Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
3D vs 2D - Anyone see in both?

tripecac
Rivendell

Dec 12 2012, 4:30am

Post #1 of 17 (939 views)
Shortcut
3D vs 2D - Anyone see in both? Can't Post

Has anyone had a chance to see the Hobbit in both 3D and 2D?

If so, could you please post your observations?


TheBladeGlowsBlue
Rivendell


Dec 12 2012, 4:52am

Post #2 of 17 (457 views)
Shortcut
Great question [In reply to] Can't Post

I remember seeing AVATAR in 3D and was spellbound...saw it later in 2D and was bored!

I did wonder if it was because of the impact of seeing it FIRST in 3D, or whether it was the format...

I hope to see the Hobbit in 3D after christmas, but have wondered about seeing it in 2D beforehand... just out of curiosity... Shocked

Maegnas aen estar nin dagnir in yngyl im


lurtz2010
Rohan

Dec 12 2012, 5:06am

Post #3 of 17 (527 views)
Shortcut
Everyone should see it 3D 48fps for the first time [In reply to] Can't Post

Getting to see two amazing things at once for the first time... the hobbit and 48fps. You only get that chance once so why waste it.


khilke
Registered User

Dec 12 2012, 5:21am

Post #4 of 17 (453 views)
Shortcut
Indeed [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
Getting to see two amazing things at once for the first time... the hobbit and 48fps. You only get that chance once so why waste it.


Indeed. The 3D HFR version really is an experience not to be missed. It might be interesting to see the 2d version at the cinemas, but only from a technical point of view. The movie is so 3d&hfr at all leves that it's a disgrace not to see it that way the first time... It's the same as wondering whether to see a color movie first in black and white.


Aragorn the Elfstone
Grey Havens


Dec 12 2012, 6:25am

Post #5 of 17 (443 views)
Shortcut
Not for me. [In reply to] Can't Post

I appreciate that some hold that view. However, given how divisive the response has been - I do not want to chance not fully enjoying my first viewing experience. LotR worked just wonderfully in 24fps 2D, and I'm keen to have that experience once again.

Then, on my second viewing - I will grant PJ's wishes and try out the new format. If it works for me, then I may very well see parts 2 & 3 that way first.

"All men dream; but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds awake to find that it was vanity; But the dreamers of day are dangerous men. That they may act their dreams with open eyes to make it possible."
- T.E. Lawrence


(This post was edited by Aragorn the Elfstone on Dec 12 2012, 6:26am)


TheBladeGlowsBlue
Rivendell


Dec 12 2012, 6:38am

Post #6 of 17 (409 views)
Shortcut
Exactly my point. [In reply to] Can't Post

If the movie's 'heart' is there, it will survive a viewing in 2d 24fps as an introduction. I am more compelled to view it is standard 1st to see if it stands up on its own merits

Maegnas aen estar nin dagnir in yngyl im


DanielLB
Immortal


Dec 12 2012, 8:25am

Post #7 of 17 (345 views)
Shortcut
If anyone has seen it twice already then that's just not fair. / [In reply to] Can't Post

Tongue

Want Hobbit Movie News? Hobbit Headlines of the Week!



Azaghâl
Lorien


Dec 12 2012, 11:45am

Post #8 of 17 (341 views)
Shortcut
I saw it! [In reply to] Can't Post

And I might go see it again tonight, this time in 2D.

*Baruk khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!*


Lissuin
Tol Eressea


Dec 12 2012, 11:55am

Post #9 of 17 (378 views)
Shortcut
Yes, I have. Sorry Daniel, I know it's not fair! [In reply to] Can't Post

And thanks for starting this thread, tripecac. I didn't know where to put down my thoughts, and please remember, they are only my thoughts, and are, no doubt, heavily influenced by my current sleep-deprived state. It's 24 hours exactly, I see, since I began this experiment.

