DELETED_74993

Just got back, my god that film was good. It's amazing to see how far the technology has come since LOTR. I saw it in standard 3D and I think it really added to the film. I will definitely be booking a second viewing.

I've had to think hard to find a criticism, if I was being harsh I'd say some of the references to LOTR felt a bit unnecessary (Gandalf banging his head again!)
 
Just seen it in standard 2D. Fantastic imo. Really great picture and audio quality in the cinema I was at.

Haven't read the books, but loved it like I did the LOTR trilogy.
 
Watched this tonight in 2D, absolutely loved it! Wanted to watch it on IMAX but 3D is just garbage and unfortunatly there is no Imax without 3D nowadays :/

Might go back to check out the 48FPS version, see what the fuss is all about!
 
WARNING CONTAINS SPOILERS

Just been to see it in 3D HFP

Now the visual aspect - as everyone is saying - was brilliant. The CGI was great and all the sweeping shots were fantastic - but you expect that (well I do) after what PJ did with LoTR. Personally I think HFP in 2D would be perfect, cause 3D is a bit 'meh' but hey-ho

The actual film...*sigh*...I spent a good portion of the film like this: :confused:
Who and what the **** is the White ******** Orc??? Never EVER mentioned in the book itself! Stupid stupid addition to a film taken from a classic book...just stupid! Yes it is a film about a book, and yes they are going to miss stuff out - you expect that - but totally making **** up?? Please PJ! I thought you were a fan of the book?? I thought this was a film about the book called 'The Hobbit', not 'The Hobbit Reloaded' :rolleyes:No...just no
I wont be booking to see it again. The only thing I am glad about - in some twisted way - is that it is in 3 parts and that if, by some crazy stretch of the imagination, PJ doesn't continue to totally make **** up then the 2nd and 3rd (esp the 3rd) will be really good.

I also have to say that the way PJ has 'amended' the story line, rings very true to LoTR Part 1 esp:
I am sure that in LoTR 1, in the big battle, when Islidor takes off Sauron's hand (which had on the ring)I am pretty sure its the same **** arm that Thorin chops off the stupid bloody White ******** Orc...hummmmmmmmmm????
 
just back form watching it.. hmm.. i'm not sure yet.. quite liked the characters and the story (never read the book) but didn't like the look of it all.. it all looked too clean and "CGI" to my eyes, not a patch on the look and feel of LOTR. Plus what's the reason for no blood in the fight scenes? all of the swords were clean, very unrealistic.

I'm not sure if it was the new technique used to film it but to me at least 50% of it looked fake, it just didn't look real.. I know a lot of it isn't, but it's too clean and crisp to look real.
 
Just got back from watching this liked it better than lord of the rings.

My arse hurt sat in that cinema seat though.

Its a shame we have to wait another year for the next one.
 
Si. said:
just back form watching it.. hmm.. i'm not sure yet.. quite liked the characters and the story (never read the book) but didn't like the look of it all.. it all looked too clean and "CGI" to my eyes, not a patch on the look and feel of LOTR. Plus what's the reason for no blood in the fight scenes? all of the swords were clean, very unrealistic.

I'm not sure if it was the new technique used to film it but to me at least 50% of it looked fake, it just didn't look real.. I know a lot of it isn't, but it's too clean and crisp to look real.
Click to expand...

This is another thing that has narked me this year with 'Blockbusters'...12A...

You cant show bloody weapons in a 12A film...cause the kiddies might get upset...:rolleyes:...Batman had a distinct lack of blood...

Although - tbf - The Hobbit the book doesn't really have much in the way of description into the fights that take place - except for the Battle of Five Armies

Oh and why wasn't it called 'There and Back Again?' :rolleyes:
 
That is actually a very good point, even in LOTR Bilbos part of the story is called there and back again..

I hope he hasn't ****** about with the story too much, seeing it at midday so not long to find out. :)
 
Will21st said:
HFR and 3D are tied in....that's the plan.2D HFR will happen but isn't a priority.

You say 3D films are being made but don't reflect the feelings of the audience.... you're wrong because they do just that. If the cost to earning ratio didn't favour 3D the films wouldn't get made in 3D.

Also,the previous 'phases' of 3D were short-lived due to issues with costs for second projector's and camera-rigs were difficult to work with. These issues are resolved.

Anyway,we'll have this discussion again in 5 years and you'll still tell me how 3D is a failure. :p
Click to expand...

Like when you tell me that 3D has been a massive success in the history of cinema? :)

3D is a gimmick and it has been and gone before.
 
Tummy said:
Like when you tell me that 3D has been a massive success in the history of cinema? :)

3D is a gimmick and it has been and gone before.
Click to expand...

like I said,3D is a success and will stay around.... the technical and financial problems have been resolved.
In 5 years time you'll look at this and feel like a fool. ;)
 
Will21st said:
like I said,3D is a success and will stay around.... the technical and financial problems have been resolved.
In 5 years time you'll look at this and feel like a fool. ;)
Click to expand...

What about all the other times 3D has come and gone? :)

Back to the film, seeing it again Sunday in 48 frames and then again at the start of the week! :)
 
Tummy said:
What about all the other times 3D has come and gone? :)

Back to the film, seeing it again Sunday in 48 frames and then again at the start of the week! :)
Click to expand...

Did you actually read my other post? There were financial and technical difficulties.The numbers have always been good to great,there was just no consensus between studios and movie theatres about who should foot the bill for second projectors.Rigs were difficult to operate and sync....

Those issues are resolved.D-cinema and 3D projectors have been implemented in tens of thousands of screens worldwide,the Industry is invested to the tune of billions.The numbers are looking really good. 3DTv's are selling and are now standard even in cheap sets.

Believe it or not,this thing is decided.... 3D is being pushed through,wether some people resist or not. Do you think it's coincidence HFR is only available in combination with 3D? Far from it......

I'll tell you what though.... Once Avatar 3 has had it's run in 2016 or 2017,and has failed on a spectacular level,all those 3D Blockbusters that are being released til then have made huge losses,then,and only then,I'll be willing to talk about 3D failing.I'd suggest though not to get your hopes up,cause it won't happen. ;)

Last but not least have you noticed how DREDD 3D barely had any 2D screens,as does The Hobbit.
Get used to it,cause that will be the norm.There is talk already of one big film for next year getting no 2D prints whatsoever..... :)
 
Last edited:
Did anyone else come away with serious eye strain after it, or are my eyes just screwed?

I mean, I understand 48fps is supposed to reduce the negative effects the blurring between frames that 24fps gives us, but I think the effect is somewhat diminished when the film you're watching is almost 3 hours long. I've never sat and watch a 3D for that long before.
 
Shamikebab said:
I've had to think hard to find a criticism, if I was being harsh I'd say some of the references to LOTR felt a bit unnecessary (Gandalf banging his head again!)
Click to expand...

I actually liked that bit, it makes the Fellowship of the Ring repeat more amusing, if you watch it in FOTR again, you can see it was way more of a 'rolleyes' moment that he'd done it again 60 years later than in The Hobbit. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom