CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGsB9dORBg&sns=em

DAT DWARF SONG.

Anyone else absolutely ecstatic for this movie to come out on the 14th? It's going to be so awesome! This whole week I've been watching the trailers over and over, singing that song (in the correct octave ), I arranged the awesome orchestral part for the brass players in my band, I'm hopefully getting a Hobbit-themed ocarina for my birthday coming up, I've been rewatching all my LotR movies and rereading all the books, etc. I'm pretty stoked. I've been waiting for this for years, and I don't think it will disappoint.

I want to, but..

Don't watch it in 3-D then. It's still gonna be just as cinematically good, and you won't get nauseated. And that article sounds like it was only a few isolated cases reported, not everyone who sees it.

Wait, we already have a Hobbit thread. Unless it was lost during the move. : /

Edit: Yep, it got deleted. Sigh.


At any rate, I'll be seeing it in 24fps for that classic movie experience.

Crossfire wrote:Wait, we already have a Hobbit thread. Unless it was lost during the move. : /

Edit: Yep, it got deleted. Sigh.


At any rate, I'll be seeing it in 24fps for that classic movie experience.

I checked to make sure we didn't have one, but I didn't think of it getting deleted. Sorry about that.

I was ecstatic for this movie to come out until, they are going to make into three parts now. Now I really don't care and what I'm waiting for is Les Mis!

I'm not giving up on it just because it's three movies. That seems like a lame reason to stop being excited for something this awesome. Peter Jackson is not the type to do that just because he wants money; he'll do it because he genuinely feels that he needs to do it to do justice to his source material.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was incredibly well done, and I trust Jackson and his crew to do an AMAZING job with the Hobbit.

Indeed. I'm just hoping that they don't overdo the not-in-the-book scenes.

Yuki-Anne wrote:I'm not giving up on it just because it's three movies. That seems like a lame reason to stop being excited for something this awesome. Peter Jackson is not the type to do that just because he wants money; he'll do it because he genuinely feels that he needs to do it to do justice to his source material.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was incredibly well done, and I trust Jackson and his crew to do an AMAZING job with the Hobbit.

I don't see Jackson doing this to make more money. It may end up being great, but its 3 three hour movies, it's probably too much, if it's three 1.5-2 hour movies then ok. I just lost a little be of excite over it due to the fact that there are now other movies coming out at the same time that I want to see more now.

Runtime: 166 minutes.

I'm assuming they're going to take a lot of time to establish the characters of the different dwarves. Fourteen is a LOT of main characters and in a movie you've got to work hard to make sure they don't all blend together. I recently reread the Hobbit and I think a couple of the dwarves only spoke once, if at all. So right there that's going to add some material that's not in the book just so that the audience can identify and like the main characters.

Plus the extra material from the Return of the King appendices, which I'm sure would have made a full-length film on their own.

My family is going to see this over Christmas, which I hate. I can't watch anything with Golem in it. That character seriously freaks me out!

I want to go see this SO badly! Sadly, finances do not permit at this time. A friend is taking me to see Les Mis, though, on Christmas Day.

Gollum, to me, is a very interesting character. He doesn't scare me so much as he intrigues me. It's interesting to see how much the Ring has changed him --I could go on for quite a while about this, so I'll stop there.

If your seriously worried about Smeagal, he'll only be in the movie for 15 minutes at most. He doesn't have as big as a role as the first three movies.

I'm really psyched for this movie. Sure, for a hobbit, Bilbo may look too skinny, and dividing the book into three movies makes me wonder how they'll pace the plot, but I'm really excited to see how Peter Jackson adapts this prequel to the Lord of the Rings.

But if you watch some of the available footage of Martin Freeman as Bilbo, you'll see how perfect he is. He brings so much personality and charisma into the role. Personally, I think he'll be an even better lead than Elijah Wood was.

Well, crap. All the theaters close to me are only showing the movie in 48FPS and 3D. No 24 frame/2D in sight.

Crossfire wrote:Well, crap. All the theaters close to me are only showing the movie in 48FPS and 3D. No 24 frame/2D in sight.

This doesn't surprise me since it was only filmed in 48FPS.

Er, no. They produced a 24 frame version, you just need to find a theater that's running it.

My wife and I want to watch this, however we are not keen on the 3D version. The thing is, there are only two cinemas showing the non-3D version, and they are like 1.5 hours drive from where we live...

Sigh, I'm in the same situation. As much as I'd like to watch it the opening day... I have to work on Friday and Saturday, so time is very limited.

Going to see it tomorrow about 6. Wanted to wait until my aunt had come home from teaching to take her. Am also taking my cousin along. Gonna be awesome! (Also, we are not seeing the 3D version. I wasn't about to pay for that)

Out of curiosity, how much do movie tickets usually cost in the States? Seems like it's a different price in each city up here...

Not wanting the 3d version, I can understand. I mean, it's more expensive, too. But the 48 FPS version?

I'll never understand people who get UPSET by a higher framerate. I can guarantee you if kids are raised on 60 or 120 fps, they'll feel old 24 fps movies are jerky. It's just that you expect movies to be 24. You're used to the feel it gives you, and people tend to associate higher framerates with TV. It's an artificial thing, though. Films were only 24 FPS to save money on film. This isn't really a problem anymore, since most theaters are digital. If you watch enough movies at a higher framerate, you'll get used to it. I wish they'd make the movies in 60 or 120 fps instead of 48. That way it doesn't look weird when you put it on a TV, which multiples of 24 WILL.

Crossfire wrote:Out of curiosity, how much do movie tickets usually cost in the States? Seems like it's a different price in each city up here...

However expensive it is I doubt it will cost more than movie tickets in Australia - $25.50 AUD per adult. One reason why we only watch films we really want to see, and rent the rest on DVD when it's available.

Is the 48 fps only for the 3D, or can you find the 2D in 48 too?

Also, did anyone go to the midnight showing? I desperately wanted to, but studying for finals prevented me. I'm going to see it later today.

Crossfire wrote:Out of curiosity, how much do movie tickets usually cost in the States? Seems like it's a different price in each city up here...

It's a different price depending on where you live. When I was visiting LA, it was $15 a ticket. Here, I'm paying $9. Back home, I'd pay about $7.50. There's no set rate in the States, theaters can charge based on the supply/demand of their area.

Also, please note that the prices I'm listing are the normal, adult, evening showing tickets. Matinees are usually dicounted, as are tickets for kids under 13 and seniors.

Bobtheduck wrote:I'll never understand people who get UPSET by a higher framerate.

When movies first had sound, people were upset.

When movies got color, people were upset.

When movies did 3D, people were upset.

People are always going to be upset when familiar things change. Whether the change is for the better or not is up to the viewer, but most people are going to see a movie running at higher than 24 fps as "not feeling like a movie." You can argue with that on a technical level, but feelings are feelings and if people don't like how they feel about it, then there isn't a lot you can do about that.

From what I've heard from initial reports most people seem to say that the 48 fps version is weird, and you sorta get used to it after a while. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for it though.

Just got back from it.

This is a lot more action-movie than the book, some of it for the better and some of it just making the story drag a bit. Since it's an adventure movie, there *has* to be a main baddie (not in the book, somewhat disappointed by the need to do this), but at the same time the character development is far greater than in the book. It's pretty obvious that Hobbit was written for kids and as such isn't that involved and is pretty lighthearted. The movie made some scenes a lot darker... and in some cases, brought out detail that would probably have been in the books had Tolkien been writing it for adults. I often forget that the devil is in the details, and there's a lot of detail brought out from the appendices that is pretty brutal when you actually see it on film.

I'm overall pretty happy with it. I think that the changes made aren't better or worse than the books - just different. And for the most part, what was added is right in line with Tolkien's works. And a good deal was straight from the appendices, so that's fine, too. I still have NO clue how they're going to stretch this into 3 movies, though... I mean, right where this ended was pretty solidly at the halfway point of the book.

Also, Martin Freeman *makes* Bilbo Baggins. It's fabulous.

Glad to hear that the added stuff doesn't necessarily hurt the movie. From the sound of it, part 2 will mostly be about the White Council and their attack on Sauron.

Atria35 wrote:Just got back from it.

This is a lot more action-movie than the book, some of it for the better and some of it just making the story drag a bit. Since it's an adventure movie, there *has* to be a main baddie (not in the book, somewhat disappointed by the need to do this), but at the same time the character development is far greater than in the book. It's pretty obvious that Hobbit was written for kids and as such isn't that involved and is pretty lighthearted. The movie made some scenes a lot darker... and in some cases, brought out detail that would probably have been in the books had Tolkien been writing it for adults. I often forget that the devil is in the details, and there's a lot of detail brought out from the appendices that is pretty brutal when you actually see it on film.

I'm overall pretty happy with it. I think that the changes made aren't better or worse than the books - just different. And for the most part, what was added is right in line with Tolkien's works. And a good deal was straight from the appendices, so that's fine, too. I still have NO clue how they're going to stretch this into 3 movies, though... I mean, right where this ended was pretty solidly at the halfway point of the book.

Also, Martin Freeman *makes* Bilbo Baggins. It's fabulous.

100% agree. The added parts were well done and contributed in a positive way, they didn't distract from the plot in any way. That, an they provided for some pretty epic battle scenes, so I was happy. I was glad they were able to make it serious and intense for adults, but still keep the more lighthearted feel of the book. Overall, I was very happy with it.