2012 is going to be EPIC

[illy dilly]

illy - that was our thinking too, masking our dorkiness as being something to do "in the name of science" and all that. I'll report back in the thread.

Why does this sound familiar, Illy?





[img]

Quit laughing, Savannah.

I CAN'T quit laughing.

O Hey-zeus! I can't stop laughing either!
Anything worth doing, is worth doing "in the name of science"!

Besides, the science makes some sense. 24fps is the standard movie frame rate and considered the minimum for the illusion of lifelike motion. 24fps 3D is only 12fps per eye. While 12fps worked for the old classic Disney and Warner Bros animation because they were cartoons, it's not quite enough for live action feature film and results in eyestrain (some more than others).

I didn't understand the Science behind it, but that makes too much sense!
And I couldn't agree! So far, the best 3D movies I've seen, that didn't cause eye strain were animated or highly CGI. The first movie I saw in the 'new' 3D (Real D) was Caroline, and it was amazing and epic. I think it still might be one of the best I've seen. Since, then I've seen 'real' or movies with actual people in 3D and most of them cause terrible eye strain. Saw Silent Hill II just before Halloween, and it was hard to enjoy because of the eye strain. Avatar was done pretty well, but it was also very very CGI, and they kept the 3D to the really CGI parts.

but I think that with the LOTR trilogy Jackson proved that he truly loves the material and really wants to see it done as beautifully as possible.

Again, Completely Agree!!!! I have a feeling that The Hobbit, will be ground breaking! Or rather, set the new standard, for 3D movies.

[BBadger]

There's an interesting article on why 3D is so hard on the brain and eyes compared to 2D and the challenges of doing it right. The movies really need to be made with 3D in mind, not just some feature because it doesn't cost that much to tack it on.

In effect the problem is that while a cut from one scene to another in 2D is changes the frame of reference in the screen-space, the spatial perspective change in 3D causes a disorienting feeling because now it's in the viewer's space. That can be the intended effect, especially in long continuous scenes that take you right into the action. However, when comes to something like fast cuts between a wider view to a close-up view of a person's face, the change can be jarring and disorienting.

[trilobyte]

Excellent article, thanks for the link. Man, if 3D could end up ending the trend of lots of quick cuts and unnecessarily shaky camera shots in tv and movies, that would be awesome. I don't mind when it's done right, but lately it seems to be used and abused everywhere. The last part of the article was interesting (what some venues are doing to accommodate 3D viewing). It reminds me of when I lived in LA and went to film openings at Disney's El Capitan theatre - they'd deck the venue out with amazing set pieces and props from the movie, even have someone playing a massive pipe organ on the stage before the show. I'd like to check out a 3D concert in some kind of club/group atmosphere or see 3D movies in a purpose-built space.

[junglesmacks]

I would just give anything to have Tron in 3D IMAX come back for another round of showings. Crappy movie.. awesome FX.

[theCryptofishist]

Critic from the local paper says it was awfully padded...

[trilobyte]

JS - that will probably happen. They just got all the back end lined up for the next installment (writer/director/key talent on board, etc), I wouldn't be surprised if they do something like that in the run-up to the third film's release.

Crypto - It didn't feel padded to me. As a longtime fan of the books (the whole series, really), I was really happy to see that they went into some detail and backstory. Some critics panned Fellowship Of The Ring in the same way when it came out, but I think the film stood well on its own and made for a much bigger payoff in the films that followed. The story does vary a bit more from canon here, but what they've added actually brings in stuff from other books and appendices, pieces of the story that add a whole lot more depth to Tolkien's primary book.

And update to all….

Last night's IMAX 3D showing was awesome but slightly disappointing. The theater dove right into the midnight showing sans any kind of preview, and we were robbed of the 9 minutes of Star Trek Into Darkness that people are getting on weekend IMAX showings. Then partway through the film, the projector went down. Boo! It took them a few minutes to find a bulb or do whatever they needed, and we were off and running again. Our seats were closer than we'd have liked but it was still enjoyable. The 3D was a lot like other 3D films on IMAX - a little hard to watch at the most action-packed moments.

Today we saw the film on regular sized screen, high frame rate (HFR) 3D. HOLY FUCKING SHIT! Massive improvement in both image quality and fluidity of motion. I can see where some detractors would cry that it looks like video, but it's not because it's shitty daytime tv lighting and glare, but the increase in detail is just ridiculous. The individual frames are only half as blurry as regular 24fps, so the picture looks like it's much higher resolution. The 3D effects seemed as if they were redone on a different system and it was far more immersive, now I can see what Jackson meant by it being easier to take in more detail. My gf and I both really dug it and felt that there was very little eyestrain (it's usually a problem for her).

Something must also be said for the sound system. One of the things we like about the big IMAX screen is the 44 speaker surround system, it just rocks. And it didn't disappoint. The HFR 3D showing, however, had Dolby's new ATMOS system (successor to THX). For our theatre that was the system's debut, I'm not sure if others have experienced it on other films. It totally blew away the IMAX system, and was easily the best and most immersive sound I've ever heard in a film.

The HFR 3D experience was so good that on our way out of the theatre, we stopped at the customer service desk and traded in our Sunday tickets (which would have been normal screen 3D) for a second showing on HFR 3D. Tomorrow we'll experience the normal 2D version, I'm curious to see how that compares.

[Savannah]

Critic from the local paper says it was awfully padded...

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

[theCryptofishist]

Critic from the local paper says it was awfully padded...

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

Ah, yes, The Hobbit: Burningman Edition

[Savannah]

Critic from the local paper says it was awfully padded...

'The Hobbit' To Feature 53-Minute-Long Scene Of Bilbo Baggins Trying To Figure Out What To Pack

Ah, yes, The Hobbit: Burningman Edition

Complete with scenes of Bilbo visiting two Costcos in 6 hours. For ice cream.

[trilobyte]

Hilariously, the film actually spends no time at all showing Bilbo packing.

Even after now having done four viewings, I don't think the movie's padded or drags along at all. It takes them a while to get going and leave Bilbo's house in Hobbiton, but we're getting introduced to 14 characters and learning about why anyone cares about what they're doing.

By comparison (to Fellowship of the Ring), I think the pacing is much better with this (over-simplifying, half of Fellowship feels like it's just people talking about wanting to throw a ring in a volcano). It was also nice to see things explained a lot better than it is in book form (why there's animosity between dwarves & elves, the quest aspect of the trip to the lonely mountain, etc). The Hobbit's a kid's book and doesn't get too deep, and Tolkien buries a lot of the backstory and exposition in the Lord Of The Rings appendices or in The Silmarillion (a collection of his stuff published posthumously).

And finishing up on the screening reports, we saw the film on Saturday on a regular 2D screen (no glasses) and then for a second time in HFR 3D on Sunday. The takeaway from all this is that Jackson did a great job with each format. A lot of times it seems like a director sets out to make a film for a certain format, and then the other ways it's released is just done as a quick port. When a director makes a film for 3D, it doesn't translate well on 2D. Or when it's made for 2D the 3D stuff feels like it was slapped on after the fact. Or when a director makes a movie for IMAX (which has a nearly square aspect ratio) the framing of the shots looks like crap on the regular widescreen. Each version of The Hobbit has been made for that format. The IMAX version looked like it was shot and framed specifically for that screen, and the sound was optimized to sound great on IMAX's great big sound system. The regular widescreen formats had beautifully composed shots in every scene. 2D looked great and the style matched what was established in the LotR trilogy (nothing struck me as 'coming right at ya' 3D gimmick shots that had been flattened). 3D was incredible and immersive. With such a highly detailed film, some of the action sequences were a little jittery on regular 3D, but that's one of the potential pitfalls of regular 3D. HFR 3D was glorious and incredibly detailed. Some compare it to video or watching a videogame cutscene and I can certainly understand the comparison. I've never seen anything so smooth and so sharp on the big screen. Even with so much more detail to see, there was no real eyestrain to speak of for either myself or my girlfriend. And then the added bonus of the Dolby Atmos sound on the HFR 3D was just icing on the cake. For both my girlfriend and I, HFR 3D was the clear winner (hell, we may go back to see it again at some point over the holidays).

[illy dilly]

Hilariously, the film actually spends no time at all showing Bilbo packing.

Even after now having done four viewings, I don't think the movie's padded or drags along at all. It takes them a while to get going and leave Bilbo's house in Hobbiton, but we're getting introduced to 14 characters and learning about why anyone cares about what they're doing.

By comparison (to Fellowship of the Ring), I think the pacing is much better with this (over-simplifying, half of Fellowship feels like it's just people talking about wanting to throw a ring in a volcano). It was also nice to see things explained a lot better than it is in book form (why there's animosity between dwarves & elves, the quest aspect of the trip to the lonely mountain, etc). The Hobbit's a kid's book and doesn't get too deep, and Tolkien buries a lot of the backstory and exposition in the Lord Of The Rings appendices or in The Silmarillion (a collection of his stuff published posthumously).

And finishing up on the screening reports, we saw the film on Saturday on a regular 2D screen (no glasses) and then for a second time in HFR 3D on Sunday. The takeaway from all this is that Jackson did a great job with each format. A lot of times it seems like a director sets out to make a film for a certain format, and then the other ways it's released is just done as a quick port. When a director makes a film for 3D, it doesn't translate well on 2D. Or when it's made for 2D the 3D stuff feels like it was slapped on after the fact. Or when a director makes a movie for IMAX (which has a nearly square aspect ratio) the framing of the shots looks like crap on the regular widescreen. Each version of The Hobbit has been made for that format. The IMAX version looked like it was shot and framed specifically for that screen, and the sound was optimized to sound great on IMAX's great big sound system. The regular widescreen formats had beautifully composed shots in every scene. 2D looked great and the style matched what was established in the LotR trilogy (nothing struck me as 'coming right at ya' 3D gimmick shots that had been flattened). 3D was incredible and immersive. With such a highly detailed film, some of the action sequences were a little jittery on regular 3D, but that's one of the potential pitfalls of regular 3D. HFR 3D was glorious and incredibly detailed. Some compare it to video or watching a videogame cutscene and I can certainly understand the comparison. I've never seen anything so smooth and so sharp on the big screen. Even with so much more detail to see, there was no real eyestrain to speak of for either myself or my girlfriend. And then the added bonus of the Dolby Atmos sound on the HFR 3D was just icing on the cake. For both my girlfriend and I, HFR 3D was the clear winner (hell, we may go back to see it again at some point over the holidays).

FUCK YEAH!!!!!!! I'M SUPER EXCITED!!!!
Great recap/critic Trilo!

Sounds like HFR 3D is the way to go!
We're trying to go Wednesday night.
We're hoping to be able to go to 'the giant screen' which is an extra huge screen its also one of Regal Groups "RPX" theaters. My understanding is that each RPX Theater is engineered and tweaked for the perfect experience.

[lucky420]

I've never seen any LOR or even read The Hobbit....

Should I be proud or ashamed?

[BAS]

Yes.

[theCryptofishist]

BAS covers it nicely.

[illy dilly]

I've never seen any LOR or even read The Hobbit....

Should I be proud or ashamed?

Doesn't matter------- cause you're not my friend anymore.




But, really?
Never on a snowy cold day you haven't sat down with a nice plate of cookies, bit'a whiskey hot cocoa and watched LOTR?

[pink]

Thanks for the reviews Trilo, I'm going to ditch the thought of IMAX and go for the HFR.

[wh..sh]

I've never seen any LOR or even read The Hobbit....

Should I be proud or ashamed?

Doesn't matter------- cause you're not my friend anymore.

**Gives illy a bear hug**

[wh..sh]

I watched it in HFR 3D and it was a new experience. The video like experience and the details were amazing!!
The movie could have been cut short by half hour and I wouldn't have complained.
I was curious how they would split the movie. Making 100 something pages into 3 hour movie was pretty impressive!!!

Although, I wasn't quite into Martin Freeman as Bilbo *sad face*

[illy dilly]

WHAT?!?!?!?!
They split the Hobbit into a trilogy?
This is news to me!!!!!!!!!!!
How the F-word did they do that?
*pondering*

I guess it could be done.... (how to discuss with out ruining it for people that haven't read the book?)
I suppose the first movie could take you right up to where they escape from the Goblins,
The second movie could the the forest and the elves, and getting to the Lonely Mountain,
The last everything that happens after they get to the Lonely Mountain.

We're going to see it Wednesday night, HFR 3D on a "Giant Screen".
As a teenager, we went to see all 3 of the Trilogy at this theater with the Giant Screen. Sort of a tradition.

**Gives illy a bear hug**

Thanks wh..sh!

[trilobyte]

Yeah, they absolutely split it into a trilogy, and will still likely leave a lot of good bits on the cutting room floor. Jackson, along with Fran and Philippa (his writing partners for the LOTR trilogy) and Guillermo Del Toro (co-writer, and originally due to direct the films) sat down with the treasure trove of Tolkien's source material, and went to work at crafting something that fit with LOTR.

If all you've ever done is watch the 70’s cartoons or read the kid's book, it may come as a shock. But Tolkien has a fuckton of story in there. It's squirreled away in the appendices (which make one full book of the seven book set that is the way Tolkien wrote Lord Of The Rings) or the Silmarillion collection (released after his death). Tolkien was a history professor and meticulous researcher, and it reflects in the work. Though I'm an admitted fanboy, I have to admit his work is a challenging read. It's tough to piece together, and for me gets a bit tedious to keep trying to jump back and forth between the books to piece it all together and make all the connections. We'll see how the other two films in the series play put, but so far I'm over the moon at how they've tackled it. I was curious how they'd split it too, but watching the film it seemed like a good place to end that chapter.

I'm curious to hear what you thought of it, illy... What'd you think?

