The Hobbit

Neutral Milk Hotel

12-03-12

Also, I thought I'd mention I've been excited for this movie more than any other for the past 7 years or so.

It's prompted me to post here for the first time in a while (sorry guys, I'm too busy at theonering.net latley)

I'm not expecting the films to top LOTR. At least for me, those films were a part of my late childhood growing up. Once you realize that you're older mind can't keep up with your imagination from childhood, you can't really expect something like this to replace the impact of the original.

It's mostly a similar fate of the Star Wars prequels. (though I can't possibly imagine The Hobbit trilogy being as bad as that).

I'm expecting fun, smart blockbusters. There and Back Again will most likely feel a whole lot like the original trilogy. The material will be more weighty.

Just can't wait to be back in Middle Earth (in IMAX 3D, 48fps. In cleveland Ohio). Only 10 more days for me. Peace out.

The Rodent

Rodent's Reviews: Delivering The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly In Film

Rodent's Reviews: PART DEUX!

Rodent's 1950-Present Sci-Fi And Futuristic Fantasy Movies

I Am Rick Cottontree

12-03-12

One thing that's putting me off a bit from these new movies is the lack of miniature/CGI collaberation going on.

LOTR was a blend of both CGI and Miniatures and also utilised actual sets, including the building of huge towns.

As far as I can tell they've gone all George Lucas Star Wars Prequels with the effects and have gone green screen with the more wider scope of photography rather than building stuff by hand.
Apparently even the orcs will be fully CG in these films.

Not expecting much really from the new trilogy. Sounds like too much fakery to me.

__________________

Originally Posted by Iroquois

Resident Evil: Retribution was my one-pointer

The Rodent

I Am Rick Cottontree

12-03-12

The 48fps has apparently improved a lot since the early screening at cinema con.

Not what I've heard... this news was released today from Heraldsun:

The film was shot in 3D and at a camera speed of 48 frames per second instead of the traditional 24, which is said to improve picture quality.
But many of those who saw the world premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in New Zealand said they felt disorientated and sick.
One cinema-goer said it was like being on a rollercoaster, adding: "You have to hold your stomach down and let your eyes pop at first to adjust. This is not for wimps."

Another said: "My eyes cannot take everything in, it's dizzying, now I have a migraine."

Director Peter Jackson filmed in 48fps to make the 3D effect smoother.
One fan said this "works for the big snowy mountains but in close-ups the picture strobes. I left loving the movie but feeling sick".

Adrian Bejan, professor of mechanical engineering at Duke University in the US, said watching a film means your eye combines long and fast horizontal sweeps with short and slower vertical movements to process the picture.
But 48fps requires the eye to sweep up and down faster than usual in close-ups to take in the detail on a big screen, which can lead to eye strain, headaches and queasiness.

Film critic Peter Sciretta said it made the film look like a "made-for-television BBC movie - so uncompromisingly real, slightly sped up, that it looked fake. It was jarring".

If it turns out to be a decent film like LOTR, I'll be happy, but until then, I still don't hold much hope.

Uncle Rico

Neutral Milk Hotel

12-03-12

I think it's just all in the way you look at it. 3D never made me sick. I've seen newer T.V.'s with interpolation and (IMO, I'm sure this is just a matter of taste) it's simply amazing.

It's not cinematic, it's something totally different. Now, I'm sure 48fps will look better than what t.v.'s (which add fake frames to create their higher frame rate) can do.

It will be jarring, but, I'm open for new things in cinema. It's not sacred to me. No matter what, I will always love 24fps (specifically the look of films shot in the 90's). A new expirience won't change that for me.

After all, once the film is on Blu-Ray, no one has to watch it at 48fps ever again. The story just needs to work.

