- 289
as long as they don't have the animals in the dinner scene to be walking on hind legs , ill be happy... its going to creep me out if i see that.
Peter Jackon's The Hobbit Trailer XMAS detailsMovies
- Thread starter corporatesteve
- 88 comments
- 7,506 views
- 7,113
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
10 minutes of close-to-unedited footage were shown at Cinema Con, last month, as a glimpse of what 48 fps will look like (mixed reviews about it). Trying to find what those 10 minutes showed, I came to a review filled with spoilers. I don't mind spoilers much, I read the books (several times) and it's the visual experience I'm waiting for. And I'm surely worried with the changes that inevitably will be made in this adaptation of the "Hobbit/LOTR" books to the big screen.
However, I understand that others think differently and want to know ZERO on what they'll see. Therefore, the text I found in the "One Ring Net" will be protected by the SPOILER tag.
However, I understand that others think differently and want to know ZERO on what they'll see. Therefore, the text I found in the "One Ring Net" will be protected by the SPOILER tag.
Aside from several seconds of familiar content seen in the teaser trailer this past winter, the clips quickly hit brand new territory:
The White Council featuring Saruman, Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond.
This showed Sir Christopher Lee in front of greenscreen, looking at the table where Gandalf has just placed a Morgul blade. Urgent discussion ensues about the nature of the weapon, and a luminous Cate Blanchett gets the lions share of the expository dialogue. She explains how the Men of the North once battled against the Witch-King of Angmar, and succeeded in burying him in a spell-protected crypt, so dark and deeply buried it would never see light again. Gandalf raises his eyebrows as if to say, Its right here, so never say never. Hugo Weaving provides the deep-voiced But thats impossible! incredulity of the scene while the faintest flicker of wickedness passes across Sarumans face. I loved it! Intrigue and nervousness among the White Council sounds great except it doesnt exist in J.R.R. Tolkien like that. Nowhere in the books did the Dúnedain show the ability to imprison the Nazgûl. This is our first evidence of the filmmakers applying new narrative invention with material culled from the Appendices of LOTR. We evidently wont see the Battle of Fornost or hear Glorfindels famous prophecy being uttered about the Witch-Kings ultimate fate, as his dark enemy flees into the distance. So be prepared to tell your non-Tolkien reading friends what really happened with the Nazgûl.
Cut to the prison-crypt, where Gandalf is investigating in the dark, using only his staff as a light source, and then BAM! theres Radagast right behind him. Here is the wonderful Sylvester McCoy giving us a daftly adorable new wizard. Strange that Radagast is not shown as a member of the White Council, though. Setting that aside, I must admit McCoys portrayal, along with Martin Freemans wonderful Bilbo, are the two performances I most admire so far.
Radagast? Oh let me tell you, hes got so much going on! He is wearing a funnily-shaped hat with dominant brown and black hues, underneath which is revealed a birds nest with hatchlings making a mess all in his hair and beard! McCoy brings a disarming, childlike quality to the character. As Gandalf whips around to see who is sneaking up on him, he exhales rather irritated, Oh, its you, followed by Radagasts frightened admission that the crypt theyre standing in is not a nice place to meet. He also has a glowing crystal piece in his staff, and leaning over the vertical shaft, they both look down over the edge, as Gandalf counts a total of nine tombs, all with their spells broken and bars ripped.
Im not remembering these clips in the correct order they were shown, but we also see a brief shot of Radagast being pulled along the forest floor in a sled drawn by mighty grey jackrabbits! I kid you not, it was a ramshackle version of an Iditarod dogsled, made of twisted branches and bracken, pulled by six or seven oversized rabbits. I think it was Radagast, but he went by so fast what other character could it be? And this point the filmmakers are making a complete departure from Tolkien but it honestly doesnt bother me. I like the idea that the writers and WETAs clever artists can come up with something wholly new. It seems quite silly on paper, but its also whimsical enough to fit in nicely with the tone of The Hobbit book. Its definitely no sillier than a line-up of farm animals setting up a feast and doing catering service in Beorns house, is it?
