Jump to content


Entertainment Earth


Toggle shoutbox Squawkbox Open the Shoutbox in a popup

Please don't post Youtube videos in the chat box. The forums software auto embeds them. 

@  LBD "Nyt... : (27 July 2016 - 01:40 AM)

TMW you see a bunch of people have liked something you posted while you were away, and you're like "what did I even say?!"

@  Bass X0 : (26 July 2016 - 05:26 PM)

Regarding MTMTE#55 being released early in some places, its okay to discuss the contents of the issue as long as spoilers are kept within the thread. I refuse to read discussion threads of comics I have yet to read to avoid being spoiled. I also find it pointless to go into a discussion thread and expect to not be spoiled if you have yet to read the issue (unless you don't care).

@  The Doctor Who : (26 July 2016 - 07:11 AM)

@Patchy 'cause people like how the kaiser rolls!

@  MEDdMI : (26 July 2016 - 05:47 AM)

I'm officially addicted to the Comics theme. Every other themes are dull and boring now, I can't stand to look at them for more than a few posts.

@  Broadside : (26 July 2016 - 03:59 AM)

"Beast Wars anniversary"? Highly dubious.

@  Patchouli Kn... : (26 July 2016 - 12:16 AM)

How come everybody wanna keep it like the kaiser?

@  zephyrX9 : (26 July 2016 - 12:16 AM)

the kaiser stole our beast wars toys

@  ▲ndrusi : (25 July 2016 - 08:35 PM)

beast wars dicketeth anniversary

@  Locoman : (25 July 2016 - 07:16 PM)

My story begins in nineteen-dickety-two. We had to say "dickety" because the Kaiser had stolen our word "twenty". I chased that rascal to get it back, but gave up after dickety-six miles.

@  Telly : (25 July 2016 - 05:21 PM)

its the rye of the kaiser its the thrill of the the fight

@  ▲ndrusi : (25 July 2016 - 05:18 PM)

Fierce Grape?

@  OrionPax44 : (25 July 2016 - 05:09 PM)

The Rye or the Kaiser.

@  tffan01 : (25 July 2016 - 04:55 PM)

watch?v=gyKOM3469_Y I've found this weird kids video.

@  OrionPax44 : (25 July 2016 - 04:20 PM)

Doozer Sticks

@  The Doctor Who : (25 July 2016 - 04:19 PM)

Fraggle Rock!

@  OrionPax44 : (25 July 2016 - 04:18 PM)

Happy Pop (nauseating just saying it)

@  TheMightyMol... : (25 July 2016 - 03:51 PM)

Hard Rock Hallelujah!

@  OrionPax44 : (25 July 2016 - 03:48 PM)

Soggy Rock

@  Dracula : (25 July 2016 - 02:36 PM)

Tank Concrete!

@  MEDdMI : (25 July 2016 - 02:16 PM)

the Third.

@  TheMightyMol... : (25 July 2016 - 02:16 PM)

Flint Chesthair!

@  OrionPax44 : (25 July 2016 - 02:12 PM)

Sheeps Butt Ramsbottom

@  MEDdMI : (25 July 2016 - 02:08 PM)

Fancypants

@  TheMightyMol... : (25 July 2016 - 02:01 PM)

Biggles.

@  Summer : (25 July 2016 - 01:55 PM)

Jones.

@  PlutoniumBoss : (25 July 2016 - 12:08 PM)

Osmosis.

@  TheMightyMol... : (25 July 2016 - 11:09 AM)

Mayhem is, somewhat ironically, one of the least random parts of the board. I really don't know how that happened.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (25 July 2016 - 06:34 AM)

Not even close.

@  MEDdMI : (25 July 2016 - 05:51 AM)

What, Mayhem isn't random enough???

@  NotVeryKnightly : (25 July 2016 - 04:02 AM)

This place never feels random enough in that respect.

@  TheMightyMol... : (25 July 2016 - 02:10 AM)

I thought that was snarking at random strangers without fear of retribution.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (24 July 2016 - 07:22 PM)

Topic-specific threads are the main feature of messageboards like this, you know.

