DELETED_74993
- Thread starter DELETED_74993
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 5,207
Yesterday I watched the 3D HFR IMAX of The Hobbit.
A few things first.
I nearly thought my eyes were not going to cope with the 3D for the film, mainly because the Star Trek preview had some of the worst 3D I have ever witnessed in a long time, and I immediately felt my eyes giving up. I'll talk more about specifics in the Star Trek thread.
When the Hobbit started and the Warner Bros logo appeared on the screen in a smooth, judder free fashion, I felt a giant sense of relief - the 48fps immediately made my eyes much less strained more comfortable. At first, the 48fps did indeed look like it was sped up, and I thought it looked a bit weird at first, then around 10 minutes into it I was completely used to it. And I have to say, the beginning was extremely impressive in 3D HFR, with the mountain and the dragon. There were other extremely impressive parts too with the 3D and 48fps but I'll let other people see it for themselves without spoiling too much of the film.
The film itself in my opinion is not quite as good as each of the LOTR movies. That's not to say The Hobbit isn't up to the same standard story wise as LOTR, because I feel it is. What I disliked, was the fact the film was overstretched to accommodate a trilogy of films, and that there could have been tighter cuts where the pacing definitely might have been better off. In fact, I feel if they wanted to split the story up, they could perhaps have gone with two movies rather than three, and might have given the first part a more even experience in terms of the pacing (Actually, I've just realised that originally the plan was for two parts, back when Guillermo del Toro was involved, so I am assuming this must be pressure from the movie studio to split into three parts
).
With regards to the actors chosen for the characters, I had no problem with any of the actors cast. Martin Freeman in my opinion did a good job with Bilbo, and I can't wait to see what else he can bring to the character in the next parts.
Overall very enjoyable, 48fps definitely is the future for 3D orientated films (not quite sure whether it will work for 2D) and I look forward to the next two parts.
7.5/10
A few things first.
I nearly thought my eyes were not going to cope with the 3D for the film, mainly because the Star Trek preview had some of the worst 3D I have ever witnessed in a long time, and I immediately felt my eyes giving up. I'll talk more about specifics in the Star Trek thread.
When the Hobbit started and the Warner Bros logo appeared on the screen in a smooth, judder free fashion, I felt a giant sense of relief - the 48fps immediately made my eyes much less strained more comfortable. At first, the 48fps did indeed look like it was sped up, and I thought it looked a bit weird at first, then around 10 minutes into it I was completely used to it. And I have to say, the beginning was extremely impressive in 3D HFR, with the mountain and the dragon. There were other extremely impressive parts too with the 3D and 48fps but I'll let other people see it for themselves without spoiling too much of the film.
The film itself in my opinion is not quite as good as each of the LOTR movies. That's not to say The Hobbit isn't up to the same standard story wise as LOTR, because I feel it is. What I disliked, was the fact the film was overstretched to accommodate a trilogy of films, and that there could have been tighter cuts where the pacing definitely might have been better off. In fact, I feel if they wanted to split the story up, they could perhaps have gone with two movies rather than three, and might have given the first part a more even experience in terms of the pacing (Actually, I've just realised that originally the plan was for two parts, back when Guillermo del Toro was involved, so I am assuming this must be pressure from the movie studio to split into three parts
).With regards to the actors chosen for the characters, I had no problem with any of the actors cast. Martin Freeman in my opinion did a good job with Bilbo, and I can't wait to see what else he can bring to the character in the next parts.
Overall very enjoyable, 48fps definitely is the future for 3D orientated films (not quite sure whether it will work for 2D) and I look forward to the next two parts.
7.5/10
Last edited:
Yes, probably, but in LOTR, Bilbo actually says "What's this...?" while we hear Gollum screaming in the background; "Lost! The precious is lost!" or similar...
Not a big deal really but I thought they would have tried to keep it the same...
