Dr. DVD

Nope. The SW prequels were all almost exactly three years apart, which is what sucked. You had to wait three years before you got to see if things got any better.

whoopdido

Maybe I'm thinking of the Matrix sequels. I think Reloaded was in May and then Revolutions was like October or November of the same year.

foofighters7

I hope 48fps dies a quick death.

It's just SO bad. For the first 2 hours+ it was abysmal. The action sequences were fine but the day to day life was terrible. Looked cheap and was very distracting.

A Tolken nerd friend of mine and my wife both hated the rabbit sled with a furious passion. I, on the other hand, didn't mind that too much.

I didn't like the 'new' way Bilbo finds the ring. That really was a dumb change.

Overall I liked it, but hope the next two are better.

slop101

Saw it in HFR 3D.

I normally hate 3D, but I didn't mind that here. Maybe it was the HFR that helped the 3D look good - doesn't matter, as like most here, I didn't care for the HFR at all. While it made the CGI look good (and there was certainly a shit-ton of CGI), it made the non-cgi stuff look hyper-real, and therefore fake, as in you're watching a stage production. Just cheap looking, and it looses the dream-like aspect of film which a film like this pretty much requires.

I liked the movie itself just fine - strangely enough, some of the best things about it was the stuff Jackson added to the movie that weren't in the Hobbit book.

I look forward to watching this again on blu-ray, in 2D withOUT HFR.

whoopdido

I don't get the criticism of it being TOO clear. Since when did clarity become a bad thing?

I mean if we lived in the Star Trek universe would you guys not go on the holodeck because the images are too clear and lifelike?

I like the movies I see to look as real as possible. There were certain scenes that were so crystal clear that I almost thought I was there witnessing the action rather than watching it on a screen.

bdshort

I saw this last night, in 3D 24. I really enjoyed it for the most part, though not nearly as much as LotR, at least at this point. Martin Freeman was great as Bilbo, and I found the dwarves entertaining. Extremely impressive visual effects, though I thought some went a bit over the top, even for a fantasy movie (the rock giants). I liked the goblin cave like most here, but found the sequence where the party careens down the cave riding the bridge without the bridge flying apart silly looking. Same with the numerous other instances of characters falling large distances with no injuries - yet Throin gets knocked around a bit by the pale orc and nearly dies? It's been well over 20 years since I've read The Hobbit, so my memory of it is VERY fuzzy, but was the Radagast character present in the same manner? The whole scene with him came out of nowhere and really took me out of the movie. I was half expecting his hedgehogs to start talking and singing, and the rabbit sled? Really? I think Peter made the right decision by taking Tom Bombadill out of Fellowship, and the same should have been done with Radagast, book character or not.

But there was plenty to like too, especially the Riddles scene with Gollum. Fantastic!

slop101

It made things look SO real, that they looked fake - the sets looked like sets and the makeup looked like makeup. Film and filmgrain do a good job of masking fakery in a way that make things look more believable. The clarity of 48fps reveals those seams and is distracting. I think Jackson filmed in 48 without thinking of the greater ramifications of it.

Dan

I think this is the core issue. Much like how shooting in digital instead of film requires certain techniques, and shooting 3D instead of 2D requires other techniques, I think shooting in 48fps requires yet another specific set of techniques to give it the best appearance. Jackson hasn't fully accomplished that with The Hobbit.

The Hobbit was filmed in Digital 3D at 48fps. That's three specific variables that all need to be addressed and respected when shooting every single take. As I said in my personal review of the movie, there are shots where it looked bad, and I think that's a technique issue, not a format issue. Then again, there are shots that, IMO, were absolutely stunning (ie: most of the three trolls scene). It's these inconsistencies that will ultimately give people the impression that 48fps is the problem.

whoopdido

Ok. I can accept that. I guess I didn't notice any obvious scenes where the clarity made it look fake, but wasn't really looking for it.

It's still a new format. Pretend that over the next few years everything gets perfected and the "fakiness" that came from the extra clear images went away because the technique was perfected, would you still be opposed to the extra clear images? Or would you be all for clarity if the extra clarity didn't bring out the fakiness?

I get the impression that a lot of "film geeks" will never get onboard with 48 fps simply because it's different than what they're used to and it doesn't seem "right" to watch a movie like that.

bunkaroo

If it doesn't seem right to someone, then that's their own personal preference. People over a certain age may never be converted. It could take decades for HFR to become common.

I haven't seen the HFR version and I'm not sure if I will for this film, but it's a little unfair IMO to expect someone to just be able to chuck everything they're used to about cinema in a few minutes. It's going to take time. Coke thought New Coke was better than the original - they found out how people deal with change in the things they're used to being a certain way for decades.

I am not a fan of 3D as it has been executed thus far, but I have given it a fair shake. I went to see Avatar in 3D, I've seen many Pixar and non-Pixar films in 3D, and I think I saw Transformers 3 that way as well. I do believe people should see for themselves. I personally felt it was a waste of the extra money. The added depth is nice, but ultimately does nothing for whether movie is actually good IMO.

I will give HFR 3D its fair shake, but there's no way I will do so on my first viewing of the Hobbit. It'll be much too distracting and will take me out of the film because even if I like it, I'll be thinking more about how it looks than what is happening in the film.

I think my biggest disappointment is a movie property as big and important as this was used essentially as a guinea pig. Some might argue that helps get it in front of more people. I'd have liked to see some kind of documentary or movie we don't expect much from to sell us on it before applying it to a beloved film property. Work out the kinks in technique before potentially ruining a release as big as the Hobbit.

whoopdido

For the record, I'm not ripping on any of the film geeks. You're right...people like what they like and they don't like what they don't like.

I'm just saying that I've read a lot of comments from the "film geek" community talk about how movies are supposed to have grain and how they don't want their movies looking like soap operas and so forth. I understand that, but things do evolve. If HFR and super clear, non grainy images are the future, then the film geeks might have to alter their expectations a bit.

bunkaroo

Yeah I am not a film geek then because I can't imagine arguing every film must show grain. For me, I'm OK with whatever techniques help the viewer lose themselves more in the movie - film, digital, grain, no-grain - whatever.

You would think 3D and HFR should go a long ways toward that, but when I hear people saying movement looks like Benny Hill and the clarity exposes the sets and makeup, that's counterproductive to what film should be doing.

mhanlen1

I think the Hobbit is a good candidate, because certain scenes in this movie lend itself to showcasing the technology more than any other sort of movie. In fact, other than The Hobbit, I'm trying to think of a movie that this tech would work well in and I really can't. Maybe a Transformers movie? I personally don't think this would be effective in any movie that isn't FX heavy. But Jackson isn't forcing anyone to watch it this way. It seems every theater has a 2D 24fps option available- which is more than fair.

I don't think anyone has to worry about HFR becoming something many movies are shot in.

Solid Snake

I saw it in 48 FPS and I didn't see any sped up look or fake nature quality to the film. The only issue, and this is a flaw w/ Digital, is shit that's close to the viewer getting a bit blurry. That's a flaw in digital, not the new tech per se. It sure as hell seems to be a medium that works for heavy FX films. I can't imagine any regular type of film needing that tech.

Now saying that bit...I do think that 60 FPS would work better for digital in terms of motion in the frame.

Everything looked fine to me. It looked like a regular movie. Helped out the 3D to be more in control over at times shaky, if that makes sense.

slop101

I think 48fps would be great for an all-CGI movie, like something from Pixar, but I think the way Jackson did it hurts the look and feel of live-action footage.

Giantrobo

My friend saw it in the hi frame rate and she said it was like the image was floating. Not bad but kinda distracting especially in action/running scenes.

Sondheim

The only time I care about grain is with older films, where it really is an inherent part of the film print. Removing the grain almost inevitably results in a loss of detail from the image - in other words, it unnecessarily alters the look of the movie, often with the excuse that it's "how people expect movies to look." No matter how much film technology "evolves," I don't think it's right to go back and alter things that have already been made.

On the other hand, I don't care what new technologies they use with newer films. Either the new technology will catch on or it won't, but I'm open to experimentation. I haven't seen The Hobbit yet, but I'm definitely planning to see it in HFR just to see what it's like.

Osiris3657

Not even kidding here...something's wrong with you if you can't see a noticeable difference between 48 and 24. Your vision sucks, your brain is malfunctioning...I don't know, something is wrong if you think it looked any other movie.

Can you even tell the difference between animation and live action?

Anyway notice how nobody else shares your opinion. Not whether they liked it or not, but the jarring difference between 48 and 24.

whotony

Where does it say he cant see a difference.

Anyway I agree with him It looked fine to me too. Went to the movies and saw a movie.

islandclaws

I do, and I'm someone who knows his shit, so to speak. And I loathe motion-flow on TV sets. This did not look like that does.

I'm wondering, though... I saw it with active shutter glasses. How did everyone else see it? I've heard the RealD presentation is a different experience.

Osiris3657

He said it looked like a regular movie, implying 24 FPS.

It looked like a stage production or a cheap TV movie. Not a cinematic feature.

Obi-Wanma

I saw it in RealD, and hated it. I don't have any other 48fps options.

MBoyd

I saw the full size IMAX 3D and to satisfy my curiosity went to the 48fps 3D this morning. Curiosity satisfied and I have no intention of watching another 48fps film. I will say the 3D effect is better in 48fps. So if you are into 3D that's the one for you.

And for the record I thought it looked like motion flow HD TV settings.

Mordred

I saw it in RealD with 48fps. I definitely had some issues with it. Everything felt sped up to me and I had a distinct feeling that the whole movie looked like a video game. Others in the group complained that it felt like a stage production as well. I will say that sometime around the end of Rivendell I stopped noticing it as much. That was also about the time the movie (i.e. what was happening on the screen) started being enjoyable for me, so that could have a lot to do with it.

I normally don't have any problems with 3D movies, but this is the first one I've been to that gave me a headache since I had LASIK 5 years ago. Could just be the length of it though.

Michael Corvin

It probably speaks volumes of the film that 95% of this discussion is about the frame rate.

I also thought HFR felt like the motion flow TV setting.

I thought it made the CGI stand out more than usual which is never a good thing.