The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Duffy12]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtCOQMfNaLQ

[stvn1974]

For those who complain about the movie being silly in places I wonder if they would have liked it more if

[Show spoiler]Gandalf had to push the vertebrae of all of the dwarfs back in their backs once the bridges fell on top of all of them?

[JamesKurtovich]

Definitely more kid-friendly than LOTR, but I found it just as enjoyable.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

Also, I loved the movie - I felt like it did a great job to keep the "spirit" of the books (more kid friendly than LOTR). Fun and adventurous
I certainly recommend it if you liked LOTR. Just keep in mind it's more kid friendly.

That was one reason I always liked the book: Grew up in a house where dad and sis were both card-carrying Tolkien Geeks, and to me, Minas Tirith and Lothlorien were places on the moon. I had the old Rankin-Bass art-book of the Hobbit, that had a dragon in it, and that was the story I knew.

We've got some storms moving through here, so I was going to wait till after-Christmas doldrums to see it, until I found out that our local mall Cinemark has the 2D, the 48fps 3D, and the big-screen XD 48fps 3D playing, and I still have one free ticket left. Heaven bless Cinemark.

[radagast]

I saw it last night in HFR 3D. I can't find the thread where the discussion is about the technology only. No headaches. Afterwards my date said her ears hurt like she had been scuba diving. I don't know what to make of that.

I loved the look of HFR. I just can't fathom why people are so rigid about keeping 24fps. I can't understand why people love the look of it so much. It is like I am listening to a bunch of old men who can't deal with new technology. I'm 58 years old and I WELCOME the change.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by radagast

I saw it last night in HFR 3D. I can't find the thread where the discussion is about the technology only. No headaches. Afterwards my date said her ears hurt like she had been scuba diving. I don't know what to make of that.

I loved the look of HFR. I just can't fathom why people are so rigid about keeping 24fps. I can't understand why people love the look of it so much. It is like I am listening to a bunch of old men who can't deal with new technology. I'm 58 years old and I WELCOME the change.

Some of us don't enjoy the look and feel of 48 fps. That's fine you like it, but don't call us old men liking 24fps. If people want to make movies that way, let them, just like 3D, but continue giving both options, so we can chose the way we want to see it. Just makes the most sense. Then everyone's happy.

[BJ Blazkowicz]

Highly enjoyable film, can't wait for the next two. In 24 fps the effects and
3D were pretty good. The pacing wasn't as bad as the critics said, although I am a big fantasy nerd. Might be harder to tolerate for those who are not. I found the pacing very similar to Fellowship. People forget that it took 90 minutes just to form the fellowship in that movie. I actually felt like we got out of the Shire quicker in AUJ.
Can't wait for the trilogy box set for Christmas 2014

[motorheadache95]

Originally Posted by radagast

I saw it last night in HFR 3D. I can't find the thread where the discussion is about the technology only. No headaches. Afterwards my date said her ears hurt like she had been scuba diving. I don't know what to make of that.

I loved the look of HFR. I just can't fathom why people are so rigid about keeping 24fps. I can't understand why people love the look of it so much. It is like I am listening to a bunch of old men who can't deal with new technology. I'm 58 years old and I WELCOME the change.

I really liked the movie, but personally I HATED the HFR. Aside from a few impressive scenery shots and pans, anytime during battles or simply when characters moved around, it looked just like that "smooth-motion" setting to me. Very unnatural and awkward looking.

Out of the 5 people I went with though, I was the only one that the HFR bugged me throughout the movie, but I know I'm not the only one. It will be interesting to see how this shooting technique is developed in the future, and if it will really become a new shooting standard or not. But for the moment, I'm not a fan.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

Some of us don't enjoy the look and feel of 48 fps. That's fine you like it, but don't call us old men liking 24fps. If people want to make movies that way, let them, just like 3D, but continue giving both options, so we can chose the way we want to see it. Just makes the most sense. Then everyone's happy.

The question is why don't you like it? Because it doesn't look like what you are used to? What possible advantage is there with 24fps, other than it looks like what you are used to? Really, I wonder if there were these kind of objections when 35mm film was used instead of 16mm. And what about adding sound to movies? Or color? Or stereo sound? 24fps was developed as a compromise in 1927 because it was easier and cheaper than 30fps, which I have read is how many images the human brain can process per second.

