It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Telika: This is now my favorite movie ever :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl7w2Z0vGpA
lol awesome, i wonder if dwarves throw molotov in this one
avatar
djranis: lol awesome, i wonder if dwarves throw molotov in this one
Molotovs were actually "invented" by the Finns.
avatar
Telika: This is now my favorite movie ever :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sl7w2Z0vGpA
avatar
SheBear: ... What did I just watch?
Unfortunately, a russian adaptation made more awesome by a very talented pseudo-translator.

I really, really really wish this was the genuine translation.
I liked it, but it was way too long. I hope there'll be a director's cut- a version where unimportant parts have been taken out and the action scenes have been shortened. Of course that won't happen- we are more likely to get the oppesite.
avatar
Telika: Unfortunately, a russian adaptation made more awesome by a very talented pseudo-translator.

I really, really really wish this was the genuine translation.
I just talked to a friend who is Russian to ask her if that translation was anything like the actual words being spoken. It of course wasn't - but it was super well done I thought.

I do want to know how ridiculous it is from a real translation - because the visuals are crazy. haha
i trundled along the other day to see it, wasn't exactly wanting to for any other reason than it using the 24fps 3D. i enjoyed the FIRST watch of LOTR movies, but the second and 3rd i was just bored (maybe its me lately!) and i think i will feel the same here.

did anyone feel extremely underwhelmed with the 24fps 3D it was built up to be super amazing and window like clarity and the future of cinema etc and i just left with "Meh".

sorry slightly off topic i guess. just wondered if anyone felt the same?
avatar
Jernfuglen: I liked it, but it was way too long. I hope there'll be a director's cut- a version where unimportant parts have been taken out and the action scenes have been shortened. Of course that won't happen- we are more likely to get the oppesite.
hehehe if LOTR is any indicator, the directors cut will be even longer. :P
avatar
chezybezy: i trundled along the other day to see it, wasn't exactly wanting to for any other reason than it using the 24fps 3D. i enjoyed the FIRST watch of LOTR movies, but the second and 3rd i was just bored (maybe its me lately!) and i think i will feel the same here.

did anyone feel extremely underwhelmed with the 24fps 3D it was built up to be super amazing and window like clarity and the future of cinema etc and i just left with "Meh".

sorry slightly off topic i guess. just wondered if anyone felt the same?
The new technology is the 48 fps 3D projection, not 24 fps. The latter is the standard framerate for all films. If you really saw the Hobbit at the usual 24 fps it's not surprising that you were unimpressed.
i thought the hobbit was the quintisential fantasy movie of all time. including the other lord of the rings movies, this was the greatest movie ever. WOOT WOOT!
avatar
spindown: The new technology is the 48 fps 3D projection, not 24 fps. The latter is the standard
framerate for all films. If you really saw the Hobbit at the usual 24 fps it's not surprising
that you were unimpressed.
hay i hadnt thought about that!
i wonder if it was only shown in normal 3D!?

Please accept my sincere apologies. i haven't been sleeping well and forgot HFR was 48fps and not 24 when i posted this! .... and im supposed to be a techy! *shakes head*

anyone know how to tell? my cinema is listed as one of those supposed to be showing it in HFR.

to be fair i did enjoy some bits and over all was very interesting and fun. I preferred its style and momentum; its just a wee bit different to lotrs.


EDIT: if anyone was wondering - it turns out i did see it in normal 2D! (im trying to get the cinema to admit they messed up)
Post edited January 25, 2013 by chezybezy
I just rented the movie in Blu Ray and it still blew my mind, I still loved it.

I forgotten that some of the sets were just blue screen, the wilderness looks so real you almost forget it is fake looking.

If anyone agrees imo WETA digital does CG best (they are not completely perfect you can tell whats CG and fake but they put such detail on the images that it has realistic features)

I just cannot wait to see the next film.
avatar
Elmofongo: I just rented the movie in Blu Ray and it still blew my mind, I still loved it.

I forgotten that some of the sets were just blue screen, the wilderness looks so real you almost forget it is fake looking.

