We check out the fast-paced third-person Xbox One exclusive Sunset Overdrive to see just what it has in store.
Sunset Overdrive Reviewed
We take a look at Firaxis' sci-fi take on the Civ universe
Civilization: Beyond Earth Reviewed
We sit down with Blizzard's Ion Hazzikostas to talk all things World of Warcraft, including upcoming expansion Warlords of Draenor.
Talking Draenor with Ion Hazzikostas
Here it is, AusGamers looks at The Evil Within, and just what you can expect from grandaddy horror creator Shinji Mikami
The Evil Within Review
So has anyone watched The Hobbit yet?
Fade2Black
Brisbane, Queensland
5161 posts
If so how was it?

I'm going to see it Thursday but unsure if I should go 2D or 3D. Reviews anyone?
06:12pm 01/01/13 Permalink
system
Internet
--
06:12pm 01/01/13 Permalink
mooby
Brisbane, Queensland
6242 posts
3hrs... no thanks
06:13pm 01/01/13 Permalink
StrangeRash
1355 posts
pretty good movie

i liked the bit with the birds
06:15pm 01/01/13 Permalink
TicMan
Melbourne, Victoria
8399 posts
Just sorting out some tickets for tomorrow afternoon with wifey to see it. Going with the 3D HFR version so expectations are high for the visual quality.
06:17pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Cheez
Brisbane, Queensland
736 posts
Was good, wanna see it again in either HFR or 3D
06:17pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Eorl
Brisbane, Queensland
8333 posts
Quite good, though birds fix everything it seems.
06:18pm 01/01/13 Permalink
XaltD
Queensland
1172 posts
Was awesome movie, highly recommend :)
06:18pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Clubby
Brisbane, Queensland
900 posts
Saw in 3D, was good. Would recommend if you like that type of movie.
06:23pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Raven
Melbourne, Victoria
7582 posts
I saw it in 2D... I don't know what to think of it really. Really it was just a long set-up - very little of Smaug. It would seem all the good stuff is to be in the second movie, it's just I don't see how you could fit the Lake-town battle in to a single movie and then have enough for yet another movie.

As for 3D, well... I can't see how it would benefit this movie. 3D use, if anything, would be a lot like it was in Captain America - barely useful unless you want to emphasise a really big nose or shield.
06:29pm 01/01/13 Permalink
tspec
Melbourne, Victoria
3684 posts
I've seen it twice in the last few days, once in gold class and again today in 48fps. I would recommend seeing it in 24fps 3d first. If you like the movie at 24fps, it's worth seeing the 48fps just to see the difference. 48fps looks insanely crisp to the point where everything looks real, golem looks absolutely awesome. The tradeoff is the movie loses that cinematic effect and a lot of the character movement seem unnaturally sped up, similar to the motion enhancement you see in most led/lcd tv's these days. Basically 48fps works better in some scenes, 24fps works better in others.
06:37pm 01/01/13 Permalink
defi
Wynnum, Queensland
2947 posts
I expected it to be s***, but really enjoyed it.
06:50pm 01/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16452 posts
saw it in 3D 24fps. loved it.
06:57pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7081 posts
First movie I've seen in forever. Had low expectations, enjoyed it. It's a lot more of a kiddy adventure for the most part, and it's evident that it's a lot of stories mashed together in a somewhat workable order (I think that they're pulling from the extended encyclopaedias).
07:02pm 01/01/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19382 posts
YEAH, ITS S***.
07:02pm 01/01/13 Permalink
mental
Brisbane, Queensland
3722 posts
Saw it at the drive in, really enjoyed it, I want to watch it again in a proper cinema though.

Though it captured the childrens book feel of the hobbit book compared to the dramatic adult feel of the lord of the rings books.

