Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 

The Hobbit....so Excited


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 16-12-2012, 19:29
Dai13371
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,900
Just got back from a HFR 3d viewing. It was the most epic thing I have ever seen on a big screen.

I feel sorry for those critics who simply cant get past the framerate, I just allowed myself to be utterly immersed and it completely won me over. I read somewhere that the prosthetics are jarring in their rubberyness, that the CGi would be too smooth. Utter poppycock.

I have again reached that point whereby anything else done by any other director, in the interim, will be wildly anticlimactic.

My feelings on the "chips" line? What an utterly British thing to say, in an utterly British story.
Dai13371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 16-12-2012, 19:38
Karis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,600
Just got back from a HFR 3d viewing. It was the most epic thing I have ever seen on a big screen.
*cries* (stop rubbing it in :P)

I haven't got time to see it until after the 21st
Karis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 19:39
Dai13371
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,900
*cries* (stop rubbing it in :P)

I haven't got time to see it until after the 21st
Aww, remember, good things come to those that wait!
Dai13371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 20:11
roger_50
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,671
I read somewhere that the prosthetics are jarring in their rubberyness, that the CGi would be too smooth. Utter poppycock.
Nah, disagree. It's not poppycock at all.

The film's good but the HFR reminded me every 5 minutes I was looking at a shaky film-set inside a studio. Distracting.

It doesn't work for me. It's a fair criticism of the film I feel.
roger_50 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 20:17
Karis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 3,600
Aww, remember, good things come to those that wait!
Thanks. I can't believe how many movies I've missed this past year or two. Stupid new business!

I'm thinking, though, that the HFR issues might be a personal thing and maybe affect those who are sensitive to such things.

Like the difference between US and UK TV. Some people can tell the difference while others can't.
Karis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 20:29
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 17,020
In regards to the longer version when it comes out next year on DVD and Bluray - I can't see where the extra 20 mins are going to be slotted in. I can't offhand think of anything that's been left out of the Hobbit portions that appeared onscreen...so unless there's far more LOTR backstory???
To answer part of my own question...looking at some of the material on Youtube buried in trailers, it looks like Bilbo wanders round Rivendell a little, and at one point goes upstairs in the Library and sees the Shards of Narsil sitting waiting...
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 21:12
PinSarla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Scotland
Posts: 3,731
To answer part of my own question...looking at some of the material on Youtube buried in trailers, it looks like Bilbo wanders round Rivendell a little, and at one point goes upstairs in the Library and sees the Shards of Narsil sitting waiting...
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Has the extended version been given a release date yet?
PinSarla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 21:14
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 24,836
Apparently in the US the HFR has the highest per-screen average takings, which could bode well for the future of the format if it sticks like this throught the run.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3587&p=.htm
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 21:43
Edmond-Dantès
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 372
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Has the extended version been given a release date yet?
Late 2013 just before Desolation.
Edmond-Dantès is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 21:59
mr_me
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 525
Just got back from seeing it. It was amazing. Great 3D as well! I didn't even notice the fast frame rate.

It's not as epic as Lord of the Rings. It's a very simple story, but I enjoyed it so much I didn't want it to end. Really good humour without it going over the top.
mr_me is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 22:10
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 17,020
Yeah, that's what I was thinking. Has the extended version been given a release date yet?
Warner Bros. released a press statement a while ago giving various home media release dates through 2013, and the Extended Edition was into the third quarter of 2013...but they've since retracted it.
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 22:36
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 17,020
So did noone else notice Sam Gamgee?

Even though he was well out of place chronologically?
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 22:42
GARETH197901
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: XBL-JediScho PSN-Gareth1979
Posts: 21,979
Warner Bros. released a press statement a while ago giving various home media release dates through 2013, and the Extended Edition was into the third quarter of 2013...but they've since retracted it.
i remember the LOTR Extended Editions came out around the end of the year after their release,i just hope they do what they did then and bundle them with a Weta Sculpture
GARETH197901 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 22:49
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 17,020
By the way, did anyone happen to notice if Peter Jackson put himself into the film this time???

I was too busy looking at other stuff - did he squeeze himself into the Dale sequence, or perhaps as a dwarf in Erebor?
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 23:13
Hogzilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 22,032
By the way, did anyone happen to notice if Peter Jackson put himself into the film this time???

I was too busy looking at other stuff - did he squeeze himself into the Dale sequence, or perhaps as a dwarf in Erebor?
Ooh I am going back on Tuesday. Will look out for him. I loved him as a corsair!
Hogzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 23:16
Hogzilla
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 22,032
So did noone else notice Sam Gamgee?

Even though he was well out of place chronologically?
Phylo, was he
Spoiler


If so, I thought that was my imagination....
Hogzilla is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 23:28
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 17,020
Will look out for him. I loved him as a corsair!
AND he was the bearded, clumsy drunk in the Prancing Pony!

If so, I thought that was my imagination....
Yep! He was there...

Spoiler


...but he showed up better in 3D than 2D
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 23:34
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 17,020
Ooh I am going back on Tuesday.
Have to say, I do get laughed at for doing this too But every time I see a film as "crowded" with detail as this, I'm still getting new stuff out of it...

