DELETED_74993

NeilFawcett said:
Huh? In many areas it's just not available easily!
Click to expand...

Yes, but that's how consumerist markets change. Going out of your way to see a better product sends a clear financial message to the execs in charge.


NeilFawcett said:
Interesting! So where it's being showing in 3D HFR, it's not being showing in 2D HFR? Shame! Maybe they keep it 24fps incase people don't get on with HFR!?

You could alays get two pairs of 3D glasses and swap the right lens from one, into the left lens of the other... And instant 2D HFR glasses :)
Click to expand...

Heh, sometimes with 3d glasses I close one eye, and think to myself, yeah I could cope just fine with this. The faux 3d enhancement just isn't worth the bother.

In terms of HFR, it really is just a case of getting used to it. How many people play computer games artificially limited to 24fps? It just doesn't make sense. Asides from one sensation of 'speed up' right at the start as old bilbo walked in shot away from the camera, I didn't notice any negative effects after that.
 
If our eyes had a frame rate it'd be roughly equivalent to 55fps. So yeah, 48fps looks a lot closer to real life. We're just so used to 24fps that it takes time to adjust to it.
 
Saw this yesterday and thought it was brilliant! :D Great cast (Armitage and Freeman were especially good), good dragon tease and a really fantastic scene with Gollum too. Excited for the next two now.
 
NeilFawcett said:
People don't complain of it looked sped up, just uncomfortably smooth.

Apparently the reason is, your brain is accustomed to you sitting in a cinema and watch something pretend in 24fps. It knows it's not real because, (a) your at the cinema, (b) the image is flickering and not smooth like real world.

Apparently, 48fps upsets some people because it undoes (b) above. Your brain is confused... It knows what's its seeing is make believe, but it so smooth its comparible to real life smoothness, so it complains. Supposedly we just need to get our brains used to it :)
Click to expand...

I actually did think it look sped up, as did my company.
 
HFR is fricking wierd! I think I like it but my it makes everything look like a BBC adaptation from the 80s - if it wasnt the Hobbit, I swear I would be watching something with low production values. a lot of the set pieces reminded me of the times when Im playing a game but at times it felt earily real. I also noticed some stuff looked sped up near the start of the film, just assumed that was me getting used to it...

Anyone know the technology behind it as I just cant believe its just double frame rate considering how different it makes the film look. Definitely improves 3D for me (actually makes non-HFR 3D undigestable as a thought - loved the lack of distortion/blur when the camera moved), just need to weigh up the pros/cons if it really worth watching other films in HFR as I cant be bothered to rewatch each film jsut to compare (will be rewatching Hobbit in 2D soon)

Is there any reasoning if this will only be a feature of 3D films or will we see 2D films feature it too?

EDIT: Regards the film, pretty good, much weaker than the LotR films and Im annoyed at PJ for making this a 3parter - just not enough there IMHO, 2 films would have been perfectly acceptable. Gollum rescued this big time...

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
Last edited:
There isn't enough in The Hobbit for 3 films, no. If you include everything from the appendices, then you do have enough material. This is why the book isn't nearly as... satisfying I suppose, to read if you haven't read LotR, because things like the ring, some of the characters and the Necromancer simply don't carry the same importance or weight.

A straight telling of the book wouldn't work as a film or two because we've already seen/read LotR and are aware of the greater world that exists around Bilbo and the dwarves adventure. Smaug is an entertaining bad guy yes, but he's really only in 3-4 scenes in the book, and glossing over the White Council / Necromancer like the book does when the guy is a massively greater threat to the world would be lolwut given what we as an audience know is coming.

If LotR didn't exist, The Hobbit would be a whimsical little adventure, but as it does it needs to fit in, and to do that properly it has to be padded out with all the extra stuff. And hey, it means we get more Middle Earth visualised, which is a good thing.
 
BunnyKillBot said:
I disagree, HP books are better than the films, but here I genuinely think the films are better because they are so much more accessible. Tolkien is a dry old man, writing from the perspective of a dry old men telling stories, much like a grandfather would. The fantastical adventure writing is a class leader, but the character development is nonexistant. The films combine both better than the writing of the books.
Click to expand...

GTFO. :D

The purpose of Tolkein's universe wasn't to make people hand-wring over a given character's choices (something that makes so much current fiction epically dull, predictable and painful for me to read, which is why I have generally given up, aside from a couple of authors), but to engage with the mythology in its entirety. This is why I feel I can submerge myself in Middle Earth at practically any point, but cannot do it with much else...

On topic: I watched it in HFR3D and thought it looked great. Some of the CGI really stood out as a result, but overall it was brilliant. The film itself was awesome too. I understand why Jackson did what he did with Azog, even if it did have me scratching my head for the first five minutes.

