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:
Dos:Academy Awards
First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All


Sep 19 2013, 11:06pm

Post #51 of 64 (133 views)
I hope... [In reply to] Can't Post

to catch a 3D IMAX showing. Really wanted to last year but it didn't work out. Although I would probably go 'test' one out before seeing DOS. I never like going to a highly anticipated film without having been to the theater before.

Gah, I'm too picky I suppose. CrazyAngelicWink


Sep 19 2013, 11:29pm

Post #52 of 64 (128 views)
I understand [In reply to] Can't Post

I went and took my folks to a 2d showing of AUJ at midnight and then that Saturday I went and saw it in the HFR. That way with the worst case scenario I'd at least enjoy the movie even if I didn't like the new tech.


Sep 19 2013, 11:37pm

Post #53 of 64 (123 views)
I considered the same thing, actually. [In reply to] Can't Post

Guess I couldn't help myself with the technology. But I get where you're coming from. I'm sure some folks are really happy that they did something like that, supposing they didn't like the technology.


Sep 19 2013, 11:48pm

Post #54 of 64 (122 views)
Technology [In reply to] Can't Post

I like technology. So I went mostly because I was curious. I'd suggest folks go give it a shot but I admit I didn't find it to be all that. I will see DOS this way just so at the end I can have seen all three in this new format.


Sep 19 2013, 11:54pm

Post #55 of 64 (119 views)
If for nothing else... [In reply to] Can't Post

I suggest it to people to see PJ's preferred format. Although that means I need to seek out a theater with Dolby Atmos. Not too far, actually.


Sep 19 2013, 11:59pm

Post #56 of 64 (124 views)
Good point [In reply to] Can't Post

That is a good reason to see it that way. I hope you enjoy the format or at least don't find annoying.


Sep 20 2013, 3:26am

Post #57 of 64 (113 views)
It's an adjustment, for sure... [In reply to] Can't Post

First few scenes of AUJ I was a little squirmy, desperately focusing on the film. I think the wide landscape shots helped my eyes a little. But it did take some time. I would be interested in seeing a non-3D version with HFR, just to see it for the frame rate difference.


Sep 20 2013, 4:04am

Post #58 of 64 (105 views)
Same here [In reply to] Can't Post

I would like to see a 2D HFR movie myself. I think that might actually look really good. Sometimes the 3d gets in the way.

Old Toby
Grey Havens

Sep 20 2013, 4:45am

Post #59 of 64 (109 views)
Our IMAX theatre here showed it only in regular 3D, not HFR [In reply to] Can't Post

Unfortunately!! I think the HFR 3D makes all the difference in the world. So I watched it on a regular screen but in HFR 3D and loved it. I can only hope that our IMAX theatre here will convert to the HFR technology, but it's doubtful.

"Age is always advancing and I'm fairly sure it's up to no good." Harry Dresden (Jim Butcher)

Tol Eressea

Sep 20 2013, 6:39am

Post #60 of 64 (94 views)
Totally agree.. [In reply to] Can't Post

I really disliked the 3D, and it makes me wonder hoe much that affected my enjoyment of HFR. It would love to see a 2D HFR version to compare.

However, 2D 24fps is still my preferred format, since it brings the two trilogies closer in feel for me, though I probably will go with the kids to see DoS in 3D HFR.

"Choosing Trust over Doubt gets me burned once in a while, but I'd rather be singed than hardened."
Victoria Monfort


Sep 20 2013, 9:52am

Post #61 of 64 (90 views)
Get yourself a smart TV [In reply to] Can't Post

My parents have got one of these Samsung 3D smart TVs, and the quality of The Hobbit is outstanding. Obviously, it's not the same 3D HFR experience as in a theatre, but it is a massive improvement to my TV. There was no motion blur at all. It was like watching it in 48fps, in 2D.

I was uncomfortable with HFR because I felt the CGI fell apart in 3D. In 2D, I don't have a problem. So 2D HFR screenings would be great for me.



Sep 20 2013, 11:59am

Post #62 of 64 (81 views)
3D [In reply to] Can't Post

I hear ya. I go to a lot of movies and so I've had that experience where 3D was a huge distraction rather than a help. One of the worst was avatar. It gave me a nasty headache when I left the theater.


Sep 20 2013, 12:01pm

Post #63 of 64 (86 views)
Funny enough [In reply to] Can't Post

We just got one of those towards the end of the summer. We popped in the Hobbit 3D and it did look awesome. Haven't tried it yet in 2D but sounds like it will look equally as good then. :-) Thabks DB!!

Semper Fi

Sep 20 2013, 1:39pm

Post #64 of 64 (86 views)
Midle Earth isn't 2003 just in Hollywood [In reply to] Can't Post

It's everywhere. The trend has changed. The movies are still big success with audiences (and 3D, inflation and expanded markets help blunt the rather sharp drop in ticket sales) but other movies are the generation's obession (super-hero and YA come to mind and look at the buzz new Star Wars is creating). It's not unusual, in fact, it's veyr common that was what a fad 10 years ago isn't a fad when it tries to come back a decade later.

However, truth to be told, they didn't sell the idea of 1 book-3 movie split well. The general perception was/is that it's a cash grab so obivously they didn't convey the creative reasons properly. I'd aslo say it doesn't help that Twilight did the same thing (splitting a book in which nothing happens into 2 movies in which nothing happens) which was a blantant cash grab. In short, while filming one book in a tirlogy as one movie was viewed as remarkable creative inovation, splitting one book into 2 or 3 movies is seen as cash grab and no one so far managed to convince the public that it isn't so.

Finally, Hobbit did feel like it was made in 2001-2003. There was no progess in directing and stylistic choices that both stayed true to the material they want to tie in with and showed artistic growth on the director's part. CGI evelved but direction remained the same only tad not lazier but more autopilot if you know what I mean? Jackson can do these movies in his sleep and that's how AUJ felt,like he did it in his sleep. No flare and florish. No taking chances. Just safe film-making that repeats the formula of 2001-2003. Which is what he was doing in King KOng and Lovely Bones. So if there's perception that he peaked with LOTR it's due to unchanging, unevolving direction. Unlike, lets say, Daniel Craig's Bond franchise that's constantly evolving with time and trends instead of repeating the style of, I dunno, Pierce Brosnan movies. That worked wonders with Skyfall.

"RadagaStoner deserves no mercy!" Tauriel the Radagast Slayer, the Chief of Inglorious Elfguards

Tauriel saved us from Itaril. Never forget.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 Next page Last page  View All

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.