|
pv4
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Fuck Pitch Perfect was pretty alright :lol:
The Aussie humour completed that movie so well.
-PB yeah i saw it with the mrs last week - i enjoyed it a fair bit. "alright bitch, you don't have to scream"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
zimbos_05 wrote:KiwiChick1 wrote:zimbos_05 wrote:pv4 wrote:
a mate of mine in the uk saw the hobbit the other day - he said while there are some fantastic bits he reckons they're trying a bit too hard to stretch for material by splitting it into parts, and sometimes there's too much detail gone into particular scenes. he loved it, but he built it up in his head to be lord of the rings & it undermet his expectations.
Edited by pv4: 18/12/2012 11:18:48 AM
Yeah, Pete jackson wanted to include everything from everywhere in to the movie. He didnt want to make just one movie which was a compressed (adapted) version of the book, but rather wanted to give the fans the whole thing as it was in the book, hence it being cut up in to three parts. Apparently he took stuff from other places to put in it too, so it's not just purely from the book. Yeah he included stuff from Tolkiens like preface to it and the thoughts behind the book and stuff. I think this sums it up perfectly...  He can claim it's an artistic decision to tell the whole story, etc., but The Hobbit is a brilliant work in its own right and doesn't need to be NINE HOURS LONG.
|
|
|
|
|
zimbos_05
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjamin wrote:zimbos_05 wrote:KiwiChick1 wrote:zimbos_05 wrote:pv4 wrote:
a mate of mine in the uk saw the hobbit the other day - he said while there are some fantastic bits he reckons they're trying a bit too hard to stretch for material by splitting it into parts, and sometimes there's too much detail gone into particular scenes. he loved it, but he built it up in his head to be lord of the rings & it undermet his expectations.
Edited by pv4: 18/12/2012 11:18:48 AM
Yeah, Pete jackson wanted to include everything from everywhere in to the movie. He didnt want to make just one movie which was a compressed (adapted) version of the book, but rather wanted to give the fans the whole thing as it was in the book, hence it being cut up in to three parts. Apparently he took stuff from other places to put in it too, so it's not just purely from the book. Yeah he included stuff from Tolkiens like preface to it and the thoughts behind the book and stuff. I think this sums it up perfectly... He can claim it's an artistic decision to tell the whole story, etc., but The Hobbit is a brilliant work in its own right and doesn't need to be NINE HOURS LONG. Hahaha. I think some fans are excited others are just really not sure how. There is a lot to the Hobbit though. Lets not forget he did leave out quite a bit in LOTR. For example, Grima does not die in the book but in the movie he dies to Legolas arrow after stabbing Saruman. Quite frankly, im not complaining. Another 9 hour journey through middle earth, id take that any day.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
Also worth pointing out that he's not just using The Hobbit, he using other Tolkien works as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Anyone wondering why he made it into 3 films should check out Empire Magazine this month. Explains it all. He's basically adding in some things that weren't in the book, like the meeting of the White Council (I don't think that was in the book anyway).
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjo wrote:Anyone wondering why he made it into 3 films should check out Empire Magazine this month. Explains it all. He's basically adding in some things that weren't in the book, like the meeting of the White Council (I don't think that was in the book anyway). This. Basically felt that after finishing the 2 movies he still had a tonne of material left over and so only had to film a little bit extra to be able to make a 3rd movie because he hated leaving anything out.
|
|
|
|
|
waggzzz2
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
saw the new bond movie recently, my 1st bond movie in cinema and well i thought it was really good. not an action kinda person but i would watch skyfall again :)
have also seen the hunger games and the avengers in the last yr or so. crappest movies ever.
|
|
|
|
|
KiwiChick1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
Just saw The Hobbit (only in 2D and not at the 40-something frames per second, so apparently I haven't had the full experience of it). I thought it was good, pretty enjoyable. Peter Jackson ties it in nicely at the start to the LoTR trilogy, but the film itself is different enough. I have read the book of The Hobbit, but admittedly I can't remember any of it, so I don't know how much was added in and how much was true to the story. I'll definitely be seeing the other ones anyway.
Also, Sebastian <3
|
|
|
|
|
martyB
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
KiwiChick1 wrote:Just saw The Hobbit (only in 2D and not at the 40-something frames per second, so apparently I haven't had the full experience of it). I thought it was good, pretty enjoyable. Peter Jackson ties it in nicely at the start to the LoTR trilogy, but the film itself is different enough. I have read the book of The Hobbit, but admittedly I can't remember any of it, so I don't know how much was added in and how much was true to the story. I'll definitely be seeing the other ones anyway.
Also, Sebastian <3 How can he tie it in nicely when the first LOTR movie is 3 episodes away?
