The Hobbit Movie Thread.

Saw this last Friday. Best of the bunch but the problems of previous films are still evident, ie. too much plot and too much CGI. Visually it at least looks better than the last film, but that's sullied slightly by a few shots towards of the end of the gorgeous CG-free New Zealand landscape, which just reminds you what might have been.

My full review can be read here: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/hobbit-battle- ... ng-1478804

Back from the hobbit trilogy screening and really enjoyed it

The films work so much better when watched back to back (especially the last two). Not sure if the third film is my favourite of the three but it's still a very entertaining movie.

While I agree with a lot of criticisms about the films, it was still a journey I loved going on. So long Middle-earth.

[iup=3634418]tomvekmas[/iup] wrote:Back from the hobbit trilogy screening and really enjoyed it

The films work so much better when watched back to back (especially the last two). Not sure if the third film is my favourite of the three but it's still a very entertaining movie.

While I agree with a lot of criticisms about the films, it was still a journey I loved going on. So long Middle-earth.

Wow, how does that work? Is there a break in between? Sounds exhausting.

Maybe get to see this next week. After that last movie, I'm not expecting very much.

Going to watch this tonight!

I saw the trilogy at the cinema last night too, I think it really does benefit from being watched as a whole but two movies would've been plenty. The third movie was a fun enough watch with plenty of CG-heavy action (some might find it a bit tiresome) and it retains a lot of the same kind of silliness that appeared in the first two. Legolas is a full-blown videogame character now - I was laughing at all the mental things he does in this movie, it's like Peter Jackson was saying a big FU to anyone who didn't like Legolas' crazy skillz in part two.

I was hoping for more Beorn, but he just gets a quick cameo towards the end when the eagles arrive to save the day.

Nice to see scary Galadriel again, and the fight with the Nazgûl was petty cool.

Damn, surely there's plenty of quite-literal bumpain sitting through all that! Were there any breaks?!

I think it was about 15 mins between 1+2 and 30mins between 2+3...or something like that. Bum was fine throughout, the VIP seating was comfy enough

It was a piece of cake compared to my LotR trilogy cinema outing a decade ago, the first movie started at midnight! At least the Hobbit trilogy started in the early evening

Well best of the Hobbit films, really enjoyed it

Saw this tonight. Very strange film. Some of the dialogue seemed very out of place and modern. Some scenes including Thorin on the gold lake were very odd and didn't feel like a PJ scene.

The bat riding was straight from king Kong but sort of worked.

Some amazing stuff, the battle with the 9 and the two cameos, epic stuff right there.

I loved the battle scenes but the CGI on one dwarf was a bit off. And choosing such s famous scott to voice him made it very distracting.

Its not a terrible movie, just every scene is a bit too long.

Highlights were 9 fight, the dwarf's steed, worms, head butt troll, elves jumping off dwarves and the month python voice during s Cross dressing scene.

7/10

ill probably just wait for it come out on netflix

[iup=3634495]massimo[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3634418]tomvekmas[/iup] wrote:Back from the hobbit trilogy screening and really enjoyed it

The films work so much better when watched back to back (especially the last two). Not sure if the third film is my favourite of the three but it's still a very entertaining movie.

While I agree with a lot of criticisms about the films, it was still a journey I loved going on. So long Middle-earth.

Wow, how does that work? Is there a break in between? Sounds exhausting.

Wasn't too bad dude, about 15 mins between each film. Just about had enough time to run downstairs and throw a McDonald's at my face between the first two. I think the hardest thing was watching 3 3D films in a row. My poor eyes

Just back from seeing this and I loved it! Certainly the better film out of the three and i'm a little sad to see the last of Middle Earth, Gandalf and company. I also must be the only person in the world that likes HFR and I'm pretty sure I won't see it again.
Anyway I've seen the film and now to get on with Christmas!