I believe this Radagast will be a most memorable character that moviegoers love to love. I think hes an innovation for this story. Cant wait to see more of McCoy in this role.
Riddles in the Dark with Sméagol/Gollum and Bilbo
This is where Martin Freeman really has a few minutes to shine. But its insane to think anyone can outshine Andy Serkis in the perfection of his Gollum creation. Mr. Freeman holds his own and its a wonderful characterization of a new Hobbit we have never quite seen. This Bilbo Baggins doesnt remind me of Merry or Pippin, even though he has a light comedic touch. He certainly isnt like Sam or Frodo, and yet the Baggins sense of adventure is written in his eyes in subtle ways. Yes, I can see those kinds of details at 48 fps.
How does Gollum look ten years later? Have the digital animation masters at WETA created something new? Well, in this writers opinion, Gollum looks really fantastic, but not like a reinvented wheel. He is the very familiar and pitiable Sméagol/Gollum we already know/love/hate. He and the other CGI creations fare quite well with the enhanced clarity of this higher frame rate. These two most classic of Tolkiens characters engage in a bizarre moment of competing desires to eat raw flesh versus the desire to escape alive, all handled with a funny light touch. Expect this Riddle Game to be a standout episode in the first installment.
The Trolls Tom, Bert and Bill all with dialogue!
The sequence with Bilbo trying to pickpocket a massive Stone Troll is another highlight that was given a more minutes of continuous screening time before cutting to other shots. We have seen the statues of the Trolls in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, especially in the Extended Edition, and now they are finally alive and moving and *speaking!* They have heavy Cockney accents and, as expected, are quite brutish and primarily motivated by hunger. Still dont know the names of the voice actors providing the Tolkien-true performances. The digital compositing of Bilbo against the larger-scale Trolls wasnt exactly cleaned and finished, but its impressive when the camera moves overhead to let the audience pretend theyre sitting on a branch watching the mayhem below. The birds-eye view helps the trick of scale, methinks. Here, however, the Dwarves do not approach the Trolls campfire piecemeal, as in the book, but come charging forward in a brave attempt to rescue their comrade. Kili makes the first decisive stroke against one Trolls calf-muscles, then we see Thorin chopping relentlessly at their feet, screaming DROP HIM! which they do. We do not see the famous Gandalf DAWN TAKE YOU ALL AND BE STONE TO YOU moment.
Gandalf in Dol Guldur with Thráin
This was just a little bit of this, but it leads up to the stuff in the teaser trailer. Gandalf is seen skulking about in Dol Guldurs dungeon level (this is the closest we will ever get to sounding like a Dungeons & Dragons module) acting very much like he is being followed. Trying to elude the unseen pursuer in the dark passageways, our grey wizard twists about in every direction, still not seeing his foe. Then theres a horror-movie JUMP! moment when Thráin pounces on Gandalf. No other dialogue or follow-up, it was over as fast as that. What Id really like to see is the moment where the crazed-from-torture Thráin actually calms down enough to give Gandalf the key and map!
Legolas and Tauriel in an action sequence and a tense threat to Thorin!
I witnessed the whole Company of Dwarves struggling through Mirkwood forest, greenscreen everywhere, and most obviously they were covered with spiderwebs and goo. Their run through the forest is abruptly cut short with an arrow in Thorins face. It is rather reminiscent of the bit in FELLOWSHIP where Haldir and his team bring weapons to bear against Frodo. Too bad I didnt see anything of the new Tauriel character played by Evangeline Lilly except one swooping action shot where she slides cowboy-style across the ground with her bow drawn, ready to kill Fans have asked only one question about this invented character: what does she look like? Well, brown is what she looks like. I mean, she is sporting the same outfit weve seen Legolas wear but not in green. Her hair is not blonde actually she seems to be the first chestnut brown-haired Elf we have seen in PJs adaptations. Orlando Bloom makes a triumphant return to the role of Legolas spitting out a venomous threat to Thorin: I wont hesitate to kill you, Dwarf. Ive never heard Legolas sound quite so pissed off. Its really, really cool.
