GameTavern - The Hobbit

GameTavern (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/index.php)

- Movies & Television (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=209)

- - The Hobbit (http://www.gametavern.net/forums/showthread.php?t=21721)

A friend saw the HFR version yesterday. He thinks something was wrong... because the action scenes were way too fast. People were moving faster than possible, things fell too fast, etc.

Technical problem (it was the premiere...) or side effect of a higher framerate?

I've heard that as a common complaint.

Here's the trailer post converted to 48 fps.

http://www.fxphd.com/wp-content/uplo..._48fps_web.mp4

It's noticeable there.

Ok, I saw it in HFR....... and I loved it!!!

Like others have said, it was a bit weird in the first 5 minutes. I thought "wait, isn't Bilbo walking through his house unnaturallly fast?" and "those hands go through that chest way too fast." But as I analyzed it in my mind, I realized it wasn't actually too fast... it just looked way more detailed.
Normally you'd see a blur when somebody moved his hands/feet/whatever really fast. Now you see more detail... and I think your mind has to get used to that.

The difference in framerate was directly noticable by the way. The trailers were in old, low framerate. As soon as the first company logo of The Hobbit started, my friend and I said to eachother "this is it!" It gave a very light headache for just 1 minute or so.

I understand what people mean when they complain. Movies look quite different without the motion blur all the time. You see more detail. Action looks different, less artistic.
I compare it to color movies in the time of black and white movies. The first movies with sound when the rest was still dumb. People said "if I want to see something in color and with sound, I'll look outside the window. Why do we need this in a movie?"
Same thing is happening with HFR. It adds realism, makes it look more like the real world. Some might not like it, but they'll get used to it.

Edit: I asked tickets for "Lord of the Rings 4: The Hobo." ;)

I think the only thing fucking people up is that they're used to movies looking like movies - and having blur - rather than looking like life and being smooth and not choppy - so it's probably just fucking with the "This isnt real, but it looks so real!" part of peoples brains.
Like the first time you get a first-person birds-eye view of something, your brain says "This doesn't look right", and your eyes say "Believe me, motherfucker", and your brain is all "Fuck that shit, this can't be real", and your eyes are all "You don't trust me, bitch?" so they fight for a bit, then the headache goes away when your brain realizes that your eyes are telling the truth.

Anyways, I saw this movie yesterday, thought it was goofy, yet epic. I enjoyed it, considering I never read the book.
I didn't like the ending though; I get it - there's going to be more movies - it just didn't feel like an ending...but I still liked the movie.

Now, I may be on drugs right now - but a thought just popped into my head...

...If Gollum is Smeagol, and Smeagol's a Hobbit, why does he ask Bilbo what a Hobbit is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Typhoid (Post 284914)

Now, I may be on drugs right now - but a thought just popped into my head...

...If Gollum is Smeagol, and Smeagol's a Hobbit, why does he ask Bilbo what a Hobbit is.

He has lost any idea of who he was. The ring robbed him of his identity. Notice that even in the end there was no revelation or remorse. Gollum succeeded in destroying the ring only because his obsession was so intense it caused him to destroy himself for the chance of holding it one more time.

Smeagol wasn't a real Hobbit, only related to them. They even lived in a totally different area.

You have to remember that Smeagol has lived for over 500 years. Things changed in the world.

Edit: The Strangler has the movie's explanation. :p

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angrist (Post 284916)

Edit: The Strangler has the movie's explanation. :p

I was reading the books at the time the movies came out. I was in the middle of the Two Towers when my idiot boss spoiled the entire story for me at work. I was so angry I never picked up the books again... so yes, my interpretation of the second half of the novel is totally movie driven.

In the movies, Smeagol has forgotten his own name. Frodo reminds him of it. Frodo got the name from Gandalf. Gandalf got the name from ???

In the books, Gandalf got Smeagol's name from... Smeagol. (I think that happened when the Elves of Lothlorien captured and lost Smeagol.) He never forgot it in the books. :)

Finally saw it yesterday, in HFR 3D. LOVED it. I don't understand at all the complaints about HFR making it less immersive. The Middle Earth that Tolkien created is all about filling out every detail. I want to see every detail put into the Hobbit.