The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

This helps define how to plausibly stretch the narrative into 3 films, supported by the appendices.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/201...ks-guest-post-in-defense-of-a-hobbit-trilogy/


We first must realise that the plot and point of The Hobbit, set in its broader context and including Tolkien’s appendices, is as the preliminaries to the War of the Ring – as recounted in Lord of the Rings (LotR). In other words, Sauron (referred to as the ‘Necromancer’ in the Hobbit), and his minions the orcs/ goblins, are the real enemy.

Smaug the dragon is but a secondary villain, much as Saruman was the primary villain in the first two Lord of the Rings films but the secondary villain of the LotR trilogy.
Click to expand...
 
I'm going to see it in 2D first.

I think the high frame rate thing is going to get a bad reaction. Up until now, it seems that the only members of the public to preview 48fps were those theater owners at that conference where a howl went up about how awful it looked. Then PJ himself withheld 48fps from Comic Con.

I suspect there will likely be negative press swirling around the 48fps format after the Hobbit gets released.

If we're lucky, I'll be wrong.

Regardless, the good news is that is appears to look normal in 2D @ 24fps like in the trailers.
 
Jim Jannard came out strongly in favor of 48fps as a legitimate and maybe better way of doing this film.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?89074-48fps-I-ve-converted

I'm still going to see it in traditional 2D first, then go catch a 48fps 3D showing. I'm still fairly skeptical, but I'm anxious to experience the film as a whole in 3D at 48fps and see how I feel then.

I still consider myself favoring 24p as a frame rate in general, but we'll see if a highly produced film changes the paradigm.
 
I saw the film last night. Not my type of movie, but kids will like it if they manage to stay awake (way too long and the beginning lacks pace and feels tedious and boring). I am definitely not a fan of 3D, but for me the most offensive was the 48 FPS look - it just looked like a high end TV production and to my eyes it simply looks nasty. It takes away the magic and star dust that such films require.

Both 3D and HFR have their place, but I'd like to see them used sparingly - in whatever scenes the director thinks are appropriate. But making a whole meal out of it turns the effects into a gimmick. I'd love to watch a 2D film at 24fps with a number of selected scenes at HFR or 3D. The technology is not quite there to achieve this seamlessly (no glasses) but hopefully one day we'll see these effects used as such - as creative tools to move the audience, not as a marketing ones.
 
Annoying. There are no theaters in my area that will be showing this in 2D, only RealD-3D or HFR 3D.
 
Theater closest to me has it in "IMAX 3D", "Real 3D HFR", and "Digital Cinema".

I was planning on seeing it in regular 24p 2d first. Then I will check out the 3d 48fps thing.
 
I watched it in HFR last night and hated it.
My concentration on the film itself was being yanked by the sudden jolt of what looked like watching a large TV film, the heavy CG scenes felt like a Playstation moment, overall it distracted me from what is visually an incredibly rich film.
Hobbiton looked like something from Last of the Summer Wine or CountryFile.
Just my thoughts, but I'm not sold.
 
Just finished watching "The Hobbit" in HFR (High Frame Rate) 3D.

This movie is going to be the catalyst for many many filmmaker flame wars online. It will be the good old "24fps is better and has worked for the better part of a century" vs "48 fps is the future. It's time to move on."

My opinion?:

Going into the film, I was super excited. the LOTR series has been a big player in helping me choose the career I'm happy to say I continue to pursue to this day. That being said, I was undoubtedly biased going into this film; of course I was going to love it. I thought, no matter what the critics say about 48 fps making it feel like theater, along with their other comments, that I will sit myself down and I will go into this film with an open mind. So I did just that.

The credits began to roll, I was excited. Then, there was the first instance of motion and boom, I got hit by the HFR. Odd, I instantly felt like I was watching a reality show with incredible colors and vivid imagery. It reminded me of shows my mother would watch on the BBC, but with epic scales and all of the joys that come with watching a large scale story.

I would be lying if I said I wasn't thrown a little at this smooth motion happening in front of me. I want to say I disliked it, but knowing that this was the common notion among critics, I forced myself to think of it not as a film, but as an experience. And WOOOSH, my experience changed and my judgement disappeared.

