|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
mefansmum
Rivendell
Mar 2 2013, 5:52pm
Post #26 of 175
(862 views)
Shortcut
|
that had me deciding to watch the 2D version first so as not to get distracted from the story.
And that was a mistake because I was not blown away the first time I saw it, nor have I been in the 2D viewings I have had to go to since.
I found myself much more engaged with the characters and the action in the 3D HFR version.
I could go through a list of points he made that I found the opposite but I will just mention one.
Clarity of image showing flaws. If I had noticed makeup a bit more occasionally because of the sharp image, what does that matter, I know it is fake anyway. Even if it did bother me, it is more than made up for by the wonderful advantage of other things seen in sharper clarity like the scenery and the detail in sets, costumes and equipment etc.
I should have noted this statement before I took his advice 'Shallow depth of field, motion blur, lack of sharpness, and movement all help to create movie magic.' Says who - not me anyway! It reminds me of the people who claimed movies should not have talking way back in the days when talking pictures came in.
|
|
|
Súlimë
Rivendell
Mar 2 2013, 6:11pm
Post #27 of 175
(805 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It definitely wasn't a failure for me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'm one of those people who love HFR. I saw it in every format -- and HFR was a unique experience. I will be seeing the next two films in HFR as well.
I've read the article before. I thought that the reviewer gave a fair and thoughtful review of his experience, and he was open-minded and respectful towards other people who did enjoy HFR.
The theme-park-ride action scenes are usually not for me, but let's not forget that The Hobbit has to be a children-safe movie -- or, to be more accurate -- it's supposed to be a movie for children that MUST also entertain adults, and fans, and non-fans, and people who expect to see another Lord of the Rings. On this account, I think The Hobbit did a brilliant job. I agree the action could have been a bit more intelligent -- but this is something the majority of movies suffer from as well (except that they can just cover it up with a massive amount of blood and gore and that generally keeps people happy)
Also, I don't think it's fair to compare it to the Lord of the Rings. It's hardly the movie's fault. Just look at how vastly different the source material is. The Hobbit book never reaches the 'epic feel' that permeates the Lord of the Rings; even at the climax its focus is still quite personal.
One thing that I really appreciated about The Hobbit is that they kept pretty true to the spirit of the book -- it's got a pure, young, fun, coming-of-age spirit -- just like how they kept to a certain extent true to the spirit of the Lord of the Rings, which was a grand, sweeping epic with a lingering sense of sadness.
I can find a million faults with The Lord of the Rings films, probably just as I can with The Hobbit, but in the end it doesn't matter. I'm just overwhelmed by the unbelievable fact that they really successfully made two series of unfilmable films and have introduced my generation and the next to Tolkien's wonderful world of Middle Earth.
|
|
|
Súlimë
Rivendell
Mar 2 2013, 6:16pm
Post #28 of 175
(829 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Funny how it was the total opposite for me
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
that had me deciding to watch the 2D version first so as not to get distracted from the story. It was exactly this review that made me I decide to finally watch it in 3D HFR -- it made me very curious so I had to see for myself. I ended up loving HFR :)
I like how it's one of the few reviews that doesn't seem to be bashing HFR just for the sake of bashing it. The reviewer didn't like HFR, but he didn't discourage people from seeing it and deciding for themselves, which was a mature, civilized take on the subject.
(This post was edited by Súlimë on Mar 2 2013, 6:16pm)
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Mar 2 2013, 6:20pm
Post #29 of 175
(810 views)
Shortcut
|
Thorin, Bilbo and Gandalf were all brilliantly portrayed and acted.
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2013, 6:39pm
Post #30 of 175
(809 views)
Shortcut
|
|
It wasn't totally non-stop action
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Rivendell and Gollum's cave came after the trolls, and could most certainly be considered lulls in the action. And aside from the Radagast chase scene and the embellishments to the stone giants, the action scenes after the trolls tracked pretty well with the book. The dwarves situation from Goblin-Town to the pine trees WAS basically non-stop action, with "Riddles in the Dark" serving as a bit of a respite (as it was in the film).
As for the "unbelievability" aspect of the Goblin-Town tumbles, yes, it was most certainly over-the-top and unrealistic. However, so was Legolas surfing down oliphaunt trunks, Sam fending off armed orcs with a frying pan in Moria, Aragorn single-handedly fending off more than 20 heavily-armoured Uruks at Amon Hen (before Legolas and Gimli join the fray), Gollum surviving a fall down a chasm right after Shelob's Lair, etc. There was plenty of unbelievability to be had in the LOTR movies as well.