Don't forget Mirkwood Raven, they trundle through there for ages, plus it looks like they'll add the Wizard council against the Necromancer and the big reveal. Then a heap of things will be added to fill in the time between the Hobbit and Lotrs.
07:12pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Snakeman
Queensland
865 posts
Great movie but I saw it in vmax with the new 4k hd. It looked great in parts but because it was so smooth and clear you could pick out fake props and some things just seem to fake. Otherwise I thought it was fantastic !!!
07:14pm 01/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16453 posts
it's evident that it's a lot of stories mashed together in a somewhat workable order (I think that they're pulling from the extended encyclopaedias).


eh not really. apart from the azog vs thorin rivalry, it follows the book pretty well. only a couple things from the appendices were added such as the white council meeting. there should be more stuff from the appendices in the next couple of films like the battle of dol guldur which should be awesome.

last edited by ravn0s at 19:20:06 01/Jan/13
07:17pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Eorl
Brisbane, Queensland
8334 posts
That is what I missed about the LOTR movies, so much stuff could have been added that was really interesting in the appendices. Wish they had of done Tomb Bombadil.
09:37pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Khel
Brisbane, Queensland
20471 posts
I expected it to be s***, but really enjoyed it.


Pretty much the same for me, I went into it with really low expectations but it ended up being really good, I enjoyed it a lot. Had a lot more of a LOTR feel about it than I was expecting. The trailers made it seem like it was very much aimed at kids with groan-worthy humour and slapstick dwarves, and while there was a little of that, the tone of the movie as a whole was much different and more 'grown up' than I was expecting.
09:39pm 01/01/13 Permalink
csirac
Brisbane, Queensland
2806 posts
So wait theres a low frame rate one and a high frame version?
09:56pm 01/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16454 posts
there's 2D, 3D 24fps and 3D HFR (48fps)
09:57pm 01/01/13 Permalink
BladeRunner
Queensland
1089 posts
I started reading the book a little bit a week or 2 ago. Saw the movie on Sunday and thought it was not great. As a movie by itself it would be alright but having just read part of the book it annoyed me. Was it so hard for the Dwarves to have hoods when the meet Bilbo? Was it soo difficult for them to do the Troll scene properly? I read up to around where the movie finished so I will not read anymore of it until the other 2 movies have come out lol. Might make for a better movie experience for me.
10:03pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Fade2Black
Brisbane, Queensland
5162 posts
Jesus Bladerunner you can read the book in a lasy afternoon front to back....
10:17pm 01/01/13 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
2893 posts
Just got back from watching this in normal D gold class. It was ok, some of it was great, some of it felt drawn out, almost TV showish and some felt really awkwardly put together like the Troll scene didn't seem right to me.

Definitely recommend seeing in gold class though, you are going to want a comfy seat.
11:21pm 01/01/13 Permalink
Khel
Brisbane, Queensland
20474 posts
Was it so hard for the Dwarves to have hoods when the meet Bilbo?


Why does it matter? Its probably been about 20 years since I read the book so I can't remember if that has some story significance I don't know about, but it was hard enough trying to remember which dwarf was which even when they were introduced with their faces fully visible, would have made it even harder if they had hoods.

The timeline is probably the thing that feels the oddest to me, its like 60 years before LoTR and Saruman seems to already be showing signs of being a bad guy, so that means for 60 years afterwards nobody suspects a single thing about him? Even when it was already obvious hes a bit dodgy? How s*** are these so-called protectors of middle earth at doing their jobs?
01:16am 02/01/13 Permalink
BladeRunner
Queensland
1090 posts
It seemed to me that Saruman was more dismissive of what Gandalf was going on about. Saruman perhaps is cautious or just full of himself, He may think that unless he discovers something its probably old Gandalf jumping at shadows. We will have to wait for the next 2 movies to see if Saruman show more of a hardon for Saruron.

@Fade2black
I take my time and I don't speed read like your probably do. A bit of reading here and there is good enough for me.
02:28am 02/01/13 Permalink
Viper119
UK
1796 posts
I enjoyed it, thought the intro scenes were a bit drawn out but the rest seemed okay.
07:27am 02/01/13 Permalink
Saint
Cainer
Brisbane, Queensland
3236 posts
I saw it in 48fps and thought it was decent, lots of very smooth and lush looking scenes. It took me a bit to get used to it though because at the start it definitely had the soap opera feel where it just looked like a movie set and I found it hard to get immersed. I don't know if I just got used to it as the movie went on or if they improved it. Plus the 'speed up' effect of 48fps was a bit annoying in places too.

