[jqp]

Going to go a little wonky: Just saw the HFR 48fps version and wow - depending on taste, one will either like it or hate it. I hate it. Basically the movie looks like video. Like the most expensive BBC Video production from the 1980s. If you are the person who likes how new TVs can make movies look like soap operas then with the 48fps it's your birthday. I don't know what Jackson was thinking. No one is going to pay that kind of money to watch Days of Our Hobbits in the long run. Actually I can see why he went for it: CGI creatures and 3D look much, much better in this format. In fact the CGI creatures look better than the live action. Here's why:

I just found out The Hobbit was shot with the RED HD camera. I knew something was not right today when I noticed that the resolution of live action scenes seemed to be lacking. You can see the slight pixelation in certain scenes. And some scenes I kept thinking the resolution in the LOTR films was much better. All these scenes that bugged me were live action. Anything with CGI was incredible. Part of the reason I went to the 48fps was because I was a little unsatisfied with the regular 3D and now I know why.

I know most people won't care, but just like golden ears and gear, I can tell when something was shot on HD almost everytime. The Hobbit fooled me most of the time, but not all of the time. And it's a shame, because I think HD cameras are a notch down in overall quality. I also think unconsciously the end result has made an impact on some of the disappointing reviews of the Hobbit. Not unlike digital vs. analog debate in fact. When you're listening to music and you know something just isn't right. Yeah it's clean and all, but... Speaking of which, even the SOUND had digititis. Not sure what the difference is between the regular 3D audio and the HFR audio but they are not the same. The 48fps audio is flat and just kind of weird.

So it's no wonder films like Avatar look phenomenal in this medium - it's all CGI and you can get all the resolution you want with CGI. The 48fps will be perfect for it. But live action - no way. And now I believe Spielberg and Nolan are 100% right on sticking w/ film. Jackson should have gone with the RAW digital format (not HD) used for Skyfall if anything. THAT looked amazing. HD can be great, but it's just not as good as film.

Another thing about CGI - you can make it look fantastic in about any resolution, even SD. Everything can be super crisp with no jagged lines, perfect vivid colors and lighting, since they can tweak it so much.

I believe that not as many theaters as you would think are capable of showing some of these films in the way that was intended, nor are all the operators trained to do things the right way in the theater. I think it is like CDs - are they recorded correctly, are they mixed correctly, are they pressed correctly, is the CD player of sufficient quality to give a sound up to expectations.

[Rob Babcock]

Just got back from a late Xmas show of The Hobbit and I loved it!   It felt good to visit Middle Earth once more and drop in on some "old friends" returning from the LoTR films.  Overall the picture was okay and the effects were good, although there's too much of it.  I expect the few live actors spent many hours acting against a green screen.  Still it was a lot of fun.  I am eagerly awaiting the next installment.

[Rob Babcock]

Apropos of nothing there was also an armed security guard.  He wasn't a cop, or at least not on duty (he wore the uniform of private security).  It's the first time I've ever seen an armed guard at the local Century Theater and to be honest I was very happy to see him.

[django11]

Apropos of nothing there was also an armed security guard.  He wasn't a cop, or at least not on duty (he wore the uniform of private security).  It's the first time I've ever seen an armed guard at the local Century Theater and to be honest I was very happy to see him.

As a Canadian I have to say that I find that post very, very sad...

[django11]

I will see the Hobbit eventually but was not thrilled by LOTR.  Too much is put into CGI leaving the characters and story flat.  I don't care how long a movie is as long as the story is involving.  In think a better job was done with the HBO series Game of Thrones even though and far and away I preferred it in print.

For the older folks out there I use to love the original Doctor Who series, papier maché decor and all, but find the knew  CGI enhanced series  unwatchable...

[Rob Babcock]

I don't have a problem with any method of effects from paper mache to CGI so long as it's effective and works with the story.  While there were a bit too many effects it actually was a bit more conservative with them than the most bombastic parts of LotR.  To me the story was compelling and the movie was fun.  I've never read The Hobbit, or any other book by Tolkien, so it's "new" to me.  The only minor problems I have is that it shows its pedigree as a kid's book, but of course it was a kid's book so that's not a big issue.

