AA
enthusiast
Posts: 859
Loc: Allen, TX
Reg: 07-20-09
|
12-11-12 02:54 PM - Post#157924
I read somewhere recently that J.R.R. Tolkien only agreed to letting the studios make movies based on his books if they promised not to allow Disney to get their hands on it and “Disney-fying” it. Well, I have to say that I feel Peter Jackson slightly did that even without Disney being involved. The problem is that I’m not sure what aspect of the movie I disliked the most. Whether it was because of the much tamer and much less dark storyline, or whether it was the way they filmed this movie using the 48fps (frames per second) for the first time in full length movie history. We’ll begin with the storyline first.
Sure, it was a good fantasy story. But throughout the whole movie, I was waiting on something to happen to make it as intense and dark as LOTR. That time really never came until the last 20 minutes of the nearly 3 hour movie. I had previously read that The Hobbit was supposed to be the lighter side of the franchise, but I didn’t expect it to be that light. There was a lot of dialogue and some long scenes that really didn’t add anything to the story. They also threw in a lot more comedy in this movie than the others. Which usually isn’t bad, but it was the kind of comedy that only kids and really old adults think is humorous. They could have added fart noises and the same people would have laughed. I even noticed cartoon-like sound effects during some of the scenes. To be honest, I’m not sure why this even had a PG-13 rating. Easily could have been PG. I did enjoy seeing the characters 60 years prior to LOTR and seeing how everybody got to where they are. Even finding out how Bilbo came across the ring. Smigel was the highlight and appeared to be what everyone in the theater was waiting for since he got an applause at first appearance. Unfortunately, that was very late in the movie and I already checked my watch many times by then.
On to the way this movie was filmed. As I said earlier, Peter Jackson decided to raise the industry standard of 24fps from the past 80 years and using the new 48fps technology. What that means is that the movements are much quicker almost looking like somebody is fast forwarding very slightly but the clarity is much clearer. Even though some times are not as noticeable as others, I found it very distracting and hard to get into the movie. The clarity was uncanny and was almost like looking out a window and seeing the Shire in person. You would think that was good, wouldn’t you? I believe it is more of a problem in movies like this when it is primarily CGI. When they make those computer generated objects look too real, they look more fake than if they just left it looking fake to begin with. Makes sense, right? You would honestly have to see it to know what I’m talking about, but even my +1 and many movie reviewers agreed and were not impressed. I was hoping that I was going to get used to it and could enjoy the movie, but unfortunately me being a picture/sound quality snob, I could not look past the very different look and I believe it had a large hand in my disapproval of the movie in whole. It’s hard to explain to you what raising the fps looks like, some people call it a “soap opera effect”. You can Google “The Hobbit 48fps” if you want to read more about it. There are a few versions of the movie being released this Friday so you don’t have to see it the way I did. There will be your standard 2D 24fps, and a 3D 24fps which is the version that I would recommend. If you really want to take a chance in hating it but want to see it how the producer wants you to see, you’ll have to research who will have the 48fps “HFR 3D” version since it is only released to limited theaters.
I was very pumped up about this movie, but found myself slightly disappointed. It wasn’t horrible, just not as good as I expected. The acting was good, the scenery was great and the 3D was done nicely and not too overbearing. Still worth seeing even with the downfalls, I just hope the next two installments will be a little more on pace with LOTR and not a cute Pixar or Disney movie.
This movie comes out this Friday 12/14/12
|
rtinallentx
enthusiast
Posts: 453
Loc: Allen, TX, USA
Reg: 04-08-03
|
12-11-12 03:16 PM - Post#157925
In response to AA
Everybody knows the real reason to go see the hobit is for the Star Trek trailer. 
|
AA
enthusiast
Posts: 859
Loc: Allen, TX
Reg: 07-20-09
|
12-11-12 04:22 PM - Post#157926
In response to rtinallentx
No previews at the pre-screening :(
Edited by AA on 12-11-12 04:23 PM. Reason for edit: No reason given.
|
Joe Schirmer
enthusiast
Posts: 1360
Loc: SE Allen
Reg: 06-30-08
|
12-13-12 10:41 AM - Post#157961
In response to AA
The Hobbit is not supposed to be "dark". It was written as a children's story and is much more light hearted than LOTR.
As a fan of JRR Tolkien I've not always agreed with Peter Jackson's treatment of the Middle Earth stories. But he has, by far, done the best of anyone else who has tried. While I am troubled that he is trying to extend this story out into three movies, I understand that he is using source materials from the history of Middle Earth found in the appendix of LOTR.
I have great hope that The Hobbit will be at least as good a the earlier three movies.
|
|
