The Hobbit - Page 30

What I did notice was the airbrushing on their faces to make Ian Holm, Elijah Wood, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee and Cate Blanchett look younger, not very subtle at times. Same thing for some of the dwarves. It's a blasphemy to mess with Cate's face in the first place!

I loved the movie, even if I didn't care much the dwarves and the slow start. When we get to Rivendell this is really the moment when it started to get interesting, at least for me. The HFR? meh... No it's not like a soap, but I can't say I like it either. The audio was fantastic, and it was soooo nice to hear the familiar themes of LOTR... I plan to see it again, probably in simple and archaic 2D this time.


Now, something that still bothers me: Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Holm's makeup was terrible in a painfully obivious way.

I wish I could havd heard it in Dolby Atmos but I agree with the rest. It was a very good movie experience. I do hope HFR catches it will keep film makers and SFX people on their toes to do it rights. But I agree with you 100% HFR and 3d go every wel together.

Agreed.
It does seem like a natural pairing.
But for those who don't like 3D, I doubt 3D/HFR combined will change their mind.

haven't seen it in hfr 3d, but the imax 3d i saw was very good, but not as impressive as avatar or prometheus imho.

i think i actually like the 2k dlp version better.

I know it's a total preference thing, but I thought the HFR was abysmal and I'd be happy if I never saw a movie in higher frame rates again. It completely took me out of the story. I felt as though I was watching a video, as opposed to a film, and nothing seemed cinematic in the slightest. I wanted to like it, but it felt like motion interpolation done right, which is movies done wrong imho. My wife was pretty upset at me for subjecting her to it for three hours, and we both vowed never to watch a movie in that format again. The 3D was ok, but very much unnecessary as well. Not as good as Avatar in that area.

The movie was also too long, had a bloated feeling and at the end I felt as though I'd been in the theater for an extremely long period of time, but at the same time not having viewed much of a story and I didn't feel as though I'd been on much of a journey during that time. I personally hope Hollywood never adopts this as a standard. i'd much rather be subjected to 3D vs HFR.

^Hard to disagree.

In terms of adding to or advancing the experience of seeing The Hobbit, HFR doesn't really (although I do think the 3D tech was a plus).

Didn't you see Prometheus in 3D? Think you need to go back again.

Prometheus wasn't shot at 48FPS:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/technical

I did a "visual sampler" before choosing a format to see it for the first time in its entirety. After completing another film, I whipped out my handy 3D glasses and waltzed into the house with HFR 3D and watched about 10 minutes. I then moved to a 2D theater for a look. Today, I saw the complete film in 2D.

I agree totally with your impression of HFR. We cannot help being conditioned on a deep psychological level about what looks like TV video and what looks like film (or cinematic). Each has an inherent visual trait, and tech culture has conditioned our perceptions of those. Immediate things such as the news, sport, and multi-camera dramas (aka soap operas) are immediate or live. "Film look" says "once upon a time" and suspends disbelief. HFR also took me out of the story since it screamed "video of a live event"...but wait, these creatures aren't real. Oops. Hmm, I want to imagine they are real for the next couple of hours. I don't think I'll be able to in HFR, but I may give it a try just to experience the technology.

In 2D I did not mind the insanely sharp detail in closeups. It approached "too real", but didn't cross the line described above. They clearly spent their big money on Gollum. Stunning.

We're blessed to have well maintained cinemas nearby, so projection and sound were superb.

Interesting...
I can't disagree.

HFR requires a different approach for filmmakers...it isn't "business as usual."
Where it all leads....who knows?

Cameron has indicated he wants to do the Avatar sequels in HFR.
If anyone can pull it off, it's him.

Yes, I don't think we are in the driver's seat on that at this stage. Cameron will do his will. Animated films and Avatar (which approaches an animated film) can probably get away with HFR. Maybe even that is psychological because there are so few ques to which we can compare those of our familiar world. Middle Earth is too similar to our known world, so there are conflicts. Just theories.

True.

For me, being very familiar with the way PJ's LOTR "looks," The Hobbit is confusing visually....it ain't the Middle Earth I know.
OTOH, if (and that's a big IF) I had never seen his LOTR, I might not finding The Hobbit's video so off-putting.
Of course, there is no way to do a brain dump at this time....

Anyway, just speculating.

Good point. Even FOTR gave us some head-fakes, though, on PQ. We watched the extended edition over the holidays and really enjoyed it...again.

I finally got to go see this today (so I'm safe to start reading this thread again ). I saw it in old fashioned 2D (no HFR), and I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. I can imagine that it would be painfully long for some, and the visuals were definitely...... different. I know a lot of the visual differences have been blamed on HFR, but I noticed in several scenes it looked like they were on a set. I distinctly remember a tree and some buildings that were clearly props. Some of the character closeups looked a bit unnatural as well.

I would love to see this in HFR. I've watched some of the videos on the Red site, and there are some clips there that seem unnatural as well, and I wonder if it's the same affect in The Hobbit.