And Galadriel was :eek: hot in this outing! :cool:
 
ps3ud0 said:
HFR is fricking wierd! I think I like it but my it makes everything look like a BBC adaptation from the 80s - if it wasnt the Hobbit, I swear I would be watching something with low production values.
Click to expand...

this was very much my experience, for the most part I couldn't notice it but occasionally it looked like the poor effects and set of a soap disaster scene. It's hard to describe but one of the opening scenes with smaug attacking the dwarf town reminded me of the plane crash in emerdale :O
 
I watched this today in HFR and at first it reminded me of the Soap-Opera effect on Televisions with Motion Interpolation (something I disable on my Panasonic)..however I did get used to it somewhat, although there were still times when it looked a little artificial and 'too smooth'...what it did do was make the detail, particularly in action scenes, incredible and there wa no judder or breakup in fast motion. The colour saturation was reminiscent of OLED and most importantly there was no 'dimming' that you normally get in the dark scenes of 3D movies in the Cinema caused by the polarisation.

The movie itself I thought was excellent during the beginning and end, although it trailed a bit in the middle. I suspect this is due to it being the first of a trilogy and it was similar, although no quite so pronounced in the Fellowship of The Ring.
 
Muchbetter than iI expected! I thought we were an hour and a half in when it ended! Final fight scene was awesome

Saw it in 2d standard screen which was bad. (free tickets to use)
 
Saw it in 3D, standard framerate and was visually very impressed, although I do prefer the 'made-up' Orcs of the original LotR trilogy.

They've obviously taken a VERY expansionist reading of the book - things like the giant fight etc. seemed very superfluous and unnecessary but all beautiful, and without a hint of the issues that people have reported from viewing the the HFR version.

I said a few hours after viewing I'd give it 4* but one of those is for nostalgic reasons (massive fan of the original LotR trilogy here) but that's probably underselling it by half a star actually.

It will need to get even better to stop it being a 3* trilogy though. That will be tough.
 
Saw it last night and loved it.

just watched the 3 lord of the rings with my kids who have never seen it before back to back then took them to see the hobbit.

Thought the orcs in the first 3 movies were better though they looked very animated because they are.
 
I watched the HFR 3d IMAX version at the weekend.

I was extremely impressed with how it looked. If all films looked that good in 3d it would make it almost worthwhile (almost). :p
 
I went to see it again last week, this time in HFR.
For a good while i was thinking "i've been duped, this aint HFR" as i honestly couldn't 'remember' if it was different to the non-HFR 3d version i saw the previous week.
However, once the battle scenes in the Golbins cave came on i could see the difference and was impressed.
I didn't see notice any of the 'double-speed' phenomena that some people have mentioned. I also didn't notice any discernible difference between reality and cgi (as i did with the BD versions of LOTR). But then i guess 12 years on, the CGI is even better now.
Overall, i had reservations about HFR due to the reports of double-speed movement and the obvious visual differences between cgi and real-life scenery.
But none of that affected me, i'm glad to say.
 
Banzai_Joe said:
I went to see it again last week, this time in HFR.
For a good while i was thinking "i've been duped, this aint HFR" as i honestly couldn't 'remember' if it was different to the non-HFR 3d version i saw the previous week.
However, once the battle scenes in the Golbins cave came on i could see the difference and was impressed.
I didn't see notice any of the 'double-speed' phenomena that some people have mentioned. I also didn't notice any discernible difference between reality and cgi (as i did with the BD versions of LOTR). But then i guess 12 years on, the CGI is even better now.
Overall, i had reservations about HFR due to the reports of double-speed movement and the obvious visual differences between cgi and real-life scenery.
But none of that affected me, i'm glad to say.
Click to expand...

I get the double speed feeling. That's why I didn't risk it in HFR
 
There were parts where I noticed the double speed thing and it is kind of annoying but it probably only happened for a combined minute and a half throughout the whole film.
 
The scary thing is that for the vast majority of us all we are saying is HFR makes the 3D far more tolerable, but the actual 3D experience itself still isnt really worth paying for 9 times out of 10.

Ive found the better 3D performances are the ones where its subtle rather than over-egged, which really isnt a great advert for it...

I need to see Hobbit in 2D before it drops off, spent most of the film enjoying the quirky visuals than being engrossed by the film itself.

ps3ud0 :cool:
 
I saw this last week in HFR 3D.

Right from the start I noticed that people's movement was just slightly too fast which was horrible. It really ruined the experience. This did seem to get better as the film went on though.

Some of the CGI in Bilbo's house was awful. Especially with the plates.

In fact after about 30 to 45 mins I was starting to wonder if they had ruined the Hobbit as I really wasn't enjoying it. I think this was mainly that they spent the whole time in Bilbo's home and not much was happening.

It then started to pick up and I enjoyed it from then on.

The HFR really adds to to the 3D effect and makes it much more immersive. Some of the cave scenes I felt like I was actually there :) I'm not normally a fan of 3D so this was a big suprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom