|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Jun 23 2014, 9:24am
Post #1 of 17
(845 views)
Shortcut
|
|
The HooDit (a little joke to talk about the HD quiality of the movies)
|
Can't Post
|
|
Well I had the oportunity to see the movies in HD, Ii had the regular version of the DVDīs and while the experience was good I have to say, WHAT A DIFFERENCE!
I can say now that despite of the changes in the story (a bunch of them make it better) the Hobbit movies have nothing to be ashamed of, the visuals are far better than LOTR, I mean, it has been in this moment watching them in HD when I understood the way they were intended to be.
With a regular definition the movie seems colorfull and cartoon I understand that, but with the HD for example I complaint about AUJ having too many sunrises and sunsets but now in HD man when you go round and see a trully bright sunset it is that way! The colour of the pine trees in Rivendell it is that way how in real world they shine on summers glow
And not to tell the CGI characters, they all improve. Hobbit movies regarding visuals are better, Other thing is to say that what they show you like it better than things that appear in the hobbit for example:
Erebor vs Moria (its a matter of taste)
The vision on the Mirkwood canopy vs Pelennor Fields (I prefer the second though that butterfly moment with that music is one of the best fantasy movie moment EVER)
What say you?
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!
|
|
|
KeenObserver
Lorien
Jun 23 2014, 9:42am
Post #2 of 17
(395 views)
Shortcut
|
that your opinion is essentially the same as mine. 
The thirst for adventure is the vent which Destiny offers; a war, a crusade, a gold mine, a new country, speak to the imagination and offer
- Jose Bergamin
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jun 23 2014, 10:01am
Post #3 of 17
(338 views)
Shortcut
|
Those movies are beautiful and the CGI is superior to that of most other fanatsy movies out there... just realized that again when I saw Maleficient. What a difference.
It is actually the hyper-realism that can throw you at first... for example, I recently did a hiking tour on the shores of a fast-moving river. I realized that the rapids actually look exactly as in the movie where I suspected CGI-water at first.
It is a bit like pictures taken of sunsets... when you see the picture you often think of it as cheesy... but when you see the real thing you realize that it actually does look like that and not just on post-cards or Instagram pictures with 10 filters.
I loved the documentary feel that LitR deliberately had... TH clearly does not try to achieve that. It concentrates far more on being "inside" what is happening. Immersion.
This will sound ironic to those who are so thrown by the HD of TH that their immersion totally falls apart. Completely understandable. But for those who are drawn in by it or those whose viewing experiences and expectations adjusted - it is indeed wonderful and surely some of the greatest CGI-works seen so far.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Jun 23 2014, 10:05am
Post #4 of 17
(336 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I think itīs a matter of having an eye on LOTR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
and have been somehow devoted to it (I ,ve been one of those, but what I find in the end is that I love the story, but some of the CGI compared to the hobbit, come on)
And I feel that is a matter of hyperrealism that in the end, makes you feel like BAH, but when you realize the amount of CGI this movie have you understand, that you have been tricked faaaaaaar more than you thought and that means the job was made properly
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jun 23 2014, 10:09am
Post #5 of 17
(340 views)
Shortcut
|
I've been an advocate of this ever since I first saw AUJ in it. I first saw the film in 2D, and although it looked OK, the HFR 3D was far superior as far as I was concerned.
I did see the ordinary 3D version at one point, too, and thought it was by far the worst format of the three. It was so dark and blurred. (I don't generally like 3D at all).
I thought the visuals look spectacular in the HFR 3D. The only place where they look unrealistic in AUJ is in Rivendell (the place where the Dwarves and Bilbo first see it in particular, but also the bit around the table). But then I thought Rivendell looked a bit fake in FotR, too, though perhaps less so
I also appreciate the amount of work that must have gone into preventing errors from appearing on screen when it comes to the HFR 3D format. With the picture being so sharp, every error will stand out.
(This post was edited by Glorfindela on Jun 23 2014, 10:12am)
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Jun 23 2014, 10:12am
Post #6 of 17
(327 views)
Shortcut
|
I didnīt have the oportunity to see it in HFR 3D but Iīm sure it is another step forward, but about that I cannot tell because I havenīt seen it in that format
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!
|
|
|
Arannir
Valinor
Jun 23 2014, 10:16am
Post #7 of 17
(317 views)
Shortcut
|
If I remember correctly they used some of their map-paintings for Rivendell. Re-watching the LotR-BluRays I realized that the map-paintings are particularly obvious (though imho they already were in the original releases, especially in Rivendell and Fangorn).
But I want to add: all of this is "criticism" on the very highest of levels. The achievement for both trilogies is and remains remarkable nevertheless imho.
I also think the look of TH is far more timeless than some of the CGI critics predict. With the exeption of some digital double shots. As I have said elsewhere, PJ tends to show them for too long without cutting away especially in "slower" moments.
"I am afraid it is only too likely to be true what you say about the critics and the public. I am dreading the publication for it will be impossible not to mind what is said. I have exposed my heart to be shot at." J.R.R. Tolkien
We all have our hearts and minds one way or another invested in these books and movies. So we all mind and should show the necessary respect.
|
|
|
Glorfindela
Valinor
Jun 23 2014, 10:28am
Post #8 of 17
(320 views)
Shortcut
|
So by HD, do you mean Blu-ray? I get confused between the different formats available. I have also watched AUJ in Blu-ray on an HD TV, and it looks great in that format.
