Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 231

Thread: Lord of The Rings - New Amazon Series

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Alexandros View Post
    Jackson's past has me worried, since he has been known to inject unwelcome silliness whenever possible.
    "Nobody tosses a dwarf!", along with a lot of Gimli's dialogue, and Legolas's tendancy to "surf" anything possible during LOTR battle scenes has me agreeing with you.

    In Fellowship, Gimli shouting "Not the beard!" made me fucking cringe.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    2,874
    Mentioned
    105 Post(s)
    Beards are a source of vanity for dwarves so it wouldn't be out of character for Gimli to say it.

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    3,579
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Not the bees

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    253
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    I was fine with pretty much all of the humor in LOTR so if The Hobbit is similar to that I'll be fine. It looks like they may have gone a bit too far though from parts of the trailer like where a fucking troll lands on top of all of the Dwarves after a cheeky line about how they're fine.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    7,871
    Mentioned
    437 Post(s)
    well, maybe some theaters aren't carrying the 48 fps version because apparently in preview screenings it was giving a large portion of the audience motion sickness and migraine headaches.

    But yeah, these early reviews aren't looking too promising.

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,736
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    well, maybe some theaters aren't carrying the 48 fps version because apparently in preview screenings it was giving a large portion of the audience motion sickness and migraine headaches.

    But yeah, these early reviews aren't looking too promising.
    Speculation on the internet is suggesting that maybe the FPS rate isn't actually causing the discomfort, but rather artifacts introduced by inferior projectors that theaters are using.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    7,871
    Mentioned
    437 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Frozen Beach View Post
    Speculation on the internet is suggesting that maybe the FPS rate isn't actually causing the discomfort, but rather artifacts introduced by inferior projectors that theaters are using.
    Call me skeptical, but "speculation on the internet" is a dubious thing. The issue regarding the feeling of sickness and headaches that I first noticed was regarding the world premier in New Zealand. I'd assume the world premier wouldn't skimp on projector quality.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Woodinville, WA
    Posts
    303
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    Call me skeptical, but "speculation on the internet" is a dubious thing. The issue regarding the feeling of sickness and headaches that I first noticed was regarding the world premier in New Zealand. I'd assume the world premier wouldn't skimp on projector quality.
    Yeah. This is complete bullshit. The only thing I've seen consistently is the fact that the faster frame-rate pretty much sucks balls and I'm not looking forward to it. I'm going to see it first in 24p. Maybe later at 48p, since it's apparently the way to enjoy the film. Meh.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    7,871
    Mentioned
    437 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by johnbron View Post
    Yeah. This is complete bullshit. The only thing I've seen consistently is the fact that the faster frame-rate pretty much sucks balls and I'm not looking forward to it. I'm going to see it first in 24p. Maybe later at 48p, since it's apparently the way to enjoy the film. Meh.
    I'm on the same page exactly. I'm going to see it first in glorious non-3D 24 fps. If I like the movie, then I'm going to see it in the new migraine inducing format

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    1,736
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/qa.html
    Well, considering that it's one of the reasons why Peter Jackson decided to use 48FPS, I think it makes sense.

    I think it's either that, or we just aren't aren't used to the FPS yet. I wonder if the change from 18FPS to 24FPS was this jarring for people...
    Last edited by Frozen Beach; 12-06-2012 at 10:02 AM.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    1,932
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Got my tickets for the midnight IMAX 3D showing! Unlike the rest of you whiners, I welcome 48FPS because I embrace technology instead of fearing it. VIVA LA FILM REVOLUCION!

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Ontari-ari-ario
    Posts
    4,787
    Mentioned
    190 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    Call me skeptical, but "speculation on the internet" is a dubious thing.
    Ironic that you say this, because REPORTING ABOUT THESE KIND OF EVENTS is a dubious thing on the Internet generally. You're not going to get unbiased information unless there is some fact-check system in place.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jinsai View Post
    The issue regarding the feeling of sickness and headaches that I first noticed was regarding the world premier in New Zealand. I'd assume the world premier wouldn't skimp on projector quality.
    Where did you find these feelings being reported? From whom did the reports originate, and who reported on them? Were they at the event and able to verify the eyewitness' story? Did the reporter have an anonymous profile name?

    See, I ask because Peter Jackson has responded in the media to these reports saying they are NOT accurate and seemed quite upset at their "dubious" origins.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    I decided not to take a chance on my first viewing and went for the ordinary 2D version and FUCK YEAH! I was worried, but it was sooooooooooo much better than I thought it could be! I'm a bit worried about two more films, however, if it means another 5+ hours of Martin Freeman simply BEING the quintessential Hobbit, I'm game.

    edit: Oh, also, the slapstick? It's not as silly as I'd personally hoped it would be. Given that it's a children's book, it's a lot darker and creepier than LOTR itself - it has a real fairytale feel to it, and I admire Jackson, Boyens and Walsh for tying that in with the general aesthetic and tone of the trilogy. There were several things I wasn't too pleased with, but that goes for the trilogy as well. But on the whole, it was pretty fucking brilliant.
    Last edited by Elke; 12-12-2012 at 12:39 PM.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    439
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    I was hoping it would also be shown in 2D HFR, but it isn't. I wonder what the first film will be to be shown in 2D HFR.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Woodinville, WA
    Posts
    303
    Mentioned
    48 Post(s)
    I saw it in regular old 2D tonight with my girls. We all absolutely loved it. I really wasn't expecting to enjoy it so much, but it was nearly flawless. Next week I'll be seeing it in HFR 3D with ATMOS sound. Soon after that in HFR IMAX 3D (no Dolby ATMOS).

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    2,671
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    48p made almost no difference. it certainly didn't take away anything, but probably didn't add much. It had a certain vividness to it, which I attribute mostly to the 4k and the 3D. people worried or whining should chill out.

    I think the discrepancy being talked about is coming very largely from Peter Jacksons style and the occasional larger depth of field due to the filming for 3-D. That "Soap Opera"-ness can be found in the original trilogy, too, and its why I've never been a big fan of his style. Motion sickness was likely induced because 3D has never gone well with quickly swinging cameras and steady cam rigs.

    That said I think his cinematography was much improved here, since he takes the opportunity to use cool lighting techniques. Things look excellent when the effort is made.

    The split also doesn't seem as damaging as I thought. There's definitely a fair amount of fluff, which hurts the pacing, but it doesn't derail the whole thing.

    My biggest issue was with the battle scenes, which felt super rushed. The same music plays..... but FASTER! and it doesn't work. We watch the heroes just plow through dozens and dozens of bad guys like its nothing. There's no sense of tension, because it never feels like anybody is in danger with 14 characters each individually knocking 12 dudes off of cliffs at a time. All of the battle scenes play out like this and its kind of boring.

    The movie is at its strongest when it places an emphasis on character growth scenes and relationships. When the camera is used steadily and with care, the cinematography is very striking.

    All and all, it was an alright movie. But the 48p debate is super pointless. I checked it out just for the experience.
    Last edited by Wretchedest; 12-15-2012 at 03:25 AM.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    I'll go with 2D when I see it, because outside of real life, it's my most favourite D.
    I mean... until someone invents a viable holodeck...

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    419
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    As a Tolkien fan, I enjoyed seeing scenes and dialogue from the book come to life. Some of them were spot on too, at least in spirit if not in detail. However, the objective film critic within me simply cries out that this movie was simply...ok. The pace is just too slow, which of course is to be expected since they've drawn this out to three movies. I mean, whatever they add from appendices etc., it's just not enough. Anyway, I did enjoy it, but I don't think it's a movie I'll be happily watching repeatedly as, for example, The Fellowship of the Ring is.

    One surprising thing for me is that I really loved the scenes with Radagast. I think he was the closest to the spirit of The Hobbit as the movie got. As @Elke said before me, by trying to tie it all with the spirit of LOTR, they've really toned down the lighthearted feeling. Quite understandable for the franchise, but I did miss it a bit.

    Notable scenes which I loved:

    Spoiler: - The attack of Smaug on Erebor. Impressive stuff, and I loved that they only showed parts of the dragon. I hope they continue to handle it as cleverly in the next installments.
    - The Unexpected Party.
    - The attack on Radagast's place. One of the rare instances where Jackson instills just the right amount of creepy.
    - Riddles in the dark!
    - Bilbo's hesitation in killing Gollum and his final decision to spare him. The focal point of the entire War of the Ring! Chills...


