The Hobbit: Early Screening

[Valandil]

I have a FB friend who lives in LA. She saw a screening of "The Hobbit" and walked out. And she says she was looking forward to it.

I've written her to see just what it was that made her want to go. I'll let you know if she replies. She did make disclaimers - that maybe it's just her, that she likes plenty of movies others don't like and vice versa.

But it's still got me a bit apprehensive.

[Rían]

OMGoodness, I hope it's not just a "throw in some of this and some of that, they liked it before" type of movie!!

[Earniel]

Oooh, foreboding.

Maybe I'll best just take my expectations down a bit.

Maybe it was the 3D? I'm having my doubts about that.

[The Gaffer]

There's rumours on the internets, apparently the frame rate is making people feel sick.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/short...plain-sickness

[Earniel]

What, still?

I thought they'd have that ironed out by now. That was already known a month or two or so ago at the test screening.

Note to self, don't eat before the screening.

[Valandil]

OK - here's our FB message exchange in full. She didn't speak too strongly on her actual post about walking out - but she pulled out all the stops here:

Originally Posted by me

Hey Gen,
Saw your post about walking out on "The Hobbit". Now you've got me all worried!
What was it that made you walk out? Too much on the humor/comic relief side? Too dark? Too far afield of the book? Too faithful to the book? What especially made you want to get up and get out?
Big JRRT fan, and I've been expectantly awaiting this movie for some time - so I'm curious.
Thanks,
Karl

PS: I hope all is well otherwise.

Originally Posted by her

Hey, Karl!

It was really bad in every way you could imagine. The 48fps and 3D just made everyone dizzy and sick. Because it was in 3D, there are certain rules that you can't break or it'll hurt people's eyes. So, there weren't enough inserts and the shots they held on were boring. The 48fps made the production quality look like crap. It looked like something you could have filmed on your grandma's handycam.

The acting was sub-par. Usually, great editors make good actors look great and they can turn great actors into legends. But with the restrictions that the 3D and 48fps issues caused, I don't think they could do as much as they could. In essence, they couldn't "polish the turd." The 48fps also makes the makeup look like "masks and makeup."

It looked bad; the writing was bad; the production design and lighting suffered from 3D and 48fps; and the acting suffered because of it too. I only stayed for 30 minutes...I want those 30 minutes of my life back.

My apprehensions are increased.

[Valandil]

OTOH - I've tried to check out a few reviews. Some sites give it 4.5 of 5 stars (!!!). On others where it gets a poor review - people post responses that this reassures them the movie will be good, since they usually disagree with the critics.

I did see a couple heartening (for me) comments on reviews: One, that it was 'too detailed'. The other - more or less that it 'began like LOTR, with a flashback to an ancient mythological battle which was not part of Tolkien's account' - by saying this, I assume the reviewer means it's not part of JRRT's "The Hobbit" - though it's likely (hopefully) part of JRRT's historical account (found elsewhere - like LOTR Appendices) which sets the stage for this story.

[Valandil]

Oh - and not knowing a lot about film in general, I learned some things here. The '48 fps' means 48 frames per second. I read that standard is 24 (for some reason, I thought was about 32). I also read that with more frames - maybe this is because the detail just shows through so well - that makeup and props and so forth look less real and more fake.

It's fun to learn.

[Rían]

Do you mean we don't have a choice and we HAVE to see it in 3D? That's AWFUL!!!!! I hate hate HATE 3D! I have some eye issues and it just drives me crazy.

[Tessar]

I hope we don't have to see it in 3D. O_o I really don't care for 3D. It doesn't bother my eyes persay, but I don't care for it.

I can't imagine it'll ONLY be in 3D though.

[Valandil]

I hope not. I even saw someplace that most theaters cannot show the 48 fps, and will show a 24 fps version.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Valandil

The 48fps also makes the makeup look like "masks and makeup.

So much for the 'hyperrealism' of the 48fps, then. I think I'll go for the 24fps, non-3D then, if I get the choice. Just checked on the cinema website, they will have all three options here. Lucky me. For now it's only viewable in 3D, but I'll probably go somewhere with the family in January so I can wait until it's viewable on 24fps. I can always try the 3D or 48fps later but I'd like our first viewing not to be automatically ruined by nausea or headaches.

Originally Posted by Valandil

I did see a couple heartening (for me) comments on reviews: One, that it was 'too detailed'. The other - more or less that it 'began like LOTR, with a flashback to an ancient mythological battle which was not part of Tolkien's account' - by saying this, I assume the reviewer means it's not part of JRRT's "The Hobbit" - though it's likely (hopefully) part of JRRT's historical account (found elsewhere - like LOTR Appendices) which sets the stage for this story.

The events from The Hobbit storyline probably won't need a flashback, but I reckon they'll have to give some background on everything they'll be doing around the Necromancer and the White Council.

[Serenoli]

I'm really crossing my fingers and hoping it turns out well. Have been apprehensive ever since I heard they're making it in 3 parts - I mean, no matter how detailed a portrayal I like, the Hobbit =/= LOTR... and especially not in size. I just hope they have enough content to keep the movie exciting, and not just lengthy.