Great cast and some fantastic scenes and it definitely had the LOTR feel to it, but in the end I still can't help but feel they're padding the movies out too much to milk it for all it's worth.
08:07am 02/01/13 Permalink
Totenkopf
Melbourne, Victoria
568 posts
Is this a new tv show?
11:07am 02/01/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7041 posts
nah it's the sequel to prometheus, you should check it out
12:21pm 02/01/13 Permalink
WirlWind
Central Coast, New South Wales
464 posts
I saw it in regular 24fps with uncomfortable seats.

It was worth it, but my ass was asleep for most of the movie...

Invest the extra cost (if there is any) in getting comfy seats before seeing this. Make sure you sit middle of cinema so you don't need to crank your neck, don't bother with 3d if it's not active 3d or passive with over-brightened screens.

Passive 3d is s*** because everything goes REALLY damn dark. Considering half this movie is in dark places / at night, probably not going to be an amazing experience with your average 3d, as everything will be much harder to see.

Hell, even the Avengers was hard to see in places because of s***** passive 3d...
02:57pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
34841 posts
im about as likely to watch this moofie, as i am to watch any of the LOTR moofies.

ie not.
03:09pm 02/01/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7045 posts
I agree, raise spook jr on a steady diet of inspirational sports films!
spook shuttlesworth
03:12pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Damo
Brisbane, Queensland
6357 posts
As predicted there was heaps of walking, terrible CGI and a story as thin as a catwalk model.

There is no excuse for have CGI as cheap as it was in this movie. We shouldn't be able to tell what's green screen and what isn't. The dogs/rats that the orcs were riding looked crap, the white orc should have been a real person.
04:43pm 02/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16456 posts
the CGI looked pretty good to me, especially gollum.
04:48pm 02/01/13 Permalink
TicMan
Melbourne, Victoria
8400 posts
Watched it this afternoon and really enjoyed it. I thought the start was a bit slow paced and could've been a little shorter but the rest of it was entertaining.
06:28pm 02/01/13 Permalink
BladeRunner
Queensland
1092 posts
I agree Gollum was good but the rest seemed lackluster when it came to CGI.
06:33pm 02/01/13 Permalink
Khel
Brisbane, Queensland
20477 posts
I thought the CGI looked pretty good, but then I didn't watch the HFR version, maybe its more apparent in that version.
07:25pm 02/01/13 Permalink
deadlyf
Queensland
2904 posts
I watched regular vision and I agree that the main Orc dude looked a bit s*** and thought he should have been an actor in make-up like the Uruk Hai from the LotR movies. He basically looked like he was out of a game cinematic.

I thought the Goblins were good though and although the Wargs and Eagles did look a bit CGI'ish it didn't bother me like the human like Orc did.
12:31am 03/01/13 Permalink
Totenkopf
Melbourne, Victoria
569 posts
nah it's the sequel to prometheus, you should check it out


I saw it but i coulnd make the connection with prometheus or the alien universe...not a single alien in the whole movie!
01:16am 03/01/13 Permalink
WirlWind
Central Coast, New South Wales
467 posts
I thought the CGI looked pretty good, but then I didn't watch the HFR version, maybe its more apparent in that version.


I've heard that HFR was the cause.

I didn't notice anything awry in the standard version, everything looked pretty solid.

From what I've heard of it, it's just an issue with the technology being new. Some parts need blur where there wasn't any, some parts need to be adjusted so they didn't look sped-up, etc.

It's something that should work itself out in time.
03:40pm 03/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16462 posts
i hope the bluray comes with a HFR version. i would love to see what it looks like.
03:56pm 03/01/13 Permalink
parabol
Brisbane, Queensland
7410 posts
^ the bluray standard doesn't support native 48fps. They'd have to interpolate for 60fps, but it's still not the same and you're also limited to 720p resolution at that high framerate ...

