Garbulky's Hobbit 3 HFR 3d Review

[garbulky]

The last two hobbits were somewhat underwhelming but we decided that we can't miss the last LOTR movie to show in theaters. We ponied up and headed to a theater that did the high frame rate 3d version.

This was the first time I got to see a HFR movie and I was very excited. Why? Because I was able to see the "strobe" effect in regular movies and was wondering what 48 fps movies would look like. I thought, this must be the way forward. Between 3d and 48 fps what's not to like?

Turns out the answer was: everything. Everything!

If there was anything to ruin the Hobbit, it was the decision to go HFR. Which is very strange as .... it shouldn't have made it so bad. I couldn't help but wonder if there was some problems that needed to be finetuned when filming in HFR.
And basically it was the soap opera effect. Except....everythng seemed to move really fast. And it looked like we were watching a play.
And this "moves" really fast, didn't feel realistic AT ALL. At least soap opera's motion felt somewhat realistic, but not 48fps. Everything was definitely very clear but it didn't feel like real life.

So then I watched a TV show and I realized that the filming styles were similar. The camera moved too fast in "slow pans", and the actors moved slightly faster than usual. But....in 24 fps, it didn't look too fast. The too fast motion just promoted a normal feeling of healthy motion. But I was thinking if I saw actors move and talk that fast in real life, it would feel simply slightly too fast.

So in my opinion, they need a different filing style for the HFR. Which....they seemed to have got.....in most of the 3d CGI sequences. Just not when they were involing regular people.
But I have to wonder: the timing felt so off with HFR that it really felt like a record player playing too fast that was it the equipment and not the HFR itself? Either way: eww.

So that out of the way....how was the movie?

The first half was pretty awful. Talk about tons of filler. When you see it, ask yourself why the heck "Alfred" is even in a LOTR movie. In essence: this felt like I was watching every single deleted scene in the the trilogy rather than the movie itselfThen the action caught up and I found myself enjoying it. . But in the end I enjoyed it more than the first two movies.

The CGI in the intro sections with smaug was very dodgy in the HFR version but in the others it was passable - as was the other hobbit. But sadly, the special effects couldn't touch the much older LOTR trilogy.
There was a tiny bit more character development of the dwarves which I appreciated as I felt that was a largely missed oppurtunity. Really the only thing I couldn't fault in this movie was the actor playing Bilbo baggins. He was exxcellent as usual!

There is a very interesting team up section near the beginning involving Gandalf, elrond, cate blanchett, Saruman, and Raghadast. Usually my enjoyment would be through the roof here, but for some reason the scene fell flat.

Anyway, this is the best of the three Hobbits. It is not worth the HFR 3d version. I'm glad I got to see it, just to say I did. It MAY be worth a rental but you aren't missing much if you miss it.

[rogersch]

Although I'm a long time Tolkien fan and I liked the LOTR films very much, but to make a trilogy out of a small book of the Hobbit is really a bridge too far for me. I went to see the first film of the Hobbit with much anticipation in the cinema but I didn't like it. It took some convincing of my friends to see the second movie in the cinema but this last film I will definitely not watch in the theater. Maybe in the future, when one of my friends has bought the Blu-ray of the movie (probably an extended edition....), I'll lend it and watch the movie at home (in fast forward mode).

I'm looking forward to a fan compilation who makes from these three movies, one movie with scenes matching the story of the book.

Maybe next project of Peter Jackson will be a TV-series of the Silmarillion?

[novisnick]

Hey gar, so I'm reading your review and on TV a cut from the movie comes on and there it is, not 3-D but it looked fake,,,almost! Very strange look to the picture.
Very accurate description,,,,,,,as usual,, by you. Nice job there, think I'll wait, I own tHe lasT one and couldn't bring myself to watch it past the first 20 minutes, did it ever get better??

Thanks for your reviews, I'll watch Planet of the hemster,,,,,,,,I mean Dawn of hemster,,,,, 8) ,,,,wait, wait, wait,,,,,,,,,,
Dawn of the Planet of the family of the hemster!!, 8). 8).

But really, I'll watch it!!

[Deleted]

I went and saw this last night, I really enjoyed it but the soap opera effect bugged the hell outta me... I thought the scenes with smaug were the best in the movie, second was the detail put into azog he looked incredible. The rest of the cgi was extremely fake looking to me... Can't wait to get it home and watch it again.

[Dark Ranger]

I've seen the film in standard frame rate 2D and in IMAX 3D HFR. The IMAX 3D experience was stellar, but the HFR component was distracting at best, and annoying at worst. I'm a bit ashamed to admit this was my first HFR film (I declined watching HFR with the previous two Hobbit films). The best way I can describe HFR with The Hobbit is that the film, err, stream felt "sped up," kinda like being played on fast-forward at 1.5 - 2x speed. The effect was less when the camera itself wasn't moving or there wasn't a lot of movement on the screen. However, if the camera was panning or there were actors walking/running, it was sometimes comical.

