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

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

A 2K high frame rate digital presentation will be superior to the 2K 15/70 blowing up for IMAX film venues.

Correct.

Avoid any true I-MAX showings where they might be blowing it up for the huge screen. 3D HFR is an absolute must for this. So a LIE-MAX or regular Digital 3D showing the high frame rate will be just fine.

.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

got home @ 3:30 last night, was up @ 6:30 this morning.

anyone that thinks this movie is boring, dumb, slow, or whatever is 1 thing....WRONG!!!

this movie was great.....it's in the same vein as the FOTR as far as pacing. i'd even say there's more action in this one than there is in FOTR.

the comdedy from the dwarves was great, the action was fantastic, and the 1 thing i really liked seeing in this was the singing from the book.....u didn't get that much in the LOTR movies.

there are some scenes where u can tell it's CGI....but that's the only complaint i had at all.

4.5/5 from benny!!

Benny, what type of screening did you have? 2D, 3D or 3D-HFR?

.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Benny, what type of screening did you have? 2D, 3D or 3D-HFR?

.

oh damn....thought i put that in there. we went to the 2D.

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Correct.

Avoid any true I-MAX showings where they might be blowing it up for the huge screen. 3D HFR is an absolute must for this. So a LIE-MAX or regular Digital 3D showing the high frame rate will be just fine.

.

Some digital IMAX theatres are showing the movie in high frame rate in 2K 3D...There is no 4K of this movie. You are wasting your money if you watch The Hobbit in 15/70 IMAX.

[Starmartyr]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

.

I just got back from seeing this.

I was going to choose the 10:45 2D showing to avoid the crowds. However when I got there the place was pretty deserted so I wisely then choose the 3D HFR showing at 11:00 instead. There were ONLY 15 people in the entire showing for mine. I then asked the teller how many people attended the midnight showing and he replied 400, while the Harry Potter one had over 1500!

I guess word of mouth is going to have to drive this movie. But that should be no problem as I thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Show spoiler]I had a big ass smile on my face for quite a bit of it. I laughed at a lot of scenes. Some from ones that Jackson intended to be intentional and some from others were Jackson went overboard with some scenes. Such as Radagast's Bunny Sled Orc chase(now that one scene reminded me of a Benny Hill skit). The other that I can remember is the Stone Giant fight. Holy %^$&! That scene was so over the top ridiculous it was nuts. I laughed straight through that one. But.....you know what, I don't really mind it cause strangely enough those goofy scenes did sorta fit into the lighter tone of this children's story.

The only real angst that I remember from watching this were a few scenes were Jackson strayed so much from the story by making things up. Such as the Goblin/Wargs rally atop Weathertop. It was like some other fantasy movie strayed into this one for a few moments. Kinda weird.


Two of my favorite scenes are-

• Throin marching out of the fallen tree in slow mo to confront his enemy while fires were raging about him. (a beautifully filmed shot)

• The Giant Eagle swooping in to pick up the fallen Thorin in slo mo. (this is also a beautiful shot scene by Jackson. Seeing the eagle appear above his body in slow mo, then it's talons sloooowly wrapping him up and lifting him away)

Rating: 5/5

.

I'm really reeealllly wondering what people here that have seen it think of the 48fps HFR.

I bought my tickets a few weeks ago for HFR 3D in 'UltraAVX' - which is one type of theatre that allows you to reserve specific seats, (the other being IMAX, which is even more expensive) as well as having "upgraded picture and sound" and more comfortable seats. But now reading about how many people are panning the look of the 48FPS.. it has made me seriously re-think it and consider changing my tickets out to either 24fps 3D or just 2D. The price of tickets is not an issue at all since HFR isn't necessarily more money; I just don't want my first viewing of a movie I've anticipated for years to be tainted by a soap-opera look.

I absolutely detest the artificial smoothing of the frame interpolation features of LCD displays and I always leave them off; however I think if the inherent blur and strobing in the source wasn't there to begin with, a faster frame rate would likely look much better.. and of course it would render frame interpolation (generating fake frames) unnecessary. I also do tend to like the 'film look' but I guess that's more a function of just being used to it, and the fact that currently our only choices are one or the other: film judder, blur, and strobing; or the 'soap opera' look. I hope true 48fps is somewhere in between – better than the former and less like the latter.

