The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[punisher]

looking forward to seeing this film..my favorite book since I was a kid....I will avoid the 48ps as I keep hearing and reading of the dislikes of how it looks and the recommendations for the regular 24ps showings

[Vashetti]

Originally Posted by Walter E Kurtz

The first scenes at the start were so weird....think benny hill

Such an exaggeration.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by tilallr1

My only problem with the film was the 48fps. I’ll admit it took me at least an hour to get accustomed to the format. To me, it made most of the film look like I was watching a awesome 3D TV movie. Some parts looked like they were in fast forward, while other slow mo sequences were sped up by the framework. It didn't work. Also, didn't like the look at all, which did detract from the overall presentation of film. I am sure the 3D was better because of it, but it made the movie feel cheaper/lower budget at times. Looking forward to re-watching this on a normal 24fps 3D IMAX projector.

I was afraid this would be my reaction to the 48 fps, and I was not about to drop $40 (4 tickets to the midnight show) on an unproven technology that, from everything I've read, makes the film look like motion interpolation garbage. I may go see it again in 48 fps, just to see for myself what it's truly like.

Unfortunately, I believe the transfer from 48 to the standard 24 fps presentation seriously screwed-up motion shots 10X worse than any minor issues inherent in native 24 fps. I say this because the motion and panning shots were nearly un-watchable during the showing I went to last night. I'm not exaggerating in the least, and even my kids said the same thing before I even brought it up. I've never seen a movie where the blur was this bad. Slow shots were crystal clear and beautiful, but that was about it.

Anyone else see it in standard 24 fps 2D and notice the same?

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by My_Two_Cents

I was afraid this would be my reaction to the 48 fps, and I was not about to drop $40 (4 tickets to the midnight show) on an unproven technology that, from everything I've read, makes the film look like motion interpolation garbage. I may go see it again in 48 fps, just to see for myself what it's truly like.

Unfortunately, I believe the transfer from 48 to the standard 24 fps presentation seriously screwed-up motion shots 10X worse than any minor issues inherent in native 24 fps. I say this because the motion and panning shots were nearly un-watchable during the showing I went to last night. I'm not exaggerating in the least, and even my kids said the same thing before I even brought it up. I've never seen a movie where the blur was this bad. Slow shots were crystal clear and beautiful, but that was about it.

Anyone else see it in standard 24 fps 2D and notice the same?

Ouch ... didn't think about that. The motion during fast action sequences was perfectly clear and smooth in 48fps. Since he shot it at 48fps and clocked it down to 24fps, it probably messed up the fast moving sequences greater than anticipated, which would really, really suck. Now I am not looking forward to watching this at again.

[Walter E Kurtz]

Originally Posted by tilallr1

I know what you mean. The 48fps was definitely not helping during the slow sequences in the film. I really don't know what Peter Jackson was thinking by using the frame-rate. It looked for the most part awful, really detracted from my overall enjoyment. I do regret watching it this way.

But the 3D itself and action sequences were better because of it.

Bang on right there...

The 3D was superb! And im not a big 3D fan atall....it made it much better.

But....

Overall 48fps was a thumbs down from me, it was more of a distraction than anything.

I need to watch the movie again just in a normal cinema. I think I would have enjoyed it much more.

[Brightstar]

My local cinema is not showing this in 48fps

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by tilallr1

There were moments.

But the eye strain was the worst for any 3D film I have watched.

I read a ton of problems regarding 3D with this film, even from veteran 3D watchers. Its always *something* with 3D it seems. But, its a revenue stream for them so they keep pressing on. Like the little engine that could or something. The relentless 3D push continues. Meh.

Its almost funny that people go to see a movie and end up feeling sick. How lame is that?

I also read that this 48fps thing has a massive soap opera effect which I wont like at all. Arent most video geeks against fake-looking motion enhancements and all that?

[Walter E Kurtz]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

I read a ton of problems regarding 3D with this film, even from veteran 3D watchers. Its always *something* with 3D it seems. But, its a revenue stream for them so they keep pressing on. Like the little engine that could or something. The relentless 3D push continues. Meh.

Its almost funny that people go to see a movie and end up feeling sick. How lame is that?

I also read that this 48fps thing has a massive soap opera effect which I wont like at all. Arent most video geeks against fake-looking motion enhancements and all that?

this was pretty much my experience, it seemed to cheapen the film if im being honest...

[triefy]

Originally Posted by Vashetti

Such an exaggeration.

Maybe a bit, but it really did look like 2x motion. I don't know if my eyes adjusted to it more or if it actually was a technical issue at the beginning. I'm leaning towards the former since it sounds like everyone noticed it.

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by Walter E Kurtz

this was pretty much my experience, it seemed to cheapen the film if im being honest...

Totally agree. It made it go from looking like film, to watching a TV show. Which can never look good aesthetically and does give you the impression of cheapness, since TV is after all a cheap way to watching daily movies.

[tilallr1]

Originally Posted by triefy

Maybe a bit, but it really did look like 2x motion. I don't know if my eyes adjusted to it more or if it actually was a technical issue at the beginning. I'm leaning towards the former since it sounds like everyone noticed it.

Nope, it is actually the way your brain adjusts to translating 48fps from your eyes. Apparently, some brains adjust quicker than others, which is why some people only take 10 mins or so for the effect to diminish. While others like myself, saw it for the first hour or so of the film.

[Britnasty]

Going to see it in HFR3D tomorrow only because I have an early screening of Parental Guidance at 10am. Now to decide if I see it on the regular screen or the UltraScreen, which the latter is bigger than then"FauxMAX" screens.

I'm leaning towards the former as I feel the regular sized screen may lessen the effects of the 48fps.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by starfantasy

will i end up being sick watching this in 48fps ??

Ill be seeing a matinee of this in 2D, everybody Seems to be distracted by The 48fps.

[Walter E Kurtz]

I might add that I never once felt 'sick'

I think that is an exaggeration....

Eye/head ache due to my issues with 3D but thats about it

[Walter E Kurtz]

Originally Posted by tilallr1

Nope, it is actually the way your brain adjusts to translating 48fps from your eyes. Apparently, some brains adjust quicker than others, which is why some people only take 10 mins or so for the effect to diminish. While others like myself, saw it for the first hour or so of the film.

Yeah it was mainly the close up shots that were the worst for me.....

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Ill be seeing a matinee of this in 2D, everybody Seems to be distracted by The 48fps.

Please make note of the motion and panning shots if you see it in 24fps 2D. The blur was absolutely horrible at the showing I went to, and I'm curious if others notice the same.

[Pounder]

Could this possibly flop? I'm about to watch this and there are only four people here including me and my chick.

[cinemaphile]

Flop? no. Underperform? probably. It will open huge but not have NEAR the same legs as the first three. Its like 1130am on a weekday. Schools are still in and a lot of people work.

me im gonna duck in and check out the 48fps eventually to see how it looks, but I wont be watching the whole movie that way.

I DID just watch the IMAX 9-minute Star Trek preview, and holy sh!tballs!!! That is the best 3D I've ever seen !!!

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by pgestradasp1

Could this possibly flop? I'm about to watch this and there are only four people here including me and my chick.

I still comsider it early in the day.

Remember the Dec opening record is I Am Legend with 77M. I think the LotR trilogy did 60 plis each year. So this will have to make near 100M this weekend which I think it'll do.

[chris_sc77]

Originally Posted by pgestradasp1

Could this possibly flop? I'm about to watch this and there are only four people here including me and my chick.

I went to the Dark Knight rises with 2 members of my family on opening day at a 11 am showing. Thought it may have been old out. Ended up only 1 other person in the entire large theater. I think that film ended up doing ok.

I am guessing a lot of the hardcore fans saw it at midnite and a lot more fans will be there later today and throughout the weekend. Its gonna prob. set a December record and play throughout the xmas season very well.