|
|
Post by entilzha on Dec 18, 2012 0:08:54 GMT -5
I saw it in 3D HFR on Friday. My views are essentially the same as above.
I enjoyed the movie, and it was fun to watch. Just like LOTR it can be a little campy at times, but so what. The effects and depth of plot are more than adequate for me.
The HFR took a little getting used to, but it does not bother me. It almost felt as if it was on fast-forward, but you know it's not. The fluidity was interesting. Overall, I look forward to more HFR movies. The 3D was also as nicely done as in Avatar. Not overbearing at all. Just right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 18, 2012 8:54:33 GMT -5
I am among those who derive little, if any, benefit from "regular" 3D I just don't see it. Perhaps this is because each eye is only receiving 1/2 of the original frame rate. For that reason I am very interested in finding out if the new HFR improves upon my ability to derive some satisfaction from 3D.
If not, no big loss - I have been enjoying 2D movies for many decades and will continue to do so...
-RW-
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs 
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 18, 2012 10:40:11 GMT -5
Yep. I can't see 3D because I only HAVE one eye. So I will go see this in 2D and hope the added length (Jackson apparently had entire sections made up that are not in the book) does not ruin the movie for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by sharkman on Dec 25, 2012 9:13:49 GMT -5
Sometimes it is better to see the movie before reading any reviews, if you are familiar enough with the book or the director/producer. I loved the movie and can't wait for the next one.
|
|
|
|
Post by flamingeye on Dec 25, 2012 16:55:43 GMT -5
48fps , 3D was an improvement in my book more life like and clearer ,less blur with the fast action parts. I hope more movies go with HFR especially when it's 3D
|
|
|
|
Post by garbulky on Dec 26, 2012 2:38:41 GMT -5
We went to see it a while ago. Well I went in with rather mediocre expectations. The hobbit was after all a rather short mediocre book compared to LOTR when I read it.
But this movie was fantastic. Seeing LOTR characters and middle earth in 3d was great. The scale of the buildings and scenery was breathtaking. I would reccomend people go see it just for the 3d alone. The scene in the trailer in the goblin cave looked to me to be so-so in the trailer but in 3d the scope was immense. They really utilized 3d for this film and IMO it was better than Avatar for me. It rivaled transformers 3 for use of 3d and perhaps did better due to the effects simply being a bit more believable.
I saw it in regular framerate and was pleased to say it looked great in this format. If I had the chance I would try to see it in HFR.
It looked like this was the kind of movie Tolkien wanted LOTR to be but was unable to due to the length. I enjoyed the journey aspects of Tolkiens writing and I felt they really captured it. All the scenes in the book were exactly like I imagined it. Also the dwarfs were portrayed with better realism than how they did gimli in LOTR.
Anyway, if you like LOTR go see this movie. It is not a let down and looks to be a great intro for the trilogy.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Dec 27, 2012 9:34:36 GMT -5
So no extended directors cut for bluray?  The DVD/BD release next year (3rd quarter) will have an extended cut of about 20 to 25 minutes; bringing the movie to over 3 hours. |
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Dec 27, 2012 9:52:34 GMT -5
Saw this last night with my daughter at 48 fps and 4K at Regal Opry Mills Stadium 20 & IMAX just outside of Nashville. The 48 fps made the movie too fluid for me, giving it a surreal and "fast-forward" look to it. The first scenes looked like I was watching the movie with my Oppo on the 1st fast-forward setting. Between the HFR and the 4K the picture, though very clean and detailed, looked like it was a video rather than a film to my eyes. This affected the color pallet as well as made the CGI and miniatures/bigatures look incredibly fake and would often take me out of the scene. This is in stark contrast from the LOTR films of a decade ago which were very natural and lifelike, by way of comparison. A case in point is when Gandalf dismounts his eagle toward the end of the film. I hadn't seen CGI that noticeably fake in almost 15 years. Rivendale looked about as real as a miniature train set. And, the chase in Goblin Town looked on par with the mine train sequence from Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom. While Temple of Doom was on par with special FX 28 years ago to see it in a movie with the production budget of The Hobbit is unacceptable.
