The Hobbit

[Glaurung]

I hope there'll be a 2D version shown in cinemas here.

I hope it too, because I can't watch 3D without my eyes and head hurting like hell.


Also, nerdsqueal when I saw John Howe and Alan Lee working together again.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

It isn't.

And while I appreciate the effort they put into 3D filmmaking, it just doesn't add anything to the experience. It's interesting the first time around but...nothing you'd want for every movie. At least that's how I feel.

I hope there'll be a 2D version shown in cinemas here.

Depending on how it's done, it can be, especially given the sorts of techniquest that they use to accomplish what they're doing, I don't see how you can say it isn't. Also, if you think this filmmaking shit is intense, watch the behind the scenes stuff in Avatar. Even if you don't like it as a film, the technology and innovation that went into making it is absolutely mind-blowing.

I agree it's something that you don't want for every movie, but there really are some films where that the subtle depth of field REALLY does add something significant to the experience. I actually see a majority of the films in theater in 3D if they're available. There's a night and day difference between post-converted 3D and filmed 3D, as well some differences in the the 3D experience is a result of how it's filmed/what cameras are used, but that's barely noticable most of the time. That being said, there are a metric shitton of films that don't benefit from it at all, but it's actually something that I very significantly enjoy when it's done right. Specific to the Hobbit, the bits in Mirkwood sound like they'll be amazing in 3D.

Most places out here have both showings of any major release, but I hope you EU folks get them as well, especially for those of you who get headaches.


X

 

[Cthulhu]

I like the behind-the-scenes on that 3D camera rig business.

Will still watch it in plain old 2D though .

Also, 5K / 48 fps and only a 128 GB memory card? They must be changing those things ten times a day. What's worse, they've got two camera units per 3D camera, each with their own memory card it seems. I would've thought the two cameras would send their data to a big-ass 3 TB hard drive or something, plenty of room on that camera of theirs.

Woo, dozen of dwarves falling through the door .

I wonder why they censored / blocked out the concept arts though.

 

[Tetsujin]

I agree it's something that you don't want for every movie, but there really are some films where that the subtle depth of field REALLY does add something significant to the experience.

Which are? =P

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Which are? =P

The films, the specific scenes, or what they do?


X

 

[Tetsujin]

The films?

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Well, I'll only list a few, but I'll start with one that does very well to explain my point.
Note: just because the film did 3D well doesn't mean that the film itself is especially stellar.

Priest: The scenes where it's raining ashes. I can't think of another film that's done that really effectively (MAYBE the opening rain scene in RE: Afterlife). To me this is one of the most simple examples of defining the difference in the experience between 2D and 3D. Typically you don't notice anything in precipitating scenes in movies, because the raindrops/snow/ashes are all merged into a single layer. In 3D, there are so many layers that help demonstrate the presence of depth that you get the immediate experience of actually seeing the events, rather than seeing a moving picture. In a theater, immersion is a large part of the experince and this is an example of how 3D gives that in a way that a 2D film can't. The example of watching something vs. watching a moving picture is about as close as I can come to explain the subtle differentiation that it makes (though the Hobbit Production video explains it like cutting a hole in the back of the theater screen). This is most of what I mean by subtlety of immersion effects making 3D awesome.

Avatar: There are a number of reasons, but aside from really pioneering the whole resurgence of 3D, James Cameron really knows waht he's doing when it comes to filmmaking. I'd seen this a couple times with different groups of friends, and 2D, 3D, and IMAX 3D were all very different types of sensations for the level of immersion/realism that's portrayed such that it was almost like seeing a different film.

Drive Angry: There's also the sort of "blow shit up in your face" aspect of 3D. Absolutely. Nothing. has done this better, constantly, and kept it entertaining better than this movie without it feeling overly gimmicky (Or maybe feeling so gimmicky that you just forget about it and accept it, either way it was fantastic).


Those are a few examples that I'd personally bring up that did (at least some) 3D well. The technology that the theater uses seems to make a difference as well. This link pretty much explains it, and also might help some of you find a type of theater that DOESN'T give you headaches. Regardless, the technologies and implimentation that they talk about during this video make it pretty clear that they're not shooting the Hobbit in 3D "just because" and that they actually have an understanding on how to make use of the technology to achieve a more immersive cinematic effect. I won't cast any judgement until I see it, but a lot of the things that they discuss make me rather hopeful that it's going to be used to a good end.


X

 

[Tetsujin]

Out of those I've only seen Avatar tbh and even though it did 3D well...I enjoyed it much more in 2D on Blu-ray.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Out of those I've only seen Avatar tbh and even though it did 3D well...I enjoyed it much more in 2D on Blu-ray.

Was it because it was in 2D, or because the quality of your tv/bluray setup is better than the quality of the theater? (I saw it in the same theater for 2D & 3D, and the 3D showing was significantly better, imo).

Either way, hopefully my point was well made at least.


X

 

[Sprites]

I adored that little video blog, one of my favourite things on a dvd is behind the scenes stuff and LOTR: extended editions were so packed with so much behind the scenes stuff you'd be hours watching it all, I hope the same thing happens with The Hobbit, this also got me really excited for the film, because you can see it coming together.

