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

[Josh]

This thread is for review and discusion of the film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey only. Any discussion of the films The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug or The Hobbit: There and Back Again should continue in this thread. Discussion regarding how the films differ from the book should remain in this thread. Any posts not directly related to the subject film will be moved or deleted as determined by the moderators of this site.

Official Blu-ray.com Preview

[benbess]

I like that poster.

I'm still keeping an open mind on this one, and plan to see it both 24fps non 3D and 48fps 3D.

[beadelf]

Id have probably waited till next week to start this thread

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by beadelf

Id have probably waited till next week to start this thread

The Super Mod can do what he wants, when he wants...including turning you into a frog.

I hate 3D and usually avoid it at all costs. Having said that, I'll give anything, at least, a one time shot. So 3 weeks ago I purchased tickets for me and "my precioussss" to see this in the 3D, 48fps showing on the XD screen at the Tinsletown in Pflugerville, TX. 10:40 AM.

In spite of the critical claims of the "slow goings" of this film, I can't f****n wait to see this.

[Petra_Kalbrain]

Originally Posted by beadelf

Id have probably waited till next week to start this thread

As has already been mentioned on various social media outlets, there are plenty of people getting to see this already at special screenings. So, with that happening it is time to allow conversation to begin, don't you think?

[jbig31]

Josh, what do you think of a poll?

[cvargo]

might get slaughtered on here for this BUT I did not like the Lord of the Rings as a kid when I was taken to these movies (i am now 24). There for I never bothered to buy them


I found out today that my work is taking all of us next week to see this movie for a special screening (they did this for Hunger Games too) So my question is should I try and watch the Lord of the Rings now that I am older to understand this movie better? I have also heard that Hobbit is a prequel so maybe its smarter to watch it in theatres then netflix the Lord of the rings trilogy

[Agent Bond]

Better to watch the Hobbit trilogy then Lord Of The Rings IMO.

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by cvargo

might get slaughtered on here for this BUT I did not like the Lord of the Rings as a kid when I was taken to these movies (i am now 24). There for I never bothered to buy them


I found out today that my work is taking all of us next week to see this movie for a special screening (they did this for Hunger Games too) So my question is should I try and watch the Lord of the Rings now that I am older to understand this movie better? I have also heard that Hobbit is a prequel so maybe its smarter to watch it in theatres then netflix the Lord of the rings trilogy

You honestly don't have to watch the LotR's before the Hobbit to understand it more.

[Penton-Man]

I would like some specific feedback as to viewer experience with the 3D HFR version of The Hobbit. My apologies if you also read this on another thread as I’m going to post it in a couple other places on Blu-ray.com for as much feedback as possible.

First some background…

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

...In the meantime, elaborating a bit more on my post near the bottom of the last page, those attendees questioned at the world premiere certainly do not represent statistically significant sampling and I would have liked to know exactly where in the theater the naysayers were sitting, as well as to whether this was the first 3D motion picture they’d ever seen because maybe they fit into that small minority of folks who get *sick* viewing any stereographic content on a 2D screen, BUT

the thing I find a little disconcerting about that news item is that if you’ve been following the HFR developments since the very beginning, Jim Cameron touted as one of the primary reasons (if not thee primary reason) why HFR would be so advantageous was that he claimed LESS people would get headaches or eye strain, feel nauseous, etc. than with the traditional frame rate. In turn, this would draw larger audiences into 3D screenings and help grow the format.

After that initial pronouncement, i.e. less people would get *sick* with HFR 3D as compared to 24fps 3D, then other more esoteric cinematographic advantages were touted by both Jim C. and P.J…. looks more real and life-like etc...

( from…https://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread...es#post6830520)

To be candid, in contrast to the filmmakers of note, and in all honesty I hope I’m wrong but I’m in the camp that actually believes, if anything, prolonged viewing of 3D HFR could (depending upon the panoramic/close-up ratio of shots and how they’re strung together) could cause more people rather than less people to experience minor temporary side effects (eye strain, headache, nausea) while viewing the 3D movie at 48fps rather than at the traditional frame rate because the higher frame rate definitely induces viewers’ eyes to sweep faster in the close-ups in order to process all the details on the screen, which in turn , may lead to a greater propensity toward eye strain, headache and nausea in predisposed individuals.

Why do I feel interested/qualified in making that prediction, one might ask? Well, I read and professionally review topics akin to this, routinely -
http://www.vectorvision.com/html/edu...DRSAcuity.html < for example, at the end of the ETDRS Background paragraph where it says “Other inadequacies also exist in the Snellen Acuity test. These include the types of letters used on the test and the spacing of the letters. These details are beyond the scope of this website”

^ Well it’s not beyond this website, Blu-ray.com
In a nutshell, the major advantages of logMAR charts are the regular geometric progression of letter size and spacing (following a logarithmic scale in steps of 0.1 log units), the equal number of letters in each row (five), and the comparable legibility of the five Sloan optotypes used.

So, anyway, back to The Hobbit, for those who do view the 3D HFR version (which is the format of choice by the filmmaker, and was how it was shot, edited and color corrected), please be so kind as to either PM me or post on this thread, if -

1. You experienced any side effects….list type of symptoms please.

And if you did…

2. Approximately where in the theater was your seating location?

3. Was this your first 3D commercial theatrical viewing experience, and if not, had you ever experienced such side effects before with other 3D movies?

