Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,610
- Location
- Liverpool, England
That's why you have the option to watch the 2D version or HFR version.
DELETED_74993
- Thread starter DELETED_74993
- Start date
That's why you have the option to watch the 2D version or HFR version.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,377
- Location
- Surrey
Unfortunately, in the trailer they don't say "You should watch the 3D version in HFR, otherwise fast moving objects or panning will be blurred.". All I'd heard from reports was that HFR made the film look worse.
The only other 3D film I've seen was Avatar, and I didn't notice any movement blur, but that could be due to Cameron being aware of this shortcoming. In the Star Trek trailer before The Hobbit there is also a running scene and in that I couldn't tell what was going on especially with the place they were running in.
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,610
- Location
- Liverpool, England
Sorry, my reply probably came across a bit sarcastic. I was forced to watch the 2d version, but I want to see the HFR to see if it is any good. I have seen 2 3D films and at the moment I can't see what the fuss is about it. If I was being scientific I would have to watch the normal 3D version, but I cant be bothered or have the time to do that.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,377
- Location
- Surrey
I would actually like to see the 48fps one, just to see what it's like, though I have an idea since I've seen a similar effect on some TVs where they overprocess an image and make the framerate like 200Hz so it looks very fake like something on a stage. Like I said, I'd only seen Avatar in 3D before, and after watching The Hobbit in 3D, from now on I would only recommend 3D be watched at 48fps since the loss in detail during action scenes is not worth the 3D effect.
Fortunately my wife wants to go watch Star Trek at IMAX, so next time I will book the 2D version now that I know what fast-motion 3D is like.
I agree with you completely. I notice this blurring in all 3D films that pan quickly.
Which is why I'd say 24fps works fine for 2D but HFR should be the new standard for all 3D films to make them more watchable. Avatar 2 will be HFR too so hopefully we're heading down that route.
Nearly one hour in Bilbo's house? Nothing happens. This hobbit is nothing but a money making scam.
3 films really? The CGI was awful..The sledge and rabbit scene looked like Jaws 3D the cgi was that pants.
Trolls from good old London town? Just like the orcs?
I hate all the LOTR films and now I especially hate this. This tweeness of all of them makes me sick.
The goblin scene just looked like Fraggle rock again.
Were was the story?
There was so much filler in this nonsense it was painful.
3 films really? The CGI was awful..The sledge and rabbit scene looked like Jaws 3D the cgi was that pants.
Trolls from good old London town? Just like the orcs?
I hate all the LOTR films and now I especially hate this. This tweeness of all of them makes me sick.
The goblin scene just looked like Fraggle rock again.
Were was the story?There was so much filler in this nonsense it was painful.
Fixed so silly rant can be ignored all the quicker...
Congratulations, your cry for attention worked...
Congratulations, your cry for attention worked...
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
I posted in the other thread, the tweeness, good way to put it, makes me dislike the trilogy slightly more each time I watch it though I think there is a LOT good about them. The singing parts, the books are simply better and work well, in the films they are all embarrassing, there are a lot of VERY poor scenes in the trilogy, tv movie style moments like Elrond unveiling the sword, etc, etc.
Saw Hobbit last night and compared to LOTR I thought it was utter pants, utterly silly, like a bad kids movie version, the rabbits/sledge, the acting of most people it was just done like everyones a bumbling idiot. The singing and flinging plates around and as you say ages getting beyond Bilbo's house was woeful.
All the goblin bits were terrible, CGI particularly, but even the basis greenscreen stuff with Gandalf were really poor looking.
Three films, lol, Lotr had a lot of filler and singing to pad out three movies, the Hobbit taking up three films, I dread to think of the next two.
Saw Hobbit last night and compared to LOTR I thought it was utter pants, utterly silly, like a bad kids movie version, the rabbits/sledge, the acting of most people it was just done like everyones a bumbling idiot. The singing and flinging plates around and as you say ages getting beyond Bilbo's house was woeful.
