I saw 'The Hobbit' tonight...(Spoiler free)

[Wally's Comics]

Pretty .

 

It had a weird feel to it. Maybe because I saw it in 3-D, or maybe it was just me. But it felt like it was a made for TV movie. The acting was fine and the story was good, but something was missing. One of my friends said it felt like we were watching it while it was being filmed.

 

Like I said though, good acting. Some scenes were awesome. Some not so much. I'd say wait for it at the cheap theaters (second run, whatever).

 

This is what happens when you try to get greedy and stretch two movies into three.

 

I'll wait until the whole set is digital then I'll cut out all the krap and watch

one GREAT movie.

 

 

 

[vader2001]

I am looking forward to seeing this film. I am going to see it in 2d, I have an problem with my right eye....

 

 

I can neither confirm or deny that I had a bebe gun in my youth.

[sterlingcomics]

One of my friends said it felt like we were watching it while it was being filmed.

 

That's been the chief complaint with the movie since people have started reviewing it.

This is because this movie is running at 48 frames per second which is beyond the standard 28 or so frames. This is going to take some adjustment from the audience. This is the wave of the future.

 

My major beef is the epic length of the movies which cannot be justified due to a brisk 300 page children's novel.

 

Anyone remember the 1977 animation cartoon? My son just finished the book, and then we're going to watch the cartoon before seeing this movie. Given the length my son may opt out as 3 hours is pretty ridiculous. Kinda ironic that The Hobbitt was built for children yet Jackson's overzealous vision is going to thwart the very market the movie SHOULD be targeting!

 

[VintageComics]

All this geek tech talk is losing me. I don't really care about higher and higher resolution, but I am concerned by the awkwardness people are experiencing, so which version would you guys recommend to avoid that feeling? Plus I'd rather avoid the whole 3-D option.

 

Thanks in advance!

 

(thumbs u

 

48fps makes it look like a day time soap opera.

24fps makes it look like Lord Of The Rings.

 

 

[VintageComics]

It IS better quality! The discomfort is purely a result of the association your brain has made between high framerate and reality based programming. You only think 24fps looks better because you associate the relatively blurry, jerky motion with proper cinema.

 

Since I watch a movie or two with this friend every week - and we never changed the setting on his TV - I have grown accustomed to it. The sharpness and smoothness of detail and motion no longer jar me back to reality. I don't think it will bother me in the Hobbit, and I will be able to enjoy the greater quality.

 

...and that's basically what I've been thinking is possible all along.

 

It looks too real, mainly because we're not used to seeing it that way because we're fossils.

 

Thanks for the post!

[VintageComics]

My major beef is the epic length of the movies which cannot be justified due to a brisk 300 page children's novel.

 

It's retarded to think that LOTR was successfully done in 3 flicks and now they have to push the Hobbit into 3.

 

I'm all for a long movie it the story dictates it but I hate it when studios get involved and much things up just to milk the audience.

 

I'll avoid a movie on principal if that's the case.

[lizards2]

The only 3D movie that didn't make me feel like tossing my cookies was Dredd, and I think that's only because the whole movie was in slow motion. 2D Hobbit for this kid, which most likely means a trip to the ghetto theatre that doesn't even have stadium seating.

Canadian Ghettos

[chrisco37]

It IS better quality! The discomfort is purely a result of the association your brain has made between high framerate and reality based programming. You only think 24fps looks better because you associate the relatively blurry, jerky motion with proper cinema.

 

Since I watch a movie or two with this friend every week - and we never changed the setting on his TV - I have grown accustomed to it. The sharpness and smoothness of detail and motion no longer jar me back to reality. I don't think it will bother me in the Hobbit, and I will be able to enjoy the greater quality.

 

...and that's basically what I've been thinking is possible all along.

 

It looks too real, mainly because we're not used to seeing it that way because we're fossils.

 

Thanks for the post!

 

We'll get used to it. Remember when you first saw a show filmed in HD on an HD feed? It looked like you were watching a play. Now it looks normal.

[gadzukes]

This may have already been posted somewhere but what are they using as the ending points for the 1st & 2nd movies. What are the "Cliff Hangers"?

 

 

[Mister_Comics]

As soon as everyone buys into this new super duper high quality mumble gumble they'll come out with something better.

