I think the movie is a good balance between the tone of The Hobbit book and the Lord of the Rings movies. However, I do think it is the main tension and conflict in the movie.
The Trolls scene is impoverished by the additional orc action. Same with the Goblins.
However, I think the addition of Galadrial and Saruman is fine, as they never meet with Bilbo and the dwarfs. Theoretically they could have been in Rivendell while Bilbo was there (in the book) but he didn't see them. Also, while the chronology is wrong, I like the introduction of the Necromancer (will it be Sauron in this retelling or someone who brings Sauron back?). There has to be something to take Gandalf away from the dwarfs later in the story, so I think its fine to actually show the reason, and the rise of Sauron is a good enough reason!
I'm really hoping for an epic Gandalf, Radagast and Saruman vs Sauron battle in the last Hobbit movie! That epic shit is hinted at in the books, but never really shown.
Watched the last Batman movie with my girlfriend last night. I still think the one with the Joker is the best of the three.
At first I had a huge problem with the stock exchange chase but then I changed out Batman for Bin Laden and at that point it made a little bit more sense but I still can't see ignoring that crime just to catch Bats.
The OMG Wayne lost money thing also caused me trouble. Even with the sophistication of the attack I find the end result hard to swallow. Couple that with newspapers making Wayne the FrontPage story while ignoring the stock exchange attack.
Finally saw High Fidelity. Loved it, and I initially kicked myself for not seeing it sooner. However, after thinking about it, it may be good that I didn't see it before reading/watching Scott Pilgrim. It feels like the next step up in complexity and maturity from the kind of story Scott Pilgrim told, even though it came out earlier. So it feels like it fits in better at this point in my life than it would have when I was in my earlier twenties or teens.
Oh, and I saw The Hobbit too. There was a Hobbit. I got what I came for.
Also I never could really get used to 48 fps. Is it just me or did it often feel like stuff was sped up to Benny Hill levels? The only way I could deal with it at times was telling myself in my mind that I was watching video game cutscenes, which are the only things close to that frame rate that my mind can already deal with.
I don't know if it was worse in the early Shire scenes, or if my eyes and mind were able to adjust for the later portions of the movie, but I did get some Benny Hill feelings, Eryn.
I'm really curious as to how people would have felt about the increase frame rate if it hadn't been so widely publicized.
Depends on whether or not they notice it. Supposedly, it looks noticeably different and "weird" when compared to standard 24-fps, but I'm not sure how much of that is a result of people knowing beforehand that the frame rate would be different.
I can vouch that you would notice that something was up. Even if you couldn't peg exactly what it was, you'd be like "WTF why so fast?", at least at first. My date went in assuming it wouldn't look different at all, and afterward said that yeah, no, it was really, really weird.
The Bullet Vanishes is a movie with very heavy nods to Guy Richie's Sherlock Holmes movies, but set in 1930s China. It's not quite as good as the Sherlocks, but definitely worth a watch.
You absolutely would feel the same way whether you knew about the HFR coming in or not. I would bet huge amounts of money on this if there was some controlled test. I understand your skepticism, though, as I would probably be had I not gone to the theater yesterday.
I don't care how much you are used to high framerates in your daily life, your mind dials in and expects low framerates when you plop down in that theater seat even if you don't realize it.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing though! Took a little mental re-calibration is all. I loved it. There is way too much internet bitching and moaning over this.
Watched Sleeper, Annie Hall, and Midnight in Paris. Passed out during Zelig due to Finals Week stress.
Make sure you see Purple Rose as soon as possible. If you liked Midnight in Paris, you will get a similar kick out of Purple Rose because they are very much alike in a variety of ways.
I think HFR will become standard for big budget movies, more so than IMAX or 3D. Or at least, if a movie is in 3D, audiences will expect it to be HFR too, and will question why if it isn't. Unlike movies in 3D, which since Avatar, that option is merely a bonus for some and an annoyance for many.
Of course, I'm extrapolating from one movie, but after seeing exactly one 3D movie (Avatar) I was convinced 3D was going to be fighting an uphill battle for acceptance. HFR seems like a no-brainer in terms of picture quality. As long as it a movie is filmed that way, of course, and not retrofitted into HFR. Forget 3D versions of Pixar movies, let's have those in HFR please! I don't care if they take four times as long to render!
I think HFR will become standard for big budget movies, more so than IMAX or 3D. Or at least, if a movie is in 3D, audiences will expect it to be HFR too, and will question why if it isn't. Unlike movies in 3D, which since Avatar, that option is merely a bonus for some and an annoyance for many.
Of course, I'm extrapolating from one movie, but after seeing exactly one 3D movie (Avatar) I was convinced 3D was going to be fighting an uphill battle for acceptance. HFR seems like a no-brainer in terms of picture quality. As long as it a movie is filmed that way, of course, and not retrofitted into HFR. Forget 3D versions of Pixar movies, let's have those in HFR please! I don't care if they take four times as long to render!
And not to mention it's so much easier for the film makers to go from 24fps to 48fps than it was to go from 2D to 3D. Prices on those hi-res Red cameras have fallen a lot. Helps put it in no-brainer column as you said.
For both Cage Rage and seeing that the holiday is upon us, I decided to watch the obscure British film: Christmas Carol: The Movie.
