The Hobbit

I liked it, but it was hard to follow some of the quick camera pans (I saw the "regular" non-3D version). I was the only one in the theater who LOL'd at various funny parts. Didn't see Stephen Colbert in it anywhere, nor in the credits; but I did notice a couple "Wilhelm scream" effects when army hordes plunged down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbarada

That's something that I've been thinking about since the first LOTR movie. In one way, I kind of wish that they did speak so that audiences would realize that they are a sentient race of beings right alongside elves, dwarfs, hobbits, humans, etc.; but that's a tricky thing to make work in a movie, since birds' beaks are too rigid and can't move in the same way as a human mouth. So, trying to have the eagles' beaks move like lips would be Fakey McFakerson as soon as they uttered their first word. The other option would be to have sort of a "telepathic" speech, where their mouths don't move but you hear their voices. However, then you'd have the question of, "Does everyone hear them or does only Gandalf hear them?" So, I guess it's best to not allow the pacing of the movie to grind to a halt over such a minor detail and keep the eagle's speech out of the film.

---

Or you could just go the route of having them speak, but do it as a behind the head shot so you don't actually see the beaks move. Its a bit on the cheap side to do it that way, but it seems like that be the most feasible way to do it without it looking silly fake or going into some convoluted tangent of an explanation about them being psychic and which characters can or can't hear them. Sometimes less is more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lord Malakite

Or you could just go the route of having them speak, but do it as a behind the head shot so you don't actually see the beaks move. Its a bit on the cheap side to do it that way, but it seems like that be the most feasible way to do it without it looking silly fake or going into some convoluted tangent of an explanation about them being psychic and which characters can or can't hear them. Sometimes less is more.

---

I'm not sure something like that would fly these days, especially with the cost of movie tickets reaching an all time high. I think the bar for special effects has been set way too high for audiences to accept hiding a character's mouth from the camera while that character is speaking. In fact, that might actually be more jarring to the flow of storytelling than fake, CG "beak-lips."

Getting closer to the coveted billion dollar mark: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

It just might make it. I saw the film again in 48fps and noticed a discernible difference. Can barely wait for the next part.

$827 million. Nice!

I really want this movie to do well financially, because I don't want the studios to start second-guessing Peter Jackson for the next two films.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigbarada

That's something that I've been thinking about since the first LOTR movie. In one way, I kind of wish that they did speak so that audiences would realize that they are a sentient race of beings right alongside elves, dwarfs, hobbits, humans, etc.; but that's a tricky thing to make work in a movie, since birds' beaks are too rigid and can't move in the same way as a human mouth. So, trying to have the eagles' beaks move like lips would be Fakey McFakerson as soon as they uttered their first word. The other option would be to have sort of a "telepathic" speech, where their mouths don't move but you hear their voices. However, then you'd have the question of, "Does everyone hear them or does only Gandalf hear them?" So, I guess it's best to not allow the pacing of the movie to grind to a halt over such a minor detail and keep the eagle's speech out of the film.

Of course, there are still two movies to go. They might speak after all.

---

I think their actions are strong enough to convey that they're sentient, but parrots talk and they don't need fake lips to do so (I can't speak to parrot telepathy ;)). Still, they talk to Bilbo in the book so honestly, it seems like is has to be all or nothing on this. If they're doing a talking dragon, and they are, then there's room for talking giant eagles, but the LOTR films' precedent says to stay mute for cinema.

Quote:

---

I see what you are saying about the videotape. I remember hearing about all of those "lost" episodes of The Twilight Zone that were rarely shown because they were filmed on videotape and audience hated the look.

I'd still be interested in seeing the movie at 48fps.

---

I forgot about the not-really-lost-but-nobody-will-air-them Twilight Zones, they are very hard to watch, there were a few during marathon last year which I caught and had to look away from quickly.

I recently watched the first episode of Sherlock and it looks like a higher framerate, and I hated it whenever it caught my eye. It exaggerates small motions to make them look unnatural, nobody moves their arms that much when they walk slowly, that sort of thing, it looks like undercranked old timey movies.

All that said, I am somewhat interested in seeing it HFR in 3D.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bel-Cam Jos

I liked it, but it was hard to follow some of the quick camera pans (I saw the "regular" non-3D version). I was the only one in the theater who LOL'd at various funny parts. Didn't see Stephen Colbert in it anywhere, nor in the credits; but I did notice a couple "Wilhelm scream" effects when army hordes plunged down.

---

I also was the only one in our theater laughing at certain parts, I'm not sure what that was about, it's like audiences treat this stuff as reverence or aren't engaged or something. I forgot to look for Colbert, but now I want to see his cameo. I also heard at least 1 Wilhelm and laughed despite it being a big action moment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maradona

Getting closer to the coveted billion dollar mark: http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

It just might make it. I saw the film again in 48fps and noticed a discernible difference. Can barely wait for the next part.

---

Was the difference a negative or positive one for you?

I thought the film was exceedingly clear in 48fps and that was positive. I won't say the film was better or worse for it, just even more realistic.

As of this weekend, The Hobbit reached $920million worldwide. $1billion is within reach and considering that the battle with Smaug is in the next and the Battle of Five Armies is in the last one, giving each of the following films substantially more action, and thereby potential audience, than this one, the billion dollar mark seems reasonable for each of the three.

It hit a billion!

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

That's crazy, seems like its heat really died fast, surprised to hear it made it. Took over a month to get that last $80 mil though.

I'm very glad to see that it finally made a billion. That's awesome news.

I think it's humorous that some critics have called the movie a flop because it didn't hit the $1 billion mark within just a couple of months. It's kind of funny what the standard for cinematic success is these days.

I believe financial expectations were simply too high for The Hobbit, similar to how people were claiming that Episode 1 would sell $1 billion worth of tickets in the US alone. The difference, of course, being that The Hobbit is a great movie.

In any case, I'm glad the movie is successful only because I don't want the studios to start second-guessing Peter Jackson when it comes to making the next two films.