WHAT WE DID *NOT* SEE
I need to address the hundreds of questions that came during our live webcast. Everyone was eager to see their certain favorite things from The Hobbit represented but Ive only got what they gave me. Here is a quick list of the more glaring abentees:
Bree. The HOBBIT characters dont seem to be shown traveling to familiar LOTR locations.
Weathertop, anyone?
Elves on horseback teasing the Company of Dwarves.
Gandalf having a conversation with Thráin.
Any Dwarves singing. This was such a powerful moment in the teaser trailer, but it wasnt shown at CinemaCon.
Goblins or the Goblin-King. Im just dying to see what they design for these guys.
Stone Giants high in the Misty Mountains.
Thranduil the Elven-King of Mirkwood. Nowhere to be seen.
Much more of Tauriel. Sorry, there was just that one shot.
The Carrock
The Wargs/Goblins scene with the burning pine trees.
Any great Eagles. This is still a mystery whether they will be shown talking or not.
Beorn or his environment.
Radagasts home, Rhosgobel.
A single giant spider.
Bilbo above the canopy of Mirkwood, the air filled with dark butterflies.
Long Lake, or any residents of the area, or the ruins of Dale.
Billy Connoly as Dáin, cousin to Thorin.
The Lonely Mountain/Erebor
The great dragon Smaug himself. I expect hell be the most closely guarded creature design secret in film history.
Basically anything that would be in the 2nd installment in 2013.
The White Council featuring Saruman, Gandalf, Galadriel and Elrond.
This showed Sir Christopher Lee in front of greenscreen, looking at the table where Gandalf has just placed a Morgul blade. Urgent discussion ensues about the nature of the weapon, and a luminous Cate Blanchett gets the lions share of the expository dialogue. She explains how the Men of the North once battled against the Witch-King of Angmar, and succeeded in burying him in a spell-protected crypt, so dark and deeply buried it would never see light again. Gandalf raises his eyebrows as if to say, Its right here, so never say never. Hugo Weaving provides the deep-voiced But thats impossible! incredulity of the scene while the faintest flicker of wickedness passes across Sarumans face. I loved it! Intrigue and nervousness among the White Council sounds great except it doesnt exist in J.R.R. Tolkien like that. Nowhere in the books did the Dúnedain show the ability to imprison the Nazgûl. This is our first evidence of the filmmakers applying new narrative invention with material culled from the Appendices of LOTR. We evidently wont see the Battle of Fornost or hear Glorfindels famous prophecy being uttered about the Witch-Kings ultimate fate, as his dark enemy flees into the distance. So be prepared to tell your non-Tolkien reading friends what really happened with the Nazgûl.
Cut to the prison-crypt, where Gandalf is investigating in the dark, using only his staff as a light source, and then BAM! theres Radagast right behind him. Here is the wonderful Sylvester McCoy giving us a daftly adorable new wizard. Strange that Radagast is not shown as a member of the White Council, though. Setting that aside, I must admit McCoys portrayal, along with Martin Freemans wonderful Bilbo, are the two performances I most admire so far.
Radagast? Oh let me tell you, hes got so much going on! He is wearing a funnily-shaped hat with dominant brown and black hues, underneath which is revealed a birds nest with hatchlings making a mess all in his hair and beard! McCoy brings a disarming, childlike quality to the character. As Gandalf whips around to see who is sneaking up on him, he exhales rather irritated, Oh, its you, followed by Radagasts frightened admission that the crypt theyre standing in is not a nice place to meet. He also has a glowing crystal piece in his staff, and leaning over the vertical shaft, they both look down over the edge, as Gandalf counts a total of nine tombs, all with their spells broken and bars ripped.
Im not remembering these clips in the correct order they were shown, but we also see a brief shot of Radagast being pulled along the forest floor in a sled drawn by mighty grey jackrabbits! I kid you not, it was a ramshackle version of an Iditarod dogsled, made of twisted branches and bracken, pulled by six or seven oversized rabbits. I think it was Radagast, but he went by so fast what other character could it be? And this point the filmmakers are making a complete departure from Tolkien but it honestly doesnt bother me. I like the idea that the writers and WETAs clever artists can come up with something wholly new. It seems quite silly on paper, but its also whimsical enough to fit in nicely with the tone of The Hobbit book. Its definitely no sillier than a line-up of farm animals setting up a feast and doing catering service in Beorns house, is it?
