Photo

The Hobbit


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 DuffMan

DuffMan

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,685 posts
  • LocationLinthicum, MD

Posted 17 December 2012 - 07:55 AM

Anyone see this yet? I'm a huge Tolkien fan and have seen the original Trilogy numerous times, both in theater and on DVD. I've also read the books several times so it's safe to say I've been looking forward to these movies for a while now. The wife was working this weekend so I didn't get a chance to see it yet but I was curious if anyone else has. And for those that did see it did you see it in the new 48fps? I think I'm going to try and see this movie twice, the first time I'll see it in 2D just like the original trilogy. The second time I'll see it at the 48frams rate, this also means seeing the movie in 3D which I really don't care about but the the only way to see it at 48fps (which I'm curious to see) is to see it in 3D so I'll make an exception for this movie.

#2 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,342 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:24 AM

Yeah, I'm doing the same thing, but I've only seen it in 2D so far, so I can't speak to the 48 fps as of yet.

I enjoyed the heck out of the movie though. I gave it a 9/10.

#3 SammyBirdland

SammyBirdland

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,019 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:49 AM

For anyone who has seen it, did you notice anything strange with the visual quality of the movie? Apparently movies are usually shot at 24 fps, but The Hobbit was shot at 48 fps. This results in what is sometimes called the "Soap Opera effect", as soap operas have that sort of wet or shiny appearance (hard to describe). I'm just curious if it was noticeable on the big screen.
¡Hasta la vista, pelota!

#4 You Play to Win the Game

You Play to Win the Game

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,342 posts
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:59 AM

For anyone who has seen it, did you notice anything strange with the visual quality of the movie? Apparently movies are usually shot at 24 fps, but The Hobbit was shot at 48 fps. This results in what is sometimes called the "Soap Opera effect", as soap operas have that sort of wet or shiny appearance (hard to describe). I'm just curious if it was noticeable on the big screen.

I noticed it a couple times, but it wasn't a negative thing, per se... just not something I'm used to seeing.

#5 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,429 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:37 AM

I'll be seeing it but only in 2D. 3D films make me toss my cookies (or popcorn, as it were).

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#6 Pedro Cerrano

Pedro Cerrano

    I Miss McNulty

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,429 posts
  • LocationEllicott City, MD

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:38 AM

For anyone who has seen it, did you notice anything strange with the visual quality of the movie? Apparently movies are usually shot at 24 fps, but The Hobbit was shot at 48 fps. This results in what is sometimes called the "Soap Opera effect", as soap operas have that sort of wet or shiny appearance (hard to describe). I'm just curious if it was noticeable on the big screen.


I get what you're saying here. Some of the newer TVs have the option of turning on the "Soap Opera" effect. I find it very distracting.

There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note

"Now OPS sucks.  Got it."

"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."

"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty

@bopper33


#7 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,360 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 10:56 AM

I get what you're saying here. Some of the newer TVs have the option of turning on the "Soap Opera" effect. I find it very distracting.

If you're talking about the Dynamic Mode on some new TVs (or at least that's what they call it on newer Samsung's) I really like that. It makes things look much more like real life, IMO, like watching a play instead of a film. All personal preference, though.

#8 BobPhelan

BobPhelan

    OTV

  • Moderators
  • 14,498 posts
  • LocationBel Air, MD

Posted 17 December 2012 - 06:23 PM

I haven't heard anything better than mediocre reviews and I think it's ludicrous how they're milking three movies out of this. I'll rent it on redbox.

#9 DuffMan

DuffMan

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,685 posts
  • LocationLinthicum, MD

Posted 31 December 2012 - 12:43 PM

Finally going to see this today, I'm pretty excited for it!

#10 Mackus

Mackus

    HOF

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,360 posts

Posted 02 January 2013 - 11:18 AM

I saw it and liked it. Thought the 3D was well done. I saw it at the normal frame rate, not the higher rate, so can't comment on that.

It wasn't great, but I did enjoy it. I agree that I wish it wasn't being made into 3 movies. I think 2 would be perfect, both in the 2:00 to 2:30 time range. Doing 2 movies without adding in all the extra stuff seems like a better plan than 3 with adding in some of the appendices stuff from other books than The Hobbit. Some of the extra stuff seemed good (the beginning showing how Smaug took over the Lonely Mountain was great) and other stuff seemed really forced (the Pale Orc and Thorin's feud).




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Our Sponsors


 width=