# The Hobbit - HFR



## Wizerzak (Dec 23, 2012)

I'm surprised this topic hasn't been made already but on Friday I went and saw The Hobbit in HFR & 3D and personally thought it was awesome.
I know a lot of people were opposed to HFR (which, if you don't know by now, means it is shown in 48fps rather than standard 24) as it caused a 'soap-opera' effect and was 'too realistic'. I can see what they were saying and this must have been hard to overcome in the making as it's a very fantasy-heavy film (obviously).

The first few minutes for me I felt as if everything was being show in fast forward and it did seem a bit too realistic, however soon this effect wore off and when it did boy did the film look great. Everything seemed EXTREMELY smooth and Peter Jackson managed to include some sweeping shots that would have been impossible in 24fps. The main difference though was in the CGI - viewing this in 48fps the CGI has now finally reached a point in film where it looks INCREDIBLE. The level of detail and realism in movements makes it impossible to notice that what you're watching isn't actually there.

If you haven't seen the film yet it's a must-see, especially if you loved the book (and even if not it's worth watching simply for the incredible 48fps). It sticks very closely with the book however there are some parts added in that I assume are to help with the third film which I've heard is going to be mainly made up to fit between The Hobbit and tLotR.


----------



## AlanJohn (Dec 23, 2012)

I haven't seen the film myself but I would love to point out a fact here: if all movies were shown in 48fps, and then a movie is released in 24fps, nobody would have liked it.
Also I'm getting reports that golum looks amazing in The Hobbit.


----------



## DragorianSword (Dec 23, 2012)

AlanJohn said:


> Also I'm getting reports that golum looks amazing in The Hobbit.


Yes indeed he does.

Personally I don't understand why some people complain about the 48 fps (even before they heve seen it!!).
It all looks amazingly fluid, although I noticed that you can clearly see what is CGI and what not again probably because the rest looks so realistic. I don't know anymore where exactly it was I saw it, but it was when a building exploded or something and the bricks came flying at you and some other minor moments too that you could really see the CGI.
They probably need to work on making the CGI even more realistic so it doesn't stand out like it does in 24fps modern day movies.

Also in the first part of the movie some action-heavy scenes looked like they where in fast forward, but that's just your eyes that have to get used to the 48fps. In the 2nd half I didn't experience this anymore.


----------



## Another World (Dec 23, 2012)

HFR looks just like those tv's by sharp with the high herts. the only way to describe it is that its like looking out a window. the higher frames add a fluidity to movements that bring it closer to what we naturally see. the end result is that everything looks "real". i thought it worked very well for this movie but i'm so sure about how it can be used in the future.

as for this movie itself, i found it rather slow. the first few hours were equal to a made-for-tv-movie. the CGI looked really bad in some parts (when the 3 story walkway falls, for example). the movie really picks up in the end and it leaves you wanting to find out what happens next. i just don't think i'll need to re-experience the first chapter anytime soon.

i can't vote in the poll because i don't think it was great, i didn't hate it, and i did see it in HFR. lol.  i think HFR worked really well for this movie and it made it more enjoyable. i would vote somewhere between liking it and hating it. 

-another world


----------



## Issac (Dec 23, 2012)

I liked it. It had that soap opera effect,.. but together with all that fantasy it was fitting


----------



## Gahars (Dec 23, 2012)

There's a now infamous review of Gone With the Wind, a film that's now regarded as a classic. The critic thoroughly trashed the film because of the newfangled technicolor; he complained that the swirl of colors hurt his eyes, and predicted that surely this new fad of "color films" would never catch on.

We all know how that went.

There's no saying for sure whether or not this new framerate will be a legitimate improvement for filmmakers, but it'll take time. We should give directors and studios a chance to experiment and iron out the flaws before denouncing it outright as some critics have.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 24, 2012)

I do want to see the movie but I don't want to see it in 3D. Not that I have an opposition towards 3D, I've seen my share of it, but I'd rather enjoy the movie for what it is. LOTR stands well on its own as a movie, it's not an "experience" piece like Avatar or Tron, where it's basically fancy wallpaper. Now I enjoyed seeing them both in 3D but I probably wouldn't like them that much without the 3D.

Also I've noticed recently that I've been getting more motion sickness or whatever it is. Like if I see a really shaky camera or something dizzying I feel a bit sick. It only started happening recently. I'd rather not see The Hobbit and get sick or a pounding headache.

For some really good discussion on it, watch the latest Half in the Bag. I CBA to find the exact timecode where they talk about the 3D but they devote a good part of the review to it. Really good explanation of how it affects the movie and how it looks.


----------



## SifJar (Dec 24, 2012)

I noticed no discernible difference between HFR and other non HFR movies. I also feel that 3D is a cheap, unnecessary gimmick. I'd much rather just watch a 2D movie than sit with glasses on the whole time. Maybe if they get glasses free 3D working on a cinematic scale and rolled out worldwide I'd enjoy it, but till then, I feel it adds little if anything to most films.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Dec 24, 2012)

SifJar said:


> I noticed no discernible difference between HFR and other non HFR movies. I also feel that 3D is a cheap, unnecessary gimmick. I'd much rather just watch a 2D movie than sit with glasses on the whole time. Maybe if they get glasses free 3D working on a cinematic scale and rolled out worldwide I'd enjoy it, but till then, I feel it adds little if anything to most films.


 
Personally I never found the glasses a nuisance. Yet again I do wear regular eyeglasses during my waking hours so I'm used to it but even with another set of glasses on I really don't mind.

EDIT: Oh and credit to Gahars for this link if anyone wants to see the movie in 48fps without the 3D. They should work for this movie.


----------



## BORTZ (Dec 24, 2012)

I dont like it. It feels buttery and soap operay and home movie...y. I think in the future when we make a larger jump with better technology it might be implemented well, but I dont like it yet.


----------



## hiroakihsu (Dec 24, 2012)

An anecdote from my own viewing in HFR 3D : 5 minutes into the film and I already hear people mumbling in the theater about how they're feeling sick.

As for me, I didn't like it...I also felt the "fast-forward" effect (especially in scenes involving fast motion) throughout the film and found that HFR seemed to have made the film too dark (even darker than some of the 24fps 3D films I've seen before)...It made me so dizzy at times I had to take my glasses off. Nevertheless, I felt that HFR did enhance the 3D, and the luscious details looked really gorgeous in HFR.

I guess it's just that the technology has to improve before everyone eventually adopts it.


----------



## andy26129 (Dec 24, 2012)

Anyone tried Dolby Atmos yet?


----------



## Wizerzak (Dec 24, 2012)

SifJar said:


> I noticed no discernible difference between HFR and other non HFR movies. I also feel that 3D is a cheap, unnecessary gimmick. I'd much rather just watch a 2D movie than sit with glasses on the whole time. Maybe if they get glasses free 3D working on a cinematic scale and rolled out worldwide I'd enjoy it, but till then, I feel it adds little if anything to most films.


Personally I feel the opposite about 3D. I think it has vastly improved over the last few years from what used to be a cheap gimmick where the occasional spike would stick of of the screen or have a bullet fired towards you. It is now (and has been for the past 1-2 years I think, the first film I remember doing this was Coraline) an effective technique that helps you feel more immersed in the film. It is only subtle in most scenes but I find that the sense of depth it adds to the film allows for a much greater movie experience. In fact, I've grow to love 3D so much that whenever I return from the cinema or stop playing my 3DS I stare disappointedly at my TV as there is simply not the same level of immersion.


----------



## Deleted member 473940 (Dec 24, 2012)

Not gonna say its a bad movie, but in my opinion it lacked "climax".
Too long and too steady.

I have watched Lord of the Rings and coped with that, but I got extremely bored with this.


----------

