Peter Jackson's Hobbit - The Critique

[jimmy olsen]

I tried to obliquely ask this in the other thread, but neither Faeelin nor anyone else answered, so since there's another thread about this stupid movie, HOW IS THE FORTY-EIGHT FRAMES PER SECOND?

This is Poland, they only get four to eight frames per second.

[Ideologue]

Polish IMAX involves flipping through an extra big notebook.

[Kleves]

I tried to obliquely ask this in the other thread, but neither Faeelin nor anyone else answered, so since there's another thread about this stupid movie, HOW IS THE FORTY-EIGHT FRAMES PER SECOND?

I thought it looked good during the action scenes. During some of the slower scenes, it looked like a BBC production from before BBC productions stopped looking like shit.

[Syt]

I tried to obliquely ask this in the other thread, but neither Faeelin nor anyone else answered, so since there's another thread about this stupid movie, HOW IS THE FORTY-EIGHT FRAMES PER SECOND?

I thought it looked good during the action scenes. During some of the slower scenes, it looked like a BBC production from before BBC productions stopped looking like shit.

It worked really well for me in the beginning up till when the party sets forth. The cheap TV effect was strongest for me in the Goblin king bits. I also thought it made the pure CGI scenes look even more CGI-y, like the orcs+wargs at night. On the other hand I thought it greatly improved the 3D performance for me. It's the first movie that made me involuntarily blink a few times when stuff was quickly flying towards the camera. In two or three of the slow landscape camera sweeps I was so into the movie it briefly felt like the theater was moving.

Still, I think I should enjoy the movie more in 2D.

[Martinus]

Well I watched it in normal 3D which was crap (my choice was dictated by what was available at the hour I chose to go to the cinema). A lot of screenings were dubbed so the choice was slimmer than usual. If I had a complete choice, I'd go 2D subtitled but there were those available only in the evening.

[Faeelin]

I tried to obliquely ask this in the other thread, but neither Faeelin nor anyone else answered, so since there's another thread about this stupid movie, HOW IS THE FORTY-EIGHT FRAMES PER SECOND?

Oh sorry, I saw the old-fashioned version. I didn't want to wade through the people dressed up as hobbits.

[CountDeMoney]

Polish IMAX involves flipping through an extra big notebook.

3D Viewmasters, and click really fast.

[Jacob]

Personally I thought it was pretty decent, but there were way too many action scenes.

[Sheilbh]

I'm not. Why would I be?

A lot of your complaints are that a children's book seems like a children's book.

Yeah and from my memory of reading the Hobbit I think the deus ex machina is just being true to the book

[Jacob]

Yeah... the deus ex machina was fine, and so were all the "children's book" bits, IMO. I didn't mind the extra bits of back story with Galadriel and all that. It was the excess of "Hollywood action" bits that were too much; that and Radagast. Didn't like him at all.

[Ideologue]

I tried to obliquely ask this in the other thread, but neither Faeelin nor anyone else answered, so since there's another thread about this stupid movie, HOW IS THE FORTY-EIGHT FRAMES PER SECOND?

I thought it looked good during the action scenes. During some of the slower scenes, it looked like a BBC production from before BBC productions stopped looking like shit.

It worked really well for me in the beginning up till when the party sets forth. The cheap TV effect was strongest for me in the Goblin king bits. I also thought it made the pure CGI scenes look even more CGI-y, like the orcs+wargs at night. On the other hand I thought it greatly improved the 3D performance for me. It's the first movie that made me involuntarily blink a few times when stuff was quickly flying towards the camera. In two or three of the slow landscape camera sweeps I was so into the movie it briefly felt like the theater was moving.

Still, I think I should enjoy the movie more in 2D.

So there's an even chance that 48FPS will make me throw up. : /

If it really does make things look like they're shot on VHS, I'm not too into it.  The other day I saw Dark Knight Rises played on a store TV where they've hooked shit up wrong or fucked up the settings, so the brightness seemed much higher and the movement on the screen seemed off too, and that looked shot on VHS.  Maybe the ugliest footage I've ever seen; Batman and Bane looked like Christian Bale and Tom Hardy in Batman and Bane Halloween costumes.  In a way it looked more "realistic," but "realistic" in the sense it looked like I was standing on the actual set, i.e. it looked garbage.  And I've seen that movie, it looks fine.

I mention this because it seems to be similar to what a lot of people are describing with 48FPS.  I sorta hope not.  I'm still more than curious about the technique, but I'm probably going to wind up waiting for a movie I'm at least curious about in the first place to see it.  I wonder if there's another one in the pipeline?

[Martinus]

I heard opinions that the problem with 48 FPS is that captures the film with an accuracy that is higher than that of a naked eye - which makes it look weird, as in reality we view everything in a more inaccurate, somewhat blurred way. Which makes the film captured in 48FPS look "antiseptic".

[viper37]

I tried to obliquely ask this in the other thread, but neither Faeelin nor anyone else answered, so since there's another thread about this stupid movie, HOW IS THE FORTY-EIGHT FRAMES PER SECOND?

I have no idea wich one I saw.  It wasn't specified anything but "3D".  It was ok, like the Avengers, I'd say.

[Sheilbh]

The UK reviews all say it sometimes ends up looking a lot like a TV show with very high production values.

[Sophie Scholl]

Ide, I saw the 48 fps and seem to have similar issues with motion movies/games as per your past descriptions, and I felt fine the whole time.  I wouldn't be overly concerned.