Sums up my experience. Out of the four poeple in our group 3 loved the experience. One hated the HFR stating similar complaints we've already heard. I saw it first in LieMax 3D and didn't really dig it. Went back and saw HFR 3D and loved it. Seemed to play faster in the HFR format. The outdoor scenes finally captured the awe I feel when on top of a real mountain in Colorado.

I was totally prepared for HFR and that made the difference, i think. I'm going back for more (one of my brothers has now seen it 3 times in the HFR format. He sculpts movie collectibles/toys, so his appreciation for hyper-realism is different than most people. He loves what Jackson did with this.)

I was able to get out to see a portion of The Hobbit today. I couldn't stay for the whole movie as it turned out my son got out of school extra early and I had to leave the film to pick him up. Not a big loss for me as I'm not a LOTR or Hobbit fan to begin with.
I tried all 3 LOTR movies and while obviously spectacular, not a single neuron in my brain could raise interest in whatever happened to the characters on screen. I guess you either love Hobbits, men with long beards and staffs, or you don't. Kind of like the Ice Capades.

And speaking of the Ice Capades, this was more like that experience than it was watching a movie. Of course I'm referring to the HFR effect. I saw it on a 3D High Frame Rate UltraAVX Cineplex cinema, with Dolby Atmosphere sound system.
Mostly I just wanted to check out the "future of film" as it were, not so much the movie itself.

Yup, it looked as expected: video-like, or video-projected-like anyway. My first impression was that it wasn't as garish as the typical flatscreen playing a Blu-Ray with frame interpolation on, not having the brightness, vividness and crazy contrast of flat panels.
And they clearly tried to give some measure of film-like look to the image in post production. That combined with the fact it was a projected image on a screen, did make it less garish than the flat panel "too real" experience. And in a way I was as much surprised by the lack of sharpness and detail as I was by the increased sharpness and detail. That is, it DID show more detail than most cinema projected films, but didn't come off as sharp looking as even my JVC projector can do with standard 1080p, let alone a flat panel. As has been mentioned in the thread, a lot of times images, like close ups of faces, felt somewhat lacking in detail, even compared to what I get at home. I wonder how much to attribute to post production fiddling. Also, I felt some of this lack-of-sharpness may have been due to the 3D and glasses - 3D never looks precise and clear to me in the theaters, like there's always a slight misalignment going on in most shots. It was a massive screen and I also couldn't help noticing the very prominent hot spotting, no doubt due to how much gain the screen required, and perhaps the silver screen used for passive 3D exacerbates this. But that's another area where my screen at home is a breath of fresh air, suffering mostly undetectable hot-spotting. (Though, I still love going to the movies). I'm not anti-3D really, as I always sought it out growing up (from Creature From The Black Lagoon, to the early 80's 3D wave, and now this comeback). It's too bad it still doesn't feel 'there yet" to me, as it still mostly has the ViewMaster, flat planes in layers look in most shots - which was especially prominent in the beginning of this film. That, together with the feeling the various images are never quite focused together makes 3D a bit annoying and LESS natural where it is supposed to take the step to more natural. Though, in the right shots, it's promise is glorious. I'm just not sure how much longer I ought to wait for it to be a cohesive experience throughout an entire film. If it doesn't happen soon, my interest 3D, even in my home, is going to drop away. And, in fact, much of the tweaking of my room to make it as much of a black hole as possible is aimed at gaining a more dimensional experience, without the artifice and inconvenience of 3D glasses.

Anyway, as everyone here knows the image is still left with that weird shot on HD video look and I agree with all the various descriptions: watching a BBC documentary, watching the behind-the-scenes extra on The Hobbit, rather than the movie, watching a play, etc. It did take me out of the movie mostly because while everything looked more real, it all looked less convincing, less believable. It's a huge mistake to think "realistic" equates to "more convincing or more believable" as Peter Jackson is likely learning from the feedback on the Hobbit. Spielberg had earlier said that Lukas kept cajoling him (while making the Star Wars prequels) to step into the future with him and start shooting on HD video. Spielberg resisted saying he didn't like the "too clear" look - that it removed the texture of film - which is a sort of scrim between the audience and the content that suggests what you are seeing is mediated by an artist. It's not just unvarnished reality. And that is one of the things that happened for me with The Hobbit.
That filmic texture was removed and with it went some of the feeling of artistic mediation of the image. It didn't feel "cinematic" anymore - I was less likely to feel OMG, what a beautiful shot, an appreciation of the art and artist - but rather it was a more prosaic looking-on-to-the-actors before the scene was filmed, experience. So it really lost something in that regard.

And I found, as others have, that the unvarnished reality look really shone a spot-light on the acting, as it does in a play in front of you. Acting that would "work" in the unreality of film looked less convincing, more like mugging. Martin Freeman, for me, came off this way - very "actorly," self conscious and mugging - in a way that would be much less likely to occur to me if shot 24fps. It was fascinating to see whose acting stood up to the test of "seeing the actor do his thing live in front of me." And to me, Ian Mckellen's Gandalf won the day. He's always had a wonderful, weary subtlety to his acting, so often conveyed simply by a crinkle or twinkle in the eye. And for me he was the one who I could believe, even while he seemed present in front of me. (And also, the leaps they have made in CGI and various tricks to allow the much taller Gandalf integrate into the images of the Dwarfs, Hobbits is really astounding these days - and held up perfectly even under the pressure of HFR).

