So, that Hobbit movie, anyone interested? Going to see it?
I'm looking forward to it. Part of me knows it will never be what the Lord of the Rings films were, but I don't mind. I'm still looking forward to it.
maybe if it were filmed on a gosh darn 80fps camera god
Major Eras in Film History:
1. Silent Era (1895-1927)
2. Sound Era (1927-2012)
3. 48 FPS Era (2012-????)
yes
Saw it yesterday. It was neat. Some parts were excellent, some parts were meh. Really hoping 48fps doesn't become standard quality, it's awful.
Saw it at midnight premiere; it was fun, and I enjoyed it. It wasn't as epic as LotR, but that's to be expected. Sadly, I could not experience it in 400 FPS as originally intended.
Quote from: Flying Chickens on December 19, 2012, 06:32:42 PM
Really hoping 48fps doesn't become standard quality, it's awful.
Why's that?
Quote from: Z on December 19, 2012, 10:14:43 PM
Why's that?
Colours become hyper-vivid and movement seems sped up. It's impressive, to be sure, but the 48fps makes all the CGI work seem all the more out of place.
Perhaps awful isn't the word, but it's certainly not something I'm a fan of.
Quote from: Delibird on December 19, 2012, 09:57:33 PM
Saw it at midnight premiere; it was fun, and I enjoyed it. It wasn't as epic as LotR, but that's to be expected. Sadly, I could not experience it in 400 FPS as originally intended.
With all the setup in this movie of things to come, I'm hoping that the next two will hit the level of LotR.
yo yo yo that movie sucks my duck lol what the hells a hobbit some kinda midget lol i aint inta that kinda thing you know what im sayin watch a real movie maybe sumn like yknow armageddon a true american classic
Quote from: Flying Chickens on December 19, 2012, 11:50:19 PM
Colours become hyper-vivid and movement seems sped up. It's impressive, to be sure, but the 48fps makes all the CGI work seem all the more out of place.
Perhaps awful isn't the word, but it's certainly not something I'm a fan of.
I saw it last night. I feel like the 48fps is a great middle ground.
CGI always looks out of place in a live-action movie. You can't avoid that. More frames make things move more realistically, so I disagree that the CGI felt more out of place. I feel it helped it feel more in place.
Anyway I enjoyed the movie and appreciated all the effort that went into making it close to the book. I noted some differences but they weren't anything major.
Quote from: Flying Chickens on December 19, 2012, 11:50:19 PM
Colours become hyper-vivid and movement seems sped up. It's impressive, to be sure, but the 48fps makes all the CGI work seem all the more out of place.
Perhaps awful isn't the word, but it's certainly not something I'm a fan of.
With all the setup in this movie of things to come, I'm hoping that the next two will hit the level of LotR.
WHY SHOULD VIDEO GAMES USE 60 FPS
30 FPS IS SO MUCH BETTER
Quote from: Z on December 21, 2012, 01:25:16 AM
Anyway I enjoyed the movie and appreciated all the effort that went into making it close to the book. I noted some differences but they weren't anything major.
Go take another gander at that book.
Quote from: Flying Chickens on December 27, 2012, 01:44:09 AM
Go take another gander at that book.
EDIT: Spoiler tags aren't working for me, otherwise I'd go into detail.
But none of the changes outside of how Bilbo obtained his sword were that drastic(and even then...). Radagast and The Pale Orc have a larger role, the latter of which was a necessary change.
Quote from: Z on December 27, 2012, 03:19:58 AM
EDIT: Spoiler tags aren't working for me, otherwise I'd go into detail.
But none of the changes outside of how Bilbo obtained his sword were that drastic(and even then...). Radagast and The Pale Orc have a larger role, the latter of which was a necessary change.
I suppose that's truth. Too much of it seems like Peter Jackson trying to remind us that yes, he's the guy who made the film of Lord of the Rings.
I've heard that most (a lot) of the extra stuff comes from one of the other books.
sup ninnyes, happy new year and whatnot
The Hobbit was hella underwhelming. I liked Martin Freeman and Radagast but I disliked just about everything else
I'd elaborate but really who comes here any more
Quote from: Ravioli on January 01, 2013, 07:35:42 PM
sup ninnyes, happy new year and whatnot
The Hobbit was hella underwhelming. I liked Martin Freeman and Radagast but I disliked just about everything else
I'd elaborate but really who comes here any more
Martin Freeman was excellent, yes.