Topic: The Hobbits HFP tonite (Read 1201 times)

*** SEMI-SPOILERS ***






Saw it today.  The HFR combined with 3D tended to make everything look TOO sharp, too crisp.  It looked like a TV sitcom quality, especially some of the shots in the beginning.

There was only one brief scene, about 10 sec where I had to close my eyes because it was a little disorienting.  As with most 3D movies, I find myself unconsciously moving my head closer to the screen, which sometimes (as in this case) ends up giving me a wicked headache.

As for the FUD mentioned above, a very small sampling of people who attended preview showings complained of slight motion sickness. I forget where I read it a long time ago, but there was an article about how more than half of all people cannot distinguish a difference in quality above 30FPS, or something like that. 

Anyway, other than the headache, I found the 3D didn't add much to the experience, and the HFR was cool, but not "change the course of cinematic history" cool. Visually, it's a gorgeous movie, vivid and at times ethereal in its beauty.  CGI has come so far since Fellowship of the Ring, and all CGI characters are rendered near-flawlessly.

On to the story.  I had been wondering how Peter Jackson managed to get almost 9hrs of film (probably just over 8 if you don't count the end credits and opening titles) out of a (referring to the original Unwin paperback of the 1930's) 310 page novel, some pages of which were maps and illustrations!  He accomplished it, in part, by simply making shit up that wasn't in the book and sticking it in there.  Yes, Thorin's company *do* go to Rivendell in the book, but there's extra stuff going on there in the movie. There's a whole sub-plot injected into the movie that is merely hinted at in the book (one sentence, if I recall correctly, it's been a long while since I last read The Hobbit, though I meant to do so before today..), that added some action and excitement, but ultimately was not really needed. I felt they ended this cinematic chapter at a good spot, considering there are two more films to go.  While The Hobbit was written as a children's tale, this cinematic version is definitely darker and harder, as befits a prequel to the epic awesomeosity that is the LotR trilogy.

Casting was well done.  The dwarves are colourful characters with distinct personalities in the book, and they've captured that pretty well in the film. Thorin is an excellent brooding leader. I'd never heard of Martin Freeman before, but I quite enjoyed his quirky Bilbo. Ian McKellan's Gandalf is largely the same as the Gandalf we know from the LotR trilogy.

***SEMI-SPOILER NOW*** There's a lot of fairly heavy-handed foreshadowing here, setting this up as a prequel trilogy to the LotR films. A scene in Rivendell, particularly, lays the early groundwork.  *** done***

So, overall, I'd probably give The Hobbit a fairly high grade, and I'm looking forward to the next one, The Desolation of Smaug.

Maybe it's just that lotr and it's universe is crap?

i'm going to wait for the crazyness to subside, they go check it out

Not as good as the lotr trilogy, but that was not to be expected imo, the job of stretching/modifying the movie to three movie lenght was good enough... I went in basicly expecting endless song and dance scenes, but there werent that many. Im sure the third one will be epic as the battle of five armies makes for a nice finale.

Why would high frames per second make you dizzy? Seems pretty unlikely to me, unless you're prone to that sort of thing.

Only if you expect it to be another lord of the rings.

It has nothing to do with the style of TLOTR except for the fact that they take place in the same universe. The hobbit is more like a children story and the movie offers a nice and long introduction just like the book... the reason why many book fans love it and some critics who haven't read the book hate it.

heard the reviews are not so good..oh well.....

first 3d movie I ever saw, I hated the glasses the whole time and found the 3d effect amusing for about 5 minutes.. I guess it's really a matter of opinnion.

I'm tempted to wait until all three come out before seeing any of them. Was this one a good movie in its own right?

was the 3d version any good?

Just saw it, 46fps 3d... I'd reccomend seeing the 46fps 2d version if it is available.

Stop spreading FUD, thank you 

I am going to see this tonight as well, and am slightly concerned as am somewhat disposed to motion sickness. I am curious how much the effect is actually the cause of the frame rate and how much is the suggestion that it will cause those symptoms. It's probably a bit to conduct a double-blind study yet this afternoon, though.

really, i hope not. that is sad.

I heard everyone gets dizzy because of the higher frames per seconds

i am watching it tonte. i hope it is a good movie.