@  NotVeryKnightly : (24 July 2016 - 07:21 PM)

You should ask that in the TFWiki thread.

@  tffan01 : (24 July 2016 - 07:21 PM)

watch?v=94l4qCKMYZ0  

@  tffan01 : (24 July 2016 - 07:18 PM)

there's a pewdiepie video promoting Transformers Earth Wars and it is an official promotion video, does this mean he should get a tfwiki page?

@  ▲ndrusi : (24 July 2016 - 07:01 PM)

I thought King Kong '05 was pretty great! I just wish I hadn't watched it as a double feature with that movie about the island with the giant bugs.

@  tffan01 : (24 July 2016 - 04:46 PM)

yeah it was long as hell, it took me several days to finish it.

@  Paladin : (24 July 2016 - 11:58 AM)

maybe this new one won't take half a day to watch all the way through...

@  tffan01 : (24 July 2016 - 11:00 AM)

I believe this new Kong movie will not be as good as the 2005 one.

@  Pennpenn : (24 July 2016 - 08:52 AM)

You'd figure something like that would get a pass, some kind of grandfather clause since the name is already intractably established.

@  Paladin : (24 July 2016 - 08:15 AM)

"DS-1 Orbital Battle Station." That's the official classification...

@  Bass X0 : (24 July 2016 - 08:04 AM)

now that Hasbro can't use the word "Death" on the packaging of their toys, what will they call the Death Star?

@  Whirl Maximus : (24 July 2016 - 07:44 AM)

It's in the comic con trailer and seems like a hideous waste. I guess the show makers have no reverence for Doctor Who like they do Star Trek.

@  Bass X0 : (24 July 2016 - 04:20 AM)

Which is the height of quality for Family Guy jokes...

@  Whirl Maximus : (24 July 2016 - 04:00 AM)

David Tennent has done a cutaway for Family Guy. Don't get to excited it was a fart joke.

@  Broadside : (23 July 2016 - 03:17 PM)

"Micronauts: Starring psychic Peter Quill and E123-Omega".

@  Broadside : (23 July 2016 - 03:16 PM)

Ooh, sounds neat.

@  Sockie : (23 July 2016 - 01:16 PM)

Yeah, the first was definitely the weakest of the three. Really looking forward to the next issue; judging by the preview for it, it's delving into Karza and Shazraella's past and Microspace's exact political situation.

@  Broadside : (23 July 2016 - 01:11 PM)

I was ambivalent about the first issue, but the quality stepped up in the second and again in the third.

@  Sockie : (23 July 2016 - 10:37 AM)

And yes, Micronauts is great! I enjoyed the first three issues quite a lot.


Photo
- - - - -

Peter Jackson Wants to Change the Way You Watch Movies


50 replies to this topic

#1 Master Fwiffo

Master Fwiffo

    HUZZAH!

  • Retired Staff
  • 18499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Lost Light
  • Faction::Minicon

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:00 PM

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212

QUOTE
CinemaCon 2012: Monty Cristo Has Seen (Some of) THE HOBBIT at 48 Frames Per Second
Published at: Apr 24, 2012 3:58:10 PM CDT

?Monty Cristo" reporting in from filthy Las Vegas.



"Do not think I won?t kill you, dwarf?

?We eats it WHOLE!?

?One?of nine?



The instant this morning's Warner Bros presentation ended, the audience erupted in chatter. Almost everyone had just seen something that had never hit their eyes before. Forget 2D versus 3D, this is going to be a hell of a conversation come December (earlier, if they demo it).



Filmmaking at 48 frames per second, whether 3D or not, is going to be massively divisive.



For 80 years, we've been living with the 24fps standard, and people are used to the strobing and motion blur associated with it. It's that hard-to-describe look that we associate with a movie feeling like a movie. It?s a certain resolution and a certain number of still images hitting our eyes each second.



Now that "Digital Cinema" is taking over, the next step beyond resolution (1080p, 2K, 4K, or 8K, or whatever else) is the frame rate frontier. It?s being breached as we speak. With such a focus on 3D, more frames in those films will mean less headaches and blur and so on.