4. In case you happen to know offhand, what brand projector(s) were used by the theater operator for the exhibition? (it’s too involved to explain now but, it has to do with possible temporal artifacting given differences in flash rate between different brands and to rule out that as a contributing factor to the symptoms)

Thanks

[beadelf]

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

As has already been mentioned on various social media outlets, there are plenty of people getting to see this already at special screenings. So, with that happening it is time to allow conversation to begin, don't you think?

hmmm i see a flood of reviews on this board

[Penton-Man]

Anyway, if I can procure some reliable data as to the estimated % of the population who experienced minor side effects during their theatrical viewing of the 3D version of Avatar and I get an unbiased statistically significant sampling with The Hobbit, I will try to post the findings for public review.

[Josh]

Originally Posted by beadelf

Id have probably waited till next week to start this thread

Originally Posted by Petra_Kalbrain

As has already been mentioned on various social media outlets, there are plenty of people getting to see this already at special screenings. So, with that happening it is time to allow conversation to begin, don't you think?

Originally Posted by beadelf

hmmm i see a flood of reviews on this board

Fair enough criticism. However, we do know that some folks have seen the film, and if they wanted to comment, then I wanted to provide a thread for them to do so. One of our members said his father was at the premier. If he wanted to provide a review, then why shouldn't he be able to do so? I know most of us have to wait until next week, but the lucky few can comment if they want to.

Originally Posted by jbig31

Josh, what do you think of a poll?

Hopefully I'll remember to add one next week - I don't want the haters to start overloading the thread with negative votes before the film even sees general release. For those who have seen the film and want to post a review, please feel free to comment and come back next week to add your vote. Thanks.

[Will21st]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

Anyway, if I can procure some reliable data as to the estimated % of the population who experienced minor side effects during their theatrical viewing of the 3D version of Avatar and I get an unbiased statistically significant sampling with The Hobbit, I will try to post the findings for public review.

AFAIK it's something like 5%.... nothing to write home about.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Will21st

AFAIK it's something like 5%.... nothing to write home about.

Thanks Will . I chose AVATAR as a traditional frame rate 3D control purposely because the general consensus (and rightfully so) is that it is considered *good 3D*, meaning not symptom-inducing unless one is predisposed by an underlying affliction.

Can you, or anyone else? direct me to the exact source of that % given; otherwise, I’m going to have to guesstimate the control by combining the general population prevalence statistics of all the disease processes I can think of which theoretically could be associated with headache, eye strain and nausea while watching prolonged stereographic content on the 2D screen…such as Convergence Insufficiency, severe Vestibular disorders, etc.

[DaveFi]

Originally Posted by Will21st

AFAIK it's something like 5%.... nothing to write home about.

It doesn't matter, most people don't have access to a HFR equipped theater anyways (I know I don't).

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Penton-Man

1. You experienced any side effects….list type of symptoms please.

I've seen it already in 48fps, it gave me a terrible fever and explosive diarrhea, I do not recommend!

[beadelf]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I've seen it already in 48fps, it gave me a terrible fever and explosive diarrhea, I do not recommend!

hahaha

[Barbossa]

Originally Posted by cvargo

I found out today that my work is taking all of us next week to see this movie for a special screening (they did this for Hunger Games too) So my question is should I try and watch the Lord of the Rings now that I am older to understand this movie better? I have also heard that Hobbit is a prequel so maybe its smarter to watch it in theatres then netflix the Lord of the rings trilogy

The Hobbit is NOT a prequel - Tollkien wrote The Hobbit many years before The Lord of the Rings.

[Penton-Man]

Originally Posted by Foggy

I've seen it already in 48fps, it gave me a terrible fever and explosive diarrhea, I do not recommend!

Good one. I would recommend you drink plenty of fluids and go see your Doctor as soon as possible.

Seriously, perhaps you don’t understand the significance of this little research study. The theory was put forth of HFR causing less visual or vestibular side effects compared to the traditional frame rate…
http://www.moviefanatic.com/2011/02/...-cameron-says/

At first glance, this hypothesis sounds very plausible because, for one thing, the traditional cinematic frame rate of 24fps is slower than many objects move in daily life, but,
Early real world feedback would suggest otherwise…
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ueasiness.html

Now, the question is whether that ^ article is skewed by the author cherry-picking negative anecdotal experiences or if there really is no therapeutic value to shooting and exhibiting at HFR of 48 and 60fps. On the other hand, the aesthetic differences of HFR vs 24fps are rather well known in the media by now.

The reason why I feel the side effect issue is of significance is because it’s a little like a drug company touting the efficacy of a new expensive statin over another to lower your cholesterol and implying that it is worthwhile for people to pay for the additional cost. After this initial experiment (The Hobbit), with other future HFR films, I don’t know if distributors plan to charge more to the public in order to see a theatrical motion picture in the HFR format ….heck, they may not even know at this point.

But I do know that producing a motion picture in 3D 48fps is significantly more expensive than doing it at the traditional frame rate. New toosets have to be devised and implemented in the post production process which many post houses just can’t afford to do. Right now I’m told that handling dailies in this format is a royal pain.

Somebody, somewhere is going to be paying more and it would be nice to know, aesthetics aside, if there really is a therapeutic advantage to 3D HFR.