Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Be that as it may, I don't want to know anymore about how much people thought this film sucked! I'm still trying to go into the theatre with no preconceived notion of the film's quality. And I intend to watch this in 48 fps as I have faith that it will be the awesome, fun experience (ridden with all sorts of typical anti-Tolkien flaws of course)!

Nobody said it suck. Most people complained 48fps (which has nothing to do with the film itself), the pace and some lame jokes (oh, and most of the Dwarves being interchangeable. But wasn't it like that in the book anyway?). Really, if that's all we have to worry about, that's fine by me.

Hmm, I see. How many reviews are out by the way? Is this only a small group of critics who made it to the premiere or a large amount with the same opinion?

I don't think there would be something wrong with many of the Dwarves being interchangeable. They're fun because there's a bunch of them. They can act like a collective character. That said, they're likely to be less interchangeable than in the book. We can even tell them apart.

Yes, exactly. That's why I think that's not a very valid point to put in a review for the film (unless you precise in the review that this particular "flaw" come from the book)

The dwarves were quite interchangeable in the book, but they seem like they really tried to give them some more unique personalities. It seems quite hard to differentiate 13 different characters, especially when Tolkien never really elaborates on each of them specifically much.

That won't be a problem for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Think I'll probably be going with 2D myself now. This film will likely have lots of epic MASSIVE™ shots in it and even more flying and zooming shots weaving in and out of interiors and exteriors, meaning the 24fps 3D will frequently be a total blur. 2D will be more be distinct and easy to follow in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The more people complain about 48 fps the more curious I am about it.

I see no reason why film should be 24 fps only. Did people complain when they settled on 24 fps with the talkies?

I think a frame rate like 24 fps gets favoured because higher frame rates are closer to the way we see things, and it highlights the fakeness of a film. You can no longer use it to hide make up and protethics and special effects and miscalculated light sources and what not. Maybe what's needed is to up their game in these. If your camera captures things more realistically, you should prepare the fake things it captures to be more realistic.

I have confirmation that there'll be HFR showings here, but I'm unsure about any of them being in English.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The actual frames per second technology isn't the problem, Chaac. It's the knock-on effect it has on the production design, wardrobe and special effects - a major downside of the technology (a serious oversight on Jackson's part?) is that faster frames add an extra 'uncanny' byproduct, a perception of 'something isn't right' for what seems to be most viewers, leaving them feeling they are watching something quite unnatural. The extra crispness in detail also appears to reveal the 'seams' in every shot, further enchancing the unwanted sensation that these are indeed movies made on a set, with actors. Of course that's the case in all movies, but the technology apparently makes forgetting that a difficult proposition - the quirkiness of every new shot and established location in the story revealing more man-made elements for ever-searching eyes to be drawn towards, involuntarily. That's clearly a significant problem for the tech, at least as long as films are made in the way they are.

I was fortunate enough to see 48fps and 60fps at the Museum of Science and Industry and it was fascinating, I really thought it was superb and I remember wishing movies used it at the time. But that was clearly documentary footage and sweeping natural vistas - all completely real and unmanipulated by movie post production techniques. It worked fantastically well. Also, one only needs to play the latest video games running on a decent pc to witness almost phot-realistic 60fps for themselves. Even in that medium it feels terrific.

It seems to me that this modern filming technique's major flaw is that it isn't particularly well suited to very old film production sensibilities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the major complaints in the reviews concerning this 48 fps and 3D HFR had been how it makes some of the scenes look unfinished, fake and unnatural, taking the viewer suddenly out of the experience. When you can see everything down to the seams of Gandalf's hat, the too close scrutiny could well make even the best make-up look just that, a make-up. The worst effect mentioned is how it makes some shots look like British TV-series from 1970's, where you can tell that the characters are standing in sets. Not the best possible thing for suspension of disbelief.

But again I will have to see it probably both in 3D HFR and 2D for comparison before making any judgements one way or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember in the first preview of 48fps, it was actually to the benefit of the CGI. But as everyone said, 48fps seems like it'll expose old-school production sets and makeup which would be hidden in traditional 24fps.

Regardless, I still want to try out 48fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First viewing?

I already kind of booked my first viewing tickets in 48 fps, so not like I can change it. I still want to go into the film first with the experience that Jackson had in mind.

I'm watching 10pm screening on the 13th in 48fps, then I'm seeing it again with some other friends on Friday night in regular 24 fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When are the poll options going to be updated? Only 3 of the 4 options listed there actually exist, are there are 3 other ways to see it not listed (2D, 3D, or HFR 3D, on IMAX screens)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I'm kind of annoyed at the IMAX situation where I live. I have no problem finding the film showing in 2D, 3D, or HFR 3D on a multitude of standard size screens around me.

However, there are NO IMAX 2D showing ANYWHERE in New England, from what I can tell. There also isn't any IMAX HFR 3D screenings around here! Around me, all the IMAX showings are IMAX 3D in standard 24fps ONLY. Bummer.

I wanted to see my second showing in IMAX, but not in 3D, unless it was HFR 3D.

Now I guess my second showing will be HFR 3D on a standard size screen. At least I won't have to travel as far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well movietickets.com has an entry for a 2D IMAX version so I assume it exists

http://www.movietickets.com/movie_detail.asp?movie_id=153440&tstate=3&rel=&SearchZip=90210&ShowDate=8&SearchRadius=40

There are no such thing as HFR 2D showings, IMAX or regular screen. Only 2D, 3D, or HFR 3D, on standard or IMAX screens. My are has all 3 on standard screens, but only 24fps 3D on IMAX screens,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People are so antediluvian. As someone prefers to see silent, b/w version of Star Wars accompanied by Honky-tonk piano...

Terrible analogy!

Hornist's trademark!!

Not sure if this is the right thread since there are dozens of them here but how many of you are going to see this

in its first possible viewing? I would like to see it as soon as possible though just to join the discussion here...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Service personnel is sometimes really stupid.

Today I called the cinema I want to watch the film in for my tickets. I asked the guy which showing was in HFR, and he didn't know. He didn't even know what HFR was. Neither did he understand "HFR", nor "High Frame Rate", nor did he understand when I explained it to him.

I actually had to call management to get an answer that seemed somewhat legit.

This is the biggest multiplex theatre in Europe! They have 22 screens with a capacity of just over 5000 people, and they tell me they have only one screen showing The Hobbit in HFR 3D?

Doesn't seem very likely. But it's the largest screen they have, so no harm done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I turned my tail and ran and bought a ticket to a 2D showing instead of the 3D 48fps one.

When 3D reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled....

:lol:

Welcome to the boards, Nick!

And honestly the comments from our MB members convinced me that I won't have anything to do with the nausea inducing new format until the second viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I turned my tail and ran and bought a ticket to a 2D showing instead of the 3D 48fps one.

When 3D reared its ugly head he bravely turned his tail and fled....

:lol:

Welcome to the boards, Nick!

And honestly the comments from our MB members convinced me that I won't have anything to do with the nausea inducing new format until the second viewing.

Many thanks for the welcome Incanus (and to Quint as well).

I'll also see the 2D first, and save the 3D HFR for the second viewing. I'm mainly interested in story, and looking for continuity w/LOTR. Since I'm already preparing myself to be disappointed with this film, I'd like to at least not be distracted by the new technology. Plus my partner can't stand 3D, and she's kind of insisting. :)

But I'll definitely see it a second time, no matter what, just to check it out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully expect my second 48fps viewing to be ample conditions for a greater analysis of the movie and the technology itself. On those more scientific terms (lol), I expect to be pretty damn riveted, regardless of the movie's flaws. Might have to borrow a notebook and pencil off Incanus ;)

Oh and on another note, I'm also going to be taking my friend Steef's advice, as delivered to me via PM this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm, I won't be changing my viewing, so the 48fps may really affect my experience. But despite the seemingly negative reactions here, I hope to still be entertained by a great adventure. No doubt this movie will be flawed, but I still hope to swept off my feet. I guess I'll see what happens tomorrow night.

Don't fail me Jackson!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One stupid question. I enjoyed the film a lot but what is that quality "thing" in the picture, there was the same problem

as I have seen in the LED television, it looks like 80's TV serie shot with a cheap video camera?

It has nothing to do with the HFR...or has it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I voted for 2-D and 48 fps. I didn't even know you could choose between 24 and 48 fps. Weird...

But anyway... I find this 3-D trend appalling and 3-D doesn't make the film look more realistic and it doesn't look better and I like it when the film is not glued to my eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw the film in 48 fps 3D first, and loved it. Just loved it. It may be a bit unusual in the beginning when things are moving fast, but the picture quality and the details, and the immersive experience. I'm really contemplating if I should go see the film in 2D 24 fps at all. It just blew my mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...