|
I watched the movie again, this time in 2D/24fps. I far preferred the 48fps version, while the 3D I can take or leave, though I do think it's probably the best use of 3D I've seen since Avatar. In the 24fps version there were some CGI moments that really stood out as CGI, particularly the platform the Dwarves are on sliding down the cliff towards the end of the Gobin Town chase, as well as when the troll is holding Bilbo in his hand. These moments didn't stand out (badly) at all to me in 48fps, and the heavy action scenes in 24fps I found a lot more difficult to follow. The movie was still a treat to watch, and the dodgy CGI moments didn't detract from it at all for me, but if I had to make the choice I would go with 48fps and just put up with that initial 5-10 minutes at the start where things seem to be going at 1.25x speed before my eyes adjust. Funnily enough, the first Radagast scene STILL felt like it was running fast for me even in 24fps.
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 08:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
mind the walrus posted:It's going to be a great kid's movie to put on in the future, especially if they're too young to read but old enough to comprehend a movie's ins and outs the way kids tend to do. Wait, really? I found the goblin king's death hard to watch as an adult, and there are various other beheadings and things that would probably be terrifying to a kid too young to read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 08:48
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Did you by chance see it in 2D? Using higher brightness levels to compensate for the way stereoscopic projection practically halves the value of every shot is a thing, and I'm not sure I believe anybody knows how to do it well yet. I'd rather they err on the sight of visibility, anyway. They don't get to Laketown until next book. You mean Rivendell? Edit: sorry, wrong quote. That makes sense, I just thought it was Erebor - but they're the same? sebmojo fucked around with this message at 08:58 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 08:50
|
|
|
sebmojo posted:They don't get to Laketown until next book. You mean Rivendell? Did you mean to quote me? Either way, Laketown is in the intro.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 08:55
|
|
|
Pube Factory posted:Did anyone else feel that after they left Rivendell, when all the action started to happen, that the film became a mad dash to the finish line? I swear I just became immediately disinterested in anything that was happening on screen and more and more confused at how this movie could possibly end at any sort of logical conclusion. It really took all of the thrill out of the Dwarves' escape through Goblin town. And, while I thought the Riddles in the Dark scene was excellent, it seemed to come in at such an awkward time that I really couldn't appreciate that scene's importance as much as it needed to be. Nnnnoo? It's the book, man. The film is just what happens in the book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 08:56
|
|
|
Saw The Hobbit, I mixed on it, but I'm mostly disappointed, leaning on not liking it. One thing, I couldn't stand the 48 frames per second. I thought it made the movie feel cheap, just like an animated gif with too many frames does (as in, the action moves too fast). It felt like a day time soap opera in terms of editing because of it. As I think about the movie, I lean on 'not liking it' because I'm starting to forget what happened besides the pivotal moments. I felt the film was overly wrought, had very inconsistent pacing, was mostly dull in its approach, and many scenes (goblins and warg sections) felt like fan fiction. It really reminded me of The Phantom Menace in its excessive use of cg in the stead of tight narrative and storytelling. Not that it's as bad as TPM, but it certainly reminded me of it. I thought that many key scenes (Gollum, the Dwarves first arriving at Bag End) were ruined by Peter Jacksonism. They bored to me tears. On the other hand, the film has a lot of great scenes on its plate as well (Misty mountains, the trolls). I can't say it's a bad movie, because it isn't, but I can't say it's a great movie either. It felt very middling, and was a far cry from the LOTR trilogy. One thing I think many are overlooking is the camera work and lighting. They're really bad. Some scenes have really amateurish camera work and lighting. The part where they find the cave with the Elven weapons in particular. In my mind, I was saying,"holy poo poo, did a community college student do this shot?" in my head.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:12
|
|
|
I think everyone really needs to watch the Fellowship before watching this film to realize they are very similar and not that different in the way they were filmed. I'm not understanding how some are hating this while enjoying the originals.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:16
|
|
|
Anybody else see Galadriel repeatedly walking around Gandalf, Saruman, and Elrond and think of http://lanadelreydancing.tumblr.com/ ?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:18
|
|
|
