or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Hobbit - Page 24

post #691 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Did the theater you seen it in actually project it at 48FPS?
Not all are capable.....
That would tickle me greatly. To find out someone highly praised a 24fps for being 48fps. Kind of like all those "my new amplifier changed the world" threads. Sure it did....
post #692 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Last night at about 6pm I drove by a local theater and there were already about 50 people camped out for the midnight showing....tents and everything (it was really cold).

My daughter told me she wants to see this opening day. I told her no way am I standing in line friday night, I'll just pick her up early from school and we can see a 3pm showing or something. She can miss her last class or two and hopefully the lines won't be crazy for an early showing. She said she did not want to miss class...eek.gif
post #693 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

My daughter told me she wants to see this opening day. I told her no way am I standing in line friday night, I'll just pick her up early from school and we can see a 3pm showing or something. She can miss her last class or two and hopefully the lines won't be crazy for an early showing. She said she did not want to miss class...eek.gif

Our poor misguided youth. We all share in the responsibility. smile.gif
post #694 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

My daughter told me she wants to see this opening day. I told her no way am I standing in line friday night, I'll just pick her up early from school and we can see a 3pm showing or something. She can miss her last class or two and hopefully the lines won't be crazy for an early showing. She said she did not want to miss class...eek.gif
I'll bet a nickel it won't matter what showing you go to....there WILL be lines.wink.gif

Quote:
Originally Posted by Closet Geek View Post

Our poor misguided youth. We all share in the responsibility. smile.gif
LOL, nice one.
post #695 of 944
no other reviews?

no one else saw it at 48fps?

review in paper said it was way too long and drawn out.

what? a pj film that's too long?
post #696 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by mr. wally View Post

no other reviews?
no one else saw it at 48fps?
review in paper said it was way too long and drawn out.
what? a pj film that's too long?

And this is only the first of three. eek.gif Wasn't The Hobbit originally just a thin100 page book or something? PJ's got a whole lot of padding goin' on.

Like others here, I feel like I've done Middle Earth already. Three times. Pass.
post #697 of 944
The Verge had a review for what it's worth.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/12/3760130/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review
Quote:
A decade ago, Peter Jackson pulled off what many thought was impossible: adapting J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings into an epic big-screen trilogy. The movies debuted to critical and commercial acclaim, moving far beyond the boundaries of the fantasy genre, and earning 17 Oscars along the way. The filmmaker has now returned to Middle-earth with a new trilogy based upon The Hobbit. Buttressed by 3D and the somewhat controversial choice of high frame rate photography, An Unexpected Journey joins Bilbo Baggins 60 years before Frodo began his trip to Mordor — but the whimsical fun of Tolkien's novel is bogged down by the movie's excessive length and the conspicuous absence of many elements that made The Lord of the Rings such a pleasure to watch in the first place.

The plot, as it is, hews closely to the source material. Young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman of Sherlock) is visited by Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf, and before he knows what's happening 13 dwarves have landed in his living room. Led by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage, doing his best Rob Zombie impression), the dwarves hope to reclaim their kingdom from the dragon Smaug, and after a lengthy bit of exposition Bilbo decides to join them on their quest.

"There's a surprising lack of charm"

While the set-up may sound like familiar territory, there's a surprising lack of charm here. The Fellowship of the Ring took its time to introduce audiences to the Shire, the life of the Hobbits, and the world in general; it wooed viewers before making the leap to orcs, goblins, and the Eye of Sauron. Here Jackson jumps right into the action, and while this may be true to Tolkien's novel it doesn't quite work in the film. We never get a real sense of who Bilbo is — or why embarking on this journey is such an important choice for him — and beyond some flashbacks Thorin himself is a cipher. The great stakes of a world in crisis simply aren't present in Journey, and the random assortment of dwarves are no match for the compelling charisma of Aragorn in the first trilogy — to say nothing of his love story with Arwen.