I'd also say that the whole looong beginning in Bilbo's home felt interminable. But, again, I guess you've got to bring a reverence for Hobbits and Dwarfs (and singing Hobbits and Dwarfs) to the proceedings.

So it's a weird thing for us movie and home theater enthusiasts to be at this point, were we always seem to want advancements in our technology to get things more believable and realistic (more contrast, more detail, more color detail etc), and then it comes to a time when we think "wait, is this going too far?" Again, I think film makers and we the audience need to keep the concepts of "realistic" and "believable" separate, so we don't mix them up and wonder what went wrong.

Finally, on the "how much realism do I want" note: I watched No Country For Old Men recently again at home (JVC projector). It's a super sharp, detailed image, though very cinematic. I noted several times when watching it, especially close ups of faces, that it was almost absurdly detailed...and yet...it did not feel like video, or fake like the Hobbit. It looked natural and believable to me, and still artistic. I felt the same not long ago seeing an IMAX movie about elephants - it was 24 fps but the level of resolution, and size (combined with really good 3D) made for an amazingly believable image. But somehow "natural" and organically believable, without me feeling it to be shot-on-video cheap.

So at this point, at least for my criteria, I'm tending towards accepting bigger images and/or more resolution combined with 24FPS, as it seems the added resolution and clarity can increase detail, immersiveness, while the 24FPS seems to retain that artistic, non-video-like quality. I think that probably a significantly higher frame rate may make for a more dramatically clear and different look for a movie, vs seeing it presented in 4K, but I think the combination of 4K and 24FPS at this point is more aimed at a sweet spot "best of both worlds" combo, for folks like me.

Holy cow. Sorry for the length. This whole HFR thing brings up the subject - realism in images - that has always stirred me to blather over the years.

HFR is like animation and the uncanny valley

Well it was long but it was a nice read

...I'm not sure more believable and realistic is what I'm looking for. Film-like, or "close to a theater experience" is more like it, at least for me. To me a movie is not about recreating something, it's about creating it. As long as it feels real, it doesn't necessarly have to look real. Which is also why I don't care much for HFR (don't really like it either).

haven't bothered with hfr viewing given the experiences posted by members here, but i did compare imax 3d with the 2k dlp 2d and much preferred the latter.
3d didn't add much to the movie, and you lose some detail which can be clearly and pleasingly seen in the 2d presentation

It's interesting that in theory the images I saw in the Hobbit today at a 3D HFR theater should be "the" state of the art. Yet tonight just to compare, when I put on the Lord Of The Rings (ROTK) tonight at home - Blu-Ray, JVC RS55 projector, 125" wide scope set up - I found myself totally wow'd by the image at least as much or more than what I saw today from The Hobbit. Sometimes it appeared clearer and more dimensional than parts of the Hobbit, and always more natural and easy to watch (no glasses etc).

Jeez, Rich, I thought I was reading War and Peace again! Very interesting observations...and entertaining. HNY

Yes, Rich. Nice post, easy to read despite the length. I liked where you delved into how HFR was more revealing of the actors technique, more obvious vs. subtle, etc.


Anyway, saw this last week with a couple adult females. Neither had read the book but I did a long long time ago and remember enjoying it, though not really remembering much about the story.

We ended up seeing the 2D version, skipping the 3D/HFR option. Neither of them were at all familiar with HFR, but since none of us are especially enamored with 3D in general, or at least not in the mood this time around, 2D it was. While I was somewhat curious about HFR, not really caring about 3D too much anyway, I was fine with 2D. Besides, echoing around in the back of my mind, I was recalling that a local radio host here (who does film reviews on the side), plus, two of his frequent guest film reviewers, all dismissed their HFR experience of this film. One derisively calling it, "weirdo-vision".

As to the film itself, we all agreed that the film was just "ok" or "pretty good". It got better towards the middle and on. And it was a highlight getting to see Gollum once again. Still, one among us was regretful for not having chosen to see Django Unchained, instead.
Edited by CruelInventions - 1/9/13 at 9:54pm

I would agree with that.

Actually, that's not an inappropriate way to describe it.

The key to enjoying DU is to leave at the conclusion of the "handshake scene."

Ok, I'll keep it mind. Despite having absolutely no idea what you are referring to.

You'll know it when you see it....

BTW,

I never once saw this "sped up" effect that some people insist they see with the HFR. This claim that HFR makes action look sped up makes no technical sense so I'm not surprised to see no such issue when I watched the movie.

Thanks for your thoughts Rich.

As far as the sped up effect, do you perceive the effect as sped up if you put your 55 on CMD mode 3 for a live action (non animated) movie?

I think what we have is a situation where the limitations of 24fps became inherently obvious.
I did notice this so-called "sped-up" effect, but soon realized the characters were moving at a rate more in line with real-life movements as they were happening in front of the camera.
Once my brain understood what was happening, I wasn't bothered....actually, I found it kinda fascinating to watch.