The Hobbit

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

Royal

Connoisseur of Exotic Pictures
15,077
10,643
You can still call around to your local theaters to find out if they have it in 48 fps. That list is only those theaters that have been confirmed so far. It's not like some official industry created listing.
 

Quineloe

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,978
4,464
PJ really, really ruined the troll scene.

Everything else was good.

And some of you should probably read the book again if you think the film followed the book "to the letter"

Wait, so the verdict is that the movie itself is very good, but the framerate makes it less enjoyable? Or are both the movie and the framerate bad?
when critics trash the movie for the frame rate, it's fairly obvious they have nothing else about it they can trash.

For a minute I thought the movie was played too fast, then I adjusted to the 48fps
 

Morbeas

Silver Squire
108
0
Fuck fuck fuck! All the negative crap I'm reading about the HFR version's making me mental. I keep telling myself that maybe the IMAX HFR version won't be as bad.
frown.png


frown.png
 

Morbeas

Silver Squire
108
0
I know this is off-topic but I'm trying to buy a good hard cover version of this book as a gift. Any suggestions?
 

Quineloe

Ahn'Qiraj Raider
6,978
4,464
Fuck fuck fuck! All the negative crap I'm reading about the HFR version's making me mental. I keep telling myself that maybe the IMAX HFR version won't be as bad.
frown.png
I saw that one and it was great in itself. I just didn't like the super close up fight scenes because it was really hard to tell what was really going on, but that was no issue with the HFR itself. It's really not the big deal critics make it to be, you will notice it to be completely different from previous movies, but if it ruined the film for someone, they have issues -.-

frown.png
 

Morbeas

Silver Squire
108
0
I saw that one and it was great in itself. I just didn't like the super close up fight scenes because it was really hard to tell what was really going on, but that was no issue with the HFR itself. It's really not the big deal critics make it to be, you will notice it to be completely different from previous movies, but if it ruined the film for someone, they have issues -.-
This post just made me smile. Thank you!
smile.png


smile.png
 

Feien

Ploppers
458
382
Fuck fuck fuck! All the negative crap I'm reading about the HFR version's making me mental. I keep telling myself that maybe the IMAX HFR version won't be as bad.
frown.png
This is a short review I shared with some cinematographer colleagues abut the whole HFR debate going on. Spoiling for length.

So how do I feel about HFR?

First of all, I should mention that I'm a huge Hobbit / Tolkien geek. And anything that would have gotten in the way of telling that narrative as I think it deserves, would have been seen as useless to me, even if the new technology comes from RED cameras, which I'm a big fan of as well.


I really do think that a lot of critics are blowing it out of proportion. Yes I do think that we can somewhat compare the look to home video, or soap operas, or smooth-o-matic tru-motion video, or whatever crap they are putting on TV's these days (which I hate with a passion). We can compare it to these things because it's the closest type of image we can relate it/reference it to, but IT IS NOT the same. There is a huge visual difference when you see 48 FULL frames captured and projected, instead of them being interlaced, or inter-created. The amount of visual information, clarity, and beauty of each frame is noticeable. At least it was to me. The 3D judder or strobing is almost gone, and it gives this very unique depth to the frame even in fast-paced action scenes. I find these comparisons very similar to the whole 2k vs 4k debacle. A lot of people, even professionals, are going to the theater and watching a movie like The Avengers or Skyfall and saying that they look beautiful enough, or good enough. That 4k is not that big of a deal. What I will predict will happen to these people however, is once the 4k future is here, and we have been exposed to plenty of true 4k acquisition and projection, we are going to look back and say "It was good enough then, and even if it still is, I can notice the big difference now." Just like it happened with HD vs SD. I've had the privilege to be exposed to a lot of 4K projection by now, and when I go to a 2k movie "sadly" I do notice the big difference (ignorance can be bliss sometimes I guess). I think that if we were exposed to more true HFR 3D footage, we would be able to tell the big difference it has vs the "soap opera" look.

I do think the brain plays tricks with you as you are watching it however, this happened to me during close-ups. It almost feels like the video is sped-up. Halfway through the movie however, this illusion stopped happening, or not as much as in the first half. I believe this was my brain trying to adjust to the amount of visual information. My hope is that once we start watch more and more of this technology, those nuances will be corrected by our brain. In fact, I plan on watching this movie several times in all of its formats just so I can make the best judgement out of it. (I did love the movie, so this won't be a chore to me, I will rather enjoy this experiment).

Bare in mind that HFR is intended to be used in 3D projection. Not 2D. If it was used for 2D I could see the case being made that it is useless, but not this time around. I think the use of 3D HFR was good if not great, and I think I can see why they decided to take such a big risk with it. It did bring something unique things to the table, even if many argue that it's a step backwards. I really don't think it is. I can't imagine the battle scenes or the stone giants scene as incredible as it was watching them in 3D HFR. I have never seen anything like it. Which makes me very excited about the battle of the Five Armies in the third movie. HFR acquisition and projection can become a new cinematography language, and I don't think it will be too long where we'll see movies with different frame rates throughout the movie in order to express different things. This is just the first movie, and of course there will be things that didn't work out as well, but I'm glad that Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie are trying it out. It helps us learn more about the craft we love.

and here is part of the review I've been working on. It contains minor spoilers and it's not finished, but I just haven't found the time to do so.

I had the great privilege to watch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey last night. Now, before I begin my review I want to let you know that I'm a HUGE fan of Tolkien's work. The Hobbit is a book that I've read at least 15 times (I've lost count by now but it has to be somewhere between 15 and 20). The Hobbit was the first book I read in English (Spanish being my native language). I also read it in Italian once; since I knew the book so well, it helped me learn the language. Knowing that I was going to the early screening, I read the book once again during the weekend (even when I had just read it back in August). So as you can now tell, I'm a HUGE fan of The Hobbit.

The reason why I bring this up is because most of the reviews I've read so far feel weird to me. They are either only talking about the new technology of High Frame Rate used to shoot the movie, or they are often comparing it to the previous trilogy of The Lord of The Rings. These two types of criticisms make me think "Ok, but where are the reviews that deal with The Hobbit?" because I think it's unfair to judge a movie as a whole by only focusing on one aspect such as the technology employed, or reviewing it on how it stands against another story. Yes, Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit take place in the same world, and deals with some of the same characters, but those who have read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings know that they are two completely different stories. To me it's like comparing the story of King David vs the story of King Solomon. Though they are father and son, and shared similar things and characters, their stories are completely different!

I'm also afraid that there has been this "hipster" kind of attitude towards art these days. It's cool to think different. It's cool to bring popular things down. It's cool to be controversial and ironic. This saddens me because I think this kind of attitude is beginning to blind us from the things that matter. If something is not perfect, and exactly how we want it to be, then it means it's bad. I disagree with that sentiment.

Well, I needed to take all of that off my chest in order to begin my review. Let's talk about the movie.

My biggest fear these past 3 years was that The Hobbit would turn out to be a Star Wars prequels fiasco. I still remember how disappointed I was when I came out of the theater after watching Episode 1 for the very first time. I do consider myself a bit of a Star Wars geek also, but it doesn't even come close to how big of a Tolkien geek I am, so if Peter Jackson pulled a George Lucas with these movies I would have been truly heartbroken. I'm here to tell you that this is not the case at all. In fact, I still very freshly remember how I felt when I finished watching The Fellowship of the Ring movie for the first time back in 2001. I remember giving it a 6.5 - 7 out of 10. Though the movie was good, there were a few moments that were cringe-worthy to me, such as the delivery of some of Arwen's lines, or Galadriel's mirror scene. Though The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey does have its weaknesses, missed opportunities , and deviations from the narrative(but I won't get into them since I'm trying to avoid spoilers) there was never a scene that made me cringe such as the ones from Fellowship that I just mentioned. Though the movie is almost 3 hours long, it doesn't feel that way. Even the slow=paced scenes are beautifully crafted, and the scenery of Middle-Earth is so beautiful, that you find yourself desiring to be there. It really doesn't feel like 3 hours, which is always a good sign.

Those who feared that stretching the story into 3 different movies instead of two as it was originally planned was a bad move, fear not. I truly believe they made the right call here. I don't think it's going to be "like butter over too much bread" like many have mentioned, not for fans of the books anyways. The movie ends at what would be the end of Chapter 6 from the book, "Out Of The Frying Pan Into The Fire". Originally they were going to finish it at the end of Chapter 9 "Barrels Out of Bond." For those that know the books, there is quite a lot that happens between those chapters. It could easily be one more hour of movie, if not a little more. So I do believe the fans are getting a special treat from Peter Jackson and crew by not rushing us through the events, like it sometimes felt in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

In the end, these are just My opinions, and what you read online are other people's opinions. Don't let them influence you. You know you are watching the movie anyways, so give yourself a chance to create your own opinion. You might hate it. You might love it. That will be up to you.

frown.png
 

Morbeas

Silver Squire
108
0
Thanks, Feien. I must say I'm quite surprised by the positive comments. These boards are usually full of extremely critical (cynical) people.

I can't wait 'till the 19th!
smile.png


smile.png
 

Szlia

Member
6,629
1,375
Just got back from seeing it in 3D HFR.