The story was spot on and was definitely entertaining. However, we're not here for a course in literary greatness. I'll be interested to see this in "normal" 24 fps when I see it again to be able to compare the glaring issues that I saw when I saw it in HFR and 4K. From what I heard, at 24 fps and normal resolution, it is almost indistinguishable from the LOTR films a decade ago. Either that, or those that have made that remark in many a review have been stricken with cataracts since 2003.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hair Nick on Dec 27, 2012 10:38:55 GMT -5
Saw this last night with my daughter at 48 fps and 4K at Regal Opry Mills Stadium 20 & IMAX just outside of Nashville. The 48 fps made the movie too fluid for me, giving it a surreal and "fast-forward" look to it. The first scenes looked like I was watching the movie with my Oppo on the 1st fast-forward setting. Between the HFR and the 4K the picture, though very clean and detailed, looked like it was a video rather than a film to my eyes. This affected the color pallet as well as made the CGI and miniatures/bigatures look incredibly fake and would often take me out of the scene. This is in stark contrast from the LOTR films of a decade ago which were very natural and lifelike, by way of comparison. A case in point is when Gandalf dismounts his eagle toward the end of the film. I hadn't seen CGI that noticeably fake in almost 15 years. Rivendale looked about as real as a miniature train set. And, the chase in Goblin Town looked on par with the mine train sequence from Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom. While Temple of Doom was on par with special FX 28 years ago to see it in a movie with the production budget of The Hobbit is unacceptable. This is what I was afraid of. I have been thinking about driving out to the Opry IMAX to check it out but I don't really want to pay the IMAX prices if the visuals will take me out of the movie. I've been curious about the 48fps and how that translates to the big screen but since I disabled the 120hz on my TV, because of the fluid movement, then I probably won't like it. I saw this christmas eve and had a good time with it. It seemed a little long at certain points but overall it was a great movie. |
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,486
|
Post by DYohn on Dec 27, 2012 10:44:44 GMT -5
Saw this. WAY too long with too much that was not in the book. Hardcore fans will likely love it. Gollum was the star.
|
|
stiehl11
Emo VIPs
Give me available light!
Posts: 7,269
|
Post by stiehl11 on Dec 27, 2012 12:00:08 GMT -5
Saw this last night with my daughter at 48 fps and 4K at Regal Opry Mills Stadium 20 & IMAX just outside of Nashville. The 48 fps made the movie too fluid for me, giving it a surreal and "fast-forward" look to it. The first scenes looked like I was watching the movie with my Oppo on the 1st fast-forward setting. Between the HFR and the 4K the picture, though very clean and detailed, looked like it was a video rather than a film to my eyes. This affected the color pallet as well as made the CGI and miniatures/bigatures look incredibly fake and would often take me out of the scene. This is in stark contrast from the LOTR films of a decade ago which were very natural and lifelike, by way of comparison. A case in point is when Gandalf dismounts his eagle toward the end of the film. I hadn't seen CGI that noticeably fake in almost 15 years. Rivendale looked about as real as a miniature train set. And, the chase in Goblin Town looked on par with the mine train sequence from Indian Jones and the Temple of Doom. While Temple of Doom was on par with special FX 28 years ago to see it in a movie with the production budget of The Hobbit is unacceptable. This is what I was afraid of. I have been thinking about driving out to the Opry IMAX to check it out but I don't really want to pay the IMAX prices if the visuals will take me out of the movie. I've been curious about the 48fps and how that translates to the big screen but since I disabled the 120hz on my TV, because of the fluid movement, then I probably won't like it. I saw this christmas eve and had a good time with it. It seemed a little long at certain points but overall it was a great movie. What we saw last night was in theater 19... not the IMAX theater. Cost was $12.75 a ticket. I think there were only 20 people in the theater (maybe less). I don't know if it was because it was the day after Christmas or the threat of bad weather, but the mall (and Dave and Buster's) were dead last night. |
|