Today, for instance, as I didn't have to watch what was actually going on in the end scenes quite so intently - I only noticed for the first time that the top of the Carrock is shaped like a bear!

Entirely appropriate, given the first few scenes next December!
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-12-2012, 23:56
RAZORBACK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 287
Went to see this earlier today and regarding the movie itself I will say that I thought overall it was very decent indeed. It admittedly wasn't quite as strong as any of the entries in the LOTR trilogy but despite that still managed (IMO) to be very entertaining.

As for the version I saw, well I went out of my way to see this in 48 fps (as I was interested to see just how good or bad it was compared to the standard 24 fps format) and can confirm that it was definitely different.

It was certainly a positive that the image quality was much, much sharper than in any 3D flick that I'd seen previously but unfortunately that wasn't really enough to offset the negative impact that it had on the special effects.

Basically it was like looking through a window & watching this movie being filmed rather than viewing the finished product. The sets looked liked sets, the prosthetics looked like prosthetics and whenever digital images were combined with real life elements they didn't blend in at all.

In addition to this, 48 fps gave this flick a cheap made for TV vibe so all in all I ended up viewing this as an interesting experiment (visually speaking) but one that didn't really work (IMO at least).

That said, the strange visuals didn't get in the way of me having a really positive experience so I'd still say this is well worth catching over the next couple of weeks...
RAZORBACK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2012, 00:10
phylo_roadking
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: in yo' mamma
Posts: 17,020
Went to see this earlier today and regarding the movie itself I will say that I thought overall it was very decent indeed. It admittedly wasn't quite as strong as any of the entries in the LOTR trilogy but despite that still managed (IMO) to be very entertaining.
To be fair - it was never going to be Like it or not, The Hobbit simply wasn't a "strong" as story as The Lord Of The Rings.

As a standlone kids' yarn it's excellent....if you come to it with an entirely unprejudiced eye But once you read the LOTR you realise that Thorin's Quest and party was "all at sea" among all the forces and historical trends moving around them Jackson has done a good stab at contextualising the Quest for Erebor in Late Third Age Middle Earth...and I've a feeling both the extended version AND the next two films will add to it greatly.

Spoiler
phylo_roadking is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2012, 00:39
Jonwo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: London
Posts: 7,594
The HFR does take time to get used to but I think the technology has potential and it'll improve over time, it'll be interesting seeing used in say a sci-fi film or a superhero film, neither which are grounded in reality, I would watch a nature documentary in HFR as the landscape shots for The Hobbit were stunning,
Jonwo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2012, 08:30
Alt-F4
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,027
The point with HFR is that the sets didn't look real, the problem is further compounded by the 3D effect which separates the elements, usually foreground and background making everything look like a badly lit backdrop.

The film though was surprisingly better than I expected, it may have lacked the depth the original movies had it wasn't nearly as bad as the critics made it out to be.
Alt-F4 is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2012, 10:44
Dai13371
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,900
Nah, disagree. It's not poppycock at all.

The film's good but the HFR reminded me every 5 minutes I was looking at a shaky film-set inside a studio. Distracting.

It doesn't work for me. It's a fair criticism of the film I feel.
Like I said, I allowed myself to be totally immersed in it, like I was a floating disembodied head along for the ride.

I'm sorry it doesn't work for you. I guess its a totally personal thing.
Dai13371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2012, 10:51
Dai13371
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Ammanford, South Wales
Posts: 7,900
Went to see this earlier today and regarding the movie itself I will say that I thought overall it was very decent indeed. It admittedly wasn't quite as strong as any of the entries in the LOTR trilogy but despite that still managed (IMO) to be very entertaining.

As for the version I saw, well I went out of my way to see this in 48 fps (as I was interested to see just how good or bad it was compared to the standard 24 fps format) and can confirm that it was definitely different.

It was certainly a positive that the image quality was much, much sharper than in any 3D flick that I'd seen previously but unfortunately that wasn't really enough to offset the negative impact that it had on the special effects.

Basically it was like looking through a window & watching this movie being filmed rather than viewing the finished product. The sets looked liked sets, the prosthetics looked like prosthetics and whenever digital images were combined with real life elements they didn't blend in at all.

In addition to this, 48 fps gave this flick a cheap made for TV vibe so all in all I ended up viewing this as an interesting experiment (visually speaking) but one that didn't really work (IMO at least).

That said, the strange visuals didn't get in the way of me having a really positive experience so I'd still say this is well worth catching over the next couple of weeks...
Isnt that what real life is like? I look out of my window and watch cars and people walk by with no blur, no judder, totally smooth.

The HFR experiment is to try and get this real life perception as being the norm.

If people wish to associate Jackson use HFR with cheap looking soaps, then they are doing themselves a great disservice.
Dai13371 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17-12-2012, 12:17
James2001
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Mansfield
Posts: 24,836
If people wish to associate Jackson use HFR with cheap looking soaps, then they are doing themselves a great disservice.
Of course, if the norm had been that big budget things used higher framerates, and lower budget ones used low framerates, then if a film tried to shoot in 24fps, that would be derided as "cheap soap opera vision".

I admit I do laugh at the irony of people saying HFR looks cheap and 24fps looks expensive, when 24fps became the standard because it was the cheapest they could go at the time!
James2001 is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 17:19.