THE HOBBIT
- Thread starter checkeredhat
- Start date
- Status
figmentPez
Staff member
Sweet, thanks!
And there is a theater right near me that will have 48fps showings. I will definitely be checking that out.
I'm assuming that the Hobbit is being natively shot in 48fps?
See, as long as it's filmed natively in 48fps it will likely look great (because the motion blur and all the directors shutter speed choices aren't obliterated like with those stupid TV's that interpolate footage up to 120fps)
I'll have to see if there's one up here playing it like that.
I'll have to see if there's one up here playing it like that.
Aw man, I don't think I'm anywhere close to a theater with 48fps.
No wait, I forgot I live close to Philly! YES!
Dang... 95 miles to the closest theater... oh well.
Woo, my theater's on there!
Scotiabank Theatre Toronto
Got my opening night 48fps 3D UltraAVX ticket tonight.
Can't wait for this movie...
Got my opening night 48fps 3D UltraAVX ticket tonight.
Can't wait for this movie...
Just about a month away from release, and the Temecula theater is on the list. Nice.
My Empire's got it.
Want to preview the soundtrack? You can listen to it in its entirety at Empire Online.
After hearing only 7 seconds I felt enchanted beyond disbelief. HOBBIT BITCHES!
I get chills whenever I heard them sing.
New Production blog released yesterday:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_hobbit_an_unexpected_journey/
The Hobbit isn't being nearly as well received as the LOTR movies. The top offenders being the 48 fps being too revealing and making everything look a lot more fake than it should as well as how unforgivably slow paced it is.
The Hobbit isn't being nearly as well received as the LOTR movies. The top offenders being the 48 fps being too revealing and making everything look a lot more fake than it should as well as how unforgivably slow paced it is.
It's only slow paced because it was split into three movies. If they had kept it about Bilbo and just his journey, you could have done it in 1.5 movies.
Love all of the review blurbs on the page that seem to think that these are Jackson's characters, and Jackson's story, and Jackson's ideas, and Jackson's world... bitches, this is motherfuckin' Tolkien. Jackson's just a director. Generally a good one, but still just a director - though I suppose he did help write the screenplay.
What? You can't expect movie critics to read books, you know. How are they supposed to know that this isn't supposed to be as much of an epic adventure story, if they don't even know that it's a prequel. Well, most of them don't seem to know that.
That reminds me of a college music critique I read once. "New Order's Republic does not hold up well compared to their last album Substance."
Substance was a decade's worth of released singles... i.e. Greatest Hits.
When the movie was first announced, I was excited. When Peter Jackson came on board, I was even more excited. When they said it was being split into two parts, I was...underwhelmed. Why? It's not a long, epic journey compared to the LotR trilogy. Why did it need two movies? Oh, they're more adding stuff from Tolkien's addendums and notes. That's kind of cool...I guess?
But then they made it a trilogy. Honestly, even though The Hobbit is one of my favourite books, I'm not really interested in the movie(s) anymore. These reviews aren't helping,
But then they made it a trilogy. Honestly, even though The Hobbit is one of my favourite books, I'm not really interested in the movie(s) anymore. These reviews aren't helping,
It's the criticisms of how the movie looks in 48 fps that bug me the most. Guess I'll just have to wait and see.
I'm sure the people that have that God awful motion interpolation turned on on their tvs will like it. That shit makes my stomach turn to watch (not physically, I just hate it).
I'm sure the people that have that God awful motion interpolation turned on on their tvs will like it. That shit makes my stomach turn to watch (not physically, I just hate it).
- Status