You must go to see the next film in HFR 3D (and AUJ and DoS if you ever get the chance)! I wasn't the only one who was bowled over by this format (in a good way). My sisters and brother-in-law really appreciated it, too.
I didnīt have the oportunity to see it in HFR 3D but Iīm sure it is another step forward, but about that I cannot tell because I havenīt seen it in that format
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Jun 23 2014, 10:30am
Post #9 of 17
(309 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I will try but where I live is hard to get some cinema with that format
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!
|
|
|
Vepariga
The Shire
Jun 23 2014, 11:11am
Post #10 of 17
(301 views)
Shortcut
|
The step up in CGI quality and resolution from the LOTR trilogy was pretty swift in Hobbit, imo Both still look incredible in HD.
Hobbit does indeed shine with crisp visuals and detail,the CGI is undoubtably better and more inclusive with the characters.
What I love tho with the Bluray treatments is that you pick up so many fine details that the Cinema doesnt show, I always enjoy a personal viewing on the big HD TV with the lights off, sound up and a blanket. Nothing better.
- Vep - Guardsman of the woodland realm of Mirkwood -
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jun 23 2014, 1:08pm
Post #11 of 17
(278 views)
Shortcut
|
LOTR was the pinnacle of 35mm film making - after over 100 years of development and experimentation. The Hobbit suffers a bit from the digital technology still being in its infancy - the film-makers being excited with what it can do - I think this puts the technology too much at the forefront, as in "we can get it really sharp and clear now, so lets make the most of that when we film, light, design the sets, graphics etc." There was lots of additional new technology in The Hobbit, which I think drove the directing decisions a bit too much - at least at first, but in The Desolation of Smaug, we saw PJ saying "hang on, lets blur it a bit, and tone it down and darken it here and there" - that's my interpretation obviously, but I think it's difficult for film-makers to go against the strengths of tech., even when it makes for a better result - at least at first.
I'm expecting the digital look to gradually disappear as creative people reassert themselves over the technology.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
Mr. Arkenstone (isaac)
Tol Eressea
Jun 23 2014, 1:15pm
Post #12 of 17
(282 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Hobbit trilogy suffers from a lack of planification
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
And that has drawn PJ to overuse CGI in order to suplyy the absence of the actor to redo some scenes in order to adjust to the 3 fil conversion. Iīm talking about digital dobules here wich is the worst of the CGI in The Hobbit trilogy, shots that by my understanding could have been shooted with the real actors, so I understand that those shots are the way they are because the actors werenīt aviable.
Iif The Hobbit trilogy since the start would have been planned as a trilogy (a change I appreciate) it would have been a trilogy would have made shadow to LOTR...but that is another discussion
The flagon with the dragon has the brew that is true!
|
|
|
Lindele
Gondor
Jun 23 2014, 2:00pm
Post #13 of 17
(259 views)
Shortcut
|
more people would realize this. Watching these films in SD is like a punch in the face to PJ and co.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jun 23 2014, 4:05pm
Post #14 of 17
(224 views)
Shortcut
|
the visuals are far better than LOTR
I mean, The Hobbit films do look great, apart from a few instances of shots looking a bit too digital. In fact, the visuals are one of the few things i really like about this trilogy (along with the performances). But "far better" than LotR? Come on now. To my eye, LotR has many, many more instances of striking, memorable imagery than TH. And in spite of LotR being 12 years older than TH, there are loads of shots that look just as good as anything in AUJ or DoS, if not better.
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jun 23 2014, 4:13pm
Post #15 of 17
(211 views)
Shortcut
|
LOTR was the pinnacle of 35mm film making - after over 100 years of development and experimentation. The Hobbit suffers a bit from the digital technology still being in its infancy - the film-makers being excited with what it can do - I think this puts the technology too much at the forefront, as in "we can get it really sharp and clear now, so lets make the most of that when we film, light, design the sets, graphics etc." There was lots of additional new technology in The Hobbit, which I think drove the directing decisions a bit too much - at least at first, but in The Desolation of Smaug, we saw PJ saying "hang on, lets blur it a bit, and tone it down and darken it here and there" - that's my interpretation obviously, but I think it's difficult for film-makers to go against the strengths of tech., even when it makes for a better result - at least at first.
I'm expecting the digital look to gradually disappear as creative people reassert themselves over the technology.
I get the feeling watching these Hobbit films that PJ is a little too in love with his tool box this time around, and uses far less editorial judgement when applying them than he did with LotR. The whole thing ends up feeling a bit too artificial.
|
|
|
Bumblingidiot
Rohan
Jun 23 2014, 6:12pm
Post #16 of 17
(176 views)
Shortcut
|
some of these decisions are fixable by the punter - as I keep mentioning here, I found that turning the brightness down four notches from standard on my telly, for AUJ, made it a much more film-like and atmospheric experience - because I could no longer see all the details that PJ put into his shadows. It completely transformed the riddles in the dark scene, for example.
"Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear."
|
|
|
sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea
Jun 23 2014, 6:37pm
Post #17 of 17
(179 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Yeah, AUJ was much too bright.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I'll try that when i give it a re-watch when the DoS EE comes out.
|
|
|
|
|