Saw it Saturday afternoon in a cinema with quite a lot of kids in, but every one was good as gold. A miracle considering the length of the film with a lot of slower dialoguey bits. I've tried to leave any real spoilers out but I have mentioned some general parts of the film.
My thoughts:
- Firstly, I loved it. To be back in Middle Earth was a joy, and I was hugely pleased that they included musical refrains from the LOTR trilogy to mirror locations and situations, including some different takes such as when Bilbo was running from the Shire and they added a hurried beat to the original Shire music.
- I saw it at a small local cinema so I presume it was 24fps (couldn't find the info, and was sure I'd have spotted if it was 48). It was also 3D, which was distracting to begin with but I soon forgot about it due to being engrossed in the story. Unfortunately I have a bit of a problem with 3D in that it isn't truly 3D. It's more a series of staggered 2D layers so it looks and feels a bit like this to me.
- It had a far more upbeat tone to LOTR which I think served it well considering the material it's from. I understand why those who were expecting a darker, less 'jaunty' film felt it was a bit out of sorts when compared directly to LOTR, and were disgruntled.
- I liked how we saw intertwined history of places we've already seen, including a short Moria sequence. It added something for those who know the story well, or even a little, but isn't detrimental for those who are going in blank. The only bit that kind of broke the seams was, as mentioned, how Bilbo comes across the ring. I guess you could dismiss that though as different perceptions from differing accounts.
- The Gollum sequence was exceptional. Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar just for those few minutes, though we know this won't happen!
- Yes, it was long, and maybe tiresome for some. I'm one of those who will take as much as I can get though, and would happily have seen a three-hour LOTR film for each of the six parts in the novel.
- For those lamenting the lack of a 'There and Back Again' title, this will be the title of the third, conclusive film. Wasn't sure if that had been mentioned.
I'd take Fellowship over this, but it was definitely the film I watched this year that had me most hooked throughout. I went in expecting to be let down due to the three-way split and couldn't think how they would be able to make it as long as it is and keep my interest, but I was pleasantly surprised.
My thoughts:
- Firstly, I loved it. To be back in Middle Earth was a joy, and I was hugely pleased that they included musical refrains from the LOTR trilogy to mirror locations and situations, including some different takes such as when Bilbo was running from the Shire and they added a hurried beat to the original Shire music.
- I saw it at a small local cinema so I presume it was 24fps (couldn't find the info, and was sure I'd have spotted if it was 48). It was also 3D, which was distracting to begin with but I soon forgot about it due to being engrossed in the story. Unfortunately I have a bit of a problem with 3D in that it isn't truly 3D. It's more a series of staggered 2D layers so it looks and feels a bit like this to me.
- It had a far more upbeat tone to LOTR which I think served it well considering the material it's from. I understand why those who were expecting a darker, less 'jaunty' film felt it was a bit out of sorts when compared directly to LOTR, and were disgruntled.
- I liked how we saw intertwined history of places we've already seen, including a short Moria sequence. It added something for those who know the story well, or even a little, but isn't detrimental for those who are going in blank. The only bit that kind of broke the seams was, as mentioned, how Bilbo comes across the ring. I guess you could dismiss that though as different perceptions from differing accounts.
- The Gollum sequence was exceptional. Andy Serkis deserves an Oscar just for those few minutes, though we know this won't happen!
- Yes, it was long, and maybe tiresome for some. I'm one of those who will take as much as I can get though, and would happily have seen a three-hour LOTR film for each of the six parts in the novel.
- For those lamenting the lack of a 'There and Back Again' title, this will be the title of the third, conclusive film. Wasn't sure if that had been mentioned.
I'd take Fellowship over this, but it was definitely the film I watched this year that had me most hooked throughout. I went in expecting to be let down due to the three-way split and couldn't think how they would be able to make it as long as it is and keep my interest, but I was pleasantly surprised.
Last edited:
Yea, how I feel about standard 3D. In the HFR IMAX last night though it was far far superior and the 3D felt fluid from front to back, without the segregation.
Though I don't know if that was down to 48fps or if the IMAX was a 4K screen.
