Discussion in 'The Rec Room (Sports and Entertainment)' started by billc, Dec 2, 2012.
Love some of the comments. "Peter Jackson's Trilogy of Overly Long Films" :lfao:
Humph... (owns the extended version box sets.)
I just read that article. It sounds fascinating. I wonder if too much technology could actually ruin a movie?
Just in case, I'll probably watch it in 24 fps. I have eyesight problems anyway, normally cant see 3D, so better not to hurt my eyes with the 48 till i know normal people can watch it. Especially with that whole 'flashlight in a dark room' thing
I went to go see it Thursday night's midnight showing in IMAX 3D. I LOVED IT!!!!!!!!!!!! I thought the 3D was amazing and I had no trouble with it, but I've never had motion sickness from 3D before. I loved parts that they've kept true to the books, the things that they added to show "the darkness" growing, and even the little changes and additions that Peter Jackson added worked well IMHO. I really enjoyed it and I'm really looking forward to seeing it again.
I liked the review Aikikitty. I like hearing regular people review movies. Too often the critics, whose job is to see movies, lose that thrill of entering the theater. Their idea of what is really good can get a little mixed up since they are forced to see so many movies and then comment on them.
Reviews--from critics and movie-goers--seem pretty muted to me, though the 3D is getting solid reviews. We're going tomorrow.
48fps at local theater. Will see it shortly.
How tall are you Bob...
Finally got a chance to see it, and loved it! They added in quite a few things im pretty sure werent in the book, but in my opinion it gave them the depth that tolkien gave by writing a lot more books, which wouldnt have been there if they followed the book word for word. Cant wait for the second!
That's pretty much what I've heard. The critics seem out on a limb on this one. People love the Hobbit!
I enjoyed it more than the first three. I gave that some thought and I think I've figured out a few reasons why. First, a better hobbit who is believable in the role of reluctant adventurer. He's clever and spry, as a halfling should be. Second, better dwarves. Third, fewer elves. Elves are like garlic. They make a dish better, but too much makes you feel sick. Fourth, better villains.
Criticisms I've seen a lot are about the pacing, but honestly, I didn't find it to be slow or drag. I enjoyed it quite a bit.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
I wasn't too taken with it. Some good scenes--e.g., the 3 trolls--but the whole was less than the sum of its parts. The humor didn't work for me--Radagast the Clown in particular. (Yes, I know the source material here has a different flavor than LOTR. It just didn't translate for me.) I'll certainly see the next two though.
Personally, I would rather have the movie in multiple parts if it stays true to the book as much as possible. I think that there are way too many important parts in the book that are good that would have to be cut out for just one movie.
I'm hoping to go see it this weekend. I know for me personally, I have read "The Hobbit" and enjoyed the book, but when I tried to read the LOTR trilogy, I just couldn't get into them. Even the movies had alot of slow parts for me.
Well, I wasnt really thinking about comparing the two trilogies (when it becomes a trilogy) so much as seeing how they meshed, which I feel they do. The hobbit had a lighter overall tone to it, allowing for the humorous parts like radagast but still having the parts like them humming the song in bilbos house, while the original had to be much more serious and grave since they were literally stopping their world from being overrun by darkness. But if I were to compare the two, it would be almost exactly as you have done. Especially the pacing, if anything this was paced better than the first movie from LOTR, didnt have as many spots were I was waiting for the next big scene, and didnt even notice how much time went by.
Also, I found out today that one of my coworkers has a cousin who works for Wingnut films and he said he already saw a rough, rough draft of the second movie and that even the rough version was amazing...it with a grain of salt though, since I dont know him personally
Loved it, may go watch it a second time (something I haven`t done for over a decade).
Sure a few things have been changed, but hey it is an adventure and such stories should be able to be told in different ways.
Only thing I missed is more time for the Eagles, they are not just simply big birds that picks wizards and hobbits out of sticky situations.
The One Arm Orc thing is a bit contrived but it doesn't upset me...the Stone Giant scene was obviously bling for the 3D showings and could have done wo it. Overall I liked it...the protryal of Middle Earth is even better than the first 3 movies IMO.
And...while I know they do it for cinematic reasons, the rendering of Moria, Gobblin Town, Erebor as these huge open caverns irks me a bit. Are the mountians of Middle Earth all just huge hollow cones? Lol!
Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2
Heh. Agreed on both counts. All the mountains are indeed movie-style facades!123
Separate names with a comma.