It'll require updates to the bluray spec which will take time and will probably require you to upgrade your hardware.
04:48pm 03/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16464 posts
well that sucks. i guess they could have a downloadable version at 48fps?

last edited by ravn0s at 17:22:20 03/Jan/13
05:20pm 03/01/13 Permalink
implode
Launceston, Tasmania
33 posts
3D blows... The only reason it is being pushed so hard is to stop people from taking their video cameras into cinemas & recording their over bloated vfx s*** fests.
06:47pm 03/01/13 Permalink
parabol
Brisbane, Queensland
7411 posts
i guess they could have a downloadable version at 48fps?

For a typical H.264 encode at 48fps at that movie length you're probably looking at 25GB minimum, or 50GB for 3D, so unlikely ...
07:04pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Habib
Brisbane, Queensland
383 posts
Too much deus ex machina.
07:06pm 03/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16465 posts
For a typical H.264 encode at 48fps at that movie length you're probably looking at 25GB minimum, or 50GB for 3D, so unlikely ...


heh i'd still download it.

07:18pm 03/01/13 Permalink
WirlWind
Central Coast, New South Wales
468 posts
heh i'd still download it.


Ditto, but I doubt it'd be that big. There's a new codec being used out there (X.264, I believe) where you can get awesome quality 1080p video for 1.5gb (full length average movie).

Look up anything from YIFY if you want to see it for yourself.

Nothing like DVD quality rips in half the size :)
08:13pm 03/01/13 Permalink
parabol
Brisbane, Queensland
7412 posts
There's a new codec being used out there (X.264, I believe) where you can get awesome quality 1080p video for 1.5gb (full length average movie).

x264 is an implementation of H.264 encoding, which is what I was referring to.

A typical file size for a 2-hour 1080p movie with regular multi-channel audio, while looking good and not pixely, is about 8GB, not 1.5GB ...

Multiply by 1.5 for 3 hours of movie (=12GB). Double that for double the framerate (=24GB). Double again for 3D (=48GB). Hence my figures :)
08:45pm 03/01/13 Permalink
l3wd_5c0ff
Brisbane, Queensland
2430 posts
I take my time and I don't speed read like your probably do. A bit of reading here and there is good enough for me.


Gotta love people who brag about reading fast. Your'e meant to get lost in a book. Not glance its perimeters.
Gonna watch the scrnr of this tonight. Looking forward to it :)
08:58pm 03/01/13 Permalink
mental
Brisbane, Queensland
3726 posts
I read fast and immerse myself in what I'm reading.

Only thing that bugged me was Gandalf's and Thorin's blades are supposed to glow blue as well.
09:37pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Crusher
Sydney, New South Wales
1226 posts
I saw it a few days ago, enjoyed it. Though how they can make 9 hours of movie out of a single thinnish book compared to the 9 hours for 47 trees that make up a the LOTR trilogy... lots of "the little man and his friends walk around new zealand" aerial shots.
11:59pm 03/01/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7130 posts
Too much deus ex machina.

I agree with this, but still enjoyed it.

Double that for double the framerate (=24GB)

Afaik modern movie formats store keyframes, and then the little changes from then out over then next few successive frames, until it becomes so different that it's best to store a whole new keyframe. With a higher framerate, you probably wouldn't have a higher number of keyframes, so the size may not actually grow by all that much.

Tracking changes with motion vectors and/or changing pixels like this, where more frames won't necessarily mean a linear increase in information for the duration
http://blog.teamthinklabs.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/theora-macroblocks.jpg
12:02am 04/01/13 Permalink
WirlWind
Central Coast, New South Wales
470 posts
x264 is an implementation of H.264 encoding, which is what I was referring to.

A typical file size for a 2-hour 1080p movie with regular multi-channel audio, while looking good and not pixely, is about 8GB, not 1.5GB ...

Multiply by 1.5 for 3 hours of movie (=12GB). Double that for double the framerate (=24GB). Double again for 3D (=48GB). Hence my figures :)


Yeah, went and looked at it a little after posting that.