I believe this Radagast will be a most memorable character that moviegoers love to love. I think hes an innovation for this story. Cant wait to see more of McCoy in this role.
Riddles in the Dark with Sméagol/Gollum and Bilbo
This is where Martin Freeman really has a few minutes to shine. But its insane to think anyone can outshine Andy Serkis in the perfection of his Gollum creation. Mr. Freeman holds his own and its a wonderful characterization of a new Hobbit we have never quite seen. This Bilbo Baggins doesnt remind me of Merry or Pippin, even though he has a light comedic touch. He certainly isnt like Sam or Frodo, and yet the Baggins sense of adventure is written in his eyes in subtle ways. Yes, I can see those kinds of details at 48 fps.
How does Gollum look ten years later? Have the digital animation masters at WETA created something new? Well, in this writers opinion, Gollum looks really fantastic, but not like a reinvented wheel. He is the very familiar and pitiable Sméagol/Gollum we already know/love/hate. He and the other CGI creations fare quite well with the enhanced clarity of this higher frame rate. These two most classic of Tolkiens characters engage in a bizarre moment of competing desires to eat raw flesh versus the desire to escape alive, all handled with a funny light touch. Expect this Riddle Game to be a standout episode in the first installment.
The Trolls Tom, Bert and Bill all with dialogue!
The sequence with Bilbo trying to pickpocket a massive Stone Troll is another highlight that was given a more minutes of continuous screening time before cutting to other shots. We have seen the statues of the Trolls in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, especially in the Extended Edition, and now they are finally alive and moving and *speaking!* They have heavy Cockney accents and, as expected, are quite brutish and primarily motivated by hunger. Still dont know the names of the voice actors providing the Tolkien-true performances. The digital compositing of Bilbo against the larger-scale Trolls wasnt exactly cleaned and finished, but its impressive when the camera moves overhead to let the audience pretend theyre sitting on a branch watching the mayhem below. The birds-eye view helps the trick of scale, methinks. Here, however, the Dwarves do not approach the Trolls campfire piecemeal, as in the book, but come charging forward in a brave attempt to rescue their comrade. Kili makes the first decisive stroke against one Trolls calf-muscles, then we see Thorin chopping relentlessly at their feet, screaming DROP HIM! which they do. We do not see the famous Gandalf DAWN TAKE YOU ALL AND BE STONE TO YOU moment.
Gandalf in Dol Guldur with Thráin
This was just a little bit of this, but it leads up to the stuff in the teaser trailer. Gandalf is seen skulking about in Dol Guldurs dungeon level (this is the closest we will ever get to sounding like a Dungeons & Dragons module) acting very much like he is being followed. Trying to elude the unseen pursuer in the dark passageways, our grey wizard twists about in every direction, still not seeing his foe. Then theres a horror-movie JUMP! moment when Thráin pounces on Gandalf. No other dialogue or follow-up, it was over as fast as that. What Id really like to see is the moment where the crazed-from-torture Thráin actually calms down enough to give Gandalf the key and map!
Legolas and Tauriel in an action sequence and a tense threat to Thorin!
I witnessed the whole Company of Dwarves struggling through Mirkwood forest, greenscreen everywhere, and most obviously they were covered with spiderwebs and goo. Their run through the forest is abruptly cut short with an arrow in Thorins face. It is rather reminiscent of the bit in FELLOWSHIP where Haldir and his team bring weapons to bear against Frodo. Too bad I didnt see anything of the new Tauriel character played by Evangeline Lilly except one swooping action shot where she slides cowboy-style across the ground with her bow drawn, ready to kill Fans have asked only one question about this invented character: what does she look like? Well, brown is what she looks like. I mean, she is sporting the same outfit weve seen Legolas wear but not in green. Her hair is not blonde actually she seems to be the first chestnut brown-haired Elf we have seen in PJs adaptations. Orlando Bloom makes a triumphant return to the role of Legolas spitting out a venomous threat to Thorin: I wont hesitate to kill you, Dwarf. Ive never heard Legolas sound quite so pissed off. Its really, really cool.