This story at Engadget gave me some hope - http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/28/e...h-frame-rates/ - It discusses this topic, and shows two different clips they filmed - one in 50fps video and the other downconverted to 25fps. Honestly after watching the 25fps and then the 50fps, initially the 50fps looked weirdly smooth and sped-up as it tends to do intially... but a couple more times watching the 50fps and I didn't notice the strangeness of it anymore, instead the 25fps ended up looking strange and slowed down after that. The smoothness of the 50fps started to look 'right'.

What does everyone else that has seen The Hobbit in HFR think?

[pagemaster]

Originally Posted by Starmartyr

I'm really reeealllly wondering what people here that have seen it think of the 48fps HFR.

I bought my tickets a few weeks ago for HFR 3D in 'UltraAVX' - which is one type of theatre that allows you to reserve specific seats, (the other being IMAX, which is even more expensive) as well as having "upgraded picture and sound" and more comfortable seats. But now reading about how many people are panning the look of the 48FPS.. it has made me seriously re-think it and consider changing my tickets out to either 24fps 3D or just 2D. The price of tickets is not an issue at all since HFR isn't necessarily more money; I just don't want my first viewing of a movie I've anticipated for years to be tainted by a soap-opera look.

I absolutely detest the artificial smoothing of the frame interpolation features of LCD displays and I always leave them off; however I think if the inherent blur and strobing in the source wasn't there to begin with, a faster frame rate would likely look much better.. and of course it would render frame interpolation (generating fake frames) unnecessary. I also do tend to like the 'film look' but I guess that's more a function of just being used to it, and the fact that currently our only choices are one or the other: film judder, blur, and strobing; or the 'soap opera' look. I hope true 48fps is somewhere in between – better than the former and less like the latter.

This story at Engadget gave me some hope - http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/28/e...h-frame-rates/ - It discusses this topic, and shows two different clips they filmed - one in 50fps video and the other downconverted to 25fps. Honestly after watching the 25fps and then the 50fps, initially the 50fps looked weirdly smooth and sped-up as it tends to do intially... but a couple more times watching the 50fps and I didn't notice the strangeness of it anymore, instead the 25fps ended up looking strange and slowed down after that. The smoothness of the 50fps started to look 'right'.

What does everyone else that has seen The Hobbit in HFR think?

Just go see it and make up your own mind. If you don't like it, then at least you can say you were part of Motion Picture History.

[Starmartyr]

Originally Posted by Puonti

I've now seen the Hobbit in both HFR 3D and Regular 3D, and my god...

[Show spoiler]HFR is astonishing. At first it felt weird, but I quickly adapted and found it to be far superior 24 fps. Battles are incredibly detailed, immerse, and intense - looked and flowed much better in HFR. Every shot showing off the NZ landscape were breath taking, I just sat there in awe and couldn't believe how beautiful everything was. Also simpler scenes benefited from HFR, as they felt much more alive and real. But HFR aside, how about the film itself?

I really loved the story and the characters. Martin Freeman IS Bilbo, perfect casting. Richard Armitage does an incredible job as Thorin Oakenshield. Returning cast once again nail their respective characters. The dwarf company is great fun and nicely cast, although some of them are abit neglected (mainly looking at Bombur, whom didn't have a single line, but he had some cool fight moves!). The villains were good. The Goblin King looked really disgusting - good job there!

I liked the story too, I was involved and interested at all times. I don't understand the problem people have with the pacing, to me the movie felt like only 2 hours long and I thought it moved with a good strong pace. I could have sat there for another 2 hours for sure.

One of the great moments of this film: The Hobbit- "Blunt the Knives" - YouTube

Overall I had the same feeling like I had when I was 11 years old and saw Fellowship of the Ring for the first time, wonder and awe. It was a joy from beginning to end, and I can't wait to watch it a third time - in HFR of course!

