or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 22

post #631 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by obsidian View Post

Thanks! That's kind of what I was thinking...it's their competition so it might not have it. If so, you can either watch it on a smaller screen with Atmos or on the larger IMAX screen w/o Atmos....I'll take the bigger screen. Too bad we can't get both smile.gif If the movie is good enough maybe I'll go back and see it in an Atmos theater.

You assume that IMAX is automatically the largest screen. When it comes to digital IMAX theaters, that may not be the case. XD and RPX screens may be as large or larger than d-IMAX.
post #632 of 944
Another video blog up for viewing.
post #633 of 944
An awesome TV spot, with a hint of the great worm, SMAUG!
post #634 of 944
I was able to see the film today in 3D 48fps.. if anyone is interested in comments, please PM me and I'd be happy to share privately.. smile.gif
post #635 of 944
Well that's reassuring.
post #636 of 944
post #637 of 944
post #638 of 944
I was at the hobbit premiere and definitely did not feel sick. NO ONE did from what I could tell. I will say that a lot of people may not like the look of 48fps though. It is shockingly different than 24fps. For those people that don't like "digital" or "video" looking movies and like their picture to be "film-like" 48 fps might not be for you. It is VERY clear and reminds of having frame interpolation turned way up. A little bit soap opera-effect looking. Having said that, I LOVED it. It was the best theater experience of my life with the combination of BRIGHT 3D (supposedly 12fl), dolby atmos (which is used amazingly in the cave scenes), and 48fps. Absolutely awesome awesome awesome and the movie is (in my opinion) more fun than ROTK.

PM me if you want more info.
post #639 of 944
post #640 of 944

Sounds like PJ did to The Hobbit what he did to King Kong.
post #641 of 944
I would say this is fairly close to how I felt about the film, both visually and dramatically..

Mr. Beaks "Hobbit" Review

THERE ARE SPOILERS IN THE LINKED REVIEW.

THE QUOTE HERE MENTIONS ONE SPECIFIC SHOT FROM THE PROLOGUE OF THE FILM.. I DON'T THINK IT A SPOILER, BUT DON'T WANT TO GET ANGRY REPLIES IN CASE ANYONE ELSE DOES. smile.gif

______________________________________________

Quote:
With THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY, Peter Jackson has set himself the bizarre challenge of returning to the site of his magnum opus to tell a smaller-in-scope tale via the use of cutting-edge technology (i.e. 48-frames-per-second 3D). It's a lot to reconcile. As the film sprints through its chaotic prologue, narrative coherence takes a backseat to high-definition visual wizardry; it's a bewildering barrage of footage that looks either spectacular or gallingly fake. But then Jackson's virtual camera plunges deep into the fully-digitized Lonely Mountain to reveal the discovery of the Arkenstone, and suddenly the alleged game-changing promise of AVATAR has finally been realized. What's real and what isn't? I haven't a clue, but it looks amazing. This is the future of event filmmaking, and the possibilities for a director of Jackson's talents to explode it are seemingly endless.

But there are kinks to work out. Many, many kinks. So many that I wonder if Jackson wishes he could've delayed shooting AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY another year while they figured out how to eliminate the occasional and terribly distracting undercranked effect of actors zipping around like coked-up Mack Sennett characters. Also, while the clarity can be awe-inspriring, it has a tendency to make the sets look cheap, the armor chintzy, and the makeup barely worthy of an Asylum production. AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY in high-frame-rate 3D is a deep, vicious pendulum swing between transporting and flat-out unwatchable - and it's impossible to fully adjust to the format because you never know when it's suddenly going to look like a demo reel.

Would I feel differently had I viewed the film in standard 24fps 3D? Well, jarring tech hiccups aside, I'd still have to contend with the interminable first act, which left me feeling like I was watching the biggest artistic miscalculation from an elite filmmaker since SKIDOO. So probably no.
post #642 of 944
post #643 of 944
It sounds like like they are only releasing the Extended Editions this time.
post #644 of 944
Got the LOTR EE theatrical marathon this weekend to get me into the mood (I hope I can handle sitting in a theater for that long) and then the next weekend The Hobbit in HFR 3D. I'm worried about the HFR version looking like the motion interpolation on my television, since I absolutely DESPISE it. But I figured Jackson filmed it that way so that's how I plan on seeing it.
post #645 of 944
I am now 110% on seeing this in 2D first. That way if I enjoy the film, I can see it in 3D/48 and either go WOW or GROSS. It's best to see it the way I enjoy seing films FIRST, that way nothing can distract me from the film itself.
post #646 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt_Stevens View Post

I am now 110% on seeing this in 2D first. That way if I enjoy the film, I can see it in 3D/48 and either go WOW or GROSS. It's best to see it the way I enjoy seing films FIRST, that way nothing can distract me from the film itself.

