The Hobbit - starts filming March 21

I just don't get all the hate for the high frame rate. I too, tried to be cool and hate the film for this reason, but could not...no matter how hard I tried.

I've seen in three times now, once regular and the others at the high frame rate. I like it. I did not find it distracting at all. For me, it felt kind of more life like. Not a Great film, but God it was great to revisit Middle Earth and see the characters I love so much from the book and LOTR trilogy films.

I can't wait to see what Peter does next, and I've got to find a way and the funds to visit NZ!
 
Having now been and seen the film, the 48 fps was very weird to begin with, kind of like the difference between American and British TV.
I'm not a big fan of 3D, it seems to be done for the sake of being on the band wagon of choice at the moment.
The film seems more true to the book than LOTR ever was. Any ideas if there'll be an extended version?
 
I swore I would NOT see this in the theater, but..... Christmas day we missed the Skyfall showing, and the only other thing showing that interested my daughter was the Hobbit, 3D 48 FPS, I thought it was a good movie overall (does not even compare to any of the LOTR films), to many jabs to list here, but the 3D aspect I found distracting, and really didn't seem to add to the film, plus I'm not used to watching 3D (last one was Coraline), and my eyes kept trying to pull the backround into focus. Now I HAVE to see the next 2, (at her insistance) but it wont be in 3D.
Anybody notice how 2 of the dwarves look more like "handsome short humans" than dwarves? I guess they thought they needed some "hunk" characters to get a female demographic :LOL
 
Any ideas if there'll be an extended version?
Phillipa Boyens confirmed there would be, and Peter Jackson said in an interview recently that they had just completed editing the long cut. As I recall, it will have about 25 minutes more.
 
Yeah, I also find it distracting with the dwarves that look too much like humans, or hobbits. Especially Kili, but also Bofur, Fili and Thorin.
I think that they should have had rounder faces and more bulk like the others, been shortened down digitally, or at least have been wearing shoulder padding to make their necks look shorter.

I think also that Blunt The Knives could have been made better. Once they start singing in choir, it sounds as if they had rehearsed the song beforehand, not come up with it in the moment.
 
No, no, fake as anything. Totally fake CGI, just like Azog and the wolves. You could tell.

I read online the PJ was forced to use CGI for the wargs because of trouble he encountered from PETA when he brought the real ones on set :)
 
Just managed to see it. Some moments were good, but overall I didnt like it... Im a big fan of the LOTR films, so for me its a shame. Story telling and characterization felt out of place. It just didnt have the soul of the novel.

The goblin fight scene was so bad and uninspired, it made Matrix 2 feel like a masterpiece.
 
A Morgul blade is presumably any blade made in Minas Morgul, the Numenorean fortress opposite the valley from Minas Tirith; captured by Sauron's forces and now the stronghold of the Nazgul.

Agree that Fili, Kili, Oin and Thorin look very human. According to the art book they did try prosthetic noses on Fili and Kili but kept slimming them down because they couldn't get a look they liked and eventually gave up. When I heard they'd hired Aidan Turner from "Being Human" to play a dwarf my first reaction was 'they'll never put prosthetics on him, way too pretty, gotta be eye candy for the ladies'. And lo and behold, my wife's completely in love...though actually with Thorin, mostly, lol.

Allosaur - heh! I was taking the **** with those remarks. Same CG teams, same CG house...I'm pretty sure we're judging Azog by a different standard than the one we're applying to Gollum. Which isn't to say Gollum hasn't had more work put in; looks like he has to me. But not so much that Azog looks like crap; he's not bad at all IMO. And as for the Goblin King...superb!
 
The white orch looked bad. And all the great looking masks and make up on his minions made it obvious. Well they shouldnt have been there at all.

Damn, PJ balanced the CGI effects so well in LOTR.
 
The white orch looked bad. And all the great looking masks and make up on his minions made it obvious. Well they shouldnt have been there at all.

Damn, PJ balanced the CGI effects so well in LOTR.

For Azog, I don't see why PJ didn't just have a guy in make up and prosthetics, and then just upsized him to the correct size. I mean, with all the tinkering of sizes for the characters (I especially liked the effect during the reading of the moon runes), what's one more?

As for the goblin king, I don't see how they could have made him any worse. Phantom Menace bad, as someone said before. He reminded me of Boss Nass... :thumbsdown He could have been created with practical effects as well.
 
He could have been created with practical effects as well.

Oh yeah, for sure. The lack of real eyes takes away so much.

I could have lived with the goblin king, if the other goblin scenes hadnt been so very bad.

That part should have had so much more; slower scarier scenes with Gandalf and the dwarfes being chased by goblins that can see in the dark. Instead PJ made utter stupid roller coaster scenes. Oh man...
 
Unfortunatley PJ has decided to make the Hobbit into an "epic tale" like LOTR, the problem is, it never was an "epic". Its a cool fun short book that the lays the background for the real epic. So now he has to add BIG action to each of 3 films, it's going to be tiresome by the time we meet smog.
 
again, i hated the mere fact that they put azog in the movie in the first place, and then it was executed so poorly, that i allmost walked out.
 
Back
Top