5/5

This is definitely a ringing edorsement! Gives me some more hope for HFR as well.

Also your avatar is fantastic.

[Starmartyr]

Originally Posted by pagemaster

Just go see it and make up your own mind. If you don't like it, then at least you can say you were part of Motion Picture History.

I was mainly hoping to spur on a discussion of it.. but yes obviously I will make up my own mind, I just don't want to end up hating it! If I do I suppose I can always overwrite my memory with the regular 2D 24fps showing.

[Josh]

I added the official Blu-ray.com preview to the main post.

[Ernest Rister]

Thoughts in brief...on the whole, a good effort. When they stick to the book, and are inspired by Tolkien's prose, everything works fine. When they start creating scenes, such as the White Council, not so good. White Council did not work at all. It felt like the four were role-playing. The dialog is artless, and the scene felt hokey and a little cornball. The less said about The Goblin King, the better. Think Boss Nass, naked, with herpes, trying to be funny. And big thumbs down on Nazgul music for Thorin rising to challenge a foe. I expect stuff like that in, say, Superman IV, not in a production of this caliber. Still, as I said, a good effort.

As for 3D 48fps, I probably wouldn't pay more than a regular 3D film to see it. If you go see it at an IMAX, I'd sit in the back row. I was in the 6th row, and action scenes likeThe Stone Giant sequence were great, and the chasm spills and tumbles made you feel like you were actually there. In fact, I've never seen anything like it at the movies. But for everything else? In a movie this heavy on verbal exposition, it isn't worth it. The lack of motion blurs is what creates the whole "Benny Hill" effect -- we're just not used to seeing motion without motion blurs, so it looks sped up when it isn't. My "brain didn't need adjusting", I saw the effect the entire film. Works great for some of the action scenes, as noted, but nothing to get worked up about. Certainly not a "game changer", at least for me...although that last shot was a 48fps 3D wowser...again, seeing it in IMAX (from the 6th row no less), I felt I was face to snout with...well, you know.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Starmartyr

I'm really reeealllly wondering what people here that have seen it think of the 48fps HFR.

I bought my tickets a few weeks ago for HFR 3D in 'UltraAVX' - which is one type of theatre that allows you to reserve specific seats, (the other being IMAX, which is even more expensive) as well as having "upgraded picture and sound" and more comfortable seats. But now reading about how many people are panning the look of the 48FPS.. it has made me seriously re-think it and consider changing my tickets out to either 24fps 3D or just 2D. The price of tickets is not an issue at all since HFR isn't necessarily more money; I just don't want my first viewing of a movie I've anticipated for years to be tainted by a soap-opera look.

I absolutely detest the artificial smoothing of the frame interpolation features of LCD displays and I always leave them off; however I think if the inherent blur and strobing in the source wasn't there to begin with, a faster frame rate would likely look much better.. and of course it would render frame interpolation (generating fake frames) unnecessary. I also do tend to like the 'film look' but I guess that's more a function of just being used to it, and the fact that currently our only choices are one or the other: film judder, blur, and strobing; or the 'soap opera' look. I hope true 48fps is somewhere in between – better than the former and less like the latter.

This story at Engadget gave me some hope - http://www.engadget.com/2012/05/28/e...h-frame-rates/ - It discusses this topic, and shows two different clips they filmed - one in 50fps video and the other downconverted to 25fps. Honestly after watching the 25fps and then the 50fps, initially the 50fps looked weirdly smooth and sped-up as it tends to do intially... but a couple more times watching the 50fps and I didn't notice the strangeness of it anymore, instead the 25fps ended up looking strange and slowed down after that. The smoothness of the 50fps started to look 'right'.

What does everyone else that has seen The Hobbit in HFR think?

I ended up LOVING the 45-FPS HFR!

To me its an absolute game changer.

I noticed nothing bad in anyway throughout the film. Just a few seconds of very minor quickness at the beginning. And that I am not really sure about.

I am hearing that quite a few people are disliking it though.

But.....which one are you?

Only one way to find out.

.

[Snicket]

As a preface I hold the LOTR trilogy in VERY high regards.

Now about The Hobbit...Some non-spoilerish impressions.

Hobbit tries oh so hard to hit the same pitches that the previous films hit, even going as far as copying the score from FOTR in order to replicate similar emotional moments, the scene with Gandalf and Galadriel is the prime example.

As much as Hobbit wants to fit in it doesn't quite make it. There is something not quite right about it. Some things I found that hurt the film:

1. Shlock. Your eyebrows will rise up when you are watching three giant trolls on screen engaging in 3 stooges shlock, but I guess it's a kids movie - BUT WAIT! Now we are watching brutal decapitations and LOTR standard violence...I guess it's not a kids movie at all.

When Hobbit tries to be goofy, it gets bad...very bad. What's worse is that the tone of the film is so divisive, its campy cartoon shlock followed immediately by mature violence. If you are going to be a kids movie that's ok, just be a kids movie but you can't be both, embrace a single tone or you end up not pleasing anybody.

2. CGI fever! My main complaint here is Azog. Why is this character all CGI? He looks incredibly fake. One of the things to admire about the original trilogy was the use of practical costumes, effects and extras in real costumes that were meticulously put together. Because of that effort, those films hold up incredibly well. The Hobbit has a bad case of CGI fever. I understand the goblins needing CGI but there is no reason for the CGI for the other characters.

3. Story? There is really no reason for these films to be three films. It's pretty obvious the film was recut to stretch character arcs and plot into 3 films but it comes off as trying to jam a square peg into a circle hole.

The Good:

Now with all that in mind there is a lot to like about The Hobbit, its a fun movie. The set pieces are quite something to see and it's fun to see how PJ has grown as a director. He really likes using a wide shot during action scenes, the goblin caves and Moria scenes stand out in particular.

Also as a fan I'm glad they dove into the larger Mythos of what was going on in the world the same time The Hobbit was happening, such as the goings on in Mirkwood. It does not really add all that much to the main story and could have easily been extended edition material. In face I strongly suspect it was.

So in a direct comparison to LOTR, Hobbit comes off the weird cousin you see at the family Christmas party that you see but don't really talk about. On it's own two feet it has some flaws, and there is a great film in there somewhere.

So in summary: If you are looking for Lord of the Rings part 4, The Hobbit is not that film. But on it's own its fun and enjoyable for what it is.

Tech note: I saw it in IMAX 3D. I will go check out HFR but did not want it to get in the way of the story (as I had been warned about HFR).

[Starmartyr]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

I ended up LOVING the 45-FPS HFR!

To me its an absolute game changer.

I noticed nothing bad in anyway throughout the film. Just a few seconds of very minor quickness at the beginning. And that I am not really sure about.

I am hearing that quite a few people are disliking it though.

But.....which one are you?

Only one way to find out.

.

Good to hear. Definitely still some mixed opinions though! I'll definitely have to be my own judge. I guess I will find out soon.

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by Starmartyr

Good to hear. Definitely still some mixed opinions though! I'll definitely have to be my own judge. I guess I will find out soon.

BTW, I do apologize in advance if you happen to be one of the ones who do not like it.

But I hope that you do. Good luck.

.

[Pounder]

Just got home. I liked it.

[Col. Zombie]

Just got back from the 3D, HFR showing. Here are my brief thoughts.

The movie itself was great. Unlike many of the critics I didn't at all feel like the opening was tedious, nor filled with unnecessary fluff. I really enjoyed the opening and the only thing that sucks about this movie is I have to wait for a year and a half for the conlcusion.

The 3D. Well, it was like all the other 3D movies out there. 2D images, layered on top of 2D images, layered on top of other 2D images, giving the "impression" of 3D. Still not sold on this gimmick.

HFR.
- I liked the clarity.

- The picture was just stunning.

- Hated some of the motion. Some of the scenes reminded me of old black and white film footage (1930s and 40s stuff) of people waving their hands at the camera and walking around, probably normally, but it looks "sped up." So it looks like they are waving reaaaally fast and walking reaaaally fast. It was very distracting at times and caused me to dislike certain aspects of the film.

Some of the motion in scenes throughout The Hobbit looked almost exactly like shots in the film below. (start around the :32 mark)

To Live In The 1920's - YouTube

[joe_b]

I know others have already chimed in on this, but here are my personal thoughts on the 48 fps issue.

My local Cinemark was one of only three theaters in the state showing the film in High Frame Rate 3D, so I took in a matinee this morning to see what all the fuss was about. My primary observations: It does immediately feel very different to film or even HD. The artificial "soap opera" quality is quite jarring at first, but it either improved after the intro or my eyes became better adjusted. My dad thought it maintained the look throughout and wasn't a fan of the presentation, but did admit it was the sharpest image he'd seen projected. To my eyes, the night scenes looked more "film-like" than anything shot in the stark light of day (i.e. the Shire). The digital work in the battle scenes really stood out, to the point were your eyes have trouble taking in the sharp detail being displayed on every individual troll, orc or dwarf caught in the turmoil.

Sharp movements, especially crane shots, had a strange "sped up" quality, as though I was watching the film in 2x fast forward. I wasn't the only person to mention this after the screening. This is most apparent in the opening scene where Smaug attacks the mountain hoard. I thought the projector was malfunctioning until I saw dialogue was syncing normally. Smoke (as from Bilbo's pipe) appeared to be rising at a faster rate than normal and the flames of a fire or torch also had an unnaturally fast flicker (at least to my eyes). Very odd. Again, the detail can be quite stunning - but the added clarity really caused some of the digital work to stick out like a sore thumb. The orcs chasing Radagast in broad daylight looked particularly dodgy and unnatural. It's not that the effects were poor, but it appears the HFR only served to lessen the blending of the digital and live action elements. Those chase scenes also exhibited the distracting "fast forward" effect I described earlier.

As for the 3D? Well, it didn't call attention to itself. Much like Avatar, the clarity of some shots could be startling (the establishing one of Rivendell, in particular). It didn't cause me any nausea, but I can see why that would be an issue for some. The 3D was a bit more taxing on my eyes than a film like "Prometheus", but that's partially due to this feature's near three hour running time. Overall, I was pleased that I didn't experience the "cross-eyed" sensation I've come to associate with most 3D presentations. HFR 3D is certainly a curious technology. I don't know if it's the wave of the future (I still see some kinks to be worked out before it's accepted by general audiences) but it's an interesting option to have on the table. Regardless, I was left with a pretty powerful headache when I got to the car -- to which I joked that the film should be subtitled "An Unexpected Migraine".

Oh, yeah... the movie itself was pretty good too.

[Starmartyr]

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

Just got back from the 3D, HFR showing. Here are my brief thoughts.

The movie itself was great. Unlike many of the critics I didn't at all feel like the opening was tedious, nor filled with unnecessary fluff. I really enjoyed the opening and the only thing that sucks about this movie is I have to wait for a year and a half for the conlcusion.

The 3D. Well, it was like all the other 3D movies out there. 2D images, layered on top of 2D images, layered on top of other 2D images, giving the "impression" of 3D. Still not sold on this gimmick.

HFR.
- I liked the clarity.

- The picture was just stunning.

- Hated some of the motion. Some of the scenes reminded me of old black and white film footage (1930s and 40s stuff) of people waving their hands at the camera and walking around, probably normally, but it looks "sped up." So it looks like they are waving reaaaally fast and walking reaaaally fast. It was very distracting at times and caused me to dislike certain aspects of the film.

Some of the motion in scenes throughout The Hobbit looked almost exactly like shots in the film below. (start around the :32 mark)

Well critiqued. Did you find you got used to the motion later on, or was it hard to tolerate even later on in the movie?

[L-Rouge]

hhhm time for a poll yea?, could probably have a diverse poll for HFR 3d on it's own hehe

[Duffy12]

Originally Posted by L-Rouge

hhhm time for a poll yea?, could probably have a diverse poll for HFR 3d on it's own hehe

Yep.

And I am also wondering if maybe playing video games helps out a lot as I do.

Maybe we need a poll for that possibility too.

.