The only part that I thought was overwrought were the stone giants, it was a bit silly to have an extended action sequence in which the characters have no agency at all.Himuro posted:I thought that many key scenes (Gollum, the Dwarves first arriving at Bag End) were ruined by Peter Jacksonism. They bored to me tears. What does this mean? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:19
|
|
|
tofes posted:The only part that I thought was overwrought were the stone giants, it was a bit silly to have an extended action sequence in which the characters have no agency at all. Sorry, by that I mean too long.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:25
|
|
|
Fried Watermelon posted:I think everyone really needs to watch the Fellowship before watching this film to realize they are very similar and not that different in the way they were filmed. I'm not understanding how some are hating this while enjoying the originals. Remember the scene in the Shire when Frodo and friends first encounter the black riders ie the Nazgual? Remember the scene in Bree where the Nazgual are creeping in on the sleeping hobbits? Remember the scene on Weathertop when the Nazgual stab Frodo and nearly kill him? There, three scenes from the first of the original trilogy that had more tension and danger than that silly white orc in the Hobbit could ever hope to come close to approaching when it came to establishing him as a credible threat. That's just one small comparison between comparable elements where the originals come out on top, I can probably list off a dozen others if I actually watched the film again since the last time I saw it was in 2009. (and if I actually felt like being a  , which I don't cause I'm gonna sleep tonight)The Fellowship and The Hobbit are as similar as they are different, particularly in how they were filmed. Himuro posted:Sorry, by that I mean too long. Funny, those two scenes are probably the most faithful to the book in tone and pacing. At least I couldn't think of a way to cut Riddles in the Dark without making it feel slightly rushed. The Dinner Party, yeah could have been tighter but they needed to shoehorn the beginning of Thorin and Gandalf's storylines in there somewhere cause gently caress having one character to focus on, this trilogy needs at least three. SatansBestBuddy fucked around with this message at 09:57 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 09:55
|
|
|
I was actually disappointed that Riddles in the Dark cut out my two favorite riddles - fish and sun-on-daisies - in exchange for more scenes of Gandalf and the dwarfs spinning in tedious circles as CGI goblins flailed to their tedious deaths
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:Remember the scene in the Shire when Frodo and friends first encounter the black riders ie the Nazgual? Remember the scene in Bree where the Nazgual are creeping in on the sleeping hobbits? Remember the scene on Weathertop when the Nazgual stab Frodo and nearly kill him? Yup, you're right. Riddles in the dark was faithful, but after all that poo poo before (and during! if we're to mention the dwarves and the Goblins) I just wanted it to end already. I was looking at my phone clock to see what time it was. As for the first part of your post, that's without mentioning the ride to Rivendell, the chase in Moria, the orc onslaught when the fellowship splits. The thing is, The Hobbit (the book) HAS that tension already. It's just, oh, I don't know, two movies away. As it stands, I may just not bother seeing the sequels in theaters and wait for an edited cut that splies all three films into one three hour film like how this movie should been to begin with. Jupiter Jazz fucked around with this message at 10:17 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 10:09
|
|
|
Petr posted:Wait, really? I found the goblin king's death hard to watch as an adult, and there are various other beheadings and things that would probably be terrifying to a kid too young to read. At least the kids won't complain about the film's lighting.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 10:22
|
|
|
Xenophon posted:I was actually disappointed that Riddles in the Dark cut out my two favorite riddles - fish and sun-on-daisies - in exchange for more scenes of Gandalf and the dwarfs spinning in tedious circles as CGI goblins flailed to their tedious deaths The fish riddle is actually in there, Gollum is saying/singing it to himself as he murders the goblin that fell down the crevasse with Bilbo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 10:35
|
|
|
Petr posted:Wait, really? I found the goblin king's death hard to watch as an adult, and there are various other beheadings and things that would probably be terrifying to a kid too young to read. Yeah, this film is only a "kids movie" in the most superficial sense. There's some trademark Peter Jackson fuckin' violence in here. Gandalf slices through an orc's neck, the orc stands there, stunned, his still-living head attached to his body, and Gandalf gently taps it off with his staff. We also are treated to the off-screen sounds of flesh being ripped from bone when the white orc feeds his dumbass servant to his wargs, Gollum bashing an orc's head in and Bilbo's sword's light flickering out, etc. There's some serious violence in this movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 11:42
|
|
|