All the goblin bits were terrible, CGI particularly, but even the basis greenscreen stuff with Gandalf were really poor looking.
Three films, lol, Lotr had a lot of filler and singing to pad out three movies, the Hobbit taking up three films, I dread to think of the next two.
The whole scene of them seeing the ponies missing, to a massive troll walking about 3 feet to their left, and the rubbish way in which the whole scene was done was just pathetic and the Gandalf "sneaking" around the back and smashing the stone, again it was more tv movie than blockbuster film.
But after that they find the gold, put a very small part of it underground but ignore the rest, walk outside, stand still, wizard appears in the middle of them, stay standing still, orcs appear. Guy on super fast sled "leads them away", so they manage to follow, on foot, while keeping up, leaving the woods for the wide open spaces with a crap load of that woeful hollywood editing where they see them, are four metres away, then the next shot they are miles away, then a shot where they are moving three times as fast and almost on them, then the next shot they are miles away again.
So much wrong with it, and the god awful repeating music from the trilogy... it prempts everything and is lazy reuse of it. Every speech about the spirit of man/hobbit and its the same music, same "big bad" music, same "we just got the upper hand in a fight" music.
More lazy hollywood style editing, they are hanging off a tree, hanging on for dear life, but one guy pops up for his fight, then just as he's about dead, another guy has absolutely no trouble leaving the tree... but the rest are all still almost dying... then when Bilbo's a split second away from dying, another 38 people all manage to leave the tree with no problem. Its lazy hollywood crap where bad editing and crap pacing means there is no reason those guys couldn't jump into the fight earlier. I mean have them fall and start climbing from various points or something to explain why they all don't just leave at the same time with no problem.... and all the while this happens, the same boring music telling you whats about to happen.
It was just cringe worthy, start to finish.
But after that they find the gold, put a very small part of it underground but ignore the rest, walk outside, stand still, wizard appears in the middle of them, stay standing still, orcs appear. Guy on super fast sled "leads them away", so they manage to follow, on foot, while keeping up, leaving the woods for the wide open spaces with a crap load of that woeful hollywood editing where they see them, are four metres away, then the next shot they are miles away, then a shot where they are moving three times as fast and almost on them, then the next shot they are miles away again.
So much wrong with it, and the god awful repeating music from the trilogy... it prempts everything and is lazy reuse of it. Every speech about the spirit of man/hobbit and its the same music, same "big bad" music, same "we just got the upper hand in a fight" music.
More lazy hollywood style editing, they are hanging off a tree, hanging on for dear life, but one guy pops up for his fight, then just as he's about dead, another guy has absolutely no trouble leaving the tree... but the rest are all still almost dying... then when Bilbo's a split second away from dying, another 38 people all manage to leave the tree with no problem. Its lazy hollywood crap where bad editing and crap pacing means there is no reason those guys couldn't jump into the fight earlier. I mean have them fall and start climbing from various points or something to explain why they all don't just leave at the same time with no problem.... and all the while this happens, the same boring music telling you whats about to happen.
It was just cringe worthy, start to finish.
Because I have an opinion? Why don't you post yours? Everyone can see the awful CGI in the sledge scene? why can't you?
The rabbit sled provided plenty of incredulous laughs during my screening, presumably out of sheer bewilderment at what we were watching, and the Internet has already been quick to label Radagast as “the new Jar Jar Binks”, though we perhaps wouldn’t go that far, at least not yet…
Read more at http://whatculture.com/film/the-hob...unexpected-journey.php/12#tVWPwvwCRu66XVR5.99
Last edited:
I agree, Its amazing too the fan boys of these films...Say anything negative about them and they are up in arms.
Whats interesting is Jacksons arrogance about Tolkiens writing. He seemsw to think he's better than writing LOTR and the Hobbit than Tolkien is.
