The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[samsong]

not a particularly devout fan of the series in both film and book form (haven't read them at all), and i also went with the thought of wanting to see the trainwreck for myself.  imagine my surprise then when i found myself elated to be back in middle earth and totally enveloped for the vast majority of the running time.  the stupid 48fps notwithstanding, i found this to be absorbing and the purist, grandest spectacle since i guess return of the king.  which is to say this is a fuckton better than avatar.  i'm convinced at this point that mod's only joy in life is seeing the new PTA movie 37 times before anyone else here gets to. 

the 48fps IS, in my mind, an out and out mistake and yet another death knell for cinema.  the tradeoff in 3d quality isn't worth it.  i thought prometheus looked gorgeous and the 3d worked quite well on a technical level, and this in no way was impressive enough to make me think it's the way of the future, especially because the only real difference i noticed is that the live action stuff looks intensely shittier.  it looks like an hdtv with all the digital mods cranked way the fuck up.  it's the worst during the movie's first 15 minutes or so, which has a lot to do with the content as well.  the movie looks like an episode of benny hill by way of the teletubbies, which is true of any moment where the 48fps is especially egregious, and it's numerous throughout the movie. 

despite this seemingly insurmountable flaw, i found myself getting lost in the movie, which i think is a testament to the quality of the adaptation.  maybe i was just in the mood for some good old fashioned escapism but this delivered far passed what i could believe this movie was capable of.  i was thoroughly entertained and moved, and it didn't feel a minute too long.  i want to see it again without the hfr to see if this holds up but for now, i really liked, maybe even loved this movie.  overstuffed, perhaps, but it comes off as a virtue of generosity more than self indulgence.  and it sets up the next film so much better than either of the first two lotr movies.  freeman makes for an exceptional bilbo and proves himself more than worthy of being the emotional anchor to the narrative.  for this movie to be as big and successful as it is and to just be the setup for the entire story has me really excited for the other two movies.

[Cloudy]

That was just horrible. I really hope this 48fps thing NEVER CATCHES ON EVER. It's a prime example of WHY films are in 24fps. The whole time I felt like I could see the sets, and the actors ACTING, and the lights LIGHTING. Everything felt fake. I have no idea how you got lost into this movie, it was like the cinematics between loading in a videogame. It's pretty much a complete misdirection in filmmaking, and hopefully this experiment fails horribly.

That being said, I'm sure if I saw it non 3D, non HFR, I might've had a better time with it. I just don't understand how a professional filmmaker like Peter Jackson could even follow through with something like this.

[Ravi]

The 48fps does look pretty bad in the first 15 to 20 minutes, with all the scenes in Bilbo's house looking VERY videoish. But once the characters leave the shire the 48fps looked better. Scenes with moodier lighting looked good in 48fps. The higher frame rate really does help with those sweeping camera movements and fast action. The action would have been even smoother if they used a 180-degree shutter instead of a 270-degree shutter. If they weren't required to try to mitigate the smoothness for the 24fps extraction perhaps they would have gone with a 180-degree shutter. I wonder if the CG would have stood out less in the 24fps version. Sometimes it looked very artificial. The use of 3D was fine, though nothing indispensable.

Don't write off a new filmmaking technique on the first film that uses it. Let's see how subsequent films use higher frame rates. In life we do see some amount of motion blur, so CG with higher framerates can look like a video game, but I'm sure that too will improve.

I saw the first three LOTR films, though I don't remember anything from them, so I'm not a LOTR fan. I saw this primarily to check out the 48fps effect, but I did end up mostly entertained by it, even if it is too long, and the film is essentially one battle scene after another.

Is it just me or did some of the one-liners seem out of place? Like, "out of the frying pan..." "could this get any worse?" etc.

[Drenk]

The troll scene is amazing in 48 fps. But yeah, it's not worth it. It's a diva move from Jackson, but I didn't really mind. I hope people won't start to shoot in 48 fps, that's all.

PS : I had the first minutes of Star Trek after The Hobbit and, at the beginning, it looked really slow. Weird.

[Cloudy]

The whole point of cinema is to create an illusion. When you add so many frames things start to become very real, and instead of feeling like I was lost in the reality of the movie, I felt like I was on the set. I love it when films use high frame rate as a tool during specific shots because it has an amazing effect. But in this, I could only enjoy it when it was those aerial moving camera shots that set up the location and a couple others.

PS: Sorry if I sounded insulting to any one of you guys. Everyone has different taste buds.

[matt35mm]

Setting aside the conversation about whether or not cinema should look totally realistic, the thing about 48fps (after you get used to it) is that it does make things look more realistic.

I think 3D generally looks terrible. Even natively-shot 3D looks like a hollow pop-up book in 24fps. This was the only 3D movie experience I've ever had in which things looked solid. The illusion of 3D finally worked. It looks like the movie is playing on fast-forward, but they do look more 3D. I was giggling throughout the first 5 minutes because it definitely looks like Benny Hill. I find myself wondering if actually a higher frame rate (James Cameron seems keen on 60fps) would work better by completely obliterating the sense of how fast the frames are moving... with 48fps you get a strong sense that this is moving exactly twice as fast as usual.

I am keen to see more HFR (High Frame Rate) stuff, but I think that THE HOBBIT was the absolute wrong choice for an introduction to 48fps. It DOES make things look more realistic, which is to say that a bunch of people in silly costumes on sets look like a bunch of people in silly costumes on sets. It felt like an expensive theater production of THE HOBBIT. The cinematic feeling is lost. Also, a lot of camera moves and editing styles that work for 24fps just look stupid in 48fps. It's so realistic that you can really feel the presence of the camera when it moves. Handheld shots are iffy, too, for this reason.

However, if we're talking about a Michael Haneke movie in HFR, where the camera is very still, it could be really effective. But that's because a Haneke movie could benefit from feeling like a live theatrical production. Except, Haneke movies are just fine the way they are, but in imagining a future where HFR is not a distraction because we're so used to it, it could be used well in movies like that.

48fps is a movement toward virtual reality, and away from cinema. Cinematic tricks don't work as well, but there's something to be explored there to create a new art form that can offer a totally different experience.

CGI does integrate with the real elements quite well, but mostly because everything looks like a video game. But I was more sold that CGI creatures were actually occupying the same space as the actors than I ever have been before.

So actually I was quite surprised by how positive I felt about 3D 48fps, despite thinking that it mostly looked silly throughout THE HOBBIT. I fully expect to get used to the "movie on fast-forward" effect fairly quickly, and then it's just a matter of a project and a director that uses that effectively. I think it'd be super effective for entirely CG animated movies, or for entirely realistic movies. Movies like THE HOBBIT which involve makeup for dwarf noses and hobbit feet and whatnot that are filmed on studio sets of fantastical locations just look silly because we can't be made to believe that it's not silly. Or, makeup people and production design people are just gonna have to step up their game. Otherwise, it looks like a bunch of kids just having some play time. It could still be great for action movies. MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE movies would be great in HFR because it's still essentially based in a real-world look.

I'm now very open to 48fps or higher frame rates, because I think that, as the technology gets finessed and filmmakers learn how to use it effectively, it could lead to some really cool experiences down the line. 24fps will remain the best choice for the Cinematic Experience, but higher frame rates will be able to offer great Virtual Reality Experiences, which could be great for certain kinds of movies.

THE HOBBIT itself is not really worth talking about, though. It is exactly what I thought it would be, and probably is exactly what you think it's going to be. Because it was so unsurprising at every moment, it felt like a non-experience to me, other than the 48fps part of it.

[samsong]

y'all some jaded ass motherfuckers.

[DocSportello]

it looks like an hdtv with all the digital mods cranked way the fuck up.

Samsong basically confirmed what I had been thinking while reading over this thread.

I have a setting on my HDTV called "TruMotion", and from what I'm gathering, it adds a similar effect to whatever I'm watching as (I assume) the 48fps does with The Hobbit. I never use it. I almost returned my TV before I realized it was a function that could be turned off. I could hardly stand to watch Synecdoche, New York (a movie I now love) the first time saw it because of this shit.

I'm seeing The Hobbit tonight and I'll take it sans 3D, with a side of 24fps. Thanks.

[RegularKarate]

I am going to see this again in 24fps and 2D.

The movie I liked. Loved it even, in parts. I just had a really hard time paying attention and getting invested because I couldn't stop thinking about the HFR.

I think it's going to find a place. I think lighting, set design, camera movements, etc... will all have to be rethought. Eventually, it will look good with certain films.
This was just a really odd film to start with.

[Myxo]

Had a chance to see this in 48 FPS and Dolby Atmos last night.

I personally thought 48 FPS was a wonderful choice for viewers. The first 20ish minutes of the movie are a little odd. It took me a little bit to get used to. But that high frame rate is for action and WOW does 3D action look outstanding in 48 FPS. There were a few moments in that movie where honestly, 24 FPS would have made scenes look worse. My girlfriend commented that normally 3D movies make her sick at times but The Hobbit never did and I attribute that to the higher frame rate and how "smooth" scenes look when the camera pans, etc etc. Don't let the reviews convince you to see it in 24 FPS. At least see it in 48 and judge for yourself.

If you haven't seen an action movie (Brave doesn't count) in Dolby Atmos yet, you're missing out. The audience in my theater were so impressed with just the Dolby Atmos audio demonstration that they applauded. That was a first for me. Never seen an audience clap for the audio alone. Anyway! Outstanding audio mix. There were a few moments in that movie where plain old 7.1 would have dumbed down scenes and made them a little less impressive.

As for the movie itself.

If you loved LOTR and Peter Jackson's treatment of Tolkien's work, you'll love The Hobbit. If you don't care about that, it is a little plodding at times. But I absolutely loved it. The final hour or so is astounding in terms of production quality. It won't win any of the big awards this season but it was a hell of a hoot for Christmas movie-going fun.

