FA+
Shop
Dec 26: Saw The Hobbit in Pointless 48 FPS 3D
13 years ago
General
|█████|BODY
| █████|MIND
| █████|SOUL
█ Spoiler: Nothing was accomplished in the hobbit, but I expected that out of the unexpected journey.
█ I'm sure some of you have read the reviews, praises, horror stories about the new 48 FPS and 3D mix bag that came out as a result of The Hobbit, and here's my personal experience of it all.
Before the movie started we were given a preview of the next Star Trek film, like... 10-15 minutes of it. Nothing remarkable from it, the 3D was okay and most likely filmed in 24 FPS, but don't quote me on that; I'm just relaying you what my eyes told me. Though why do I bring this up even? Well I think it served as an excellent contrast if my eyes indeed were telling me the truth. I was 'immersed' in the Star Trek preview. Nothing popped out at me that really took away from the experience, but honestly I don't believe it really enhanced my experience at all either.
Something I should mention is that I'm susceptible to motion sickness, mostly in the forms of FPS games, so I had some concerns that I would get it from The Hobbit since that was some of the problems experienced by other people from what I read. This did not come to pass, I did not get motion sickness. I probably didn't get motion sickness because my eyes never really believed what it was seeing was real.
There was talk about how prosthetic looked more fake, or the costumes seemed more fake, but I think that's just a bit of false outrage and people simply looking too hard. I only consciously looked to see how fake they were at only one point in the movie (staring at a dwarf nose), and my conclusion it looked fine; and the only thing that was really out of place was how human the dwarf king looked when virtually all the other dwarves looked... well like dwarves. Though that's more of a universal appeal drive as opposed to something about the technical stuff with the movie itself.
First off, 48 FPS is in my opinion detrimental to the movie experience as is. I suspect this won't be an issue when everything is in 48 FPS, because my eyes did adjust after about 30 minutes. Course people will say if your eyes adjusted then clearly it's fine, but I'm here to tell you that it's not. For the first part of the movie I was keenly and sharply aware that there was more frames than usual. Panning shots turned into slideshows, in where I could see every other frame. Again my eyes adjusted but during this time I was not immersed into the film experience, this wasn't a problem with the Star Trek 3D preview just right before mind you. My eyes were noticeably dry and tried during the adjustment period as well. Though it was worth it right? That with the full 48 FPS that the results were awesomesauce! Honestly, I didn't notice because I was immersed in the movie after. The only way you'd notice that you were watching twice as many frames is if you're not watching the movie, you're watching the frames.
So what of the 3D? It was... okay I guess? Again, this was something else that I just stopped noticing after my eyes adjusted. The only time I knew it was there was whenever I wanted to sag my head to the left or right a bit and then I'd get the double imaging, taking me out of the movie experience. I didn't feel immersed in the world of Middle Earth because of 48 FPS or 3D, those things were actually preventing me from settling into the movie 100%. The stone giants fighting each other I personally think is the weakest part of the movie on a whole because the whole part is screaming out "Fake" to me, and required a suspension of disbelief higher than I was willing; both in the CGI and people getting smashed between a mountain, and... well another mountain.
In the end what's the point? People were immersed just fine with older movies. I think the biggest thing to movie immersion was surround sound, when it comes to visuals the human eye is easily fooled. 24 FPS is what it takes to fool our eyes, adding more frames doesn't magically fool our eyes even more. More over our eyes are only designed to focus on a single thing at any given time. It's why even small screens with a proper movie that people will completely forget about the edges of the screen. Glue a person's eye to near the middle and the box that s the screen simply ceases to exist. I mean when you're reading this were you aware what is to the left and right of your monitor? Likely not. Though now that I've written it in, you're probably suddenly aware of it. It's that breaking of the illusion that is what needs to be avoided when presenting a movie, and 3D keeps breaking you out of it the moment you see a badly put together 3D scene or if you tilt your head. The 48 FPS, the adjustment time just kills that too. I imagine if the previews were 48 FPS you can spend that time for your eyes to adjust and the movie would be fine then; still what's the point? In the end you won't notice it. At the end of the movie I forgot that it was 48 FPS, I forgot it was 3D; but I honestly felt less immersed than older movies.
Honestly I'm still waiting for VR technology to fully come to fruition in where you put on a visor that will cover your whole field of view, and that if you turn your head the world will change with your movements. So that when you're watching a movie that when you look at something off to the side you'll see what's off to the side. How a narrative would be presented to people would be something that would have to be explored and would be an entirely new frontier to explore when it comes to entertainment.
█ I suppose I should mention Smaug, with me being a dragon fan and all. I didn't really expect to see him, and really you don't. Personally I don't hold any expectations for dragons in theaters as most of them I label as 'wyverns' to start with, and generally designed in a way that strips them of any potential character.
█ As for what I thought of The Hobbit on a whole, I can appreciate it for what it seems to be: A prequel that is to be watched before the original trilogy. That it is to be a series that adds to what LotR established (unlike certain movies riding the coat-tails of older trilogies) I never read any of the books, but I'm a medieval fantasy fan in general, and LotR was one of the few movies that got it 'right.' When I say right, I mean how it wasn't riddled with political correctness which ultimately damaged the narrative.
There were too many characters overall, I can't remember any of the names of the dwarves; though to be perfectly fair after 3 movies I still had a hard time remember who was Merry and who was Pippen; and mainly because they were introduced as a pair. You're just going to run into problems when you introduce a dozen characters at the exact same time and not enough time to develop them. This isn't necessarily a bad thing since this is a story about Bilbo Baggins, and when I think about it that way, it's a good story about him trying to prove himself to himself and everyone else.
| █████|MIND
| █████|SOUL
█ Spoiler: Nothing was accomplished in the hobbit, but I expected that out of the unexpected journey.
█ I'm sure some of you have read the reviews, praises, horror stories about the new 48 FPS and 3D mix bag that came out as a result of The Hobbit, and here's my personal experience of it all.
Before the movie started we were given a preview of the next Star Trek film, like... 10-15 minutes of it. Nothing remarkable from it, the 3D was okay and most likely filmed in 24 FPS, but don't quote me on that; I'm just relaying you what my eyes told me. Though why do I bring this up even? Well I think it served as an excellent contrast if my eyes indeed were telling me the truth. I was 'immersed' in the Star Trek preview. Nothing popped out at me that really took away from the experience, but honestly I don't believe it really enhanced my experience at all either.
Something I should mention is that I'm susceptible to motion sickness, mostly in the forms of FPS games, so I had some concerns that I would get it from The Hobbit since that was some of the problems experienced by other people from what I read. This did not come to pass, I did not get motion sickness. I probably didn't get motion sickness because my eyes never really believed what it was seeing was real.
There was talk about how prosthetic looked more fake, or the costumes seemed more fake, but I think that's just a bit of false outrage and people simply looking too hard. I only consciously looked to see how fake they were at only one point in the movie (staring at a dwarf nose), and my conclusion it looked fine; and the only thing that was really out of place was how human the dwarf king looked when virtually all the other dwarves looked... well like dwarves. Though that's more of a universal appeal drive as opposed to something about the technical stuff with the movie itself.
First off, 48 FPS is in my opinion detrimental to the movie experience as is. I suspect this won't be an issue when everything is in 48 FPS, because my eyes did adjust after about 30 minutes. Course people will say if your eyes adjusted then clearly it's fine, but I'm here to tell you that it's not. For the first part of the movie I was keenly and sharply aware that there was more frames than usual. Panning shots turned into slideshows, in where I could see every other frame. Again my eyes adjusted but during this time I was not immersed into the film experience, this wasn't a problem with the Star Trek 3D preview just right before mind you. My eyes were noticeably dry and tried during the adjustment period as well. Though it was worth it right? That with the full 48 FPS that the results were awesomesauce! Honestly, I didn't notice because I was immersed in the movie after. The only way you'd notice that you were watching twice as many frames is if you're not watching the movie, you're watching the frames.
