The Hobbit

Asmadai_sl said:

Holy fuck that was awesome.

Click to expand...

spronk_sl said:

just saw the midnight screening as well in HFS 3D IMAX, was pretty damn awesome. Thought the movie was a tad bit too long and they could have easily cut 40 mins out and put it back in on bluray, and yah agree with the thought that nobody really ever felt in danger. Good pacing on Hobbit, I expected to be antsy since I rarely watch movies in 1 go anymore but I was in the seat the whole time. I really enjoyed the HFS, everything felt crisper and sharper than regular movies.

Anyone stay past the credits, anything extra?

I was bummed no previews for Oblivion or Pacific Rim. The audience cheered at the Jurassic Park 3d preview. A few people showed up in LOTR costumes, was pretty great. They handed out free posters with nice portraits of the cast.

Click to expand...

Feien_sl said:

This is a short review I shared with some cinematographer colleagues abut the whole HFR debate going on. Spoiling for length.

Spoiler

So how do I feel about HFR?

First of all, I should mention that I'm a huge Hobbit / Tolkien geek. And anything that would have gotten in the way of telling that narrative as I think it deserves, would have been seen as useless to me, even if the new technology comes from RED cameras, which I'm a big fan of as well.


I really do think that a lot of critics are blowing it out of proportion. Yes I do think that we can somewhat compare the look to home video, or soap operas, or smooth-o-matic tru-motion video, or whatever crap they are putting on TV's these days (which I hate with a passion). We can compare it to these things because it's the closest type of image we can relate it/reference it to, but IT IS NOT the same. There is a huge visual difference when you see 48 FULL frames captured and projected, instead of them being interlaced, or inter-created. The amount of visual information, clarity, and beauty of each frame is noticeable. At least it was to me. The 3D judder or strobing is almost gone, and it gives this very unique depth to the frame even in fast-paced action scenes. I find these comparisons very similar to the whole 2k vs 4k debacle. A lot of people, even professionals, are going to the theater and watching a movie like The Avengers or Skyfall and saying that they look beautiful enough, or good enough. That 4k is not that big of a deal. What I will predict will happen to these people however, is once the 4k future is here, and we have been exposed to plenty of true 4k acquisition and projection, we are going to look back and say "It was good enough then, and even if it still is, I can notice the big difference now." Just like it happened with HD vs SD. I've had the privilege to be exposed to a lot of 4K projection by now, and when I go to a 2k movie "sadly" I do notice the big difference (ignorance can be bliss sometimes I guess). I think that if we were exposed to more true HFR 3D footage, we would be able to tell the big difference it has vs the "soap opera" look.

I do think the brain plays tricks with you as you are watching it however, this happened to me during close-ups. It almost feels like the video is sped-up. Halfway through the movie however, this illusion stopped happening, or not as much as in the first half. I believe this was my brain trying to adjust to the amount of visual information. My hope is that once we start watch more and more of this technology, those nuances will be corrected by our brain. In fact, I plan on watching this movie several times in all of its formats just so I can make the best judgement out of it. (I did love the movie, so this won't be a chore to me, I will rather enjoy this experiment).

Bare in mind that HFR is intended to be used in 3D projection. Not 2D. If it was used for 2D I could see the case being made that it is useless, but not this time around. I think the use of 3D HFR was good if not great, and I think I can see why they decided to take such a big risk with it. It did bring something unique things to the table, even if many argue that it's a step backwards. I really don't think it is. I can't imagine the battle scenes or the stone giants scene as incredible as it was watching them in 3D HFR. I have never seen anything like it. Which makes me very excited about the battle of the Five Armies in the third movie. HFR acquisition and projection can become a new cinematography language, and I don't think it will be too long where we'll see movies with different frame rates throughout the movie in order to express different things. This is just the first movie, and of course there will be things that didn't work out as well, but I'm glad that Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie are trying it out. It helps us learn more about the craft we love.

and here is part of the review I've been working on. It contains minor spoilers and it's not finished, but I just haven't found the time to do so.