The one positive thing I will say about HFR is that some of the action sequences were more fluid and natural. This seemingly contradicts what I just said above, but I can point out these scenes. For example, there's a scene where Thorin is standing on the solidified "lake" of gold in Erebor and the camera begins to spin above him in a clockwise motion. In the non-HFR version, the 24fps lag is very noticeable and gives a choppy pan. With the HFR version, it's silky smooth. There's are similar scenes in the first Hobbit film where the circular pans occur as well, and I'd imagine the effect is the same.

Anyway, HFR issues aside, the IMAX 3D experience was magnificent. I want a projection system like that for my 1,050 cubic feet room. The louder, more immersive audio system was appreciated above the usual theater fare. I still think my system has better resolution, but the IMAX system is impressive for getting loud and punching you in the chest when necessary.

[knucklehead]

Jan 3, 2015 0:50:33 GMT -5 rogersch said:

Although I'm a long time Tolkien fan and I liked the LOTR films very much, but to make a trilogy out of a small book of the Hobbit is really a bridge too far for me. I went to see the first film of the Hobbit with much anticipation in the cinema but I didn't like it. It took some convincing of my friends to see the second movie in the cinema but this last film I will definitely not watch in the theater. Maybe in the future, when one of my friends has bought the Blu-ray of the movie (probably an extended edition....), I'll lend it and watch the movie at home (in fast forward mode).

I'm looking forward to a fan compilation who makes from these three movies, one movie with scenes matching the story of the book.

Maybe next project of Peter Jackson will be a TV-series of the Silmarillion?

I agree about stretching The Hobbit thin. It was nothing more than a money making ploy on the part of Jackson and the studios. I'm just happy they didn't try to stretch the trilogy to 8 or 9 movies. I've read JRRT's trilogy at least 8 times and The Hobbit about that many too. I've seen the first two Hobbit movies and IMO they were junk when compared to the LOTR movies. When Jackson decided to make three movies out of it he tossed the original story line - little of the original story was kept. I'm not in any hurry to see the third Hobbit movie.

[Lsc]

I fell asleep during the first 45 min of both 1 & 2. Looks like there is more of that in this movie.

1 - I went all out and saw it in the theaters in that HFR IMAX and I actually liked the effects but not the movie.
2 - rented it
3 - may not even rent it. I have no desire to see it.

[Chuck Elliot]

Jan 3, 2015 1:30:09 GMT -5 knucklehead said:

...I'm not in any hurry to see the third Hobbit movie...

Although I love the LOTR series, these have just sucked. I re-read the Hobbit in preparation for the first movie and still loved it, but I find the 3 part series too packed with unnecessary filler and emphasis on the "Ring" and the rising of Mordor which Gandalf had no clue to until Fellowship.

[jmilton]

So...no one is interested in the Blu Ray "extended" directors cut when it comes out, eh?

[rogersch]

Jan 3, 2015 10:02:40 GMT -5 jmilton said:

So...no one is interested in the Blu Ray "extended" directors cut when it comes out, eh?

Haha. Not directly.

[Axis]

Jan 3, 2015 10:02:40 GMT -5 jmilton said:

So...no one is interested in the Blu Ray "extended" directors cut when it comes out, eh?

Just like I did with Lord of the Ring I am buying the DVD theater versions as they come out and then when they come out with the complete extended version with all three I buy the Blu-ray. I have not been to the theater to see a movie in 10 yrs.

I love the LOTR movies and I am enjoying the Hobbit movies also. Peter Jackson would tell you these are not as good as LOTR and I think it is just the technology that many are trying to use to add to the movie experience. Who knows. I read the books when I was a kid. They were very popular back then and you almost had to read the books to be cool back then. No they did not follow the books exactly but I am loving seeing it come to life on a screen. I am glad it was Peter Jackson that did these movies. I think he is doing a great job and someone else might have really mangled them.

[bootman]

Jan 3, 2015 10:02:40 GMT -5 jmilton said:

So...no one is interested in the Blu Ray "extended" directors cut when it comes out, eh?

You mean six months after the theatrical release?

then the super boxed set with an additional four hours of never before released makeup applying scene?
...or the yet to be released in xmas of 2015, the six movie super extended 12 disk bluray box set with never before scenes of MGM executives counting profits in ones.
(that's on one special gold disk)


...or the 4k special disk set in 2016 that makes all other sets obsolete.
...or the 2017 8K set that does that to the 2016 one....


...or

[garbulky]

Jan 3, 2015 1:15:44 GMT -5 Dark Ranger said:

I've seen the film in standard frame rate 2D and in IMAX 3D HFR. The IMAX 3D experience was stellar, but the HFR component was distracting at best, and annoying at worst. I'm a bit ashamed to admit this was my first HFR film (I declined watching HFR with the previous two Hobbit films). The best way I can describe HFR with The Hobbit is that the film, err, stream felt "sped up," kinda like being played on fast-forward at 1.5 - 2x speed. The effect was less when the camera itself wasn't moving or there wasn't a lot of movement on the screen. However, if the camera was panning or there were actors walking/running, it was sometimes comical.

The one positive thing I will say about HFR is that some of the action sequences were more fluid and natural. This seemingly contradicts what I just said above, but I can point out these scenes.

I agree, the motion effect was very strange. But incomprehensible to me, why it should be! Why does it feel like the wrong speed?! I will give you that you could see the action sequences significantly better. Going back to regular 24 fps also makes the shudder even more obvious to me now. Even in regular dialog. It's crazy.
As for the camera panning. Absolutely, whenever the camera panned too fast, it was way too obvious that it's going faster than it should. But I imagine in 24 fps, it would look completely normal. Maybe speeding things up is HOW they make things seem good in 24 fps and we just didn't realize it?

Jan 3, 2015 1:43:19 GMT -5 Lsc said:

I fell asleep during the first 45 min of both 1 & 2. Looks like there is more of that in this movie.

1 - I went all out and saw it in the theaters in that HFR IMAX and I actually liked the effects but not the movie.
2 - rented it
3 - may not even rent it. I have no desire to see it.

Honestly, I don't think you missed much!

Jan 3, 2015 1:14:40 GMT -5 fattykidd said:

I went and saw this last night, I really enjoyed it but the soap opera effect bugged the hell outta me... I thought the scenes with smaug were the best in the movie, second was the detail put into azog he looked incredible. The rest of the cgi was extremely fake looking to me... Can't wait to get it home and watch it again.

Pity we missed nearly all of smaug except the last bit as we were running late.
We had forgotten a lot of the book. So <SPOILER ALERT> when he died right at the beginning we were going what just happened? Is that the end of the movie? Then we kept complaining about alfred and his pointlessness.

[Axis]

Jan 3, 2015 10:53:15 GMT -5 bootman said:

Jan 3, 2015 10:02:40 GMT -5 jmilton said:

So...no one is interested in the Blu Ray "extended" directors cut when it comes out, eh?

You mean six months after the theatrical release?

then the super boxed set with an additional four hours of never before released makeup applying scene?
...or the yet to be released in xmas of 2015, the six movie super extended 12 disk bluray box set with never before scenes of MGM executives counting profits in ones.
(that's on one special gold disk)


...or the 4k special disk set in 2016 that makes all other sets obsolete.
...or the 2017 8K set that does that to the 2016 one....


...or

I take what I said earlier back about LOTR. I remember now, I bought the first DVD theatrical release of The "Fellowship of the Ring" and did not like how the following movies were to be released on DVD. I went to the Theatre and watched the next two films. I waited to buy any DVD's until they released the DVD box set of the extended versions November of 2006. They did not release the extended versions Blu-ray box set until June of 2011 which I bought.

You know what, I am going to just buy the Blu-ray extended versions now of The Hobbit films and screw all the extras that come with the box set. I could not nail it down but it looks like they made around $3 Billion for the LOTR trilogy. I guess with all that money they could afford the special effects for Legolas in the Hobbit movies. I think they just went overboard. They lost me when Legolas started dancing on top of Orc heads in the Barrels Down the River scene. I was ok until that.

Please no Spoilers and thanks for the Spoiler Alert on Smaug. I saw it just in time ! Going to wait for the DVD release to see the last movie.

[knucklehead]

How about this for a spoiler alert? DO NOT READ THE HOBBIT if you are going to see the (trilogy? - Who knew?) Hobbit. The book (gasp) does not follow the movie(s)!

I can well imagine JRRT rolling over in his grave.

IMO there was plenty of material in the original book to flesh out 2 movies - maybe 3 IF the original story line/plot had been followed. Did Jackson think himself a better story teller than JRRT? That is hubris to the extreme if true IMO.

[rogersch]

Jan 3, 2015 13:43:23 GMT -5 Axis said:

I guess with all that money they could afford the special effects for Legolas in the Hobbit movies. I think they just went overboard. They lost me when Legolas started dancing on top of Orc heads in the Barrels Down the River scene. I was ok until that.

I fully agree!

[stiehl11]

Jan 3, 2015 10:02:40 GMT -5 jmilton said:

So...no one is interested in the Blu Ray "extended" directors cut when it comes out, eh?

I am. I have the first 2 of this series and the extended versions of LOTR, so I'll get it to complete the set. Plus, I'm interested in what will be added (or taken away).

I saw this film on the 27th here in Nashville in the HFR/3D version. The HFR is still something that I have to get used to. I agree with garbulky that the action on screen seemed sped-up compared to normal films (felt that way from the start with the first of the series). Other than that, I enjoyed the movie. Was it the best movie of all time? Will it be something that watch several times (like the LOTR films)? Probably not. Still a better movie than most of the dreck that is put up on the screen throughout the year. Most of that is because of the source material, of course.

[yves]

Jan 3, 2015 13:43:23 GMT -5 Axis said:

They lost me when Legolas started dancing on top of Orc heads in the Barrels Down the River scene.

lol!