WHAT WE DID *NOT* SEE
I need to address the hundreds of questions that came during our live webcast. Everyone was eager to see their certain favorite things from The Hobbit represented but Ive only got what they gave me. Here is a quick list of the more glaring abentees:
Bree. The HOBBIT characters dont seem to be shown traveling to familiar LOTR locations.
Weathertop, anyone?
Elves on horseback teasing the Company of Dwarves.
Gandalf having a conversation with Thráin.
Any Dwarves singing. This was such a powerful moment in the teaser trailer, but it wasnt shown at CinemaCon.
Goblins or the Goblin-King. Im just dying to see what they design for these guys.
Stone Giants high in the Misty Mountains.
Thranduil the Elven-King of Mirkwood. Nowhere to be seen.
Much more of Tauriel. Sorry, there was just that one shot.
The Carrock
The Wargs/Goblins scene with the burning pine trees.
Any great Eagles. This is still a mystery whether they will be shown talking or not.
Beorn or his environment.
Radagasts home, Rhosgobel.
A single giant spider.
Bilbo above the canopy of Mirkwood, the air filled with dark butterflies.
Long Lake, or any residents of the area, or the ruins of Dale.
Billy Connoly as Dáin, cousin to Thorin.
The Lonely Mountain/Erebor
The great dragon Smaug himself. I expect hell be the most closely guarded creature design secret in film history.
Basically anything that would be in the 2nd installment in 2013.
- 289
I love the production blogs...props 
CAMAROBOY69
Premium
- 18,567
- Michigan
- CAMAROBOY69
I dont know anything about this movie but I truly enjoyed the LOTR series. So I was told this should be a great movie.
- 289
I want them to take my money 
.... i think with the trilogy it will be better for the fans, we will have more in-depth scenes that we wouldn't normally get which I would like because there's so much stuff from the book that probably wouldn't have made it. I can stand getting stuff put into the movie that didn't come from the book if we get the benefit of more book action in the movie.
Still curious to see how both films are in post production... and how they will make the 3rd movie go smoothly with the other 2.
.... i think with the trilogy it will be better for the fans, we will have more in-depth scenes that we wouldn't normally get which I would like because there's so much stuff from the book that probably wouldn't have made it. I can stand getting stuff put into the movie that didn't come from the book if we get the benefit of more book action in the movie.Still curious to see how both films are in post production... and how they will make the 3rd movie go smoothly with the other 2.
- 289
trailer #2
- 289
production blog video #9
- 289
i think its going to be a really good movie.... i still remember the day i saw LOTR
heres the credits song to the movie...
heres the credits song to the movie...
- 289
From what I hear its pretty crazy, different reviews.... stupid people who go to movies twice a year say they get sick to their stomach and they like the old 24fps... a lot of people say its amazing.... its one of those new technology where you have to get adjusted to it.... from what i hear its a little weird at first but the brain gets used to it after 30 mins and reviewers are loving the new HFR
- 7,113
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Critics call this boring. I can understand them, because I think you need to have your mind "there" to fully understand the enchantment. It helps if you read the books.
Then again, I didn't read "Do androids dream of electric sheep?" and I loved Blade Runner. Probably a boring movie by the same critics standards.
I get shivers everytime I watch this ... but a few more days and the wait'll be over for me!
- 1,003
- GTP_hellnback
Hun200kmh, some scenes outdo that by 200kmh... Gollum/Bilbo scene is epic... can a person win an Oscar for a 10mins scene???
I re-read "The Hobbit" less than two weeks before the movies release, and is by no means 'perfect' but I didn't expect it to be 100% true the book, but all in all is close enough, some points disappointed me a little, but once more conversation starts happening, no doubt people will discuss.
For now I don't really want to reveal anything too much...
I re-read "The Hobbit" less than two weeks before the movies release, and is by no means 'perfect' but I didn't expect it to be 100% true the book, but all in all is close enough, some points disappointed me a little, but once more conversation starts happening, no doubt people will discuss.
For now I don't really want to reveal anything too much...
- 7,113
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
Saw it last night, in 2D because I wanted to focus on the story and acting for my first view, not in the technological wonders of 48 FPS and 3D. Will save that for a later go at this movie.
I want spoil anything because I think the movie is only released today in many countries, USA included. However I will say this:
Highs and Lows in the screenwriting - Being a fan of JRR Tolkien's books, what I liked best in this movie is Tolkien's creation, both regarding characters and dialogue. And the way I see it, where PJ and co-screenwriters failed was when they clearly departed from either or both. ("Bofur" can't bow saying "at your service" to Bilbo, and later tell him that "you need balls" to do or face something. If you want to talk about testicles in a movie as the equivalent of courage you better go for a different kind of movie and setting. Then again, maybe it's just me and my old-fashioned ways ...
CGI addicted much? - THe way I see it, to make a movie so heavily dependent on CGI for talking, walking characters is a dangerous path.
LOTR fans will remember Lurtz and the Uruks. They were all real people with masks. LOTR fans will also remember the Witch King or even Sauron himself. Both real men in costumes (in fact I think it was the same actor doing both). This time, PJ decided to depart from that because it poses limits to what he can do with the physical configuration of such creatures (position of the eyes being what he mentioned as an example in one of the Production Vlogs).
I think PJ got - from the success of Gollum - this illusion that CGI was the way to go. Well ... I think he is wrong. Too much of a good thing is not better, and can in fact be worse. And this time we get wayyyy too many entirely CGI characters. Not entirely believable, mind you, if you see "BRAVE" right after "THE HOBBIT" you will feel both are from the same genre. "TOY STORY" offsprings in a way, in short ... computer made movies.
This said, the computer generated landscapes, realms and even buildings (PJ also ditched miniatures entirely) are very VERY impressive, with Erebor in all its glory being simply AMAZING to behold.
Film flowing and the actors- Had no problems with the pacing of this movie, again the dialogue or story-telling scenes were for me the best part of the movie, so the 3 hours went by very quickly.
Freeman, Armitage and all the White Council members - McKellen, Lee, Blanchett and Weaving - do stand out as actors (their dialogue scenes allow it).
To be continued ...- With all this said, and despite the "cringing" moments I had throughout, I enjoyed the movie immensely and I'm going to see it again sometime next week. Probably will check how HFR 3D makes it better ... or worse, as some say.
I want spoil anything because I think the movie is only released today in many countries, USA included. However I will say this:
Highs and Lows in the screenwriting - Being a fan of JRR Tolkien's books, what I liked best in this movie is Tolkien's creation, both regarding characters and dialogue. And the way I see it, where PJ and co-screenwriters failed was when they clearly departed from either or both. ("Bofur" can't bow saying "at your service" to Bilbo, and later tell him that "you need balls" to do or face something. If you want to talk about testicles in a movie as the equivalent of courage you better go for a different kind of movie and setting. Then again, maybe it's just me and my old-fashioned ways ...
CGI addicted much? - THe way I see it, to make a movie so heavily dependent on CGI for talking, walking characters is a dangerous path.
LOTR fans will remember Lurtz and the Uruks. They were all real people with masks. LOTR fans will also remember the Witch King or even Sauron himself. Both real men in costumes (in fact I think it was the same actor doing both). This time, PJ decided to depart from that because it poses limits to what he can do with the physical configuration of such creatures (position of the eyes being what he mentioned as an example in one of the Production Vlogs).
I think PJ got - from the success of Gollum - this illusion that CGI was the way to go. Well ... I think he is wrong. Too much of a good thing is not better, and can in fact be worse. And this time we get wayyyy too many entirely CGI characters. Not entirely believable, mind you, if you see "BRAVE" right after "THE HOBBIT" you will feel both are from the same genre. "TOY STORY" offsprings in a way, in short ... computer made movies.
This said, the computer generated landscapes, realms and even buildings (PJ also ditched miniatures entirely) are very VERY impressive, with Erebor in all its glory being simply AMAZING to behold.
