DELETED_74993
- Thread starter DELETED_74993
- Start date
Well, have them sprout wings as they fall down then, or have parachutes pop out. Missing the point of continuity and believability a bit there!
I'll write something in little text too!
These characters are basically portrayed as normal(ish) flesh and blood, in a world where pretty much the normal laws of physics apply. So when one drops down 400feet of rock tunnels, and gets up and carries on, you sort of get the feeling its a step too far.
And let's not forget, this is stuff NOT in the book, but put in for candy. The scenes in question could have been done more subtly, without the need for Hanna-Barbera cartoon time, and would have resulted in a better more gripping outcome. Have them fall down 10ft and obviously show it was painful, rather than 400ft and just get up...
Why the need for the eagles... They could have just jumped out of the tree and off the cliff face from what we've seen before
But as I said, it's a minor annoyance in the scheme of things. Just felt a bit daft and out of place TBH.
This what annoyed me with Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. There were plenty of silly 'they should die moments', most notably surviving the nuke in the fridge. It was daft.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 May 2010
- Posts
- 23,702
- Location
- London
Right just got back from the Cinema where I watched it in 3d.
Pretty good. Shamefully I have never read the books so it was all new to me.
However how much of what was in the books was covered by the film?
I hear there are going to be three of them. Is the material in the book "The Hobbit" enough for 3 films?
I have seen the thickness of the book and it doesnt look 3 films big!
Is there a lot me content in the book that wasnt covered in the film? Thinking of reading the book now, before the films ruin it for me.
Pretty good. Shamefully I have never read the books so it was all new to me.
However how much of what was in the books was covered by the film?
I hear there are going to be three of them. Is the material in the book "The Hobbit" enough for 3 films?
I have seen the thickness of the book and it doesnt look 3 films big!
Is there a lot me content in the book that wasnt covered in the film? Thinking of reading the book now, before the films ruin it for me.
So you have to take all the appendices as well into account not just the book. Sounds like as he wrote more books and the universe fleshed out, he added a lot of what should have been in the hobbit.
But I haven't read the books myself.
the books are so much better than all the films, and i loved all the films as well.
most peoples minds are far better than still what cgi can do today 3d or not, the mind is better.
if you love the films, read the books
the whole series is great, shame he didn't get to finish all he wanted to do, son's work is ok, but you can tell it's not the same
most peoples minds are far better than still what cgi can do today 3d or not, the mind is better.
if you love the films, read the books
the whole series is great, shame he didn't get to finish all he wanted to do, son's work is ok, but you can tell it's not the same
How much of the "The Hobbit" (book) was covered in the first film?
A third almost to the page!
Last edited:
Only a few dozen across the entire UK?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 12,538
- Location
- London
Pretty much. As he couldn't really go back and re-write the book, he filled in a load of information via the appendices of LotR instead, sometimes slightly awkwardly (as retconning sometimes is). In the book, IIRC, the ring doesn't carry the significance it does in LotR because he hadn't written the history for it yet, where as for us film-goers we're fully aware having already seen LotR - which is why the appendices stuff is essential to the film version working.
One of the reasons why the Tolkienverse is so great it that it's history is so comprehensively written, even weapons have long historys (as we see in The Hobbit) and little off-hand references have you looking up stuff and finding a whole other story. It's well worth reading The Hobbit, LotR and it's appendices, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales, and then stuff like the book The Atlas of Middle Earth as well as having a Tolkien-wiki bookmarked! It gives you that much more appreciation for the films visual interpretation of the characters and settings (and makes me sad I'll probably never see anything from the Sil visualised on the big screen).
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,790
- Location
- Surrey
I think the book will be 2.5 films with the films perhaps going further on from where the hobbit ends.
^^
There's aspects of the film I thought could be improved, but it's a perfectly watchable and well produced film. Anyone declaring it "rubbish" or saying it "sucked" clearly can't be bothered to construct a fair opinion, or is just attention seeking, so frankly just needs to be ignored.
As for better than the LOTR films, I guess that's down to personal taste. But for me, I wouldn't rate this first Hobbit film above any of them.
Will be interesting to see what the next two are like... Bring on Mirkwood
There's aspects of the film I thought could be improved, but it's a perfectly watchable and well produced film. Anyone declaring it "rubbish" or saying it "sucked" clearly can't be bothered to construct a fair opinion, or is just attention seeking, so frankly just needs to be ignored.
As for better than the LOTR films, I guess that's down to personal taste. But for me, I wouldn't rate this first Hobbit film above any of them.
Will be interesting to see what the next two are like... Bring on Mirkwood
I think it really depends on whether you like the Hobbit more than any of the LOTR books as to whether you would like it more or less than them. As im sure has been said before this was a childrens book and LOTR wasnt, personally I think its very well done and with some things i didnt enjoy some things i thought he did exceptionally well.
I watched it last night in HFR 3D at Showcase De Lux in Leicester. The 3D was meh as usual, really wished I had just gone for 2d. As for the HFR, I'm not sure why people say it look speeded up, it looked totally normal to me, in fact I didn't notice much different from 24 fps.
I enjoyed the film, not as much as LOTR, I think I just preferred the characters more in LOTR, still looking forward to the next instalment.
I enjoyed the film, not as much as LOTR, I think I just preferred the characters more in LOTR, still looking forward to the next instalment.
Soldato
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2010
- Posts
- 3,251
Saw it last night and absolutely loved it. Went in expecting an 8/10 and come out as a 9/10. On the whole, I preferred it to lotr for (mostly) escaping Elijah Woods gigantic simpering eye flutters. Wasn't expecting to like freeman, but by the end I thought, fair play job done. Jackson just embarrasses everybody else in the industry showing 'em all how it's done.
There is no excuse to not see it in HFR. I strongly suspect I would prefere 2d HFR, but that's not an option.
There is no excuse to not see it in HFR. I strongly suspect I would prefere 2d HFR, but that's not an option.
I disagree, HP books are better than the films, but here I genuinely think the films are better because they are so much more accessible. Tolkien is a dry old man, writing from the perspective of a dry old men telling stories, much like a grandfather would. The fantastical adventure writing is a class leader, but the character development is nonexistant. The films combine both better than the writing of the books.
Last edited:
People don't complain of it looked sped up, just uncomfortably smooth.
Apparently the reason is, your brain is accustomed to you sitting in a cinema and watch something pretend in 24fps. It knows it's not real because, (a) your at the cinema, (b) the image is flickering and not smooth like real world.
Apparently, 48fps upsets some people because it undoes (b) above. Your brain is confused... It knows what's its seeing is make believe, but it so smooth its comparible to real life smoothness, so it complains. Supposedly we just need to get our brains used to it
Huh? In many areas it's just not available easily!
Interesting! So where it's being showing in 3D HFR, it's not being showing in 2D HFR? Shame! Maybe they keep it 24fps incase people don't get on with HFR!?
You could alays get two pairs of 3D glasses and swap the right lens from one, into the left lens of the other... And instant 2D HFR glasses