Thorin_thehobbit

The attention to character — and the overarching themes of redemption, loss, and reaching beyond one's own abilities — are a major reason why the original Rings trilogy was so accessible to mass audiences. It's something that's sorely missing throughout Journey's nearly three-hour running time. At the end of the film we get a hint similar concepts may be addressed in its sequel, The Desolation of Smaug, but unfortunately the majority of the film plays like overinflated prologue.

It's a problem that not even the charm of McKellen's Gandalf can mask. The cast delivers strong performances across the board, but there's simply not much for them to work with. The problem's underscored when the film returns to the Elven outpost Rivendell. Suddenly surrounded by characters from the original trilogy — Galadriel, Elrond, and Saruman — we're reminded just how poorly the characters in Journey are rendered in comparison.

"Remember the joke that 'LOTR' was people just walking for three hours?"

The deficiency may simply be a matter of choosing to stretch a 300-page novel into a nine-hour epic. One thing Jackson and his writing team did so well in the original trilogy was choosing what to include and what to leave behind — Tom Bombadil, I'm looking at you — but here he incorporates countless elements from the 125 pages of appendices Tolkien included with the publication of The Lord of the Rings. The result is a film that feels like a real grind at times, filled with needless action sequences that rarely provide anything beyond an immediate adrenaline boost. It's a movie about things just happening to people instead of people taking action into their own hands. Remember the joke that The Fellowship of the Ring was just a bunch of people walking around for three hours? In this case, it's actually true.

"Some of the best digital creatures ever created"

That's not to say the film is without its pleasures. It's expertly done on a technical level, and the creature work in particular is astounding. From trolls to The Great Goblin, these are some of the most expressive and nuanced digital creatures ever created. Gollum — again played by Andy Serkis — delivers one of the most emotionally-charged performances in the film. Weta Digital has always shined when it comes to Gollum, but here the character's riddle-off with Bilbo is astounding, and yet another reminder that the effects company is one of the very best in the world.

Gollum_thehobbit_560

Of course, this brings us to the issue of the format. Since the advent of sound, almost all theatrical films have been shot and projected at a specific speed: 24 frames per second. For the new trilogy, Jackson opted to shoot at 48fps, with many theaters projecting it at the same rate under the High Frame Rate 3D (HFR 3D) brand. The director has said in interviews that the format provides a crisper, cleaner viewing experience with a greater sense of immediacy, and he's right.

It also looks downright terrible at times.

"Like a Renaissance Faire shot on mini-DV"

The problem is due largely to what we already associate with the different frame rates. Until recently, video has always been shot at higher frame rates than film, bringing with it a very specific look. Think cable access shows or soap operas — and that's exactly what you see in The Hobbit. Rather than the majestic grandeur presented in the first films, the new entry looks more like a Renaissance Faire recreation shot on your brother's mini-DV camera. It's most jarring in the movie's opening, where we briefly visit Frodo and Bilbo in the moments leading up to Fellowship; we know what these characters in that world should look like, and it simply feels wrong. The mental association with video drops the perceived production value of the entire production, and with strange motion artifacts giving the impression of a sped-up silent film at times, it's hard to understand why Jackson thought this was the time to debut the technology.

"More like watching a video game than a movie"

To be fair, there are some advantages. The clarity is indeed stunning; I could count the pores on Martin Freeman's nose, and wide shots and battles are particularly vivid. Action sequences are unquestionably the high point of Journey, but even then it feels more like watching a video game than a movie. In the moments where HFR works, it's not a question of better or worse as much as it is different. In close shots or daylight sequences, however, I found it a real barrier to simply falling into the movie's world. Jackson claimed in April that it takes only 10 minutes to adjust to the new look. While 48fps certainly became less of a distraction as the movie wore on, its weaknesses never went away — yet another example of The Hobbit tampering with the winning elements of the original LOTR trilogy.

