[Movies] The Hobbit Trilogy (Possible Spoilers)

[Mongoose19]

The New York Daily News describes The Hobbit as eye popping. Ethan Sacks writes, “Lighter and funnier than its ‘Lord of the Rings’ predecessors, ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ remains faithful to the fantasy world last seen in the 2003 Academy Award-winning ‘The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.’”

Collider gives The Hobbit an “A-“, saying, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a classic adventure quest in the making; packed with colorful characters, gorgeous settings and plenty of action, the only setbacks are technical ones.”

The Playlist gives The Hobbit a “B+”, saying “As epic, grandiose, and emotionally appealing as the previous pictures, ‘The Hobbit’ doesn’t move far from the mold, but it’s a thrilling ride that’s one of the most enjoyable, exciting and engaging tentpoles of the year.”

The Hollywood Reporter review says: "Spending nearly three hours of screen time to visually represent every comma, period and semicolon in the first six chapters of the perennially popular 19-chapter book, Jackson and his colleagues have created a purist's delight, something the millions of die-hard fans of his Lord of the Rings trilogy will gorge upon."


Apparently LotR and Tolkien fans in general will likely get much more enjoyment out of the movie due to its adherence to the novel. Impatient non-readers may find themselves out of place. Lucky for me I'm a nerd! I'll eat it all up and ask for seconds, probably thirds.

Yea thats good I actually wanna see book with actors, not a vision of the book.

[Northy]

I'm probably the only person in the world who is happy the movie is long. More middle-earthy goodness. Heck, make it 6 hours...
Can't wait for Extended Edition releases.

[xylophone]

Basicly 48 fps is what they use in like soap operas or live events if you know what I mean. If you are from UK then Eastenders is an example of how Hobbit will look. It looks fake, not cinematic and to be honest cheap.

Personally that's one thing I like whenever I channel surf through the soap operas.

[Scummer]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but YouTube won't show anything above 30fps. It's impossible to see the 48fps on an YouTube video.

That explains EVERYTHING.

[Shinzai]

Just a side note about the 48fps videos that had been released to the public previously - they were released without any after effects/CGI work done. The reason why the sets looked like sets, was... because they were just sets. Closed screenings of the fully finished footage at 48fps, with all after effects/CGI/lighting in place has been widely regarded as very impressive by those who were able to see it.

It may be strange moving at 48fps when released, but I fully intend to see both the 48fps/3D and 2D/24fps versions.

[Deleted]

Basicly 48 fps is what they use in like soap operas or live events if you know what I mean. If you are from UK then Eastenders is an example of how Hobbit will look. It looks fake, not cinematic and to be honest cheap.

No, it won't look fake, you and others who have trained themselves to think "30/29.97 fps = direct-to-TV, 24 fps = cinema" might think so but no.

The early clips shown weren't, from what I've read, fully posted (post = post-production, not "posted on teh intarwebz").

24 fps is horribly low and the only reason movies wound up at that frame rate was because it was a trade-off between smooth motion and the cost of film back in the day. Then once everyone standardized on 24 fps the cost of new equipment kept most producers of movies from even trying to go to higher frame rate.


What makes soap operas look like shit isn't just the frame rate, it's also the crummy lighting, limited budgets for wardrobes and sets and acting that often feels like the actors are just phoning it in (seriously, look at the lighting, post work, sets and wardrobes used in the average soap opera and compare it to a big budget movie, there's a huge difference, even in TV shows with a decent-sized budget it's rare to see lighting, post, sets and wardrobes near the quality of most movies).

Now, when you get accustomed to seeing all these bad things along with a higher frame rate while the choppy and blurry 24 fps frame rate is only used for "real movies" you begin to associate the former with cheap and ugly productions (since it's an easy visual cue that you can pick up on almost immediately).

Edit: Cameras deserve a mention as well, a new RED cam that can capture proper high-res video will give much better results than a cheaper camera that just barely handles 1080p @ 30 fps with the same lighting, sets and all that junk. Guess which cameras are used for big budget movies and which are used for long-running soap operas with a tight budget...

[Arrowstormen]

I wonder if the critics are just doing this to thrive on conflict. Seems like that, when they focus on such minor and ridiculous things. Some of them seems like being positive, but then throws the 48fps card and deems the whole movie a fail. Are they angry Peter Jackson didn't instantly throw the 48fps idea out the window when they didn't like the 10 minutes they saw in Las Vegas earlier this year?

