I'm sure there will be.. but not looking forward to it.

My 48fps experience at tgv 1u - clear, sharp details, achieves a documentary style look which, for me, badly represents middle-earth - after being so accustomed to the previous trilogy at 24fps.

It was a struggle througout trying to enjoy 'the Hobbit' in HFR... i could tolerate static dialogue close-up scenes - but, as soon as the camera moves - OMG.. giant LED TV screen with motion-flow turned on.. even in 3d, its horrifying.

So, i walked out of halfway, when the dwarves arrive at rivendell - and going to good old imax3d at 24fps tomorrow.


http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/12/19/...cinema-magical/

This post has been edited by lyn_grayskale: Dec 21 2012, 11:35 AM

Just watched it last night. Still find it strange it is so different from the books

Were really surprised when i see orcs apperance

I think LOTR trilogy also don't have so much difference

Overall, not really a good movie in my opinion

This post has been edited by ChcGamer: Dec 21 2012, 02:45 PM

I personally think quite nice to watch, although not excellent.
A good show to spend the long holiday.

respect

That's where I differ. I love how it feels. That's why I never minded on the 48fps. But I do admit that I had some sort of eye strain and wanted to relax so i took them off to compare how the depth was.

It's what I would think is a way to go forward. But not necessarily THE way. Getting accustomed to it will be the real issue.

But according to this

http://lotr.wikia.com/wiki/Dol_Guldur



The white council will attack Dol Guldur, with a hesitant Sarumon.

In the film adaptation, there is a hint Lady Galadriel will play a very important role when she said to Gandaff
"do not be afraid. I am always with you. If you need my help, I will come".

It will be an epic battle , hope the special effects will be nice.

This post has been edited by soul2soul: Dec 21 2012, 10:33 PM

Was never a LOTR fan but after watching this I feel like giving LOTR another shot. Should I watch the extended versions or will the normal ones do?

Watch the extended. It's much better but is really lengthy. Return of the King is 4 hours+ total but is completely worth it.

---

Added on December 22, 2012, 2:43 amAs a Tolkien fan and have read the book three times since early 2000, I really enjoyed the movie. It's truly made for the "fans". The only part I disliked though, is the "clash of the mountains" scene. Quite pointless.

I'm pretty sure part 3 will be really emotional, and cant wait to see how the battle of the five armies plays out.



This post has been edited by lovehatesmisery: Dec 22 2012, 02:43 AM

Why dont they have more dwarfs??? So some can get killed in battle? Can believe all of them survive all those things.

like Boromir... not all makes it to the end.... but that's end of the book, like the end of book one of LOTR

not all survived till the end

Also don't forget whose tomb they found in Moria in Fellowship of the Ring.....

This movie was very pale in comparison with LOTR. I actually almost fall asleep in some of the scene but this could be as I was really tired too.

Can't believe all the 13 or 14 dwarves survived all the hoo haa.

And can anybody please explain to me, why does the Dragon want gold for?!?!

Just watch it first time @ TGV last night. OOOhhh My God!!!!! The picture quality is the best! And it's a roller coaster ride together with the dwafts through out the journey. I still can't believe my eyes!!

The dwarves might survived better since they were made to be sturdy to resist the dangers of their time. They were physically much stronger than humans, elves, and hobbits, and had great endurance, especially in the ability to resist great heat and cold, and they made light of heavy burdens.

It is in their nature for Fire-Drakes in middle earth. They posses an overwhelming greed for treasure (especially gold). By their very nature, it was desirable to them to not only steal beautiful things, but to relish the act of dispossessing those from whom they took such property.

This post has been edited by xin: Dec 26 2012, 01:47 PM

3/5 boring

of coz lo, dun expect epic battles like in LOTR ..

Saw it again last Sunday in HFR3D. The experience was miles better than on IMAX 3D. The clarity of the image is astounding, I don't think it can get any better.

I noticed a few quirks:

- Since the live-action plate is so clear, some scenes with visual effects may look clearly CG
- ...and some scenes with live-action tend to look CG due to the frame rate (e.g war sequence)
- Small movements with wide angle shots with no other movements in frame (e.g. walking), tend to look fast motion when in reality it is the way our eyes perceive it
- Takes about 15-20 minutes of HFR exposure from the start of the film to get used to it

As for the loss of movie feel, no, I don't think I wanted to feel it that way. I was watching a movie and it was still one.

In the end, I absolutely loved HFR3D. It really feels as close to reality as possible. It seemed to be 0.5 notch clearer than Digital 2D. For that, I'm really hoping we will see HFR2D in the future.

Also, I was able to name 10 dwarves after my second viewing compared to a meager 5 on my first viewing.

lol I can only remember few only

So what is not boring to you then?