As for the movie size, I have a 1.4gb movie rip here and it's as good as DVD quality. It's not pixelated or anything (I mean,it's not blueray, but it's amazingly good quality for how small the file-size is. I compared the YIFY rip of LOTR compared to the DVD copy I got cheap ages ago, pretty damn close.)

Also, I believe it's possible to have atleast 5.1 audio when encoded this way, I seem to recall someone talking about it during my quick google search.
02:38am 04/01/13 Permalink
Eorl
Brisbane, Queensland
8348 posts
I saw it a few days ago, enjoyed it. Though how they can make 9 hours of movie out of a single thinnish book compared to the 9 hours for 47 trees that make up a the LOTR trilogy... lots of "the little man and his friends walk around new zealand" aerial shots.
They are basically shooting every single page, which would allow them to tell the story better visually. I hated the Harry Potter films for trying to stick closely to the book, but at times either running out of time or just not caring, which cause a few important details to be missed. Also there is a gigantic battle that could take up a whole movie in itself which is probably what will happen.
09:41am 04/01/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36637 posts
this movie was not terrible
Really it was just a long set-up - very little of Smaug
How unlike the novel
01:52am 05/01/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7075 posts
I liked it, just more of the same as lotr really. lots of dwarfs flying around. I didn't think it was any more PG'd down either.. hands and heads getting cut off, some pretty nightmarish screaming monstery things. I guess you don't see good guys being brutalised or anything though so the kids are cheering.
03:21am 05/01/13 Permalink
Khel
Brisbane, Queensland
20486 posts
Really it was just a long set-up - very little of Smaug


Considering the second movie is called "The Desolation of Smaug" I thought it was pretty obvious from the start where the majority of Smaug related stuff would happen.
04:27am 05/01/13 Permalink
skythra
Brisbane, Queensland
6299 posts
I take my time and I don't speed read like your probably do. A bit of reading here and there is good enough for me.
If you really enjoy reading, naturally you will read fast and thoroughly. Like anything you do a lot of, you get better at it with practice.

I can't read fast now, but i'd finish half a book in 2 hours before bed time when i was a teen, two nights per book for things like the magician. Took me 6 nights for LOTR at a slower younger pace (the books are kind of small anyway).

As i got older even though i read on the internet it's not quite the same as just paragraph on paragraph on chaper on book of text. I'm slower than most of my friends now :(
09:41am 05/01/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13246 posts
I don't read for speed. I like to take my time on purpose. So my current Wheel of Time series I'm reading a book every couple of weeks. I get tempted to start speed reading then think, 'Why do that? Enjoy the book its not a competition.'
10:17am 05/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16470 posts

I can't read fast now, but i'd finish half a book in 2 hours before bed time when i was a teen, two nights per book for things like the magician


i thought reading magician over a weekend was fast...
10:51am 05/01/13 Permalink
WirlWind
Central Coast, New South Wales
474 posts
i thought reading magician over a weekend was fast...


I used to be able to read an entire Goosebumps book in around an hour when I was in primary school. Not the hardest read, perhaps, but I think that's pretty quick.
11:11am 05/01/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13324 posts
this movie was not terrible

A ringing endorsement from troggles ;)

I liked it.
I don't read for speed. I like to take my time on purpose. So my current Wheel of Time series I'm reading a book every couple of weeks. I get tempted to start speed reading then think, 'Why do that? Enjoy the book its not a competition.'

Oh god, I'm not sure what book you;re up to but if you don't skim any of that s*** you're a masochist.
11:14am 05/01/13 Permalink
E.T.
Queensland
4489 posts
knowing in advance that this was one of three in a series I fully expected it to end just where it did.
I may be a little bias in my view given that I know a lead animator who worked on it, but I liked it.
11:36am 05/01/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
34877 posts
i dont have any spare time for reading (but i love it), so it takes me ages to read a book. first song of game of thrones took me nearly 9 months in the limited time i have for reading.
11:47am 05/01/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7076 posts
first song of game of thrones took me nearly 9 months