When I saw the HOBBIT trailer at 24fps in December at BNAT, there was something somewhat off. I felt it most directly in the bits that involved fast cutting and motion. My eyes had to do a lot of work to soak in everything they were seeing. Even after seeing it three times, I felt I?d missed things.



48fps makes those moments more fluid and clear, but there's something that people will absolutely hate about this upfront.



It's different, first of all, but the big issue people walked out of the room this morning feeling is that the look of THE HOBBIT is not what they associate with filmic, or movie-like, or at all traditionally cinematic. The effect of watching 1970?s BBC television dramas as compared to US TV from the same era was mentioned by various people around me.



In the opening minutes, I thought to myself "this looks like the TV department when they turn on 120Hz or TruMotion or whatever they call it". At once, it really doesn?t look like that. The smooth motion clarity is similar, but the 120Hz TV setting is the TV inventing visual information to fill in loads of completely nonexistent frames, creating the bulljive garbage you see walking through most TV departments in stores. Again, there is an element that 48fps and TruMotion share (which is where the comparison comes from), but 48 fps does not simply ?look like Korean soap operas? or TruMotion-enhanced TV images. That?s a reductive, sensationalist, utterly bulljive equivocation.



Despite that, loads of exhibitors and attendees echoed that exact thought all around me. The cinematic filter between the action and the audience is dissolved in favor of a more immediate lens on the world of the movie.



The High Frame Rate Effect is something that will take getting used to, and some will absolutely reject it outright. Many will do so pre-emptively. It?s already happening all over Twitter.



To be honest, it kind of terrified me at first. In his pre-recorded intro, Peter Jackson said that the reason we were seeing 10 minutes of content was that "it takes your eyes a little bit to adjust", and that is absolutely the case. The immersive experience was not immediate, but gradual. I felt much more comfortable toward the end of the presentation, but still disconcerted and outside a comfort zone.



The most upfront benefit I felt was in landscape and action sequences, where surprisingly intricate detail was easily absorbed, even in a very, very wide shot. I was drawing in more visual information than my brain was used to processing.



Motion blur was gone completely in fast-moving action scenes and dark environment. In general, 48fps has the ability to be at once crisp and smooth, subtle and bold. It is a maelstrom of contradictions when compared to the loads of filmed content I?ve seen in my life. Others started pronouncing it over immediately upon exiting, but I am not passing that judgment (or any for that matter) yet. I saw ten minutes of unfinished, un-graded, incomplete footage as a cross-section, not a full feature film.



I have major reservations, but at the same time am beyond awed at many elements of what hit my visual cortex. Recalling the sweeping landscape shots they opened with now, I almost feel tears welling, and I can?t explain why. It was overwhelming in the most literal sense. It directly assaults your synapses with twice as much information through your retinas as you have become conditioned to expect from traditional cinema. I did not see the digital seams around creatures like Gollum and the trolls, a major benefit over 24fps. The creatures had a sense of mass in the environment, which was disconcerting in a good way.



I started getting acclimated, and then it cut away again, and again, and again. The scene that really allowed me to relax and get used to it was the scene with Bilbo and Gollum in the cave, the longest segment they showed us. If there had been more contiguous sequences like that, cut together like a full scene (albeit with unfinished color grading and effects), I think the response might have been very different in that room today. The enemy of a radically new presentation like 48fps is the sizzle reel format of cutting. People needed to be given the benefit of their patience not being tried by rapid cutting back and forth from non-contiguous scenes.



My call is that it was a less than ideal way to introduce something that, despite it all, managed to actually show promise in places.



I just had three people in the press suite agree that they did in fact think the Bilbo/Gollum scene worked, no reservations. Those same people said that all the brief clips ?felt? like the 1970 I, CLAUDIUS in HD. They agreed that if they?d seen two or three sequences of that length, they may have been less reflexively averse to it. The most bizarre thing is that I found Jeffrey Wells singing 48fps? praises and guys like Alex Billington slamming it and setting it on fire.



I think anyone making a definitive pronouncement (positive or negative) based on that presentation does not have enough proper representative data. I?m a presentation obsessive when it comes to aspect ratio, resolution, contrast, color grading, and all the nitty gritty. For my part, I?m still holding out. I don?t think I (or anyone) got the right representative look at it. Keep that in mind as you read what I?m sure will be loads of articles calling for 48fps? pre-emptive death.



