PhoenixDark
Banned
Very mixed reviews so far. Not surprising; the film looks like Jackson took what is basically a simple children's story and turned it into a bloated LOTR. I'll be there day one most likely, but my expectations are low.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Hobbit - Official Thread of Officially In Production
- Thread starter WyndhamPrice
- Start date
- Status
Edmond Dantès;45124268 said:
YouTube is telling me that this video was removed by the uploader. Does anyone have a mirror? I'm curious after seeing all the positive responses to it on the last page.
EDIT: Nevermind, finally found a mirror. Watching now.
http://www.movieweb.com/news/the-ho...ney-13-minute-featurette-with-all-new-footage
Ixion
Member
A negative review from TIME Magazine....
http://entertainment.time.com/2012/12/05/the-hobbit-why-go-there-and-back-again/
Key Points:
-Movie feels like a rough cut without proper editing
-Not nearly as bad as The Phantom Menace
-Says the number of dwarves should have been cut down
-48 FPS looks like a video game
-Martin Freeman gives a very good performance
-Gollum scene lives up to expectations
RottenTomatoes now stands at 73%
http://entertainment.time.com/2012/12/05/the-hobbit-why-go-there-and-back-again/
Key Points:
-Movie feels like a rough cut without proper editing
-Not nearly as bad as The Phantom Menace
-Says the number of dwarves should have been cut down
-48 FPS looks like a video game
-Martin Freeman gives a very good performance
-Gollum scene lives up to expectations
RottenTomatoes now stands at 73%
TheKaeptain
Banned
Since I really don't have much due for finals next week I think I will read through The Hobbit since it has been like 15 years or so since I last read it.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
WTF?
Yeah, that would have gone over well.
I can agree with that.
:lol less dwarves MORE ACTION, EXPLOSIONS, FIREWORKS AGAIN AND WHAT FRODOS BACK?
Some people just don't care about tolkien
maquiladora
Member
It would make sense in terms of adapting it to film, but the fans would be outraged.
Messypandas
Member
Its looking like 48fps is the improvement velcro was to shoelaces
Dreamwriter
Member
A couple reviews say that. Their point is with that many characters with similar makeup and speech patterns, you won't get to know any specific one except really the leader of the group. And in fact in the book, while it introduces each dwarf, rarely does the book give any action to one specific dwarf in the party. Even Peter Jackson considered dropping the number of dwarves.
From what I've read, though, Peter Jackson gave the dwarves each their own parts of the story throughout the three movies to remedy the problem.
Yep, that was a lose-lose situation no matter what you do.
Eh, most of the reviews I've read have said that only three or four dwarves really develop into meaningful characters. Interestingly, that's the same number of dwarves that the 13 minute TV preview says were meaningful characters in the book.
Speaking of which, that preview definitely got me excited, though I'm still a bit nervous about the pacing and padding issues.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
But why is it important that we get to know each dwarf individually? This is primarily Bilbo's journey and story. It would seem ridiculous to cut down the number of dwarves because there wasn't enough screen time to share. And what would be suitable? 7 dwarves? 5 dwarves?
I'm not even one of the purists that's upset with PJ's LOTR changes. I thought losing Tom Bombadil from FOTR was a brilliant move of addition by subtraction. In fact, I thought PJ and Philippa did a brilliant job translating LOTR to screen. However, if they would have reduced the number of dwarves in The Hobbit because there were "too many," I would have thought that decision to be quite strange and unnecessary.
I guess I'll form my opinion on the overabundance of dwarves when I finally see the film, but as for now, I can't see it really being a problem.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
It seemed clear to me that the reason he wasn't going to do it originally was his feud with New Line over royalties on LotR.
O rly? Outstanding news. To see these again in theatres would be such a treat.
maquiladora
Member
Demoncarnotaur
Member
I think that may be due to the art style and CG thats causing this. The CG has stood out to me as awkward and bad in a lot of the trailers and clips released online, I can only imagine what it may look like in 48fps. Still, Im sure the 48FPS is jarring at the same time, and it may require different filming styles to make it feel more 'cinematic'. I have faith in its potential even if it does come off awkward with the Hobbit.
Kinda crazy RT is only a 73%. Thats not awful by any means, but I did expect better.
More or less. I wish they'd performed this grand experiment on a film I cared less about. I know I can track it down in 24fps during the theatrical release, but I'm assuming the Blu-ray will universally have that BBC-video quality.
Discotheque
Banned
That's the biggest problem for me. I care more about the Hobbit than any other blockbuster and they had to fucking experiment with it. Would have preferred if they tried this out with Avatar 2 instead.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
The Blu-ray spec doesn't support it. Expect it to be 24fps. Enjoy your fake motion blur.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
What the fuck are you guys complaining about? Go see it in 24fps if you're worried about it ruining the film.