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
Perks of Being a Wallflower. Fucking outstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneycroatia58 wrote:Also worth pointing out that he's not just using The Hobbit, he using other Tolkien works as well. Aware of that - my question is why bother? The Hobbit is an awesome book without anything being added. I would add, that after studying story structure and creative writing for the best part of my life, there is no need to spend more than 4 hours telling that story. With Lord of The Rings he had to leave a lot out in order to get it into 3 very long movies, I can understand his frustration... Don't get me wrong - looking forward to it - just find it funny that he has opted to go out and find other material to stretch this one out to justify another trilogy.
|
|
|
|
|
MaxiiGCU
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneycroatia58 wrote:Perks of Being a Wallflower. Fucking outstanding. Really, really want to see this. Along with The Hobbit.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneycroatia58 wrote:Perks of Being a Wallflower. Fucking outstanding. Keen for Emma Watson. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
waggzzz2 wrote:saw the new bond movie recently, my 1st bond movie in cinema and well i thought it was really good. not an action kinda person but i would watch skyfall again :)
have also seen the hunger games and the avengers in the last yr or so. crappest movies ever. Ay wut? -PB
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
pv4 wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:Fuck Pitch Perfect was pretty alright :lol:
The Aussie humour completed that movie so well.
-PB yeah i saw it with the mrs last week - i enjoyed it a fair bit. "alright bitch, you don't have to scream" Rebel made that movie haha -PB
|
|
|
|
|
KiwiChick1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
martyB wrote:KiwiChick1 wrote:Just saw The Hobbit (only in 2D and not at the 40-something frames per second, so apparently I haven't had the full experience of it). I thought it was good, pretty enjoyable. Peter Jackson ties it in nicely at the start to the LoTR trilogy, but the film itself is different enough. I have read the book of The Hobbit, but admittedly I can't remember any of it, so I don't know how much was added in and how much was true to the story. I'll definitely be seeing the other ones anyway.
Also, Sebastian <3 How can he tie it in nicely when the first LOTR movie is 3 episodes away? You'll see what I mean if/when you watch it.
|
|
|
|
|
Vaughn2111
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4K,
Visits: 0
|
Saw Skyfall last night... Wow!
freakin' loved it.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:pv4 wrote:paulbagzFC wrote:Fuck Pitch Perfect was pretty alright :lol:
The Aussie humour completed that movie so well.
-PB yeah i saw it with the mrs last week - i enjoyed it a fair bit. "alright bitch, you don't have to scream" Rebel made that movie haha -PB This :lol:
|
|
|
|
|
KiwiChick1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
sydneycroatia58 wrote:Perks of Being a Wallflower. Fucking outstanding. Absolutely loved it.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneycroatia58
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K,
Visits: 0
|
Anchorman 2 to have a US release date of December 20, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
I watched the hobbit y'day, i liked it but too much CGI imo.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjo
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
Aussie4ever4 wrote:I watched the hobbit y'day, i liked it but too much CGI imo. I didnt think that at all. Enjoyed the Hobbit when I saw it on Boxing Day, not as good as LOTR but still enjoyable and I'm looking forward to the 2nd one. Saw Jack Reacher the other day. Wasn't expecting much, but it turned out to be pretty good. Tom Cruise was pretty good in the lead role and Rosamund Pike is a babe. Very enjoyable.
|
|
|
|
|
KiwiChick1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
Did you Perth people see it in 2D/3D/that 40-whatever frames per second?
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Saw it in 2D traditional 24fps on max UHD Projectors, best way to see it imo. Good movies don't need tacky tech shit to make them better. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
KiwiChick1 wrote:Did you Perth people see it in 2D/3D/that 40-whatever frames per second? Pretty sure they only got it in flip-book over there. Quote:Good movies don't need tacky tech shit to make them better. If I ever find out who at SMPTE decided that the next 'big thing' in movies was going to be to make them difficult and annoying to watch, I'm going to hunt them down and strangle them with my bare hands.
|
|
|
|
|
KiwiChick1
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 11K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Saw it in 2D traditional 24fps on max UHD Projectors, best way to see it imo.
Good movies don't need tacky tech shit to make them better.
-PB That's how I saw it too (Y)
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
KiwiChick1 wrote:Did you Perth people see it in 2D/3D/that 40-whatever frames per second? Saw it in 3D, ended up getting in for free too:) Edited by aussie4ever4: 6/1/2013 08:29:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Shaker
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.9K,
Visits: 0
|
Saw Jack Reacher, loved it.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Shaker wrote:Saw Jack Reacher, loved it. This. I tossed up possibly not seeing it based off its IMDB rating but phwoar was I wrong! One of Tom's best movies in a long time, if ever. I gave it a 9/10 come credits time. -PB
|
|
|
|