To watch 'The Hobbit' in 2D or 3D, that is the question?

[zinfamous]

2d for sure, but why do you say the 48fps is fake?

i cannot stand the 24fps of tv or movies, not watching it on a real 120hz monitor anyways

D: OK, that's some serious blasphemy.

by "fake," I mean that unnatural, cartoon look one gets with those shitty 120hz LCD panels from about 4 or 5 years ago.

I love HD and all, but when Samsung and others started introducing this "cinemaview" horseshit or whatever they called it, it was a real step back to before the days of VHS quality. It shocks me when I meet people that aren't nauseated by trying to watch images presented this way (I don't meet many that don't instantly notice how bad that is).

 

[ViRGE]

48fps 2D if I can find it. Otherwise 48fps 3D.

 

[Geosurface]

D: OK, that's some serious blasphemy.

by "fake," I mean that unnatural, cartoon look one gets with those shitty 120hz LCD panels from about 4 or 5 years ago.

I love HD and all, but when Samsung and others started introducing this "cinemaview" horseshit or whatever they called it, it was a real step back to before the days of VHS quality. It shocks me when I meet people that aren't nauseated by trying to watch images presented this way (I don't meet many that don't instantly notice how bad that is).

Agreed.

I love 1080p, who can argue with a sharper image?

But I have no use for 3D at all. It is gimmicky, gives me a headache, is unnecessary, distracts from telling a story, encourages more FX for their own sake, dumbs down movies, etc etc.

It's like adding a smell-sprayer onto a stereo. Smell isn't a part of the listening experience, and I don't want it. Call me a Luddite if you must, but I am just not interested in the 3D crap. Now, if they ever make legit VR holodeck type situations I'd be the first in line, but slapping some cheesy 3D elements onto a 2D image and having them come out at me? I find the idea quite simply, stupid and unnecessary. I'm watching a film trying to get engrossed in the story and characters, not on an amusement park ride.

As for 48fps? This may just be a matter of what I'm used to, but as it stands now... I don't like it. Maybe in time I'll change my tune. But, to me... it doesn't look like a real theater FILM experience if it's not 24fps. 48fps reminds me too much of BBC shows from the 90's, and soap operas.

My mind rejects it.

I really hope the theater I'm going to is 24fps, 2D.

 

[Olikan]

I got a question about this.... I read the book... and I remember detailed specifics about the storyline that do not match up with the theatrical preview that I saw when going to see skyfall....

So my question is, the ending title on the preview said "The Hobbit - An adaptation of J.R. Tolkein's book" or something to that affect... so are they not focusing on the storyline from the book? are they just using the characters and making a whole new story?

IIRC, they will use parts found at appendices and Silmarillion

 

[mikeymikec]

Let me know when they do a movie of the Hobbit. As far as I'm aware they're padding out The Hobbit to be three movies when the LotR book (or books, depending on how you look at them), is at least three times the thickness and only got three movies (and yet the films still ended up with some filler and racial comic relief in!).

Hollywood sez: But there aren't any female characters in The Hobbit! You'll have to make some up. Otherwise we can't sell this to as many people. That would be bad. Make it three movies, then we can sell more than triple the number of tickets than for one movie. Who wants another swimming pool?

 

[edro]

I wish this 3D trash gimic would die.

Maybe I am just getting old and hating tech, but those glasses are bothersome and 3D adds nothing for me since I am not a kid, easily amused with things flying at my face.

 

[Geosurface]

Let me know when they do a movie of the Hobbit. As far as I'm aware they're padding out The Hobbit to be three movies when the LotR book (or books, depending on how you look at them), is at least three times the thickness and only got three movies (and yet the films still ended up with some filler and racial comic relief in!).

Hollywood sez: But there aren't any female characters in The Hobbit! You'll have to make some up. Otherwise we can't sell this to as many people. That would be bad. Make it three movies, then we can sell more than triple the number of tickets than for one movie. Who wants another swimming pool?

You aren't entirely off the mark, but I'm still excited for them.

Frankly, my plan when it's all said and done a few years from now is to edit together my own version with pieces from all 3 films, trying to match the 1977 animated Hobbit roughly scene for scene and achieve about the same length.