[shesabrandybuck]

Oh no! I bought my tickets for IMAX 3D and I feel motion sickness quite easily. I hope I don't regret this! That's my only fear though, I'm excited for the extra details - the more the merrier for me

[Ben]

It's sitting at 72% so far on Rotten Tomatoes, which suggests critics like it but don't love it. The LOTR films all had scores around the 90% mark.

[Varnafindë]

Originally Posted by Valandil

I did see a couple heartening (for me) comments on reviews: One, that it was 'too detailed'.

Some said the pictures were too detailed, due to the 48 pictures per second - you get less blur because there's less time for motion to ... move ... during the time of one picture.

One reviewer said nothing about getting dizzy from it, but he did say that the new sensation took him between five and ten minutes to get used to. After that there was a lot of new beauty, especially in the view of landscapes. For close-ups you would notice the details more - like Gandalf's contact lenses.

Perhaps it's better to choose a theatre that shows it in 24 rather than 48 - at least at first, and if you want to watch it again, you can then try the new technique.

The other - more or less that it 'began like LOTR, with a flashback to an ancient mythological battle which was not part of Tolkien's account' - by saying this, I assume the reviewer means it's not part of JRRT's "The Hobbit" - though it's likely (hopefully) part of JRRT's historical account (found elsewhere - like LOTR Appendices) which sets the stage for this story.

I read an interview with Richard Armitage who plays Thorin, and he was asked what it was like to play both a younger and an older version of his character. Also the journalist said that "it's the Hobbit, but it's also very much about you".

So I guess that the ancient mythological battle is when Smaug drives the Dwarves away from the Erebor and takes the mountain for himself. If so, it shows why the Dwarves want to take it back. Not a bad idea, I would say.

[Earniel]

Originally Posted by Varnafindë

So I guess that the ancient mythological battle is when Smaug drives the Dwarves away from the Erebor and takes the mountain for himself. If so, it shows why the Dwarves want to take it back. Not a bad idea, I would say.

Ooh, that could be great fun, indeed. And probably the only shot we'll be seeing of Smaug the Magnificent for about one maybe two years. They could tie it to a flashback of Thorin's father, ThraÃ*n, setting out to make his fortune, and Gandalf finding him dying in the dungeons of Dol Guldur. That might make a good tie between the Hobbit storyline and the other bits.

[Lotesse]

Everybody calm down, you won't HAVE to see it in 3D/normal, or in 3D/48fps, it'll be primarily screening in regular format. Most cinema houses can't (or won't yet) afford to remodel many, if any, of their screening rooms to accommodate the new 3D 48fps tech, and The Hobbit's being released 3 ways: Regular (24fpm,) Regular + 3D, and New-Thing-48fps + 3D. Too bad there's not a non-3D 48fps option, actually, come to think of it...

Well I've got my tix bought & my favorite seat reserved & everything! SQUEEEEE!!!!1!! 4:30 this afternoon. And *I* am not easily queasied (not a word but it is now,) so 48 fps, here I come! I could not care less about the blither the critics spit & dribble out, they can SAVE IT. I'll be the judge of what to enjoy, thankyouverymuch.

So in about 6 hours from now, I'm gonna be kickin' it in Hobbiton, then it's off to Rivendell for a couple weeks, & after that possibly Mirkwood. IF so, I certainly hope I make it to Beorn's pad with the crew beforehand. (That better be in this first film.)

[Varnafindë]

Here's a reviewer who thinks it's great, and says that after a couple of minutes of getting used to the 48 frames per second, it just makes everything more realistic:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhugh...-is-a-triumph/

I'll try to see it some time this weekend. It seems the cinemas in Oslo will provide all 4 combinations to choose between, both 2D and 3D come in both 24 and 48 versions. I have to choose (or watch it 4 times this weekend).

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Varnafindë

So I guess that the ancient mythological battle is when Smaug drives the Dwarves away from the Erebor and takes the mountain for himself. If so, it shows why the Dwarves want to take it back. Not a bad idea, I would say.

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.

Originally Posted by Eärniel

Ooh, that could be great fun, indeed. And probably the only shot we'll be seeing of Smaug the Magnificent for about one maybe two years. They could tie it to a flashback of Thorin's father, ThraÃ*n, setting out to make his fortune, and Gandalf finding him dying in the dungeons of Dol Guldur. That might make a good tie between the Hobbit storyline and the other bits.

Yes, I think that would be a good bit of info to show, especially to explain the dwarves' motivation and anger better.

Originally Posted by Varnafindë

Here's a reviewer who thinks it's great, and says that after a couple of minutes of getting used to the 48 frames per second, it just makes everything more realistic:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhugh...-is-a-triumph/

I'll try to see it some time this weekend. It seems the cinemas in Oslo will provide all 4 combinations to choose between, both 2D and 3D come in both 24 and 48 versions. I have to choose (or watch it 4 times this weekend).

Oh, good! It's good to hear a positive review.

I've been so busy that I completely forgot that it was coming out tomorrow!!! That will definitely be a treat to look forward to! I can't wait to hear what you all think!