Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[redhawk23]

I still call B.S. because many of the complaints about the HFR have nothing to do with the sets looking fake but rather a dislike for the general aesthetic.

 

[DaveMoral]

Coming from the book doesn't nullify anything. It either works on screen, or it doesn't.

Tolkein is not untouchable.

It's part of the whole plot though. Thorin is skeptical at first, accepts Bilbo, and then eventually something that is foreshadowed in the prologue comes up and he's a d-bag again. It's part of his arc, as much as it is Bilbo's.

Tolkien isn't untouchable, but why would the criticism of something that's part of a character's arc through the entirety of a book be ejected because you think it "didn't work." It didn't work for you, how many more did it work for?

 

[Ultimatehero]

I still call B.S. because many of the complaints about the HFR have nothing to do with the sets looking fake but rather a dislike for the general aesthetic.

Take a person blindly into seeing the film not knowing that the frame rate is different? They wouldn't know.

Plus? First off, have you ever seen the 24 frames per second? Just wondering. Because I think that also comes into play here. As someone who has seen both - this version had the better image quality by far. Night and day comparisons between the two.

24 frames was dark and muddy a lot of the time. And this was an ACTUAL digital IMAX, not a lie-max. 48 frames was light and vivid and showed detail. The key scene to really tell this is in the dwarf kingdom when the film is starting out. 24 frames, it was dark as hell and all the detail was gone almost. 48 frames? It was all there and then some. Hell, I want 60 frames per second - not less lol.

 

[kedrell]

Yeah me too. I wish that scene was included.

When I was doing some LOTR fanfiction, I wrote a scene where Gandalf saved Gwaihir from a poison orc arrow. if anyone is interested in reading it. just ask. I've been working some scenes involing Aragorn going off into the wild after learning who he is and what he is meant to do. A few years later into his hard labours, he meets Gandalf and their friendship is formed. Of course theres the meeting between Aragorn and Arwen. I wrote a prelude to FOTR where Gandalf tells Aragorn that they must double the watch along the boarders of the shire. So I am writing scenes from the time line in the appendixes as a guide to help me.

Well they still have a chance to put it in the Extended Edition so....fingers crossed.

 

[DaveMoral]

I'd love for that to be in the Extended Edition, with references to Manwe and the Valar... maybe to Eru Iluvatar.

 

[squeekness]

Take a person blindly into seeing the film not knowing that the frame rate is different? They wouldn't know.

Plus? First off, have you ever seen the 24 frames per second? Just wondering. Because I think that also comes into play here. As someone who has seen both - this version had the better image quality by far. Night and day comparisons between the two.

Maybe that's why I missed the bearded dwarf ladies? I only went to a regular 2d show (3D makes my kid sick.) I saw girl like figures, but not the same details that I hear others speak of.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Maybe that's why I missed the bearded dwarf ladies? I only went to a regular 2d show (3D makes my kid sick.) I saw girl like figures, but not the same details that I hear others speak of.

Unsure. Did the dwarf kingdom / whole mining sequence seem like it was lit light or dark? In 48 fr it was vivid, while in 24 fr it was really dark. To me that one sequence is the stand-out difference between the two versions. It might have been the 3D naturally making it darker. But, I'd imagine with Peter Jackson saying before that it makes the image clearer for 3D as well - that part of that would be the overall lighting or whatever caused that big difference.

 

[kedrell]

I'd love for that to be in the Extended Edition, with references to Manwe and the Valar... maybe to Eru Iluvatar.

I just want see them convincingly make an eagle talk. One of the things they did well that I had been worried about was making the trolls talk in the film after 3 LOTR films where trolls didn't seem to have the power to speak.

 

[childeroland]

I hardly looked at any of the behind-the-scenes stuff. I knew about the frame rate to seek out an HFR showing out of curiosity. Still didn't like it, though I hated the 3D a lot more and the frame rate didn't ruin the film for me.

 

[redhawk23]

Take a person blindly into seeing the film not knowing that the frame rate is different? They wouldn't know.

Plus? First off, have you ever seen the 24 frames per second? Just wondering. Because I think that also comes into play here. As someone who has seen both - this version had the better image quality by far. Night and day comparisons between the two.

24 frames was dark and muddy a lot of the time. And this was an ACTUAL digital IMAX, not a lie-max. 48 frames was light and vivid and showed detail. The key scene to really tell this is in the dwarf kingdom when the film is starting out. 24 frames, it was dark as hell and all the detail was gone almost. 48 frames? It was all there and then some. Hell, I want 60 frames per second - not less lol.

So if someone who doesn't know the difference before hand won't notice a difference, if the audience's experiences is not enhanced, what exactly is the point of all the added effort that is required to make all the elements of the film meet visual quality standards?

You say they wouldn't react negatively, but how does that mean they'll praise it?

They may not know to blame the frame rate, but some at least would react negatively to it, just as people react negatively to the smoothing effect on TVs even if they don't know that's what's going on.

As for the comparisons between the 48fps and the 24, keep in mind that it was artificially downgraded to 24, with motion blur artificially added. It wasn't filmed with that format in mind necessarily and quite frankly was as much effort put into the quality of the 24fps presentation? How does the film look in 2D at 24fps?

If the images in this film were muddy in 24 fps that's the filmmmakers fault not the framerate as there have been remarkably detailed images captured in 24fps, on film and digitally for decades, including Jackson's own films.

 

[Ultimatehero]

The person would notice a clearer image, as I said. I took my Mom to it - she usually can't tell the difference on a TV screen. Here? She said "the image was much better" than other times that she's gone to the movies. Here's taking one of 'the masses' who doesn't know anything other than just watching a movie - and the result was: "it has a great image." Could she tell how different it was? No. Did she know? I didn't tell her when we were going in. Did I bring it up? No. I just asked in a vague way to try to gauge what someone in the 'masses' would think. And after she said it looked better than previous times did I mention the frame rate being different. Hell, looking on IMDB - I'm finding 40 years olds and older raving about it... dudes, we've been around long enough to know older people rarely recognize things like this - so even that? It's showing a lot that older generations are readily welcoming it and loving it.

So did people complain? To be honest, some on the internet and film critics (who would be blocked from test screenings due to certain insight) didn't like it. However, I'm finding MORE people saying how pleasantly surprised they were by it than those who didn't like it. Which tells me one thing immediately - film critics perception is at least different from those roaming the internet, and if it goes along that path? I'd say for the masses it would even RARER to find somebody who doesn't like it. As said, outside of film critics? I'm just finding the masses liking it.

I've always noticed that MOST 3D movies look dark, darker than if you were watching it in 2D. It's like a trade-off that's always been there. See a film in 3D, you get more dimensions but it becomes darker. Here? You get more dimensions and it was the brightest image I've ever seen in 3D. Jackson said it greatly improved the 3D and made the 3D images that much more vibrant. So comparing it to other 3D films in the past? Yes, it is extremely night and day with how much it improves that one problem 3D films had in the past. As said, I want to see 60 frames per second and increasing until it 100% matches the human eye. I'm guessing James Cameron saw the 48 and had the same thought I had - while amazing - it would be even better with ramping that frame rate up.

Also to me it IMPROVED the CGI creatures. I'm guessing because CGI creatures are naturally much more detailed than what is captured on camera. Thus getting what's captured on camera even more detailed - it brings it closer to being as detailed as CGI. That was the other thing, in 24 fr the CGI characters were just... okay... here? They blended in almost seamlessly (could be improved, which is partly why I want a much higher frame rate) and leagues better than 24 fr.

As said, as a dude who DID see both? This was a vast improvement on the 24 fr version. An improvement in vivid imagery with 3D instead of the classic muddy effect, it was the clearest 3D image I've seen to date (and I go to films about twice a week! So that's actually saying something.). And it made the CGI that much more seamless, as said - I think it might be that the computer can capture more detail than a camera can.

 

[squeekness]

Unsure. Did the dwarf kingdom / whole mining sequence seem like it was lit light or dark? In 48 fr it was vivid, while in 24 fr it was really dark. To me that one sequence is the stand-out difference between the two versions. It might have been the 3D naturally making it darker. But, I'd imagine with Peter Jackson saying before that it makes the image clearer for 3D as well - that part of that would be the overall lighting or whatever caused that big difference.

It didn't seem dark, but I only noticed women being women when they were all trying to escape the dragon. When they were showing the interiors prior to that, everyone looked like men walking around, and of course working. I certainly saw no close ups of women, just women in dresses running out.

 

[Ultimatehero]

It didn't seem dark, but I only noticed women being women when they were all trying to escape the dragon. When they were showing the interiors prior to that, everyone looked like men walking around, and of course working. I certainly saw no close ups of women, just women in dresses running out.

I didn't notice women, but it wouldn't surprise me if people did notice that and I was just taking in the overall interior. As said the imagery was much more clearer than when I saw it in 24 fr and other films too for that matter. For example, it was the first time I could see the clearest detail even in a rock.

 

[redhawk23]

It's part of the whole plot though. Thorin is skeptical at first, accepts Bilbo, and then eventually something that is foreshadowed in the prologue comes up and he's a d-bag again. It's part of his arc, as much as it is Bilbo's.

Tolkien isn't untouchable, but why would the criticism of something that's part of a character's arc through the entirety of a book be ejected because you think it "didn't work." It didn't work for you, how many more did it work for?

Yeah, it didn't work for him...but he's expressing his opinion.

 

[squeekness]

I didn't notice women, but it wouldn't surprise me if people did notice that and I was just taking in the overall interior. As said the imagery was much more clearer than when I saw it in 24 fr and other films too for that matter. For example, it was the first time I could see the clearest detail even in a rock.

All this does is make me that much more eager for the Blu-Ray. The sad fact is that movies at home with all of my HD setups are always better looking than when I go to the theater.

 

[Ultimatehero]

All this does is make me that much more eager for the Blu-Ray. The sad fact is that movies at home with all of my HD setups are always better looking than when I go to the theater.

Definitely agree with that.

----

Does anyone know if the extended edition will also have a book cover? I'm just really hoping it does so it can easily fit alongside the LOTR extended editions.

 

[DarknessOfDeath]

Not sure. It's a little too early to know these things right now. the movie just came out lol. I'd like to know when it'll come out on DVD.

 

[Godzilla2000]

Pah! Barely involved indeed Gandalf!

Jackson needs to hang a lantern on why the eagles wont do these things. I can kind of forgive it in the LOTR because it come across like divine intervention which they are, but in the Hobbit the eagles save them and drop them within sight of the Lonely Mountain but just far enough away so our characters can get in more danger and we can get two more films. That is how it comes across in this film.

I just hope they introduce Gwaihir, the Lord of all the Eagles, in the next movie and he can explain why the Eagles don't meddle in the affairs of men.

 

[redhawk23]

The person would notice a clearer image, as I said. I took my Mom to it - she usually can't tell the difference on a TV screen. Here? She said "the image was much better" than other times that she's gone to the movies. Here's taking one of 'the masses' who doesn't know anything other than just watching a movie - and the result was: "it has a great image." Could she tell how different it was? No. Did she know? I didn't tell her when we were going in. Did I bring it up? No. I just asked in a vague way to try to gauge what someone in the 'masses' would think. And after she said it looked better than previous times did I mention the frame rate being different. Hell, looking on IMDB - I'm finding 40 years olds and older raving about it... dudes, we've been around long enough to know older people rarely recognize things like this - so even that? It's showing a lot that older generations are readily welcoming it and loving it.

So did people complain? To be honest, some on the internet and film critics (who would be blocked from test screenings due to certain insight) didn't like it. However, I'm finding MORE people saying how pleasantly surprised they were by it than those who didn't like it. Which tells me one thing immediately - film critics perception is at least different from those roaming the internet, and if it goes along that path? I'd say for the masses it would even RARER to find somebody who doesn't like it. As said, outside of film critics? I'm just finding the masses liking it.

I've always noticed that MOST 3D movies look dark, darker than if you were watching it in 2D. It's like a trade-off that's always been there. See a film in 3D, you get more dimensions but it becomes darker. Here? You get more dimensions and it was the brightest image I've ever seen in 3D. Jackson said it greatly improved the 3D and made the 3D images that much more vibrant. So comparing it to other 3D films in the past? Yes, it is extremely night and day with how much it improves that one problem 3D films had in the past. As said, I want to see 60 frames per second and increasing until it 100% matches the human eye. I'm guessing James Cameron saw the 48 and had the same thought I had - while amazing - it would be even better with ramping that frame rate up.

Also to me it IMPROVED the CGI creatures. I'm guessing because CGI creatures are naturally much more detailed than what is captured on camera. Thus getting what's captured on camera even more detailed - it brings it closer to being as detailed as CGI. That was the other thing, in 24 fr the CGI characters were just... okay... here? They blended in almost seamlessly (could be improved, which is partly why I want a much higher frame rate) and leagues better than 24 fr.

As said, as a dude who DID see both? This was a vast improvement on the 24 fr version. An improvement in vivid imagery with 3D instead of the classic muddy effect, it was the clearest 3D image I've seen to date (and I go to films about twice a week! So that's actually saying something.). And it made the CGI that much more seamless, as said - I think it might be that the computer can capture more detail than a camera can.

Please, watch that Radagast chase scene and try to tell me anything about that was seemless in any format.

The compositing of most of the rest of CGI was great, but that had little to do with the frame rate. The Hulk also looked spectacular this year.

I guess part of it is that 3d does little for me at any frame rate. After 20 minutes or so my eyes simply adjust and the effect ceases to work hardly at all and I find myself merely wanting to watch the film in 2d. The higher frame rate did nothing for that. What it did do was make the movement in some sections of the film look undercranked, it was bizarre.

Also who are these masses who's opinion you keep citing? Because apparently people who go online to express their opinions of the film don't count as the masses for you as you seem intent on ignoring the opinions of a great many of these boards and around the web.

To say the frame rate's reception has been anything more than lukewarm is laughable.

 

[redhawk23]

Pah! Barely involved indeed Gandalf!



I just hope they introduce Gwaihir, the Lord of all the Eagles, in the next movie and he can explain why the Eagles don't meddle in the affairs of men.

Except for when they totally do.

 

[Ultimatehero]

In both formats there were parts of that that were beautiful shots and part of it that weren't. Up-close it popped off the screen more due to the 3D and might too in the 2D. But him along the background on the hill and at a distance did seem well done and real.

The image did look better and the CGI did look better with the higher frame rate. See both, compare, then get back to me. You really do need to see both to accurately compare otherwise all you're doing is hypothesizing.

I'd also say the 3D was better with 48 than with 24. 24 it kinda disappeared. 48 it stayed the whole way through.

As said, see both then get back to me. The only way to compare is to have seen both, otherwise it's just guessing.

 

[redhawk23]

In both formats there were parts of that that were beautiful shots and part of it that weren't. Up-close it popped off the screen more due to the 3D and might too in the 2D. But him along the background on the hill and at a distance did seem well done and real.

The image did look better and the CGI did look better with the higher frame rate. See both, compare, then get back to me. You really do need to see both to accurately compare otherwise all you're doing is hypothesizing.

I'd also say the 3D was better with 48 than with 24. 24 it kinda disappeared. 48 it stayed the whole way through.

As said, see both then get back to me. The only way to compare is to have seen both, otherwise it's just guessing.

Well I can honestly say that the 3d effect did not "stay all the way through" for me.

Comparing this film to its 24 fps version is kind of a false comparison since the 24fps version is artificially made that way with the motion blur added and it not being the filmmakers' primary focus.

Instead I'm comparing it to an entire lifetime of 24fps films that were filmed that way either on film or digitally and quite frankly I don't see it as any kind of revolution in terms of capturing beautiful detailed footage.

 

[HowardStark]

In this case the Eagles dwell in the affairs of dwarfs and Orcs not man really. I do wanna say doesn't Frodo seem a bit wimpy compared to Bilbo towards the end of the movie. I mean Bilbo acutally used Sting and with pretty good skill for never using a blade.

 

[Ultimatehero]

As you said, 3D rarely works for you in any case around it. Perhaps you can't easily see depth perception on a screen? You don't sound like the kind of person that would think 3D = pop ups. So perhaps that has something to do with it. That would also possibly have something to do here. The 24 fr looked like a lot of other 3D films that I have already seen in the masses, it looked no better nor worse than the rest.

I have never seen this level of detail in any film. I'm someone who went in expecting to hate it, then found myself amazed by it. And while an LOTR fan, not a die-hard so there's no bias there either. I just noticed a greater amount of detail in even the more minute things that I've never seen before. As said - the smallest textures even on a rock. It was the textures of objects really that impressed me the most and showed off how much detail was there in comparison to other films.

In 'masses' I have yet to hear one negative word about it off the internet and not from film critics. Also if you include the internet, you're one of the few here Hawk who doesn't like it. It was the numerous posters here that did like that made me give it a shot. Where exactly are you getting luke warm from, except from the critics? Who, as I said, would be banned from test screenings due to their "eyes" being differently adjusted - industry reason given.

I know you don't like it, but other than film critics, find a source that shows the number who hate it outweigh the number who love it.

To quote another member's post:

It didn't work for you, how many more did it work for?

 

[squeekness]

Definitely agree with that.

----

Does anyone know if the extended edition will also have a book cover? I'm just really hoping it does so it can easily fit alongside the LOTR extended editions.

Do we already KNOW there will be an extended cut?