Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 10

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[Marvolo]

Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D came in first and beat the Hobbit at the box office this weekend. It now occupies third place following Django and Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

[rashad]

Domestic: $263,820,000 32.0%
+ Foreign: $561,000,000 68.0%
= Worldwide: $824,820,000

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

[Doc Ock]

I dunno why I keep trying to vote on the polls lol. I think the Hobbit will continue making money and 3rd place is only temporary. I think word of mouth might keep Django on top though.

[Marx]

I said this in the other thread but it closed shortly after. I did not enjoy the "high frame rate" format at all. It looked good during some points but, on the whole, it was unnecessarily distracting and jarring.

[Doc Ock]

Originally Posted by Marx

I said this in the other thread but it closed shortly after. I did not enjoy the "high frame rate" format at all. It looked good during some points but, on the whole, it was unnecessarily distracting and jarring.

I made sure I saw it in 2D, I was never a fan of 3D and any new technique that comes along. HFR sounded interesting but didn't want to pay the extra price.

[ThePhantasm]

I've seen in in 2D three times. I wanted to see it in HFR just out of curiosity, but the only theatre that plays it is several hours away so I'm not sure I'll get the chance before the theatrical run ends.

[BH/HHH]

Not a Lord of the Rings fan thought the films were OK but the Hobbit was awesome, really entertaining film, looking forward to the next one.

[Showtime]

Originally Posted by Marx

I said this in the other thread but it closed shortly after. I did not enjoy the "high frame rate" format at all. It looked good during some points but, on the whole, it was unnecessarily distracting and jarring.

I was forced to see it because it was a press screening, but I found it fantastic. I'm in the minority though.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I was forced to see it because it was a press screening, but I found it fantastic. I'm in the minority though.

What did you like about it?

I did notice that in the standard film, particularly in the prologue stuff, there is a lot of motion blur as the camera pans through Erebor, etc. I found myself wishing for a HFR just to get rid of that... my eyes were crossing when the camera panned over that blurry map.

[Marx]

Originally Posted by Doc Ock

I made sure I saw it in 2D, I was never a fan of 3D and any new technique that comes along. HFR sounded interesting but didn't want to pay the extra price.

I had some discount coupons for it which is the only reason why I saw it in HFR. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

I've seen in in 2D three times. I wanted to see it in HFR just out of curiosity, but the only theatre that plays it is several hours away so I'm not sure I'll get the chance before the theatrical run ends.

Originally Posted by Showtime

I was forced to see it because it was a press screening, but I found it fantastic. I'm in the minority though.

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

What did you like about it?

I did notice that in the standard film, particularly in the prologue stuff, there is a lot of motion blur as the camera pans through Erebor, etc. I found myself wishing for a HFR just to get rid of that... my eyes were crossing when the camera panned over that blurry map.

There was a lot scenes where the HFR just didn't sync well. Whenever something "quick" would happen, it was off. (Voices wouldn't match up quite right, people turning looked choppy, etc.) "Riddles in the Dark" was the one scene that looked really good.

Fantasy movies like this should look like movies. More often than not, it looked too real. It looked like what a soap opera on tv looks like.

[EML420]

Just to put this out I have never seen any of the Loft movies only little bits and info about them here and there.

But On The Hobbit wow I loved this I plan on buying the book soon and watching the the Lotr movies. I saw it in 3D and are all 3d showings in 48 frames because it didnt bother me I didnt notice it.

[Infinity9999x]

Originally Posted by Marx

I had some discount coupons for it which is the only reason why I saw it in HFR. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.







There was a lot scenes where the HFR just didn't sync well. Whenever something "quick" would happen, it was off. (Voices wouldn't match up quite right, people turning looked choppy, etc.) "Riddles in the Dark" was the one scene that looked really good.

Fantasy movies like this should look like movies. More often than not, it looked too real. It looked like what a soap opera on tv looks like.

I've heard it compared to when you watch a vhs tape on a hi-res TV, it just looks weird. I did that at one of my friend's house with Jurassic Park, and it really did look bizarre. Like somebody re-filmed the movie with soap opera style cameras.

Luckily I didn't watch the film in 48fps. So it was all right for me.

[lespaul59]

Did you guys really have to pay more to see the high frame rate version? When I went to see the HFR version the tickets where the same price as regular 3D. Although the 3D matinee prices at the two Regal Cinemas did go up from $11.50 to $12.00. As I said before I loved the HFR but at the same time it's not something I want to see alot of. Also I don't remember any problems with the syncing when I saw the HFR version.

[Godzilla2000]

Well, It's not Hobbit related but Tolkien associated so I thought I'd share this article with you. It makes me chuckle all the time.

http://flyingmoose.org/tolksarc/bakshi/bakshi.htm

[Silvermoon]

Originally Posted by lespaul59

Did you guys really have to pay more to see the high frame rate version? When I went to see the HFR version the tickets where the same price as regular 3D. Although the 3D matinee prices at the two Regal Cinemas did go up from $11.50 to $12.00. As I said before I loved the HFR but at the same time it's not something I want to see alot of. Also I don't remember any problems with the syncing when I saw the HFR version.

I didn't have to pay more than a regular 3D ticket price... I've seen it twice in 3D HFR (once in 2D 24fps)...and the HFR was just the standard $2.50 surcharge that they normally tack onto the regular ticket price for 3D at our theater (so if you're seeing a matinee - regular 2D ticket about $6...than for a 3D showing (HFR or not) bumps up to $8.50 (yes, I know ticket prices where I live seem to be in the lower range in the country)

As for the quality of the HFR, I'm wondering if the projectionist at the showing Marx went to screwed something up because both times I saw it HFR I didn't notice any type of syncing problems at all, and I was paying pretty close attention to how the HFR affected things. Ultimately, I preferred the HFR to the 24fps and I wasn't expecting to at all, I went into the HFR with a LOT of reservations and came out pleasantly surprised

[RoboAmish]

Originally Posted by rashad

Domestic: $263,820,000 32.0%
+ Foreign: $561,000,000 68.0%
= Worldwide: $824,820,000

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hobbit.htm

It really is making ridiculous money overseas.

[Zatanna]

I had no idea it was over $800 mil.

[Spider-Who?]

Originally Posted by Showtime

I was forced to see it because it was a press screening, but I found it fantastic. I'm in the minority though.

I enjoyed it. There were definitely parts where it was weird (like someone else mentioned, when a character moved quickly), and it took a while to get use to it, but overall I thought the higher frame rate was an enjoyable experience.

[Angel_Faerie]

I really don't get all the hate. Especially the complaint about too much humor. I'm sorry, but The Hobbit isn't The Lord of The Rings. It's an overall lighter story. It's a book for children! As for the complaint about pacing, I can see where that is coming from, though I thought the pacing was fine. I enjoyed the film heartily when I saw it a couple weeks back. For those 2.5 hours I was 11 years old again, like I was when Fellowship came out.

[Solidus]

I don't care for the "It was made for kids" argument. First what was made for kids in the 30's would terrify most kids or parents would be suing the author. It had simple language for children but pretty dark themes/scenes in it.

To me it was not the humor however, it was the tone. PJ tried to make this like LOTR in many areas, then at the same time tried to give it it's own tone. It had a mix mash of tones that just did not jive at all. The worst was the over use of CGI, and terrible "physics" of the action sequences. That is what angered me most.

Still an enjoyable film, but I was still somewhat disappointed.

[LostSon88]

Finally caught it last night. They were losing me in the first 45 minutes, they were at Bagend for wayyyyyy too long. But once the Journey started I was all in...

Not on par w/ LOTR (yet) but still pretty great.

8/10.

[Schlosser85]

My review:

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is not as consistently enthralling as The Lord of the Rings, but it is still an enjoyable adventure worth going on."

http://www.jestersreviews.com/reviews/1650

[Schlosser85]

I was really tantalized by the glimpses of Smaug.

I also actually really liked Azog as a villain.

Not the biggest fan of Radagast or the Goblin King, and the dinner scene at Bilbo's house went on way too long.

I got so excited when Gollum showed up.