The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

rogypro

rogypro

I'm not sure if anyone has posted on it, i looked and didn't find anything.
Thought i post my 2 cents.
Like a true fan, i decided i'd go to the preimere and watch it 3d 48 fps.

i have to say at first i did no know what to expect. i wasn't too sure about 48 fps as the movie started... it looked... like i was litterly watching a play. on a sliver screen. it was a bit... too real... but as the movie went on, i started to get more into it. Action scenes started, i couldn't believe what i was seeing... it looked... REAL.

middle earth... almost real. it was an amazing experience, how the managed to nail all the cg effects to where it did not look fake playing at basically real time.

if you have not seen it, i recommend you to see it. The Red Epics have done an amazing job and peter jackson couldn't have done it better.

5 *****s in my book.
 
I myself went to go see the premiere and absolutely loved ever minute of it! it was an amazing movie. Although I did not see it in 3D. But that has to be a great movie to see in 3D.
 
The movie is amazing, and I saw it in good ol' 24 fps, no 3D.

The story is what made me go see it as a "true fan"

The characters and actors and action... amazing. I would say better than LOTR
 
Just caught it this morning. Came home and re-read the book. Absolutely loved it. LOVE the way they're handling the Necromancer so far, and looking forward to seeing how it develops. I didn't mind the slow opening, though my girlfriend thought it dragged a bit (she's as big/bigger of a Tolkien geek as I am).

Saw it in good old fashioned 2d. Will check out the 48/3d thing at some point. I expect I'll catch this one a few times in the theater, but I'm generally not interested in 3d.
 
I guess I will be the first to say that I hated the film. The story is awful and drags. Scenarios continually repeat themselves so quickly that you never feel the characters are in danger. The only redeeming part of the story was Bilbo and Gollum.

Technologically speaking, I had to see it in 48fps 3D. I will admit I was impressed. I still don't like 3D but it wasn't a hindrance for me this time and it probably had a lot to do with the 48fps. However, the 48fps caused other problems like things feeling like they happen too quickly and jittery. Some of those high moving landscape shots felt wrong and they should have maybe adjusted and moved the camera a lot slower. When the action is really quick during the fights and chase scenes though the higher frame rate really helps with clarity issues. Makes me think we should look into a variable frame rate system. Also, for the gamers out there expect your mind to think you are watching a video game for the first ten minutes or so. In fact, my wife commented on that right away.

Those of you saying the landscapes and everything looked more real, I can't disagree more. Nothing about this film ever felt real to me unlike the original trilogy. Then again you guys watched in 24fps 2D so maybe that's the difference. I won't go back to the theater to compare versions because I don't think I could stomach spending any more money on this awful film.
 
I saw it both in 24 fps and 48fps / 3d this weekend. I definitely liked the HFR better. It really brought the story to life. I typically don't like 3d, but it really added something to this.

I think that look will be limited to certain types of films - ie a children's fantasy vs. the latest Tom Cruise action adventure.


I know it is going to happen, but this shouldn't be compared to the original trilogy at all. The books had very different tones and very different audiences.

It has been a decade since my last reading (plus all the extras added in) but it felt like the book. Which is a high compliment.
 
I saw it in 24/3D and will most likely go see it in 48/3D as well (working in a theater definately has its benefits). I'll compare them that way to see if the 48 vs 24 thing makes a difference to me. Must minimize variables.
 
I loved it! I didn't read any of the books, so I didn't realize that it would have such a more light-hearted tone, and I really enjoyed that aspect of it.

The dwarves are really cool, I love the chemistry between Bilbo and Gandalf, and I can't wait to see more of Smaug!

Saw it in 48FPS 3D. Didn't add anything for me, and I recommend seeing it in 2D. The 3D looked very good, huge difference between this and all of the post-conversion crap we've had to put up with. But I really didn't see how the 3D was used in any way that helped further the story. In that respect, Life of Pi set the bar pretty high, and I'm going to expect more from any future 3D movie.
 
Such a great film. I thought we were seeing it in 48fps 3D but when it started I realized we were in 24fps. 3D was excellent. You know it's good when you almost forget about it but it's drawing you just a little more in their world the whole time.