sounds you're trying to read the audiobook :)
12:06pm 05/01/13 Permalink
Spook
Brisbane, Queensland
34879 posts
wish i had, would have been much much easier to read, that s*** was hard work.
12:07pm 05/01/13 Permalink
reload!
Brisbane, Queensland
7077 posts
I prefer to let HBO read the titties to me
12:08pm 05/01/13 Permalink
infi
Brisbane, Queensland
19391 posts
i don't have time for reading kids books. if they can't make it into a decent movie then don't waste my time.
01:30pm 05/01/13 Permalink
Hogfather
Cairns, Queensland
13327 posts
i don't have time for reading kids books. if they can't make it into a decent movie then don't waste my time.

lol the movie was fine, you have sand in your snatch
05:58pm 05/01/13 Permalink
Some Fat Bastard
Brisbane, Queensland
1234 posts
I liked it. Thought it better than Fellowship of the Ring for a 1st in 3 series movie.
06:26pm 05/01/13 Permalink
tension
Melbourne, Victoria
7061 posts
Didn't enjoy it, way dragged out and much overhyped.
09:59pm 05/01/13 Permalink
crazymorton
Brisbane, Queensland
3735 posts
Saw it in 3D this afternoon. Really enjoyed it.

Looking forward to the next instalment.
11:23pm 05/01/13 Permalink
Mass
Brisbane, Queensland
1349 posts
I saw it in GC 3D yesterday. Was better than I was expecting, I had read some reviews and had my expectations lowered so I was pleasantly surprised.
02:25pm 07/01/13 Permalink
Sc00bs
Brisbane, Queensland
9111 posts
ive watched about an hr of it so far.. its rather slow, like the first LOTR movie
02:32pm 07/01/13 Permalink
Khel
Brisbane, Queensland
20492 posts
Needed more gadgets amirite?
02:48pm 07/01/13 Permalink
E.T.
Queensland
4490 posts
ive watched about an hr of it so far.. its rather slow, like the first LOTR movie


Wow. At the video store already!?
06:00pm 07/01/13 Permalink
Dazhel
Gold Coast, Queensland
5569 posts
Scoobs is just referring to walking out of the cinema at the 1hr mark mumbling "f*** this boring s***, there's better flicks on torrents"
06:10pm 07/01/13 Permalink
IVY_MiKe
Canberra, Australian Capital Territory
1363 posts
I saw it over the weekend, I decided to let the movie experience not be interrupted by any kind of 3D and was actually quite surprised by it.

I fully expected it (as a movie) to go the route of 'The Fellowship of the Ring' and just 'not end' but 'cut to credits'
I was pleasantly surprised.

Also, Andy Serkis is a f***** boss, end of story.
(FYI if you've not seen any of the LOTR DVD Featurettes I HIGHLY recommend the ones that cover the 'creation' and 'acting' of Gollum from the LOTR movies. Interesting guy, interesting story!)

I prefer to let HBO read the titties to me

Quote of the thread thus far
06:15pm 07/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16476 posts
i've been thinking about what the movie would have been like if it was still just 2 movies instead of 3. i'm guessing at least an hour would have been cut from this film and replaced with footage from the next.
06:24pm 07/01/13 Permalink
mental
Brisbane, Queensland
3732 posts
Yeah, but I think I prefer the movie spread into three with bits and pieces added than two movie of the hobbit and another one of bits and pieces. The timeline is better this way.
07:24pm 07/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16480 posts
i'm glad they've gone with 3 movies as well. people were skeptical because it such a short book, but if you've read the book, a lot of stuff is quickly glossed over, for example, the battle of five armies is only like a page long in the book. it's not like LOTR where tolkien spends 10 pages just describing the leaves.

07:41pm 07/01/13 Permalink
Deviouz
Melbourne, Victoria
286 posts
48FPS 3D

I just saw it tonight, really loved it, was so crisp and the details through action was amazing, the fps helped alot and It didnt really get too far into "TV" feel to pull me out of it, enjoyed the pacing too
12:59am 08/01/13 Permalink
Taipan
USA
3991 posts
Just curious and this may sound like a slightly odd question.