    Oh, and of course, Martin Freeman! Respect! And he'll shine a lot more in the following movies, that is certain!
    Last edited by Alexandros; 12-15-2012 at 04:04 AM.

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    2,932
    Mentioned
    40 Post(s)
    I just started re-reading The Silmarrilion, I'm excited to see how Jackson treats the Sorceror of Dol Gulder!

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    I'm really interested to see how he's going to tackle the Necromancer, too.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Belarus
    Posts
    3,579
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    So how come this project turned into a trilogy? And with 170min per film? The goddamned book is like 1/10 of LOTR in volume.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    347
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)

    Re: The Hobbit

    Quote Originally Posted by fillow View Post
    So how come this project turned into a trilogy? And with 170min per film? The goddamned book is like 1/10 of LOTR in volume.
    Because of money.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    479
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    I was skeptical about this movie (because the shameless cash grab trilogy thing pissed me off), but it was pretty good. You could definitely see where they were stretching it out though, especially in the beginning. "Now let's have a conversation about our intentions. Now let's have some flashbacks! Also, scenery porn." But I liked the general frivolity and sense of humor. And though the higher framerate thing (is that what it's called?) was weird at first, I really enjoyed it by the end of the movie, it felt perfectly natural. I would not be disappointed if more directors go this route. I think Jim Cameron's doing the Avatar sequels this way too.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    696
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    First news I've heard about this being a trilogy. Jesus Christ. When they said a two movie deal I thought that was sensible...but a trilogy.....from one book...after they made a trilogy with Lord Of The Rings? retarded.... I'm interested in this 48fps though.. I didn't like the Lord Of the Rings films.... tried to capture the books but didn't.. I'll check it out.. but I'm coming in as a hater.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,063
    Mentioned
    20 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by profane View Post
    [So how come this project turned into a trilogy? And with 170min per film? The goddamned book is like 1/10 of LOTR in volume.]
    Because of money.
    Still doesn't explain why this film is so ridiculously long, which from what I've been hearing is the main flaw. You'd think, having to spread one book over three movies, that each of them would be short. I think Jackson needs to find a new editor.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Kansas City, Missouri
    Posts
    2,873
    Mentioned
    62 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vertigo View Post
    Still doesn't explain why this film is so ridiculously long, which from what I've been hearing is the main flaw. You'd think, having to spread one book over three movies, that each of them would be short. I think Jackson needs to find a new editor.
    It feels like the longest LOTR film despite being shorter than all the extended cuts. An Unexpected Journey literally feels like a 3 hour film full of deleted scenes.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    A place both wonderful and strange
    Posts
    2,571
    Mentioned
    71 Post(s)
    I think it's tentatively spread out so that Desolation of Smaug ends with the title dragon being killed. Movie 3 will have has the 5 armies' battle, Bilbo's trip home, and PJ said something to the effect of focusing on Gandalf, etc. driving out Sauron from Dol Guldur for much of that. So the book's events are more or less really spread out over 2 1/2 movies, roughly; a great deal of padding is in place. They could easily have done this in two (not that I'm complaining)

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    In Flanders' fields
    Posts
    641
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by richardp View Post
    It feels like the longest LOTR film despite being shorter than all the extended cuts. An Unexpected Journey literally feels like a 3 hour film full of deleted scenes.

    I really disagree. I was watching it in a very near-empty room, and I actually heard a woman behind me go 'Oh, is it time for the break already?' a second before the credits started to roll. It started up slowly, but then after the first hour I thought it made great speed. Personally.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    257
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Vertigo View Post
    I think Jackson needs to find a new editor.
    Haha i think the editor needs to find a new Director. I personally think this whole project might have been better with a different leading man. Jackson hasn't really made anything great since 2005 with King Kong. It's a been a while. Maybe he lost some of his magic? This film was good, but I do question some of the decisions made in it.

    On the other hand, i'm sure some would argue that nobody else would have done a better job, right? I mean, who better. For those insane fans that want those pornographic scenery shots, dialogues, etc....this was fucking awesome.
    Last edited by GoodSoldier333; 12-15-2012 at 04:20 PM.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Monterey Bay, Ca
    Posts
    2,671
    Mentioned
    52 Post(s)
    Richardp's comment about it feeling full of deleted scenes rings true. But the comments that jackson has lost his touch dont. This is peter jackson emulating his own lotr style...

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions