The Hobbit: 48 FPS 3D
- Thread starter Harvester
- Start date
Here's my review on The Hobbit (including the frame rate)
Being a massive LOTR fan I naturally had high expectations for this movie. I saw the mixed reviews and told myself that I knew i'd love the movie.
I was wrong.
The 48FPS definitely screwed up the movie for me. It made a lot of the CGI effects look cheap. The character movements would sporadically look like they were sped up. The landscape shots (while very nice) made it look like I was watching a documentary. I would not recommend watching the movie in this format and I don't believe it is the future of cinema.
Speaking of CGI, there was way too much of it in this movie. What bugged the hell out of me was that all the orcs, goblins etc were fantastic in LOTR because they were actual humans in amazing costumes. In The Hobbit, they were all CGI. They didn't look bad, it's just when I think of middle earth creatures, I don't think of the video game orcs in the hobbit. The trolls were pretty well done CGI wise, but the stone giants were really cheap looking, like low budget transformers.
The music was very disappointing as well. Of course, the LOTR movies' soundtrack was fantastic. The Hobbit, unfortunately, only had one "great" theme, and there was a LOT of music lifted from the previous trilogy. While subtle nods to LOTR are to be expected musically, it seemed like "Ok, right now Bilbo has the ring. Cue that mournful violin solo from Fellowship!"
As for the story itself, it was pretty decent. I like how they kind of spun it so it was more focused on Bilbo's transformation but with so many characters and storylines, keeping Bilbo at the center was difficult. Bilbo winning over Thorin was a big plot line, but it seemed like Thorin went out of his way to run Bilbo down.
Don't take me wrong, I definitely didn't hate the movie, just nothing about it "wowed me" like in LOTR and it didn't really leave me with anything. With LOTR, I believed I was in a world that had been around for thousands of years. I didn't get that same vibe with The Hobbit. I'm only seeing it again (in the standard frame rate this time) because my girlfriend hasn't seen it yet. I probably won't even end up getting this on DVD though. PJ really let me down.
I'm hoping the next installments are better than this one, but I definitely won't see any of them more than once in the theaters and definitely not at midnight (unless they turn out to be amazing, which I hope they do).
Being a massive LOTR fan I naturally had high expectations for this movie. I saw the mixed reviews and told myself that I knew i'd love the movie.
I was wrong.
The 48FPS definitely screwed up the movie for me. It made a lot of the CGI effects look cheap. The character movements would sporadically look like they were sped up. The landscape shots (while very nice) made it look like I was watching a documentary. I would not recommend watching the movie in this format and I don't believe it is the future of cinema.
Speaking of CGI, there was way too much of it in this movie. What bugged the hell out of me was that all the orcs, goblins etc were fantastic in LOTR because they were actual humans in amazing costumes. In The Hobbit, they were all CGI. They didn't look bad, it's just when I think of middle earth creatures, I don't think of the video game orcs in the hobbit. The trolls were pretty well done CGI wise, but the stone giants were really cheap looking, like low budget transformers.
The music was very disappointing as well. Of course, the LOTR movies' soundtrack was fantastic. The Hobbit, unfortunately, only had one "great" theme, and there was a LOT of music lifted from the previous trilogy. While subtle nods to LOTR are to be expected musically, it seemed like "Ok, right now Bilbo has the ring. Cue that mournful violin solo from Fellowship!"
As for the story itself, it was pretty decent. I like how they kind of spun it so it was more focused on Bilbo's transformation but with so many characters and storylines, keeping Bilbo at the center was difficult. Bilbo winning over Thorin was a big plot line, but it seemed like Thorin went out of his way to run Bilbo down.
Don't take me wrong, I definitely didn't hate the movie, just nothing about it "wowed me" like in LOTR and it didn't really leave me with anything. With LOTR, I believed I was in a world that had been around for thousands of years. I didn't get that same vibe with The Hobbit. I'm only seeing it again (in the standard frame rate this time) because my girlfriend hasn't seen it yet. I probably won't even end up getting this on DVD though. PJ really let me down.
I'm hoping the next installments are better than this one, but I definitely won't see any of them more than once in the theaters and definitely not at midnight (unless they turn out to be amazing, which I hope they do).
BTW, I was disappointed that the 48 fps version is only in 3D. I'd rather not have two gimmicks combined, and just judge them on their own individual merits.
AeonicSlumber
srs
- Aug 14, 2008
- 4,893
- 0
- 36
I saw it in the regular format and I loved the hell out of it. Could've been my favorite movie of this year. I hate seeing movies in 3D.
I play alot of video games, so the whole frames-per-second debate is something I've already been a part of for a long time. I look forward to the next gen of video games where the standard is 60 frames-per-second. However, for movies, I think showing a film in over 25 fps is kind of a terrible idea. ESPECIALLY for a film like The Hobbit. It destroys the cinematic quality of cinematography, making everything look like a soap opera. IMO I think it's unnecessary and I kind of hope it doesn't take off.
I play alot of video games, so the whole frames-per-second debate is something I've already been a part of for a long time. I look forward to the next gen of video games where the standard is 60 frames-per-second. However, for movies, I think showing a film in over 25 fps is kind of a terrible idea. ESPECIALLY for a film like The Hobbit. It destroys the cinematic quality of cinematography, making everything look like a soap opera. IMO I think it's unnecessary and I kind of hope it doesn't take off.