The movie itself is ok, it has its moments and, considering the duration, the pacing is good as it never gets boring. I hardly remember the original story (my mother read it to me and my brother when we were children so like... 30 years ago?), so I liked how, like in LotR, it's a story haunted by the past, by History. It's a bit of a chain of sausages though: each scene follow the next without weaving an overarching narrative. A theme park ride if you will (and in some action scenes, it becomes one literally). It's a bit over the top for my liking and packed with cheap plot devices (all is lost but... X to the rescue! - with X being Gandalf, Elronde, Galadriel, etc), but over the top also makes for some entertaining scenes where Jackson almost summon some mild Verbinski, with pretty creative and amusing use of sets.

But what about the 3D HFR? As almost always, the 3D brings very little to the table, but it's ok and because of the HFR or some very good anti-ghosting post-processing, it was a very comfortable viewing. HFR though is a weird beast... a bit like in Collateral or Miami Vice with full digital, you can see the new technology is not totally tamed by the cinematographer so on a shot by shot basis it can go from ok to jarring. It also poses problem for CG artists obviously as the additional crispness is unforgiving. The main orc antagonist is a big offender, the worst being the flash-backs with the King Under The Mountain that look like cut scenes from a Blizzard game (so, very good, but not movie good). The make-up artists, costume makers and set designers are also in the same boat. On some shots, the movie flirts with LARP territory!

A decent comparison would be making-of movies. Often in those you see the crew filming a scene with a general shot and it looks super cheap and fake and then it cuts to a clip from that scene in the movie and it looks awesome? HFR seems to make it easy to get the former and hard to get the latter! As it stands, the crispness is more a burden than a boon, but you also get a hint at what it can do that could not be done before. I am curious to see more when cinematographers and directors will be able to play to the strength of this new system.
 

Ossoi

Potato del Grande
<Rickshaw Potatoes>
17,712
8,754
I saw it with two friends, one who knew I'd booked HFR tickets, one who didn't.

They both said the same thing, that it felt like watching TV.
 

Cor_sl

shitlord
487
0
I just got back from seeing the film in imax 24FPS. For some reason, the film was a juddery mess during panning shots and both me and my cousin came out feeling dizzy with bad headaches. I've seen multiple 3d movies in that imax and never had a problem so I can only assume it was due to the 48fps -> 24fps conversion.

As for the film.. I was never bored and never felt inclined to look at my watch, but I didn't enjoy it very much either.

The main thing that bugged me was that everything was too convenient. I never felt like the characters were in any peril and I was constantly waiting for something random to happen that would save them from the clutches of danger at the last second.

The feeling of time was completely fucked, too. Day and night cycles were passing far too quickly. It was annoying as hell.

I was planning on seeing the film again in HFR but I can't be bothered now. 6/10, I guess.
 

Faiona_sl

shitlord
113
1
PJ really, really ruined the troll scene.

Everything else was good.

And some of you should probably read the book again if you think the film followed the book "to the letter"



when critics trash the movie for the frame rate, it's fairly obvious they have nothing else about it they can trash.

For a minute I thought the movie was played too fast, then I adjusted to the 48fps
What did he do to ruin the troll scene? I'm seeing it tomorrow, but I'm impatient
frown.png


frown.png
 

Malice_sl

shitlord
171
2
Saw a screening of the HFR3D earlier today, and saw the Imax 24 FPS 3D afterwards. I really, really wanted to like the HFR, but it looks kind of awkward and bad. The movement of the actors is so crisp and clear that it draws attention to how fake some of the environments are. It could just be that my eye is used to 24 FPS and that the uncanniness just stems from that, but at this point I'm not sure I'd recommend paying extra to see it in HFR, unless you're really curious. The Dolby Atmos sound is fucking awesome though.

As for the movie itself...
Someone in the thread mentioned it looked kind of kiddy, some parts were kind of silly and definitely aimed at the kids and parents, but there was some dark moments too, but overall it felt kind of uneven. Like in Fellowship it starts out kind of lighthearted and gradually gets more sinister, in The Hobbit those moments kind of come and go and tonally it gets kind of messy in places. There were so many nods to Fellowship of the Ring it felt a little heavy handed, like some scenes feel like straight reshoots of scenes in Fellowship. I get that he was trying to draw people back into the world, but I wish he'd found a different way to do it.
 

Juvarisx

Florida
3,888
4,088
Loved it and fuck you whiny shits that say otherwise. This hipster attitude of hating on shit because its going to be popular needs to end. This film does not deserve the crap from here that Prometheus got. It followed the book just fine, and the tone shifting was due to Necromancer not really playing a role in the book as it does here.

I didn't mind the 48fps at all but I did avoid the 3d. I kind of wish they didn't even bother with new technology on this because thats all people can talk about and its getting old.