The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Review Thread (Spoilers)

[threefiftyrocket]

Question for any other Blu-ray dot commers on this one... I live close to Noblesville Indiana, I went to see this at the Hamilton IMAX in IMAX 3D. Now all over the "InnerNets" people are complaining about the look of this in 48fps. After looking at their website, this was showing in IMAX 3D HFR at this theater, but I came out and looked at my buddy and we both swore we couldn't tell a difference. Anyone on here in the inner circle tell me if the Hamilton IMAX in Noblesville Indiana decided to go with 24fps after all? I'm just so confused...

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Question for any other Blu-ray dot commers on this one... I live close to Noblesville Indiana, I went to see this at the Hamilton IMAX in IMAX 3D. Now all over the "InnerNets" people are complaining about the look of this in 48fps. After looking at their website, this was showing in IMAX 3D HFR at this theater, but I came out and looked at my buddy and we both swore we couldn't tell a difference. Anyone on here in the inner circle tell me if the Hamilton IMAX in Noblesville Indiana decided to go with 24fps after all? I'm just so confused...

I actually had the same experience at my theater in VA also. I tried like a dickens all throughout the movie to pick up on some of these negatives that I had been hearing about. But aside from Radagast's sled chase I just could not find any. I only way that I could tell that I was waching 48-FPS was that I was blown away by the fantastic picture that it gave.

It appears that we are in the minority here as plenty of people have been bothered by some aspects of this new tech.

.

[threefiftyrocket]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

I actually had the same experience at my theater in VA also. I tried like a dickens all throughout the movie to pick up on some of these negatives that I had been hearing about. But aside from Radagast's sled chase I just could not find any. I only way that I could tell that I was waching 48-FPS was that I was blown away by the fantastic picture that it gave.

It appears that we are in the minority here as plenty of people have been bothered by some aspects of this new tech.

.

Yeah, I actually almost walked up to the theater manager and asked, but then I thought nah, my eyes are good enough, I know I wasn't watching 48FPS... but sure enough, Hamilton 16 IMAX listed as one of the theaters showing HFR, and I KNOW I was in the IMAX screen... it seriously looked normal to me... but then again, I usually get major headaches from 3D, but on this one I didn't, not even strained eyes... maybe the HFR was the reason???

[nathanp]

All I have to add to this discussion is that 48 fps is THE way to see this film, kinda wish all movies were shot this way from now on.

[cbal75]

Originally Posted by Shin sam

Oh dear. The Phantom Menace? Did this film have Adam Sandler in it? Was it directed by Uwe Boll? Was it Twilight? WTF is up with some people. Fail Sir.

Felt like PJ threw (or stuffed) everything from the first 3 movies to establish a connection an add some credibility to a trilogy (without success mind you) that will win as many awards as Striptease.

That is called an opinion. much like yours failman.

[L-Rouge]

I've mentioned already i saw no fault in 48fps, just gorgeous.. i am awaiting 60fps with interest.

[tylerdurden10]

Finally got around to watching this earlier and i'm glad to report that I was wrong about my initial judgement of this (based on the trailers). I really enjoyed it and I think the CGI wasn't as bad as some reviews made it out to be. Can't wait for the next 2 films! Solid 8.5/10 for me.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by RocShemp

It's not 2013 yet.

It is now.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by threefiftyrocket

Question for any other Blu-ray dot commers on this one... I live close to Noblesville Indiana, I went to see this at the Hamilton IMAX in IMAX 3D. Now all over the "InnerNets" people are complaining about the look of this in 48fps. After looking at their website, this was showing in IMAX 3D HFR at this theater, but I came out and looked at my buddy and we both swore we couldn't tell a difference. Anyone on here in the inner circle tell me if the Hamilton IMAX in Noblesville Indiana decided to go with 24fps after all? I'm just so confused...

That's where I saw it also. It looked different than 24fps to me. I specifically asked about it when I bought tickets. The girl selling the tickets said it was the only theatre in Indiana that was showing it in HFR. I suppose it's possible that it was 24fps and I was experiencing a placebo effect. I know that theatre in Noblesville is also showing The Hobbit in 24fps. Did you go to the right showing?

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by WetCardboard

Can someone please enlighten me as to the point of shooting a movie in 5K?