n0pe posted:Yeah, this film is only a "kids movie" in the most superficial sense. There's some trademark Peter Jackson fuckin' violence in here. Gandalf slices through an orc's neck, the orc stands there, stunned, his still-living head attached to his body, and Gandalf gently taps it off with his staff. We also are treated to the off-screen sounds of flesh being ripped from bone when the white orc feeds his dumbass servant to his wargs, Gollum bashing an orc's head in and Bilbo's sword's light flickering out, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 12:19
|
|
|
We saw the premiere a couple nights ago, and I went in with not very high expectations due to some reviews, but came out of the theater in love--the high points being the subtle humor of Bilbo, the dwarves (Jackson pulled it off well giving so many of them a good unique character), Gandalf, and Gollum, but especially Radagast. dixnarbles posted:Anybody else see Galadriel repeatedly walking around Gandalf, Saruman, and Elrond and think of http://lanadelreydancing.tumblr.com/ ? Yeah, that was weird.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 12:59
|
|
|
I enjoyed this movie, but I agree with those saying it felt especially rushed at the end. It felt like 3 major action setpieces in a row with little character building or conversation in between them. I liked the first half of the movie a bit more, reminded me a lot of Fellowship of the Ring in a good way. It seems like the movie has a bit of weird tone whiplash. I know Lord of the Rings had comic relief, but for the most part it stayed pretty serious. It seems like this movie can't decide if it wants to stick with the lighthearted tone of the book, or the serious tone of the previous movies. Martin Freeman was really good as Bilbo. Perfect pick for the character. AlternatePFG fucked around with this message at 13:30 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 13:22
|
|
|
Here's Current Releases on The Hobbit: http://www.somethingawful.com/d/current-movie-reviews/hobbit-unexpected-journey.php
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 13:23
|
|
|
The movie owns. Radagast's bunny sled owns and I wish I could watch him run away from wargs all day. The little goblin that takes messages via wire system for the goblin king owns. Gollum was amazing. 48fps owns. I told myself I'd see the movie once in 48fps 3D and once in 24fps 2D but now I just want to see it in 48fps again. I felt like I was in a dream or high or something. It's the first time 3D didn't hurt my head or give me eye strain. Everyone on the White Council owns, the Eagles own, and trolls own. This is my review.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 14:31
|
|
|
Ehud posted:The movie owns. Gonna agree with this, except that I saw the movie in 24fps. It looked fine, but I really want to see it in 48fps at some point. I basically liked every second of this movie, and I loved quite a few. I understand the complaints people have, I just don't agree with them for the most part. Just keep on doing your thing forever Peter Jackson 
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 14:55
|
|
|
Watched it opening night, have only now just got a chance to write my thoughts. Apologies for the ramble. I will admit, in the first 20 minutes I seriously was on the verge of walking out. The beginning of the initial novel is so iconic, and to have it changed to "Frodo my boy, let me tell you a tale of the most glorious city in the world...Dale! Also, the most important thing ever found...the Arkenstone!" Just because FOTR worked well with a big catch-up opening doesn't mean it was necessary here. A nice little dialogue-less sweep through Hobbiton, ending with the switch from Ian Holm to Freeman, would have been far more effective in my eyes. That being said, the dialogue was my main gripe, and I thought the footage was fine. I absolutely loved the dragon kite and thought it would have been so effective if that had been the only glimpse of the dragon. In fact, imagine the entire opening with no dialogue. Show Dale, show the kite, show the dwarves mining, finding the arkenstone, show the shadow of the dragon and the flames, and show the dwarves trekking out. Perfectly serviceable and understandable, so I don't see why we needed Bilbo, sudden Middle Earth historian, giving us this complicated backstory. I thought it was very strange that the film went to lengths to spoil itself, and certain scenes from LOTR. Examples (paraphrasing): Gandalf: "This map will lead us to the gate. Also, I feel there is some secret here, within the map, that will tell us how to open the ancient door." At that point, why not just have him say "I feel there are secret letters somewhere in this map, only to be revealed under certain conditions." Another: Mountain Troll: "We'd better be quick about this, otherwise the sun will come up, and turn us all into stone!" Why tell the audience this, what would have been wrong with letting us experience it for ourselves? Something similar is how Gandalf has a similar "stay your hand" speech with Bilbo as he had with Frodo. I feel Bilbo making this decision by himself would have carried more weight, as is it just makes his decision the same as Frodo's. However, this is all quite nitpicky. There was a lot to like here for me. Felt it was a very emotional film. Caught by partner wiping away tears during the "you don't have a home, but I'll help you find one" speech from Bilbo, and I straight up cried tears of happiness at the