Liked but didn't love BoFA...it did nothing to convince me the book needed to be three films, and the new stuff they added was so pointless in the end of it all...also felt the ending was a bit limp, it doesn't have the same satisfying sense of closure for Bilbo's arc that the book did.

What was the deal with the worms? Were they there just to dig tunnels for the Orcs or was there something else I missed?

[iup=3635660]Temporary Christmas Name[/iup] wrote:What was the deal with the worms? Were they there just to dig tunnels for the Orcs or was there something else I missed?

To dig the tunnels.

[iup=3635220]Jingle Ord the Way[/iup] wrote:Just back from seeing this and I loved it! Certainly the better film out of the three and i'm a little sad to see the last of Middle Earth, Gandalf and company. I also must be the only person in the world that likes HFR and I'm pretty sure I won't see it again.
Anyway I've seen the film and now to get on with Christmas!

I love HFR. The more films in higher frame rates the better. It's daft people prefer worse quality movies.

[iup=3635982]massimo[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3635220]Jingle Ord the Way[/iup] wrote:Just back from seeing this and I loved it! Certainly the better film out of the three and i'm a little sad to see the last of Middle Earth, Gandalf and company. I also must be the only person in the world that likes HFR and I'm pretty sure I won't see it again.
Anyway I've seen the film and now to get on with Christmas!

I love HFR. The more films in higher frame rates the better. It's daft people prefer worse quality movies.

It's not really a question of quality, the feel of 24 and 48fps are very different. HFR feels more like video and makes it look cheaper IMO.

[iup=3636011]Jay Adama[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3635982]massimo[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3635220]Jingle Ord the Way[/iup] wrote:Just back from seeing this and I loved it! Certainly the better film out of the three and i'm a little sad to see the last of Middle Earth, Gandalf and company. I also must be the only person in the world that likes HFR and I'm pretty sure I won't see it again.
Anyway I've seen the film and now to get on with Christmas!

I love HFR. The more films in higher frame rates the better. It's daft people prefer worse quality movies.

It's not really a question of quality, the feel of 24 and 48fps are very different. HFR feels more like video and makes it look cheaper IMO.

I'd disagree. HFR is more frames and smoother motion. So for me, that is better quality. Sure, people prefer 24fps but that's all to do with how movies have looked for the last however many decades. Once people get used to higher frame rates, everything will look so much nicer.

[iup=3636046]massimo[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3636011]Jay Adama[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3635982]massimo[/iup] wrote:

[iup=3635220]Jingle Ord the Way[/iup] wrote:Just back from seeing this and I loved it! Certainly the better film out of the three and i'm a little sad to see the last of Middle Earth, Gandalf and company. I also must be the only person in the world that likes HFR and I'm pretty sure I won't see it again.
Anyway I've seen the film and now to get on with Christmas!

I love HFR. The more films in higher frame rates the better. It's daft people prefer worse quality movies.

It's not really a question of quality, the feel of 24 and 48fps are very different. HFR feels more like video and makes it look cheaper IMO.

I'd disagree. HFR is more frames and smoother motion. So for me, that is better quality. Sure, people prefer 24fps but that's all to do with how movies have looked for the last however many decades. Once people get used to higher frame rates, everything will look so much nicer.

I still think it's a personal preference, more isn't always better. I remember reading about how Sofia Coppola chose to use film rather than video on Lost In Translation:

Wikipedia wrote:Coppola said that her father, Francis Ford Coppola, tried to convince her to shoot on video, but she ultimately decided on film, describing its “fragmented, dislocated, melancholic, romantic feeling", in contrast with video, which is "more immediate, in the present".

This is pretty much how I feel. HFR, like video, makes it feel too "real" which for some things (sports, live concerts etc.) I think is a plus but for films it makes them feel less cinematic. I'd agree that it's maybe just because that' what I'm used to but when I'm presented with an alternative that I find undesirable and generally distracting then why bother "upgrading"?

In saying that, I don't see why they can't shoot everything in 48fps and put it on BDs and then let people choose to watch it in 24 or 48fps.