Support NeoGAF

[xenist]

For those genuinely concerned about the reviews, bare in mind they'll be coming in for the next two weeks. Besides, the first rush of reviews for any highly anticipated movie are almost always comprised of the people who want to rush out and tell people either how astoundingly brilliant the film was, or how utterly shitty/disappointing it ended up being. It's easy click-baiting at its finest.

Yup. I'm still waiting for my guys to chip in.

 

[Rootbeer]

/Slashfilm, one of my go-to movie blogs these days, also gives it a 7/10

One of the biggest advancements Jackson chose to embrace with The Hobbit was shooting at 48 frames per second, now referred to as High Frame Rate (HFR). My screening employed this new technology and it’s a bit of a mixed bag. At times, the film looks immaculate. Regular landscapes and normal shots with static digital effects look so beautiful, it’s almost as if you could press pause and step through the screen. However, when there are a lot of effects on screen, or they move quickly (as when animals are present, for example) they look overly digital and obviously inserted. Fortunately, even with this problem, the look of the film never took me out of the story. I left feeling that HFR is a technology with a promising future, but it’s not quite there yet.

http://www.slashfilm.com/the-hobbit...er-jacksons-latest-is-rousing-yet-repetitive/

(not from the article, quoted from above):

- Anything shot in daylight looks like a BBC production from the 1970s. The movement is too smooth. And yet, when the camera moves, too, it looks somewhat jerky.

Can anyone explain why there's so many 'jerky' complaints for the HFR? I thought HFR was supposed to eleviate things like this. I wonder how 60FPS would compare.

 

[maquiladora]

Can anyone explain why there's so many 'jerky' complaints for the HFR? I thought HFR was supposed to eleviate things like this. I wonder how 60FPS would compare.

I think its that characters movements look jerky, like they are happening too quickly. You are used to seeing movements at 24 frames in films and your brain is used to seeing those movements as normal, so when you double the frames, it almost looks like its moving too quickly.

I have seen that in videos that have been processed to create a similar style.

It seems some people got used to it after a few minutes, other reviewers didn't.

One thing I don't understand and will have to see myself to comprehend is this 70's BBC TV look some of the complaints mention. That sounds fucking hideous.

 

[maquiladora]

RT doesn't do movies justice.

All wrong.

82% at the moment, not bad.

 

[Mr Cola]

Gotta admit some of the reviews are heartbreaking :[

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

I glanced over a bad review and am seriously in tears here. I've cancelled my ticket booking and am now in the process of discarding my LotR EE box set. I wish I had another choice, but PJ hasn't left me any other with those reviews. (((((((((((((((

 

[strafer]

I glanced over a bad review and am seriously in tears here. I've cancelled my ticket booking and am now in the process of discarding my LotR EE box set. I wish I had another choice, but PJ hasn't left me any other with those reviews. (((((((((((((((

Not sure if legit.

 

[maquiladora]

I glanced over a bad review and am seriously in tears here. I've cancelled my ticket booking and am now in the process of discarding my LotR EE box set. I wish I had another choice, but PJ hasn't left me any other with those reviews. (((((((((((((((

lol

Strafer, it's sculli...

 

[Mr Cola]

While not as serious as that I am somewhat rethinking seeing it opening day, for the pure reason that I am unsure whether I can view this film with any sense of clarity, Im way too invested to give it a fair shake, perhaps best to wait till the new year when things have quietened down.

 

[shira]

I glanced over a bad review and am seriously in tears here. I've cancelled my ticket booking and am now in the process of discarding my LotR EE box set. I wish I had another choice, but PJ hasn't left me any other with those reviews. (((((((((((((((

Phantom Menacing.

 

[overcast]

I glanced over a bad review and am seriously in tears here. I've cancelled my ticket booking and am now in the process of discarding my LotR EE box set. I wish I had another choice, but PJ hasn't left me any other with those reviews. (((((((((((((((

King Kong is brisk compared to The Hobbit.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Pretty much in line with what I was expecting. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no director should have a monopoly on Middle-earth. Guillermo's Hobbit adaptation seems like an almost forgotten dream.


New extended clips including Riddles in the Dark.

I wasn't talking to you!
Give him the contract
There is nobody home
Who did you tell about your quest?
Swords are named for the great deeds they do
Goblin chase

 

[Rootbeer]

While a very clear (if dry) joke, I do think these reviews are deflating some of the optimism within the fanbase. I'm still elated, and based on the non-spoiler reviews I've been seeing I suspect I should enjoy H:TUJ about as much as The Two Towers (the weakest of the original three, IMO).

The really good stuff is happening in movies 2 and 3 anyways. Unlike Fellowship of the Ring which was frontloaded with a lot of goodies (Nazgul, Moria and the Balrog, fall of Boromir), some of the scenes I'm most looking forward to are pushed into the second and third installments.

AFAIK they don't even meet Beorn until movie 2

 

[Edmond Dantès]

"Tolkien could invent names and languages, but he couldn't create a plot at gunpoint."

This got a chuckle out of me considering that Tolkien actually fought in the trenches during WW1.

 

[Nick Laslett]

All the 70's BBC TV comments just keeps making me think the 25fps/50hz PAL countries like most of Europe, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand will not have such a big problem with the 48fps. We are already used to watching shot on video PAL TV on a daily basis since the 1960's.

Whereas the US stayed with film for most quality TV drama productions. That was my understanding from the Douglas Trumbull discussion cited earlier in this thread.

 

[NTom64]

Just watched a few of those clips and my hype has pretty much vanished. It looks like some made-for-tv movie :/

 

[maquiladora]

I wonder is the digital photography in this Vs. film in LOTR partially responsible for some of the complaints about the look of the movie, not just the higher frame rate.

 

[raphier]

Just watched a few of those clips and my hype has pretty much vanished. It looks like some made-for-tv movie :/

Agreed. Very gamey. The battles look poor and stylized.

 

[TrutaS]

Most reviews say that the problem is that it is too detailed and dragged. Well the details are fan-service, the dragging problem is expected since they decided to make 3 movies. This does not change my expectations at all, they have been pretty controlled since the announcement. I'm sure I will like it, question is will I remember it forever like Lotr, if people expected that, while in their right, they were too optimistic.

 

[Mr Cola]

The feeling im getting, and this correlates some with an interview I heard with Jackson about his use of CG in this film is, like the Star Wars prequels he has used the CG as a crutch as opposed to a tool. Interviews have talked about the sheer amount of green screen in this film, he himself mentioned he deferred to cg over practical effects for goblins and other creatures because he felt limited by what they could do when humans have the triumvirate of two eyes and a mouth. While I can understand some of his frustration it has been shown time and time again that CG at its best is good for the current generation but ages poorly and at its worst it removes you from the experience and ages even worse. Obviously I have not seen the whole film but it is very easy to tell from the trailers and some of the footage that the CG in this film isnt that groundbreaking, coupled with the higher framerate its not going to hugely impress people.

 

[kharma45]

Just watched a few of those clips and my hype has pretty much vanished. It looks like some made-for-tv movie :/

Yeah the cinematography doesn't seem as 'epic' as LOTR was.

Goblin chase

Wilhelm scream, why? ;_;

 

[maquiladora]

Hollywood.com - 'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' Does What the 'Star Wars' Prequels Failed to Do

Some spoilers in there that I had to skip over.

 

[Napalm_Frank]

Pretty much in line with what I was expecting. I've said it before and I'll say it again, no director should have a monopoly on Middle-earth. Guillermo's Hobbit adaptation seems like an almost forgotten dream.


New extended clips including Riddles in the Dark.

I wasn't talking to you!
Give him the contract
There is nobody home
Who did you tell about your quest?
Swords are named for the great deeds they do
Goblin chase

I have watched literally everything but no way am I watching those!

 

[maquiladora]

The Vine has a very positive review, but they still have doubts about 48fps.

http://www.thevine.com.au/entertainment/movie-reviews/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-movie-review/

The disarmingly clear, hyper-real quality of the 48fps requires an almost bodily adjustment. The characters are so precisely defined from their backgrounds that they look stuck on; aliens in their surroundings. Their movement often feels akin to a video game, which can threaten to jolt you out of the cinema experience, particularly in the daytime scenes.

 

[ninge]

Still massively hyped for this the extended clips were great!

 

[not psycho]

I've kept my expectations so incredibly low, that I think I might actually enjoy it. But now I probably won't because of that. OK, ready to watch it.

 

[Messypandas]

Oh dear, sounds like HFS is another 'not-quite-there-yet' failed tech thats been more of a hinderance to peoples enjoyment of the movie then a benefit. Whats alarming is that it felt like people were acually at least semi-positive on 3D at first before they soured on it, doesn't bode well for this.

And the worst thing that happened to PJ was giving him the pity oscar for Rotk, the most bloated and fan-servicing entry. He hasn't made a decent film since.

 

[maquiladora]

Huff Post have a very interesting Q & A about their thoughts on 48fps and the film.

I'm in two minds about in now. I'm really curious to see it, but also very worried about it distracting me.

Q: How does the 48-FPS format differ from most other films?

A: It has twice as many frames per second. This gives it an incredibly clear picture. Which is part of the problem.

Q: Why would a clearer image be a problem?

A: Because, as it turns out, it's possible for an image to look so clear that it no longer looks real. Or so real that it takes you out of the film. As in: that film set looks like ... a film set. Put it this way: the picture is so clear that in one scene I could see Ian McKellen's contact lenses. I won't claim to be a Tolkien expert, but I am pretty sure Acuvue does not exist in Middle Earth.

Q: Did you enjoy watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS?

A: Yes and no, for completely different reasons. I'll admit, it was fascinating to watch a movie in 48 FPS because, honestly, I've never seen anything like it. Ever. So, from a technology standpoint, I enjoyed it quite a bit. But! To the extent that I simply wanted to watch a movie and be immersed in another world, it was distracting.

Q: How was it distracting?

A: Granted, this could be related to my own attention-deficit issues, but I was often taken out of the story because I just wanted to look at things. There's a scene that takes place in Rivendell in which Gandalf (McKellen) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) are having an important conversation near a waterfall -- but all I could do was stare at the waterfall. It was so pretty. I mean, I could see each and every droplet of water coming out of this waterfall. All I wanted in the world was to drink from this waterfall. Of course, with all of my attention drawn to this waterfall, I missed most of what Gandalf and Galadriel were talking about.

Q: So everything in the film looks beautiful at 48 FPS? This sounds like a good thing.

A: Well, not so fast. Quite a few things don't look great in 48 FPS. Most of the scenes that take place outdoors look fantastic, but indoors it was difficult to stop being conscious of the fact that we were staring at a movie set. And the scenes that were heavy on CGI yielded mixed results.

Q: Speaking of CGI, how does Gollum look in 48 FPS?

A: Absolutely outstanding. The close-ups of Gollum's face were stunning. But, unfortunately, a scene featuring

Spoiler

Radagast the Brown, on a sled powered by rabbits fleeing an approaching Orc army

, looks quite terrible. The screen is so clear, it rendered the CGI in the scene (which was shot from a distance) into something that looked a lot like a game of Duck Hunt.

Q: Is Peter Jackson right that, even if it takes some time to get used to watching a film in 48 frames per second, you eventually do grow accustomed to it?

A: Yes and no. First, never once did I not notice that I was watching a film in a different format. Sometimes this is a good thing and sometimes this is a bad thing. But the most troubling aspect was that the first 10 minutes of the film looked sped-up.

Q: Sped-up?

A: Have you ever watched old footage of Babe Ruth running the bases back in 1927? Well, imagine that, only with the clearest picture that you've ever seen. After my screening, I talked to other writers who had noticed the same thing. My understanding is that it took our brains a few minutes to adjust to the new format, and this was the resulting sensation. It's really quite a trip -- because it's not like the voices are sped up. And the voices certainly sync with the video, but, still, everything looks fast. Then, after a few minutes, the speed returned to normal.

Q: Will watching more films in 48 FPS alleviate this issue?

A: This was a topic of conversation after the film. It seems natural to assume that our eyes will learn to adjust more quickly as we see more and more films in 48 FPS, but it's possible that it will always resemble the sensation of having a flashlight shined in your face in an otherwise dark room.

Q: Does 48 FPS have a future as a commercially viable format?

A: Maybe? It really depends on the eye thing.

Q: Should I see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS or 24 FPS.

A: Honestly, if you're curious about the technology, see it in 48 FPS -- if only to see something you've never seen before. But if you're just a fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and you want to watch The Hobbit without any distractions, see it in 24 FPS.

Q: Oh, how is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a movie?

A: Well, briefly: it's no doubt fun to see these characters again, but the movie isn't quite as good as any of the individual The Lord of the Rings movies. It hits a lot of the same notes as The Fellowship of the Ring (there is a lot of walking from one location to another), and Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is quite great. But aside from Ian McKellen as Gandalf, the supporting characters are less interesting this time around. Still, as a fantasy adventure film, it's certainly entertaining. Put it this way: it felt about 45 minutes shorter than its nearly-three-hour running time -- and, no, that has nothing to do with 10 minutes of that time spent with an illusion of warp speed.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-ryan/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-48-fps_b_2233959.html

 

[bud]

it already doesn't look real in the officially released stills.

this just screams fake. look at the bearded guy in the middle, for example. or the lighting. or the set. eh.

 

[Rootbeer]

IGN's video review
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MFZ7eGvSWRo

highlights:
- enemies and creatures overwhelmingly CGI this time around as opposed to the great makeup of the original trilogy
- Gollum and the Riddles sequence is great
- Gandalf and Thorin stand-outs, other dwarves mostly relegated to gags
- recommends against both 3D and HFR viewings, stating they 'detract'

Well, it's IGN so who cares what they think!
*cries anyway*

So, having still not seen HFR myself, after reading some of the recent comments (like the block of text above) it sounds like HFR is just so good that it outpaces what the production team (makeup, set design, digital artists, etc.) are able to create. They have not fully adjusted their techniques to look believable in the new format. Well, that coupled with the adjustment everyone's eyes and brains will need to make. Will be interesting to see how things evolve from here, for sure.

 

[#1 defender]

it already doesn't look real in the officially released stills.

this just screams fake. look at the bearded guy in the middle, for example. or the lighting. or the set. eh.

Sets looking like sets on set photos.

 

[bud]

either way, the make-up on a lot of these dwarves looks awful. and not just in the stills either.

 

[richiek]

Looks like the reviews are confirming my worst fears, that Jackson is unnecessarily padding the film to make a trilogy from source material that doesn't warrant it, and is bloated and self indulgent as a result. I'll watch the film when it premieres (not in 48fps), but keeping my expectations low.

 

[andycapps]

it already doesn't look real in the officially released stills.

this just screams fake. look at the bearded guy in the middle, for example. or the lighting. or the set. eh.

I think the dwarves look great. The perfect lighting in it just screams that it's a set though.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

25 minutes of behind the scenes footage

http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-hobbit/b-roll-v
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-hobbit/b-roll-iv
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-hobbit/b-roll-iii
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-hobbit/b-roll-ii
http://www.traileraddict.com/trailer/the-hobbit/b-roll-i

 

[Solo]

King Kong is brisk compared to The Hobbit.

No other sentence ever uttered could turn me off more than this.

 

[Dmax3901]

I'm out of this thread til I see it.

For better or worse the impressions will get to me, tis time to leave. See you on the other side!

 

[Cheebo]

Down to 71% on Rotten Tomatoes now.

 

[Combichristoffersen]

Down to 71% on Rotten Tomatoes now.

Movie is confirmed shit and will bomb worldwide. All my Tolkien books are going on the bonfire tonight. #obamasmiddleearth

 

[Expendable.]

@ShaunMunroFilm

THE HOBBIT IS 169 minutes but 16 of those minutes are the end credits. Wow.

Wow indeed.

 

[Genesis Knight]

it already doesn't look real in the officially released stills.

this just screams fake. look at the bearded guy in the middle, for example. or the lighting. or the set. eh.

Production photos always look fake, no matter what film you're talking about.

 

[maquiladora]

48 tears per second ITT

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Hack job confirmed.

 

[brandonh83]

Why is the 48fps thing such a... deal? You can watch this at 24, right?

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I wonder what the EE version is. 30 added minutes of Gandalf smoking a pipe and fart jokes?

Devin Faraci said it was just ok, just 'fine'. Reiterates a lot of the problems other critics had with it. Watched in 24fps.

 

[maquiladora]

Why is the 48fps thing such a... deal? You can watch this at 24, right?

Only about 1 in 25 theaters worldwide will even have the 48fps option anyway, and you can still see the 24fps version there. It's experimental and hugely divisive.

Fucking stupid decision by WB to have seemingly all the press screenings in the new format.

 

[Messypandas]

Did the EE's have the same length of credits as the theatrical? Because I remember they clocked in at around 27 minutes. ROTK listed everyone in the fanclub ffs

 

[raphier]

it takes the film almost 45 minutes to get going, and once it does it keeps stopping for scenes that feel like blueprints for theme park rides and video games.

My expectations have come true. ugh. This new generation of movie making, ugh. Goblin Chase and We're followed are re-enactment of some video-game cutscenes.

 

[LegendofJoe]

Reviews so far have done nothing to dispel my worries about story bloat and drift. I'm reading The Hobbit to my kids - we read On the Doorstep tonight - and this is NOT a long story. Would make a bang up three hour movie. So I'm very worried that the story only gets as far as it does in part 1 and goes on for two more. I have no idea how you get two more films from where this ends off.

Anyone with the ability to put aside their own bias for a second and critically think about the implications of stretching the Hobbit out over 3 films saw this coming. I am thankful for the posters that mentioned future fan edits yesterday, otherwise I'd be one irascible SOB with regards to this movie right now.

 

[brandonh83]

Only about 1 in 25 theaters worldwide will even have the 48fps option anyway, and you can still see the 24fps version there. It's experimental and hugely divisive.

I don't think there's a theater anywhere near me playing it @48, but even if there were one in my backyard I still wouldn't choose that over 24.