Amph The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

It's good! I like it. It does its job well. It just isn't "masterful" or "deserving of the highest praise", as I opine the prose in tLOTR is.

Let us not quibble over fine parsings of word meanings! I love The Hobbit dearly, it's just written in a more conversational voice and the prose is not as literary or as elevated, IMHO.

Why is the 48fps thing getting mentioned so much? As I understand it, most cinemas aren't showing it at that frame rate so why is it even an issue?

I just happen to enjoy conversational as well. Makes a great read-aloud. I'm really not disagreeing much.

Because most critics are seeing it that way, so they can review all aspects of the film.

I can understand if they mention it as a footnote along the lines of: "Oh yeah, and if you're one of the few who'll be seeing this at 48fps you may find a bit jarring and that it can make things look a bit fake," but a lot of the reviews I've seen are using it as a major stick to beat the film with.

Because critics are seeing the 48fps version and it's still going to be noticeable in 24fps. And both the cinemas I frequent have 48fps capabilities. It may not be a lot of screens but they reach a lot of people.

Thankfully the one I'll be seeing it at doesn't. Nor will I be seeing it in 3D, which is a relief. They only put the 2D showings up for pre-booking the other day, the swines.

Because there are people like me who are interested as well. Also, seeing it in HFR 3D, then possibly standard 2D

I'll be seeing it 48 fps if I can, so I can get the full effect the director intended. If it doesn't work, I'll be the first to admit it.

You should probably book tickets.....

Also, other people already said they didn't think it worked, so....maybe the fifth to say so or something?

I'll be the first on my (cell) block!

In your cell block.

It's a pun. Deal with the inherent grammatical contradictions.

You might literally live inside a block, too...?

Anyone who thinks Tolkien should have had a better editor should read the friggin' Dostoyevsky. The guy must've been paid by the word count...

I win.

Or Tolstoy. Or Dumas. Or Hugo. Or Zola. Or... I think you get my drift. Truly, some authors' "vichysoisse of verbiage veers most verbose", to quote V, and might have benefited from a good editing. Doesn't mean that the overall result is less satisfying, of course, but sometimes the Anvilicious Soapbox moments do tend to be too much.

Cheers,
Lauré

No, you don't. You quoted Elvis. That means you automatically lose.

Hey, I love Dumas. And I don't mind highly verbose books - if they read well. But Dostoyevsky's prose is so heavy, drags so much - I've tried to read The Brothers Karamazov, but I just couldn't read more than a chapter or so at a time, it was infuriatingly slow and repetitive I kept putting the book down.

Whence the rule? PPOR. Elvis was a winner, and therefore everything he sang instantly trumps any argument made anywhere by anyone. Especially grammatically. PROVE ME WRONG.

My cousin has a TV that's 48 fps, so after getting used to that I should be all set with either one!

But... but... this makes no sense! (Hence the smiley, I suppose.) Video is typically shot 60 fps and film is 24. A 48 fps TV would chop up video and wouldn't even work for any film but The Hobbit and, one presumes, the upcoming Avatar sequels. Color me confuzzled.

Do those even exist? Most TV's nowadays have refresh rates of 60 or 120 hz and 48 fps wouldn't look the same as in a movie theater. The best reference TV-wise would be turning on the "sports mode" or "true motion"-- that is, the settings that make it look like crap.

I'm not sure if her TV is actually 48 fps, but it has the exact same effect that 48 fps seems to have when contrasted with 24 fps in a movie theater.

(Actually showed her the 3 LOTR films on that TV, so I know whatpeople mean when they say it makes the props look less realistic)