Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
The Hobbit, Opinions
  • Vitaliy_KiselevVitaliy_Kiselev

    So, 48fps 3D stuff is out in the wild. In many cinemas it is shown in 24fps mode.

    Cinemas list - http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/

    What are your personal expirience?

  • 67 Replies sorted by
  • brianlucebrianluce

    My daughter, she's just a kid, and I think saw the 24fps version, said it looked "Fake". I haven't seen it yet.

  • MarkVMarkV

    Saw 48fps and the wide shots / areal looked real real good. It got its problems in thight shots I'd say. Dolby Atomos sound is top notch.

    As a "not a big fan" of LOTR series I think the storytelling was allright, but probably I won't see it again. My friend that is a big fan of the LOTR trilogy thought it is pretty good movie.

  • MimirsanMimirsan

    My HFR 3D experience was going to the first showing and being met by the cinema manager informing me that the film was cancelled due to being unable to update the firmware on their projection unit.

    Something to do with those upon high not letting them get it calibrated/sorted (and activate the HD key) before an hour of the first showing (all about anti piracy) and now they were having trouble connecting to update their system. This was ODEON in Oxford (home of the Hobbit!) and was a fail. First showing anyways. But not a good start considering all the 48fps hornblowing.

    Got refunded and went to see 24p showing instead. Film was a drag. Some great bits bogged down with the need to stretch out the length. Ive read the book...there really isnt no need for the runtime. Diehard fans can say what they like but its a film not a book. Even at 24fps the film looked overlit and you could tell the sets from the locations (apparently this is made worse in HFR) Definately can tell it was shot on Red in comparison to Arri for LOTR. Too clean. Grain free...looked plastic. some FX were good. Some were VERY ropey. Seemed more of a theme park ride than a film. I liked the LOTR trilogy (flaws and all) but I have no desire to watch The Hobbit again and not much interest in the following "chapters" Oh Martin freeman was doing Martin freeman....again. Additionally more CG this time round. I liked in lotr that they used minatures and prosthetic makeup in conjunction with CG elements. In the Hobbit most of the creature effects were 100% cg...in particular...the White orc...looked like a character from Mortal kombat on xbox. Absolutely no menace.

    If it aint broke dont fix it.

  • TheNewDealTheNewDeal

    I'm not a fantasy movie fan, so I really went for just the technical geek stuff. IMHO, the 48 frame was hardly noticeable. I think the best visual thing is just the compression improvements in digital releases. But the Dolby Atmos sound was just freaking amazing. Finally, we have a real, full bandwidth, 180 degree dome of surround audio to play with. The orchestra is "pulled back off the screen", which kind of sounds like in a pit orchestra position in the front area of the audience. Which frees the normal "front wall to busy" sound problem. Watch it in Dolby Atmos.

  • L1N3ARXL1N3ARX

    I loved the movie. Saw the regular 3D IMAX, and thought it looked stunning except for odd the glowing waxy skin tones that red sometimes produces. After the movie, I snuck a peek at the HFR version playing next door, and it was quite different- jarring is actually the word to describe it. I think if I had watched that version first or paid money for it... I probably would have left disappointed.

  • JPB1138JPB1138

    I saw the HFR 3D version opening night. And I must say I was thoroughly distracted by the technology. The wide shots were about the only thing impressive. But anything from a medium shot to close up with movement, made me feel COMPLETELY disconnected. It is supposed to make it feel more real and lifelike, but instead the mood and feeling were stripped away by the technology and I was constantly conscious of it... I knew it was a movie, there was NO suspension of disbelief..

    I think the only thing its good for is 3D action packed stuff. It shines there, but there is NO EMOTION in it. At least I didnt feel anything. I will see it in 24fps and report back, but as far as im concerned if all movies trend to this new tech (which I dont think they will), the magic of cinema is gone... Its simply an artificial, superficial, and completely unabsorbing.

    The movie may have been better than I experienced... but the technology robbed me of an unbiased experienced. i LOVED the Lord of the Rings... It was one of the films that got me interested in making movies.. The extended editions 'making of's' are some of the most thorough looks at the making of a movie!

    Hopefully The Hobbit on second viewing at 24fps non 3d will reaffirm my faith, and continue the great tradition of THE cinema frame rate for the past 80 years... HA

  • ButtButt

    I did not look at the

  • azza_actazza_act

    Of course, there are no HFR theatre's in Australia... Well, I'll just go out and film with my GH3. Oh, that's right, there's none here too.