This movie was AWFUL! AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL!! It was such an ineptly done and badly made animated version of A Christmas Carol. It is probably one of the worst adaptations of the story that I have ever seen. Not only is the animation shockingly low budget and badly designed, but the characters barely make expressions. You'd think a film with the voice talents of Nicolas Cage, Simon Callow, Rhys Ifans, and Kate Winslet would elevate it right? No! The worst and most offensive thing about the film is that it primarily isn't even from the perspective of Scrooge, it is from two random mice that don't say anything and are just a waste of animation. More focus, I feel, is given on them than Scrooge.
I'm gonna save the rest of my rant for the show, but I will rip this thing a new a-hole like you won't believe when it comes time to do it.
Legend of the Drunken Master is unreasonably funny, and that ending fight scene is 100% fantastic.
I really love that film. I would suggest you to also watch the original Drunken Master, not as good as the Legend, but still worth watch in my opinion.
Legend of the Drunken Master is unreasonably funny, and that ending fight scene is 100% fantastic.
That movie was pretty damned enjoyable. That ending fight is fucking NUTS.
Took Four months to film, and Jackie Chan took his fucking insanity to new heights. I don't mean on screen, either - The hot coal crawl? He did that for real. Not just once, either, but twice, because the first one didn't have the right rhythm. The bit where he's dodging red-hot iron bars, and has one stabbed through a stool that briefly catches fire? That's not a special effect. He's just dodging red-hot iron bars, and blocking the last one with a stool, which caught fire for a moment. And he did that sequence multiple times - one take, he nearly got stabbed in the chest with a red-hot iron spike. Bit where he's blowing bubbles? Actually blowing bubbles. Dude is straight up fuckin' crazy.
Comments
The Trolls scene is impoverished by the additional orc action. Same with the Goblins.
However, I think the addition of Galadrial and Saruman is fine, as they never meet with Bilbo and the dwarfs. Theoretically they could have been in Rivendell while Bilbo was there (in the book) but he didn't see them. Also, while the chronology is wrong, I like the introduction of the Necromancer (will it be Sauron in this retelling or someone who brings Sauron back?). There has to be something to take Gandalf away from the dwarfs later in the story, so I think its fine to actually show the reason, and the rise of Sauron is a good enough reason!
I'm really hoping for an epic Gandalf, Radagast and Saruman vs Sauron battle in the last Hobbit movie! That epic shit is hinted at in the books, but never really shown.
At first I had a huge problem with the stock exchange chase but then I changed out Batman for Bin Laden and at that point it made a little bit more sense but I still can't see ignoring that crime just to catch Bats.
The OMG Wayne lost money thing also caused me trouble. Even with the sophistication of the attack I find the end result hard to swallow. Couple that with newspapers making Wayne the FrontPage story while ignoring the stock exchange attack.
Oh, and I saw The Hobbit too. There was a Hobbit. I got what I came for.
Also I never could really get used to 48 fps. Is it just me or did it often feel like stuff was sped up to Benny Hill levels? The only way I could deal with it at times was telling myself in my mind that I was watching video game cutscenes, which are the only things close to that frame rate that my mind can already deal with.
Also, far worse is the effect of TV auto-smoothing motion garbage when enabled on consumer TVs.
I don't care how much you are used to high framerates in your daily life, your mind dials in and expects low framerates when you plop down in that theater seat even if you don't realize it.
I'm not saying it's a bad thing though! Took a little mental re-calibration is all. I loved it. There is way too much internet bitching and moaning over this.
Film grain gets to me even more.
Of course, I'm extrapolating from one movie, but after seeing exactly one 3D movie (Avatar) I was convinced 3D was going to be fighting an uphill battle for acceptance. HFR seems like a no-brainer in terms of picture quality. As long as it a movie is filmed that way, of course, and not retrofitted into HFR. Forget 3D versions of Pixar movies, let's have those in HFR please! I don't care if they take four times as long to render!
This movie was AWFUL! AWFUL AWFUL AWFUL!! It was such an ineptly done and badly made animated version of A Christmas Carol. It is probably one of the worst adaptations of the story that I have ever seen. Not only is the animation shockingly low budget and badly designed, but the characters barely make expressions. You'd think a film with the voice talents of Nicolas Cage, Simon Callow, Rhys Ifans, and Kate Winslet would elevate it right? No! The worst and most offensive thing about the film is that it primarily isn't even from the perspective of Scrooge, it is from two random mice that don't say anything and are just a waste of animation. More focus, I feel, is given on them than Scrooge.
I'm gonna save the rest of my rant for the show, but I will rip this thing a new a-hole like you won't believe when it comes time to do it.
Took Four months to film, and Jackie Chan took his fucking insanity to new heights. I don't mean on screen, either - The hot coal crawl? He did that for real. Not just once, either, but twice, because the first one didn't have the right rhythm. The bit where he's dodging red-hot iron bars, and has one stabbed through a stool that briefly catches fire? That's not a special effect. He's just dodging red-hot iron bars, and blocking the last one with a stool, which caught fire for a moment. And he did that sequence multiple times - one take, he nearly got stabbed in the chest with a red-hot iron spike. Bit where he's blowing bubbles? Actually blowing bubbles. Dude is straight up fuckin' crazy.
Ending after the fight was kinda fucked, though.