|
Bongo Bill posted:Cartoons are good. I love the Bakshi Hobbit cartoon. Perhaps the Star Wars prequels were a labor of love, I was more calling out it being an opportunity to play with new toys than an opportunity to make a decent film, rather than it being a cash-in, which it was as well, even if it was a labor of love. The Hobbit is blatantly "Mmmm... gimme some of that LOTR money... yum..." though. Dystram fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Dec 21, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
Just saw it. It was bad. Shoulda been 2 movies max.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:35
|
|
|
Anyone heard anything comparing IMAX HFR to regular HFR? Not sure if IMAX is needed since it wasn't shot that way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 22:58
|
|
|
What the gently caress is "dividing 87 from 60" meant to mean?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
I went in with really low expectations colored by the last two films. Enjoyed this enough as a dumb CGI-heavy action movie. The problems of the last two films were pretty much still symptoms in this movie too. I'm not going to get too much worked up with this movie to write a ten paragraph essay of what went wrong or right. I wished all three films could have been better; and I'll fully admit I enjoyed them partly because I wanted to, because of their association with TLOTR movies. If not for TLOTR, these Hobbit movies would probably be mostly forgotten about in a few years. I haven't seen too many non-Tolkien fantasy movies made since TLOTR. But I imagine their quality is comparable to The Hobbit; studios want to ride off the success of TLOTR but with more constrained schedules and budgets and other pressures. We end up with films that feels very "compromised" by all these pressures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:What the gently caress is "dividing 87 from 60" meant to mean? .69 (with some rounding, obviously a sex joke)
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:28
|
|
|
Dystram posted:
Weeeell yeah, I mean, in the end, sure. The fact that it ended up a trilogy rather than a two-parter says it all. But I for one believe that there was some real creative spark from the beginning. Especially since del Toro was signed as the director first. I'd love to see his take on The Hobbit. PJ did just fine, but I think there are other directors who could've done it better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
The creativity went into the technology, which is cutting-edge and often experimental.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I went in with really low expectations colored by the last two films. Enjoyed this enough as a dumb CGI-heavy action movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:07
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:The creativity went into the technology, which is cutting-edge and often experimental. Not a great way to go if you want something to last though. Especially since there's nothing really innovative in the way CGI or the HFR was used in these movies. HFR doesn't seem to catch on so as an experiment it should be seen as a failure, and the CGI is always improving anyway across the industry at large. The CGI in these movies were pretty uninspiring for the most part. Few things really blew me out of the seat in amazement. Gravity from last year was much more interesting in that regard. Or perhaps you meant technology in another sense?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Dystram posted:I love the Bakshi Hobbit cartoon. Haha nice. Wait, you're not serious, are you?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Haha nice.  Yes I am. Problem, oval office?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Dystram posted:
There's no need to be so agressive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:51
|
|
|
Austrian mook posted:There's no need to be so agressive. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rVQGT01Kzg
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 02:54
|
|
|
Dystram posted:
Well Bakshi didn't loving do the Hobbit you poo poo-heel motherfucker whoreson.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
Just saw this, probably need to digest it some more but so far it's my least favorite of the trilogy. It felt like there were a lot of little moments where random stuff just popped into the screen because it was convenient off the top of my head, the little armored goats, deus ex eagles (again) and the giant golden bell, pretty sure there were others that I'm blanking on. Couple quick questions: How much time is supposed to have elapsed between the end of this and the beginning of Fellowship? Not counting the very end, obviously. Sending Legolas off to find Strider seemed really off. Like he had to have been a pretty drat young child, it seems. Certainly not old enough to be a ranger with enough of a reputation to have a nickname, anyway. Was the leader of the Ironfoot dwarves completely CGI? It was kind of hard to tell since they didn't have many static close-ups on him, but it kind of looked like it. If so, why? I guess that would make it really good CGI, but something was still a little uncanny valley about it to me. What was the deal with the dragon sickness thing? Someone earlier mentioned that it was supposed to just be a dwarven euphemism, but that doesn't really seem to be the case since both Gandalf brings it up by name and Bard also references the gold being cursed. Since it doesn't end up affected anyone else whatsoever, I'm not sure what they were really going for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
KingKapalone posted:Anyone heard anything comparing IMAX HFR to regular HFR? Not sure if IMAX is needed since it wasn't shot that way. I don't know about imax hfr but I saw the first couple in imax 3d at regular frame rate and the latest one on a regular sized screen in 3d hfr and I know I'm late to the party but hfr is some hot garbage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
