Silverlode
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Feb 4 2013, 8:08am
Views: 1895
|
Just back from #5. New observations and some personal commentary.
|
|
|
New stuff I noticed: The helmet Frodo takes out of the chest is not the same as the dwarves wear, though it has some similar elements - but it's not a goblin/orc design either; none of the goblins or orcs in this movie appear to be wearing helmets. So now I'm wondering if it could be a helmet from Dain's army. It will be very interesting to see where Bilbo picks it up. I have noticed Frodo's 5 o'clock shadow also, and I find it very distracting. His face has lost some of its baby fat too, and his face is more angular than it was in LOTR - but the unshaven look is more distracting. Radagast wears shoes rather than boots, and they have curled toes. You can see them when he picks up Sebastian from the forest floor, and little flashes of them while he is running. Bombur is the one breathing in moths while he snores, not Gloin. You can see the edge of his bald spot and also his rope of hair. Orcrist's hilt appears to be made of antler - perhaps an antler of the same sort of creature as Thranduil's mount? Maybe Turgon's army officers rode Megaloceros too? In Rivendell, I don't think Elrond's Elvish was directed at the dwarves (as they assume) even though he's looking at the dwarves, I think it's a directive to the other Elves to prepare for guests. As the dwarves are busy being insulted about it, you can see elves heading up the stairway behind Elrond to carry out his orders. I just noticed (and loved) the huge Elvish figure carved out of the rock wall behind the Moon Rune Reader platform. The Gobin Town trapdoor chute ends in a rock outcrop that looks like a goblin face, while the rock shelf and metal cage below it looks like an arm with a clawed hand at the end of it - so when the Company falls down into it, it looks like a goblin vomiting into its hand. Typical goblin humor, I'd say. The Great Goblin never blinks, except once he does a sort of half squint. In fact, I don't think he has eyelids...not normal ones that can cover his eyeballs, anyway. Was he born without, or did some enemy rip them off when he was a Little Goblin? I don't think Thorin needs to understand what Azog is saying - in fact, I don't think Thorin reacts to what he says at all. After Azog does his little taunting speech, all Thorin says is "It cannot be true!"; he's still busy trying to get his head around the fact that Azog is still alive. In the last scene of the Company standing on the Carrock, you can see steps running down the side. Personal reactions/commentary: Tonight I finally figured out what bothers me about Azog. He's never struck me as quite real, or in keeping with the other characters/creatures but I have decided it's not the CGI, or the animation, or the creature design, or any of the other things I've seen people talk about. It's actually quite simple - he moves and talks as if he is in slow motion at all times, even when no one else is. Now, the slow movements I could shrug off as simply being a big, muscle-bound orc, although it is a bit excessive and "look at the big bad orc" for my taste, but what really gets on my nerves is how he talks in slow motion. All other orcs and creatures talk at normal speed, but he always talks slooowly and over-enunciates everything. Basically, he's (and I hate to say this).....Celeborc. Yes, folks, he and Celeborn speak with exactly the same cadence, and it doesn't work for either one of them. And Azog doesn't have the excuse of speaking in a second language. I think if Azog would just speak at normal speed like all the other orcs I'd find him more realistic and believable. At any rate, I'm relieved to have put my finger on the problem because it means I can now take it out of the mental category of "Why does this bug me so much?" and file it under "Things I'll just have to live with" and ignore it as best I can in future viewings. I've never been a figurine or statue collector, but if they come out with a good one of Gandalf riding an Eagle I may just have to get one. I the flying scenes at the end of the movie and they don't last nearly long enough for my taste. In fact, if there ever is a Middle-earth theme park (not that I'm really an advocate of one) they need to have a ride like the "Soaring Over California" ride at Disney's California Adventure park. Only it should being Soaring (on Eagles) over Middle-Earth (New Zealand). In 3D/48fps, of course. I would be first in line. In the AbsurdMoviePhysics category, does it bother/amuse anyone else that the pine trees on the cliff have no root systems to speak of? They fall over far, far too easily (trees do not fall over like dominoes, even when other trees fall on them)....except the last one which has far less depth of soil/rock for roots of any kind, much less a tap root but hangs on anyway. Cue major eye-rolling for me every time. Why do they have Oin read the portents, and then misidentify the bird at the end? It weakens the interpretation of the prophecy. And who really thinks a thrush looks anything like a raven? That whole bit of conversation on the Carrock is odd. And a personal observation about HFR. This is my 4th time seeing this in HFR (5th viewing overall), and my experiences went something like this: 1. Midnight premiere - 3D/HFR I liked it but found the 3D a little "layered"-looking and occasionally distracting. I feel like 3D/HFR is neat, but not necessary. 2. 2D/24fps Wow, this is really blurry by comparison, I can hardly focus on scenes with sweeping camera movements, especially the first panning shots inside Erebor. 3. 3D/HFR. Took my mom to see it. She really likes the HFR, but I notice a little bit of the "too-real" or "stagey" effect in some scenes, especially in Bag End and, oddly, in the shot of Gandalf and Thorin arguing in the ruins of the farmhouse. Now I know why others have complained. Still much prefer HFR to 2D though. 4. HFR is gone from my local AMC theaters, but I discover that it's still playing in a local Cinemark theater. I take my Dad to see it. It looks gorgeous, far better than it did at the (far newer, less "run-down") AMC and my dad (who just turned 75) thought it looked terrific. He said, "Every movie should look like that!" I agree, though I noticed the sound was out in one of the surround speakers. Well, it's an old theater. 5. HFR again. Second viewing at the Cinemark, different auditorium. My mom came back again for seconds. Still looks perfect. She and I agree that it looked exceptionally natural and beautiful, much better than at the AMC. In thinking over the difference between the theaters, I've concluded that the problem with the AMC is that they showed it too bright. It accentuated contrasts and made even some of the location shots look hyper-real (and thus unreal), and made the effects shots look out of place. Not that the Cinemark seems dark - on the contrary, it looks perfect. Easy on the eyes, beautiful, and everything works together. Now, granted, some of this may be the result of "getting used to it", but I don't really think so. I didn't originally think it was too bright when I saw it, but in hindsight, having seen it as it really should be, I do think so. Incidentally, AMC dropped HFR two weeks ago, while the Cinemark has dropped its other formats and is still showing HFR. I have no way of knowing what these decisions were based on, but part of me wonders if it could possibly have anything to do with it looking so much better at the Cinemark that it became the popular option. Now I may have to rethink my premiere plans for next year. I can put up with uncomfortable seats and occasional sound snafus if it looks this good!
Silverlode
|