Good vid the monsters look great, especially the hairy one in the cinema , seen the trailers as well cannot wait to see it. One thing i am fed up with is friends asking me "how come its three films and only one book?". Anyone else having to explain this
Yeah, the CGI was a little "meh" in certain parts.
Overall, I liked it a lot, and I'm looking forward to the next one.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
I also enjoyed the references to the rest of Middle-earth (which are sadly quite sparse in the book) - the blue wizards, Radagast invoking Yavanna, mentions of Gimli, and so on.
Some where actually anachronistic, such as Lobelia's silver spoons (happens after the Quest).
__________________ Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary components.
Did anyone else notice the motion blur whenever the camera did a panning shot? The CGI also looked really mediocre in some scenes. I'm starting to think that the 48 fps idea is a really shitty one.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
I would hardly attribute motion blur to 48fps for CGI and other tricks, however, it certainly makes things more challenging.
I couldn't think of any scene where I would complain about the technical quality of the CGI (except maybe the plastic-like water and crystal in the science-fiction-Rivendell-scenes); the design, on the other hand, is a different matter, whether it's the general color design (pink-gold-overflow!) or the design of individual creatures (ugly wolves).
__________________ Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary components.
Gender: Male Location: Stuck In the future where Akus evil
Some scenes I actually thought my eyes were going bad because they couldn't keep up with some of the camera movement. I thought The CGI looked fine though but the "Pale Orc" being pure CGI was a let down and looked kind of phoney. The Goblins should have had more actual people but The CGI king was understandable imo. I also saw some bad feedback with the elven king riding the elk and well I thought it was cool. The stone giant scene was interesting but definitely not needed. All and all I liked this movie much more then The Fellowship.
They overdid on action scenes, I generally thought it was rushing from one giant battle into the next. Kinda sad when so many other details seemed to be swept away.
I didn't have any troubles watching in HFR. On the contrary, I thought fast movement and camera shifts looked smoother than ever before. Sceneries were awesome and I was amazed at the detail they put into the dwarf architecture.
They overdid the action scenes, but on the other hand I'm glad they added some sort of general hunted-ness (and more on the overshadowing necromancer storyline) to the otherwise very episodic storyline.
__________________ Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary components.
Am I the only one who wished they had stuck to the book formula-- following Bilbo's story only and letting Gandalf's remain a mystery?
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
I think that, for one thing, they didn't want to show Gandfalf randomly lol-teleporting, which is what he was doing in the book, as it'd raise "the eagle question", I.E. why the **** didn't he just do that to deliver the ring to mount doom.
Secondly, I'm not sure that would have worked out well for a movie. For movies, it's difficult to get an idea of what's happening overall when you can only see it from one guy's perspective.
That said, I do think Bilbo kind of lost the spotlight in his own film.
__________________
"The Daemon lied with every breath. It could not help itself but to deceive and dismay, to riddle and ruin. The more we conversed, the closer I drew to one singularly ineluctable fact: I would gain no wisdom here."
I could handle following Gandalf's perspective occasionally. I could even excuse Radagast being in a film he should not have been in. I just want it to stop focusing on Thorin. I've read that book countless times, and not once have I ever got the impression that the journey was about him.
He was important, sure, but it was Bilbo's story. I found the decision to give Thorin his own revenge quest and nemesis story to be too much. It's like they realized they didn't have a badass warrior protagonist with a tragic past and Great Destiny (a la Aragorn) for this trilogy, so they might as well spice up the guy no one outside of Richard Armitage fans really cares too much about.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
They didn't use the eagles to toss the ring into mount doom cause Sauron would of seen that coming from miles away and taken them out.
i enjoyed the movie 7/10 but i think they could of just done 2 movies. they added stuff that didn't have to be added like Radagast running around on his sled. but then they remove stuff like Gandalf mimicing the trolls voices before the sun comes up. (i hope they filmed that and add it into the extended edition.)
Perhaps the greatest problem with The Hobbit is the fact that the only two characters worth a damn were Bilbo and Gandalf. This movie is actually giving Thorin character depth. As for Azog, once again I'm happy with it. Not having a major antagonist can work in books but very rarely does it translate well to the big screen.
Smaug should be the antagonist. He's the one that should be getting built up, prepping for a huge reveal and final showdown. He's the one the Dwarves should be cursing, and Thorin should be hating. He's the one Gandalf wants taken out lest "the Enemy" make use of him. Not some random Orc captain. I know they need something to keep us occupied for three movies, but it's unnecessary. That said, this series should not be 3 films long. Two max. Or even just one, 3-3.5 hour film. They padded the f*ck out of it, and there was no need.
__________________ Recently Produced and Distributed Young but High-Ranking Political Figure of Royal Ancestry within the Modern American Town Affectionately Referred To as Bel-Air.
KMC Community Forums
Nov 8th, 2012 12:18 PM
, seen the trailers as well cannot wait to see it. One thing i am fed up with is friends asking me "how come its three films and only one book?". Anyone else having to explain this
