The Hobbit
The Hobbit
So... Someone watched it on HFR 3D? Was it worth it or should we watch it on IMAX instead?
- VikingBoyBilly
- Vorticon Elite
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06
- Location: The spaghetti island of the faces of dinosaur world for a vacation
I'm seeing it on a regular screen at 24 fps within a few days, and then in HFR 3D in a couple of weeks. I'll report back after doing so but from what I hear the HFR is extremely distracting, and I'm really just seeing it because I'm curious how distracting it is. If you're only going to watch the film once in theaters you should probably see it in IMAX.
VBB, you haven't heard of IMAX? It's a high-resolution, large-size film format that up until about a decade ago was used exclusively for documentaries. Recently it's become popular to show blockbusters in IMAX format theaters because the size of their screens go somewhere between large and enormous. The HFR in HFR 3D stands for High Frame Rate. The Hobbit, as opposed to being filmed in the usual 24 fps was filmed at 48 fps which apparently gives it the look of live sports or a soap opera. So far I haven't heard anything positive about it, but I'm curious to check it out.
VBB, you haven't heard of IMAX? It's a high-resolution, large-size film format that up until about a decade ago was used exclusively for documentaries. Recently it's become popular to show blockbusters in IMAX format theaters because the size of their screens go somewhere between large and enormous. The HFR in HFR 3D stands for High Frame Rate. The Hobbit, as opposed to being filmed in the usual 24 fps was filmed at 48 fps which apparently gives it the look of live sports or a soap opera. So far I haven't heard anything positive about it, but I'm curious to check it out.
So, after having seen it in 48 frames per second I must say it is quite distracting. It reminds me of watching a British tv-movie, or some sort of low-budget reenactment. Those who have grown up in PAL regions might not find it as distracting as I do, but North Americans are definitely going to notice the difference.
I'm sure I'll get used to it if HFR catches on, but right now I'm not a fan.
I'm sure I'll get used to it if HFR catches on, but right now I'm not a fan.
-
- Vorticon Elite
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:33
- Location: Sydney, Australia
-
- Vorticon Elite
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:33
- Location: Sydney, Australia
- StupidBunny
- format c:
- Posts: 2155
- Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 19:19
- Location: The Centre of the Moon
- Contact:
-
- Vorticon Elite
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:33
- Location: Sydney, Australia
I loved 3D, loved HFR, loved IMAX, loved the movie as a whole.
I'm also a Tolkien fan from way back (back before Jackson's movies came out, that is - first read The Hobbit in Grade 5, LOTR the following year, soon after that Silmarillion, and most of the material from Unfinished Tales and The Books of Lost Tales).
The views of critics and the public on this movie seem to be diverging, but I'm squarely on the public's side this time.
The HFR combined with 3D did make it feel more like I was watching an opera or stage production sometimes rather than a movie (and I'm fine with that).
The pacing felt just right to me most of the time. I don't think this would have been better as one movie. All it does is to allow things to feel less rushed (though still not as leisurely as the book).
The actors did their jobs quite well; my favourites were probably Radagast and the Great Goblin (and Gollum, that goes without saying).
Azog the white orc was a bit of a boring generic bad guy (and a departure from the book), but at least he didn't have much screen time.
Though I wonder what the heck happened to Bolg, who was supposed to be the main Orc villain as recently as a few months ago (and is actually there in the original book as well, though we don't meet him until later in the story). Bolg is actually still listed in the credits of the film, so I wonder if he's going to appear later on at some point.
I'm also a Tolkien fan from way back (back before Jackson's movies came out, that is - first read The Hobbit in Grade 5, LOTR the following year, soon after that Silmarillion, and most of the material from Unfinished Tales and The Books of Lost Tales).
The views of critics and the public on this movie seem to be diverging, but I'm squarely on the public's side this time.
The HFR combined with 3D did make it feel more like I was watching an opera or stage production sometimes rather than a movie (and I'm fine with that).
The pacing felt just right to me most of the time. I don't think this would have been better as one movie. All it does is to allow things to feel less rushed (though still not as leisurely as the book).
The actors did their jobs quite well; my favourites were probably Radagast and the Great Goblin (and Gollum, that goes without saying).
Azog the white orc was a bit of a boring generic bad guy (and a departure from the book), but at least he didn't have much screen time.
Though I wonder what the heck happened to Bolg, who was supposed to be the main Orc villain as recently as a few months ago (and is actually there in the original book as well, though we don't meet him until later in the story). Bolg is actually still listed in the credits of the film, so I wonder if he's going to appear later on at some point.
Member since at least 1998 with... ah... some long absences. I was even a moderator at one point. I'll probably keep coming back here and there as long as this place still exists.
- VikingBoyBilly
- Vorticon Elite
- Posts: 4158
- Joined: Sat Jan 05, 2008 2:06
- Location: The spaghetti island of the faces of dinosaur world for a vacation
I found someone to voice my exact reaction for me:Flaose wrote:VBB, you haven't heard of IMAX? It's a high-resolution, large-size film format that up until about a decade ago was used exclusively for documentaries. Recently it's become popular to show blockbusters in IMAX format theaters because the size of their screens go somewhere between large and enormous. The HFR in HFR 3D stands for High Frame Rate. The Hobbit, as opposed to being filmed in the usual 24 fps was filmed at 48 fps which apparently gives it the look of live sports or a soap opera. So far I haven't heard anything positive about it, but I'm curious to check it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... 87DLnq92X4
"I don't trust players. Not one bit." - Levellass
This is the only thing related to that that I have been aware of in the last while... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saZ0bSbE5WE
Join us for netkeen! irc://irc.foonetic.net/netkeen
Stay classy, Scarlet.
Ha, you really are a fucling legend aren't you you neocon netnanny.
By jove... You have exceptional taste in games, Scarlet!
I really liked the movie. I think some of the critic's issue with the film is that it wasn't LOTR (if that is the case, they obviously never read the Hobbit book) insteading of judging it on its own merits.
So I felt, while it did diverge a bit from the book (mostly with radagast scenes and a few details were switched around, like the troll scene), it captured the feeling of the book as this lighthearted, fun adventure-- not as the serious epic that LOTR was meant to be.
I have to commend Peter Jackson for not trying to outdo LOTR and make the Hobbit just another serious epic...instead he tried to capture the atmosphere of the original book. I also felt every scene was necessary, and if it wasn't in the book it was to better connect the Hobbit with the LOTR (like the Frodo and Bilbo scene) or give the first film a tangible antagonist (Azog filled this role).
If you go back to the original trailer, there's some key scenes definitely not in the final cut of the film (like Bilbo looking at Narsil, Gandalf at what looks to be dol guldur and fighting some orc looking thing that might be Bolg).
So I felt, while it did diverge a bit from the book (mostly with radagast scenes and a few details were switched around, like the troll scene), it captured the feeling of the book as this lighthearted, fun adventure-- not as the serious epic that LOTR was meant to be.
I have to commend Peter Jackson for not trying to outdo LOTR and make the Hobbit just another serious epic...instead he tried to capture the atmosphere of the original book. I also felt every scene was necessary, and if it wasn't in the book it was to better connect the Hobbit with the LOTR (like the Frodo and Bilbo scene) or give the first film a tangible antagonist (Azog filled this role).
Or the extended version?Snortimer wrote:Bolg is actually still listed in the credits of the film, so I wonder if he's going to appear later on at some point.
If you go back to the original trailer, there's some key scenes definitely not in the final cut of the film (like Bilbo looking at Narsil, Gandalf at what looks to be dol guldur and fighting some orc looking thing that might be Bolg).
-
- Intellectuality
- Posts: 855
- Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2007 0:38
Thought it was a bit overrated.
Plus, where was that Radagast guy when we needed him in LOTR?
It's interesting how the orcs get more of a society, compared to just the mindless minions later on. The Great Goblin was definitely made to seem highly intelligent.
I really have to question stretching it into three movies, but whatever.
Plus, where was that Radagast guy when we needed him in LOTR?
It's interesting how the orcs get more of a society, compared to just the mindless minions later on. The Great Goblin was definitely made to seem highly intelligent.
I really have to question stretching it into three movies, but whatever.
"In order to ensure our security, and continuing stability, the Kingdom has been reorganized into the First Vorticon Intellectuality!"