Just as another option of how to watch it, a condensed single movie option.

But I still fully expect to enjoy the 3 films. It does seem a little bloated and over-serious for the source material though.

I wish this 3D trash gimic would die.

Maybe I am just getting old and hating tech, but those glasses are bothersome and 3D adds nothing for me since I am not a kid, easily amused with things flying at my face.

No you're correct, not old. Not hating tech.

This is old "tech" that's been around since what, the 50's? Earlier?

It's just another passing phase of this same tired gimmick which has risen up only to be smacked down before. This time it seems to have more legs, which is unfortunate.

Along with frantic shaky-cam editing of battles, etc, it's another way to dumb down modern films and distract you with a lot of flashy shit so you don't pay attention to how hollow the story is and how poor the performances.

That said, I'm entirely sure the 3D in the Hobbit will be done very welly AS 3D GOES. Just like Avatar, I watched it in 3D the first time and yes, as 3D goes it was done very well. I still preferred it in non-3D though.

Some try to compare it to when sound or color was added to films but I just don't think the comparison works at all. Here's a good way to think of it... would they ever, EVER in a million years consider adding 3D to a film like Schindler's List or an interpersonal romantic drama, to historical documentaries, or romantic comedies? Hell no they wouldn't. The genres which exclusively use 3D tell you a lot about the nature of the gimmick.

 

[ch33zw1z]

You aren't entirely off the mark, but I'm still excited for them.

Frankly, my plan when it's all said and done a few years from now is to edit together my own version with pieces from all 3 films, trying to match the 1977 animated Hobbit roughly scene for scene and achieve about the same length.

Just as another option of how to watch it, a condensed single movie option.

But I still fully expect to enjoy the 3 films. It does seem a little bloated and over-serious for the source material though.

I'd watch that I will enjoy these movie as well I'm sure, since I enjoy Tolkien through and through.

 

[soulcougher73]

3D movies look nothing like real life veiwing with our eyes. Normal 2D films take care of that since the camera is able to pick up the depth perception we see in real life. 3D tries to make pop out at you in unnatural ways that is is no way related to how we normally see.

In my mind 2D film is the same as using your own eyes in real life.

 

[edro]

3D movies look nothing like real life veiwing with our eyes. Normal 2D films take care of that since the camera is able to pick up the depth perception we see in real life. 3D tries to make pop out at you in unnatural ways that is is no way related to how we normally see.

In my mind 2D film is the same as using your own eyes in real life.

I feel the same way. 3D just confuses the hell out of my brain and makes for a terrible experience.

The worst possible experience is when they remake a 2D movie into 3D.

 

[kache]

3D aside, the awesome thing here is 48fps. I hope they continue with it, so that maybe in a few years all movies are 120fps.
That would make action movies so nice and easy to follow.

 

[Red Storm]

OP, you should have started a poll and included "neither". Not everyone falls for the hype.

Also known as "Simply not clicking on threads that don't interest you."

 

[Kaido]

48fps 3D is supposed to eliminate the current problems we have with 3D so I'm definitely going to see it in 3D.

I'm going to see it in 3D to see the 48fps thing.

I don't have any problem with the 3D currently in theaters - the polarizing lenses are so much better than the old red & blue glasses. I don't bother with it at home because about 5 minutes into the movie, I forget that it's in 3D and just watch the movie. But it's fun once in awhile, especially for movies like Avatar that were actually filmed in 3D and not edited in post for 3D as an afterthought.

But overall, 3D, take it or leave it. Meh. I already wear glasses and it's annoying to wear another set, haha.

 

[Dedpuhl]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-3D-effects-caused-headaches-queasiness.html

After reading that, I think I may have to go for the 2D version. I get queasy when I ride "fast" motion simulator rides (i.e. The Simpsons Ride @ Universal Studios).

 

[destrekor]

3D movies look nothing like real life veiwing with our eyes. Normal 2D films take care of that since the camera is able to pick up the depth perception we see in real life. 3D tries to make pop out at you in unnatural ways that is is no way related to how we normally see.

In my mind 2D film is the same as using your own eyes in real life.

I feel the same way. 3D just confuses the hell out of my brain and makes for a terrible experience.

