have a similar experience even without high Hertz displays.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that HFR actually fills in those refreshes with new images, whereas high Hertz just makes your TV refresh the same frame a number of times.
I'm sure there will be some similarities, but HFR will also be much more impressive and make more sense than high Hertz.
Regardless though, the effect is the same. A 120 Hertz TV repeats each frame of a typical 24 fps movie around 5 times within 1 second while an ordinary 60 Hertz refresh rate only repeats it 2.x times. And that's why the former causes the soap opera effect that is completely unnatural as far as cinematic movies go.
And The Hobbit's 48fps basically goes in a similar direction because that's exactly twice as many frames as with conventional movies. So you would have a similar experience even without high Hertz displays.[/QUOTE]
The difference is that HFR actually fills in those refreshes with new images, whereas high Hertz just makes your TV refresh the same frame a number of times.
I'm sure there will be some similarities, but HFR will also be much more impressive and make more sense than high Hertz.
Last edited:
[QUOTE="Ixion, post: 5964151]The difference is that HFR actually fills in those refreshes with new images, whereas high Hertz just makes your TV refresh the same frame a number of times.
I'm sure there will be some similarities, but HFR will also be much more impressive and make more sense than high Hertz.[/QUOTE]
Of course, more frames are always better than more Hertz so we will just have to wait and see how it looks.
I'm sure there will be some similarities, but HFR will also be much more impressive and make more sense than high Hertz.[/QUOTE]
Of course, more frames are always better than more Hertz so we will just have to wait and see how it looks.
Tonight I attended an high frame rate (HFR) 3D advance screening of The Hobbit. Solid but very familiar. It lacks the urgency, scale, and progression of The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Visual effects are some of the best out there but really felt more like a refinement of what was done before. The controversial 48 frames per second format did not bother me as much as I anticipated but I am not in love with it. I will say that it helped make the 3D really crisp, as Peter Jackson has argued. It did make some shots feel "fake" and overall the look reminded me of a BBC movie or TV show. This is one of the few films I will recommend seeing the 3D version of because otherwise you might just be bored honestly if you aren't a hardcore fan. Overall, lacked the fresh impact of the LOTR trilogy.
SCORE: 7.5 out of 10
SCORE: 7.5 out of 10
That is true. But it isn't even necessarily the story so much as that it feels too familiar. Like a lot of "already seen this before" even if it still looks great and is more polished than before. It's akin to how I felt about BioShock 2.
It does have issues with pacing and certainly seems drawn out for the sake of filling time. It's my opinion that 3 films, each being close 3 hours probably, is kind-of a stretch for The Hobbit.
It does have issues with pacing and certainly seems drawn out for the sake of filling time. It's my opinion that 3 films, each being close 3 hours probably, is kind-of a stretch for The Hobbit.
I just booked my ticket to the very first screening in standard 3D at my local cinema back home tomorrow afternoon. I'm flying home for Christmas this evening. If there's one good thing about living in a small town its not really having to worry about booking cinema tickets far in advance and the seating is first come first serve..might just go an hour early to get the best seat center/back.