I just saw the regular HFR 3D version and it too was very smooth.
Seems like the Hobbit is a huge HUGE success, taking nearly $85mill in the US and over $138 mill worldwide. Biggest Dec opening ever.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...reaks-records-takes-84-8m-U-S-box-office.html
Cant wait till tomorrow night when ill finally get my chance to see it in 3D HFR
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...reaks-records-takes-84-8m-U-S-box-office.html
Cant wait till tomorrow night when ill finally get my chance to see it in 3D HFR
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2011
- Posts
- 383
- Location
- Wishaw, Scotland.
I seen it on Sat night in IMAX 3D and I thought it was brilliant. Did not seem to drag in for me at all and loved being back in that world again.
Seems like the Hobbit is a huge HUGE success, taking nearly $85mill in the US and over $138 mill worldwide. Biggest Dec opening ever.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...reaks-records-takes-84-8m-U-S-box-office.html
Cant wait till tomorrow night when ill finally get my chance to see it in 3D HFR
Although I've been reading it's fallen short of expectations considering the fact it's in 3D/IMAX etc so inflated prices.
However it should have people with multiple viewings due to the format! I seen it in 3D but not in HFR and I know for example me and my mates will be going to see it again to experience HFR.
Should do really well! Great film!
Permabanned
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,078
In LOTR he finds the ring when he is old, so I can only assume that some where in this series of films the ring will end up back in gollums hands.
Also explains the line Frodo used in LOTR when he put the sword sting to Gollums throat.
I watched it last night, good film, only 24fps 3D due to the nearest IMAX/HFR screen being a 250 mile round trip. I enjoyed it, the story was good, the action sequences were good, but I wasn't as awe struck with this as I was lord of the rings when it came out.
Nope
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Aug 2006
- Posts
- 5,207
I've now seen the Hobbit three times
Adore it. I don't think it's as good as the Lord of the Rings, but it's mighty close.
Yeah I'd say it's pretty close. Very enjoyable though, and I will definitely go see it again, but probably in 2D next time round.
Seen this again today in 2D and have to say it gives for a much better viewing. That said, I think the film is still a bit 'meh', some of the CGI is bloody awful in places and is overused A LOT throughout (I found this a problem with the LOTR trilogy, the CGI was pretty much pants in A LOT of places).
7/10
7/10
Last edited:
In what places did you find the CGI awful? The film looked stunning from start to end IMO.
I can only recall two shots? that I thought the CGI looked 'off' in the Lord of the Rings.
Both of those shots are because of the layering and use of green screen. I might be forgetting other shots, but those two are the only two shots that don't work for me.
- The ambush when Isildur is shown putting the ring on before losing it in the river.
- When Frodo and Sam are in the cave in the Two Towers with Faramir.
Both of those shots are because of the layering and use of green screen. I might be forgetting other shots, but those two are the only two shots that don't work for me.
I would need to see the films again to recall the shots, but there are quite a few areas where the CGI has not aged well in the first trilogy, and falls below The Hobbit.
Not just CGI shots though there may be some CG elements, but, I thought the Ents in LOTR looked very bad, especially the shots with Treebeard carrying Merry and Pippin, which reminded me of old stop motion films from the 70's... The Hobbit has nothing this bad that I noticed CG or otherwise. I felt most of the CGI worked quite well, but maybe seeing the HFR version will highlight the effects more.
Disagree.
I don't think the CGI has aged as badly as you're making out nor did I have much issue with the Ents.
I would argue that it only falls below the Hobbit due to 10 years of techonolgy between the films and a higher budget
As I said, those shots didn't look right at the time and they still don't now. Feels like people are clutching at straws.
I don't think the CGI has aged as badly as you're making out nor did I have much issue with the Ents.
I would argue that it only falls below the Hobbit due to 10 years of techonolgy between the films and a higher budget
As I said, those shots didn't look right at the time and they still don't now. Feels like people are clutching at straws.