So what of the 3D? It was... okay I guess? Again, this was something else that I just stopped noticing after my eyes adjusted. The only time I knew it was there was whenever I wanted to sag my head to the left or right a bit and then I'd get the double imaging, taking me out of the movie experience. I didn't feel immersed in the world of Middle Earth because of 48 FPS or 3D, those things were actually preventing me from settling into the movie 100%. The stone giants fighting each other I personally think is the weakest part of the movie on a whole because the whole part is screaming out "Fake" to me, and required a suspension of disbelief higher than I was willing; both in the CGI and people getting smashed between a mountain, and... well another mountain.
In the end what's the point? People were immersed just fine with older movies. I think the biggest thing to movie immersion was surround sound, when it comes to visuals the human eye is easily fooled. 24 FPS is what it takes to fool our eyes, adding more frames doesn't magically fool our eyes even more. More over our eyes are only designed to focus on a single thing at any given time. It's why even small screens with a proper movie that people will completely forget about the edges of the screen. Glue a person's eye to near the middle and the box that s the screen simply ceases to exist. I mean when you're reading this were you aware what is to the left and right of your monitor? Likely not. Though now that I've written it in, you're probably suddenly aware of it. It's that breaking of the illusion that is what needs to be avoided when presenting a movie, and 3D keeps breaking you out of it the moment you see a badly put together 3D scene or if you tilt your head. The 48 FPS, the adjustment time just kills that too. I imagine if the previews were 48 FPS you can spend that time for your eyes to adjust and the movie would be fine then; still what's the point? In the end you won't notice it. At the end of the movie I forgot that it was 48 FPS, I forgot it was 3D; but I honestly felt less immersed than older movies.
Honestly I'm still waiting for VR technology to fully come to fruition in where you put on a visor that will cover your whole field of view, and that if you turn your head the world will change with your movements. So that when you're watching a movie that when you look at something off to the side you'll see what's off to the side. How a narrative would be presented to people would be something that would have to be explored and would be an entirely new frontier to explore when it comes to entertainment.
█ I suppose I should mention Smaug, with me being a dragon fan and all. I didn't really expect to see him, and really you don't. Personally I don't hold any expectations for dragons in theaters as most of them I label as 'wyverns' to start with, and generally designed in a way that strips them of any potential character.
█ As for what I thought of The Hobbit on a whole, I can appreciate it for what it seems to be: A prequel that is to be watched before the original trilogy. That it is to be a series that adds to what LotR established (unlike certain movies riding the coat-tails of older trilogies) I never read any of the books, but I'm a medieval fantasy fan in general, and LotR was one of the few movies that got it 'right.' When I say right, I mean how it wasn't riddled with political correctness which ultimately damaged the narrative.
There were too many characters overall, I can't remember any of the names of the dwarves; though to be perfectly fair after 3 movies I still had a hard time remember who was Merry and who was Pippen; and mainly because they were introduced as a pair. You're just going to run into problems when you introduce a dozen characters at the exact same time and not enough time to develop them. This isn't necessarily a bad thing since this is a story about Bilbo Baggins, and when I think about it that way, it's a good story about him trying to prove himself to himself and everyone else.
interesting, how is your arm coming?
so if i go and see it, dont go to 3D
What I was alluding to, was that they should have just stuck to IMAX and not done 48fps or 3D. Try reading my entire comment in the context of the discussion next time before hitting the reply button. From what I said and why, you can tell I have seen the film in IMAX/3D (i wouldn't be commenting on it in that way otherwise).
Though either way 3D usually results in me developing a slight headache.
yay problem solved.
Facetiousness aside other than that i can see where your coming from even if i don't necessarily empathize.
There was ultimately too many interactions with too many people. I still can remember some of the personalities of the group, but none of them really stick out too much because there's little chemistry between the characters. I found the cave trolls and the goblin king far more interesting and they were giving relatively very little on time screen, just because they were allowed to have the focus more more than 60 seconds.
I'm sure that like the LotR they'll be able to grow as characters in the next two movies, but essentially we have something like ten Merry and Pippens after the end of the first movie.
Have not seen it yet, but my problem with the start of films (since I see them infrequently) is that pan shots or quick movements become horrific blurs or jumpy cuts. I am hoping 48Hz fixes that, since that's what it's aiming to fix. But at least you gave a more reasonable answer than "It's too sharp. The picture is too good" (which IS a complaint I've heard).
Really, it might just be a result of 'gamer' eye. That people who play FPS 60 FPS all the time their eyes will adjust immediately. For everyone else it takes time for the eyes to adjust up. Though at the same time, I suspect that's also why one of the common criticisms of The Hobbit looking a lot like a video game, because video games do not typically have motion blur.
I find it strange that you're noticing frames. If it looks like a slideshow, it would imply you're more like a pigeon (very fast visual refresh rate).
On a side note, different systems for stereoscopic video introduce their own visual artifacts, RealD is the common format here with their circular polarised lenses.
In any case, I am looking forward to the next installment.
And what's wrong with wyverns!
I agree, though, that dragons in movies just tend to be thrown in as monsters or for the sake of making things "epic". It's very rare that some sort of actual character is captured.
Cant wait for the next one.
I'm still quite wary of it, but I guess I can wait and see for myself.
Since you haven't read the book, let me clue you in on the differences: The original story is enough for just two movies. To make it a trilogy, what Peter Jackson has done is taken supplementary information from the appendixes of the LotR books (all relevant to the story of The Hobbit) and added it in where appropriate. The 'necromancer,' though seemingly irrelevant here, is actually of great significance in the lore over all and is the true explanation for why Gandalf kept disappearing in the book. About the only thing that wasn't cannon in the movie was the albino Orc warlord. He DID exist in the lore and he WAS the leader of the orc tribes in Moria when Thorin liberated it, but he wasn't in The Hobbit at all. He was put in to give Thorin some character conflict before we got to Smaug.
My opinion on this? I think it's a fine idea in order to introduce some of the wider Tolkien lore to audiences, and Peter Jackson has executed it with his usual brilliance. Honestly, the only thing that disappointed me about the movie was Andy Serkis' reading of the 'hates it forever' line.
For the most part, before adjusting, everything looked like it was moving... too fast? there wasn't the normal lag that you get in other movies... people walking around looked turbo-charged heheh.
As for 3d, I found that the least useful movie to have 3d recently was wreck-it ralph. I took the glasses off halfway through for a moment, and noticed practically no difference. Though, it made a difference sortof in the depthy scenes.
oh and the dragon in war of the north? hes not a hero he is just a less immediate threat, one that'd gladly kill them all if it thought that'd get it a bigger pile of gold to chill on.
That being said, the story contained in the film was good.
The best example I can give of this was when the orcs riding wargs were chasing the group across the rocky plains. It looked so much like a cutscene from a video game in which the entire scene was rendered.
However, there were other moments in which the CGI characters seemed to look even better. I would use Gollum or the Goblin King for this example. I thought they looked great, so somehow the technology seems... inconsistent.
It kind of worries me a bit, because in "The Desolation of Smaug", I imagine that Smaug will have a tremendous amount of screentime. I honestly can't wait, and the last scene in An Unexpected Journey is going to make that wait a torture!
As for the names.. I can only remmeber because the old 78 film... or was it 77...
Balin, dwalin, fealy, kealy,dory, nory, ory, owin, glowin, halem, himbofa and bombo... Spelling is likely to be way off..
http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-t.....ected-journey/
I trust them enough that I won't be subjecting myself to that horror. 3D usually gives me a headache anyways.
Personally, I've been seeing way too much good effects ruined by being horribly blurred when anything moves. The whole time I was watching the big fight at the end of Avengers, for instance, I was wishing for higher framerate so I could get a clear view of the huge flying alien thing. Instead, I get a vague blur. I hope 48 FPS catches on.
If you don't like 3D, that's fine, but your review would've been better had you contrasted a different style of 3D and not just had rather pointless complaints about it that don't differ from the complaints about 3D technology in general.