BigglesSWE posted:Not a great way to go if you want something to last though. Especially since there's nothing really innovative in the way CGI or the HFR was used in these movies. HFR doesn't seem to catch on so as an experiment it should be seen as a failure, and the CGI is always improving anyway across the industry at large. The CGI in these movies were pretty uninspiring for the most part. Few things really blew me out of the seat in amazement. Gravity from last year was much more interesting in that regard. The use of HFR is a novelty in and of itself; the decision to commit to filming everything at that framerate is highly instructive in regards to what effects it has generally. Some existing techniques were used in conjunction with it, including slow-motion and temporarily dropping the framerate. The rapid movements of the camera in the Goblin Town chase and barrel chase, and to a lesser extent rapidly-moving objects throughout, would not have been possible at 24 frames per second. Tons of characters are wholly CGI, and they interact physically with the characters played by actors; hell, they even had to replace one of the characters (Dain) with CGI on short notice because the actor fell ill, or so I've heard. Different-scale sets are composited together in 3D with green screen. The facial motion capture was quite extensive especially in the case of trolls, and the use of mocap for a non-humanoid character was also fairly novel. None of those are really big crowd-pleaser effects except for the chaotic tracking chase shots, and in fact a lot of people are complaining about them (some of them even have a better reason than just disliking things that are different! not the ones who dislike HFR itself, though, those people are just plain wrong) but they do represent definite advancements in the state of the art.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:15
|
|
|
HFR is no different than your parents leaving on the TruMotion on their HDTV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:Well Bakshi didn't loving do the Hobbit you poo poo-heel motherfucker whoreson. Oh yeahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh... It was Rankin/Bass!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit_%281977_film%29
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Dystram posted:Galadriel is the one who pushes Sauron's poo poo in Galadriel is actually probably one of the most powerful beings on Middle-Earth, even more so than Gandalf and Sarumon. I actually had a problem with how they characterized her as this wilted flower who fell apart after defeating Sauron; she's basically the equivalent of a level 100 High Elf mage Captain Mog fucked around with this message at 03:37 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:Galadriel is actually probably one of the most powerful beings on Middle-Earth, even more so than Gandalf Eh, Gandalf is actually more powerful, he's just forbidden from using his power directly against Sauron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:33
|
|
|
CelticPredator posted:HFR is no different than your parents leaving on the TruMotion on their HDTV. That's like saying that a photograph captured at a higher resolution is no different than scaling it up in Photoshop. Interpolation doesn't double the fidelity of the video. TruMotion and other such algorithms add nothing to the video in the most literal, mathematical sense possible; all they're doing is blowing it up, except in time instead of space. (It also fucks with motion blur, which is still present in the source video.) HFR is filmed at the higher framerate, so it actually does add information. You wouldn't expect someone to notice that the first time they see it, however. Especially if the only video that they'd previously seen captured at a higher framerate is a recording of something ugly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
Grizzled Patriarch posted:Couple quick questions: At the start of Unexpected Journey it's called out to have been 60 years between the start of the Hobbit and the start of Fellowship. Now this can actually still kinda sorta work if you squint at it funny. In the books, 15 years elapse between Bilbo leaving the shire and Frodo leaving, but in the movies it's presented as a much shorter span of time. Film Aragorn is 87 in Two Towers, take sixty from that and he'd be 27 at the end of hobbit when Legolas is sent after him. This all falls apart if that 15 year jump in Fellowship happens though; I chose to believe that in Jackson's interpretation it's only a few months, a year tops that Gandalf is away researching.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
It's clearly the next night that Gandalf comes back 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:That's like saying that a photograph captured at a higher resolution is no different than scaling it up in Photoshop.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Hedrigall posted:It's clearly the next night that Gandalf comes back Honestly, I believe that somewhere during production Jackson just forgot about that 15 year gap and just decided to run with it. Or possibly decided to ignore it entirely. Nobody visibly ages at all during that span, other than Bilbo who was already old as poo poo and had lost the "protection" of the Ring's magic. Frodo should have remained youthful, as he now had the ring, but Sam, Merry, and Pippin don't change a bit between Gandalf leaving and coming back. It also makes the threat of Mordor feel a bit more urgent. If 15 years go by, it raises the question of just what the hell sauron and his forces were doing that whole time. By making it only a few months before Nazgul start knocking on doors in the Shire, things feel much more pressing. In all honesty though, Jackson probably just wanted to cram in a reference to the LOTR trilogy in the closing moments of Hobbit and the timeline just happens to fall into place like that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