[mgb327]

Well Trilo, I went to see it yesterday in HFR 3D. Awesome, but I found it slightly "draggy" at parts, but I think that is the writing style, not the directors' issue. I am blind in one eye, have been since 1968, but I can still see a "good image quality" in the 3D movies. Not sure how that works, but I think after over 40 years of being one-eyed, my brain has adapted. If you toss an orange to me, there is a reasonably good chance I will catch it...but only in the last 10-15 years. The movie was great, but the trailer for the new Star Trek was....dare I say...better? My GF ducked and screamed when she was barely missed by the thrown flaming pinecone...over all, two opposable thumbs up.

[illy dilly]

I'm curious to hear what you thought of it, illy... What'd you think?

I hate to admit this...
But with the holidays being what they are, they blizzard last Wednesday and Thursday (the 19th and 20th), I still have not seen the Movie
It is still playing on the Giant Screen tonight, tomorrow, and Friday. I'm not sure if it is still playing on the Giant Screen on Saturday... Though, it is still playing in HFR 3D, I may have to settle for a normal size screen.

It's squirreled away in the appendices (which make one full book of the seven book set that is the way Tolkien wrote Lord Of The Rings) or the Silmarillion collection (released after his death).

I've tried to read the Silmarllion a couple of times. Each time I get to shortly after the explanation of where Dwarfs come from, then loose interest. At times, it reads like the bible, and can be very dull and boring.
I'm thinking that maybe, I ought to just skip to halfway through the book and see where I can pick up.

[illy dilly]

I was just informed that I will be seeing the movie in 3 hours!!!!

[Eric]

I've tried to read the Silmarllion a couple of times. Each time I get to shortly after the explanation of where Dwarfs come from, then loose interest. At times, it reads like the bible, and can be very dull and boring.
I'm thinking that maybe, I ought to just skip to halfway through the book and see where I can pick up.

Skip the "Ainulindalë" at the beginning of the Silmrillion (all the begats & "so & so joined the music" stuff) and skip right to the Valaquenta. If that's still too boring, go to Quenta Silmarillion. (I usually start at Valaquenta). Once you've read through, you can go back & read the Ainulindalë & it will make more sense.

Personally, I think the Silmarillion is one of my favorites of all the books.

[illy dilly]

I've tried to read the Silmarllion a couple of times. Each time I get to shortly after the explanation of where Dwarfs come from, then loose interest. At times, it reads like the bible, and can be very dull and boring.
I'm thinking that maybe, I ought to just skip to halfway through the book and see where I can pick up.

Skip the "Ainulindalë" at the beginning of the Silmrillion (all the begats & "so & so joined the music" stuff) and skip right to the Valaquenta. If that's still too boring, go to Quenta Silmarillion. (I usually start at Valaquenta). Once you've read through, you can go back & read the Ainulindalë & it will make more sense.

Personally, I think the Silmarillion is one of my favorites of all the books.

Very good to know!!! I'll have to dig up my old tattered paper back and give it another go. Its not tattered because I've read it so many times, its tattered cause I stole it from my 7th grade English teacher.

ANY-WHO!
I finally saw the Hobbit last. HOLY SHIT ITS AWESOME!!!
Jackson did an amazing job keeping to the actual plot, and not skipping anything (as with parts of LOTR).
I like some of the 'extensions' he added to different parts. Specifically when the gang is escaping from the goblins under the mountain.
The whole story involving the Pale Orc is new to me. Does anyone know if this portion came from any part of any book, or if it was added by the director and writers? Either way, it adds some extra fun to the story.

We went to the Regal theater here in town. I wasn't too sure about everything I read about this Regal RPX (Regal Premier Experience). But, after seeing the theater, Its Amazing! The last time I was in the same theater (LOTR Return of the King) it was a United Artist, the 'theater' seating was relatively flat from front to back, with just a flat slope upward towards the back, no stairs. The chairs were small, and crammed in. I think the theater used to seat almost 1,000 people. Though, when Regal bought the whole theater they remodeled that Giant Theater, brought the screen closer to the audience (loosing like 70 seats), put in really nice leather seats that are bigger in every direction, and most important- added raised rear seating, a ramp that goes up, and stairs to the higher rear levels.

And, what seems to be the general consensuses, HFR 3D is the SHIT!!! But, also Jackson did an amazing job shooting the film. Some of the opening trailers were still sub-par and caused minor eye strain, but the 3 hours of The Hobbit were absolutely flawless. It was to the point, that you almost forgot that it was in 3D it was so smooth and crisp. When things were flying, falling, or shooting across the screen quickly they didn't blur out and leave a 'trail'.

[trilobyte]

Azog (the pale orc) is a character from Tolkien's material, but he's mostly mentioned somewhere in a bibliography. PJ credits co-writer Guillermo Del Toro with really fleshing him out and making him the baddie he is on screen (well, Guillermo and actor Manu Bennet who did all the Gollum-esque performance capture work).