Saw it in HFR 3D earlier on. Overall I think there are positives and negatives to it. It does at times seem a bit more like a live documentary due to the clarity and smoothness but that's no bad thing. Some scenes are absolutely breathtaking whereas others can feel very artificial. The 3D was some of the best I've seen (though I haven't seen Life of Pi) and the movie itself was good (8/10).
DELETED_74993
- Thread starter DELETED_74993
- Start date
You'be been here since 04, you should know that spoilers are meant to be in place for where certains things aren't meant to be read without a warning in certain threads.
For example, talking about Mass Effect 2 or 3 in a ME1 thread, or talking about another Marvel Film say, an Ironman thread and someones wants to say something about The Avengers. It's was only 2012 when people decided that you have to spoiler a discussion thread about a subject.
For god sake. IT'S ABOUT THE FILM. What else did you expect? You don't read a review of a film and hope not to read spoilers do you? It makes me unnecessarily angry that people think like that, the answer is right infront of their face. There's a certain amount of common sense and obviousness about these threads.
But hey ho, you'll get insulted now, argue back and forget that I have a really, really good point that spans over a decade of internet forum use, seriously. You are the first person in my entire life that thinks that you should spoiler a discussion about a film in the films thread.
Phew, yeah I went overboard but the sheer defiance of logic just took over me. This is not a new thing, people have been doing it forever
Just because the spoiler tags are a recent addition doesn't mean you have to sperg over it's use for your own mistakes.
I've been waiting for this film for god knows how long, I've read the books and know the story well. Watch all the trailers I could find, been in this thread since the start, read all the reviews I could also, Know sod all about the film that I wasn't expecting. Then get told Radagast is in it.(he gets a mere mention in the books) so yeah it's annoying. Everyone else who though anything could be important just used the spoiler tags. Why did they bother? I will live, I only said spoiler tags dude... You are the one who decided to jump and get offended by that. The poster it would seem couldn't give a damn.
Last edited:
I don't think spoiler tags are required when a film is actually out and we are having a discussion about that film. As above, it's a common sense thing.
I'm sorry if you felt I spoiled anything. FYI. I posted a redacted version of my post in TIAM thread in GD. I have been conscious of the issue.
I'm sorry if you felt I spoiled anything. FYI. I posted a redacted version of my post in TIAM thread in GD. I have been conscious of the issue.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
So desperate to watch this but friends not able to go until friday, may have to be a billy no mates and go on my own tonight!
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Dec 2003
- Posts
- 3,540
yes. spoiler tags are not necessary, if i had not seen the film i would not come to the thread (about the film) until i had seen it. the same way i avoided hobbit reviews and trailers as much as possible before i went to see it
But surely people should be able to read peoples opinions on whether a film is worth watching it or not without having it spoilt? It can cost a considerable amount of money to see a film in the cinema and some people have to pick and choose carefully. Personally I have no interest in seeing this particular film so spoilers in this thread do not bother me but in others it would. It is so easy to use spoiler tags that it shouldn't even be up for discussion. It makes far more sense to use them than create a seperate spolier free thread or simply ignore any opinions on a film until watched.
Last edited:
If you are likely to get upset reading about something that's already out, you really should know to avoid reading corresponding threads when people are obviously going to be discussing plots etc.
Regardless, I've edited my post for the sake of politeness.
8/10
I saw it at 24fps in 2D so can't comment on the clarity and 3d etc...
Now to stop complants...
I saw it at 24fps in 2D so can't comment on the clarity and 3d etc...
Now to stop complants...
I was really glad they brought Radagast into it, he was one of the characters I missed in the original trilogy, though they shouldn't have made him so childish.
In general this I found was the biggest problem with the film. The hobbit isn't a kids book per se, only aimed at a younger audience than the rest of the works.
The riddle scenes were done quite well, but lacked the serious vibe I remember from reading the books as a kid, and the goblin scenes hardly felt like a threat at all. Not once did I feel like a character was about to die or be injured.
In general, there was simply no need to lighten the tone of the film. The silmarilon and the rest of the extended lore however is distinctly adult. This probably contributed to the sense of disjointedness that the film had.
Otherwise it was a pretty good film in its own right. It was nice to see gandalf use a bit more magic too.