Echo Chamber posted:I haven't seen too many non-Tolkien fantasy movies made since TLOTR. But I imagine their quality is comparable to The Hobbit; studios want to ride off the success of TLOTR but with more constrained schedules and budgets and other pressures. We end up with films that feels very "compromised" by all these pressures. Snow White & The Huntsman, Wrath Of The Titans, Where The Wild Things Are and After Earth are leagues better than any Lord Of The Rings movie. People are acting like ridiculous padding, egregious CGI, monotonous battle scenes (and so-on) are new to the series. They've always been there. Remember the part of Fellowship where they fight an octopus? Obviously the scene is metaphorical - but a metaphor for what? They fight the tentacles with limited success, but win by shooting the creature in the eye. So: Sauron? It's one of the many scenes in the series that don't lend mythic weight to this mythological tale. It's the unevocative scene where Legolas shoots an octopus - and there are a lot of these.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Snow White & The Huntsman, Wrath Of The Titans, Where The Wild Things Are and After Earth are leagues better than any Lord Of The Rings movie. You're not even trying anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Yeah I'm not really seeing how the padded battle scenes at the end of Hobbit 3 are worse than the ones in other Lord of the Rings movies. They both have the same problems, but I actually liked these parts better in Battle of Five Armies because they were funnier. The whole thing's become a farce and we reach the point where The Coward shakes fake boobs full of gold at the camera.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:It's one of the many scenes in the series that don't lend mythic weight to this mythological tale. It's the unevocative scene where Legolas shoots an octopus - and there are a lot of these. It's a force of nature that pushes them into the mountain right about when they peeked their heads inside and found it full of dwarf corpses. It's there to take away their choice of backing out and going around. It's also foreshadowing for the upcoming encounter with the Balrog, both being creatures of the deep that no mortal eyes had seen for an age or longer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
I appreciated that Bilbo's part of the loot also included a shield, a helm, and another dagger/short sword
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Dystram posted:
Dragon sickness is no excuse for dragon rudeness. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
Vaall posted:You're not even trying anymore. Peter Suschitzky, Greg Fraser, Ben Davis, and Lance Acord are better cinematographers than Andrew Lesnie. I do not like the look of LOTR very much at all. SatansBestBuddy posted:It's a force of nature that pushes them into the mountain right about when they peeked their heads inside and found it full of dwarf corpses. It's there to take away their choice of backing out and going around. It's also foreshadowing for the upcoming encounter with the Balrog, both being creatures of the deep that no mortal eyes had seen for an age or longer. Right, so it's a monster and it fills a plot hole. Why not just rewrite the scene so that there isn't a plot hole?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:38
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Right, so it's a monster and it fills a plot hole. Why not just rewrite the scene so that there isn't a plot hole? Because that's how the book does it, so why rewrite the book to fill a plot hole you created when you rewrote the book?
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
I'm talking about the movie, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:53
|
|
|
So why are the elves in the movies just like Vulcans... is it the pointy ears? The elves in the books are always singing and dancing and feasting and making merry. The movie elves are dour and stoic and completely lacking in anything that resembles joy. Why such a dumb and needless change? Hell, in the book the elves sang Thorin's party into Rivendell. In the movies, they drat near attacked them. Someone go back in time and keep that from happening in the movies. GORDON fucked around with this message at 04:59 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Vaall posted:You're not even trying anymore. Defending poorly received movies is sorta his thing. Just roll with it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
GORDON posted:So why are the elves in the movies just like Vulcans... is it the pointy ears? The elves in the books are always singing and dancing and feasting and making merry. The movie elves are dour and stoic and completely lacking in anything that resembles joy. Why such a dumb and needless change? Because that's the popular conception of elves as defined by Tolkien in The Lord of the Rings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 03:17 |
|
|
jivjov posted:At the start of Unexpected Journey it's called out to have been 60 years between the start of the Hobbit and the start of Fellowship. Now this can actually still kinda sorta work if you squint at it funny. In the books, 15 years elapse between Bilbo leaving the shire and Frodo leaving, but in the movies it's presented as a much shorter span of time. Film Aragorn is 87 in Two Towers, take sixty from that and he'd be 27 at the end of hobbit when Legolas is sent after him. This all falls apart if that 15 year jump in Fellowship happens though; I chose to believe that in Jackson's interpretation it's only a few months, a year tops that Gandalf is away researching. Yeah in the books Aragorn would be a tiny baby at the time of The Battle of the Five Armies, and Frodo wouldn't even be born for a further several decades. You could still probably write this off to mystical bullshit of elves carrying out the will of Ilúvatar, though. The real shocker is that, as you say, Aragorn is in his eighties at the time of The War of the Ring. That means his age is about 3% of the age of Arwen, who is something like 3,000 years old at this time. This can't possibly be legal, even by the lax standards of quasi-medieval debauchery. Arwen is basically a cradle robber. A shameful Arwen. GORDON posted:So why are the elves in the movies just like Vulcans... is it the pointy ears? The elves in the books are always singing and dancing and feasting and making merry. The movie elves are dour and stoic and completely lacking in anything that resembles joy. Why such a dumb and needless change? Yeah this is basically my least favorite change in the films, too. Well that and the Ents. And Boromir's extended family. But mostly the elves. At least Galadriel seemed marginally mischievious when they met her in Lothlórien.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 05:10
|
|