Should you go see it? With films of this caliber that question is almost moot. It's Peter Jackson and it's The Hobbit; of course you should see it. It's best to walk in with tempered expectations, however; this is more Transformers than The Two Towers. As for 48fps, it's a matter of whether you want to see the movie as the director intended with the latest innovation to hit the silver screen — for better or worse.

Personally, I'll be giving the movie a second chance in good old-fashioned 24fps to get as close as possible to the Middle-earth I know and love. Ten years from now, An Unexpected Journey may be seen as an important pivot point: the beginning of a movement where movies and video game sensibilities merged to create a new kind of amusement-park cinema. For a story of romantic adventure and whimsical fun, however, we'll have to see what The Desolation of Smaug has in store when it hits theaters next year.

Sam Thonis contributed to this review.

post #698 of 944
the cinema i saw it in had 48 frames.

you can check if you like.

Pathe Rotterdam ( the kuip ) then you can chose HFR version.

http://www.pathe.nl/bioscoop/dekuip

scroll downm when you see the hobiit and you see HFR behind it.

again i hope more people will see the HFR version and let me know what you guys think. for for me it is just like 3D ( if done right ) like avatar, prometheus and now the hobbit. it will give you a much more pleaseant movie experience.

what the hobbit does. is bring 3D to a higher level we have not experienced before and i love it. now i just have to wait a year again to watch part 2. because i dont think any movie next year will come ot in HFR.

also wondering how an animation movie in HFR will look like.
post #699 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

And this is only the first of three. eek.gif Wasn't The Hobbit originally just a thin100 page book or something? PJ's got a whole lot of padding goin' on.
From my earlier post in this thread:

"130 pages = approximately a 2 hour movie."
Numbers....you want numbers?
WE GOT NUMBERS!

Let's look at those numbers for a moment.
FOTR Theatrical = 178 minutes
FOTR Extended = 208 minutes
Novel (Hardbound) = 531 pages

TTT Theatrical = 179 minutes
TTT Extended = 223 minutes
Novel (Hardboud) = 416

ROTK Theatrical = 201 minutes
ROTK Extended = 251 minutes
Novel (Hardbound) = 624 pages.....Sorry, but I don't have a hardcopy of ROTK and am just using Wikipedia's numbers here.

As has been noted, PJ considers the Theatrical Cuts to be his Director's Cuts, which is fine.
By his admission, he was able to tell the story of FOTR @ ~21 seconds per page: (178/531) = .34 per minute.
Using the "perferred" EE's, FOTR @ ~24 seconds per page: (208/531) = .39 per minute.

TTT Theatrical is done @ ~25.8 seconds per page: (179/416) = .43 per minute.
TTT EE is @ ~32.4 seconds per page: (223/416) = .54 per minute.

ROTK Theatrical is @ ~ 19.2 seconds per page: (201/624) = .32 per minute.
ROTK EE is @ 24 seconds per page: (251/624) = .40 per minute.

IMO, the EEs get about 90% of the books, what didn't make onto the screen really shouldn't have anyway.

Which brings us to The Hobbit...
If The Hobbit was a 2 hour movie (120 minutes), the math is thus....rate is @ ~23.4 seconds per page: (120/310) = .39 per minute.

Assuming there will be 3 Hobbit movies at say...2 hours each....the math says:
Rate is @ ~70 seconds per page: (360/310) = 1.16 per minute.

What does all of this prove?
It proves PJ is full of it....again.
post #700 of 944
They are doing two movies to cover The Hobbit and the third to span the time between Hobbit and FOTR.

Still, I would prefer ONE 2.5 hour movie for the hobbit.
post #701 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by darthrsg View Post

The Verge had a review for what it's worth.
http://www.theverge.com/2012/12/12/3760130/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-review

"At the end of the film we get a hint similar concepts may be addressed in its sequel, The Desolation of Smaug, but unfortunately the majority of the film plays like overinflated prologue."