[42041]

Originally Posted by radagast

The question is why don't you like it? Because it doesn't look like what you are used to? What possible advantage is there with 24fps, other than it looks like what you are used to? Really, I wonder if there were these kind of objections when 35mm film was used instead of 16mm. And what about adding sound to movies? Or color? Or stereo sound? 24fps was developed as a compromise in 1927 because it was easier and cheaper than 30fps, which I have read is how many images the human brain can process per second.

Because 24fps looks like a movie and 48fps doesn't, and is thus a distraction and a detriment to my movie experience. Sorry if that seems irrational, but that's how it is for me I have the same reaction if a movie is say, lit or edited or photographed in a very un-cinematic way... there's a cinematic "language" that's been established over more than a century and when a movie doesn't speak it, it can take you out of the film.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by radagast

The question is why don't you like it? Because it doesn't look like what you are used to? What possible advantage is there with 24fps, other than it looks like what you are used to? Really, I wonder if there were these kind of objections when 35mm film was used instead of 16mm. And what about adding sound to movies? Or color? Or stereo sound? 24fps was developed as a compromise in 1927 because it was easier and cheaper than 30fps, which I have read is how many images the human brain can process per second.

I gave it a chance and just didn't work for me. It honestly felt too sharp, and honestly, just off to me. 24 fps felt like a movie to me, 48 fps didn't. I even left with a slight headache from it. It just didn't adjust correctly for me to work. Again, I'm not saying people who like it are wrong, I'm just saying it didn't work for me. Just because some of us don't like it doesn't make us people who are old geezers who want things the way they always were. For me, if just came down to it gave me a headache, didn't look right, and didn't feel right. Thankfully, 24 and 48 fps can go hand and hand together and everyone can be happy.

[stvn1974]

As long as 24 fps and 2D showings are available they have can have all the newfangled technologically advanced screenings that they want. The moment it is all 3D is when I stop going to the movies however.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by radagast

I saw it last night in HFR 3D. I can't find the thread where the discussion is about the technology only. No headaches. Afterwards my date said her ears hurt like she had been scuba diving. I don't know what to make of that.

I loved the look of HFR. I just can't fathom why people are so rigid about keeping 24fps. I can't understand why people love the look of it so much. It is like I am listening to a bunch of old men who can't deal with new technology. I'm 58 years old and I WELCOME the change.

Here you go. Go ahead and vote in the poll please.


https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=210900

.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by stvn1974

As long as 24 fps and 2D showings are available they have can have all the newfangled technologically advanced screenings that they want. The moment it is all 3D is when I stop going to the movies however.

The funny thing is...it's now the exact opposite for me. I had become such a fan of my home theater that I very rarely went to movies anymore(5 in the last 12 years). However since I was BLOWN AWAY by the 48- FPS HFR (Though I did end up with a headache. However aspirin took care of that little problem. ) I now plan to greatly increase my theater movie going dramatically as I can not bask in HFRs goodness at home.

It's really amazing the wide gaps of opinion in this new tech.

.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

It's really amazing the wide gaps of opinion in this new tech.

.

No kidding. I know a lot of people over on theonering.net forums who were really looking forward to embracing 48fps and ended up hating it. Meanwhile, I've been very vocal about sticking with traditional 24fps 2D and being anti-48fps - and I ended up LOVING my HFR 3D viewing.

[spanky87]

After seeing the first one, I'm a lot less worried about Hobbit being split into three. With what he used in the first one, and seeing how PJ is telling the story, the Hobbit (book) stuff will easily fill at least 1 and a half more movies. It's just what they choose to add to the third one to bridge Hobbit to Lord of the Rings, and the appendices stuff will be the only concern now.

And Jackson made a good point when he said Hobbit was written for young readers so everything is fast paced and the writing doesn't spend a lot of time on some things. It helps explain the difference between 1 novel and 3 movies.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

I gave it a chance and just didn't work for me. It honestly felt too sharp, and honestly, just off to me. 24 fps felt like a movie to me, 48 fps didn't. I even left with a slight headache from it. It just didn't adjust correctly for me to work. Again, I'm not saying people who like it are wrong, I'm just saying it didn't work for me. Just because some of us don't like it doesn't make us people who are old geezers who want things the way they always were. For me, if just came down to it gave me a headache, didn't look right, and didn't feel right. Thankfully, 24 and 48 fps can go hand and hand together and everyone can be happy.

Okay fine. For me the "feel" of a movie is motion and sound. Nothing more.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by radagast

I saw it last night in HFR 3D. I can't find the thread where the discussion is about the technology only. No headaches. Afterwards my date said her ears hurt like she had been scuba diving. I don't know what to make of that....

Nor do I but thank you for the feedback in terms of presence/absence of headache. Regarding some past comments by others whom felt the imagery was ‘sped up’ in places during their viewing, there are two possibilities:

1. Nothing is really ‘sped up’ per se, and they are just not used to watching normal motion, without some 24 fps motion blur in a cinematic setting, or –

2. Some of the projector systems exhibiting The Hobbit in HFR 3D are not be capable of the 288 flashes per second needed in order to maintain triple flash (48 x 2 x 3 = 288 flashes/second). So, consequently, these systems are using a lower flash rate which has induced some temporal artifacting manifested by a ‘sped up’ look.

[Damage Inc.]

You know, I find all this talk of headaches on 48fps very funny. And I mean just in an ironic way.
Because isn't it usually that more flickering or "strobe", which you would have with less frames (as with 24fps), usually causes headaches and nausea?
I would think that a smoother image, with 48fps, would be a LOT more comfortable and soothing even than 24fps.
I mean, I experience it almost every night, when I watch a movie in the dark on my Plasma-screen, which is probably already 60Hz on its own (the frequency of its light I guess) but showing 24fps in actual video-frames, I'm pretty beat after 2 hours, especially if I don't have a single break to get a drink or whatever. I might also be getting older or whatever, as it didn't bother me 5 to 10 years ago, but I'd welcome a smoother image for my energy and eyes.

And although it seems it would be refreshing in that aspect, I think I'd also still prefer the original "cinematic" look of 24fps.
You know, I think I'd rather see 48fps when they film something REAL, and not on sets and such. I think the fact that it's a fantasy-film (on sets as well) doesn't help matters. But things would probably only become more real when you'd actually film real real things, as in, not real sets, but real environments, and that combined with a smoother image, that it would become more immersive and believable.
You know, say... the "found footage" kind of movies. I know that for example 'Cloverfield' is quite cinematic, it "unfortunately" seems to be filmed with professional cameras. But I think it would have been a lot more believable in a higher framerate, as then it becomes more "live" and in the way most handheld cameras record, if not at least 30fps for tape or something (as I believe they spoke of tape in that movie).

But back to 'The Hobbit' and "LOTR" for a moment; It's just that it's such a fantasy-story and this "epic" story, that a more "cinematic" look of course suits it and makes it "more believable" in a way as well. As it of course kind of makes this intentional blur so that it's disguised a little bit and even make grown-ups believe that this is a true story in a way. Without it looking too "real" or "live" so that it's too "sobering" or something. Kind of pointing out to you that "Yes, these are sets and effects and actors in costumes." or something.
I think you do really need that "blur"-filter to kind of camouflage that "pretend"-part of it, if you know what I mean.
So perhaps a movie like this wasn't the best choice to do in 48fps. And, although most people might hate me for saying this, I think 3D makes a LOT more sense to do for almost any movie.

[WetCardboard]

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

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.

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?)

Also when watching 3D in a movie theatre, is the resolution to each eye the same as watching in 2D or is it "halved" like on passive displays?

Also I would have to assume the human eye can only make out resolution so high...

Thanks!


Unfortunately the IMAX cinema in Edmonton was not equipped for HFR/48p so I watched The Hobbit in 'UltraAVX' (comparable to Imax...reserved seating/wall-to-wall screen/better sound/rocker chairs) at 48fps and I really enjoyed it. 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!)