Cridiots crying about the Hobbit
First they complain about it being 3 films, now this bullshit:
I'll be damned if that footage didn't make me feel like I was flying. The exaggerated and depth-increased mountains of New Zealand were majestic.
They can't even find a successful critique for anything relevant. Morons.
Originally posted by the ninjak
Too much detail results in inferior visual quality.
That's contradictory...unless your optic receptors aren't as sharp as the average individual's, then it's just too much visual quality.
I care because they are complaining about the very same things that I enjoy about Peter Jackson's methods.
If Peter Jackson is like George Lucas and gives up, it's the critic's fault that I don't get what I like.
Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't feel the quality of the film suffered, in fact, it was visually stunning in many scenes.I also didn't go watch it in 3D, cos that shit is lame. "Weee, a 3D spear coming at me against a 2D background! Weeee!" I don't get the appeal.
The Hobbit and Avatar's 3D is different from any other film's 3D.
Watch the Hobbit in 3D if you want to know what I mean. If more filmmakers design 3D films because they want them to be more appealing rather than to bring in more profit, you would quickly realize why 3D exists casually in theaters these days.
However, as Gandalf would say, much "has turned to greed and ambition."
Originally posted by Dolos
The Hobbit and Avatar's 3D is different from any other film's 3D.Watch the Hobbit in 3D if you want to know what I mean. If more filmmakers design 3D films because they want them to be more appealing rather than to bring in more profit, you would quickly realize why 3D exists casually in theaters these days.
However, as Gandalf would say, much "has turned to greed and ambition."
The only thing I remotely enjoyed about Avatar in 3D was the extensive use of stark colors and lightning, the 3D made those more dashing. Otherwise it was more of the '3D object against a 2D background' nonsense which bothers me.
I'll give 3D another shot when the entire film and everything in it is 3D, until then, it's the superior (to me) 2D.
I haven't seen the movie yet. I'm seeing it on Wednesday. But I always preferred the idea of a two-parter. Part I being to reach the Lonely Mountain, and Part II involving Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies. Seems like those two will be in separate films.
A lot of the critics are comparing it to LOTR, which is a bit unfair for the Hobbit. Though lol, how does the film compare to those who have seen it?
Movie looked like shit in some parts, imo. There was a visible motion-blur when the camera panned too quickly at certain points, and a lot of the CGI looked rather crummy and obviously CGI (the pale ork and the goblin king being two examples).
I wasn't "wowed" by the CGI in this like I was watching King Kong and LotR, but it isn't horrifically bad either. Though, the motion blurs were causing me physical pain, at 2 in the morning (saw it at midnight).
As for the higher detail/visual quality thing, it's a fact that the more clear the image is the worse the visual quality gets, regarding film effects. Real life objects, such as mountains and people, look great in HD. CGI and props, though, look more obviously like CGI and props.
Yeah, I felt the same way about the Goblins. They had a certain impish, gangling look in Fellowship, whereas in this, they're all short and stocky, and fat in some cases.
I also got the feeling while watching this that they used a whole lot less costumed extras in this movie compared to the LotR trilogy. A shame really, considering the Uruks, orks and goblins looked frighteningly real in the trilogy.
edit- Thinking about it, I suppose it's not Jackson's fault, regarding the goblins. It's mmore Tolkeins, since he basically completely changed the goblins mannerisms between The Hobbit and LotR (made the Goblins darker than they were in the Hobbit, basically). He did the same thing with orks, changing from mostly sentient hill-billy's to generic beasts.