The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

Can I just add this photo I took of my grandfather a couple of minutes ago to the debate? No cgi there I promise!

im home for christmas, fuck all is going on. im gonna go see this in imax with my pals on wednesday. im gonna drop acid. il report back.

if ur gonna do acid u might as well go full mental with 48fps

i dont know what that means

I mostly agree with Awe's review but I think I enjoyed this a bit more than the other films. Gollum was definitely a highlight, along with with the underground Goblin King segment (although it did seem kinda like a really beautifully rendered video game cutscene) and the motion capture for the White Orc guy.

The goblin scene reminded me of Trine actually.

The mountains boxing for no reason at all was so much fun, totally unnecessary but fun. Before today i've never seen two mountain boxing, i'm happy i did.

  On 12/15/2012 at 12:07 PM, compson said:

if ur gonna do acid u might as well go full mental with 48fps

you should see it first in 48fps to see if you even like it. I thought i was going to like it a lot more before i saw it

i wonder if this is playing in 4k at 24fps anywhere? that's the format i want to see it in next

still can't believe Peter Jackson did early screenings for critics on the 48fps version. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that if it had been shown in 24fps to them they would have had a much more favorable view of it. Also anybody notice how none of the over-used slow motion from LOTRs was in this? I can only remember 2 scenes which had slow motion, when Bilbo turns invisible and the Thorin battle sequence flashback. Literally everything else was shown in normal speed. Just based on this alone the movie has a totally different atmosphere. I also think the critics are completely full of shit to say this movie is too long or feels padded, in fact i felt that it almost was a little rushed feeling with little chance to build up tension and the atmosphere it sometimes needed. For example, in Fellowship when they first encounter orcs and the Balrog they do a great job of racheting up the tension with the skeleton falling down the well and the scared look on everyone's faces. I remember almost no atmospheric pauses in this movie, just constant moving forward momentum. The scene that had the most tension was Riddles in the Dark and the Troll scene. If you disliked King Kong because of the length, i would honestly ignore critics who compare the two, King Kong was filled to the brim with building tension and atmosphere and took it's pretty little time to get to the skull island. In fact i wouldn't have minded if we spent 20-30 minutes more in the Shire. I guess since they already laid the groundwork for the shire in Fellowship with Bilbo's prologue narration they felt they didn't need to do more of that here. I would have wanted more of that before Gandfalf shows up

Saw this in IMAX HFR 3D yday. I cant say it was a smooth ride throughout as there seemed to be a visible difference in the resolution between certain scenes (not an expert) and the 3d failed for about 15 mins half way through. But my overall impression was that it was amazing. Loved the bits with the brown wizard and the goblin's lair was my favorite set by far.

  On 12/15/2012 at 11:53 PM, Awepittance said:

 

  On 12/15/2012 at 12:07 PM, compson said:

if ur gonna do acid u might as well go full mental with 48fps

 

you should see it first in 48fps to see if you even like it. I thought i was going to like it a lot more before i saw it

 

i wonder if this is playing in 4k at 24fps anywhere? that's the format i want to see it in next

 

I'm only going to see it in 48fps, probably twice as I want to see if my eyes adjust better on a second viewing. I know its gonna be jarring initially.

For me personally, i know a 2nd viewing won't make it less jarring for me. I have to see it in 24fps just so i know i won't be distracted by the odd look of it, probably in 2d, not 3d since the 3d was not even on par with Avatar's depth of field. I will say that it totally eliminated the normal problem with low-light 3d flickering and strobing and blurring, but it was not anywhere close to the PJ claim of 'looking through a window'.

here are some reviews from the hardcore one-ring forums

  Quote

I saw the movie last night in 48 Imax 3D. I wrote a review about it in thread 15 so i will just reiterate here that I loved the 48fps in scenery and heavy CGI scenes but in scenes that were on sets with people and no CGI ( like Bage End) it was arkward and out of place. You could immediately tell what the critics were saying about the BBC shows. Some guy said it looked like a renactment playing out on screen.Thats what I thought of through half of the movie. i kept thinking," this dosent visually look like LOTR". "It looks like a cheap knock off". This little drawback of 48fps held me back from total imersion of the film. I kept catching myself anayzing the scenes because of this and not fully follow the story... Now, today I went again to see it again in 2d 24fps. Last nights experience was still fresh in my mind.So when the movie started I was comapring for the first couple of shots. By the time the dwarves showed up at Bag End, I let out a sigh of relief. Now THIS was what I was looking foward to. Everything looked as it should have been. The lighting was spot on( none of that over lighting the foreground). It matched LOTR cinemtography perfectly. I wasn't aware of it till after the credits rolled that I didnt once after Bag End have a second thought about any of the scenes. I just enjoyed the movie fully and wholeheartedly. ( didn't even mind Azog this time around ) I was just immersed in the beauty of The Hobbit. So, until 48fps gets worked on,and I belive it will truely take a while, I will be going with 24fps. The good news is that we as fans have THREE ways of seeing this movie 48fps 3D, 24fps 3D, and 24fps 2D. thank you PJ for not locking us into one way to see this film.

  Quote

I was right, wasn't I, Azaghal? It was worth a second try.

I left the 3D, HFR, Atmos sound screening feeling overloaded with the technology and wondering where the story, dialog, and happy/sad/deeply-touched tears had gone. But I wasn't content to give up on it because I loved the actors' performances and what I know has gone into the making of this film. A cock-eyed optimist? Probably, or just stubborn.

I went to see it again that morning in 2D, and, whether it was that it was in the familiar LOTR format or I needed two viewings to take in the detail of the sets and more subtle cues between actors or that I wasn't distracted by the cool new tools, but it really seemed like a different movie. I got to feel the tension between characters, the emotional impact of the hard choices several of them were making, and the tear-jerking pathos that the first time around had all seemed over-powered by fighting and chasing scenes. My perception of tone and the balance between action sequences and character-driven moments changed dramatically. I felt that I could breath, that the story was unfolding at a less frenetic pace, and (silly one-liners aside) that dialog and relationships were, indeed, beautiful and as important to the director as scary, gross, OTT CGI orc/dwarf bashing scenes. It seemed an altogether quieter experience.

  On 12/16/2012 at 4:24 AM, Awepittance said:

For me personally, i know a 2nd viewing won't make it less jarring for me. I have to see it in 24fps just so i know i won't be distracted by the odd look of it, probably in 2d, not 3d since the 3d was not even on par with Avatar's depth of field. I will say that it totally eliminated the normal problem with low-light 3d flickering and strobing and blurring, but it was not anywhere close to the PJ claim of 'looking through a window'.

There's been a few critics who saw it twice at 48fps and did a 180 on the tech. We've been seeing films at 24fps for our entire lives.

a few but they are in the minority. Part of the problem for me was that it didn't resemble most of that 48fps test footage you've posted and i've seen elsewhere. It (mostly the live action shots with no cgi) resembled 30fps high definition video that is commonly shown on television. I guess i was expecting something much more visually impacting than HDTV but that's what it looked like to me

somebody on another forum brought up the interesting point that there are methods over 50+ years old for shooting 48fps on 30mm film stock, and the demos this person has seen do not resemble video in any way. So while i'm all for higher frame rates, something about doing them digitally doesn't look like film at all (at least to me)

  On 12/16/2012 at 4:09 AM, flurobox said:

Saw this in IMAX HFR 3D yday. I cant say it was a smooth ride throughout as there seemed to be a visible difference in the resolution between certain scenes (not an expert) and the 3d failed for about 15 mins half way through. But my overall impression was that it was amazing. Loved the bits with the brown wizard and the goblin's lair was my favorite set by far.

Brown wizard was kind of a psychonaut. Every old hippie in my screening got the mushroom joke, the teens were lost.

  On 12/16/2012 at 4:43 AM, Awepittance said:

a few but they are in the minority. Part of the problem for me was that it didn't resemble most of that 48fps test footage you've posted and i've seen elsewhere. It resembled 30fps high definition video that is commonly shown on television. I guess i was expecting something much more visually impacting than HDTV but that's what it looked like to me

 

somebody on another forum brought up the interesting point that there are methods over 50+ years old for shooting 48fps on 30mm film stock, and the demos this person has seen do not resemble video in any way. So while i'm all for higher frame rates, something about doing them digitally doesn't look like film at all (at least to me)

This could be attributed more with composition and lighting than the tech. I say that because when I watch a Fincher film that is shot digitally, it has all the warmth and qualities that I like about Film. It also seems to be confirmed in reviews with people saying the beginning looks the worst because of how bright and stagey the sets/actors are, but as it progresses and gets a darker color palette the 48fps sinks in. I think PJ didn't anticipate everything looking as real as it did, but he was the first to give it a shot. Cameron has said he will be doing Avatar 2 in 60fps and with that being mostly CG I fully expect it to be amazing.

just came back from the cinema, saw it in 3D 24fps. fuck, my eyes hurt. the 3D effect in 24fps makes no difference with usual 3D.

the film ain't bad, but ain't great either. it's quite entertaining but doesn't compare with LOTR. i find it rather disappointing actually. the very last scene sucks. this guy looked great though

  On 12/16/2012 at 4:50 AM, compson said:

 

  On 12/16/2012 at 4:43 AM, Awepittance said:

a few but they are in the minority. Part of the problem for me was that it didn't resemble most of that 48fps test footage you've posted and i've seen elsewhere. It resembled 30fps high definition video that is commonly shown on television. I guess i was expecting something much more visually impacting than HDTV but that's what it looked like to me

 

somebody on another forum brought up the interesting point that there are methods over 50+ years old for shooting 48fps on 30mm film stock, and the demos this person has seen do not resemble video in any way. So while i'm all for higher frame rates, something about doing them digitally doesn't look like film at all (at least to me)

 

This could be attributed more with composition and lighting than the tech. I say that because when I watch a Fincher film that is shot digitally, it has all the warmth and qualities that I like about Film. It also seems to be confirmed in reviews with people saying the beginning looks the worst because of how bright and stagey the sets/actors are, but as it progresses and gets a darker color palette the 48fps sinks in. I think PJ didn't anticipate everything looking as real as it did, but he was the first to give it a shot. Cameron has said he will be doing Avatar 2 in 60fps and with that being mostly CG I fully expect it to be amazing.

 

this is true, and by the time Fincher did Zodiac the tech looked pretty perfect. When Michael Mann shot his last 3 films it still looks overly digital and not in a very good way. Over time if higher than 24fps do catch on for theatrical live action movies, people will figure out to avoid the same pitfalls that the Hobbit had. Let's hope that by the Desolation of Smaug the tech is already improved

saw the movie last night. I guess it was a valiant effort but...was poop overall. What Awepittance said more or less. Uneven, occasionally distractingly bad effects. Bad pacing. Over the top. Video-gamey. Martin Freeman bad (his lack of fear in Gollum scene was pathetic). Shmaltzy. Overdone music.

All the animators who weren't handling mocap should be fired (utterly cringe-inducing rabbit sled and warg chasing). Some of the worst keyframed animation I've seen in a feature film.

On the plus side, the digital sets were pretty keen, esp. Rivendell. And the digi doubles like the trolls, gollum, and goblin king looked mostly good.

It's pretty clear that Jackson knows how to rally a team and keep their morale going, and that this was something of a labor of love. It was still poop.

polished turd?

i thought martin freeman was pretty good, as far as the way they portrayed the hobbits in the lotr films i think he was better

  On 12/16/2012 at 10:20 AM, lumpenprol said:

saw the movie last night. I guess it was a valiant effort but...was poop overall. What Awepittance said more or less. Uneven, occasionally distractingly bad effects. Bad pacing. Over the top. Video-gamey. Martin Freeman bad (his lack of fear in Gollum scene was pathetic). Shmaltzy. Overdone music.

 

All the animators who weren't handling mocap should be fired (utterly cringe-inducing rabbit sled and warg chasing). Some of the worst keyframed animation I've seen in a feature film.

 

On the plus side, the digital sets were pretty keen, esp. Rivendell. And the digi doubles like the trolls, gollum, and goblin king looked mostly good.

 

It's pretty clear that Jackson knows how to rally a team and keep their morale going, and that this was something of a labor of love. It was still poop.

pretty much. overall, the film is too childish for my taste. ok, it's a fairy tale that tolkien made up for his kids, but fairy tales are rather spooky usually. i don't think tolkien would have liked the film.

He would be disgusted I'm sure of that.

I want to know how high/blind Jackson was when he signed off on the warg chase scene. So they get attacked by some wargs in a forest (the first few of which are dispatched with absurd ease) and then they decide that Radaghast (sp) will create a diversion to give them time to escape. Suddenly they are in a golden field filled with stones. Radaghast zips by on his horribly animated rabbit sled which is then badly comped onto some fly-by footage of a real NZ hillside with equally horribly animated wargs poorly comped in (all of the above gliding frictionless across the grass like those toys on a string you use to taunt cats). For some reason instead of going in the opposite direction the hobbit and dwarves creep alongside going in the same direction as Radaghast and the wargs. Then they are in a golden field filled with trees instead of rocks. Then the are surrounded but Gandalf finds a convenient hole in the rock behind them that leads through a crevice to Rivendell.

W.T.F. Five environment changes in a matter of minutes (forest, hillside with rocks, hillside with trees, cave&crevice, rivendell), terrible animation, deus ex machina (the film is overflowing with other examples)...fucking christ on a cracker...