The Rodent

I Am Rick Cottontree

12-03-12

I know what you're saying but it's the 2D version I'm worrying about myself.
I won't see it in 3D, everyone on here knows my thoughts on 3D but the 2D version seems sadly to have suffered with rubbish picture due to the high frame rate in the initial recordings.
It'll be a grand film no doubt... but if the visuals are poop because of the cameras and they've gone all green screen instead of sets and miniatures... I won't be happy.

I really hope I'm wrong.

There's only one thing I was really glad to hear during the reports on The Hobbit over the past few months... was Del Toro dropping out and Jackson taking the director's chair instead of being in the producer's chair.
I was dreading Del Toro as director... he's a good director, don't get me wrong, but he's no Jackson... at least The Hobbit will have a similar feel to LOTR instead of Del Toro's artsy take on a beloved franchise.

Uncle Rico

Neutral Milk Hotel

12-03-12

Agreed. It almost seems like fate rewarded PJ for being wise at first, and not wanting to direct. He's really the only one who can truly finish what he started.

Really, all An Unexpected Journey can hope for is to be a great blockbuster. Hopefully the best of the year. But, it's lack of raw emotion will leave it in the shadow of the original trilogy.

But...

Heres to hoping it's awesome.

Last edited by Uncle Rico; 12-03-12 at 08:41 AM. Reason: drinking white russians

Nausica�

Registered User

12-03-12

There should be a choice at cinemas: you will have 3D and 2D and also the choice of what speed you want to see it, that's if your cinema can offer it in the first place.

Yoda

Administrator

12-03-12

I think the marketing's good; it's got a goofier tone, which is important, because it's preparing viewers not to expect the same epic portentousness of the other films. There's some of that, and I'm sure it'll be played up and everything, but it's much more lighthearted and there's definitely a little danger for the audience to be a shade letdown if they go in expecting the same kind of tone and scale.

Mysticalunicornfart

Smells mystical, doesn't it?

12-03-12

Everyone be sure to watch The Colbert Report tonight. Stephen's having Ian Mckellen on, plus he's doing a Hobbit theme all week

__________________
Let's talk some jive.

rauldc14

2022 Mofo Fantasy Football Champ

12-03-12

need some sort of a simple answer: does this movie have a chance to match up to the 3 LOTR films? Not sure if its theater worthy for me or not

Yoda

Administrator

12-03-12

Some chance. I mean, it won't be as epic, as obviously you know the fate of a number of characters. But it's Jackson again, it's part of the same story, it feeds into the other three films. Honestly, while I'd be a little surprised if these three are as good as the other three, I'd be downright stunned if they aren't at least very good. It's hard to fathom anyone loving LOTR but not enjoying these. Just an informed guess, but all the talent's returning and obviously the source material's from the same place.

Skepsis93

Play It

12-03-12

Originally Posted by Nausica�

There should be a choice at cinemas: you will have 3D and 2D and also the choice of what speed you want to see it, that's if your cinema can offer it in the first place.

That would put a lot of people off. The casual moviegoer is just not going to understand the difference nor want to have to make that decision.

Nausica�

Registered User

12-04-12

Well, that's what they are doing. Cinemas that are capable will be offering six choices..., so as you said, I expect some people to get confused.

Yoda

Administrator

12-04-12

Honestly, if given the choice I'll definitely pick 2D (nothing new for me there), but I'd probably pick 24FPS, too. I'm very curious about 48 but I'd be awfully bummed if I happen to be one of the people who experiences any motion sickness, for example. So 24FPS is "safer" in that sense.

Sleezy

In the Beginning...

12-04-12

Well... it starts.

'Hobbit' Headaches: Reports New Film Sickens Fans

I truly hope they offer the 24fps option. I don't want my viewing experience ruined by this newfangled 48fps business. Why can't they stick to what works? Nobody was complaining.

Nausica�

Registered User

12-04-12

I'll definitely be seeing it in 2D anyway. Not sure on the speed yet. Maybe it's just the 3D 48 speed that's causing the motion sickness and not the 2D 48 speed version.

Mysticalunicornfart