posted
It's not that the "film" look is inherently good and the "video" look is inherently bad. It's just that, for so many years, the latter has been associated with TV shows and cheap, terrible movies, that's what we automatically think of when we see it.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
It seriously must be a US thing, or at least NOT an Australian thing. Everyone who I have talked to in Australia, who have seen The Hobbit in HFR have had absolutely no issue and think the picture is gorgeous.
I really don't get what the big deal is.
The 3D was smoother, more vibrant and rich - the scenery was spectacular. NZ couldn't have looked any better.
Infact the crisper picture made the experience more tangiable, rather than being left detached from the experience due to the unrealistic film grain of the picture.
WizArtist II
"How can you have a yellow alert in Spacedock? "
Member # 1425
posted
OK, IIRC, in the books, the Necromancer is actually Sauron starting to regain his power again after getting nine-fingered by Isildur. That being the case, he is still regaining his power and is nowhere near the threat we see in the Trilogy. And the battle isn't between Gandalf and the Necromancer, its between the White Council and the Bad Dude and IIRC, he simply withdraws from Dol Goldur and reposseses Barad-Dur.
The White Council includes Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel and Celeborn, and Saruman if I haven't totally forgotten it. Gandalf, Elrond, and Galadriel are all wielding one of the three rings of power given by Sauron to the Elven Kings. (Gandalf was given his by the elf lord Cirdan when he arrived on the shores of Middle Earth because Cirdan knew he would need its power)
There is just a brief mention of the "Battle of Dol Goldur" in the book but I'm sure Jackson will turn it into a visual spectacle (including his ubiquitous 'ghosting' effect he seems to love). That alone should eat a good chunk of time.
-------------------- There are 10 types of people in the world...those that understand Binary and those that don't.
Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
posted
The Necromancer is definitely Sauron, it has never been anyone else, and in the movie scene, the WK and Sauron are two different characters. I liked that scene for another reason, Radagast having to defend himself in combat. He always struck me as such a mellow and pathetic little character, tricked by Saruman and failing in his mission as an Istari by abandoning the Children by turning into a botanist. I liked that he at least got some action and purpose here.
Also, this movie redresses the fallacy of Sauron only existing as a burning eye in the LOTR-trilogy, in the LOTR-novels he's described as sitting in the flesh in the topmost level of Barad-Dur with his PalantÃr. I really enjoyed that The Hobbit showed him approaching a humanoid form again. He already made that transition once at the Fall of Numenor, drowning and having to abandon his first body, taking the ring with him.
Interesting that Gandalf got fast-tracked after his first body died. Maybe Maia corporeal regeneration is like a torrent client, and Gandalf got one hell of a seeder. ; Saruman, if you study the text, rose from his dead body like a wisp of vapor after his death in The Shire, turned towards Valinor in a moment of tragic hope, but a wind from The West came and scattered him into oblivion. That was very subtle and touching to those who'd read The Silmarillion and knew about the Valar.
Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I just want talking spiders? is that so bad? Talking spiders in a pitch black forest with no animals and webs everywhere. I want that to be crazy claustrophobic...and it's a pity that Del Toro is not directing for that reason alone. I think that scenewould freak people the hell out- people dont go to a Hobbit movie expecting to be scared shitless and the shock of that would be great.
-------------------- Justice inclines her scales so that wisdom comes at the price of suffering. -Aeschylus, Agamemnon
Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
posted
Hahaha! True! Pan's Labyrinth... that scene with the 'creature' at the table with the eyes in it's hands... (!)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Printer-friendly view of this topic
