The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

One of the dwarves looked like Skytree! Saw it... Liked it... Have no idea what you guys are talking about with all these numbers and shit... nor I care!

just got back from seeing the 48 version at the malco paradiso in memphis. went in with an open mind, and i have to say it didn't bother me as much as i thought it might. there were a few moments that looked more video-like than others but on the whole it didn't really distract too terribly. i'm still not sure what the benefit is, and most certainly don't find it to be the revolutionary step in filmmaking that jackson and jannard seem to be pimping it as, but to each their own.

other than that... my girlfriend was particularly irked that we sat through nearly 3 hours of (admittedly beautiful) film only to get no ending. i more or less knew that myself, but feel that it could have been trimmed down a hell of a lot.

i'm also probably too jaded to watch a bunch of adults say things like "the mountains of ooogdork" and "the great castle of shmiggins in the time of horpfuck" and whatnot.

those issues aside, gollum's expressions during the 'riddle battle' were some of the best, most expressive and "human" CGI moments i've ever seen. hopefully disney rings up WETA if they decide to try making a fake kevin flynn again.

so what's your take on the 'video' look, do you think of the hobbit was made on that special 48fps 35mm it would resemble video as it does now?

I understand now why Del Toro declined doing the Hobbit.....

  On 12/29/2012 at 11:58 AM, Awepittance said:

so what's your take on the 'video' look, do you think of the hobbit was made on that special 48fps 35mm it would resemble video as it does now?

i'm not sure, as i've never seen 48fps film stuff, to my recollection. technically speaking i don't think it'd make that much of a difference, as the cadence of motion pictures should be the same, theoretically, when shot at the same framerate whether digital or film. we might have seen a touch more artifacting (or so i'd imagine) from film whipping through a camera at that speed, which would negate the idea behind 48fps... but even if not, the dynamic range, colour reproduction and so on should be fairly identical, so i personally don't believe it'd look too different on film vs. digital. it's remarkable, actually, how few movies are shot on film these days.

if you have any interest in the subject, there's actually a pretty interesting documentary called 'side by side' (hosted by keanu reeves, oddly enough) that has interviews with various directors / DPs and so on discussing the difference between film and digital, and how it's changing the industry.

i'd like to see portions of the hobbit again at 24p, just to see how different it feels. but i'm sure as shite not going to sit through the whole fucking thing again!

edit - made spoiler

also - fuck me i didn't think azog was actually a character in the book - i guess jackson needed another orc bad guy thing to base the story around.

the busta rhymes looking uruk hai in lotr was about x10000 better

  On 12/30/2012 at 6:03 PM, soundwave said:

I understand now why Del Toro declined doing the Hobbit.....

 

 

 

That looks fucking retarded.

Jackson Teller piloting Gundam to fight Godzill and whose AI is GLaDOS. sounds awesome.

  On 1/2/2013 at 11:15 PM, Braintree said:

  On 12/30/2012 at 6:03 PM, soundwave said:

I understand now why Del Toro declined doing the Hobbit.....

 

 

 

 

That looks fucking retarded.

Transformers 4, yep looks dumb as funk.

Still, I'd love to see a big robot and monsters and aliens movie, like anime shit and all. This looks like a much better attempt than transformers though it's still off.

Weird sidenote: went to see Hobbit, saw preview for next Del Toro film. More than a little disappointed he pussed out on this to do a shitty Evangelion knock-off.

i wouldn't really call it pussing out, he moved to new zealand for an entire year to work out the screenplay with PJ and co while the rights for the Hobbit were still in limbo. pretty ballsy move on his part, he took a risk and it didn't end up paying off. In case anyone has forgotten he left the production before the rights were resolved, him thinking that they would be in limbo for much longer

Well, then I'm disappointed that he's better suited for the Hobbit than a shitty Evangelion knock-off.

I've always disliked high-fantasy, but I really enjoyed the LOTR movies.. So my expectations where quite high for this one.

But I was slightly disappointed. I had this 'been-there-done-that-feeling' halfway into the movie. But I still enjoyed it, and I'm glad it exists. And I'm sure the sequels will better.

And I thought Martin Freeman was perfect for the Bilbo role.

It has a 'lighter' tone than the LOTR movies. Which is both a good and a bad thing. But the movies biggest problem is that you never felt there was anything at stake.. or not on the same scale as the LOTR movies. And the action scenes where pretty boring.

Favorite scene of the movie was the trolls at the fire place one. That one was pretty great.

  On 1/3/2013 at 2:56 PM, feltcher said:

  On 1/2/2013 at 11:15 PM, Braintree said:

  On 12/30/2012 at 6:03 PM, soundwave said:

I understand now why Del Toro declined doing the Hobbit.....

 

 

 

 

That looks fucking retarded.

 

Transformers 4, yep looks dumb as funk.

Del Toro does know how to do a good action flick

I will say about that Pacific Rim movie that judging by the trailer it's one of the first giant monster movies in a long time (that I'm aware of) where the giant monsters actually give off that immense thing vibe

But he usually does well if the story has some kind of mythology backing it. Maybe there's more to the giant monsters, but, for lack of a better word, there doesn't look like much room for the "magic" he's so good at handling.

Edit: somehow missed cryptowen's post (which I absolutely agree with), but this was directed at soundwave.

Del Toro normally (not counting his smaller-scale better movies like Pan's Labia) gives off this grandiose but cheesy Latin vibe, like the visual equivalent of Mexican Luchador wrestling. He's willing to throw everything at the screen just to entertain the kids (and most of his flicks do seem aimed lower age-wise than other similar directors).

Pan's Labcoat isn't what comes to mind for a children's film, lumps.

Blade 2 and Hellboy 2 are pretty solid action flicks if a little cheesy in parts

  On 1/7/2013 at 2:16 PM, OneToThirtySix said:

Pan's Labcoat isn't what comes to mind for a children's film, lumps.

What are you talking about?

PEEK-A-BOO!

^ EXACTLY.

Also, damn it all to LOL!

Why... was the hobbit movie so long*n*

It was a pretty good film held back by stupid editing and one too many hours. Like, I'd say there was a good film in there, but I would just never recommend this to anyone. Not with ample warning that the pacing will (probably) hinder your enjoyment.

The second movie will be even worse in terms of non-book padding. I just can't see the second movie working for 2+ hours and leave enough room for a third movie. I really wonder how he could have thought in the editing room that there was 3 movie to be made out of his footage. So hold on tight, it'll get worse!