Film flowing and the actors- Had no problems with the pacing of this movie, again the dialogue or story-telling scenes were for me the best part of the movie, so the 3 hours went by very quickly.
Freeman, Armitage and all the White Council members - McKellen, Lee, Blanchett and Weaving - do stand out as actors (their dialogue scenes allow it).
To be continued ...- With all this said, and despite the "cringing" moments I had throughout, I enjoyed the movie immensely and I'm going to see it again sometime next week. Probably will check how HFR 3D makes it better ... or worse, as some say.
Ibonibo
Premium
- 5,440
- Luxemburg
- Already paying my Isp 4 Access
No blurries during action scenes.
I bet the people complaining about 48f are the same people who ranted when cinema went from 15frames to 24.
24 was a technological limit, nothing else. And yes the human eye can very well see more than 24 frames/sec. (same bullcrap as retina is the limit of the human eye, human eyes are logaritmic whether in DR, IQ, ...)
As for the movie... waiting for Bluray release (like every movie, don't go to cinema anymore). But eager to see it. Well I will come back in a few months when it's released
- 3,957
- Cleveland
Looking forward to this, good writeup Hun200kph.
Aside, about the framerate thing, I'm pretty sure human eyes work on a frequency/pulse basis with one data package sent every 1/25th of a second or so. Like the rods/cones sit there absorbing light for a little bit and then send a burst to be processed and clear themselves to receive new data. One place where you can really see this, look at a car's hubcap as the car is moving. At certain speeds, it appears to be standing still. Just below those speeds, it's moving backwards slowly, just above, forwards slowly. These speeds are where the rotational velocity of the wheel (times) the frequency with which our eyes send data packages along (equals) one of the rotational symmetries of the wheel. There is no other explanation for this phenomenon except that eyes send data in discrete packages, and do not work continuously.
Aside, about the framerate thing, I'm pretty sure human eyes work on a frequency/pulse basis with one data package sent every 1/25th of a second or so. Like the rods/cones sit there absorbing light for a little bit and then send a burst to be processed and clear themselves to receive new data. One place where you can really see this, look at a car's hubcap as the car is moving. At certain speeds, it appears to be standing still. Just below those speeds, it's moving backwards slowly, just above, forwards slowly. These speeds are where the rotational velocity of the wheel (times) the frequency with which our eyes send data packages along (equals) one of the rotational symmetries of the wheel. There is no other explanation for this phenomenon except that eyes send data in discrete packages, and do not work continuously.
- 1,003
- GTP_hellnback
You make me think we didn't see the same film...
Yes Hun200kmh, go see the 3D.
I hummed and haa'd about 2D or 3D, as my only other 3D was Prometheus, and wasn't really convinced with the technology (translation = aweful).
Now I am.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes it still seems 'fake' or intrusive/annoying, but when it's done right WOW.
Dunno if I'd want it at home necessarily, but in theatres I now longer believe it's a gimmick.
Yes Hun200kmh, go see the 3D.
I hummed and haa'd about 2D or 3D, as my only other 3D was Prometheus, and wasn't really convinced with the technology (translation = aweful).
Now I am.
Don't get me wrong, sometimes it still seems 'fake' or intrusive/annoying, but when it's done right WOW.
Dunno if I'd want it at home necessarily, but in theatres I now longer believe it's a gimmick.
- 4,081
- Somerset
- Pagey279
Just got back from the cinema and all I can say is it's magnificent. It really captures the magic the LOTR has, and also is a very good adaptation of the book. There are a couple of things I don't remember, but I haven't read the book in a long while.
Everything about it is superb, and I can totally see why they decided to stretch the one book to a trilogy, there is a lot to pack in.
I think if they had stuck to actors in costumes, and model cities and what not then they might have left themselves up for more criticism. Especially when this will be competing for viewers in the cinema with films like The Life of Pi.
In 2012 I don't think the old fashioned ways of costumes and models would have cut it.
And besides, personally I thought the effects were breathtaking from start to finish, I only noticed once for a period of a couple of seconds the effects looking cartoonish. The attention to detail on things like the Orcs, some of the locations and the landscape is incredible.