At once, I am beset with wonder at what the Battle of Five Armies will look like in motion. I wonder at what Smaug will look like in motion. There is so much more to see before all of that, which I assume is going to be in the second movie anyway.



Jackson mentioned something in his intro that I don?t think he was hedging with, about the frame rate of silent pictures being 16-18fps, and how going to 24fps was a big leap in the day. Think of the relative jump: from silent to sound, a few decades pass and they increase the number of frames by 50%?in this case, 80 years pass and they increase the frame rate to 150% more. This is a massive shift in visual clarity, composition, and perception. Like I said, if you thought 2D versus 3D has been fun, this is a quantum jump into another realm of perception, and I expect the debate to be exponentially more heated.



There's so much more that's gone on too, but this is the biggest industry-wide thing that's gone down since I've been here.





For reference, here are some things I saw in the footage itself that weren?t in the existing trailer:



Dwarves crossing mountains, bobbing down a river in barrels, and fighting trolls.

Gandalf in a dungeon, searching for?something. Some other thing is in there with him.

Gandalf showing Elrond and Galadriel a sword that troubles them deeply.

Legolas drawing his bow, and threatening to use it.

Bilbo and Gollum in a cave.

If just for a moment?Saruman.



Bring your best, Talkbackers. What say you?



Mois?s Chiullan
"Monty Cristo"


I'm very curious now to watch some film footage at 48 FPS...

ty3jHaa.jpg


#2 Cheetimus Primal

Cheetimus Primal

    Commissions! cheetimus@cheetimus.com

  • Retired Staff
  • 48237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore
  • Faction::RIBFIR

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:17 PM

THANK GOD!
Every time I see a movie I like I think to myself, "I can't wait to get this on Bluray so it'll look better and I can see everything more clearly."
I welcome this change wholeheartedly.
24674394486_13a96b16e0_o.jpg

#3 Sprocket

Sprocket

    Problematic.

  • Citizen
  • 8603 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:19 PM

Is that like with those newer HDTVs I see in Best Buy and PC Richards and how the footage has this unnatural looking speed to it that comes and goes depending on the scene?

Because I hate that.
Being part of any fandom is fundamentally embarassing.

#4 Cheetimus Primal

Cheetimus Primal

    Commissions! cheetimus@cheetimus.com

  • Retired Staff
  • 48237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore
  • Faction::RIBFIR

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:22 PM

Because you don't own one. When I got my TV it was so odd yet with Bluray movies it was transfixing. It took me a while to get used to it but once I did I was in love.
Of course I adjust the framerate depending on what I'm watching, that only makes sense.

Believe me, watching the right stuff in the comfort of your home is grand. It makes going to the movies a tad lamer.
24674394486_13a96b16e0_o.jpg

#5 ChessPieceFace

ChessPieceFace

    You make me strange.

  • Administrator
  • 21608 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:30 PM

I was subjected to Captain America with that TV setting turned on. It was abominable.

I hope if 48fps does become The Next Big Thing, it looks significantly better than that setting. I assume it will, since that's just a simulation and not actual native 48fps. Definitely won't be seeing The Hobbit to find out, though.

card-overlord.jpg


#6 TM2-Megatron

TM2-Megatron
  • Supporter
  • 9842 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Canada
  • Faction::Equestrian

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:35 PM

I hate the motion interpolation feature (known by various brand-specific names) on 120Hz+ HDTVs, and always leave it off for film and television content. The two HDTVs I have are 120Hz and 240Hz, so on both I had to go in and disable it. Maybe a movie filmed natively in 48fps might look different, and I'll certainly give it a chance, but I hate watching a native 24fps movie with the "soap opera effect" since it completely draws me out of the film. It's as if it triggers some subconscious recognition of a sense of artifice in the motion of what's happening on screen, and maybe that's what it is... the thing is only a consumer-tier DSP effect, after all; and how good is that really going to be? The TV has to invent all the new frames based on the existing ones, and you end up with more of those generated frames than true ones. Even if it's almost right, almost isn't enough when it comes to natural motion. Something is either natural, or artificial; and the human brain is pretty good at distinguishing the difference.