If anyone agrees imo WETA digital does CG best (they are not completely perfect you can tell whats CG and fake but they put such detail on the images that it has realistic features)

I just cannot wait to see the next film.
Got that right. I recently rewatched The Lord of the Rings trilogy and I even had trouble figuring out which shot was CG (for instance, I had no idea that the shot of the fellowship crossing the bridge at Moria was 100% CGI). Keep in mind that this particular movie is now 12 years old (woah. Time flies by quickly).
avatar
Elmofongo: I just rented the movie in Blu Ray and it still blew my mind, I still loved it.

I forgotten that some of the sets were just blue screen, the wilderness looks so real you almost forget it is fake looking.

If anyone agrees imo WETA digital does CG best (they are not completely perfect you can tell whats CG and fake but they put such detail on the images that it has realistic features)

I just cannot wait to see the next film.
avatar
POLE7645: Got that right. I recently rewatched The Lord of the Rings trilogy and I even had trouble figuring out which shot was CG (for instance, I had no idea that the shot of the fellowship crossing the bridge at Moria was 100% CGI). Keep in mind that this particular movie is now 12 years old (woah. Time flies by quickly).
Of course the best CG of all time is in Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest with Davy Jones, some people thought it was a very elaborate costume.
avatar
keeveek: By the way, I see what people write here and I see the same things that were said years ago when LOTR came out. Fanboys were all around claiming how shitty LOTR movies are because "Elves aiding humans in The Two Towers? WTF?! 0/10 !!!!" "Nazguls flying on some weird dragons? -10/10 !!!!!!", so I don't feel any need to participate in those.

They will shut up in a while.
avatar
SheBear: I will probably shut up about how I thought An Unexpected Journey failed when everyone else does too (probably pretty soon, when everyone has seen it).

But I also am not against the movie SOLELY because of the liberties that Jackson and co. took with the lore: that is a piece of not liking the movie, but that is the same piece in LOTR and I really like them as movies!

In my mind An Unexpected Journey was just a bad movie. Period.
I hadn't read the book in a number of years, but I think that the material that Peter Jackson added to it was appallingly bad. I could have understood if it simplified things or made the plot work better, but in all cases that I noticed, it stopped the action and made things boring.

He's got basically two movies tops that can be made from the Hobbit, and if my informal calculations are correct, at least 30 minutes of the first film was pure filler material, if not more than that. Not to mention how horribly convoluted the action sequences were.

I don't personally think that he needed to slavishly copy the source material, but if he was going to add rather than subtract, it should lead to a movie that was, well better. I was constantly looking down at my watch as there were scene upon scene in the movie that didn't serve any real purpose. And again, those were the ones that he added. We didn't need Smaug to have a backstory, IIRC, Smaug didn't have much of one in the original book, and that worked fine.
avatar
gooberking: I liked the movie, but that' about the limit of what I can say for it. It definitely had a lighter feel to it than the LOTR movies, which probably helped with my biggest beef with it. If it had tried to be more serious then I don't think I would have been able to get past the absurd number of overly sensationalized life or death moments, the heroes kept miraculously escaping from.
avatar
Ivory&Gold: Thing is, it's not really a movie at all. It feels and looks like, and pretty much serves the purpose of, an amusement park ride. Or more precisely, these "4D cinema" things, were you watch something crashing down a mountain or whatever, and the seats move accordingly. Only less cool, but much longer.

Judge it as a movie, and it's unimaginably ugly, plastic and crude, judge it as an "experience", with hordes of hideous 3D beasts jumping at you and careering tracking shots, and it's fine.

The Trilogy was ugly and, yes, cheesy in places (impressive in others), but ultimately those were still very much movies.

But yeah, who cares? Blanchett is achingly beautiful as Galadriel and pierces the ridiculous sausage festival going on around her like a beam of golden light breaking through dark clouds...

*cough*
I didn't know they had 4D cinema outside of China. I didn't get to go in, but one time I saw a 5D cinema sign. Not sure what that extra D was for. Perhaps it was a 3D movie with DD women.
Post edited March 23, 2013 by hedwards