|
Just returned from watching it.
First some formalities:
3D, 48fps, German language (unfortunately there wasn't a place to go for 3D, 48fps, original version  )
It was my first 3D movie, albeit at least on my 3DS I have no real problems with it. It definitely strained my eyes a bit, especially when there was a lot action going on like the backstory of the dwarfs in the beginning. But it wasn't too bad.
And the 3D imagery was very good I have to say.
I love the idea of finally getting higher framerates in movies and it just looks much clearer, which is great. I mean seriously, the amount of motion blur and shitty image quality due to ridiculously low framerates thanks to backward conventions has to go.
That said, because I've seen water flow with 24-25fps all my life long in movies it is bound to look strange. Overall you have to get used to it at first, so the first 10-20 minutes will feel especially weird. After that there are a couple scenes that'll tick you off a little bit. But that all is kinda expected, I would imagine this will become far less of a problem when 48fps (or hopefully rather 60 or more) becomes the norm.
The German dub did annoy me greatly unfortunately. I'm just so much more used to listening to only the original language that it's super distracting to listen to some shitty, German Bilbo voice :/
In general the voice over quality is high in Germany but still, there's just so much you can do.
Now how does the movies content do? Well it's certainly a good, enjoyable movie. I don't think you can look at it and call it "bad", not on an absolute scale.
That said it isn't on the level of the LotR trilogy, and I mean that in regards to overall quality.
While it is based on a book suited more to children I have to say that this movie felt too goofy. I don't think that's the right way to make it kid friendly, that's the cheap way.
As someone put it on reddit, there's a bit too much crass humor in The Hobbit.
The goofiness also really threw me out of the experience. I mean that brown wizard dude was just so damn 0815 goofy Disney movie character, I don't even know. The trolls also had a bit too much of that. Overall the attempt at humor wasn't working too well.
And probably the worst for me personally is all this weird kind of humor where characters keep falling insanely deep but survive thanks to insane luck and questionable physics. That occurred so damn frequently in this movie, it's irritating.
It's scenes like these where suspending your disbelief becomes impossible for me.
But then again, maybe that's what has to be done to make it more of a children movie? I don't know.
Anyways, even though I do have complains I still consider this an extremely enjoyable movie and recommend everyone to watch it. Depending on the level of immersion you want to have you should consider going 24fps first. Because it will feel different. I was kinda looking forward to it, but when someone just wants to be immersed on his/her first viewing that stuff is important.
edit: fixed some grammer and other stuff
|
On December 16 2012 00:14 TerransHill wrote:
Watched it yesterday, good movie overall but i was still disappointed cause it doesnt come close the Lord of the Rings.
1) It was to long. The book has 300-400 pages and gets splitted into 3 movies with 170 min length. Feels way to streched sometimes.
2) Its to silly and childish. I know that The Hobbit is somewhat for children but the movie goes to far sometimes. I dont remember the orcs being that silly in the book and I also dont remember that their leader is a fat jabba the hutt troll with double chin. The orcs are not menacing and evil like in LotR. They are cutified and u almost feel sorry for them lol.
I disliked the movie too on some level but I have to point out that those were Goblins and not orcs. They are as much a distinct species as Hobbits are distinct from Dwarves.
On December 16 2012 01:16 Medrea wrote:
I hope 48 fps becomes the new standard. Low framerate is actually one of the reasons I stopped watching movies altogether.
...
All the action is just motion blur with someone shaking the camera.
I haven't seen HFR version yet but come on man. The motion blur was terrible in action sequences but they weren't shaking around the camera like a whole bunch of movies have been doing with the quick cuts. Jackson's crew actually gave us a lot of wide shots. I'm hoping that HFR greatly fixes that and certain issues I had with the CGI.
|
Just came back, 3d 48 and in english, great movie, took me 5 or 10 minutes to get used to 48fps, but after that it was incredible, it looks amazing.
People need to remember it is a children book.
|
How do you guys know if your theater is showing it on 48fps?
|
On December 16 2012 06:47 trinxified wrote:
How do you guys know if your theater is showing it on 48fps?
HIGHER FRAME RATE (HFR) Screenings
The Hobbit has been shot at 48 frames per second (fps) - as opposed to the eighty-year long industry standard of 24 fps.
You can only see the HFR versions of The Hobbit in 3D. All 2D versions of the film will be playing at your regular old 24fps.
This does not mean that all 3D versions of The Hobbit will be playing at 48fps. You will still be able to watch 3D versions of The Hobbit in 24fps.