Also, in the books, did Gandalf even have a meeting in rivendell? and did Gladriel and Saruman appear? It seemed quite forced...
In general this I found was the biggest problem with the film. The hobbit isn't a kids book per se, only aimed at a younger audience than the rest of the works.
The riddle scenes were done quite well, but lacked the serious vibe I remember from reading the books as a kid, and the goblin scenes hardly felt like a threat at all. Not once did I feel like a character was about to die or be injured.
In general, there was simply no need to lighten the tone of the film. The silmarilon and the rest of the extended lore however is distinctly adult. This probably contributed to the sense of disjointedness that the film had.
Otherwise it was a pretty good film in its own right. It was nice to see gandalf use a bit more magic too.
Also, in the books, did Gandalf even have a meeting in rivendell? and did Gladriel and Saruman appear? It seemed quite forced...
Having only seen it in the HFR 3D... I'd skip and stick with 24fps 2D.
The visual effects are just distracting. Maybe go HFR 3D for a second viewing if you really like it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,175
Id stick with 2D personally, I loathe 3D.
I just wish they were showing the 2D version in IMAX, people think 3D is popular but I don't know a single person who prefers it over ordinary 2D. The only reason it does well is because now all IMAX screenings are in 3D :/
I could watch a 10hour movie of the battle for the Moria, that flashback scene was awesome
48FPS 3D is a game changer... you can watch any old film in 24,why not try what's new?
You have no interest in seeing The Hobbit but you are in this thread
Heaven forbid a film fan would like to read people's opinions on one of the biggest films of the year, along with the new technology that may be used in a film I have an interest in watching.
Then you've misunderstood what threads like these a far, it's not just to give it a score and say it was awesome, it's a discussion of the film therefor expect certain parts of it with spoilers to be discussed.
If you're one of those people that care about what others think so much, critics and pointless reviews without being able to make their own mind up, then I have no help.
With regards to HFR, surely it will just take time for people to adjust to it, given pretty much everyone has only ever seen 24fps and is therefore conditioned towards it?
As for the sense of threat, surely that is a given seeing as we all know that (at the very least) Bilbo and Gandalf survive, a problem with most prequels.
As for the sense of threat, surely that is a given seeing as we all know that (at the very least) Bilbo and Gandalf survive, a problem with most prequels.
Just watched in on HFR IMAX 3D and thought it looked stunning.
The 48fps certainly improves the 3D image no end - though I wondered would the IMAX be 4k as well or not? As I'm not certain what to attribute to the improved performance.
I would say up to 90% of panning blur was eliminated - and this would be down to the 48fps, but also it had a lot more overall natural depth ie: no forced foreground/mid-ground/background 'sections' I find you get with normal 3D and I wasn't sure if this was down to 48fps or maybe the higher resolution of 4K - if it was.
It still wasn't perfect in the 3D dept, and yes the 48fps did give that 'sped up' effect at times but the positives far outweighed the negatives (for 3D). In comparison we had a trailer for the new Star Trek, well I say trailer it was more like a 10min chunk of the film, to the degree I thought I was in the wrong screen
and the 3D on that was just a complete blurred mess on the fast scenes, awful.
So yes, 48fps vastly improves 3D, not that I'm a huge fan of the 3D anyway, and am looking forward to seeing this again on Weds in 2D to make the comparison.
The 48fps certainly improves the 3D image no end - though I wondered would the IMAX be 4k as well or not? As I'm not certain what to attribute to the improved performance.
I would say up to 90% of panning blur was eliminated - and this would be down to the 48fps, but also it had a lot more overall natural depth ie: no forced foreground/mid-ground/background 'sections' I find you get with normal 3D and I wasn't sure if this was down to 48fps or maybe the higher resolution of 4K - if it was.
It still wasn't perfect in the 3D dept, and yes the 48fps did give that 'sped up' effect at times but the positives far outweighed the negatives (for 3D). In comparison we had a trailer for the new Star Trek, well I say trailer it was more like a 10min chunk of the film, to the degree I thought I was in the wrong screen
and the 3D on that was just a complete blurred mess on the fast scenes, awful.So yes, 48fps vastly improves 3D, not that I'm a huge fan of the 3D anyway, and am looking forward to seeing this again on Weds in 2D to make the comparison.