This was my initial fear when multiple movies were announced.
post #702 of 944
initial reviews at imdb and rotten tomatos put user ratings in the 80% range and critics at 60%
post #703 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by d3code View Post

the cinema i saw it in had 48 frames.
you can check if you like.
Pathe Rotterdam ( the kuip ) then you can chose HFR version.
http://www.pathe.nl/bioscoop/dekuip
scroll downm when you see the hobiit and you see HFR behind it.
again i hope more people will see the HFR version and let me know what you guys think. for for me it is just like 3D ( if done right ) like avatar, prometheus and now the hobbit. it will give you a much more pleaseant movie experience.
what the hobbit does. is bring 3D to a higher level we have not experienced before and i love it. now i just have to wait a year again to watch part 2. because i dont think any movie next year will come ot in HFR.
also wondering how an animation movie in HFR will look like.

I saw it in HFR and its looks exactly like frame interpolation that you get from your LCD TV. The Hobbit was a terrible movie.
post #704 of 944
to me it didnt look as frame interpolation. maybe depends on the eyes?

also explain why you thought it was a terrible movie? what didnt you like about it?
post #705 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCaboNow View Post

"At the end of the film we get a hint similar concepts may be addressed in its sequel, The Desolation of Smaug, but unfortunately the majority of the film plays like overinflated prologue."
This was my initial fear when multiple movies were announced.
Another link expressing similar views:
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-movie-reviews-critics-20121214,0,7309214.story
post #706 of 944
can anyone post about the quality of the 24fps 3d version.

is it worth paying a premium for it?
post #707 of 944
How is the Imax version of this formatted? Is the top and bottom expanded (do we see more than in the original cinemascope)?
post #708 of 944
I like the book and I'm thinking of skipping this until disc.
post #709 of 944
Sadly, my first viewing of The Hobbit left me unimpressed on many counts. I will watch it again and give it another chance.
post #710 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Sadly, my first viewing of The Hobbit left me unimpressed on many counts. I will watch it again and give it another chance.

Not as exciting as The Lord of the rings trilogy ?
post #711 of 944
The paper this morning gave it 1 1/2 stars.

From the review:
Quote:
Like Ridley Scott before him with
"Prometheus," Jackson has caught George Lucas Disease, the
compulsion to revisit beloved franchises and louse them up with
maddening prequels.
Quote:
The proper look for the film also eludes them. The 3-D film will be
presented in select theaters at 48 frames per second -- twice the
normal rate -- an innovation that renders images as unnaturally crisp
and clear as an over-amped hi-def LED screen. Instead of the
romantic illusion of film, we see the sets and makeup for what they
are. The effect is like stepping into a diorama alongside the actors,
which is not as pleasant as it might sound. I wouldn't go so far as to
call this experiment a technological dead end. Never bet against
innovation, but this debut does not promise great things to come.
Let's cross our fingers that the next two chapters in this trilogy use
the gimmick to better effect.
post #712 of 944
I just got back home from seeing the Hobbit in HFR 3D. Yuk. I really wished that I had seen it in 24fps and think that I will enjoy it alot more at home on my own TV than on the 'Big Screen'.

I hoped hoped hoped that it would not look anything like the '120 HZ' effect seen on LCD TVs. Alas, my fears came true. The experience was quite jarring and mostly unpleasant. Leaving the theater I felt like I had just watched a 2 and 3/4 hour Cinematic for a video game (Skyrim anyone?) and not an actual movie. Many scenes reminded me of the cheesy Blue Screen special effects from 80s TV. A newspaper review I read nailed it on the head for me by mentioning it looked like watching a movie through those old Viewmaster toys.

post #713 of 944
Saw this today in IMAX 3d and have mixed emotions about the movie. Definitely does NOT grab you like the LOTR movies did. Besides the returning characters such as Bilbo, Gandalf, etc....I just did not care about any of the new ones. I could not find much emotional attachment like I could with the cast of FOTR and the other movies as well. It also felt a bit padded IMO. I think they could have done a ~3 hour theatrical showing and made just one movie, and then put out an extended version for blu ray to flesh it out a bit more. Spanning this over 3 films though seems a bit much.

