The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Extended Edition 2D 3D Statues 11/5/13

[Adam_WM]

Originally Posted by born2bblu

I have a question regarding watching this movie in HFR 3D on home cinema projector. My projector is Optoma HD25 and I believe it is projecting at 1080p 24fps. Will I get the benefit of the HFR watching on this projector. Do I have to change any settings? My player is OPPO BDP-103. Thanks.

Nope. Blu-ray doesn't support the 48FPS.

[Geoff D]

Just watched the EE again and I freakin' loved it. It's the most light-hearted of all Jackson's Middle-earth movies, as well it should be having been based on The Hobbit, and much like Fellowship (and many trilogy starters in general) it feels more rounded as a movie in and of itself. Because of all the nods to LOTR I never quite saw the movie as its own thing, but now I've got the context of the other two Hobbitses so they frame this story somewhat differently and I can appreciate it for what it is.

Thought the CG was stunning too. It ain't perfect, but Bolg in particular looks amazing to me, there's so much character and nuance in his eyes which is normally where CG characters are lost to the "uncanny valley" (same goes for the Goblin King, he's terrific too). The Wargs look great and those freaky little goblins are awesome, I actually like that they're not all performers in suits because it gives them an otherwordly appearance that can't possibly be human, it sets them apart from the Orcs, Uruks etc.

Smaug EE tomoz. Hopefully will have Five Armies in time for Saturday!

[MechaGodzilla]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Just watched the EE again and I freakin' loved it. It's the most light-hearted of all Jackson's Middle-earth movies, as well it should be having been based on The Hobbit, and much like Fellowship (and many trilogy starters in general) it feels more rounded as a movie in and of itself. Because of all the nods to LOTR I never quite saw the movie as its own thing, but now I've got the context of the other two Hobbitses so they frame this story somewhat differently and I can appreciate it for what it is.

Thought the CG was stunning too. It ain't perfect, but Bolg in particular looks amazing to me, there's so much character and nuance in his eyes which is normally where CG characters are lost to the "uncanny valley" (same goes for the Goblin King, he's terrific too). The Wargs look great and those freaky little goblins are awesome, I actually like that they're not all performers in suits because it gives them an otherwordly appearance that can't possibly be human, it sets them apart from the Orcs, Uruks etc.

Smaug EE tomoz. Hopefully will have Five Armies in time for Saturday!

I like the sequels ever so slightly more, but agree AUJ feels the most rounded and stands on its own the best of the three. Which, as you noted, is mostly because it's the beginning, the one that sets it all up while the others continue the story. It also helps that it has a proper ending while DOS ends on a huge cliffhanger and BOTFA picks up right after said cliffhanger.

A small correction about our main Orc, you're referring to Azog. Bolg is Azog Jr., he's introduced in the second film. He's the pretty one with the bolted together skull, armor embedded in his flesh, etc.

[Geoff D]

Yes, the white fella with one arm is the one I mean.

[StingingVelvet]

I think the orcs look fake as shit and they kind of ruin those scenes for me, sadly. The orcs in LotR looked badass, it's a shame they changed everything. Otherwise I agree the movie is a great little light-hearted fantasy romp. I had a good time with it, though I wouldn't hold it up to the best in the genre.

[Blu-Benny]

i have to agree.....the orcs and uruk-hai looked a hell of a lot better in LOTR vs. The Hobbit.

i was really bummed that they went motion capture w/them in The Hobbit.

they went through all the work for the dwarves w/practical effects, why couldn't they do that again w/the orcs?

in LOTR, they actually looked like monsters.....not so much in The Hobbit.

[imsounoriginal]

I have more of an appreciation for AUJ now, since I actually like the characters and it's nice to spend some time with them before we basically focus on only a handful for the other two movies as the cast gets bigger. I remember being so frustrated with the first one-third of AUJ theatrically cuz it just takes forever, but the downtime is a bit of a luxury. It's a long wind-up to a pretty breathless adventure once the Company comes across the trolls. Still my least favorite of the the trilogy, but from White Council to the end, I have few complaints. (Still wish Jackson would've explained why the Eagles just don't drop them at the steps of Erebor like the book does, cuz it's an enormous plot hole in the films, but whatever.)

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

i have to agree.....the orcs and uruk-hai looked a hell of a lot better in LOTR vs. The Hobbit.

i was really bummed that they went motion capture w/them in The Hobbit.

they went through all the work for the dwarves w/practical effects, why couldn't they do that again w/the orcs?

in LOTR, they actually looked like monsters.....not so much in The Hobbit.

To be fair they did try it but PJ wasn't satisfied with the look of the practical orcs.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by levcore

To be fair they did try it but PJ wasn't satisfied with the look of the practical orcs.

Yeah, I remember reading an interview with PJ where he said the HFR filming was a complete game-changer, and that things that had worked for the way LotR was filmed just couldn't be done in the new filming techniques. As I remember it, he specifically singled out the prosthetics and heavy character makeup.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by levcore

To be fair they did try it but PJ wasn't satisfied with the look of the practical orcs.

really??

hard to believe that they were able to convincingly pull it off 10 years earlier.

don't get me wrong, i enjoy the movies, but even i could pick out the obvious CGI.....and i'm probably one of the most forgiving movie goers on the planet.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Adam_WM

Nope. Blu-ray doesn't support the 48FPS.

I'm guessing if one wanted to approximate the feel of the films projected in 48fps at home, they could enable motion interpolation (motion smoothing) on their tv. Most newer sets have this feature. On Samsung it's called "Auto Motion Plus". Just enable 3D mode, and then go into Auto Motion Plus and bump it up to standard or smooth. Personally, I hate that effect on films, so I keep it off, but I do find with Samsung, when watching 3D films, keeping it on the lowest setting adds a very subtle smoothness that works extremely well in 3D mode. On higher settings in 3D it still looks very unnatural and I don't like it, but I'm guessing that's similar to how it looked in theatres at 48fps. In 2D mode I hate it even at it's lowest setting.

[mar3o]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Yes, the white fella with one arm is the one I mean.

I felt the same way with that character when I saw the standard edition. Lots of people complained about the CGI, but I felt it gave the character a surreal look that worked perfectly for the film. Has the CGI for him been tweaked for the extended edition?

[levcore]

Originally Posted by Blu-Benny

really??

hard to believe that they were able to convincingly pull it off 10 years earlier.

don't get me wrong, i enjoy the movies, but even i could pick out the obvious CGI.....and i'm probably one of the most forgiving movie goers on the planet.

Well see the post above yours, the HFR caused serious issues with the look of certain make ups and creature prosthetics. Obviously this wasn't a factor when they made LOTR.

[bookcase]

The CGI of the orcs -- and in general, to be honest -- was the biggest shortcoming in The Hobbit trilogy for me. Even though you know when something is CGI in the back of your mind, it shouldn't be so obvious when you're engaged in a movie. It sort of felt like the Star Wars prequels, which were so bathed in CGI that it didn't feel like the same universe as the original trilogy. The difference is that The Hobbit's story and characters actually worked, so I was able to forgive the flaws. LotR had true magic, but I'm still a fan of these.

[Blu-Benny]

Originally Posted by levcore

Well see the post above yours, the HFR caused serious issues with the look of certain make ups and creature prosthetics. Obviously this wasn't a factor when they made LOTR.

yeah, i saw that post after i finished my response.

would be cool to see some of those test shots just to see how they looked and how obvious the make-up was.

[MacEachaidh]

I haven't watched the extras that come with the EE of AUJ. Surely there's something in there about the HFR and Red cameras?

[Geoff D]

IIRC there's been very little about the HFR in the Appendices so far. I guess because there's no way to really demonstrate it using current home video and people were very lukewarm towards it in the cinema they're skipping over it in the extras. They did mention that they used 24 dual-camera rigs though, that's a total of 48 RED Epics!

As for the HFR look itself, even though the Blu-rays are 24p they don't have a typical film-like cadence (people have mentioned that they still move somewhat 'smoothly') and lend themselves well to certain motion interpolation modes. I use the Clear setting on my Sony (which is black frame insertion plus mild interpolation) and it looks excellent in 2D.

[MacEachaidh]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

IIRC there's been very little about the HFR in the Appendices so far. I guess because there's no way to really demonstrate it using current home video and people were very lukewarm towards it in the cinema they're skipping over it in the extras. They did mention that they used 24 dual-camera rigs though, that's a total of 48 RED Epics!

Yeah, hard to demonstrate it visually, but is there much that PJ *can't* talk about once he gets going?

I thought that, since Jackson knew (and acknowledged) that a lot of the technical decisions in this were intentionally trailblazing, he might have discussed why he made some of the choices he did.

Now that the EE set is complete, I plan to watch the three tomorrow end to end, and then maybe I'll check out the Appendices for the first time.

[Ernest Rister]

Peter Jackson says he didn't know what the hell he was doing when shooting The Hobbit:

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2015...ade-the-hobbit

[Geoff D]

Boy, that "news" isn't starting to get old at all.