No, that's a fallacy.
The cinema equipment would need to be able to handle 60+, and it's probably only able to push a maximum of 60 at the very most (at the "well equipped" cinemas).
You're also supposed to fill in some blanks with your imagination, to draw yourself into the movie. Pushing high frame rates won't make it any better, as it's quite good as it is already.
------------
I saw the 2D version, and I found it a good watch. There was quite a bit of action, but I thought that they would actually fight Smaug.
I can't say that I've read the book but I'm looking forward to the 2 future parts.
Edit:
At the end of the film, the whole audience started clapping. - Never seen it happen before.
Last edited by Yohassakura; 2012-12-15 at 01:41 AM.
Computer: Intel I7-3770k @ 4.5GHz | 16GB 1600MHz DDR3 RAM | AMD 7970 GHz @ 1200/1600 | ASUS Z77-V PRO Mobo|
Last edited by worprz; 2012-12-15 at 01:20 AM.
Last edited by Kasierith; 2012-12-15 at 01:23 AM.
Just got home from watching it. Was awesome, didn't leave me breathless like LOTR did (then again I seen them all when I was under 10). The 48fps was strange, it felt too smooth for me, but it was good.
Their was a bit too much comedy during tension filled scenes for my liking, but the scenes with golem had the whole cinema crying with laughter which I enjoyed a lot. One thing I don't understand is, is when Gandalf saves them with the eagles, why couldn't they fly them to the mountain? Apart from that good movie, looking forward for the next 2 parts
No worries
If I got it right, Smaug will be defeated in the second movie, and the third movie will focus on the battle that takes place afterwards. However, there is so much taking place between this movie's end and Smaug's downfall, I'm incredibly curious about how they'll make it all fit without rushing through.There is going to be three movies right? I am interested to see how they will split up the book.
You're not alone. I have two friends who are very avid readers, though, so my faith is not entirely lost.
I'm note sure if you intended it, but what you just said is pretty much exactly what came out of the mouth of Sir Christopher Lee! (He who plays Saruman, for those who don't know)One of the best things about Tolkein's works is that every time you read through it, you pick up on little details you missed the last time
Cave Cave Deus Videt
When i saw the 3D version late weds night in the US i loved it. Looking forward to seeing part 2 the same time next year.
It's a recurring problem in Tolkein's works; really the only time that you see eagles aren't overpowered is in the Salmarillion. Looking back at it, the use of deus ex machina really wasn't as problematic when Tolkein was writing, and was prevalent in the folk tales and mythologies that he drew from.
Ahaha, no I wasn't aware, although that is very interesting.
Precisely, I personally dislike prequels such as The Hobbit, because you know what will happen. Bilbo Baggins find the ring (or stole it from Gollum), and he gives it to Frodo.
The hobbit will not be as epic as LOTR movies, not even close. It is probably just a filler, or just to tell the tale of that book from LOTR (the story of Bilbo).
I don't think im gonna watch it.
The Hobbit was written far before the Lord of the Rings, and the LotR is a sequel to the Hobbit more then the Hobbit being a prequel to Lord of the Rings. A Hobbit animated feature was even made years ago before the movie trilogy came out. Jackson just decided to make the LotR into movies before the Hobbit.
Tolkien created the world of Middle-Earth with The Hobbit as a high fantasy tale, then went darker and more political with LotR.
Also, calling it a filler is pretty weak, it's the same story world as LotR, and just as important.
The Hobbit came first; he didn't start writing "The New Hobbit" which would later become the Fellowship of the Ring until five years after that, after getting the Salmarillion into a rough draft and having it rejected. Another thing to note is that Bilbo's acquiring the ring is a secondary, or even tertiary aspect of The Hobbit. The two stories are distinctly separate in all but that regard.
---------- Post added 2012-12-15 at 03:43 AM ----------
If I remember correctly, he even wanted to do the Hobbit first, but couldn't because the owners of the animated version adamantly refused to hand over the copyright.
Exactly, you could even call the ring a complete gimmick. In the Hobbit he meant it as a way to give Bilbo a better advantage, and decided to use that as a focal point in the sequel book series just because Bilbo kept it.
If he decided to end the Hobbit with Bilbo losing the ring and going back home, the Lord of the Rings may have never even existed.
I'm not quite sure about that... his incorporation of the rings of power in the Silmarillion indicates, at least from my perspective, that he always intended the ring to have a deeper purpose. I don't remember the exact date, but I'm fairly certain the first sketch of the Silmarillion was finished in the 1920's. Rings are a pretty important aspect of lore from his source material, and that the ring came from the darkest depths of the earth can be symbolic in itself.
I got Pacific Rim, After Earth, and Warm Bodies, and one of my friends who saw it in a different theater got Star Trek, Superman, and Jack the Giant Slayer.
As a whole though the more I think about it the more I liked the movie, and am excited for the next two installments (which both look like they will amount to something great).
I didn't see it in 48 fps so I can't talk about that but the visuals were still fantastic, and I actually really enjoyed all of the humor in this movie.
My main complaint was the head orc though (the defiler), he seemed very basic as a villain and not all that menacing.
Last edited by Markluzz; 2012-12-15 at 03:18 AM.
Rings has always had a big and important role in history and old legends, so Tolkien using them is almost a given, thinking about his superior knowledge of such things. I'm quite unsure if he even intended for The Hobbit to take place in Middle-Earth, or if he just wrote that one famous line "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit" without any meaning behind it, and just realized that it could take place in his already created Middle-Earth. If so, I doubt he had any plans for the ring.
He didn't really plan to make a sequel to The Hobbit to begin with, so on a personal level I agree with Zath on this one. If I remember correctly, after publishing The Hobbit all he wanted was to keep going on Silmarillion, which he did, although he never published it. ..Now that I think about it, I do remember something about him being annoyed at his choice of words at the end of The Hobbit when he started thinking about it's sequel (showing that he didn't plan to make one at first), because it stated that Bilbo was going to live happily ever after, so nothing bad could ever happen to him after his unexpected journey.
Cave Cave Deus Videt