I think another problem is that while The Hobbit is a great book/story, it does not have that sense of urgency, intensity and forbidding possible doom like the LOTR does which came through on the big screen as well. There is much more at stake in the LOTR vs The Hobbit and you can feel it watching the movie. The Hobbit is just a bit more laid back or something and while a fun adventure, it lacks the degree of purpose that LOTR has.

It was a fun movie and the cinematography was certainly LOTR worthy, but it just seems to be missing that "X" factor that makes the LOTR films so great. I need to see it again though, and at home where I can really dig into it and see how I feel then.

As far as the 3d, it was very conservative which is not really a bad thing. You certainly are not missing anything if you see it in 2d though. The 3d did not add (or take anything away for that matter) anything significant to the experience overall IMO.

Audio I cant judge. I need to view it at home in my own HT to evaluate that.

So yeah, kind of luke warm to the whole experience right now. Certainly not a bad movie and definitely worth seeing if you enjoyed the LOTR movies, but it does fall short of those masterpieces for sure.

Oh, they did have an extended ~10 minute (eek.gif) preview of the new Star Trek movie that is coming out which looks VERY good IMO. Really looking forward to seeing this.
Edited by Toe - 12/14/12 at 9:14pm
post #714 of 944
Saw the HFR version a week ago. While the "real" stuff looked amazing, I felt like the CGI looked like crap at times. Maybe Ill check it out in 24fps later. The film itself was bleh to me.


Literally felt the same as LOTR1.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
They all meet up. They go on a journey. Get Chased. Get saved by an elf. Somehow end up in Rivendale. They go up a mountain. End up in cave. Oh **** theres things in the cave. They fight. They leave the cave. Have one more epic battle (somehow all the battles use the same song). Then end it with them looking at a mountain. Now you tell me if LOTR1 isn't that similar lol
post #715 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 View Post

Sadly, my first viewing of The Hobbit left me unimpressed on many counts.
Please elaborate.smile.gif
post #716 of 944
Saw the midnight showing at HFR.... I have lost a huge amount of respect for PJ, as the higher frame rate made it the least cinematic movie I've ever seen. I hate frame interpolation and that's exactly what this looked like. A movie that actually looks like the video it was shot on.

The movie itself....... this was a looooong three hours. It felt as though a lot was said but not much at all. At the end I didn't feel at all as though there was a great journey that was embarked on. Hopefully the second and third are better. Much better.
post #717 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Waboman View Post

The paper this morning gave it 1 1/2 stars.
From the review:
The proper look for the film also eludes them. The 3-D film will be
presented in select theaters at 48 frames per second -- twice the
normal rate -- an innovation that renders images as unnaturally crisp
and clear as an over-amped hi-def LED screen. Instead of the
romantic illusion of film, we see the sets and makeup for what they
are. The effect is like stepping into a diorama alongside the actors,
which is not as pleasant as it might sound. I wouldn't go so far as to
call this experiment a technological dead end. Never bet against
innovation, but this debut does not promise great things to come.
Let's cross our fingers that the next two chapters in this trilogy use
the gimmick to better effect.
I don't understand exactly why 48FPS would make "images as unnaturally crisp and clear."
If anything, 48FPS would reduce blur and judder....
I don't see how it would show more detail.confused.gif
post #718 of 944
i posted this in another thread about the HFR in the movie but think it should be here as well as its a sort of all in one experience review

I just got back from seeing it at a very new century (cinemark) XD theater in HFR 3D with Dolby Atmos.

my impressions on both new to me technologies was positive.