Unless I sit behind you kicking the seat biggrin.gif
post #647 of 944
I now that there has been tests as hight as 300fps.
post #648 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbr View Post

I now that there has been tests as hight as 300fps.

yeah we'll get that for the next 2 films
post #649 of 944
The reviews I'm reading are overly negative.. I honestly can't believe they're saying its overlong compared to lotr. It is way more action packed and "fun" than rotk. I'm not some crazy Tolkien fanboy, just an honest film fan. The movie is great, the technology is amazing. The 48fps will infuriate some people, but so did color when it came out.
post #650 of 944
Three books made into three films.

One small book made into three films.

Hence... padding. Lots of it, from what they are saying. I think Jackson should have made two two-hour films. But he doesn't have the discipline (and I say this as a fan).
post #651 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallnick View Post

The 48fps will infuriate some people, but so did color when it came out.

It's not the same thing. We've already seen the effects of "faster frame rate". Although I don't expect the film to look like a cheap afternoon soap or a 120Hz LCD... It's just that for more than a century we didn't need that to get "immersed" into a movie, so I'm still a bit skeptical. It will always come down to the film itself, the rest is just decoration...
post #652 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by tallnick View Post

The reviews I'm reading are overly negative.. I honestly can't believe they're saying its overlong compared to lotr. It is way more action packed and "fun" than rotk. I'm not some crazy Tolkien fanboy, just an honest film fan. The movie is great, the technology is amazing. The 48fps will infuriate some people, but so did color when it came out.

Regarding the HRF, did you find that you were aware of the look for the entire film? Or did it fade behind the film itself after a while?
post #653 of 944
One reviewer published his review and then went and saw the movie again. Here is his second impression;
Quote:
SECOND THOUGHTS:

At the time this story was originally published on Monday night, I was seeing "The Hobbit" for the second time, again at 48fps. And I have to admit that not only did the movie strike me as better -- faster and more entertaining, though still padded and at times silly -- but the format wasn't as bothersome.

I still think the high frame rate takes you out of the movie at times, particularly in scenes that feature well-lit actors prominently in the frame. But about half the time, the format came closer to justifying Jackson's experiment than it had seemed on first viewing.

So maybe I'm just one of those viewers who needs more time to adjust.
post #654 of 944
It's a crying shame that Del Toro wasn't allowed to make The Hobbit. I would have really liked to see his take on it.
post #655 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpgator View Post

It's a crying shame that Del Toro wasn't allowed to make The Hobbit. I would have really liked to see his take on it.
I doubt PJ would have let GDT make The Hobbit his Hobbit.wink.gif
Del Toro would have been in a lose/lose situation....he would have been blamed for anything and everything the LOTR fanbois didn't approve of.
IMO, he was wise to move on.
post #656 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by corpgator View Post

It's a crying shame that Del Toro wasn't allowed to make The Hobbit. I would have really liked to see his take on it.

Not me, he would have made some abstract flick which would have lost half the audience.
post #657 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auditor55 View Post

Not me, he would have made some abstract flick which would have lost half the audience.

Yeah, some totally confusing, abstract art film... like Hellboy. rolleyes.gif
post #658 of 944
GDT has great imagination and visual flare flair, especially when compared to other big-time filmmakers.
post #659 of 944
I just went through almost all the available Rotten Tomatoes reviews mostly out of interest regarding the 48fps issue. The overwhelming impression is that the issues raised by the original preview screenings remain. Over and over the look is referred to as
"Like TV. Like a BBC television program, or home movie, rather than a film." And usually with some distaste for the look.

Yuck.

I'm going to see it because I want to judge for myself, but given I detest the look of frame interpolation available on most new displays on movies, I'm not going in with hopes high. (And I say this as someone once utterly obsessed with trying to see Douglas Trumbull's Showscan).

It will be interesting to see how this technology plays out.
post #660 of 944
So it's clear we will all hate this movie like Prometheus and TDKR. Can we start in on Star Trek already?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home