I do want to see it again in 48fps, just to nerd out like that.
 
Cracker Funk said:
I loved it! I didn't read any of the books, so I didn't realize that it would have such a more light-hearted tone, and I really enjoyed that aspect of it.
Click to expand...

Book. It's a single book that was written as a kid's book. He (Tolkien) had his son read it and give feedback to him as he was writing it. 3 movies? I'd imagine it is a response to the complaints that he left material out of the LOTR franchise films, even in the director's cuts.

For the record, I liked it.
 
knightly said:
Book.
Click to expand...

:)

I did know that. I meant the plural to reference the entire cannon of LOTR films/books. Regardless, I'm glad to hear that fans of the book(s) are enjoying this film just as much as newbs such as myself. The movie has a relatively low rating on RT -- just goes to show how out of touch so many critics can be. Hooray to Peter Jackson, for defying expectations by actually living up to expectations! :D
 
Saw it in 48fps and 3D. I liked the movie. Didn't really feel that it was too long. I mean, it fits that way with the earlier films. Never really felt liked it dragged.

I don't have strong feelings about the HFR. It was okay. I didn't mind it too much, except maybe that I was perhaps hyper aware of it, like we probably all are. Didn't get in the way. I didn't hate it. But I don't think I'll be a cheerleader for it, either. I did find it to be true that at times it was like watching a video game. Is that bad? Maybe the video game look is the new black. As the world turns. I would like to see it in 24fps to compare, but don't know that I will get around to it. Maybe on home video, at least. Don't want to be closed minded about it. But, I think prefer 24fps. But if it's true that the powers that be (the content providers) are going to be abandoning 24fps, guess that will be that. Maybe it grows on you.

There were weird double images or some sort of ghosting in the scene with
Bilbo and Gollum at the bottom of the cave when they're riddling, or there abouts.
Anyone else see that? Or maybe it was just the theater, or something?

Anyway, no surprise that the film is visually gorgeous. Sound design seemed top notch. I liked the theme song at the end. Ian Mckellen is still lovable as Gandalf. Cate Blanchett is still gorgeous and mesmerizing as Galadriel. Liked all the other characters. Dwarves are great.

That close-up of the Smaug's eye at the end was pretty awesome, as was the rescue by the eagles.

And man, the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer was awesome. I'm pretty psyched to see that now.

********************************

Well, I've seen it in 2D and 24fps now. I don't quite like to admit that I think I missed the 3D. It might be a gimmick they're using to milk us of more money, but the 3D, when the film is actually shot in 3D, does seem to give a film a little more pop, and make it more immersive. And, I like even less to admit that I think I missed the HFR. If it's true that the 48fps gives more detail, I think I missed that greater detail. Also, are things less blury when the camera pans quickly or when things move? It would be helpful to see it again that way. But that's not to say that I prefer the videoy look. Just...I dunno.
 
Last edited:
richy said:
There were weird double images or some sort of ghosting in the scene with
Bilbo and Gollum at the bottom of the cave when they're riddling, or there abouts.
Anyone else see that? Or maybe it was just the theater, or something?
Click to expand...
I think it could be to do with the viewing angle. I just saw it in IMAX 24fps 3D and noticed that if i tilted my head, ghosting occured, but as soon as I straightened up it was gone.

Anyway, no surprise that the film is visually gorgeous. Sound design seemed top notch. I liked the theme song at the end. Ian Mckellen is still lovable as Gandalf. Cate Blanchett is still gorgeous and mesmerizing as Galadriel. Liked all the other characters. Dwarves are great.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if it's the 24p conversion (and I doubt it is), but as visually stunning as it mostly was, there were many times when I felt myself thinking 'this would've looked better on film' - there were a few shots, most noticeably at the beginning of the film but also throughout it, where the highlights were just completely blown and I found myself thinking 'film would've held that'.
It also didn't seem like 5k resolution - it felt as if they'd scaled down to 2k and then back up for IMAX, or shot at like 11:1 compression on the Epics or something... Just seemed to be a lot more artifacting and pixelation than I expected from a movie shot at 5k

And man, the Star Trek Into Darkness trailer was awesome. I'm pretty psyched to see that now.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

I'm planning to see it in HFR as soon as I can, and I'll weigh in on HFR vs 24 when I do.
 