on the HFR side of things the first thing i noticed straight away was the annoying flicker i often see when watching 3D in a theater at 24 fps is completely gone. granted this flicker is usually only obvious with bright images so its not a huge issue but i even noticed it in the 3D previews that were played tonight before the movie and its in my opinion what probably gives people headaches when watching 3D at 24fps. on the motion/realism front let me first give you some background on my own personal tastes. i'm not and never been a huge fan of the soap opera effect many motion enhancers can and do produce, i however do enjoy watching films on TV's that have a good adjustable motion enhancer that can take a balanced approach and most of my film watching is currently done through my PC on a 60hz Panasonic LCD TV and i use SVP on the PC for motion enhancement and frame interpolation with my own custom settings i've found i like. the HFR was just like that except it did not have any of the bad side effects from it, error's etc. that can pop up with certain scenes due to patterns often etc. it was like watching a movie with the perfect motion enhancer that had zero flaws.

as for the folks saying it looked fake, had to much detail etc. sound to me like the same group of people who said that about motion enhancers on TV's when they were first coming out. that stuff is no longer new to the market and has been a success and i'm sure in the long run 48fps will be as well. panning at 24fps is just so unnatural no matter what you're viewing it on and once you get used to not seeing it you see it 10x more when you go to see a movie in a theater at 24fps IMO. its like the reverse of what the "24fps purists" i'll calll them say about higher frame rates. overall i was very immersed into the movie and only at one time when i there was a wide pan going on with mountain ranges in the background did i see something that clearly looked fake to me and it was only because i started focusing on that background rather than the center point of view, the character's of the movie standing on top of a different mountain range. as soon as i put my focus point back where it was supposed to be it looked amazing, this in my opinion goes to show how if one comes in skeptical and critical of 48 fps like many critics seem to have done you can spend all day picking apart the movies effects because your not watching the movie your watching for defects.

on the Dolby Atmos, not sure how long its been out. i don't go to the movies that often but i know this was the first time i saw a movie with the sound system and i thought it did an amazing job especially with ambient sounds in the parts of the film that made good use of it.

as for the film, it was great and i will definitely go see the next one. did it have the impact the first LOTR had? nope it did not, its hard to overcome that and i did not expect it to. i'd still give it a 8.5/10 easily one of the best films of this year.

i'll add someone mentioned the similarities of this one and LOTR1. i agree now that you point it out, it did feel somewhat familiar when i watched to tonight but as i have not recently watched any of the LOTR movies it was not fresh enough in my mind to clearly pick out what was so similar. was still a great movie IMO and i'm certain i'll go watch the next one.
post #719 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe View Post

Saw this today in IMAX 3d and have mixed emotions about the movie. Definitely does NOT grab you like the LOTR movies did. Besides the returning characters such as Bilbo, Gandalf, etc....I just did not care about any of the new ones. I could not find much emotional attachment like I could with the cast of FOTR and the other movies as well.
Exactly why I couldn't get thru the book....I just didn't care.

Quote:
It also felt a bit padded IMO. I think they could have done a ~3 hour theatrical showing and made just one movie, and then put out an extended version for blu ray to flesh it out a bit more. Spanning this over 3 films though seems a bit much.
You are not the only one....see above.

Quote:
I think another problem is that while The Hobbit is a great book/story, it does not have that sense of urgency, intensity and forbidding possible doom like the LOTR does which came through on the big screen as well. There is much more at stake in the LOTR vs The Hobbit and you can feel it watching the movie. The Hobbit is just a bit more laid back or something and while a fun adventure, it lacks the degree of purpose that LOTR has.
The Hobbit was Tolkien's "warm-up," LOTR was the masterpiece. wink.gif
post #720 of 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

I don't understand exactly why 48FPS would make "images as unnaturally crisp and clear."
If anything, 48FPS would reduce blur and judder....
I don't see how it would show more detail.confused.gif
If 48 fps is showing less blur, that is the reason it would show more detail (though that's dependent on shutter setting too). The higher frame rate also helps the eye track the detail better, with 24 fps you'd have the judder/strobing (as well as blurring) obscuring the details. The higher rate will also give more 'information/detail' about the scene, even if the spatial resolution of each frame was the same as a 24 fps film.
Edited by Joe Bloggs - 12/15/12 at 1:08am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home