The Hobbit / HFR 3D (1 Viewer)

  • Thread starter pete
  • Start date
  • Replies 45
  • Views 5K
  • Watchers 2

pete

chronic procrastinator
Staff member
Since 1999
Joined
Nov 14, 1999
Messages
63,356
Solutions
3
Location
iPanopticon
Website
thumped.com
Hmmm....

With fourteen reviews counted at Rotten Tomatoes it currently sits at a solid albeit unremarkable 71% and a 6.6/10. A lot more reviews will come in though so its score is entirely in flux at this point.


In regards to the 48FPS technology however, the reaction is notably less enthusiastic. Most of the reactions veering between 'distracting' to 'detrimental' and even a few wondering if the screening was suffering from projection issues. Here's a sampling of reactions:


"The results are interesting and will be much-debated, but an initial comparison of the two formats weighs against the experiment; the print shown at Warner Bros. in what is being called "high frame rate 3D," while striking in some of the big spectacle scenes, predominantly looked like ultra-vivid television video, paradoxically lending the film a oddly theatrical look, especially in the cramped interior scenes in Bilbo Baggins' home. For its part, the 24 fps 3D version had a softer, noticeably more textured image quality…" Todd McCarthy, The Hollywood Reporter


"Disconcerting is the introduction of the film's 48-frames-per-second digital cinematography, which solves the inherent stuttering effect of celluloid that occurs whenever a camera pans or horizontal movement crosses the frame -- but at too great a cost. Consequently, everything takes on an overblown, artificial quality in which the phoniness of the sets and costumes becomes obvious, while well-lit areas bleed into their surroundings, like watching a high-end homemovie. A standard 24fps projection seems to correct this effect in the alternate version of the film being offered to some theaters, but sacrifices the smoother motion seen in action scenes and flyover landscape shots…" Peter Debruge, Variety


"I still don't know what I think. I'm half-convinced that there was a projection problem when I saw the film, because I have trouble believing that what I saw reflected the desires of Peter Jackson and his team. Throughout the entire film, there was a strange Benny Hill quality to sequences, with things that appeared to be sped up. It happened in both dialogue and action sequences, and the overall effect was like watching the most beautifully mastered Blu-ray ever played at 1.5x speed… The voices are off-pitch, and the pacing of scenes goes to hell when it's played this way. This is still recognizably the world that was created for "Lord Of The Rings," but it looks more like you're seeing behind-the-scenes footage that reveals it was all a real location instead of seeing something created for a movie. I think the 48FPS format actually makes the digital and practical work more seamless in some ways, but the overall impression takes a while to get used to as a viewer…" Drew McWeeny, HitFix

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/25695/-hobbit-and-48fps-reviews-pour-forth
 
If my (poorly done) research is right, the HFR is only for 3D performances? I might have a goo at the IMAX 3D HFR version although I'll probably hate. I already hate 3D. It's really just to make sure I don't make the same mistake again.

Are there any more HFR films planned? Excluding the rest of the Hobbit series?
 
If my (poorly done) research is right, the HFR is only for 3D performances? I might have a goo at the IMAX 3D HFR version although I'll probably hate. I already hate 3D. It's really just to make sure I don't make the same mistake again.

Are there any more HFR films planned? Excluding the rest of the Hobbit series?


The IMAX and HFR are different formats, you have to see them separately.

Both are in 3-D though. Afaik.
 
A friend of mine saw the IMAX 3D HFR at the new imax in Dublin.
He said it looked like looking at a mexican soap opera with the "sports" preset set on your TV.
And also that you could see every flaw in the prosthetics, and that they clearly hadn't kept the same special effects production values as the original (Bigatures / Forced Perspective etc)
 
A friend of mine saw the IMAX 3D HFR at the new imax in Dublin.
He said it looked like looking at a mexican soap opera with the "sports" preset set on your TV.
And also that you could see every flaw in the prosthetics, and that they clearly hadn't kept the same special effects production values as the original (Bigatures / Forced Perspective etc)

you just made this sound amazing
 
I remember thinking in the original trailer that the sets looked really really......well they really just looked like sets. It's an incredibly baffling development. It is proof that they are truly just looking to use something new for the sake of using something new instead of just using what's the best tool for the cinematic experience.

It reminds of when Michael Mann was saying he wanted the audience to feel like they were there in the 40's when watching Public Enemies and my opinion of it was that it has to be the ugliest most uncinematic expensive turd I've ever seen.

On the other Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master which was shot on 65mm looked beautiful and felt more like you were watching people living in the 50's without actually calling attention to the fact that "hey dudes, this movie is set in the 50's".
 
I remember thinking in the original trailer that the sets looked really really......well they really just looked like sets. It's an incredibly baffling development. It is proof that they are truly just looking to use something new for the sake of using something new instead of just using what's the best tool for the cinematic experience.

It reminds of when Michael Mann was saying he wanted the audience to feel like they were there in the 40's when watching Public Enemies and my opinion of it was that it has to be the ugliest most uncinematic expensive turd I've ever seen.

On the other Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master which was shot on 65mm looked beautiful and felt more like you were watching people living in the 50's without actually calling attention to the fact that "hey dudes, this movie is set in the 50's".

Didn't the Mann movie jump back and forth between film and digital? At least that's my recollection.

The Master was a beautiful thing.
 
I don't think so. I think he's gone full digital since Miami Vice.

I really didn't like Public Enemies on any level when I saw it but I'll give it another shot at some point.
 
I really didn't like Public Enemies on any level when I saw it but I'll give it another shot at some point.

Michael Mann, the director, decided to shoot the movie in HD format instead of using the traditional 35 mm film.[32] Public Enemies would be Mann's first all-digital feature.

Right you were.

I guess it was just more noticeable in some scenes than others.
 
I liked the mix in his other films, it took me a while to get used to the look but I'm honestly into it now. Wouldn't want it exclusively to be used in all movies though.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

21 Day Calendar

Darsombra (Kosmische Drone Prog)(US)
Anseo
18 Camden Street Lower, Saint Kevin's, Dublin, Ireland
Gig For Gaza w/ ØXN, Junior Brother, Pretty Happy & Mohammad Syfkhan
Vicar Street
58-59 Thomas St, The Liberties, Dublin 8, Ireland

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top