Next to your session booking, check to see if the 'HFR' has been added to the titling to confirm your screening as the higher frame rate version. Please note that not all cinemas are adding this qualifier, so double check with your cinema or alternatively check to see if your cinema location is mentioned HERE or on your cinemas official website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMAX
This is regarding the TRUE IMAX theatres (ie: the multi-story screenings that are projecting 65/70mm reels of film.)
It is important to note that word: film. No true IMAX screens will be showing the HFR version of The Hobbit because IMAX film projectors cannot project movies at 48fps. HFR screenings will be exclusive to cinemas with digital projectors.
There seem to be one or two known true IMAX theatres advertising the HFR version of The Hobbit, so they may have brought in a digital projector recently. It should be noted that even if these IMAX theatres brought in digital projectors recently, the film will not take up the full screen unless they blow the picture out to all hell.
All IMAX versions of The Hobbit will be in 3D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
LieMAX
The fake IMAX screens. None of the size, but usually the same great sound.
These are mostly all digital projectors and should all be capable of playing The Hobbit at HFR. So when you see The Hobbit advertised as an 'IMAX 3D HFR' screening, it is going to be for a LieMAX screen or one of the super-rare examples posted above in the IMAX section.
All LieMAX versions of The Hobbit will be in 3D.
Source
|
Nice! Thanks. I'm in Canada, and was thinking to see it in 3D IMAX, but it won't display the HFR.
Now I've made up my mind.
|
On December 16 2012 06:44 mutantmagnet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 00:14 TerransHill wrote:
Watched it yesterday, good movie overall but i was still disappointed cause it doesnt come close the Lord of the Rings.
1) It was to long. The book has 300-400 pages and gets splitted into 3 movies with 170 min length. Feels way to streched sometimes.
2) Its to silly and childish. I know that The Hobbit is somewhat for children but the movie goes to far sometimes. I dont remember the orcs being that silly in the book and I also dont remember that their leader is a fat jabba the hutt troll with double chin. The orcs are not menacing and evil like in LotR. They are cutified and u almost feel sorry for them lol. I disliked the movie too on some level but I have to point out that those were Goblins and not orcs. They are as much a distinct species as Hobbits are distinct from Dwarves. Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 01:16 Medrea wrote:
I hope 48 fps becomes the new standard. Low framerate is actually one of the reasons I stopped watching movies altogether.
...
All the action is just motion blur with someone shaking the camera. I haven't seen HFR version yet but come on man. The motion blur was terrible in action sequences but they weren't shaking around the camera like a whole bunch of movies have been doing with the quick cuts. Jackson's crew actually gave us a lot of wide shots. I'm hoping that HFR greatly fixes that and certain issues I had with the CGI.
I wasn't singling out this movie as shaking the camera all over the place. But it seems you took it that way. I was speaking in general terms.
Fortunately, we seem to agree on everything. As wide shots are really really nice. My favorite shot to date is probably the extended action scene in 300 where Leonidas destroys like 6 guys in sequence and in one cut. I want like a whole movie like that.
|
On December 16 2012 06:30 Na_Dann_Ma_GoGo wrote:Just returned from watching it. First some formalities: 3D, 48fps, German language (unfortunately there wasn't a place to go for 3D, 48fps, original version ) It was my first 3D movie, albeit at least on my 3DS I have no real problems with it. It definitely strained my eyes a bit, especially when there was a lot action going on like the backstory of the dwarfs in the beginning. But it wasn't too bad. And the 3D imagery was very good I have to say. I love the idea of finally getting higher framerates in movies and it just looks much clearer, which is great. I mean seriously, the amount of motion blur and shitty image quality due to ridiculously low framerates thanks to backward conventions has to go. That said, because I've seen water flow with 24-25fps all my life long in movies it is bound to look strange. Overall you have to get used to it at first, so the first 10-20 minutes will feel especially weird. After that there are a couple scenes that'll tick you off a little bit. But that all is kinda expected, I would imagine this will become far less of a problem when 48fps (or hopefully rather 60 or more) becomes the norm. The German dub did annoy me greatly unfortunately. I'm just so much more used to listening to only the original language that it's super distracting to listen to some shitty, German Bilbo voice :/ In general the voice over quality is high in Germany but still, there's just so much you can do. Now how does the movies content do? Well it's certainly a good, enjoyable movie. I don't think you can look at it and call it "bad", not on an absolute scale. That said it isn't on the level of the LotR trilogy, and I mean that in regards to overall quality. While it is based on a book suited more to children I have to say that this movie felt too goofy. I don't think that's the right way to make it kid friendly, that's the cheap way. As someone put it on reddit, there's a bit too much crass humor in The Hobbit. The goofiness also really threw me out of the experience. I mean that brown wizard dude was just so damn 0815 goofy Disney movie character, I don't even know. The trolls also had a bit too much of that. Overall the attempt at humor wasn't working too well. And probably the worst for me personally is all this weird kind of humor where movie characters keep falling insanely deep but surviving thanks to insane luck and questionable physics. That occurred so damn frequently in this movie that it irritated me. But then again, maybe that's what has to be done to make it more of a children movie? I don't know. Anyways, even though I do have complains I still consider this an extremely enjoyable movie and recommend everyone to watch it. Depending on the level of immersion you want to have you should consider going 24fps first. Because it will feel different. I was kinda looking forward to it, but when someone just wants to be immersed on his/her first viewing that stuff is important.
