The Hobbit Trilogy 3D Blu-ray (2012-2014) [Region Free]

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by levcore

did this really need its own thread

Sorry, I thought this was the 3D Movie forum

[BleedOrange11]

Visually, they are all the same to me. Storywise, I enjoyed Desolation of Smaug most.

[applemac]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

Sorry, I thought this was the 3D Movie forum

I think he was referring that you could just ask this in the 3D thread for Hobbit that already exists :-)

That being said - I enjoyed the first one in 3D HFR (though I think it mainly sticks in my mind due to being the first HFR I've seen). 2 was darker, and the barrel scene go-pro footage kills it for me.

[RockyIII]

Thank you guys. The Search button is not very useful indeed.
I think both the story and 3D go from good (episode 1) to good (episode 2) to great (episode 3).
The Battle of the 5 Armies features some of the most eye-popping 3D effects during the battle scenes. I love 300-like battle scenes and Peter Jackson managed to make the audience feel the weight and magnitude of these armies without making it just a gore fest

[the13thman]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

The Battle of the 5 Armies features some of the most eye-popping 3D effects during the battle scenes. I love 300-like battle scenes and Peter Jackson managed to make the audience feel the weight and magnitude of these armies without making it just a gore fest

The battle scenes are indeed considerably enhanced by the 3D (as are all the scenes in tunnels and caves) and there's no way I'd watch any of the three films again in 2D, but I wouldn't really go so far as to say that there were any "eye-popping" 3D effects in any of them.

[Zivouhr]

When I said Fellowship 3D, I meant to say Unexpected Journey 3D.

Originally Posted by applemac

The built in search is pretty weak...
I usually use google site search "site:forum.blu-ray.com hobbit 3D"

Thanks.

[RockyIII]

By the way, how many of you-after watching the Hobbit-went back to watching LOTR and felt somewhat disappointed after having been so visually "spoiled" by the amazing visuals of the Hobbit?

[levcore]

Lord of the Rings has absolutely astounding visuals and for many looks a lot better than the CG heavy, green screened nature of The Hobbit movies. I love CG but even i'm taken aback at just how much its used in The Hobbit movies.

[RockyIII]

Originally Posted by levcore

Lord of the Rings has absolutely astounding visuals and for many looks a lot better than the CG heavy, green screened nature of The Hobbit movies. I love CG but even i'm taken aback at just how much its used in The Hobbit movies.

What is so special about the Hobbit green screen use is that we quickly forget about it. There are very few scenes where we go "Oh that is clearly CGI".
After watching LOTR again, some elements like the Orcs don't look as captivating because they are just actors in heavy makeup, and it limits the range of our imagination

[RockyIII]

Wow, I feel alone here LOL..
Not very many fans of CG around here...You guys must hate the movie 300, I assume

[levcore]

Never said I wasn't a fan of cg, I love it. I already said Azog looks terrific. I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions from my words

[RockyIII]

I watched the making of the filming of An Unexpected Journey, and Peter Jackson went over several different ideas for Azog, and they tried to use 2 or 3 different actors in numerous outfits, but nothing worked until they finally created "CG" Azog...Why do you think would the director himself decide to rely on CG if it wasn't the best option?
I don't know about you, but I can certainly tell you that Peter Jackson knows a lot more about this than I do

[levcore]

I hear what you're saying, I've also watched those doco's and yes you are right. I think PJ decided on CG because the ball was rolling, production was already well underway and they couldn't delay any longer on going with a final choice for Azog. CG allows far greater flexibility to work on things longer in post and if scenes need to be shot and the makeup was not where he wanted then CG was the best option for him. However it is an artistic choice, doesn't automatically make it better than a practical approach.

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by RockyIII

By the way, how many of you-after watching the Hobbit-went back to watching LOTR and felt somewhat disappointed after having been so visually "spoiled" by the amazing visuals of the Hobbit?

As long as the movement is realistic, I'm more forgiving of CGI characters if they got the lighting, shading, design and features as realistic as they could. With Gollum, I'm still convinced that is one of the most convincing CGI character I've ever seen in a movie. Amazing performance and seamless interaction with the world of Middle Earth.
The Dwarf King on the Boar (forget his name) from Battle of Five Armies wasn't entirely convincing compared to his real life counterparts. The thought "That guy's CGI" ran through my head for a second and then I let it slide and enjoyed the experience again. I knew Gollum was CGI, but was also in awe at how realistic that CGI was for me.

Bottomline is we know that JRR Tolkien's fiction novels/movies don't include true stories or real life characters and creatures, but many of us fans of the fantasy genre can still enjoy using our imagination, suspending our disbelief and being entertained by the artists and filmmakers who put these films together, even with the flaws.

[carpanafilms]

For me, and for what PJ was attempting, is to create a character that is more expressive and more emotional than what we've seen in the past. While the advantage of a physical presence is clear in the menace Lurtz brought, he was limited to growling, yelling, and glaring his teeth. Azog on the other hand, especially by film 3, showed a wide range of emotions from anger, fear, happiness, disgust. He was free to move and interact with other characters in whatever way PJ wanted to.

Lastly, there is the issue of scale. With the Hobbit, you're dealing with 3ft, 5ft, 6ft, and 7ft beings that all need to be represented on screen at the same time. A nightmare for the casting department. When do you choose to use the actors and the doubles? The best solution is a combination of practical v practical, practical v digital, and digital v digital. Notice how almost all of the scenes with Bard and the Elves fighting orcs it was entirely people in costume and prosthetics, but the Dwarves had to deal with mostly fighting digital doubles.

[pdslost]

All the hobbit and lord of rings EXTENDED editions all in one day after the last one is released?

I plan to and will need to get an early start to do it in one day I'm sure!

[Santa Barbara]

That would make one exhaustingly long day. Question, which should one watch first? The lead up with The Hobbit films or handle it by release?

[infiniteCR]

Just watching 1 all at once is a HUGE accomplishment!

[Zivouhr]

Originally Posted by pdslost

All the hobbit and lord of rings EXTENDED editions all in one day after the last one is released?

I plan to and will need to get an early start to do it in one day I'm sure!

I thought about watching just the regular theater editions for Lord of the Rings back to back, adding up to 9 hours or so, then the Hobbit films, 9 more hours give or take, so 18 hours in one day easily for the extended versions.

I have the extended Lord of the Rings, but the only one I feel was really well added to would be Return of the King. In Fellowship, there were about 20 minutes of fan credits, which was a total disappointment when believing that was going to be extra scenes in the movie.

I doubt we'll see the original trilogy in 3D any time soon.

[keb33509]

I would watch The Hobbit, then LoTR. I plan on it the day after I receive the extended version of tbotfa.