DELETED_74993
- Thread starter DELETED_74993
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 5,207
I haven't seen it yet, but this sounds like something some people experience particularly with active shutter 3D, did you see it in 3D IMAX HFR? Active shutter 3D is much sharper than passive 3D and can be quite a strain on your eyes if you're not used to it.
Wait till all these kids who are 5 now get to 10 and are half blind.
They'll have to start reading books.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,631
- Location
- Surrey
The actual film...*sigh*...I spent a good portion of the film like this:
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'No...just no
He was in the book
They fleshed him out a bit but I thought it was well done.
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 3,528
watched the HFR 3d last night
the only way i can describe it is like watching eastenders. also it seemed like the film was running at 1.5x normal speed sometimes, did anyone feel that?
losing that little bit of blur from slower frame rate means it loses the film atmosphere. hard to explain but i wish i'd watched in normal 2d (will wait until dvd arrives)
he has gone mad with embellishing the story, if you can call it that. too many references to LOTR too. we know saruman will turn, come on!
i did like radagast though and his mad bunnies.
the only way i can describe it is like watching eastenders. also it seemed like the film was running at 1.5x normal speed sometimes, did anyone feel that?
losing that little bit of blur from slower frame rate means it loses the film atmosphere. hard to explain but i wish i'd watched in normal 2d (will wait until dvd arrives)
he has gone mad with embellishing the story, if you can call it that. too many references to LOTR too. we know saruman will turn, come on!
i did like radagast though and his mad bunnies.
It felt like it was running 1.5x to me as well.
Was really quite weird, I mean its clearly running at normal speed but as soon as they all start moving about it's like they've pressed the FF button, examples being inside and outside Bilbos house and when the bridge they were on fell down the middle of the mountain at the fat Goblins(?) home. The bit with the crazy wizard getting chased was mental as well!
What, spoiler tags for a discussion about a film that's now showing?
Do what I do, don't come back here until you've seen it, same goes for anyone really. I avoid all threads once the film(tv series/game/book blah blah) is out and until I've seen it.
It's really simply and easy to do.
Oh and why wasn't it called 'There and Back Again?'
Because he's not even made it 'there' yet....let alone 'back again'.
Watched the HFR 3D version last night and thought that it looked crap, i'll stick with 2D in future (prefer it anyway to 3D (and now 48fps)). The film itself was ok, it seemed to drag on too much plus some of the visuals were shockingly awful.
Last edited:
Saw it last night in 3D.
Was an "ok" film. But when we stack it up to LOTR.
I thought the animation was terrible, this stupid focus on making every single line a joke. overly ridiculous slow running forced "epicness" scenes just made us laugh at it (not with it!)
Deviated fairly largely from the book. Could have been a narnia film for all I know.
I wish to watch it in 2D for a 2nd chance at the animation.
But i felt like far too much of the film was animated compared to LOTR and the entire film was comparatively crap.
LOTR sets the bar extremely high so my expectations were high too naturally. This in comparison was drivel.
Im a HUGE lotr and hobbit fan btw. Read the books countless times.
Was an "ok" film. But when we stack it up to LOTR.
I thought the animation was terrible, this stupid focus on making every single line a joke. overly ridiculous slow running forced "epicness" scenes just made us laugh at it (not with it!)
Deviated fairly largely from the book. Could have been a narnia film for all I know.
I wish to watch it in 2D for a 2nd chance at the animation.
But i felt like far too much of the film was animated compared to LOTR and the entire film was comparatively crap.
LOTR sets the bar extremely high so my expectations were high too naturally. This in comparison was drivel.
Im a HUGE lotr and hobbit fan btw. Read the books countless times.
And every body else puts things in tags, is it that hard to ******* do? I've been right through the whole sodding thread with not one spoiler until you post. Everyone else is using them.
He was in the book
Wasn't that Azog's son Bolg though? And didn't he have a much smaller part towards the end of the book? It seems as though jackson needed a head honcho for the evil forces, sort of like Lurtz in the Fellowship
My heart bleeds.....
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,631
- Location
- Surrey
Well yes, the change was:
Azog died in the battle instead of being wounded (though it was Dain not Thorin) and Bolg took over the armies. It makes sense to reduce the number of characters though, there are a lot in all of Tolkien's works and it doesn't translate as well to film. It also makes sense to have a focal point for the enemy forces (in much the same way as Lurtz and Gothmog served in LOTR)
Associate
- Joined
- 28 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 215
- Location
- Lincoln, UK
Saw it last night and really enjoyed it, I knew it was long but it flew by for me. It does have issues - it veers too much between the lighter tone of the Hobbit and the seriousness of LOTR at times and some of the CGI is overused. Loved the Dwarf backstory at the beginning and was pleasantly surprised by Sylester McCoy, only a small amount of gurning but enjoyed his performance as well. Going to go back and see the HFR version this week to see what all the fuss is about.
Not IMAX HFR, but regular HFR 3D, aye. Although HFR is passive, right?
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 5,207
If it wasn't IMAX 3D then it could be passive, as that is what most non-IMAX cinemas use for 3D.
If it was indeed passive 3D (which is generally considered the gentler 3D to watch compared to active 3D) then it could just be your eyes don't cope very well with the 3D effect over long periods and suffer with strain and fatigue. I've had this problem with 3D from time to time. For me, it depends on a few things: whether it's passive or active (active 3D can be sharper but more tiring to watch) and the type of film and the amount of 3D effects onscreen used in particular scenes. For example, I saw Avatar and found the 3D very easy to watch scene to scene but Transformers 3 although visually great also, had far too much going on at once per scene for my eyes to cope with in 3D.
I think that might be the case. However, it could also be a sign that my glasses are now too strong or too weak, hence the extra strain.