Hobbit Reivews

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I have no idea if the theater played it in 48 fps format. I saw it in 3D.

[Supr49er]

Same here. 3D, but I don't know if it was 24 or 48fps.

[Felch]

Probably 24. The 48 fps is supposed to be noticeable.

[snoopy369]

It would've been called "HOBBIT 3D HFR" on your ticket or the movie listing if it were. It should definitely be noticeable in the first few minutes at least...

[regexcellent]

I thought 48fps was split 24 left eye 24 right eye?

12 fps in each eye would be terrible wouldn't it?

[snoopy369]

You're thinking 3D or something like that. The eye can 'perceive' only 12 FPS, but when motion is taken into account, 60FPS or higher is needed to get to truly realistic vision. Even older TVs display 60 FPS, as NTSC (American) televisions use 60 interlaced FPS. I don't think 48FPS has anything to do with one eye versus the other.

[Docfeelgood]

That was actually in the book...

TY for that informative but useless tid-bit

[dannubis]

I hope it helped

[regexcellent]

You're thinking 3D or something like that. The eye can 'perceive' only 12 FPS, but when motion is taken into account, 60FPS or higher is needed to get to truly realistic vision. Even older TVs display 60 FPS, as NTSC (American) televisions use 60 interlaced FPS. I don't think 48FPS has anything to do with one eye versus the other.

I was under the impression that the eye can perceive 60fps...

Anyhow, the way 3d works iirc is that you alternate frames, so every odd frame is the left eye and every even frame is the right eye, or something like that. Then it gets polarized and you wear special glasses so your left eye sees only left eye frames and your right eye sees only right eye frames. So 48 fps in that case might mean either 24 fps in each eye for a total of 48fps through the projector or 48 fps through each eye for a total of 96 fps through the projector.

[snoopy369]

Read the wiki page on FPS - 12 FPS is about what people can really perceive, but it looks bad because of motion. I guess you could take advantage of that with some sort of subliminal messages? Who knows

I understand what you meant now - you were combining the 3D with the 48FPS filmmaking. The normal 24FPS films are projected at 48FPS for Real3D, so these would be projected at 96FPS.

[MOBIUS]

Crappy bloated vanity project, but still mostly enjoyable to watch.

6/10

[kittenOFchaos]

Too much clinging to the edges of things...

Still enjoyed it.

[b etor]

I really enjoyed it. It was way better than the Warner Brothers version. That Bilbo had a fat, stupid face and whiny voice.

Smeagol was especially cute in this one.

I also saw it at a theater that had lazyboy style seats! And when you bought your ticket you had to choose your seat based on an 8 x 14 seat diagram. It was cool. Unexpected, but a different experience.

I do agree that I would have preferred more dialogue from the book and a little less fighting.

Still,

[Proteus_MST]

Anybody see it in 48FPS?

I have ...
but I haven´t seen it in 24 FPS for comparison, so I cannot tell whether it is really better in 48 FPS than in 24 FPS.

The 3D Effects were better than in almost all other 3D movies i watched to date, however.
(only with Gwaihir and his eagles, I had, for a second, the feeling that there were not a swarm of eagles flying in different distances, but just eagles of different sizes)


As for the movie itself...
I liked it for most parts ... it felt very familiar for a LotRO player ... the only part I definitely didn´t like in the movie was the fight of the stone giants in the misty mountains. Not only didn´t their fight make any sense, but, due to the fact that (in the movies) the stone giants are not "ordinary giants" but seem to be "the mountains themselves" one has to wonder why the misty mountains still do exist. Even with 1-2 fights per week among stone giants there, the whole mountain range should already have been grinded to dust

[Robert]

I've seen it in 48FPS.
The 3D / looks were very very very good. Some reviewers complained about things being 'too realistic' in 48fps, I had no idea what they were talking about. Still don't understand it.

The film could have been shorter.
They shouldn't have included the Frodo scenes, I think that the dwarf introduction was too long as well.
Some of the fight scenes were too much over the top, including the escape from gobling town. I think that Peter should have tried to keep things a bit more realistic. Of course it looked beautiful, the fight scenes were original and creative, but over the top.

I enjoyed the movie a lot. Despite it's length. I mean, it's more middle earth, why would I complain?
The tone of the movie was light, and the plot didn't caught me though. I mean, dwarves lost gold, so what? (Yes, I read the book). It doesn't connect really like "the world will go down" in LOTR.

But when Radagast walked into Dol Guldur and had his encounter of the whitch king, and during the white council, more important things were at stake and things got tenser. I hope to see more about that in the next 2 parts.
This is not from The Hobbit, but from the apendixes and the extra Material. And of course from Jacksons brains where gaps needed to be filled.

(Tolkien started to rewrite The Hobbit totally after LOTR was finished. He wanted to bring TH in line with LOTR and had started on it already, making huge changes to tone, etc. Friends then advised him to leave The Hobbit alone and accept that it was a different book and that he couldn't change the past. He then only altered the 'riddles in the dark' chapter (With Gollum) to bring that in line with LOTR. So Jackson changing tone and style and things in The Hobbit is in fact what Tolkien would have done if he would have a change to do it for the first time. Jackson now can create the film for the first time, so he's right to do so).

Regarding 48fps, it's 48fps for both eyes.
Cinema 3D doesn't (does NOT) work with altering the projection to the left and the right eye frame by frame.
That's how active 3D tv works. (with battery glasses).

Cinemas and passive 3D use interpolation. The glasses filter out lines for left and right eye, so both eyes can see the projection at the same time. It's easier for the eyes, the glasses are lighter (and cheaper).

The 48fps just doubles the frames in the movie which especially during shots with a lot of panning makes that your brains don't have to fill in the gaps between the frames as much as with 24fps.
Our eyes/brains don't work with fps. They just see everything always real time. So 48fps or 60fps is still less then our true vision capabilities provide.

The reason that some have started to love 24fps (Which is really ancient) is that they are used to the 'fake' feeling a movie gets b/c of 24fps. The brains have gotten used to the surreal look of a movie. Now things look more realistic, they miss this feeling. It's like people who prefer vynil music b/c it adds clicks and sounds that just enrich the feeling, the emotion, etc.

Everyone to his own opinion.
Kids who'll grow up now will never have this anymore so in 20 years 24fps will be gone. Together with 2D movies, silent movies, black and white movies, etc. except of course apart from for old-times-sake returns like The Artist. (which we then will love).

The world progresses fortunately. Screw the conservatives 8)