The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Groge511]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

That most likely will be in the EE.

.

Can't even imagine the possibility of there being an EE since they went and made another film! Then again, it wouldn't surprise me that much

[TheWildWhelk]

Originally Posted by Groge511

Can't even imagine the possibility of there being an EE since they went and made another film! Then again, it wouldn't surprise me that much

Jackson said there will be an extended edition featuring about '20-25 minutes' of extra footage.

[Groge511]

Originally Posted by TheWildWhelk

Jackson said there will be an extended edition featuring about '20-25 minutes' of extra footage.

Really!? Must have missed the memo. Oh well, that's good news

[iamsometal]

Saw it in IMAX 3D today. I chose that format because of the 9 minute Star Trek 2 preview. I loved both the preview and The Hobbit!

I'm of the belief that anyone b#tching about the quality of the visual and make-up effects are nearly all seeing it in HFR 3D. In 24fps, the effects all look ASTOUNDING. Any format in 24fps is the way to go. I was largely unaffected either way by the 3D, but I'm never really a big fan of any 3D. I don't hate it, but it doesn't really do anything for me either. I eventually forget I'm even watching 3D anyway.

As far as the adaptation of the book and the LOTR appendices, Jackson did it again. I love all of the additions, and the material pulled from the Hobbit book is very faithful (almost to a fault). Overall, it was a welcome return to Middle Earth.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

To my utter shock, I actually dug the 48fps when I went for viewing #2 today. It didn't look like a movie at all - more like the world's most elaborate stage play. For the first 5-10 minutes, it really did look like everything was moving too quickly. But after that, it was just like PJ's been saying - like someone carved a hole in the wall and you're watching a live performance. I suppose that makes it easy to understand why a lot of people are saying it looks "cheap", but I was really kind of into it.

I enjoyed the film a lot more too, now that my expectations were in check. But it still pales next to LotR, and the whole Azog subplot is like something from a really bad B-movie. Still, I rather enjoyed myself and didn't have any problem with the pacing this time around.

[Destinys Memory]

Just finished seeing it in HFR 3D. It looked absolutely stunning! I will admit it did take my eyes a few minutes to adjust, but after that... Wow! The detail was incredible, it didn't look like you were watching a film at all. It was beautiful. Loved it. No headaches or any issues for me. I'll definitely see Parts II/III in HFR as well. Bring on the 3D blu-ray... and quickly!

[Dead By Shaun]

Saw it for a second time today. Enjoyed it even more than my first! So far I've seen it in 2D and 3D 48FPS. I think I'm gonna go see it again tomorrow for another viewing in 3D 48FPS.

[Jumpman]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

To my utter shock, I actually dug the 48fps when I went for viewing #2 today. It didn't look like a movie at all - more like the world's most elaborate stage play. For the first 5-10 minutes, it really did look like everything was moving too quickly. But after that, it was just like PJ's been saying - like someone carved a hole in the wall and you're watching a live performance. I suppose that makes it easy to understand why a lot of people are saying it looks "cheap", but I was really kind of into it.

I enjoyed the film a lot more too, now that my expectations were in check. But it still pales next to LotR, and the whole Azog subplot is like something from a really bad B-movie. Still, I rather enjoyed myself and didn't have any problem with the pacing this time around.

You need to trademark the bold part because that's the EXACT way to describe 48fps with this film. EXACTLY!

[Oateyboat]

After seeing it in 48fps, I'm a firm believer that film will evolve to accept this as the norm. The image was crystal clear, everything ran so smooth, the 3D had a greater depth to it, the entire thing was fantastic.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by iamsometal

Any format in 24fps is the way to go.

So how can you come to that conclusion if you did not see it in 48-FPS?

I eventually forget I'm even watching 3D anyway.

You wouldn't have had you seen it in 48-FPS.

.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Jumpman

You need to trademark the bold part because that's the EXACT way to describe 48fps with this film. EXACTLY!

I am going to have to try and see this again next week and look harder as I have to vehemently disagree with that.

[Show spoiler]Actually I need to see it again regardless.

.

[BozQ]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Because 48fps film add significant cost on many levels. A 24fps reel is huge and hard to manage as it is as well. But you can still get them into a car. 48fps, not likely for most cars. In the digital era that changes.

