The Hobbit - Page 24

Originally Posted by oink 

Did the theater you seen it in actually project it at 48FPS?
Not all are capable.....

Originally Posted by oink 

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).

Originally Posted by GoCaboNow 

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...

Originally Posted by GoCaboNow 

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...

Originally Posted by Closet Geek 

Our poor misguided youth. We all share in the responsibility.

Originally Posted by mr. wally 

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?

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.

Originally Posted by archiguy 

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

Originally Posted by darthrsg 

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

Originally Posted by d3code 

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.

Originally Posted by GoCaboNow 

"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.

Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 

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

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dbuudo07 

Sadly, my first viewing of The Hobbit left me unimpressed on many counts.

Originally Posted by Waboman 

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.

Originally Posted by Toe 

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.

Originally Posted by oink 

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.