  • DazzaDazza

    @azza_act What Oz has no HFR theatre's? What sort of downunder backwater are you guys? Mean while over the ditch we have plenty of HFR 3D screenings in every bigger city.

  • B3GuyB3Guy

    I have not seen HFR yet. I plan to go to a matinee after the opening weekend, so the theater is less full and I can be more or less free to analyze a bit.

    That being said, I've already seen it in 3D and in 2D 4K.

    If I am honest, I hated it and can only describe it as terrifyingly campy. If I hear that "Misty Mountain" musical theme one more time, I think I might puke. The issues I have are not even with the HFR version, though, so the lameness of this film shouldn't be attributed to HFR (although I fear it will be). MY main issue is that the storytelling is bad. Rotten. Belittling. Insulting. I don't need Peter Jackson holding my hand through the whole film, let alone jabbing his elbow into my ribs.

  • DazzaDazza

    That is just the difference between LOTR and The Hobbit. The Hobbit was written as a children's book, so the campiness of it is true to the source

  • AKEDAKED

    I just saw it in 3D HFR. But I am a little confused. Is HFR the same as 4k? I thought, the look was pretty much the same as in the "making of" of the LOTR. Really sometimes too realistic. Was there better grading in the LOTR? It had more "magic". Still I liked it and it was entertaining. But the clear picture, the realistic look was disturbing at times. But I do not know if it was the HFR or the 4k, if it was 4K.

  • OedipaxOedipax

    @AKED, HFR is a framerate (48fps), 4k is a resolution (4096 x 2160).

  • kellar42kellar42

    Saw it in 2D 24p, looked nice. Definitely not the Lord of the Rings. I enjoyed the backstory and meandering as a fan, but I'm not sure at all that 3, 3 hour long movies are required to get this story across to the general pop.

  • tetakpataktetakpatak

    Just saw it in 3D 24fps. I will go again to see it in HFR, but in 2D. Didn't like 3D, foreground and background splitting looks fanciful and obviously not done within the same take. It wasn't the case in the LOTR trilogy, there it looked like shots done in the reality. I felt 3D in this case often like two levels 2D, nice effect but not realistic for my eye. Nevertheless, I enjoyed it anyway. I just definitely prefer 2D, though.

    By the way: all our passionated P-V film makers willing to learn more should see "making of LOTR" DVDs, especially in the trilogy extended edition where almost every single scene from the casting was described in details on not less than 6 DVDs. Nearly all one needs to know about serious film production is in there.

    Update Dec 20: saw it again, actually 3D shots from the woods and generally shots done in the nature look really great. I suppose they used many 2D background shots done during the LOTR production and added some of 3D shots to it in foreground, so that looks plasticy and was bothering: Rivendell seen from far, some conversations in Bilbo's house etc.

  • B3GuyB3Guy

    Tolkien's The Hobbit is not campy. I just read it, and it certainly isn't. The goblins and trolls really are scary in the book.

  • robmneilsonrobmneilson

    Thank you all for saving me some cash, I think I'll skip this one and just watch Heavenly Creatures or Braindead instead!

  • alcomposeralcomposer

    @robmneilson you forgot Bad Taste...

  • B3GuyB3Guy

    Just watch the 1977 animated The Hobbit.

  • AKEDAKED

    @ordipax Yes, that was clear, but still thanks.
    My question is: is 4k automatically HFR?

    I am confused how many versions are there seemingly (maybe I am wrong, please correct me if so): 2k-2D-24p, 2k-3D 24p, 4k-3D-48p, 4k-2D-48p? Any more or less?

  • tonalttonalt

    Saw 3D 24fps. Well there was more jokes than in LOTR series, but I enjoyed the movie very much. Top quality in every aspect, especially visually.

  • MimirsanMimirsan

    @AKED There is the following formats for the hobbit

    48fps 3D (aka HFR 3D) 24P 3D 24P 2D

    2k/4K is dependending on if your cinema does 2k/4k projection. It has nothing to do with the above settings

  • AKEDAKED

    @Mimirsan Thanks

    OK, I got the information for Germany now. I saw the HFR (48fps) 3D 2K version.

    There will be NO HFR 4k 3D version in Germany.

    In January, there will be in another Cinema the HFR 4k version but in 2D. That is what I wanted to know.

  • MarkVMarkV

    Yes, the 4K HFR-3D is rare in Europe... all 2K HFR over here..

  • robmneilsonrobmneilson

    @alcomposer how can I forget!? I'm a Derrick, and Derrick's dont run! Been so long since I've seen that. I think Feebles might be up for review, but in college I watched it so many times I actually got sick of it.

Add a Comment