[django11]

I don't have a problem with any method of effects from paper mache to CGI so long as it's effective and works with the story.

I agree with that.  I guess there is also a matter of personal taste.  I thoroughly enjoyed the last Star Trek and didn't find the CGI got in the way.  The last Star Wars were imo terrible, all form and no content...

[wushuliu]

Another thing about CGI - you can make it look fantastic in about any resolution, even SD. Everything can be super crisp with no jagged lines, perfect vivid colors and lighting, since they can tweak it so much.

I believe that not as many theaters as you would think are capable of showing some of these films in the way that was intended, nor are all the operators trained to do things the right way in the theater. I think it is like CDs - are they recorded correctly, are they mixed correctly, are they pressed correctly, is the CD player of sufficient quality to give a sound up to expectations.

All formats are not the same.  The hobbit exhibited poor overall image quality in line with the stars wars prequels apocalypto superman returns and other films shot on certain digital cameras.  Not a deal breaker by any means but obvious to my eyes.

[Rob Babcock]

The Cinemark/Century theater where I see movies is digital but certainly not high end.  There was some noticeable pixalation artifacts but nothing drastic.  It will probably look a little better on Blu-Ray at home when it comes out.  The image quality was acceptable, and the CGI parts looked exceptional.

[kbuzz3]

Some quick comments re a non 3d showing in regular standard movie theater.  I thought the movie was slow as heck.  My criticism of Jackson should is not based on generic thrashing but what appears to me to be a strong desire to do "right by the book" . BUT that desire to be visually accurate and to utilize book dialog hampered or overshadowed his ability to make a well paced movie.  In other words the pacing, plotting, development and other good things that keep movies "moving" forward were sacrificed, unconsciously or not in his homage to visual and "settings."  One of the things that were great about the LOTR movies was the decent balance between fun and accuracy to the books.  Here in the hobbit the fun part was lost.

Now with that said i have some other strong opinions about certain things.

1) Radagast: was not impressed, thought it was unnecessary and his buffoonery was not saved by his quick sword defense at dol guldar.  The lichen growing on his head was wierd and distracting.  On a related note if you are going to save sauraman's mockery of radagast at the white council at least use IMHO some of the best lines in all the trilogy eg.

"Radagast the Brown! [...] Radagast the Bird-tamer! Radagast the Simple! Radagast the Fool! 


Similarly one of the beauties of the books is the fact that are many things at the time of "first reading" that you simply do not know ...like radagast.  The radagst filler here was just err superfluous and stupid

2) Bilbo saves Thorin from the wolves?????  Cheesy. What next he pulls him from a burning car just before it explodes. "Ponch John help me"

3) Thorin v. Azog.   Come on.....calling doctor evil

4) Prelude unnecessary - the best part of the hobbit and the LORD is discovering along with bilbo why the quest for erebor is so important. Spoon feeding it right up front is insulting

5) Dwarfs at bag end and  plate juggling...WAY TOO . Too long

6) Dwarf beards.  They look plastic and fake.

7) Gandalf going spock on thorin and reviving him


And my number one problem.  Im not sure what you call it but in movie criticism there is a term for when characters yell on the screen about what they are doing.  Quick run to XXXX ....Quick find the passports...."they are stone giants" etc.  There was way too much of this here.  When characters yell at the screen what they are going to do its a crutch for bad moviemaking.....

Good Stuff

Cockney Trolls.  Well done balance between harsh and humor. 
Eagles - very realistic looking
Cate -is there a more elegant woman in film right now?
Freeman- excellent overall

I will soon attempt to see it in hfr 3d imax maybe the visuals in this format will make the slow scenes more interesting.

With this all said. I have a strong feeling that jackson will listen to the immense criticism growing on the pace and plotting and will turn it up in the next installment.

[ss397]

I saw it and somewhat liked it. I am a big fan of this sort of film. I agree that they are milking the story by doing 3 long drawn out films. I thought the 3D content was awful and not worth wearing the glasses for. I was quite shocked that the 3D was as forgettable as it was. My overall exit thought is this could have been edited into half the time or less. They have 3 sure fire blockbusters, so they are just milking the Tolkien franchise.