When is this new 3D that you don't need glasses coming out that I've been reading about? Read about it in some electronics mag. Somethin' with a double screne.

 

Anyway, I'll see Hobbit in 2D. Not really impressed with the 3D movies I've already seen.

[Reno McCoy]

There's a fantastic interview with Jackson about the film and the 48fps aspect of the trilogy.

 

Here's one interesting quote:

 

When someone asks me what frame rate to see it in, I've been responding, "See it in 48 fps. Even if you don't like it, you've never seen anything like it before."

 

It's going to be, to me, the fact that the younger audience is embracing it -- and they are embracing it -- it's just a few old fogeys like us who aren't quite sure of it. It's the younger audience who kind of think it's cool. And that's the people we need to get them off their iPads and back in the cinema. And the technology exists, why should we as an industry say that we achieved perfection in 1927? Why should we sit back on our haunches and laurels and say, "We got it right in 1927"? What are we talking about? The next 100 years? The next 200 years? That's what films have to be? We shouldn't be doing that. We should be looking at the dwindling audiences and the fact that kids aren't as excited about going to the cinema as we are or used to be when we were young. And how do we make it feel more exciting for them? To back into that experience again.

[shrunkenhead]

As soon as everyone buys into this new super duper high quality mumble gumble they'll come out with something better.

When is this new 3D that you don't need glasses coming out that I've been reading about? Read about it in some electronics mag. Somethin' with a double screne.

 

Anyway, I'll see Hobbit in 2D. Not really impressed with the 3D movies I've already seen.

 

The little I've seen of the 3d-without-glasses technology has not been terribly impressive. Left me with a headache. You can see the lowest-rent version of this tech for yourself if you go to a Gamestop or Best Buy and play around with the 3DS console display.

[BaltimoreLauren]

There's a fantastic interview with Jackson about the film and the 48fps aspect of the trilogy.

 

Here's one interesting quote:

 

When someone asks me what frame rate to see it in, I've been responding, "See it in 48 fps. Even if you don't like it, you've never seen anything like it before."

 

It's going to be, to me, the fact that the younger audience is embracing it -- and they are embracing it -- it's just a few old fogeys like us who aren't quite sure of it. It's the younger audience who kind of think it's cool. And that's the people we need to get them off their iPads and back in the cinema. And the technology exists, why should we as an industry say that we achieved perfection in 1927? Why should we sit back on our haunches and laurels and say, "We got it right in 1927"? What are we talking about? The next 100 years? The next 200 years? That's what films have to be? We shouldn't be doing that. We should be looking at the dwindling audiences and the fact that kids aren't as excited about going to the cinema as we are or used to be when we were young. And how do we make it feel more exciting for them? To back into that experience again.

 

I'm 26, and I'm not entirely sure about embracing this. I don't doubt I'll eventually get used to it though.

 

I think the ending was done well. It didn't feel like a total cliffhanger. It was a fitting end to what felt like a long, long movie.

[aelelarkin]

My major beef is the epic length of the movies which cannot be justified due to a brisk 300 page children's novel.

 

My understanding was that they were also drawing on other source material to flesh things out. ie the Silmarillion and the appendices from LOTR: tRotK.

[fantastic_four]

There's a fantastic interview with Jackson about the film and the 48fps aspect of the trilogy.

 

Here's one interesting quote:

 

When someone asks me what frame rate to see it in, I've been responding, "See it in 48 fps. Even if you don't like it, you've never seen anything like it before."

 

It's going to be, to me, the fact that the younger audience is embracing it -- and they are embracing it -- it's just a few old fogeys like us who aren't quite sure of it. It's the younger audience who kind of think it's cool. And that's the people we need to get them off their iPads and back in the cinema. And the technology exists, why should we as an industry say that we achieved perfection in 1927? Why should we sit back on our haunches and laurels and say, "We got it right in 1927"? What are we talking about? The next 100 years? The next 200 years? That's what films have to be? We shouldn't be doing that. We should be looking at the dwindling audiences and the fact that kids aren't as excited about going to the cinema as we are or used to be when we were young. And how do we make it feel more exciting for them? To back into that experience again.

 

I'm 26, and I'm not entirely sure about embracing this.