end with Thorin's speech to Bilbo. I imagine I wasn't the only one who had parallels in their own life. Bit of an outcast at school due to my love of books like the Hobbit, video games, etc, and now that I've grown as a person and realised I wasn't the only one who liked this sort of thing, I feel and appreciate this sort of acceptance as part of a group. Looking at these movies, Game of Thrones, all of the big-budget comic book movies...this is a period where previously shun-worthy interests like medieval fantasy are becoming more and more accepted and not instant tickets to loneliness, and that's the feeling I got watching this final speech. It's been interesting to read that I wasn't the only one that left wanting more immediately. With FOTR, TT, and ROTK when each film ended although I was sorry to come to the finish I felt a bit worn-out of Middle Earth and looked forward to getting back to reality. When the Hobbit ended, I wished we could have dived right into the next scene and continued on for six more hours. The atrocious beginning aside, I would easily give this an 7-8/10, a B-/B, and I can't wait for the next one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 15:11
|
|
|
Mourning Due posted:That being said, the dialogue was my main gripe, and I thought the footage was fine. I absolutely loved the dragon kite and thought it would have been so effective if that had been the only glimpse of the dragon. In fact, imagine the entire opening with no dialogue. Show Dale, show the kite, show the dwarves mining, finding the arkenstone, show the shadow of the dragon and the flames, and show the dwarves trekking out. Perfectly serviceable and understandable, so I don't see why we needed Bilbo, sudden Middle Earth historian, giving us this complicated backstory. The point of Bilbo's narration is to frame the movie as a story being told by someone, ie. not an objective accounting of events. There's going to some creative license involved in the telling (eg. the impossible action scenes), and we should suspend our disbelief in order to better enjoy the story. quote:Another: Mountain Troll: "We'd better be quick about this, otherwise the sun will come up, and turn us all into stone!" Why tell the audience this, what would have been wrong with letting us experience it for ourselves? It's there to explain why Bilbo is playing time, the point of the scene isn't to surprise us with trolls turning to stone, it's to show that Bilbo is quite suited for the adventuring life and an asset to the group. The scene doesn't play out wholly predictably anyway, as it turns out Bilbo's gambit isn't enough, and then Gandalf saves the day with his rock smiting powers. Sorry about nitpicking the nitpicks, I'm a little tired and these just stuck out to me as stuff that's pretty easily explained.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 15:36
|
|
|
Just saw this yesterday night, IMAX 3d/24 and I thought overall it was pretty fantastic. I understand the complaints and can see where they're coming from, the pacing issues, tone shifts and the directing of the action especially but for some reason I was completely enthralled regardless. I really enjoyed Martin Freeman in this and I think he shines in his performance. Troll sequence was great but I agree with the poster that said it would have been better to have the trolls not mention they would turn to stone and have it revealed to us in surprise. The callbacks didn't bother me too much but I would have preferred if they were even more subtle or not even there (aside from the ring/sword obviously). I like the idea of The Hobbit being more of it's own thing. Ah well, it is more light-hearted overall which I enjoyed. The opening with Frodo/Bilbo wasn't really needed at all. I get that it's a framing device but it just felt awkward to me. The songs were all awesome and I definitely enjoyed when it got more whimsical rather than when it got serious. I think overall it just barely maintains enough of the whimsy to hold it together instead of being too disjointed. It's weird that the more I analyze the film the more things I can see problematic with it but at the same time it doesn't change my perspective on how much I enjoyed the experience. I guess I'm just a sucker for that world, much like how i'm a sucker for the star wars world but unlike the star wars prequels it wasn't so dull and lifeless that it sucked the energy out while watching it. I'd rank it as a B. DuhSal fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 15:56
|
|
|
Saw this last night in HFR 3D. I've felt since ROTK (and most egregiously King Kong) that Peter Jackson needed to get a new editor who was willing to say "No", and I still think that. I thought it was a good movie that could've been a spectacular movie if they trimmed 20-30 minutes out of it. The prologue went way, way, way too long. By my count it was over 45 minutes in before they even discuss the quest which is just plain excessive. I also thought that the entire first scene with Radagast and the hedgehog could've been cut out, as well as the stone giants fighting in the storm without losing anything of relevance to the main story. Those scenes made great Extended Edition material, but just served to pad out a film that didn't need padding out. On the HFR: I'm sold. I think it's the way to go moving forward for 3D, and I will fight anyone who says otherwise. I work in TV, and some of the problems I hear people complaining about (like sets looking cheap), remind me a lot of issues heard early on when HD was getting off the ground. Yes, there's room for improvement on the tech. But this was the first major film to try it so I'm cutting it some slack. There are things future filmmakers can do to mitigate the problems people are talking about while still maintaining the benefits. What are the benefits? 