What version of the Hobbit do you want to see? There are 4 flavors.

G

Gillvane

Veteran
I get confused. There's HFR 3d which is High Frame Rate 3d the 48 fps everyone is talking about. There's also the regular 2d version, Imax, and Imax 3d.

One theater in my area will have the HFR 3d so I'm going to check that out. I want to see the 48 fps and see if it looks good or not.

How the heck did Jackson make 3 movies out of The Hobbit? The Hobbit is like one chapter of one of the books in the trilogy. I have no idea how it's been turned into 3 movies.

http://regmovies.com/The-Hobbit-48
 
Last edited:
He had rights to all the appendixes that were included with LOTR - there was a lot of backstory to the events in LOTR, both between the events of The Hobbit and LOTR, and preceding The Hobbit.

I made my mind up about 3D a long time ago, so I will be watching the 2D version.
 
I will see 2D first, to enjoy the film. Then I will see the HFR 3D to see what Peter Jackson has been blabbing about for the past year or so.
 
^ Good idea.

In 3D I actually want to see the HFR version because with 3D the 'cinematic' ship has already sailed, might as well embrace the full tech shift experience. But 2D 24fps platform will always be where the 'magic' of traditional cinema lies. Reality is the enemy of magic and the subtle differences in the traditional sensibilities is a great boon to storytelling. 3D and from what I've seen and heard about HFR is more closely connected to reality and hence I consider more of a 'ride' or 'experience' because it puts you into the film as the camera whereas the traditional film uses your own empathy and imagination put you into it through the craft of storytelling. There's value in both and this film is going to be the first opportunity to make a real comparison. I really hope Peter Jackson's claim that it takes a few minutes to adjust and then you're good proves to be true. I also hope his other prediction (and seeming intention) that it will kill 24fps does not. That said, if 24fps gets relegated to traditional 2-door cinemas that won't necessarily be a bad thing. A better class of audience. No more kids kicking the back of my seat, grannies answering phones and general douche-baggery. At least that's the dream :)
 
I would *like* to see the HFR 3D, but will probably end up watching the basic 24 fps 2D. Which is fine by me. I don't think it hurt LOTR. I just hope PJ hasn't composed it soley for 3D, with the 2D composition / framing being compromised.
 
Already have tickets. I didn't buy them, but I insisted that I had no interest in seeing it any other way than what the director intended: 3D 48fps.
 
Gary Huff said:
I had no interest in seeing it any other way than what the director intended: 3D 48fps.
Click to expand...
Because it'll be the first 3D release to be presented in 48fps. Other than that, I'd watch it 2D/24fps without problem.
I'm more interested to watch Cameron's work on his upcoming Avatars in 3D at 60fps. Will probably look more fluid, I don't know.
 
I don't know if it will be available in 3d 48fps in any theatre near me. Is there any way to know?
 
since i find a second pair of glasses hanging off my face that effectively does little more than reduce contrast and pull my attention away from the story, i guess that means i'm obligated to make a clear declaration against auteur theory once and for all. after all these years... i'd so enjoyed living in the nuance... sitting comfortably on the fence, now leaning this way... now the other. oh, and i guess anyone with a given name like, JRR must be a hack then, too.
 
MPB said:
since i find a second pair of glasses hanging off my face that effectively does little more than reduce contrast and pull my attention away from the story, i guess that means i'm obligated to make a clear declaration against auteur theory once and for all. after all these years... i'd so enjoyed living in the nuance... sitting comfortably on the fence, now leaning this way... now the other. oh, and i guess anyone with a given name like, JRR must be a hack then, too.
Click to expand...

Honestly I have some difficulties with 3d. I don't have 20/20, wear glasses (have problems with contacts) and always find watching 3d hurts my eyes a bit, and there's usually a bad glare spot because the glasses are crappy.

That being said, the 48 HFR version is ONLY in 3d and I do want to see it as the director intended.

I am NOT a fan of the "picture window" Avatar style of 3d. I think directors are handcuffing themselves by only going IN to the movie screen, and not coming OUT of the screen. If I want to see a "picture window" well, there's one in my house and I can just look out of that, or go see a play. I hope Jackson allowed himself to think outside the picture window.
 
Gillvane said:
I get confused. There's HFR 3d which is High Frame Rate 3d the 48 fps everyone is talking about. There's also the regular 2d version, Imax, and Imax 3d.
Click to expand...

I've got no interest in 3D. I don't have any real Imax theaters nearby (we've got FauxMax theaters -- full ticket price for a half-assed experience on a much smaller screen). Which leaves me with 2D. I'd love to see it in 2D 48fps, but I doubt I'll get that opportunity.
 
Gillvane said:
That being said, the 48 HFR version is ONLY in 3d and I do want to see it as the director intended.
Click to expand...

i'd be willing to try the frame rate on for size, but i already know how the 3d will fit, so... the director apparently didn't intend for me to see it that way.
 
I will likely see this in 2D first, because I don't want my first viewing of the film to be spoiled by a possible negative reaction to the 48fps. Then I'll go see the 3D / 48p.

edit: though I might be tempted to go see IMAX 3D / 24p first...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top