I was at the midnight screening in Wellington at the Embassy last night with all the bells and whistles - 3D, 48fps, Atmos surround sound, lots of folk in costume and a wonderful excited vibe. There couldn't have been a better location for seeing the film the way Peter Jackson wanted it to be seen, and lots of people loved it. Is that clear? Lots of people loved it just that way; people in dwarf and elf and hobbit costumes, people in jeans and Hobbit t-shirts, people who took the trouble to be at the first general public screening in the world. Lots of those folks loved it.

Me...I got home at 4:30 a.m. , got online to find a cinema where I could see it immediately in 2d 24fps, slept for 3 hours, then got in the car and went to an 11:30 a.m. screening, and then... I loved it, too - really really loved it. Got tears in my eyes where I knew I should have felt the heart of the story the first time - the courage and compassion and honour and loyalty and friendship - when the first time I had been sitting in a technological daze and missed most of those things. I will see it again in 3D once I'm sure I've got a grasp of the flow of the story. Perhaps you will agree with others who feel that it is, in fact, enhanced by the technology. The film makers obviously do. Maybe I eventually will, too, but I'm not there now.

You see, I KNEW my Hobbit film was in there, I could sense it but not quite touch it, because for me - for me, you understand - the super sound was too loud, the beautiful 3D 48fps (and it is at times very beautiful - the birds and butterflies and rain!) too distracting, and those two things took all my concentration. I was not able to feel a gentle progression from still, emotional scene to threatening chase scene and back to quieter character-driven scene. I used the word "frenetic" a lot in talking it over with friends. I left the theatre the first time thinking it was 80% orc slaying and death screams, and 20% my Hobbit road story of adventure and inner discovery. I left the second screening realizing it is much more evenly balanced than my first impression.

The second screening, the one that continues the viewing style of Jackson's LOTR trilogy, is how I choose for now to live in Middle-earth, and I'm grateful that we were given that choice. The contrast is as if I have seen two different films. It felt as if it had been slowed right down to where I could take it all in at last. A big part of that is that there is so much in the sets and set decoration, dialog and interaction among the cast that it is simply impossible to catch it all in one viewing. I know that and am thrilled by the attention to detail, but I just need more time to focus and process. Whether it's age, artistic preference, or habituation (I have no idea how many times I've watched the LOTR trilogy at 24fps), I am in a 2D 24fps Middle-earth state of mind, and happy to remain there.

Big points for 48: I did notice much more pronounced motion blur in 24fps in scenes where it had been barely noticeable in 48. (ex. in the prologue scenes looking down into and moving through Erebor - you knew about that, right?Evil) and bunny sled ride (very fun, by the way, Thumper). They aren't exaggerating about 48 being better for that. There are definitely trade-offs.

Have no fear for Bilbo's Middle-earth; it is there, enchanting and thrilling, however you choose to view it, and Martin Freeman moves through it with every nuance of Professor Tolkien's everyman in his expressions, body language and tone of voice. I am so looking forward to our discussions of screen cap close ups of his scenes. He is as perfect for this role as his director and fellow actors have said he is - in 3D 48fps or 2D 24fps.

Apologies for the long-windedness. This choice was a big deal for me today. It is NOT just a movie: it's The Hobbit.
Good night.
Smile


Azaghâl
Lorien


Dec 12 2012, 12:17pm

Post #10 of 17 (311 views)
Shortcut
Thank you [In reply to] Can't Post

I left the theater a little disappointed. I saw it in 48 fps 3D and my experience is the exact same as yours. I felt that it lacked a little in the quiet heartfelt moments and this movie was mostly action and flashy effects.

But you have given me hope, that my good old middle earth is in there, beneath all that eye candy!

Thank you very much.

On a side note. 48 fps 3D IS amazing. Just not sure I prefer it.