Haha dude you 100% said everything I wanted to post  Feel exactly the same.
|
Taking every scene individually this film is absolutely amazing. It's hard to judge on the whole thing yet however. If I understand well the second film will bring a lot of closure (and I'm not sure what the 3rd film is actually about?), then we'll have a clearer picture.
As much as I liked it, I understand people who found it long, but I think it's mostly because of the format. Since there isn't a clear sign that "this is the final part of the film" it can feel long, although I don't think they could've cut anything.
I remember not actually liking FotR that much the first time, and now it's one of my favourite films (the whole trilogy is). I think the Hobbit is actually better in a lot of ways, and I suspect I might feel the same way once I've seen the whole thing.
|
i forgot, i want the eagle scene as a wallpaper
|
Overall a good film, certainly way above the average fantasy movie or even movie in general. There are a few things that do bother me about it though and keeps it from going anywhere near LotR in my mind.
Tolkien's universe has always been about realism. Sure, there are orcs, wargs and mages but you've always had the sense that it's the real world with magical creatures added. When a dwarf falls 20 meters and lands on a small bridge only to drop another 20 meters and then keep running like nothing happened, you lose that feeling...
At times The Hobbit feels like the Pirates of the Carribean of fantasy movies. You almost expect Johnny Depp to show up as Radagast in the next movie >_<
It's still a really enjoyable movie, that I'd recommend people go see. I like how they handled the story and I'm looking forward to seeing how the part with the White Council and Dol Guldur plays out in the next two movies. The characters where also potrait in a good way, I'm especially impressed by the way they actually managed all 13 dwarfs to stand out. Radagast was annoying though. Easily the wrost part of the film.
|
On December 16 2012 05:08 Dunmer wrote:Those who complain about gandalf saving the day should read the book and then realise that gandalf is the second most powerful wizard in middle earth... he killed a fucking balrog people!
Gandalf is indeed awesome. Tolkien describing Gandalf in an essay:
"Warm and eager was his spirit (and it was enhanced by the ring Narya), for he was the Enemy of Sauron, opposing the fire that devours and wastes with the fire that kindles, and succours in wanhope and distress; but his joy, and his swift wrath, were veiled in garments grey as ash, so that only those that knew him well glimpsed the flame that was within. Merry he could be, and kindly to the young and simple, yet quick at times to sharp speech and the rebuking of folly; but he was not proud, and sought neither power nor praise... Mostly he journeyed unwearingly on foot, leaning on a staff, and so he was called among Men of the North Gandalf 'the Elf of the Wand'. For they deemed him (though in error) to be of Elven-kind, since he would at times work wonders among them, loving especially the beauty of fire; and yet such marvels he wrought mostly for mirth and delight, and desired not that any should hold him in awe or take his counsels out of fear. ... Yet it is said that in the ending of the task for which he came he suffered greatly, and was slain, and being sent back from death for a brief while was clothed then in white, and became a radiant flame (yet veiled still save in great need)."
|
Just went to see this movie and I have to say its awesome.
If you are a big fan of lotr you will definitely enjoy this, there are so many reference to the original trilogy and the book.
Couple of things i didn't enoy:
+ Show Spoiler +- Gandalf the gray is too powerfull
- The dwarves had way to much luck in the goblin cave
- How the hell did the goblins not notice bilbo
- The fight between thorin and the pale orc is too damn short
|
On December 16 2012 01:41 Medrea wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 01:35 Manit0u wrote:On December 16 2012 01:16 Medrea wrote:
I hope 48 fps becomes the new standard. Low framerate is actually one of the reasons I stopped watching movies altogether.
I'd be home or at a friends doing stuff thats always 60 fps or greater, and then sit down watch a movie thats 24 fps, that shit was super jarring going from smooth quality to mad motion blurring. I finally just had enough of it and generally dont watch any sort of live action movie.