 

That's because you're one of the old fogeys he's referring to. Perhaps Jackson and his interviewer are even more fogey-ish than you, but your prejudices are pretty well in place once you pass your teenage years.

[VintageComics]

There's a fantastic interview with Jackson about the film and the 48fps aspect of the trilogy.

 

Here's one interesting quote:

 

When someone asks me what frame rate to see it in, I've been responding, "See it in 48 fps. Even if you don't like it, you've never seen anything like it before."

 

It's going to be, to me, the fact that the younger audience is embracing it -- and they are embracing it -- it's just a few old fogeys like us who aren't quite sure of it. It's the younger audience who kind of think it's cool. And that's the people we need to get them off their iPads and back in the cinema. And the technology exists, why should we as an industry say that we achieved perfection in 1927? Why should we sit back on our haunches and laurels and say, "We got it right in 1927"? What are we talking about? The next 100 years? The next 200 years? That's what films have to be? We shouldn't be doing that. We should be looking at the dwindling audiences and the fact that kids aren't as excited about going to the cinema as we are or used to be when we were young. And how do we make it feel more exciting for them? To back into that experience again.

 

I'm 26, and I'm not entirely sure about embracing this. I don't doubt I'll eventually get used to it though.

 

I think the ending was done well. It didn't feel like a total cliffhanger. It was a fitting end to what felt like a long, long movie.

 

It's a joke that this was originally a double length movie and then switched to a triple length.

 

How do you do that effectively?

 

 

[fantastic_four]

Since I never read the Hobbit.

 

Do they just walk the entire movie just like the other 3 movies?

 

Some guy with a DeLorean shows up to give Bilbo a ride to Smaug's house, but other than that - it's mostly walking.

 

I'm almost done with reading it right now for the first time. This book's material isn't anywhere near as exciting as Lord of the Rings. It's a simple, quaint journey with a handful of action scenes that happen along the way. There's a LOT of corny humor in it. It seems clear to me that Tolkien tried to make LOTR much more epic and grand in scale, as well as full of more action.

 

If Jackson stays true to the material, I suspect he'll get beaten up for what is actually Tolkien's fault in the source material. Not to say Tolkien's effort is inferior--I'm not aware of many if any previous works that attempted what he did in terms of medieval fantasy, so from everything I've been able to tell from a relatively shallow yet still extended search of fantasy literature, it was quite a revolutionary book for its genre. Not sure it holds up well as compared by modern audiences to the major works that it inspired following its release, though.

[Reno McCoy]

I think there are two things happening with this movie, and they're both worth discussion on their own.

 

1. The film was broken into three films instead of two. I have no idea how that could possibly work out for the better. It's one thing to make three 2-hour movies, but the Hobbit is almost 3 hours. That's unacceptable. From what I've heard, streamlining it a little in the first half would've helped greatly.

 

2. As for the 48fps aspect, I think that's the next evolution of film. It looks weird now, but I bet when Cameron uses it for the next Avatar movie, the world will begin to embrace it. It's only a matter of time before all big-budget films are done this way. And I'm sure the disc player manufacturers will find a way to make sure we have to upgrade our machines to watch our movies, too.

[Maccai3]

i dont think 48 fps will take off like he thinks, when i first saw the trailer (before knowing about the 48fps) i thought it looked awful, the makeup looks so obvious

[VintageComics]

I think there are two things happening with this movie, and they're both worth discussion on their own.

 

Agreed.

 

 

1. The film was broken into three films instead of two. I have no idea how that could possibly work out for the better. It's one thing to make three 2-hour movies, but the Hobbit is almost 3 hours. That's unacceptable. From what I've heard, streamlining it a little in the first half would've helped greatly.

 

Agreed. Hollywood trash. It's just a rape for your money.

 

2. As for the 48fps aspect, I think that's the next evolution of film. It looks weird now, but I bet when Cameron uses it for the next Avatar movie, the world will begin to embrace it. It's only a matter of time before all big-budget films are done this way. And I'm sure the disc player manufacturers will find a way to make sure we have to upgrade our machines to watch our movies, too.

 

There's got to be more to it than just the frames per second...I'm sure that it's also going to affect the way people are used to doing makeup, directing, production...the whole shebang is likely going to have to be done differently.