The worst possible experience is when they remake a 2D movie into 3D.

Some of this is correct, in that anything made into 3D in post-process is going to be trash, and will contain only gimmicky 3D effects. Don't waste money on such films, they will do nothing for you, or any of us.


But have either of you two seen a movie that was actually FILMED IN 3D? I think you should not judge until you have, if that is the case.
Because you would be completely wrong. I don't care if you don't like 3D, I've got nothing to make off it.

But for a movie in the right hands, and filmed in 3D, it is NOT about gimmicky, "OMG LOOK AT THAT THING POPPING OUT AT US!!!", it's about everything else. Specifically, the focus seemed to be on added Depth and giving better cues for said depth.
Cues for said depth that are lost in the 2D film capture, of which need to be imagined when looking at 2D film.
Believe me, I was a student of film (35mm photography). There are some things I hate seeing in regards to new technology, but looking at 2D film is nothing like looking at real life. You can use your brain to fill in the missing details, kind of imagine you are looking at the scene through a window, but it's missing vital bits of information. In 3D (proper 3D, captured with a dual-rig, emulating our eyes), you are given actual depth perception and a tangible distance in the scene. Of course, directors can botch this up - and when the majority of 3D movies are still post-process, it's going to be simply about cashing in on the hype and filled more with gimmicky 3D scenes than anything else. But proper 3D films will probably limited the gimmicky scenes, only included to appease a few individuals more than sell the tech.

 

[zinfamous]

3D aside, the awesome thing here is 48fps. I hope they continue with it, so that maybe in a few years all movies are 120fps.
That would make action movies so nice and easy to follow.

horseshit.

 

[kache]

horseshit.

?????

 

[marvdmartian]

The longer people continue to support 3D, the longer that fad is going to last.

 

[KeithTalent]

2D. Fuck 3D; seriously, fuck it.

KT

 

[Atomic Playboy]

2D. Fuck 3D; seriously, fuck it.

KT

This. I will admit that 3D has worked in a few movies for me; Hugo, for example, was stunning in 3D, and the 3D actually helped echo the central theme of the film (about the progression of cinema and how technology can feel magical). But really, most times I've tried 3D, I've disliked it. I already wear glasses, so it's uncomfortable, it's more expensive and the visuals are generally worse since the detail is masked by the 3D.

So, yeah, fuck 3D.

 

[Doppel]

3D as currently envisioned by Hollywood is utter garbage. I saw Avatar in 3D and how to train dragon. I will not be watching anymore 3D until this generation of it dies and maybe next time they'll finally get it right. Current gen is best yet, still sucks badly, particular at home, where the TVs are even worse than theater and suffer more limitations of viewing angles and positions.

It's dark, blurry, eyes bleed.

I am not familiar with the implementation of 48 and how it works in practice but I've always noticed the limitations of 24 fps. Think of any time a helicopter is flying over a landscape for example, the entire thing is a blurry hellscape. Even panning a camera quickly the low frame rate sucks, no matter the movie.

 

[BurnItDwn]

I'll probably pick up the Bluray. My projector doesn't support 3D blurays, so I'll probably watch 2D. Only way I'll go see 3D is if the GF doesn't want to wait for bluray and wants to see 3d.

 

[torpid]

As far as I can tell, the only movie that has ever been worth watching in 3d is Life of Pi. And even with Life of Pi, I'm mostly taking the word of guys like Roger Ebert who loathe 3d but thought Life of Pi was actually worth watching in 3d.

I personally have zero interest in seeing this film in 3d. If the movie isn't worth watching in 2d, it's not worth watching. And, though I will see it anyway because I'm a sucker, all signs point to the Hobbit being unenjoyable in 2d, 3d, 48fps, 24fps, with your eyes closed, on drugs, etc.

 

[jalaram]

I actually liked Avatar in 3d and thought it was decent with Toy Story 3. Otherwise, I don't like the current state of 3d.

I will try my best to see Hobbit in 3d and 48 fps just so I can see how Jackson intended it to look. Then, I can crap on the format as I see fit. That said, I expect the movie (and Freeman and Armitage and McKellan) to be excellent.

 

[RichUK]

Hmmm. Think I'll probably stick to 2D for The Hobbit.