If I watched sports, I might turn it on for that (but I don't watch sports, so it's not an issue). But for a film, I like a bit of blur. And I've been subjected to motion interpolation on a regular basis for as long as a month, when I was staying with an aunt and uncle in France, and I never got used to it. Not everyone can get used to that; my mind rejects it.

Edited by TM2-Megatron, 24 April 2012 - 05:38 PM.


#7 mx-01 archon

mx-01 archon

    Hello, world

  • Supporter
  • 18250 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:47 PM

Oh good, I'm not the only one who hates that "Soap Opera effect" from the TruMotion feature on new TVs. It just looks unnatural. The effect of 24FPS is so commonplace that it's literally ingrained in my mind as part of the cinematic feeling.

Although I really do wonder how true 48FPS differs. I somehow doubt it looks as blatantly artificial as TruMotion.

#8 DarkeklawGW

DarkeklawGW

    Slowly losing myself in a good way

  • Citizen
  • 5918 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Effort. Pennsylvania. (I'm a travelin' Man)
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:51 PM

Well this isn't a filter or algarythm... This is more frames being sent to your eyes per second. In other words instead of the tv guessing at what's happening the information will actually be on the screen.

For Bella Rose Fraizer-Grant Sept 8, 2011 to Nov 26th 2011... Pop-pop will always love you!!!!

 


#9 BlitzwingHaz

BlitzwingHaz

    "Wooo! I'm freaking out!"

  • Citizen
  • 16036 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Scotland

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:57 PM

It sounds interesting, like your brain will see it more as real life instead of animation. Eager to see this in motion.

#10 Benbot

Benbot
  • Supporter
  • 3688 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 April 2012 - 05:58 PM

TruMotion or whatever else it is called sucks because it's making up frames to fill in between the real ones. 48fps is the future unlike 3D. It will make old 24fps look as bad as SD.

#11 TM2-Megatron

TM2-Megatron
  • Supporter
  • 9842 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Canada
  • Faction::Equestrian

Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:08 PM

QUOTE(Benbot @ Apr 24 2012, 06:58 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
It will make old 24fps look as bad as SD.


I doubt it'll ever be quite that extreme. Decades of cinematic history exist in that format and, like the "organic" sound of vinyl I think 24fps film will always have its aficionados and retain some charm. 3-D has its place, too, even if it's not "the future". It seems to be here to stay this time; just not for every film.

Not everything needs to look as if you were looking at it through a picture window, anyway. The 24fps effect can also add a unique quality to something that takes place in very unreal/fantastical/etc. settings, when not giving off a sense of the real world is beneficial. Middle Earth is that kind of setting, of course, lol, but I won't mind seeing The Hobbit at 48fps. In fact, I'll probably try to see it in two different theaters to judge the difference for myself. It shouldn't be that hard to find an older theatre that can't afford 48fps digital equipment.

Edited by TM2-Megatron, 24 April 2012 - 06:09 PM.


#12 Dessl0ck

Dessl0ck
  • Citizen
  • 644 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oklahoma City
  • Faction::Vehicon

Posted 24 April 2012 - 06:12 PM

I love this feature.. but I have as of yet figured out if my plasma even has that ability.
The Once and Future Leader

#13 CORVUS

CORVUS

    Can you hear the thunder thatís breaking?

  • Supporter
  • 30620 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia, PA
  • Faction::Autobot

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:44 PM

QUOTE(ChessPieceFace @ Apr 24 2012, 06:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Definitely won't be seeing The Hobbit to find out, though.

Why?

Transformers is a brand that really has something for everyone. We are a darn lucky fandom.

