|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Why So Blu?
(Post 11502666)
I still get all emotional and shit during that scene
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by dvdjunkie32
(Post 11502472)
I thought the pace of Fellowship was swift with little filler. Return was extremely bloated with severe false endings. As a viewer, I felt exhausted and relieved when it truely ended.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 11502760)
the horrible bungling of the ghost army.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 11502760)
I refuse to watch the extended cut of ROTK, both because of the intolerable pacing and the horrible bungling of the ghost army.
Originally Posted by Why So Blu?
(Post 11502666)
People were crying when Return of the King ended as they walked out of the theater. I still get all emotional and shit during that scene: "You bow to no one" in ROTK.
I know the book ended with the "well, I'm back" scene but either transition directly from "you bow to no one" to "well, I'm back" or simply end the movie with "you bow to no one". The constant alternating between fade to black and fade to white for what seemed like an eternity was simply horrid. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by RocShemp
(Post 11502795)
The "we will fight" bit was bad enough. But then following it up with the assault on the Corsair ship was downright aweful.
That scene was awesome until the movie suddenly refused to end. I know the book ended with the "well, I'm back" scene but either transition directly from "you bow to no one" to "well, I'm back" or simply end the movie with "you bow to no one". The constant alternating between fade to black and fade to white for what seemed like an eternity was simply horrid. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by RocShemp
(Post 11502795)
The "we will fight" bit was bad enough. But then following it up with the assault on the Corsair ship was downright aweful.
That's the only major gripe I have with the EE of ROTK . That scene completely eliminates any suspense (for non-readers) concerning whether or not Aragorn will arrive to save the day. |
Re: The Hobbit
I was okay with the ghost army. I was not okay on how they just left Saruman hanging 10 in his tower then abruptly riding to Gondor. I also hated that they cut Mouth of Sauron out all together even though you could tell where the insert would be. I also like the inclusion of the Witch King fighting Gandalf. In the theatrical cut all he says is: I will break him...and that was it. They never share a frame after that even though the trailers showed footage of the duel. The EE's just feel more complete.
Word has it that the extended cut of the Hobbit (couldn't get clarification if it was just this first one or all three parts) would have 25 more minutes of footage when the EE'(s) are released on Blu-ray. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by dvdjunkie32
(Post 11502472)
I thought the pace of Fellowship was swift with little filler. Return was extremely bloated with severe false endings. As a viewer, I felt exhausted and relieved when it truely ended.
Originally Posted by Supermallet
(Post 11502760)
I refuse to watch the extended cut of ROTK, both because of the intolerable pacing and the horrible bungling of the ghost army.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Hey guys, I used the original email they sent out of HFR theaters and now have non-refundable (real) IMAX tickets. Now after discovering this thread and the updated list of HFR theaters I find out the theater right across the street is having an HFR showing!!!:mad2:
|
Re: The Hobbit
Someone post a pic of Nelson from the Simpsons laughing and pointing. That would be appropriate for Eric F's post.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Well, I guess IMAX 3D will be OK. I'm kind of bummed it won't be HFR but what can you do? At least I get to see it on a 5 story screen and an awesome sound system.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Eric F
(Post 11503063)
Hey guys, I used the original email they sent out of HFR theaters and now have non-refundable (real) IMAX tickets. Now after discovering this thread and the updated list of HFR theaters I find out the theater right across the street is having an HFR showing!!!:mad2:
:D |
Re: The Hobbit
I have to admit I was a little put off by the ghost army in ROTK. I mean, I know it was from the books, but the way it was handled it felt like something out of a different movie, like The Frighteners or something.
As far as the multiple endings go, I can understand the complaints, but they had a lot of ground to cover; the whole thing is basically a ten hour movie. Something like the reunion of the Fellowship could have been cut, but you sort of needed Aragorn to be crowned (it's The RETURN OF THE KING, after all), and the Hobbits return to the Shire, and Frodo, Bilbo, and Gandalf leaving on the ship for the Undying Lands. Saruman sort of presents a problem. If the theatrical cut, it's more or less stated that Saruman lost his power when the Valar resurrected Gandalf as Gandalf the White. So he's just an old man up in a tower now. His part in the larger story is over. Having him die in the extended cut, while final, wasn't wholly necessary. At the time, I though it was the right call to remove the scouring from ROTK, but as the years have passed, I think this could have been dealt with in a short scene where Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to the Shire only to find it overrun by Saruman and Wormtongue. The four Hobbits, empowered from their adventures, then attack and beat the shit out of the two men. S and WT then turn on each other, Wormtongue stabs Saruman in the back, killing him, and the Hobbits then throw Wormtongue out of the Shire. Could have been handled in a short scene of less than five minutes. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Josh-da-man
(Post 11503177)
I have to admit I was a little put off by the ghost army in ROTK. I mean, I know it was from the books, but the way it was handled it felt like something out of a different movie, like The Frighteners or something.