I too also hope this can be watched in 2D, I'm one of these people who appreciates a film more in 2D than the 3D aspect of it.

 

[Tetsujin]

Was it because it was in 2D, or because the quality of your tv/bluray setup is better than the quality of the theater?

I doubt a 19" 720p television is better than digital 4k projection.

 

[Tetsujin]

I adored that little video blog, one of my favourite things on a dvd is behind the scenes stuff and LOTR: extended editions were so packed with so much behind the scenes stuff you'd be hours watching it all, I hope the same thing happens with The Hobbit

I'm already looking forward to home video extended editions in fat boxsets that look like ancient books and you open them and it's like hnnngh, look at the artwork and the neat design and then there's like, three times as much making of footage than there is the actual movie and stuff.

 

[Cthulhu]

When it comes to 3D and Avatar and such, I much preferred it in 2D on my big-ass home TV, . But that was also because it was the first movie in 3D we watched in the cinemas, and we were all going 'Ooh 3D, fancy!' on the one side, and 'Fuck me this is blurry wtf is going on' on the other.

Here's to hoping true 3D will once be possible. Not the type we have now where the camera focus lies on the object the director wants us to look at. Maybe they could do something with that fancy new 'infinite sharpness' or whatever camera, where you can take a picture and determine the focal point later on. That'd have to create a separate video signal for each individual based on what that person focusses on at that time though, which seems to be rather tricky I'd imagine.

 

[looneymoon]

To actually enjoy the 3d you have to sit pretty much in the most middle section of the theatre.

Meaning, middle rows in the middle seats.

Otherwise you're going to get a LOT of blurry shit.

No matter what though, you kind of stop "seeing" the 3d stuff about half way through the movie. Not that it's not there, but your brain gets used to it and it's no longer impressive.

So really, the extra 3 bucks per ticket isn't really worth it. The best thing to do is see a DIGITAL, non-3d version of the movie that's being displayed using a digital projector (versus a film reel projector). You get the same level of clarity of a digital 3d movie without the added cost.

As for IMAX, it's simply not worth it. It costs more than a Digital 3d movie and the 3d isn't even as clear/impressive. Probably because the IMAX technology is much more dated in comparison to Digital 3d. Oftentimes IMAX movies aren't even IN 3D in which case it's just dumb to go to that version of the film at all.

So yeah... if you have a theatre that offers Digital versions of the films I'd recommend seeing those versions instead.

/has worked at a theatre for far too long

 

[Glaurung]

Most places out here have both showings of any major release, but I hope you EU folks get them as well, especially for those of you who get headaches.

Don't worry, I think I'll wait until they release it on DVD or BlueRay, so I can watch it on the peace and quiet of my home (teens made me allergic of theaters). Besides, I will be able to squeal to my hearts content without earning weird glances

 

[X-SOLDIER]

To actually enjoy the 3d you have to sit pretty much in the most middle section of the theatre.

Meaning, middle rows in the middle seats.

This explains why I never have issues with 3D films. I always manageable to nab said seats.

No matter what though, you kind of stop "seeing" the 3d stuff about half way through the movie. Not that it's not there, but your brain gets used to it and it's no longer impressive.

This only seems to happen in films that don't really utilize it well, imo.

So really, the extra 3 bucks per ticket isn't really worth it. The best thing to do is see a DIGITAL, non-3d version of the movie that's being displayed using a digital projector (versus a film reel projector). You get the same level of clarity of a digital 3d movie without the added cost.

Digital = best.

As for IMAX, it's simply not worth it. It costs more than a Digital 3d movie and the 3d isn't even as clear/impressive. Probably because the IMAX technology is much more dated in comparison to Digital 3d. Oftentimes IMAX movies aren't even IN 3D in which case it's just dumb to go to that version of the film at all.

Here I'll agree UNLESS it's filmed in IMAX. The scenes in The Dark Knight that were filmed in IMAX almost gave a feeling of vertigo when looking off the buildings. 90% of the films shown aren't though.

So yeah... if you have a theatre that offers Digital versions of the films I'd recommend seeing those instead.

Still agreed that digital = best.


X

 

[Catherine]

Can I just say how much I need this movie in my life already.
The behind the scene videos always make me teary. Seeing some of the old cast members coming back, and looking EXACTLY the same as they did in the LOTR movies. IT'S SO BEAUTIFUL.

I bought the book a couple months ago but I haven't had the chance to read it yet, I'll probably do it around christmas.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

This set picture of Bombur just made my day.

X

 

[Catherine]

I'm laughing way more than anyone should rn.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

I am excited about this.


X

 

[Cthulhu]

This set picture of Bombur just made my day.

X

dealwithit.gif

Seriously, bunch of hobbits >>> all Marvel / DC superhero movie characters of all time.

 

[Elisa Maza]

This set picture of Bombur just made my day.

X

I CAN'T BE THE ONLY ONE.


Also, this needs a dealwithit caption. NOW.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

: deal :

:deal:


X

 

[Cthulhu]

, too.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Asterix & Obelix = Fíli & Bombur

X