And then they talk about the length, which they also criticized in Fellowship of the Ring, despite it being the best of three movies in some peoples opinion, and being the shortest of the trilogy (and they didn't seem to complain all that much about length during those.) Heck, I only watch the movies in Extended Edition!

[Mongoose19]

No, it won't look fake, you and others who have trained themselves to think "30/29.97 fps = direct-to-TV, 24 fps = cinema" might think so but no.

The early clips shown weren't, from what I've read, fully posted (post = post-production, not "posted on teh intarwebz").

24 fps is horribly low and the only reason movies wound up at that frame rate was because it was a trade-off between smooth motion and the cost of film back in the day. Then once everyone standardized on 24 fps the cost of new equipment kept most producers of movies from even trying to go to higher frame rate.


What makes soap operas look like shit isn't just the frame rate, it's also the crummy lighting, limited budgets for wardrobes and sets and acting that often feels like the actors are just phoning it in (seriously, look at the lighting, post work, sets and wardrobes used in the average soap opera and compare it to a big budget movie, there's a huge difference, even in TV shows with a decent-sized budget it's rare to see lighting, post, sets and wardrobes near the quality of most movies).

Now, when you get accustomed to seeing all these bad things along with a higher frame rate while the choppy and blurry 24 fps frame rate is only used for "real movies" you begin to associate the former with cheap and ugly productions (since it's an easy visual cue that you can pick up on almost immediately).

Edit: Cameras deserve a mention as well, a new RED cam that can capture proper high-res video will give much better results than a cheaper camera that just barely handles 1080p @ 30 fps with the same lighting, sets and all that junk. Guess which cameras are used for big budget movies and which are used for long-running soap operas with a tight budget...

I am just saying how I felt after seeing the Hobbit trailer in 48 fps, it really looks god damn weird. Maybe I will get used to it at some point but for now it just doesn't look right.

[Arrowstormen]

I am just saying how I felt after seeing the Hobbit trailer in 48 fps, it really looks god damn weird. Maybe I will get used to it at some point but for now it just doesn't look right.

Where is that trailer anyway?

[Wilian]

No, it won't look fake, you and others who have trained themselves to think "30/29.97 fps = direct-to-TV, 24 fps = cinema" might think so but no.

The early clips shown weren't, from what I've read, fully posted (post = post-production, not "posted on teh intarwebz").

24 fps is horribly low and the only reason movies wound up at that frame rate was because it was a trade-off between smooth motion and the cost of film back in the day.

Actually the reason why it became 24 was that silent films were ran with anything between 20 and 26 fps but when sound was introduced to them, human ear very easily picked up on the "change" so the standard was built around 24.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

[Saturate]

I'm probably the only person in the world who is happy the movie is long. More middle-earthy goodness. Heck, make it 6 hours...
Can't wait for Extended Edition releases.

You are definitely not alone.


I've seen almost every review of the Hobbit available online, and the more I read through them, the more it seems to me that these critics that give the movie 6/10 or similar score do it either for publicity or out of sheer blind hatred towards the higher frame rate/Peter Jackson's vision. I can't understand how those websites can give people who are not even fans of the LoTR to review the Hobbit, and bitch about the length of the movie, the lack of female characters, or how the first 40 minutes of the movie are so boring. Those are all shitty points, that only raise one question: Who are these people? They should never ever touch anything remotely connected to Middle Earth, because they obviously haven't felt the magic that flows through it's veins, both in the books and the movies.
Luckily, there is a whole different side to the story, and the amount of online support the Hobbit is getting is just incredible, seeing that the movie is yet to come out. I honestly believe that nothing can, will, nor should stop the Hobbit in becoming the highest grossing trilogy of all time. Basically everyone I know is going to theater to see this baby, and believe me, never before have I seen so many people excited about one movie. The hype blows Avengers and TDKR out of the water, with ease.

[Frontenac]

You are definitely not alone.