*Baruk khazâd! Khazâd ai-mênu!*


unexpectedvisitor
Rohan

Dec 12 2012, 3:20pm

Post #11 of 17 (255 views)
Shortcut
what a great post [In reply to] Can't Post

thanks for that!


tripecac
Rivendell

Dec 12 2012, 4:03pm

Post #12 of 17 (237 views)
Shortcut
Agreed [In reply to] Can't Post

"I KNEW my Hobbit film was in there, I could sense it but not quite touch it [..] the super sound was too loud, the beautiful 3D 48fps (and it is at times very beautiful - the birds and butterflies and rain!) too distracting [..] left the theatre the first time thinking it was 80% orc slaying and death screams, and 20% my Hobbit road story of adventure and inner discovery."


That's how I felt as well! The too-loud sound caused each battle to be almost annoying rather than exciting, and the 3D and/or HFR made it often feel more like watching a play or video game rather than a movie. The slow, non-CGI scenes were easiest to get into, but they didn't seem to last long. The prologue completely escaped me because my eyes were confused by the 3D, trying but failing to bring blurred objects into focus. It's hard to judge the actual movie based on the theatre experience, because of all the audio/visual distractions, and it seems especially difficult for those of us who are not used to theatres and/or 3D.

I haven't seen the 2D yet, so am curious if it's worth a second viewing in 2D in a theatre.... or should we just wait for the blu-ray, when we can have a pause button, comfortable sound, a cozy couch, and subtitles?



shadowfaux
Bree

Dec 12 2012, 4:29pm

Post #13 of 17 (218 views)
Shortcut
Thanks [In reply to] Can't Post

This is informative. I see movies in 3D frequently enough and prefer the extra immersion it gives - even if it is subtle (the best 3d usually is); however, if I hadn't started viewing 3d movies several years ago with Toy Story 1&2 rereleases, Toy Story 3, Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, Up, Harry Potter 7 part 2, Brave, etc, I can imagine how distracting it could be if the Hobbit were your first time seeing a 3D movie -- and at 48fps nonetheless.

I would probably see it 3D HFR my first time, but the closest showing is a 1.5 hour drive, a bit far for a midnight showing :) So I will see it 3D 24fps, since I am extremely confortable with the format.

I would recommend that you see it in your most comfortable way first, then experiment afterwards! I'm a big fan of following the director's vision, seeing it the way it was intended and all; this doesn't have to ruin your first showing experience, though. Just go see it again (and again, and again...).

Remembering how disoriented I felt when first viewing the cave troll Moria scene in Fellowship, and several other PJ action scenes, and also his tendency toward extreme closeups, I can imagine that the 48fps would help significantly with fast-paced action scenes in 3D, allowing the audience to follow the action better. I predict that future movies will use hybrid projection/capture, using appropriate frame rates for the scene at hand. It then becomes another artistic tool for the director - choosing to blur one scene more, or ramping up the intensity of some action scenes with HFR.


elanesse
Rivendell


Dec 12 2012, 5:49pm

Post #14 of 17 (182 views)
Shortcut
same here [In reply to] Can't Post

 


elanesse
Rivendell


Dec 12 2012, 5:57pm

Post #15 of 17 (196 views)
Shortcut
as i predicted! [In reply to] Can't Post

and many members here just called me "refusing technological progress"

pff!


Valandil ed Imladris
Lorien


Dec 12 2012, 8:30pm

Post #16 of 17 (115 views)
Shortcut
haven't seen it in both types [In reply to] Can't Post

but I can say that the 2D 24fps seemed a little bit blurry when there was fast movement. For example during the prologue when the camera goes all the way down to the bottom of the mountain.


Silverlode
Forum Admin / Moderator


Dec 12 2012, 8:46pm

Post #17 of 17 (141 views)
Shortcut
Now I'm really curious to know.... [In reply to] Can't Post

and we'll probably have to wait until everyone has had a chance to see it and do a poll.....but I wonder if those who have and are used to HD TVs adjust to the HFR faster and like it more, or if it's just an individual thing. Because it really seems like an unpredictable personal response - some who wanted to love it hated it and some who might have expected not to like it loved it. Not to mention the odd "Benny Hill effect" group.

Ah well, I have my ticket for HFR 3D, so it remains to be seen what camp I fall into. Not long now!

Silverlode





 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.