Indietalk rules apparently state that I have to actually post my review instead of simply linking to it, so I'm having to replace the link with the actual text:

Okay, let’s get the technical stuff out of the way.

The new high-frame-rate 3D technology is very interesting, but it’s obvious that filmmakers don’t really know how to wield it correctly yet. A lot of shots look like “Actors! In costumes! In a reaaaally fancy A&E historical recreation!”. I think this comes down to the camera language of 2D cinema just not working in high-framerate 3D. You can’t use the same tempo, edits, color grading, angles, and lenses, or even acting styles.

Especially the acting. Turns out, most acting styles don’t work in high-framerate 3D. It just comes across as “an actor saying lines in a funny voice while wearing stuff from the prop department”. I’m guessing it’s because the heightened realism of the visuals demand a far more realistic character representation, and for the most part we don’t get that in The Hobbit.

But some shots… some shots they get it absolutely right and it is amazing. The depth, the tone, the feel of the shot… it really shows you how 3D filmes are capable of going above and beyond regular 2D movies. Sadly, these shots are few and far between.

Amongst all the actors dressed as dwarves and that actor dressed up as Gandalf, there’s Martin Freeman who just is Bilbo. He’s the one actor that comes across as genuinely being his character in every shot he’s in. Take note, directors, that’s the level your actors are going to have to hit if you want your 48fps 3D movies to really work. Martin Freeman is the one and only consistently-good thing throughout the movie.

Another glaring issue: Peter Jackson is waaay too fond of the swooping-over-several-miles-of-landscape shots that, while annoying in 2D, flat out fail in 3D. The camera-work in these 3D movies needs to be very restrained compared to what you can get away with in their 2D counterparts.

I think when filmmakers figure out the correct language for 48fps 3D movies, we’re going to see, in the words of Doc Emmett Brown, “some serious shit”. It will resurrect the reason to haul our collective asses back to the theater — to experience amazing things we can’t see anywhere else.

But that’s not what I want to talk about. All technology aside, The Hobbit is a bad film.

Here’s the movie in a nutshell: “Blah blah blah blah blah. Blah blah. 10 more minutes of blah blah blah blah voiceover blah blah. HOBBIT DWARF WIZARD LANDSCAPE blah blah back to blah blah blah blah ACTION GOBLINS blah blah snore zzzzzzzz….”

This movie has some of the worst dialog I have ever heard. There’s a scene with Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel, and Elrond, and this is the dialog:

Gandolf: “I am saying exactly what I am thinking and feeling.”

Elrond: “Well, I’m saying what I’m thinking and feeling.”

Saruman: “Here’s what I’m thinking and feeling. Exactly.”

Galadriel: “I’m not a real character in this movie. I’m just a person saying exactly what I’m thinking and feeling.”

This goes on for a subjective half an hour. I was begging any deities that might exist to please end this movie I can’t take it any more!! These aren’t characters! Peter Jackson, you have failed us! You gave us mouthpieces that just deliver exposition to the audience and it is BORING. Urgh. Meh. Argh.

Except for the Goblin King. He was pretty fun to watch. And Bilbo, of course.

Lastly, there’s what I laughingly refer to as the “musical score”. This isn’t a score. A score is a part of every scene it’s in, enhancing and just generally being a part of the scene. In The Hobbit, we instead get phrases from LOTR spackled across the visuals with a butterknife. Just… just sorta slathered across the movie. Here’s some high-tempo “action scene” music… here’s some landscape music… here’s some music we play when people are talking… the music, like the dialog, goes “blah blah blah” throughout the entire film.

This movie is a failure on just about every level. And it will be so profitable they’ll most likely just keep cranking out more of the same.

I really hope someone gets it right within my lifetime, because THAT will be a 48fps 3D brainmelting joyful experience. I so very much want that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top