Spoiler

I had the great privilege to watch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey last night. Now, before I begin my review I want to let you know that I?m a HUGE fan of Tolkien?s work. The Hobbit is a book that I?ve read at least 15 times (I?ve lost count by now but it has to be somewhere between 15 and 20). The Hobbit was the first book I read in English (Spanish being my native language). I also read it in Italian once; since I knew the book so well, it helped me learn the language. Knowing that I was going to the early screening, I read the book once again during the weekend (even when I had just read it back in August). So as you can now tell, I?m a HUGE fan of The Hobbit.

The reason why I bring this up is because most of the reviews I?ve read so far feel weird to me. They are either only talking about the new technology of High Frame Rate used to shoot the movie, or they are often comparing it to the previous trilogy of The Lord of The Rings. These two types of criticisms make me think ?Ok, but where are the reviews that deal with The Hobbit?? because I think it?s unfair to judge a movie as a whole by only focusing on one aspect such as the technology employed, or reviewing it on how it stands against another story. Yes, Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit take place in the same world, and deals with some of the same characters, but those who have read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings know that they are two completely different stories. To me it?s like comparing the story of King David vs the story of King Solomon. Though they are father and son, and shared similar things and characters, their stories are completely different!

I?m also afraid that there has been this ?hipster? kind of attitude towards art these days. It?s cool to think different. It?s cool to bring popular things down. It?s cool to be controversial and ironic. This saddens me because I think this kind of attitude is beginning to blind us from the things that matter. If something is not perfect, and exactly how we want it to be, then it means it?s bad. I disagree with that sentiment.

Well, I needed to take all of that off my chest in order to begin my review. Let's talk about the movie.

My biggest fear these past 3 years was that The Hobbit would turn out to be a Star Wars prequels fiasco. I still remember how disappointed I was when I came out of the theater after watching Episode 1 for the very first time. I do consider myself a bit of a Star Wars geek also, but it doesn?t even come close to how big of a Tolkien geek I am, so if Peter Jackson pulled a George Lucas with these movies I would have been truly heartbroken. I?m here to tell you that this is not the case at all. In fact, I still very freshly remember how I felt when I finished watching The Fellowship of the Ring movie for the first time back in 2001. I remember giving it a 6.5 - 7 out of 10. Though the movie was good, there were a few moments that were cringe-worthy to me, such as the delivery of some of Arwen?s lines, or Galadriel?s mirror scene. Though The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey does have its weaknesses, missed opportunities , and deviations from the narrative(but I won?t get into them since I'm trying to avoid spoilers) there was never a scene that made me cringe such as the ones from Fellowship that I just mentioned. Though the movie is almost 3 hours long, it doesn?t feel that way. Even the slow=paced scenes are beautifully crafted, and the scenery of Middle-Earth is so beautiful, that you find yourself desiring to be there. It really doesn?t feel like 3 hours, which is always a good sign.

Those who feared that stretching the story into 3 different movies instead of two as it was originally planned was a bad move, fear not. I truly believe they made the right call here. I don?t think it's going to be ?like butter over too much bread? like many have mentioned, not for fans of the books anyways. The movie ends at what would be the end of Chapter 6 from the book, ?Out Of The Frying Pan Into The Fire?. Originally they were going to finish it at the end of Chapter 9 ?Barrels Out of Bond.? For those that know the books, there is quite a lot that happens between those chapters. It could easily be one more hour of movie, if not a little more. So I do believe the fans are getting a special treat from Peter Jackson and crew by not rushing us through the events, like it sometimes felt in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.

In the end, these are just My opinions, and what you read online are other people's opinions. Don't let them influence you. You know you are watching the movie anyways, so give yourself a chance to create your own opinion. You might hate it. You might love it. That will be up to you.

Click to expand...