Why would you assume that? Almost all new format releases (in this case they have been mostly 3D) come with their own special release (and come with a normal Blu-ray version of the movie in these releases too!) and a majority of the release is shown in the normal 2D format. Why assume the normal release is going to force 48 FPS when 1) its going to be more costly to port over because there is more data to compress and 2) the publishers have thoroughly acknowledged they worry about the 48 FPS reception which is why it got such a limited release, if anything one might question how available the 48 FPS version is going to be at release.
Dreamwriter
Member
Why would you wish that without even seeing it? Maybe you'll think 48fps is the best thing to ever come to film, and will love the fact that you got this movie in the format. I mean, half the reviewers love it. People are talking as if HFR is being universally panned, but it's not, it seems to be pretty evenly split. And even some of the negative reviews change - like the one guy who hated HFR, then saw the movie a second time in HFR, and that time he loved it.
Really, there's no reason to want this movie to not be in HFR - if the format doesn't catch on, oh well, they filmed the movie in such a way that 24fps still looks perfectly good, so it's not like it makes the movie worse. But if it does catch on, it's great that this movie supports it. If it catches on, people will be wishing all their favorite old movies, like the LotR trilogy, had been filmed that way.
So is the 24fps version just a 48fps with dropped frames?
I imagine that might be a bit odd. Like motion that would normally be capture across a frame at 1/24th of a second (and thus blur), is now capture at 1/48th of a second and be possibly less blurred. Obviously they would make the frame last for the appropriate length of time, but would you actually get a strange effect?
This is of course assuming it was fied at high frame rate and processed down.
I imagine that might be a bit odd. Like motion that would normally be capture across a frame at 1/24th of a second (and thus blur), is now capture at 1/48th of a second and be possibly less blurred. Obviously they would make the frame last for the appropriate length of time, but would you actually get a strange effect?
This is of course assuming it was fied at high frame rate and processed down.
It will be almost indiscernible to regular 24fps footage. I shoot 60fps footage all the time with my camera, intending to play back at 30 or 24fps to achieve slow motion, only to find that the scene doesn't need slow motion and instead just play at back at full speed, but in a 30fps project. So it's just dropping the frames, and you wouldn't be able to tell it was shot at 60fps.
I mean, just look at any of the media available already for the film, the trailers, TV spots, productions videos, etc. It's all at 24fps and it all looks completely normal.
Dreamwriter
Member
The movie was filmed at 48fps with a "270 degree shutter" - what that means is there is still *some* motion blur, just not as much as is standard, so it should look fine.
Interesting. Thanks for the responses!
In other news, instead of buying the full soundtrack album, I just bought a few select tracks. I true listening to them in bed last nigh, but I fell asleep.
Discotheque
Banned
Already posted....he looks beautiful.
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
I feel quite ready for another adventure.
TangoAlphaLima
Member
Get hyped, OT is going up now...
Edmond Dantès
Dantès the White
It's up, you can post now.
Ape Gone Insane
Member
For you lazy buggers, link to his OT: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=503044
PhoenixDark
Banned
Seems like fans aren't outraged over The Hobbit being turned into LOTR, or stretched into two 3 hour films when the basic story can be told in one film. Perhaps they'd be fine with fewer dwarfs too; personally I would rather have fewer dwarfs than two films.
Any review that says this can just be ignored. Just...no. What is wrong with people?
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Is this the same TIME magazine that listed Cloud Atlas as the worst movie of the year whilst putting TDKR in the top 5 best? That TIME magazine?
Wow, I didn't think they could be that bad. They need a new reviewer.
That said the ENTIRE reason they go and get Bilbo in the first place is because 13 is an unlucky number and no one wants to have any of that sort of bad mojo. There's also the scene with Beorn that just wouldn't be as funny with less dwarves.
Ape Gone Insane
Member
Cloud Atlas the worst film of the year? They can't review for shit. Cloud Atlas has been the most enjoyable film for me this year and I pretty much watch most releases.
This 1000x.
Too bad I didn't have time to re-read the Hobbit before the first movie came out
Steiner_Zi
Member
You still have time, you only have to read the first 100 pages or so.
Besides, it's really light reading. I'm in the middle of finals but I'm going to do my best to squeeze in time for The Hobbit (or at least the first 100 pages) since it's been a couple years since I last read it. It shouldn't take more than a few sittings.
Alx
Member
That kind of makes sense even in the context of the book, the dwarves always felt like a numerous pack but it was also part of the humor : each time they had to be mentioned, it would go through the whole list "Kili-Fili-Dori-Ori-Nori-Oinn-Gloinn-...".
But except for comedic effect, there is no point in having a dozen of dwarves rather than 4 or 5.
Sadly I don't. I have two exams coming up I need to study on those..
AngmarsKing701
Member
One week.
I've stopped watching any trailers or glimpses or behind the scenes. I don't want anything spoiled. I'm glancing over this thread and scrolling past black bars.
One week.
I've stopped watching any trailers or glimpses or behind the scenes. I don't want anything spoiled. I'm glancing over this thread and scrolling past black bars.
One week.
- Status