Simply put, shooting with 5K allows for a high resolution. Lots and lots of detail is collected. The advantages of a DI in 2K is because of cost, it become very expensive to work with 4K in post production. Now, most movies are shot in 4K (35mm) or digital 4K because of the future, for future releases.

Originally Posted by WetCardboard

Blu-ray is about 1.1k, most movies are filmed around 2k, true 1.43:1 IMAX sequences in movies like The Dark Knight and MI4 are around 4k.

True IMAX is probably 10+K. Its very hard to know because film does not have a "K"

Originally Posted by WetCardboard

Apparently movies that are upconverted using IMAX DMR (which is almost every mainstream movie released in IMAX, except for those mentioned above and a few others) are only shown at 2K (and would the entirety of 'The Dark Knight' for example, be shown at 4K, or only the true IMAX sequences, with the 2.4:1 part being 2k?)

You are right, the IMAX DMR process is 2K, the reason is, most projector systems in North America are not quite 4K ready, very limited content so far. And, to date there has never been a 4K 3D release.

As for the Dark Knight and Dark Knight Rises, the 35mm sequences are 2K and were DMR'd, the IMAX sequences were all left untouched.

Originally Posted by WetCardboard

No idea what resolution it was being shown at but if there was such a thing as a "next-gen" movie going experience, this is what The Hobbit felt like. The detail was UNREAL! (no pun intended, nothing looked 'fake' to me at all, it was great!)

The resolution was 2K, there has not been a 4K 3D release yet.

[RocShemp]

Originally Posted by radagast

It is now.

[Duffy12]

.

Ian McKellen Says Which Female Tolkien Character Will Show Up In The Hobbit Extended Release

The Hobbit, as well as The Lord of the Rings, are lacking in women in a big way. You can blame the guy who wrote the first book in 1937 if you feel the need, but when adapting those stories to film in 2013, the absence is noted. Peter Jackson went so far as to add a new elf, Tauriel, to his Hobbit trilogy but it turns out a few of the women who already existed in J.R.R. Tolkien’s world didn’t make the cut for theater viewings. Sir Ian McKellen explains who.

McKellen keeps a blog on the films’ production on his website. He recently posted about the lack of women in Tolkien’s world but when on to give some intriguing information.

I don’t think he’s realized how far Figwit has come.

That aside, we’re with McKellen here, some dwarf women would have been great. Not to mention, Belladonna totally should have made the cut, and holy crap, Christopher Lee wasn’t with them in that scene!?

The moral of this post is, McKellen should talk more often.

http://www.themarysue.com/more-women-in-hobbit-dvd/

.

[costa316]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

Do you mean that you felt he made parts similar because he has some stylistic or narrative concerns that he often addresses through the same exact means (and you felt it made things seem repetitive or forced)? I could see that. I don't feel he would have any reason to attempt to go about copying himself overall, however - as most directors likely recognize that as a doomed path, don't they?

Yes exactly.. !!!

[radagast]

I saw The Hobbit again today (2D). The blur was annoying after enjoying the HFR version. I have mixed feelings about the plot.

Like for instance...

[Show spoiler]I can't really stand the way Radagast is portrayed. Elrond tells Gandalf at Rivendell that he is answerable to others. Gandalf immediately turns and sees Galadriel. Rubbish. Gandalf is not answerable to any elf. Saruman maybe. Radagast fights a ringwraith at Dol Guldur, right? Was it the Witch-King? If so WTH? Gandalf the White can't beat the Witch-King in the EE version on ROTK, but Ragagast can? More rubbish. I am going to wait until the entire triliogy is out on Blu-ray to buy this.

[darry]

Watched it and loved it. Probably my third favourite behind Two Towers and Return of the The King. Despite what some reviewers have said I thought this had a lot less padding than most of the Lord of The Rings movies, not more. I thought the acting was also better and the characters more interesting, especially Bilbo. Lord of The Rings was a much better spectacle, but I found it to be cringe-worthy at times.

One thing about The Hobbit though.

[Show spoiler]All through the movie, the orcs appear as these fearsome creatures that cannot be fought, even Thorin, the supposed great dwarf warrior, shits his pants when he sees them coming. But then, at the end, Bilbo takes one down with flying tackle. That did not make any sense at all. Bilbo is tiny. He would have just bounced off.