Are there any slow motion action sequences like we tend to see fairly often in movies these days?

I am curious because id like to know how such scenes would srub up at 48fps. I would assume that theyd look pretty damn sweet but i wouldnt know because i am pretty sure i have never seen a movie which has been filmed at that frame rate.

What other movies have been filmed at this rate if any, anyone care to fill me in?
02:38am 08/01/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7136 posts
Stuff added apparently includes scenes like the wizards and the elves having that meetup, which apparently mirrors a similar council which happened in the extended books except 90 years prior. Gandalf was also meant to be the one who discovered the necromancer years earlier, but slotting in the brown wizard made up for his absence in the lord of the rings.
02:42am 08/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16483 posts

Are there any slow motion action sequences like we tend to see fairly often in movies these days?

I am curious because id like to know how such scenes would srub up at 48fps. I would assume that theyd look pretty damn sweet but i wouldnt know because i am pretty sure i have never seen a movie which has been filmed at that frame rate.

What other movies have been filmed at this rate if any, anyone care to fill me in?


i don't remember any slow-mo action scenes. i think this part was in slow motion but it's not an action scene.

http://i.imgur.com/mDYfZ.gif

as for your second question, this movie is the first commercially made movie shot at 48fps. there wont be any others until the sequels. there are rumours that bryan singer may shoot xmen: days of future past in 48fps. also, i believe james cameron wants to shoot his avatar sequels at 60fps.
10:48am 08/01/13 Permalink
Taipan
USA
3992 posts
I dont tend to keep up with that kind of information so thanks for that rav :-)
10:58am 08/01/13 Permalink
trog
AGN Admin
Brisbane, Queensland
36640 posts
Are there any slow motion action sequences like we tend to see fairly often in movies these days?
No, it was all stupid shakycam stuff which I thought actually looked worse at 48fps.

edit: shakycam is probably a bit rough. It certainly wasn't bad; I just found a some of the fast action fight scenes a bit irritating and not taking advantage of the tech as well as it could. Some of the fight scenes were awesome (in particular the first one with Thror and the Pale Orc).

The 48fps thing was neat and weird for the first 5 minutes but then I settled into it. I spent a lot of the movie wondering if gamers would really notice the difference because we're so used to watching a lot of media at 60fps anyway.

I was also amused that I was really easily able to see how crappy the screens were at Event Indooroopilly - the really fluid motion and clarity of the video means when there is a scene that is predominantly white, it's basically like shining a really good torch right on the screen, so it was really easy to see defects / marks in the screen behind it.

last edited by trog at 12:01:41 08/Jan/13
11:19am 08/01/13 Permalink
ravn0s
Brisbane, Queensland
16484 posts
No, it was all stupid shakycam stuff which I thought actually looked worse at 48fps.


i don't recall any shaky cam.
11:56am 08/01/13 Permalink
tspec
Melbourne, Victoria
3686 posts
The flashback scene with the battle against Azog's army was largely slowmo, I didn't think it looked quite right in 48fps but was fine in 24fps.
12:32pm 08/01/13 Permalink
Nerf Lord
Brisbane, Queensland
7138 posts
I remember aragon jumping to fight wraiths, and off a pirate ship, and charging mordor, and trying to get away from a troll, in slow mo, off the top of my head. So slow mow wouldn't be entirely unusual for the series.

I'm unsure why I'm even arguing this.

http://hoodedutilitarian.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Comic-Book-Guy-scar1.jpg
01:04pm 08/01/13 Permalink
Tollaz0r!
Brisbane, Queensland
13300 posts
I watched this tonight. I was happy with it. An awful lot of walking though. Gandelf was pretty badass in this one.
11:12pm 29/01/13 Permalink
mental
Brisbane, Queensland
3770 posts
Less walking than the book. Wonder how they are going to handle thanking area time in mirkwood without bogging down. Such a long wait for the next film.
11:32pm 29/01/13 Permalink
system
Internet
--
11:32pm 29/01/13 Permalink
AusGamers Forums
Show: per page
1
This thread is archived and cannot be replied to.