 

card_grandmaximus.jpg


#14 Cheetimus Primal

Cheetimus Primal

    Commissions! cheetimus@cheetimus.com

  • Retired Staff
  • 48237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore
  • Faction::RIBFIR

Posted 24 April 2012 - 07:52 PM

So much hate.
*shrugs and goes back to enjoying his TV*
24674394486_13a96b16e0_o.jpg

#15 Robowang

Robowang

    Predacon Oyster

  • Supporter
  • 2275 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Your fantasies
  • Faction::Predacon

Posted 24 April 2012 - 08:00 PM

This is all way over my head, but I really wish I had someone here to show me on my big screen what all this means. I always thought soap operas looked like they were filmed differently than regular shows, but I didn't understand why. I thought it was lighting or something. I guess I still don't understand why. All I know is that I can't get things on my big TV to look as nice as they do in the store.

#16 Cheetimus Primal

Cheetimus Primal

    Commissions! cheetimus@cheetimus.com

  • Retired Staff
  • 48237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baltimore
  • Faction::RIBFIR

Posted 24 April 2012 - 08:09 PM

True motion tends to make things look like they're moving more fluidly but it's still 2-D so it comes off as just odd. And when the frame rate is already low such as with none bluray movies it looks extra odd when the camera pans side to side as that tends to have a better frame rate than the film itself. If you're not used to it the effect can be jarring.
I expect it's really uncomfortable for those prone to motion sickness but I'm not one of those people so I'm just guessing.
24674394486_13a96b16e0_o.jpg

#17 DarkeklawGW

DarkeklawGW

    Slowly losing myself in a good way

  • Citizen
  • 5918 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Effort. Pennsylvania. (I'm a travelin' Man)
  • Faction::Free Agent

Posted 24 April 2012 - 08:33 PM

QUOTE(Robowang @ Apr 24 2012, 09:00 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
This is all way over my head, but I really wish I had someone here to show me on my big screen what all this means. I always thought soap operas looked like they were filmed differently than regular shows, but I didn't understand why. I thought it was lighting or something. I guess I still don't understand why. All I know is that I can't get things on my big TV to look as nice as they do in the store.

Most Soaps aren't filmed on Film anymore they are filmed on video tape or digital because it's a faster turn around to the editing room. That's why the soaps look a clear and crisp as the nightly news while other weekly shows (Like say the office) are shot on film.

For Bella Rose Fraizer-Grant Sept 8, 2011 to Nov 26th 2011... Pop-pop will always love you!!!!

 


#18 Aberration

Aberration
  • Citizen
  • 2154 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Faction::Maximal

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:21 PM

I'm not sure if the majority of Blu-rays are giving us more than 24fps. Looking at the specs here:

http://en.wikipedia....-ray_Disc#Video

it looks like the main choices are 1080p/24fps, 1080i/60fps, 720p/60fps, and 720p/24fps. I can't speak for every release out there, but I thought that 1080p is generally the standard. (I remember reading that they specifically released "Red Dwarf: Back to Earth" in 1080i to preserve the framerate though, so it's not unheard of.)

I was reading awhile back that some are actually experimenting with shooting 120fps, and then combining multiple frames to scale back down to 24/48/60fps. I'm actually more curious about the results of all this than I am with almost anything 3D.

#19 Cybersnark

Cybersnark

    Sorry I'm late. Had to get my powersuit.

  • Citizen
  • 9403 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Toronto, Ontario, Canada
  • Faction::Equestrian

Posted 24 April 2012 - 09:53 PM

QUOTE(DarkeklawGW @ Apr 24 2012, 09:33 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Most Soaps aren't filmed on Film anymore they are filmed on video tape or digital because it's a faster turn around to the editing room.

It's also much, much, much, MUCH cheaper. Filmstock tends to run hundreds of dollars per inch, IIRC.

Edited by Cybersnark, 24 April 2012 - 09:53 PM.


#20 ChessPieceFace

ChessPieceFace

    You make me strange.

  • Administrator
  • 21608 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, CA

Posted 24 April 2012 - 10:05 PM

QUOTE(^0^CORVUS^o^ @ Apr 24 2012, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
QUOTE(ChessPieceFace @ Apr 24 2012, 06:30 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Definitely won't be seeing The Hobbit to find out, though.

Why?

No interesting reason, just don't care to. Didn't read the book, don't like the whole elves-n-s*** genre, was bored by the LotR movies.

card-overlord.jpg




Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users