[Just Withnail]

I really enjoyed it, but I'm also a huge Tolkien fan.

Bilbo was a bit underdeveloped as a main character and I wasn't as emotionally invested in him (or the others) as I was in the LOTR characters, but Freeman did a good job. He got used to the adventure a bit too fast, I thought. And hopefully we'll get a better sense of the dwarves in the coming films and extended editions.

Also the nice poetic touches are still present and effective. I loved those real-time night-to-day, day-to-night scenes (there was at least three of them).

[Sleepless]

Mild spoilers?

The stakes are definitely weaker than in LOTR, but I found this to be enjoying and easy enough to invest in. I had to keep reminding myself that the first time I saw LOTR I didn't know the story, and also that Fellowship was (and remains) the weakest film in the trilogy. I imagine (and hope) that the same will be true with the Hobbit. There are some niggling criticisms (the first half was too talky, the second half just went from just action set piece to action set piece), but the main problem is that the film doesn't set up the remaining two thirds of this trilogy. Yes, we know there's going to be a confrontation with a dragon at some point, but the threat of the necromancer and the one ring could have been played up a bit more. Of course, this is supposed to be an "unexpected" journey, so I suppose there's an argument to be made that foreshadowing isn't exactly the order of the day.

Overall, it's a fun movie and a worthy enough successor to the LORT trilogy. The proof of the pudding will come with part two, I'm sure. PJ proves he is Spielberg's successor in terms of a mainstream family-friendly action director. The whole clay troll sequence was like something from vintage Indiana Jones. Perfect? Hardly. But a far cry from the Phantom Menace many were predicting.

Oh... I didn't watch it in 3D, but I do think it was a higher frame rate projection. It seemed much brighter than 24 fps. Shots where the camera moved about vast caverns, etc, were annoying because there was too much blur to see it properly. Some things seemed too "real" but there was nothing that was too distracting, which was something I feared. Personally, I don't feel the higher frame rate was worth it.

[matt35mm]

I had to keep reminding myself that the first time I saw LOTR I didn't know the story, and also that Fellowship was (and remains) the weakest film in the trilogy.

No way brah! It's the best! THE TWO TOWERS is also really good. The last one is whatever.

Also, I'm pretty certain you didn't see it in the high frame rate--that only comes with the 3D version (there was no 2D HFR version released). It's more than just looking brighter. You indicated still seeing some blur, which is not the case with HFR. My guess is that you saw a nice 4K projection of it. The little bit of extra "realism" that you noticed was probably due to the extra resolution. But HFR is not "sort of" different; it's extremely different. If you didn't giggle within the first minute of the film due to the way it looked, you didn't see it in the high frame rate.

[Sleepless]

Yeah, I wasn't sure at all, so thanks for clarifying. Strike my comments from the record.


But Two Towers was the best.

[AntiDumbFrogQuestion]

Opinions on The Hobbit:

Luckily, it had none of the major pacing issues of "The Lovely Bones", or even "King Kong", where you spent too long watching a flower bloom or resigned to watching dudes get screwed over by giant bugs, initiating depression.
I found this movie to click along rather well, although by the end of it, I didn't feel as if I knew any of the characters any better.

Atmospherically, it put you right back in Middle Earth without question, and yes, it was a bit "happier" than LOTR, but I'd rather watch the incidences and stories unfold here sporadically than just seeing people worry about the fate of a single ring. The stakes are lower, so at least they have time to move upward with them. Didn't feel like any main character was gonna DIE in this one. Still enjoyable.

While I wanted to know the Dwarves more as individuals, I enjoyed their Marine-like banter and camaraderie. It was like watching a hockey team.

Didn't mind the CGI because, well, it was well done, although the practical stuff is still preferred. Didn't even mind Kratos riding around on Falcor. In Gollum's case, one could tell that the animation has improved, although let's hope that doesn't mean Zemeckis will go for it again.

My biggest issues were winks at the audience (which were mild here, but they kinda rub me the wrong way at times), the Gandalf Deus Ex Machina (he's savin' the day again!), and, to make it an even three, the previously mentioned lack of character development. I expect we'll give more of a crap in the future installments, once things start to settle in and the Fat Dwarf ends up saving the world or something. Maybe he'll become ruler of the Island.

To end on a positive note, I'm really glad I didn't read the original books, although I know some people think that some ideas were shoe-horned into this movie, namely the rescue by eagles at the end, as a fan service. I watched the Ralph Bakshi one. The eagles were THERE, man! In the TEXT!
So whether or not those Mountain-People/Stone Giants were part of JRR Tolkein's "The Hobbit" is a mystery to me, yet I enjoyed the spectacle of it. That's the kind of cool stuff fantasy is made up of in my mind.
Here's to hoping the next two meld drama and spectacle without...and this might sound silly in this case, but I think you'll know what I mean...sacrificing credibility.

Yup.