3D was far more watchable than it's been in the past for me. Motion was fluid and there wasn't a "ghosting" effect any more. Wide shots and medium shots looked pretty great. I also felt that the higher framerate helped the CG characters like the mountain trolls and Gollum fit in their environments more believably, owing mainly to that fluid feeling of motion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
I loved the film and only have a few minor nitpicks. 1. As others have said, the rock giant scene was too long and dramatic. Seeing the party get close to death yet again only to all come out unscathed started to annoy me at this point. Still, it made for good 3D effects. But I agree with those who said we could have sacrificed some of this lengthy action stuff in favor of more scenes with the dwarves and developing their characters. 2. I was somewhat disappointed that the eagles didn't talk. In the book, there's a nice conversation with Gandalf and gwahir, the king of the eagles, which kind explains their motivations, and why they did not bother to fly them all the way to the lonely mountain. I feel like a scene like this was needed in the film, since nearly everyone who hasn't read the books always asks why the eagles don't just carry our heros everywhere. 3. The whole framing device with old Bilbo and Frodo was a great idea, but they didn't use it effectively. It makes sense that The Hobbit has a lighter and more adventurous tone than LOTR because it's told from the point of view of Bilbo, who I liken to an old man embellishing a story he's telling his grandchildren. It would have been great to see the original version of Riddles in the Dark scene, and then maybe Frodo interrupting him, calling him out on his BS, and Bilbo then telling the true account. Little moments of interruption by Frodo, or maybe another young hobbit, a la "The Princess Bride", may have done wonders for the film's pacing and presentation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
I'm going to see this today, I think - I want to see it in the higher framerate, do I need to go to an IMAX for that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I'm going to see this today, I think - I want to see it in the higher framerate, do I need to go to an IMAX for that? Your local theater listings will give you a better idea of what they are showing. My local theater which is not imax, is showing all 3 versions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 18:07
|
|
|
mastershakeman posted:I'm going to see this today, I think - I want to see it in the higher framerate, do I need to go to an IMAX for that? No, they are separate things. Theonering.net has big list of cinemas and if they are showing 48fps or not- http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/11/21/64780-complete-listing-of-theaters-showing-hobbit-hfr-3d-imax-3d-imax-dolby-atmos/
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Gyges posted:To be honest, to me it came more across as Thorin trying to get Bilbo to go home because Thorin didn't think he had any business being there. Also he doesn't trust outsiders and fears the consequences of letting this hired burglar get too close. Which gives it an added touch of a test to see if they could even count on Bilbo. The little speech after they got away from the goblins also seemed what he thought to be a useful fiction to keep everyone from charging back into Goblin Town to save what he was sure was a dead Bilbo. Well, yeah, it was a given that Thorin and the dwarves in general found Bilbo kind of annoying. And, certainly, in that scene Thorin had almost died due to an attempt to save Bilbo's life. But, like, right then and there in the cave he goes off about how Bilbo never should've been there, and Bilbo tries to out and leave, and there's all this drama leading to the Heroic From Offscreen Tackle thing, it's just so god drat contrived and telegraphed and all-in-all awkward. It made the movie less interesting and more predictable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 18:51
|
|
|
macnbc posted:I also felt that the higher framerate helped the CG characters like the mountain trolls and Gollum fit in their environments more believably, owing mainly to that fluid feeling of motion. I've only seen it it in 2d 24fps, but Gollum looked absolutely incredible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 19:01
|
|
|
The reason the trolls have to mention their problem with the sun is because Bilbo doesn't know about it until then. It's not audience narration, if the trolls hasn't said that then they would all be dead because Bilbo wouldn't know he could stall for time. Freeman even does a great job of showing the light bulb go off right after they say it. Riven fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
Riven posted:The reason the trolls have to mention their problem with the sun is because Bilbo doesn't know about it until then. It's not audience narration, if the trolls hasn't said that then they would all be dead because Bilbo wouldn't know he could stall for time. I agree with you but does he really? I'm only playing devils advocate because it seems like a good amount of people missed this point entirely.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 19:14
|
|
|
It might've played better had one of the dwarves whispered it to Bilbo, but since they don't think he's worth much, there's no reason for that... It's quite a pickle! I'm mostly satisfied with that scene because the trolls are portrayed as very stupid, so of course they blurt out their weakness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 19:17
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:
I did and I agree with all that. I'm not sure what the people who have a problem with this film are basing it on by saying it dragged and that there was too much talking and planning and poo poo. No, you're confusing this movie with The Fellowship of the Ring. If anything, there was a bit too much action in The Hobbit for what I expected, where they'd get out of one mess and be immediately thrown into the next one, only to discover a convenient cave or tunnel or something, but I'm glad it erred on that side of the equation. I thought this film was loving fantastic. I've always preferred The Hobbit to the LOTR books anyway and after watching this one I remembered why. I didn't need a god damned history lesson or a degree in Advanced Tolkien Studies to follow what was going on for one thing. The Lord of the Rings books are boooorrrring to read but I read The Hobbit on one day. Cut school to do it even. I loved how they gave all the dwarves unique looks and personalities, I thought the humor was good (for the most part) and that the whole thing just seemed tighter somehow and easier to understand. In the book, all of the dwarves sort of melded together for me and I ne ver got a sense of their individuality. Not the case here. The trolls, the goblins, Rivendell, Gollum, what we saw of Smaug, the landscapes, the sets, the CGI, the acting and the action were all wonderful. Gandalf actually seemed to have, you know, spells and power and poo poo which was also nice to see. This was the first 3D movie I've seen too. I was worried going in because I didn't know it was 3D and had no interest in it but I really thought it was great. As an aside, we got a 10 or 15 minute Star Trek preview that looked loving amazing. I don't like the TV show and didn't see the last movie but I think I want to now. For anyone that saw that clip, is the other Star Trek movie like that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 19:36
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:As an aside, we got a 10 or 15 minute Star Trek preview that looked loving amazing. I don't like the TV show and didn't see the last movie but I think I want to now. For anyone that saw that clip, is the other Star Trek movie like that? I didn't see the 10 minute clip, but the 2009 Star Trek film was pretty drat awesome, and you don't need to be a Trekkie at all to enjoy it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
I don't understand the criticism at all. For me, this felt like a shorter movie than it was, as I was engaged from the very beginning. Sure, the montage at the beginning wasn't perfect, and I, too, thought that the last 30 minutes were a bit rushed. Other than that, this is on par with the Lord of the Rings -trilogy. The acting is great ( I can not give Ian McKellen and Martin Freeman enough love here ), the world is as familiar as it is exciting, and best of all, this really felt like an adventure-film. I saw the 48fps/3D version, and I didn't find it too jarring, albeit I can't say if I am a fan yet. Some of the scenes in this film looked absolutely magnificent, mind-blowingly so, but most of the fight-scenes were way too fast to take in. The 48fps worked best when the characters were further away and we were given a sense of the 'whole' ( of a fight ), but fight-close-ups and brawls were impossible to make sense of. The sweeping scenery-shots were beautiful, though. Oh, and The Riddles in the Dark scene and Gollum? Incredible. My only real concern is this: how are they going to do two movies out of the rest of the story? I don't know, but then again I can't wait to find out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
BiggerBoat posted:As an aside, we got a 10 or 15 minute Star Trek preview that looked loving amazing. I don't like the TV show and didn't see the last movie but I think I want to now. For anyone that saw that clip, is the other Star Trek movie like that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 19:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
macnbc posted:I didn't see the 10 minute clip, but the 2009 Star Trek film was pretty drat awesome, and you don't need to be a Trekkie at all to enjoy it. The showing I went to had some sort of catastrophic accident trying to clean the theater up in time for the showing, so it was delayed and we skipped the Trek clip. I was really looking forward to seeing it! I know this isn't the Trek thread, but I don't suppose the 10 minute pre-Hobbit Trek clip is online anywhere yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 20:28
|
|