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2013, 6:59pm
Post #31 of 175
(789 views)
Shortcut
|
Rivendell and Gollum's cave came after the trolls, and could most certainly be considered lulls in the action. And aside from the Radagast chase scene and the embellishments to the stone giants, the action scenes after the trolls tracked pretty well with the book. The dwarves situation from Goblin-Town to the pine trees WAS basically non-stop action, with "Riddles in the Dark" serving as a bit of a respite (as it was in the film).
As for the "unbelievability" aspect of the Goblin-Town tumbles, yes, it was most certainly over-the-top and unrealistic. However, so was Legolas surfing down oliphaunt trunks, Sam fending off armed orcs with a frying pan in Moria, Aragorn single-handedly fending off more than 20 heavily-armoured Uruks at Amon Hen (before Legolas and Gimli join the fray), Gollum surviving a fall down a chasm right after Shelob's Lair, etc. There was plenty of unbelievability to be had in the LOTR movies as well.
Thank you for your questions, now sod off and go do something useful -- Martin Freeman, Twitter t 3/1/13
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Mar 2 2013, 7:17pm
Post #32 of 175
(787 views)
Shortcut
|
None of those things looked like a video game. It says a lot that they were far more believable and realistic than Chutes and Ladders.
|
|
|
Verbal_Daggers
The Shire
Mar 2 2013, 7:33pm
Post #33 of 175
(766 views)
Shortcut
|
I agree with the author of the article that it kind of felt like being on the set of the movie as the action is happening ... But for me that was a plus - it didn't feel exactly like the real world (may it be the lighting or whatever the reasons) but it also didn't look fake and since Middle-Earth is a fantasy world it is alright for me and it looked somehow magical imo :)
I know that people perceive things differently but if people don't go into the HFR showing open-minded chances are that they see what they want to see. For some people change is always bad. In general I think that humans are prone to habit ... Thus, it will take more movies than The Hobbit trilogy to make a lot of people appreciate the new format!
I mean if you go into the movie expecting it to be so different and that you are afraid it won't be as magical and if you listen too much to the negative reviews then you will probably concentrate on the bad aspects of 48fps, whereas if you go into the movie thinking: great some new exciting technology that might make the movie more immersive then you will most likey look out for the good aspects...
But since PJ gave the audience a choice, I have no idea why the critizism of HFR goes on and on and on... People that didn't like the HFR should watch the next movies in the old format - simple as that ;)
Personally for me the CGI blended in perfectly with HFR (and more smoothly than in Life Of Pi for example - not saying the effects weren't great but in 48 fps it just looked smoother to me ;))
(This post was edited by Verbal_Daggers on Mar 2 2013, 7:35pm)
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Mar 2 2013, 7:56pm
Post #34 of 175
(745 views)
Shortcut
|
I always like when "unrealistic" bits are also "commented" on as such by a movie. That is what happened in Goblin Town - and I simply enjoyed myself. And it was more honest than for example the already mentioned Aragorn fight who kind of pretended to be realistic, but really wasn't (not to say that I did not like it).
Everyone can have their own opinion.
But talking about a "failure" seems a highly extreme position on a movie that, after all, had a majority of critics behind its back and a huge majority of viewers (and a lot of them).
I know of many cinemas in Germany which waited how AUJ HFR works out at the box office to upgrade - and all of them I know will for DoS.
So I cannot see how "failure" can be an appropriate word other than on a very personal and individual level of those disappointed with the outcome.
Maybe other movies (like Avatar 2) will take a lot of the credit and not the Hobbit.... or maybe it will already be DoS (if it is critically more acclaimed). I am sure that technologies in that direction will be the future and will grow.
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Mar 2 2013, 8:29pm
Post #35 of 175
(759 views)
Shortcut
|
(agree with your comments btw just bouncing off your post)
The thing is why is video game being used as an insult? Video games are currently the most creative popular culture medium going. The use of the term video game as a pejorative is just snobbery, cultural hegemony of the highest order and one that fails miserably. Major Video game titles make more money and outsell the world's biggest pop and rock stars, and major film releases, they have their own awards, which cover plot, visuals, innovation, style, content etc. Video games are not mindless creative voids without plot or substance anymore.
(BTW I am 45 years old and not what one would call a gamer however I am aware of gaming and it's current imaginative artistic state).
There is something else about the pejorative use of the term video game when applied to AUJ that needs consideration; Video gaming prior to the early 2000's were largely shoot 'em ups and platforms, fantasy was aside from certain titles/franchises, largely ignored and even considered geeky within the world of videogamers. Video games changed because of the enormous cultural influence of a trilogy of films called LOTR. The visual style of PJ's middle-earth has had an major influence over the world of video games, content, aesthetic style, and action sequences.
The popularisation of fantasy as a mainstream genre was as we here all know the result of the vast success of the LOTR films. Post-LOTR, the fantasy titles multiplied for consoles, and pcs, the cultural influence of the LOTR movie trilogy went way beyond the world of cinema and into many aspects of popular culture, without these films we wouldn't have Game of Thrones on TV(if we did it would certainly have a different non LOTR visual style) and the world of video games would look very different from the one that is currently enjoyed.
It is not an unreasonable nor an unfair argument to say that AUJ didn't look like a video game but, that video games look like AUJ because many look like PJ's M-E, that what millions playing games on their consoles are often entering, a gaming world that is heavily influenced by Pj's middle-earth.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2013, 9:00pm
Post #36 of 175
(723 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, that's bothered me for a long time.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Some of the best experiences i've had with popular art have been in videogames-- right up there with my favorite films, music and television. I can see what they're getting at, but it's a sloppy argument, and you know instantly that they don't play videogames, or that they've only played, or watched people play, bad ones.
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Mar 2 2013, 9:16pm
Post #37 of 175
(729 views)
Shortcut
|
It's not bashing the way AUJ was shot, it's just politely and very intelligently stating the problems with the aesthetic of the film.
Every single person I know, who isn't a huge LOTR fan, can easily spell out all of the problems with the film. Criticisms have generally been the same across the board. Some reviews are harsher than others, but they are still bringing up the same points over and over. Critics aren't crazy, nor are the Academy Awards, nor is anyone here who disliked the film.
It's funny that, since AUJ didn't win much of anything, a lot of people are now saying "the Oscars don't matter anyways". I know I was pumped when ROTK won 11 Oscars, and I feel it truly deserved everything it got. I don't believe AUJ was good enough to earn any major Oscars. The visuals in Life of Pi were actually worlds better than AUJ. So was the story. That film seriously blew me away. I didn't get that feeling from AUJ at all, even though I am a huge Tolkien fan.
There is just too much lack of depth, and character development in the film. I don't think those things can be brushed off just because The Hobbit isn't as complicated as LOTR, or is a children's book. I just think they really lost sight of the important things in the film amidst an array of disappointing visuals.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
|
|
|
Old Toby
Grey Havens
Mar 2 2013, 9:31pm
Post #38 of 175
(704 views)
Shortcut
|
For all you video gamers out there! Okeydokey, the thing is, I'm using the term from my own life experience, which is based on video games as they were oh.....well...many years ago! I truly haven't seen any video games lately, nor do I intend to. So what I meant by the use of that term was simply that parts of the movie, such as the stone giant sequence, looked very cartoonish to me (oh wait, I hope I don't upset the cartoonists here!! AGH! Cant' win!) Um....okay, I'll just shut my mouth now before my foot goes ever deeper. But I hope you understand what I mean here. I'm not sure how I can put this in any way that's not going to offend somebody! 
"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)
|
|
|
Otaku-sempai
Immortal
Mar 2 2013, 9:32pm
Post #39 of 175
(712 views)
Shortcut
|
I think that most of us here would agree that AUJ is flawed to a greater or lesser degree. However, if one disregards the moments of overly-frenetic action, I think that the movie works for the most part. My wife and I had no problems with the HFR format; in fact, it allowed her to watch the film in 3D without coming down with a migraine. I have to admit, though, that we have not seen AUJ in the more traditional 24 fps either in 3D or 2D.
'There are older and fouler things than Orcs in the deep places of the world.' - Gandalf the Grey, The Fellowship of the Ring
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2013, 9:34pm
Post #40 of 175
(707 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Video games and chutes and ladders
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
What exactly made it look like a video game to you? I have been playing video games since the late 80s, and I am not getting the comparison. Chutes and Ladders as well - I don't see your comparison. I never once thought of that game while I was watching.
(This post was edited by Salmacis81 on Mar 2 2013, 9:41pm)
|
|
|
Aragorn the Elfstone
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2013, 9:34pm
Post #41 of 175
(705 views)
Shortcut
|
...that critical position were indisputable. I happen to not agree with it, and think that the film was quite successful (in matters of substance and visuals).
As for the Oscars, I won't speak for others - but I was but a teenager when RotK's clean sweep happened, and put more stock in the Academy's "decrees". A lot has happened in the past 10 years. My tastes have widened, and I've become much more educated on the films that have actually made their mark and pushed the art forward - most of which never won Oscars (or were even nominated). In retrospect, the victory of Return of the King at the Oscars doesn't seem quite so important as it once did. If anything, it's quite bizarre - because the showering of praise it got that year doesn't seem reflective of the Academy's "tastes" in the years before and since.
"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Mar 2 2013, 9:49pm
Post #42 of 175
(701 views)
Shortcut
|
Because that's what it looked like. I've been playing, writing and developing computer games since the mid 70s - longer than you. Have you seen none of the numerous identical complaints preceding mine on this forum? Judging by the absolute plethora of folks making the same observation and comparison about video games and CGI dwarves surviving impossible falls and slides through impossible rocky tunnels, and how Goblin Town looked like a movie scene that went direct-to-game-console, you're basically asking me why I believe the sky is blue (on Earth) because you see it differently.
And honestly, with all those ladders around - some used as weapons to knock goblins off platforms like ants - and that rocky tunnel the dwarves fell down, you don't see how I could come up with the Chutes and Ladders metaphor? It may even be too literal to be a metaphor.
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Mar 2 2013, 9:59pm)
|
|
|
glor
Rohan
Mar 2 2013, 9:52pm
Post #43 of 175
(683 views)
Shortcut
|
I wasn't refering to your use specifically of the term video game, just using your post to bounce off of because, many critics, professional and amateur internet types have used the term video game in a pejorative way to describe elements of AUJ and other films. ( I understand your use of the term video game within the context of your post to describe a very specific sequence in the film, you are also not, I assume a professional reviewer or utlising it as a lazy and inaccurate metaphor to deride an entire film  )
As an insult, it just doesn't hold water, all it does is demonstrate the laziness and cultural snobbery of those that have used the term video game to insult any cultural medium. This coupled with the enourmous amount of influence PJs M-E has had on the world of video games means that utilising the video game critique within the context of AUJ is also overly simplistic and reveals a failure to comprehend the cultural context and breadth of influence of the LOTR movies
It is interesting to note that the term video game as a derogatory phrase in a film review is often utilised to say look CGI, computer stuff=bad, when it doesn't look bad. CGI is just another method for creating a set, sets are fake to, movies are full of fakery and to pick one form over another is again IMHO a false argument, and one also imbedded with cultural snobbery and hegemony.
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Mar 2 2013, 10:08pm
Post #44 of 175
(672 views)
Shortcut
|
I think at first the term 'video game' was bandied about because of the cynical suspicion that set pieces like Goblin Town were made specifically to fit marketing of lucrative video games after the film's release. It's a critical look at the work flow - which came first: the video game or the film?
People generally do take a dimmer view of movies based upon video games than video games based upon movies. People want to believe that what drives a high profile film based upon beloved literature like The Hobbit is not the corrupt influence of money, but the true vision of what Tolkien created.
|
|
|
Patty
Immortal
Mar 2 2013, 10:22pm
Post #45 of 175
(656 views)
Shortcut
|
|
JWPlatt, I've been so out of the loop...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I only saw TH in the theater once--too far away, too expensive, and I like my home creature comforts--that's why I'm awaiting the 3D blu with batted breath. I got to the theater, and thought I was going to see HFR, but it was only regular IMAX 3D. Bummer.
I so want to see DOS in HFR. After the trials and criticisms AUJ got, is DOS going to be present in HFR? This time, I'll break my back to find a nearby theater that lets me experience that frame rate. This is my question--is DOS going to be available in HFR?
Permanent address: Into the West
|
|
|
Michelle Johnston
Rohan
Mar 2 2013, 10:25pm
Post #46 of 175
(676 views)
Shortcut
|
|
One mans meat is another mans poison
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I think by now we have all rehearsed our position on the relative merits of AUJ. But I went to see Life Of Pi on Wednesday in 3 D and I was drawn to your remarks. The visuals in the movie were absolutely stunning and the director weaved a wonderful artful pictorial experience. However right from the start I was completely disengaged emotionally by the multiple use of actors for PI's at the beginning the charactured Indian family, today for instance I have no sense of the mother at all. Gerard D's whose performance was key to the whole movie was hardly on screen you could say that shows confidence but over a long movie he should have been allowed to let his character breath and make a real connection.