All the action is just motion blur with someone shaking the camera. This reminds me that when they were filming Lethal Weapon 4 they had to constantly remind Jet Li to move as slow as he can because the camera was unable to capture his movements Yeah see thats just dumb. Thats content we could have been watching. I think we are ready for an improvement.
No. Just go watch "The Master." I havent seen a better looking film than that. 48 fps is only going to work in sci-fi /fantasy. Any serious movies with the high frame rate / 3d are a joke. And no "Hugo" isn't serious or good. Btw that end fight scene with Li is still bad ass.
|
On December 16 2012 06:44 mutantmagnet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 00:14 TerransHill wrote:
Watched it yesterday, good movie overall but i was still disappointed cause it doesnt come close the Lord of the Rings.
1) It was to long. The book has 300-400 pages and gets splitted into 3 movies with 170 min length. Feels way to streched sometimes.
2) Its to silly and childish. I know that The Hobbit is somewhat for children but the movie goes to far sometimes. I dont remember the orcs being that silly in the book and I also dont remember that their leader is a fat jabba the hutt troll with double chin. The orcs are not menacing and evil like in LotR. They are cutified and u almost feel sorry for them lol. I disliked the movie too on some level but I have to point out that those were Goblins and not orcs. They are as much a distinct species as Hobbits are distinct from Dwarves. Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 01:16 Medrea wrote:
I hope 48 fps becomes the new standard. Low framerate is actually one of the reasons I stopped watching movies altogether.
...
All the action is just motion blur with someone shaking the camera. I haven't seen HFR version yet but come on man. The motion blur was terrible in action sequences but they weren't shaking around the camera like a whole bunch of movies have been doing with the quick cuts. Jackson's crew actually gave us a lot of wide shots. I'm hoping that HFR greatly fixes that and certain issues I had with the CGI.
Goblins and Orcs are the same creature. Different word for the same thing. When the Hobbit was originally written, Tolkien used the term Goblin for them. When he got around to LotR, he changed it to Orc.
|
On December 16 2012 06:44 mutantmagnet wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 00:14 TerransHill wrote:
Watched it yesterday, good movie overall but i was still disappointed cause it doesnt come close the Lord of the Rings.
1) It was to long. The book has 300-400 pages and gets splitted into 3 movies with 170 min length. Feels way to streched sometimes.
2) Its to silly and childish. I know that The Hobbit is somewhat for children but the movie goes to far sometimes. I dont remember the orcs being that silly in the book and I also dont remember that their leader is a fat jabba the hutt troll with double chin. The orcs are not menacing and evil like in LotR. They are cutified and u almost feel sorry for them lol. I disliked the movie too on some level but I have to point out that those were Goblins and not orcs. They are as much a distinct species as Hobbits are distinct from Dwarves.
Pretty sure goblins are orcs, Tolkien just has a less developed fantasy world in The Hobbit.
In The Two Towers, there were shorter orcs from Misty Mountains who joined Saruman's raiding party. They didn't like to walk in the light, just like goblins, etc.
And The Hobbit is a much sillier, more innocent minded book then The Lord of the Rings. If it had the heavy, this ring will is a suicide mission tone, undead unkillable ghost kings are relentlessly hunting me down, our world is on the brink of doom, sort of vibes it would have been interpreted completely wrong.
Edit: for example, there's tons of fat Bombur jokes, dwarves seem comically clumsy at times, and Bilbo sings taunts at forest spiders trying to eat him.
|
About the 48fp: it just makes 3d much better. I don't see one reason what so ever to prefer 3d in 24 fps.
Seriously it will be the new standard. ppl just don't like change but tthey eventualy will get used to it.
|
On December 16 2012 10:07 igotmyown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 06:44 mutantmagnet wrote:On December 16 2012 00:14 TerransHill wrote:
Watched it yesterday, good movie overall but i was still disappointed cause it doesnt come close the Lord of the Rings.
1) It was to long. The book has 300-400 pages and gets splitted into 3 movies with 170 min length. Feels way to streched sometimes.
2) Its to silly and childish. I know that The Hobbit is somewhat for children but the movie goes to far sometimes. I dont remember the orcs being that silly in the book and I also dont remember that their leader is a fat jabba the hutt troll with double chin. The orcs are not menacing and evil like in LotR. They are cutified and u almost feel sorry for them lol. I disliked the movie too on some level but I have to point out that those were Goblins and not orcs. They are as much a distinct species as Hobbits are distinct from Dwarves. Pretty sure goblins are orcs, Tolkien just has a less developed fantasy world in The Hobbit. In The Two Towers, there were shorter orcs from Misty Mountains who joined Saruman's raiding party. They didn't like to walk in the light, just like goblins, etc. And The Hobbit is a much sillier, more innocent minded book then The Lord of the Rings. If it had the heavy, this ring will is a suicide mission tone, undead unkillable ghost kings are relentlessly hunting me down, our world is on the brink of doom, sort of vibes it would have been interpreted completely wrong. Edit: for example, there's tons of fat Bombur jokes, dwarves seem comically clumsy at times, and Bilbo sings taunts at forest spiders trying to eat him.