The issue is not with production, but with presentation. Shooting film in more than 24fps has always been possible. The Matrix, 300, Watchmen all employed this method to get the slow motion effect. It's the projectors in cinemas that has an issue protecting films in a higher frame rate.

Even if a film projector projects a film in 48fps, it requires a far bigger reel. And adds up to the production cost.

Now we're in a digital era where the only limitation is the size of the Hard Disk. And digital protection at a higher frame rate is more feasible than it used to be.

I have yet to watch The Hobbit, but I can imagine watching it in 48fps can be unsettling and distracting if you're not prepared to adjust.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

To my utter shock, I actually dug the 48fps when I went for viewing #2 today. It didn't look like a movie at all - more like the world's most elaborate stage play.

Please don't say that--It keeps making me think of that Lord of the Rings Musical:

[Show spoiler]

Lothlorien - Lord of the Rings Musical (London Cast) - YouTube

(Which wasn't bad, just very, very strange, and I'll take the PJ, thanks.)

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Please don't say that--It keeps making me think of that Lord of the Rings Musical:

[Show spoiler]Lothlorien - Lord of the Rings Musical (London Cast) - YouTube

(Which wasn't bad, just very, very strange, and I'll take the PJ, thanks.)

I just mean that it looks like the events of The Hobbit are unfolding in front of you - without any cameras, as if you were looking through a window into Middle Earth.

[DualEdge]

Just came back from a HFR 3D showing. I didn't really like it at first, but after the first 20 minutes or so, I finally "got it". I think I just didn't really know what to expect from the format other than crystal clear imagery and needed time to allow my eyes to adjust, but once it set in, I was treated to one of the most realistic experiences I've ever received from a movie. It really felt like you were walking around in your favorite locales from Middle-Earth

[Show spoiler]( at Rivendell!)

. The only complaint I had about it was some of the early really fast action sequences were hard to follow at times, but they seemed to improve throughout the movie. I do plan to see it again in IMAX 24fps 3D for comparisons sake (and I want to see that Star Trek preview), but I will definitely see the next 2 movies in HFR 3D as well .

[The Apocalypse]

Booking another viewing now

[kurtlingle]

So I went with the kids and a friends family (7 of us altogether) and saw the 3D 24frames version.

It was BEAUTIFUL. Looked great - I'm not crazy about most 3D movies - this was not distracting.

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 liked the "slow" paced beginning, the songs and the score. Can't wait to see it again in a week once I get some time. Plan to see the 48fps version (a 1/2 drive to that theater).

I certainly recommend it if you liked LOTR. Just keep in mind it's more kid friendly.

[Brightstar]

THE HOBBIT Takes December Record, Misses $100 Million

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3587&p=.htm

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Originally Posted by kurtlingle

So I went with the kids and a friends family (7 of us altogether) and saw the 3D 24frames version.

It was BEAUTIFUL. Looked great - I'm not crazy about most 3D movies - this was not distracting.

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 liked the "slow" paced beginning, the songs and the score. Can't wait to see it again in a week once I get some time. Plan to see the 48fps version (a 1/2 drive to that theater).

I certainly recommend it if you liked LOTR. Just keep in mind it's more kid friendly.

Yeah, I think this is contributing to my underwhelmed reaction. As much as I knew that the Hobbit is lighter fare, I think subconsciously I was still expecting something more in line with the tone of the LotR films. I expected the story itself to have a lighter narrative, but the tone was much lighter than I anticipated. LotR had such a historical, realistic feel while this much lighter and fantastical. I think eventually I'll be much more positive about the movie (and the next two films) - it's just that I've spent 9 years expecting a very different film.

[kurtlingle]

I think if they did it like LOTR, it would not be close enough to the book.

The book (the Hobbit), is much more geared at kids than LOTR. I feel they did a good job capturing that in the movie. I loved it and can't wait to see it again.

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Yeah, I think this is contributing to my underwhelmed reaction. As much as I knew that the Hobbit is lighter fare, I think subconsciously I was still expecting something more in line with the tone of the LotR films. I expected the story itself to have a lighter narrative, but the tone was much lighter than I anticipated. LotR had such a historical, realistic feel while this much lighter and fantastical. I think eventually I'll be much more positive about the movie (and the next two films) - it's just that I've spent 9 years expecting a very different film.