As far as the multiple endings go, I can understand the complaints, but they had a lot of ground to cover; the whole thing is basically a ten hour movie. Something like the reunion of the Fellowship could have been cut, but you sort of needed Aragorn to be crowned (it's The RETURN OF THE KING, after all), and the Hobbits return to the Shire, and Frodo, Bilbo, and Gandalf leaving on the ship for the Undying Lands. Saruman sort of presents a problem. If the theatrical cut, it's more or less stated that Saruman lost his power when the Valar resurrected Gandalf as Gandalf the White. So he's just an old man up in a tower now. His part in the larger story is over. Having him die in the extended cut, while final, wasn't wholly necessary. At the time, I though it was the right call to remove the scouring from ROTK, but as the years have passed, I think this could have been dealt with in a short scene where Frodo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to the Shire only to find it overrun by Saruman and Wormtongue. The four Hobbits, empowered from their adventures, then attack and beat the shit out of the two men. S and WT then turn on each other, Wormtongue stabs Saruman in the back, killing him, and the Hobbits then throw Wormtongue out of the Shire. Could have been handled in a short scene of less than five minutes. The death of Saruman was also the chapter in the book called The Voice of Saruman. PJ joined those two together. In fact, there were implied scenes of the Scouring of the Shire in there during the fortune viewings through the Palantir (even when Frodo is with Galadriel looking in the fountain) through all 3 films. Sure, it didn't end like the book, but that material was already technically covered earlier. |
Re: The Hobbit
I have to say, given all of the negativity I am hearing over the HFR, I am surprised people are still wanting to see it that way. If nothing else, sounds like they should offer a discount for viewing it such, not marking it up a bit.
|
Re: The Hobbit
http://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/...review-48-fps/
"The Hobbit is insanely gorgeous at 48 frames per second. . . . Middle-earth in 3D looks so crisp it’s like stepping into the foreground of an insanely gorgeous diorama." . . . "At times, scenes unfold as if part of an extravagantly well-lit, art-directed reality-based series or soap opera." Another mixed bag. I think the best way to see this flick is first in 2d 24 fps and then in HFR 3d. I really don't want distractions or to have suspension of disbelief thwarted the first time through. |
Re: The Hobbit
Well dang, I'm all torn again. I plan on going to my nearest major city (Orlando) on Saturday and taking in this in either IMAX or HFR along with Silver Linings Playbook. IMAX has the Star Trek preview, but I feel as a movie buff it's my duty to see the HFR. Furthermore, a theater near Universal ,where I have a season pass, is playing both and IMAX and HFR. However, the Universal IMAX is actually a "liemax", I saw Hunger Games there and it wasn't a true screen. They might not even have the Star Trek preview. Agony!...:)
I read that review, and it appears I called the ending somewhat correctly with a "we're gonna need a bigger boat" moment. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Jason
(Post 11502811)
They needed the closure of Frodo and Sam's individual journeys. Plus, we spent three years with these guys. Ending the movie at Aragorn's coronation would have been a rip off.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
(Post 11502889)
That's the only major gripe I have with the EE of ROTK . That scene completely eliminates any suspense (for non-readers) concerning whether or not Aragorn will arrive to save the day.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Regarding people looking back at the LOTR trilogy with a more critical eye: the LOTR films still "hold up" to me, only because I was critical of Pts. 2 & 3 back when they came out. Fellowship of the Ring I felt was a perfectly great movie, but Two Towers spins its wheels and pointlessly meanders way too much, and then Return of the King has to accomplish way too much, way too quickly. I still enjoyed them, but their flaws were readily apparent at the time. If anything, those film "hold up" better now, because I've become more accepting of them, flaws and all.
King Kong, though... there's nothing worth salvaging there. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Hokeyboy
(Post 11503600)
Regarding people looking back at the LOTR trilogy with a more critical eye: the LOTR films still "hold up" to me, only because I was critical of Pts. 2 & 3 back when they came out. Fellowship of the Ring I felt was a perfectly great movie, but Two Towers spins its wheels and pointlessly meanders way too much, and then Return of the King has to accomplish way too much, way too quickly. I still enjoyed them, but their flaws were readily apparent at the time. If anything, those film "hold up" better now, because I've become more accepting of them, flaws and all.
|
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
(Post 11502578)
I am also kind of shocked to see how many people now think LOTR wasn't as great as they remembered it.
I still love FotR, and enjoy TTT very much. The success of the first movie went to his head when he was putting the finishing touches on the rest of the trilogy, particularly RotK. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by Dr. DVD
(Post 11503548)
Well dang, I'm all torn again. I plan on going to my nearest major city (Orlando) on Saturday and taking in this in either IMAX or HFR along with Silver Linings Playbook. IMAX has the Star Trek preview, but I feel as a movie buff it's my duty to see the HFR. Furthermore, a theater near Universal ,where I have a season pass, is playing both and IMAX and HFR. However, the Universal IMAX is actually a "liemax", I saw Hunger Games there and it wasn't a true screen. They might not even have the Star Trek preview. Agony!...:)
I read that review, and it appears I called the ending somewhat correctly with a "we're gonna need a bigger boat" moment. That's what I did with Avatar. I really don't like 3D, so I saw it the first time in 2D and then like a week later went back and saw it in 3D. |
Re: The Hobbit
Originally Posted by whoopdido
(Post 11503757)
I think if you're at all worried about the 48 fps deal potentially ruining your experience, you should just go see it the first time in regular 2D, so you're just seeing the movie and none of the extra frills. Then if you're still interested in seeing the super duper format just go watch it again. Then if the 48 fps ruins it for you, at least you got to enjoy the movie the first time.
That's what I did with Avatar. I really don't like 3D, so I saw it the first time in 2D and then like a week later went back and saw it in 3D. Rest assured, I will be seeing this for the first time in either regular 3D or 2D on Friday. I'm just debating as to whether or not to make the second viewing 48 FPS vs. IMAX, hence my other thread. My only real motivation for seeing it IMAX is the Star Trek opening, as I know Hobbit itself wasn't shot in IMAX. |
Re: The Hobbit
so the Reston Theater is NOT 'HFR' or Atmos :( - but AMC's Tysons Corner's ETX screen is Atmos (not HFR)! :bdance: :bdance: :bdance:
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:40 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.