AUJ had an emotional heart right from the outset and at its heart were Thorin and Bilbo whose characters were beautifully reimagined for an adult audience and wonderful magical interjections literally from Gandalf, providing us with a constant historical anchor.
PI was laboured from the indulgent use of 3D Wild Life Programme intro to the confusing first hour (what is this movie about) to the tiresome when is the boy gunna be rescued section.
In the end the fable worked but this was a story that could not make up its mind whether it was a soaring inspirational examination of the human capacity for survival ( in that sense it was deeply flawed at a practical level) or merely an allegorical spiritual journey which doesn't work when the protagonist is so young and whom when he becomes an adult, but for a few moments of real emotional engagement which saved the film, seemed to be recounting something in the third person as a philosophical thesis and left me emotionally disenfranchised.
Put simply I wasn't interested in PI at all whereas I can not wait to get back to the Carrock sit in theatre and watch with the marvel of the 3D HFR the actors return to the stage and watch Sir Peter pay homage to the central moments of Tolkiens book and embroider, draw in the appendices and enlarge what Tolkien peeped over the hedge at.
The visuals in Life of Pi were actually worlds better than AUJ. So was the story. That film seriously blew me away. I didn't get that feeling from AUJ at all, even though I am a huge Tolkien fan.
There is just too much lack of depth, and character development in the film. I don't think those things can be brushed off just because The Hobbit isn't as complicated as LOTR, or is a children's book. I just think they really lost sight of the important things in the film amidst an array of disappointing visuals.
I tried to save the shire , and it has been but not for me.
(This post was edited by Michelle Johnston on Mar 2 2013, 10:26pm)
|
|
|
MouthofSauron
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2013, 10:30pm
Post #47 of 175
(629 views)
Shortcut
|
didn't detect any flaws.
take me down to the woodland realm where the trees are green and the elf women are pretty, oh will you please take me home!!
|
|
|
Ham_Sammy
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2013, 10:33pm
Post #48 of 175
(634 views)
Shortcut
|
It comes down to did you like it or not. I didn't think Pi was that great. It was okay for me, but like you I didn't fine the characters engaging. Maybe because I love the Tolkien books I am more engaged at the outset with The Hobbit characters. Either way it really comes down to personal interest.
What I will find interesting is those in this thread who feel it's a complete failure, don't think it represents Tolkien's universe etc, will you then go to see the other two. If so, why?
Is it because you believe it can be rectified? Or is it because you want to see Tolkien's universe no matter how much you disagree with the portrayal? Or maybe there is some other reason you wish to go see it.
There are popular directors I absolutely cannot stand. Tarantino and Burton are two of those. I don't bother to see their movies because I know I'm not going to like them.
I'm wondering if that's the same for some here or not.
Thank you for your questions, now sod off and go do something useful -- Martin Freeman, Twitter t 3/1/13
|
|
|
Salmacis81
Tol Eressea
Mar 2 2013, 10:36pm
Post #49 of 175
(640 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Thanks for your expert opinion
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
So then can you explain to me what wasn't video-gamey about Aragorn taking on 25 Uruks at Amon Hen? I've only ever seen something like that in a video game.
Besides, there are also a plethora of folks who DO NOT agree with your video game comparison.
|
|
|
JWPlatt
Grey Havens
Mar 2 2013, 10:36pm
Post #50 of 175
(631 views)
Shortcut
|
I saw The Hobbit twice in the theater. Once in 2D. I deliberately did that first. Then in 3D HFR. I didn't bother with regular 3D. From what I saw, I believe if you're going to do 3D, do it in HFR. It's worth it. I enjoyed both viewings, despite any criticisms I have, but I remain physically more comfortable with 2D - both because of the glasses and because 3D is simply more draining on my tolerance for longer movies. I also enjoy the more abstract quality of 24 FPS as compared to the more realistic look of HFR.
The Hobbit was filmed entirely in 3D HFR, so I do not think they'll waste that investment. But I suspect it will be in fewer theaters in HFR, and your drive may be longer, unless they drop 24 FPS 3D entirely and show 3D only in HFR. That would be my recommendation to the studio.
(This post was edited by JWPlatt on Mar 2 2013, 10:39pm)
|
|
|
|
|