Diabolik
Member
I am seeing it tomorrow in the standard version....I hate having to wear the 3D glasses for a long period of time. While I love the effect it isnt worth it. If it is some generic action film it isnt a big deal but this is something I really want to see and 3D isnt important enough for me for this one.
I will say the 3D in Piranha 3DD was great for a super low budget film.
I will say the 3D in Piranha 3DD was great for a super low budget film.
Jasonic
Doom On!
LOL -
We will all eagerly await your review which will simply be "It sucks, since I didn't see it first" LOL
We will all eagerly await your review which will simply be "It sucks, since I didn't see it first" LOL
I was warned by friends to stay FAR away from the 3D format for The Hobbit. I plan on going either tomorrow or the day after Christmas.
Braxil
Member
I saw it in 48 FPS 3D and I enjoyed the format. The 3D was much more subtle than most 3D releases and the framerate grew on me after 10 minutes or so. The movie itself, on the other hand, was a massive disappointment.
I'm not a fan of 3D to begin with, and the reviews of the 48fps convinced me to stick with the standard version. I had no problem with that visually. I will say that while the CGI looked good, I think the orcs and trolls had a lot more personality when they were live bodies in costume. Azog and the Great Goblin looked practically Shrek-ish to me, although it turns out that TGG, like Gollum, was done with motion capture.
Ok, so I saw The Hobbit in standard 2d today, and i'm so glad I gave it another chance. Honestly the high frame rate was so distracting to me that I couldn't really get into the movie at all. This time around, though, was much more enjoyable. Was it as good as any of the LOTR movies? No, but it was still very good and i'm excited for the other installments, and i'll definitely get it on dvd when it comes out.
I saw the movie on Xmas on a standard cinema screen. We got there late so we had terrible seats right up in the front.. i think if it wasn't for this I would of enjoyed it more. The fast action sequences were kind of jarring to me at that angle. I also had a hard time following the dialogue just in general ie I simply couldn't hear lines I guess. This happened most notably during the riddle game scene. These were my main complaints. The minor irk I had with the story was that you could sort of replace one scene from the hobbit with another scene in the lotr films. the stone fight scene at the mountain or w/e and replace it with the snow mountain scene in the fellowship of the ring... things like that. Its just a weird thing I have..like with the Star Wars films: the best you could do was a second death star? Perhaps I'm just being picky though :shrug:. Overall I enjoyed it though, will have to watch it again
Purveyor Of Evil
Heavy Metal, INC.
nailz
Member
<----[FACE]I know, It's like they were taking exactly the same path or something. Over the same mountains. SO WEIRD.
Did you not read the books?
Palabra de Dios
Heavy Metal Weatherman
I agree that the 48 fps looked cheap. Can someone explain why that is? The scenes at the beginning in the dwarf city were especially off-putting. It looked like a History Channel reenactment of Smaug's attack.
I liked the movie. It had a few plot points that I wasn't too keen on, like an over-emphasis on the brown wizard and the white orc, who weren't quite as important to the story in the book. But overall, it was a fun movie that didn't overstay its welcome (despite a long running time).
I liked the movie. It had a few plot points that I wasn't too keen on, like an over-emphasis on the brown wizard and the white orc, who weren't quite as important to the story in the book. But overall, it was a fun movie that didn't overstay its welcome (despite a long running time).
The 48 fps means "frames per second". The standard rate for any movie is 24 frames. The human eye sees the world at 60 "frames per second", so the closer to that rate a movie/tv show is, the more realistic it looks (which is why the news and documentaries among other things have a more "realistic" look). So when a movie elevates its frame rate, it looks more "realistic" too. Some of the landscape shots were great but I was thinking "this looks like a documentary". I don't think that the technology PJ used is necessarily bad, but the technology would be put to better use on a film that didn't require so much CGI. When I go to see The Hobbit, i'm not necessarily wanting to be "in" the movie. It's a fantasy movie, i'm looking for an escape, i'm not looking for something "realistic", you know?
AngraRULES
Member
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
OMG... This was the best 2013 kick off post! It's gonna be a good year on the forum, lol...
"Aw fuck this, Gollum looks and sounds the same!"
Harris The Epic
The Keyboard Guy
Still haven't seen it, I feel like the 48 FPS is gonna make everything look so good that it looks bad, in that similar to recording at really high quality where you hear *everything*, including the most tiny little screw-ups, you're going to notice every single last little bit of animation if you look closely enough.
Is it really a full 3 hours long though? That seems a little unnecessary.
Is it really a full 3 hours long though? That seems a little unnecessary.
Palabra de Dios
Heavy Metal Weatherman
I don't think the running length has been a gripe for anyone. I really never drops the pace too much to get laborious. I have looked at my watch multiple times at much shorter films.
It's not 3 hours long, it's 2 hour and 46 minutes long, 16 minutes of that might be the credits.
Harris The Epic
The Keyboard Guy
After 2 and a half hours, 16 minutes is the least of my concerns. 
I have terrible ADHD, I have trouble sitting through anything, even if it does catch my interest
I have terrible ADHD, I have trouble sitting through anything, even if it does catch my interest
Similar threads