I've seen almost every review of the Hobbit available online, and the more I read through them, the more it seems to me that these critics that give the movie 6/10 or similar score do it either for publicity or out of sheer blind hatred towards the higher frame rate/Peter Jackson's vision. I can't understand how those websites can give people who are not even fans of the LoTR to review the Hobbit, and bitch about the length of the movie, the lack of female characters, or how the first 40 minutes of the movie are so boring. Those are all shitty points, that only raise one question: Who are these people? They should never ever touch anything remotely connected to Middle Earth, because they obviously haven't felt the magic that flows through it's veins, both in the books and the movies.
Luckily, there is a whole different side to the story, and the amount of online support the Hobbit is getting is just incredible, seeing that the movie is yet to come out. I honestly believe that nothing can, will, nor should stop the Hobbit in becoming the highest grossing trilogy of all time. Basically everyone I know is going to theater to see this baby, and believe me, never before have I seen so many people excited about one movie. The hype blows Avengers and TDKR out of the water, with ease.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. No need to get almost religious about a movie. No need to feel threatened by small writings. Maybe they do not understand the "magic" of Middle-Earth. Still they have a right to dislike the movie and write about it. It is no blaspheme against Tolkien. I can't count the number of movies I liked that were flamed by the critics. Like Robert Charlebois, a singer where I live, sang : "I don't care much about critics. They are sympathetic failures." (J'me fous pas mal de la critique. Ce sont des ratés sympathiques.)

[Arrowstormen]

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. No need to get almost religious about a movie. No need to feel threatened by small writings. Maybe they do not understand the "magic" of Middle-Earth. Still they have a right to dislike the movie and write about it. It is no blaspheme against Tolkien. I can't count the number of movies I liked that were flamed by the critics. Like Robert Charlebois, a singer where I live, sang : "I don't care much about critics. They are sympathetic failures." (J'me fous pas mal de la critique. Ce sont des ratés sympathiques.)

Sympathetic failures? I do wish to have that explained.

[Frontenac]

Sympathetic failures? I do wish to have that explained.

He meant that critics are often people who would have liked to be artists themselves, but since they don't have the talent to do it, they criticize the works of others. Hence, failures. However, they have their use and they usually like artists too in general, so they are sympathetic. At least that's how I understand the lyrics.

[Arrowstormen]

He meant that critics are often people who would have liked to be artists themselves, but since they don't have the talent to do it, they criticize the works of others. Hence, failures. However, they have their use and they usually like artists too in general, so they are sympathetic. At least that's how I understand the lyrics.

I guess becoming a reviewer is easier than becoming a director.

[wildrush]

It shall be epic.

[Fuzzzie]

Hearing mixed reviews about it. I'm sure I'll like it though.

[Deleted]

I also can't wait for this movie. But i heard that there will be 3 parts of the movie? Isn't this true?

[Saturate]

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. No need to get almost religious about a movie. No need to feel threatened by small writings. Maybe they do not understand the "magic" of Middle-Earth. Still they have a right to dislike the movie and write about it. It is no blaspheme against Tolkien. I can't count the number of movies I liked that were flamed by the critics. Like Robert Charlebois, a singer where I live, sang : "I don't care much about critics. They are sympathetic failures." (J'me fous pas mal de la critique. Ce sont des ratés sympathiques.)

You make a good point of course, but mine has been only that these people - don't. I might have seemed a bit overzealous there, but I just can't stand this huge dislike of change that is embedded deep in our society. It happens all the time, in every aspect of our lives, until the hate gradually fades into oblivion and the new stuff completely replaces the old. Guess I'm just tired of that backward way of experiencing life. Especially when I see it happening to something that has been a huge part of my childhood and has partly made me the person I am today.

[Arrowstormen]

I also can't wait for this movie. But i heard that there will be 3 parts of the movie? Isn't this true?

Yes. The critics, seeing a small book and a trilogy of movies, and seeing how the movie is really long without constant action, doesn't like it. However, it should be noted that a bunch of things are added, both a lot of lore, The Necromancer, and Battle of the Five Armies (I doubt it will be cut short in the movie by Bilbo getting knocked out like in the book). Add to the fact Fellowship of the Ring was given the same critic, it's kinda meh criticism. Plus, one of them giving it a bad rating said it was better for extended version, and being a guy that would never watch LOTR in none-extended version, I'm happy I don't have to wait for extended version to get the whole thing (at least not missing a huge amount.)

EDIT: A guy over at the IMDb forums has seen a pre-screening of the movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/...&p=1#207894517

Skrew the critics, this movie is going to be amazing.