Went to see The Hobbit two nights ago. I really recommend the film and in my view does the book justice. Even if fantasy and adventure is not your cup of tea, I would still recommend seeing this at the flicks......
Trouble is I have to wait 11 months until the next installment. :thumbsdown:
What do middle earth fans think of the film?
A good film on the whole. I suspect like most fans of the books, I have some issues with the liberties they took but I can understand why they did so.
The one big mistake they made was with having Radagast (rather than Gandalf) investigating Dol Guldur and the Necromancer. In the book this happens before the story starts. Gandalf finds Thrain (Thorin's father) held prisoner in the Necromancer's dungeons. This is where Gandalf gets the key and the map. By changing this part of the story but still having Gandalf give Thorin the key, it begs the question of where he got it from?
Other than that, mining the appendices for extra material works quite well as a way of padding the book. I just Sylvester McCoy had played Radagast a little straighter and not quite so loopy.
Apparently the actor Benedict Cumberbatch plays the Necromancer. :o (can't wait for next installment)
I enjoyed Sylvester McCoys version of Radagast, and great to see him on the big screen.
As you would expect, certain liberties were taken for an adventurous story line, however I really enjoyed the whole film.
Saw this in 3D last week while we were off work :)
I saw all three LOTR films in the cinema too, but Mrs Sprintex hasn't really been into this sort of stuff up until now. She also enjoyed The Hobbit and is now looking forward to Part 2 next year. Not quite sure the book should've been stretched into THREE films, but at least we should only have to wait 7 months between parts two and three if the projected timetable is adhered to ;)
Paul
Last film scheduled for July 2014. :thumbsdown:
Can't wait this long :thumbsdown:
Could be worse, could've been December 2014 to keep the yearly pre-christmas thing going just like they did with LOTR ;)
Paul
It could be a LOT worse than that. If it was made by Bachmann/Farish it would be promised for 6 months time and arrive in 18 months if you're lucky!
:laughabovepost: :laughabovepost: :laughabovepost: :laughabovepost:
Paul
Glad to see my country is being admired again!! :)
:smiley-laughing:
Quote from: kaiwhara on January 02, 2013, 12:01:08 AM
Glad to see my country is being admired again!! :)
I heard that the mayor of Wellington renamed the town Middle-Earth-Ville or something during the first release.
How do you cope with all those Orcs, Dragons and Giant Spiders running loose over your Rail Network? :) ;D
Quote from: OwL on January 02, 2013, 01:10:25 AM
:smiley-laughing:Quote from: kaiwhara on January 02, 2013, 12:01:08 AM
Glad to see my country is being admired again!! :)
I heard that the mayor of Wellington renamed the town Middle-Earth-Ville or something during the first release.
How do you cope with all those Orcs, Dragons and Giant Spiders running loose over your Rail Network? :) ;D
Orc poo on the down line! :worried: Yuk! Recommended track cleaner anyone?
Read the books and seen the sequels; got the DVDs too. Enjoyed the movie after a rather slow start but I thought it intro'd the characters well for any LOTR newbie.
Despite the running time I didn't get bored at all.
The bit with the dwarves dancing on the table singing was a bit Monty Python.
Gandalf should have had a word to Radagast about that bird poo on his head though - "For goodness sakes man, get yourself cleaned up, you smell worse than Gollum's posing pouch!"
I enjoyed it a lot, thought they did it justice though I wasn't sure about all the additions/modifications. I wish I had seen it in 2D though, it was the first film I've seen in 3D and I found I was missing detail in fast moving sequences and big panning shots, it was kind of blurry.
5 out of 5 from me though! :)
Some films are good for 3D, but i would say Hobbit is best viewed in 2D. :thumbsup:
Quote from: OwL on January 02, 2013, 09:54:13 PM
Some films are good for 3D, but i would say Hobbit is best viewed in 2D. :thumbsup:
I also saw it in 2D and thought it was excellent. All of which is odd as it is one of the films that was made in true stereoscopic 3D rather than having it added in post production.
I'm afraid I have to disagree there. It was fantastic in 3D, gave you more of a feeling of being there with them sometimes, and especially good for the many scenic shots. :thumbsup: Only wish they had done LOTR in 3D as well.
One thing that struck both of us though - the cinema looked like some weird Roy Orbison appreciation convention!
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8) 8)
Paul
"Only the Lonely" :smiley-laughing: :smiley-laughing: :smiley-laughing:
It's 3 films now? I thought it was pretty ridiculous when they said they were making it into 2 films from what's almost a short story. I don't think I could stand watching that many panning vista shots of New Zealand.
Quote from: Sprintex on January 03, 2013, 01:35:41 PM
I'm afraid I have to disagree there. It was fantastic in 3D, gave you more of a feeling of being there with them sometimes...
I thought the 3D was good a lot of the time but was distracting at other times and on the whole I think I would have preferred it without it. Either way its still an excellent film that had me captivated throughout.
I wonder, did you see it in a 48 fps cinema as this should have illiminated the blurring (I would hope)?
Mark
Quote from: intraclast on January 03, 2013, 03:45:27 PM
I wonder, did you see it in a 48 fps cinema . . .
A what?? :confusedsign: :laugh:
Paul
Quote from: Sprintex on January 03, 2013, 10:08:19 PM
Quote from: intraclast on January 03, 2013, 03:45:27 PM
I wonder, did you see it in a 48 fps cinema . . .
A what?? :confusedsign: :laugh:
Paul
48 frames per second - films are usually shot and played back at 24 frames per second. Supposed to get rid of a lot of the motion blur.
I really enjoyed the film (saw it yesterday) - 3D was very good in the flying sequences. I can see how it might give people motion sickness...
kester
No idea on the frames-per-second at the cinema, there's nothing on their website to say what it is.
Paul
Quote from: Sprintex on January 03, 2013, 10:34:37 PM
No idea on the frames-per-second at the cinema, there's nothing on their website to say what it is.
Paul
It probably wasn't then, I think its pretty new technology and if the cinema had it, they'd be making a song and dance about it.
This all seems to be another desperate attempt to offer something not available on the TV so they can keep the cinemas in business with their crap overpriced popcorn, people talking over the sound and lunatic prices. I'll wait it to appear on disc thank you very much.
It's really funny here - the 3D showings have loads of space the 2D ones seem to be sold out :doh:
Quote from: EtchedPixels on January 04, 2013, 09:58:27 AM
This all seems to be another desperate attempt to offer something not available on the TV so they can keep the cinemas in business with their crap overpriced popcorn, people talking over the sound and lunatic prices. I'll wait it to appear on disc thank you very much.
It's really funny here - the 3D showings have loads of space the 2D ones seem to be sold out :doh:
It may well be just marketing...but according to an interview with Peter Jackson, the original 24 fps was because that was about as fast as celluloid film could run in a projector, anything faster would tear it apart. Digital project removes that restriction. He was also talking about the cinema-going public being used to look at 24fps and almost expecting the blur from fast motion on the screen. I suspect that the 48fps will need up to twice the storage space on digital (would be less because of compression) - so the would need bigger storage devices.
All technically very interesting - but a good film in regardless of fps and 2D/3D.
anthony