Reverend Jax Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 From Wikipedia: Nigel was a common name for boys born in England and Wales during the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s (see below). Nigel has never been as common in other countries Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 So Nigel is less American, more so than, more English than Timothy. Newsflash America: The world does not revolve around you. What do you know Irishman? You all name your kids Sean and Molly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelogan Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 Except the ones who are named after Digimon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 (edited) Yeah, I wonder why his parents gave him a name that's so much work to remember how to spell Everyone knows how much the Irish hate work Edited October 19, 2012 by Iambaytor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thelogan Posted October 19, 2012 Share Posted October 19, 2012 You must like the name quite a bit though. It was just too "ethnic" for you, huh? Had to remove that rasta influence? Whiten it up a bit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alive she cried Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 It's a six letter word, how hard is it to remember six letters? Fucking Americans. In other news some terrible posters released. Here's a photo of Tim from The Office taking a shit, poorly photoshopped onto the body of Merry from The Lord Of The Rings. and Galadriel giving the finger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrizzle Posted November 7, 2012 Share Posted November 7, 2012 Jesus, that clumsy drunken "joke" of mine is almost too vague and poorly worded for me to understand. Hint: Rastafarians say "Mon" a lot (at least on the tee vees). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 (edited) Funny that there's been no activity in this thread in the month approaching the premiere. Anyway, saw the movie at midnight. The 48 FPS is indeed jarring, but you do get used to it for large parts of the movie, then a large sweeping motion will occur on screen and you will notice it again. The 3D was well done, so if you're the type of person that likes to go to 3D when the technology is well integrated, it would probably worth the added price for you. Stretching the Hobbit into three movies, each almost 3 hours (I'm going to assume the next two will be about as long) is a tad indulgent, but it works well if you like being in Middle Earth. While the book has a distinctly younger feel than the LOTR books that would follow it, this feels like it's being told for the same audience as the LOTR movies. It basically boils down to, if you liked the LOTR movies, there's more of what you liked in these movies, and if you didn't, you probably won't like this movie. I find it odd that while all the LOTR movies got in the 90's on Rotten Tomatoes, this one has a 69% as of now. Edited December 14, 2012 by Reverend Jax Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 People really seem to hate that 48 FPS, so that's what I imagine the bulk of what people's beef is with the movie. I've read more reviews that are reviewing that and not the actual movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrizzle Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Hey! Why is that elf up there flipping me off? FUCK YOU ELF! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 from what I understand, the Movies are being broken down like this (spoilers for the two of you who hate books and have never read the Hobbit or LotR): Movie 1: Beginning up to the Eagles Movie 2: Beorn to the Battle of Five Armies...maybe the end of the Hobbit itself Movie 3: The time in between The Hobbit and Fellowship If done that way, this could actually work. I just find it amazing that it's been 11 years since Fellowship released... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TulipO Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Stop making me feel old! Going to see this tonight... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 well worth it. I loved it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 If Joel's breakdown is correct then movie 3 is going to have to work really hard to be interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
archangel Posted December 14, 2012 Author Share Posted December 14, 2012 Not really. you have alot of things that go on during that time, most of which are only talked about in the appendixes and in passing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Well, the next movie is called The Desolation of Smaug, and it comes out December 2013, and the last one is called There and Back Again, and it comes out July 2014, the first of the Peter Jackson Middle Earth movie not released in December. I too think that if the second movie ends with the Dwarves reclaiming their home and treasure, the third movie has a quite a task ahead of itself to be worthwhile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alive she cried Posted December 14, 2012 Share Posted December 14, 2012 Yeah, I agree with Jax and Baytor, I really hope they don't do it that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The NZA Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Not really. you have alot of things that go on during that time, most of which are only talked about in the appendixes and in passing. Do you really want to watch 3 hours of "Bunch'a shit happened..."? I mean, Return of the King is known for having a ridiculously over-long ending. If they make the epilogue to The Hobbit into a 3 hour movie that is not just ballsy, it is full on crazy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keth Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 So is the 48 fps only in the 3D version or in the 2D version also? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iambaytor Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I genuinely and sincerely hope they release a The Hobbit: The Version Without All the Bullshit edition whenever this is over with. If nothing else there will be a fan-made one. So is the 48 fps only in the 3D version or in the 2D version also? Apparently it's only a select few theaters "I’d advise skipping the 48 fps version if you can; it’s only being shown in around 450 theaters nationwide, but theaters may not be advertising whether they’re showing the 48 fps version or the regular 24. Whether you love or hate motion-smoothing on your TV, or just can’t tell the difference, it’d be smart to check your local listings or call your local theater and find out which version you’re getting, so you know what to expect." Which is good because I'd rather not pay way too much money to watch something that looks like a 60s-era videotape (yes I know that's an oxymoron, bad history proves a point!) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thrizzle Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I downloaded several 24 vs 48 fps comparison videos (proper ones, filmed in 48 fps. And you can't watch them on Youtube, it doesn't support it), and I really like it. It's a bit jarring at first, I think because our brains are very used to only receiving half as much information when watching things, but the difference in quick motion and camera movement is substantial. I think we all take for granted the blurring and tracing that comes when shit is moving quickly. I'm really looking forward to seeing a film with crisp movement. It's actually one of the only reasons I want to see this in the theaters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sinestetici Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 Just got home from watching "The Hobbit" in 3D. Well worth it. It was pretty f'ing amazing. I love that Peter Jackson treats the source material with so much respect. If you go see it you wont be disappointed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycaon Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I must see this movie. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reverend Jax Posted December 15, 2012 Share Posted December 15, 2012 I downloaded several 24 vs 48 fps comparison videos (proper ones, filmed in 48 fps. And you can't watch them on Youtube, it doesn't support it), and I really like it. It's a bit jarring at first, I think because our brains are very used to only receiving half as much information when watching things, but the difference in quick motion and camera movement is substantial. I think we all take for granted the blurring and tracing that comes when shit is moving quickly. I'm really looking forward to seeing a film with crisp movement. It's actually one of the only reasons I want to see this in the theaters. To answer earlier questions, from what I've read, the 48 FPS is only on 3D screenings, and not all of them. There is no additional charge for the HFR, other than the additional charge already on there for the 3D. For my theater, Fandango listed the fact that it was in HFR, so maybe Fandango has comprehensive listings, but maybe they don't. Anyway, yeah, it's definitely jarring, and I definitely think it's just that we're used to the effects of 24 FPS on film (motion blurs, etc), not the fact that it's inherently strange. If this becomes the standard in TV broadcasting and in film, people will bitch, but eventually everyone will get used to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.