The Hobbit FUCKING SUCKED DICK! spoilers ahoy
- Thread starter supplyshock
- Start date
I did not find the movie as lame as suggested. It wasn't perfect but it wasn't awful. Alex and I went to see it in 3D at the Imax and the wolves from the bad ass orc practically jump out of the screen, however when the movie abruptly ended I was like seriously WTF....
Felt like the power failed and the emergency lights came on to tell us all to get the fuck out lol.
Felt like the power failed and the emergency lights came on to tell us all to get the fuck out lol.
I'm the complete opposite and fucking loved it
Also OP is butthurt faggot, the movie is just fine and Im quite sure it has 8+ points over at IMDB as well...
couldn't help
Is this idiot serious? Jebus fucking Alah, Tolkien was way b4 fucking Rowling, the tard must be trolling.
Fixed.
_______________________
Honestly though, did anyone else see it in HFR IMAX? There were only like 30-something theaters in the U.S. that showed the movie in HFR (BLOG @ IMAX: Peter Jackson). That extra 24 FPS made a huge difference and not in a good way. It definitely detracted from my overall opinion of the movie. Shit just looked fake, like REALLY fake, there were scenes where stuff looked to be moving robotically fast, and the CGI was so obvious it was sickening. And I'm not talking about your typical 'oh that CGI looks fake' I'm talking about where shit looked like cardboard cutouts, and landscapes looked like miniature set models put together with some craft supplies and super glue.
All that said, I could probably get past the HFR if the movie itself was any good. I've never fallen asleep in a theater, but during the first half hour or so of this movie, I was nodding off. It did pick up and had some exciting moments, but overall there was nothing riveting and it left much more to be desired. Even putting the terrible ending aside, this movie sucked.
The first half-hour or so was definitely hard to get use to the 48fps. The interior shots of Bag End were hard to take, and actually that whole segment with the singing....I started getting concerned that it was going to be a musical.
Once they got out of Bag End, and particularly after Rivendell things started moving at a much better pace.
Agree with the general sentiment that it was overly long, and spreading the movies across 3 is just a money grab, no doubt about it.
However I'm still open minded about the 48fps. I think people are just too stuck in the ways of the 24fps - give it time and see a few more movies in 48fps before shooting it down. Anyone saying otherwise just sound like grumpy old people moaning about the "good ol' days". A little like when people were complaining about switching from cassette tape to CD, or when things changed from VHS to DVD - the number of complaints about "it's too clear" was staggering......
Once they got out of Bag End, and particularly after Rivendell things started moving at a much better pace.
Agree with the general sentiment that it was overly long, and spreading the movies across 3 is just a money grab, no doubt about it.
However I'm still open minded about the 48fps. I think people are just too stuck in the ways of the 24fps - give it time and see a few more movies in 48fps before shooting it down. Anyone saying otherwise just sound like grumpy old people moaning about the "good ol' days". A little like when people were complaining about switching from cassette tape to CD, or when things changed from VHS to DVD - the number of complaints about "it's too clear" was staggering......
Are you sure you watched the HFR version? I only ask because I know a lot of people who thought they did but actually only watched the imax 3D in 24 fps. Like I said in my post above, HFR was only avaulable in very few theaters. I really suspect this might be the case for you based on your comments. The problem was not at all that the picture was too clear, the problem was that everything looked fake.
Yeah it was, according to the official site. I still stand by my conclusion that everything was just very very sharp - particularly in Bag End. So sharp it was kinda jarring. Others have said it before - it felt like watching a very high quality TV show.
I didn't notice any sort of "fake" stuff further into the movie at all actually (a lot of people complained about the CGI looking really obviously CGI), but perhaps I was enjoying it and not pointedly trying to find faults with it? Not sure.
I wish they would make a silmarillion movie. You could stretch that out better than you could the hobbit. It takes places over a large stretch of time with several different stories so they could just focus on one. Also I thought an animatrix style treatment could be good too.
The Hobbit was amazing. The only legitimate criticisms have to do with it not following the book closely enough... but the movie should be judged on its own merits.
This was a masterpiece of a film based on the book that originated the entire fantasy genre, and it broke new ground in terms of both technology and presentation. The pacing was perfect, and none of the scenes were superfluous. People who criticize the length of the exposition clearly have ADD and should go watch 5 minute youtube videos instead. If you can't enjoy a film that has this much going for it because you went into the experience with a bunch of inane pre-fabricated criticisms, it really says more about your own issues than it says about the movie itself.
This was a masterpiece of a film based on the book that originated the entire fantasy genre, and it broke new ground in terms of both technology and presentation. The pacing was perfect, and none of the scenes were superfluous. People who criticize the length of the exposition clearly have ADD and should go watch 5 minute youtube videos instead. If you can't enjoy a film that has this much going for it because you went into the experience with a bunch of inane pre-fabricated criticisms, it really says more about your own issues than it says about the movie itself.
I still can't help but to think you saw the non-HFR. The fake aspects I spoke of are anything but subtle. Have you ever seen the movie beetle juice, like the old one from the 90s? Do you remember the miniature town where beetle juice lived, made of model trees and such? Well that is exactly what the landscapes looked like in the HFR version of The Hobbit. You would literally have to be vision-impaired not to notice how fake the landscapes looked. I mean, it was awful.
edit* I wanted to clarify, the reason I think it's possible you saw the 24 FPS, because many of the theaters on the HFR list showed the movie in both 24 and 48 Hz formats and some weren't very transparent on which tickets you were actually buying
Now, dial that back to 24 FPS and it looks exactly as you described, very sharp picture but not blatantly fake. Because the slight motion blur that comes with the 24 frame rate is just enough to hide any imperfections. In fact, this is precisely why movies have been delivered at 24 frames for decades, it makes little imperfections unnoticeable. While in 48 frames, there is zero room for error.
I'm not saying 48 fps is impossible, but these producers really have to step their game up to make it look real. This means using real landscapes, real props, etc. Instead of substituting CGI and miniatures. In other words they will have to completely re-think the way they make movies, especially fantasy type movies. This also likely means tripling or quadrupling their production budgets.
I think it has more to do with the fact that Peter Jackson is great at visuals and staging, but the dialogue isn't his strong point. The characters in LOTR weren't very convincing.