[costa316]

Originally Posted by ashedmaniac

Okay. That makes sense. Glad to see that someone who disliked it did so for reasons I can understand as, in many cases (particularly regarding "mainstream critics"), I have felt a bit "slow" at grasping what people disliked about this particular film.

"Oh look there are the eagles again"
"Oh look here is another moutainside climb where our heroes are in peril"
"Oh Gollum."
"Froddo?"

On and on.. The Hobbit : Unexpected Groundhog day

[Grand Bob]

I saw the film again in 24 fps 2D, and tried throwing out my Tolkien-based notions of what the film should be and tried to simply enjoy the film on its own merits. For the most part it worked, and for some reason it was easier to concentrate on the story without the technological and 3D distractions. But, I still had a difficult time getting past the "wretched excess". I will give it another shot this weekend. With the exception of the dwarf theme, I still find the musical score to be underwhelming.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by costa316

"Oh look there are the eagles again"
"Oh look here is another moutainside climb where our heroes are in peril"
"Oh Gollum."
"Froddo?"

On and on.. The Hobbit : Unexpected Groundhog day

Excepting the Frodo cameo, the rest of your complaints get laid at the feet of Tolkien, not Jackson.

[blakeyamc]

I saw this again today (4th time), while I still have issues with some of the story and characters, I am gradually growing more fond of it.
The main thing this time, was I saw it in 48FPS. Now, I am an old school film fanatic who loves the look of film and everything (including grain) that comes with it. BUT, I was completely blown away by the 3D, at 48FPS. It was beautiful. Battle scenes that were tough to make out in 2D, were now clear as can be. Yes, there is some of the BBC (video) effect going on. But, to tell you the truth, it really didn't bother me. Maybe because I enjoy old BBC shows, I don't know.

48FPS, in 2D, I may not like so much, but in 3D, it really was like looking into a window at middle earth.

The one issue I had: at times, the lighting was too much, you could tell that they were on a set, with artificial lighting. This I believe has too do with the unforgiving nature of the 48FPS. But, being the first feature film to employ this, I was really impressed with what they were able to accomplish. In fact, I think one of this issues going forward is lighting for 2D and 3D will need to be completely different.

Bottom line: I was beyond surprised and wowed by the experience. It was wihtout a doubt one of my favorite cinematic experiences of my life. I could not stop smiling thru the whole experience. Hell, even Azog was more tolerable in 48FPS.

The backlash to this is now kind of funny to me. Once, you put on 3D glasses, you no longer should expect a typical cinematic experience.

To quote Yoda, " You must unlearn what you have learned. "

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by blakeyamc

I saw this again today (4th time), while I still have issues with some of the story and characters, I am gradually growing more fond of it.
The main thing this time, was I saw it in 48FPS. Now, I am an old school film fanatic who loves the look of film and everything (including grain) that comes with it. BUT, I was completely blown away by the 3D, at 48FPS. It was beautiful. Battle scenes that were tough to make out in 2D, were now clear as can be. Yes, there is some of the BBC (video) effect going on. But, to tell you the truth, it really didn't bother me. Maybe because I enjoy old BBC shows, I don't know.

For me easily accepting it I am guessing it is because of my computer gaming, as I had almost no issues with 48-FPS at all.

48FPS, in 2D, I may not like so much, but in 3D, it really was like looking into a window at middle earth.

The one issue I had: at times, the lighting was too much, you could tell that they were on a set, with artificial lighting. This I believe has too do with the unforgiving nature of the 48FPS. But, being the first feature film to employ this, I was really impressed with what they were able to accomplish. In fact, I think one of this issues going forward is lighting for 2D and 3D will need to be completely different.

Yea, for me I was really disappointed that the Riddle Game was so well lit. Not like the very first scenes when Bilbo discovers Gollum's cave.

Bottom line: I was beyond surprised and wowed by the experience. It was wihtout a doubt one of my favorite cinematic experiences of my life. I could not stop smiling thru the whole experience. Hell, even Azog was more tolerable in 48FPS.

The backlash to this is now kind of funny to me. Once, you put on 3D glasses, you no longer should expect a typical cinematic experience.

To quote Yoda, " You must unlearn what you have learned. "

Yep, same here.

I was really expecting to be disappointed by Jackson's style and excesses, but just like you I had a big SMILE on my face throughout most of it. And I have not had that happen since Raider's of the Lost Ark.

.