Originally Posted By Tikiduck Just wondering if anyone has anything to say about the film. Personally, I think the charm of the story has been sacrificed with the movie version. Too much over the top action. Also the dwarfs are split between the classic dwarf and macho pretty boys. Apparently Jackson felt that thirteen stocky, stubby men just didn't have the mojo. Still, this chapter did have some good moments, and the original story does manage to poke through at times.
Originally Posted By ecdc Loved it. Enjoyed it far more than I thought I would. I don't get the criticism about length; it felt paced very well. I haven't read the book so perhaps that helped hold my interest. Even more surprising, I really, really dug the 48fps screening. After hearing all the complaints, it looks like a bad Telemundo soap opera, the sets look like sets, etc, I was blown away by how good it looked. Yeah, it's an adjustment, but this is an aesthetic issue and not a quality issue. We're just "used" to the look of 24fps. I think over time 48fps really could become the standard.
Originally Posted By tashajilek ^^^^ Everything you said i agree with 100%. Everyone i went with loved it too. I enjoyed it so much that i didnt believe the movie was already over.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh I loved it too, although there was definitely some scenes that could have been cut without losing too much. It is the first movie that I watched in real 3D, so I couldn't really compare the 48 vs. 24 fps aspect. It looked fine to me. Looking forward to the next two.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Well, it put me to sleep, but I was afraid that would happen when we started the DVD. I had four hours of sleep the previous night, getting up at 8AM. We didn't start the movie until almost 11 PM. I ended up falling asleep for the last 30-45 minutes. I thought it WAS slow paced, but that could have been due to my overall drowsiness. I had forgotten about the 48fps. I was wondering why at first the characters looked more like CGI creations than actors in makeup. I guess that would explain it. Not sure I like it. I may view it again when I'm more awake if most here think that would be worthwhile. Otherwise, I'll just wait for the next one. One built-in disadvantage this film had... one of the things that blew me away the most about the original trilogy was the gorgeous settings. This time around it was kind of "been there, seen that".
Originally Posted By dagobert I've seen it in the cinema and while I think it was okay, I will not get the Blu Ray. >>>I had forgotten about the 48fps. I was wondering why at first the characters looked more like CGI creations than actors in makeup. I guess that would explain it. Not sure I like it. <<< I guess that's the reason why I'm not so much a fan of it.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>I had forgotten about the 48fps.<< You were not getting 48fps on a DVD. The format won't do it. Most likely it was the same 24fps that's on all your other movie DVDs. You also weren't getting it in the theater unless it was specifically advertised as such. Only a few theaters are equipped to deal with that frame rate.
Originally Posted By ecdc What mawnck said. In order for 48fps to work at home, the disc has to be mastered at 48fps, your player needs to support it, and your TV needs to support it. We're a ways off before that all becomes standard.
Originally Posted By mawnck By the way, the ONLY thing 48fps does is smooth out the motion. The standard film speed of 24fps causes easily visible jitter during camera pans and other medium-speed motion. The faster frame rate solves this problem. It does not make the picture sharper*, the colors brighter*, the 3D 3D-er or the makeup CGI-er. It appears there's an awful lot of stuff about this movie that got blamed on the 48fps, when it was really caused by other factors. (Including the fact that it wasn't really that good.) Because of TV, which has always been roughly 30fps (interlaced) in America, we associate faster frame rates and less jitter with video cameras, which is why you got all the complaints about the "soap opera look". * The picture *may* have been sharper and the color better because you were watching it projected from the shiny new 48fps projector, instead of the old 2K clunkers with expired bulbs that your AMC megaplex probably has in the other rooms.
Originally Posted By mele Very unhappy that I purchased this DVD. To my family, it just felt like they just regurgitated more of the same stuff and expected it to be as good as the other films. While I'm sure we'll see the other movies, we'll be waiting till they're on cable. We're not willing to spend any extra $ on them.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Yes, I was very glad I just rented the DVD though Red Box. It just wasn't that good.
Originally Posted By AuroraRose i actually like it more than the LOTR trilogy, the whole goblin battle was horrible, but that's one scene out of the entire three hours.
Originally Posted By fkurucz I finally saw it on DVD, and I thought it was boring. My wife felt the same, and we both liked the LOTR movies. I still think that it's ridiculous that they are trying to milk three movies out of that single book, which is smaller than any of the LOTR books. Way, way too much filler material, and the scenes drag on and on, which I guess they have to if they're going to wring three movies out of that small book.
Originally Posted By Tikiduck Like I say, if you have read the original, there is a charm to the book that has been taken away with this over the top Jackson treatment. Among others, the Goblin battle was completely blown out of proportion. It became redundant and boring after a very short time.