I can remember a scene from LOTR in Return of the King in the seige of Minas Tirith, when the Orcs push the towers to the city walls and try to take the ramparts. And Gandalf is there to fight them, he was seemingly killing them even though his sword made no mark on them whatsoever, the sword just bounced off the clothing and the Orc fell dead. Because it was an actor in costume.
With CGI this no longer happens, the Orcs die realistically, and not theatrically.
Everything about it is superb, and I can totally see why they decided to stretch the one book to a trilogy, there is a lot to pack in.
I think if they had stuck to actors in costumes, and model cities and what not then they might have left themselves up for more criticism. Especially when this will be competing for viewers in the cinema with films like The Life of Pi.
In 2012 I don't think the old fashioned ways of costumes and models would have cut it.
And besides, personally I thought the effects were breathtaking from start to finish, I only noticed once for a period of a couple of seconds the effects looking cartoonish. The attention to detail on things like the Orcs, some of the locations and the landscape is incredible.
I can remember a scene from LOTR in Return of the King in the seige of Minas Tirith, when the Orcs push the towers to the city walls and try to take the ramparts. And Gandalf is there to fight them, he was seemingly killing them even though his sword made no mark on them whatsoever, the sword just bounced off the clothing and the Orc fell dead. Because it was an actor in costume.
With CGI this no longer happens, the Orcs die realistically, and not theatrically.
CAMAROBOY69
Premium
- 18,567
- Michigan
- CAMAROBOY69
2d
I thought this was an amazing movie. Right up there with the first LOTR. Since this is a trilogy I expect each movie to get even better. Just like it did with LOTR. First movie set the plot and started a little slow, then each movie got even better. This movie seemed to go by so fast.
I did notice a lot of motion blur with this movie which is something I never see in other movies. I even watched it in one of our best local theaters. Seemed strange to see motion blur for such a new movie. other than that excellent movie. Cant wait for the next two.
One spoiler question.
I thought this was an amazing movie. Right up there with the first LOTR. Since this is a trilogy I expect each movie to get even better. Just like it did with LOTR. First movie set the plot and started a little slow, then each movie got even better. This movie seemed to go by so fast.
I did notice a lot of motion blur with this movie which is something I never see in other movies. I even watched it in one of our best local theaters. Seemed strange to see motion blur for such a new movie. other than that excellent movie. Cant wait for the next two.
One spoiler question.
Loved the opening scene with the dragon destroying the castle. But why was the dragon obsessed with gold? Just didnt understand that.
Last edited:
- 7,113
- Lisboa
- FLAT_TWELVE
That's not a spoiler question, there's no particular reason for that in Tolkien's mythology, regarding this good old JRR just echoed western (european) common mythology, found in many fairy tales. Here the introductory text from wikipedia on the "European Dragon"
Full page HERE if you want to check it out.
Full page HERE if you want to check it out.
JSilvaGT
(Banned)
- 278
- Lisbon
- Deadman
I watched this movie yesterday in 3D with 48fps, an Amazing Experience.
This Film is Epic, the introduction with the dragon was fantastic, and the talk between Bilbo and Gollum.
I love to see old characters from LotR, the Saruman, Gollum, Elrond. Gandalf surprised me positively.
*I do not have words to describe the New Zealand Landscapes.
The moments of comedy was great.
I looking forward to part 2.
This Film is Epic, the introduction with the dragon was fantastic, and the talk between Bilbo and Gollum.
I love to see old characters from LotR, the Saruman, Gollum, Elrond. Gandalf surprised me positively.
*I do not have words to describe the New Zealand Landscapes.
The moments of comedy was great.
I looking forward to part 2.
- 4,081
- Somerset
- Pagey279
The portrayal of Saruman didn't fit the one he got in LOTR in my eyes. In The Hobbit he seemed like the leader no one wanted, you know the kind that waffles on for ages and one that no one really pays attention to.
Whereas in LOTR Gandalf actively seeks Sarumans council and he is shown as the all knowing, wise character who's council is respected and valued.
That's the only thing I thought was wrong with the film...well not necessarily wrong but it's just something I picked up on.