Yeah, goblins are indeed orcs. Tolkien says so in the introduction in the book, I believe "goblin" would be the english term while "orc" was the Middle-Earth term.. He also mentions hobgoblins, a bigger and fiercer version of goblins, which are probally most of the orcs you see in LotR, even if I don't remember anyone actually mentioning the hobgoblin term.
|
Canada11605 Posts
Well just saw it- 3D, no HFR.
I was overall happy with the film. I'd have to sit on it a bit more to think about what I saw.
I really do like the effort made trying to bridge The Hobbit with the LotR's and finding a middle tone between the two. I was prepared for a long film and so I did enjoy the extra attention to detail even if they had to telescope the death of Thror with the Battle of Azanulbizar. But there was a much stronger emphasis on why Gandalf chose Bilbo of all people, which I did like.
Strictly book speaking, I wish Bilbo didn't become heroic quite yet as it really wasn't until Mirkwood that Bilbo truly comes into his own once Gandalf's protective company is gone. However, given the reviews complaining how unheroic Bilbo is, it seems a reasonable compromise to push forward his character development rather than leaving it for the second. But that's just nitpicky stuff (I hope the Thrain-Dol Guldur connection is made in the Second. It would've overloaded the First with backstory, but it's interesting and relevant.)
My only major gripe (besides making Radagast a stoner) is with the Goblin caves battle. Over the top action is in vogue in fantasy films, but that was the one place where I was broken out of the storytelling with the sheer amount of shenanigans going on. It's a shame, because I think if you cut that by a bunch, there would've been a little more time for the 5 Fir Tree situation which was rather rushed. Not more sword fighting, but a slower lead up with at least a little time of getting treed just by wolves until the goblins arrive. And then nevermind hanging a tree off a cliff- just trees catching on fire and have the Azog fight just the same.
Loved the Riddle scene and I was very happy with Freeman's Bilbo. I liked the hints of the dragon without revealing... I kinda wonder if Dol Guldor will be the final battle in the Second and the Dwarves will just be travelling up the Desolation of Smaug by the end. Or perhaps just arrive at the Shelf with the thrush. I don't think you could end the film with the battle of Laketown and expect people to come back. And you need a lead up to the Laketown battle.
|
On December 16 2012 10:15 SKC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2012 10:07 igotmyown wrote:On December 16 2012 06:44 mutantmagnet wrote:On December 16 2012 00:14 TerransHill wrote:
Watched it yesterday, good movie overall but i was still disappointed cause it doesnt come close the Lord of the Rings.
1) It was to long. The book has 300-400 pages and gets splitted into 3 movies with 170 min length. Feels way to streched sometimes.
2) Its to silly and childish. I know that The Hobbit is somewhat for children but the movie goes to far sometimes. I dont remember the orcs being that silly in the book and I also dont remember that their leader is a fat jabba the hutt troll with double chin. The orcs are not menacing and evil like in LotR. They are cutified and u almost feel sorry for them lol. I disliked the movie too on some level but I have to point out that those were Goblins and not orcs. They are as much a distinct species as Hobbits are distinct from Dwarves. Pretty sure goblins are orcs, Tolkien just has a less developed fantasy world in The Hobbit. In The Two Towers, there were shorter orcs from Misty Mountains who joined Saruman's raiding party. They didn't like to walk in the light, just like goblins, etc. And The Hobbit is a much sillier, more innocent minded book then The Lord of the Rings. If it had the heavy, this ring will is a suicide mission tone, undead unkillable ghost kings are relentlessly hunting me down, our world is on the brink of doom, sort of vibes it would have been interpreted completely wrong. Edit: for example, there's tons of fat Bombur jokes, dwarves seem comically clumsy at times, and Bilbo sings taunts at forest spiders trying to eat him. Yeah, goblins are indeed orcs. Tolkien says so in the introduction in the book, I believe "goblin" would be the english term while "orc" was the Middle-Earth term.. He also mentions hobgoblins, a bigger and fiercer version of goblins, which are probally most of the orcs you see in LotR, even if I don't remember anyone actually mentioning the hobgoblin term.
I'm pretty sure that originally, when Tolkien was using "Goblin", he meant that for use for the smaller types, while the Uruks we see in LotR would be more like what he initially intended a "Hobgoblin" to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
