Author Topic: The Legend of Smaug. 2D, 3D or 3D HFR? (Read 4896 times)

Cookie · « **on:** December 19, 2013, 11:52:14 AM »

We are heading to the theeayter in the big city Saturday to see the new Hobbit flick.

I saw the Doctor Who 50th in 3D and was amazed. I am wondering if it would be too much for The Hobbit. I also read that 3D HFR is a disappointment.

What say ye?

kneescrubber · « **Reply #1 on:** December 19, 2013, 11:59:05 AM »

Susan and I will be going to see it Christmas day. It will be 2d.

bomber · « **Reply #2 on:** December 19, 2013, 12:03:51 PM »

Go big or stay home, Cookie . . . We're gonna grab all the options we can -- word has it that this one is mouch better than the previous flick.

Squareman357 · « **Reply #3 on:** December 19, 2013, 01:18:27 PM »

I saw it in 3D, HFR with the new Atmos Surround Sound. Enjoyed every minute of it. YMMV.

chornbe · « **Reply #4 on:** December 19, 2013, 01:22:23 PM »

I can't help with an opinion on this, unfortunately. I like the immersion of IMAX, not for the 3d but for the large, shaped screen and the incredible sound. The 3d in Avatar was amazing in IMAX, but other than that I generally find most 3d to be a little distracting. I saw Gravity in 3d and it was starting to make my daughter motion sick. I guess that means it was good, but I would have rather watched it flat. I guess my eyes/brain just aren't geared for it, or I'm just subconsciously able to tune into 3d. I've tried watching a few 3d tvs and basically just had to give up. :\

JReazor · « **Reply #5 on:** December 19, 2013, 02:14:00 PM »

I saw the first Hobbit movie in HFR 3D. The whole thing looked like a video game cut scene. I'll be seeing the new one in 2D.

chornbe · « **Reply #6 on:** December 19, 2013, 02:18:07 PM »

Quote from: JReazor on December 19, 2013, 02:14:00 PM

I saw the first Hobbit movie in HFR 3D. The whole thing looked like a video game cut scene. I'll be seeing the new one in 2D.

A lot of people attributed that to the 24fps and all-digital filming, and the 3d exacerbated the edges and the fps difference.

JReazor · « **Reply #7 on:** December 19, 2013, 02:57:01 PM »

Quote from: chornbe on December 19, 2013, 02:18:07 PM

Quote from: JReazor on December 19, 2013, 02:14:00 PM
I saw the first Hobbit movie in HFR 3D. The whole thing looked like a video game cut scene. I'll be seeing the new one in 2D.

A lot of people attributed that to the 24fps and all-digital filming, and the 3d exacerbated the edges and the fps difference.

Yep. The frame rate was the problem for me. I'm not a big fan of 3D either but I'll put up with it on an IMAX screen. I will not go see another HFR movie as long as I have a choice. IMAX or no.

The Hobbit was shot at 48 fps but was converted to 24 fps for most showings. The HFR version was projected at the native 48fps.

Squareman357 · « **Reply #8 on:** December 19, 2013, 03:06:27 PM »

The Hobbit in HFR reminded me of watching BluRays on my 120hz LED TV. It looked almost exactly like that, and since I've gotten used to that it didn't bother me. Things looked more real, more tangible, more THERE to me.

JReazor · « **Reply #9 on:** December 19, 2013, 03:18:12 PM »

BluRay on my 120Hz set look great to me. HFR goes way beyond that. It's too crisp and slick. It has sort of a plastic look to me.

All IMO of course. Different people see things differently.

Papa Lazarou · « **Reply #10 on:** December 19, 2013, 04:30:17 PM »

The book was far superior to LOTR. I can't see how how making a short book about fucking elves into a long film about fucking orcs is going top work.

JonS · « **Reply #11 on:** December 26, 2013, 08:02:16 AM »

When I saw "Gravity" in 3D, it was so much better than any 3D I had previously seen. Now I have no reservations about seeing the Hobbit movie the same way.

hambonee · « **Reply #12 on:** December 26, 2013, 10:39:36 AM »

saw it in 2D...

worked for me.

kneescrubber · « **Reply #13 on:** December 28, 2013, 05:19:01 PM »

Quote from: hambonee on December 26, 2013, 10:39:36 AM

saw it in 2D...

worked for me.

+1

Although, it was easily 1 hour too long. I'd appreciate less fx for the sake of fx and more details from the book. But that's just me. I can't imagine how crappy the 3rd installment will be.

Cookie · « **Reply #14 on:** December 28, 2013, 06:23:22 PM »

3D was good.

hambonee · « **Reply #15 on:** December 28, 2013, 07:43:23 PM »

Quote from: kneescrubber on December 28, 2013, 05:19:01 PM

Quote from: hambonee on December 26, 2013, 10:39:36 AM
saw it in 2D...

worked for me.

+1

Although, it was easily 1 hour too long. I'd appreciate less fx for the sake of fx and more details from the book. But that's just me. I can't imagine how crappy the 3rd installment will be.

If movies are going to be like 3 hours long with half hour preview sessions I would like to request an intermission please and thank you...

PatM · « **Reply #16 on:** December 28, 2013, 08:36:50 PM »

Saw it in 2D today. Also available in IMAX. It's a good thing I chose the 2D as the final minutes are confusing. I'd probably get woozy watching it.

Oddball · « **Reply #17 on:** December 30, 2013, 06:23:12 PM »

Saw it in 2D, barely worth the price of admission.

spinalator · « **Reply #18 on:** December 30, 2013, 09:52:23 PM »

Better than the first one, still sort of greedy making 3 movies out of one book, Mr. Jackson. I saw it in 3D and did not find it distracting

FJRider · « **Reply #19 on:** January 01, 2014, 08:04:54 AM »

The movie did nothing for me. I expected more. Peter Jackson's movies are starting to get boring.