Jackson is a fat arrogant person
The inclusion of Azog the Defiler as the main antagonist of An Unexpected Journey is a beguiling choice to anyone who has read the book, given that it makes it abundantly clear that he is killed during a war between the Orcs and the Dwarves, with his head being removed from his body. Jackson apparently decided that he had a better idea, and miraculously resurrects Azog from the dead, having him survive the battle for unspecified reasons and show up to stalk Dwarf leader Thorin with a dogged determination. Fans are already up in arms about how a relatively minor character of the book has been promoted to such a major part, even being inserted into set-pieces of which he was not a part in the novel, such as the film’s climax, where Bilbo, Gandalf and the Dwarves find themselves stuck up a tree.
Is there really any rational reason for this beyond Jackson arrogantly thinking that he’s a better storyteller than Tolkein?
Read more at http://whatculture.com/film/the-hob...-unexpected-journey.php/8#CsZx2lXwclIlAABM.99
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 58,786
- Location
- Surrey
No, because it was an unqualified rant, with no attempt at common sense or being fair in anyway.
You didn't have one positive thing to say, yet were more than happy to level questionable complaint after complaint at the film.
So it just didn't come across as a considered opinion, just a rant...
And the fact you've made it clear you didn't enjoy the LOTR films, so what did you expect from The Hobbit? A change of flavour?
"The rabbit sled provided plenty of incredulous laughs during my screening" - So maybe the atmosphere detracted from your viewing experience. For example, I saw "The Exorcist" twice at the cinema. The first time was with a small audience of adults, and it was a fantastic viewing. The second time was late on a Friday night, and from the outset the atmosphere - filled with people not wishing to take it seriously - destroyed the film.
Last edited:
Yes, I'm confused/frustrated why he stepped away from the source material in a couple of places. It did seem unnecessary, and generally seemed for the worse. Shame!
I think it's unfair to jump to it being Jackson being arrogant though. I suspect he had reason, but maybe it/they just didn't work out as intended. People make mistakes...
Interesting you have to post to a 3rd party article to put forward arguments, all of which bear no resemblence to your insightful pinacle of:-
* Nothing happens.
* The CGI was awful
* cgi was pants.
* I hate all the LOTR films.
* The goblin scene just looked like Fraggle rock.
* Were was the story?
* There was so much filler in this nonsense it was painful.
Again, no one here minds people pointing out problems with a film, but it's nice if they're at least considered and somewhat fair
That's because I have nothing postive to say about this movie. I didn't expect such arrogance and bad CGI for starters...I'll forgive the hair nets of the riders of rohan in the LOTR but I will not forgive the pointless Radagast sequence and the raping of the book for financial gain.
One positive I can muster? Freeman wasn't annoying as I thought he would be...But lets face it he hardly says anything after he leaves his house.
(Hobbit Hole)Why does the shire look like a CGI golf course?
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,172
Just rewatched this on 1080p at home. The cgi is very very good (aside from azog). Your opinion seems to be very jaded! Personally cant wait to buy the extended bluray when its out.
Rewatch the sledge scene
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 7,172
Which is average, certainly not terrible, the whole goblin/warg/eagle parts have excellent CGI.
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 5,207
I enjoyed it in 3D HFR but I have to say, one of the things that let it down was the CGI. The LOTR films were films that went on to become benchmark films for visual effects, but with The Hobbit there were a few CGI sequences that were very cartoony and in some ways worse than CGI seen almost over 10 years ago.
I'm guessing they might have rushed some sequences due to time constraints, as other ones looked a lot better in the film. Very inconsistent. And what's more bizarre is these are the same visual effects artists that worked on the previous LOTR films and the the Rise of the planet of the apes, which all had amazing CGI throughout.
I'm guessing they might have rushed some sequences due to time constraints, as other ones looked a lot better in the film. Very inconsistent. And what's more bizarre is these are the same visual effects artists that worked on the previous LOTR films and the the Rise of the planet of the apes, which all had amazing CGI throughout.