Do I think 48 fps is the future? I'm not sure. Is it better than film? Well, in the sense that 48fps tells a kind of story that 24fps never could, absolutely. But that's it. No better or worse. Each provide their own experience and having two options for this movie going experience is such a joy. I mean honestly, since when is having more options a bad thing?

My negatives: I found that due to the very life-like and fluid motion free of any type of strobing, I am sad to say that I had to agree with one of the critics comments I read a while back. I did become very aware of set dressing, of art direction, and even light sources. Things had a slightly plastic and fake feeling to them. This could also be due to the way skin reacts on a digital medium vs film. I became slightly conscious that I was watching a set instead of being immersed into Middle Earth. But then I have to ask myself, how many people in this world have experienced sets, movie making or even done it themselves? Clearly knowing a little bit about movie magic puts me in the filmmakers frame of mind and OF COURSE, you nit pick at things you think you know. And to you filmmakers out there, don't pretend that when you watch a movie with friends or family, that you aren't the FIRST ONE to say something when you notice a continuity error or something of the like... But after about 30 minutes in, I completely forgot about the technicalities of the film and got into the characters and story. That's really what it's about right?

All in all, although I feel that there is a certain magic that happens when you watch something shot at 24fps that this experience seemed to lack, I would be a fool to say that HFR doesn't have it's place or it's own type of magic. I definitely applaud Peter Jackson and the other producers for their willingness to go into the unknown. After all, that's the only real way we grow. How boring would it be if all things great never changed?
 
I absolutely loved it. Saw the regular 3D IMAX, and was totally blown away.

After the show, I actually peeked into a HFR showing and couldn't believe how jarring the difference was. I always had a feeling of how it would look based on all the past critiques... but wow, it really is... interesting to say the least. I'll just say this, I'm glad my $11 went to the 24P IMAX version, not sure I would have been totally satisfied watching the HFR version; it just really cheapened the whole look and feel of the film imo.
 
Luckily, my local theater added a 2D showing so I was able to see it the old fashioned way. On the whole, this film is definitely not better than any of the three LOTR movies but I knew going in it probably wouldn't be, just due to the source material not being as great. The Hobbit was always lighter fare, and as an adaptation of that book I think this film is pretty good. The book just isn't on the same level as Lord of The Rings. Some people are going to think I'm nuts but I actually liked the first hour more than the two that followed. This film does something not enough movies do, and that is spend time just hanging out and getting to know the characters before starting their journey. Movies are in too much of a damn hurry these days, usually to their detriment. I really enjoyed the dwarves, and the songs and all the stuff most people are complaining about. Even PJ's directorial approach, which I sometimes find a bit too hurried, seemed more relaxed. Once the adventure got underway, I thought Bilbo got a little lost as a character, being more of a spectator than a participant. And there were too many needless diversions from the main quest. Thankfully, by the end the focus was back on Bilbo, and the sequence between him and Gollum recaptured some of the old magic. As for the look of the movie, even in 2D 24fps, I could see the 48p digital photography had a clarity and sharpness that most films don't, even other digitally shot ones. This wasn't always to the film's benefit. I think the original LOTR movies gained a degree of credibility and realism from being done on film. The grain and subtle artifacts of film gave everything a more integrated feel. The rock solid, grain free sharpness of digital makes the seams harder to hide. Also, it may just be that the film was timed this way to compensate for the dimness of 3D, but I found a lot of the film, especially the nighttime scenes and the cave stuff to look too bright. It looked unnaturally lit. Ultimately, this is the first act of a three act story and I almost don't feel like I can truly judge it until I see the rest of the saga. But that it doesn't stand on its own as well as any one of the first three films did already knocks it down to being the least of the four for me.
 
Haven't seen any version of it, have read a lot of reviews, lots of critics are stoning this film. So I looked at IMDB to see the user ratings; over 35,000 votes cast so far and the average is 8.7... interesting...
 
Barry_Green said:
Haven't seen any version of it, have read a lot of reviews, lots of critics are stoning this film.
Click to expand...

The first three films are a tough act to follow, and critics are more apt to play the comparison game which is to easy to do here, but isn't really fair either. Regular audiences are probably taking the film more on its own terms. It's definitely not a triumphant return for PJ, but it's not The Phantom Menace either, or Prometheus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top