Saw the mutha, fuckin, hobbit

[MrSparkle001]

Originally Posted by SamwiseRed [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

SPOILER REPLY DO NOT READ

SRS

DONT

ya the rock dudes fighting was pretty random, but then again the dwarves didnt know wtf was going on either so maybe it was supposed to be presented like that.

Sounds pretty much like the book. I haven't seen the movie yet but I've read the book many times, and it's completely different from LOTR. The giants are in the book, random and wtfoutofnowhere. Tolkien himself said The Hobbit does not fit in with his grand creation, so it contains a lot of fantasy elements not found anywhere else in his middle-earth writings except the beginning of The Fellowship, which was originally written as a sequel but didn't take long to abandon that notion and become epic instead.

[joppykid]

Originally Posted by gotrocks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not trolling, just really curious about the 48fps.

You did in fact see it in the 48fps version, correct? I heard that they were showing 3 versions, 24fps, 48fps, and 3d48fps, though i could be wrong.

I've heard from lots of people/reviewers that the 48fps thing was a mixed bag, at times looking fantastic (particularly during the riddle scene) and at others looking like a soap opera.

Anyone else have any specific thoughts on the first major motion picture shot/viewed in 48fps? I will eventually go see the movie myself, but I really am skeptical about the 48fps thing, heard alot of bad things about it.

Oh maybe I didn't, I thought it was only in 48 fps from what I had read. Either way the one I saw looked great.

[SyanideGas]

looked really good

[Bohab]

The Hobbit was great! IMO many of the negative critics of the film can't get LOTR out of their heads since they have seen it SO MANY times. When they see LOTR characters, scenes, and music in the Hobbit they are quick to dismiss the movie as second rate.

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by gotrocks [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Not trolling, just really curious about the 48fps.

You did in fact see it in the 48fps version, correct? I heard that they were showing 3 versions, 24fps, 48fps, and 3d48fps, though i could be wrong.

I've heard from lots of people/reviewers that the 48fps thing was a mixed bag, at times looking fantastic (particularly during the riddle scene) and at others looking like a soap opera.

Anyone else have any specific thoughts on the first major motion picture shot/viewed in 48fps? I will eventually go see the movie myself, but I really am skeptical about the 48fps thing, heard alot of bad things about it.

I saw it in imax 3d at 48fps. I thought it looked pretty good during certain scenes and not so good during others. The riddle scene did look amazing because it was relatively low movement and light. When you get to the really fast paced scenes with a lot of movement, it did not look as good in my opinion. It was almost like there was a form of ghosting in high movement scenes. Overall id prefer traditional 24fps, its not so amazing that the low movement detail overrides the high speed stuff.

[katrik]

I really enjoyed it! Radagast and his rabbits were hilarious. I really enjoyed the filler and additional backstory.

[SamwiseRed]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

shit was better than lotr, let that be on record

[Hailto]

Originally Posted by SamwiseRed [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

shit was better than lotr, let that be on record

Get outta here.

[Greegon]

the goblins were far too much like orcs and i think they really rushed through that part (i remember it taking forever in the book) but i fucking loved it. saw it in 3d, and even flinched one part when an arrow was shot during the flee-from-the-goblins scene.

[Greegon]

cannot wait for more of the necromancer