"The Hobbit" 3D HFR Imax Experience

Kieran_Burns

In summary:

My God. :shock: :shock: :shock:

A mate convinced me it was a mind blowing experience and you know what? He was pretty damn spot on.

I've only seen one other 3D film before (Dredd) and it seemed a bit 'meh' The FILM was great but the 3D? Meh.

However - watching a film where you genuinely moved out of the way of flying stuff and the scenes appeared to cover the front 3 rows was pretty bloody amazing.

HFR explained: http://www.thehobbit.com/hfr3d/faq.html

I'd heard some bad things about the HFR experience: here

but after seeing the film, I have to disagree - hugely involving, immersive, smooth and totally gob-smackingly good.

Really great night in the cinema last night... been a VERY long time since I've been blown away by a film.

mudcow007

i went to see the Hobbit in "normal" 3d an it was pants

i thought all 3d films used polarization....

anyways the glasses you were given as you sat down were about an inch high, so you could see above an below em absolutely ruined the film

i even tried my own 3d glasses but it didnt seem to work with the screen

i nearly fell asleep during the Hobbit too, cave/ mountain trolls were cool though

Kieran_Burns

these were much larger - covered the entire IMAX screen, but you do have to sit very straight as the glasses do need to be perpendicular..

greg66_tri_v2.0

mudcow007 wrote:

my own 3d glasses

Not a confession I would make.

I thought The Hobbit was a bit of a flop. Far too long - the first 45 minutes could have been done in less than 10. The dwarves are too similar and have no distinct personalities. The HFR I found visually distracting. I kept looking at the movement itself to work out what was making it seem artificial. And the lighting was dreadful - somehow, when combined with the HFR, I felt like I was watching a Seventies TV programme.

But the bottom line was that the story wasn't strong enough to be spread so thinly.

mudcow007

Kieran_Burns wrote:

these were much larger - covered the entire IMAX screen, but you do have to sit very straight as the glasses do need to be perpendicular..

that sounds cool, but i was made to wear something like these suckers

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

my own 3d glasses

Not a confession I would make.

i cant go around wearing ones that other people have worn....ewww face cooties

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

But the bottom line was that the story wasn't strong enough to be spread so thinly.

yep i agree, an the first part is about 3hrs long too an besides some farting trolls, nowt seems to happen

Kieran_Burns

I looked more like Kim Jong Il

notsoblue

I loved 3D HFR, its brilliant. Its by far the best 3D I've seen so far. The high frame rate took about 30 mins to get use to but after that it really enhanced the action and 3D imo.

The film itself is just more of the same with better tech, but that isn't a bad thing. Was nice to be back in that world for a few hours. Looking forward to the sequels!

mudcow007 wrote:

anyways the glasses you were given as you sat down were about an inch high, so you could see above an below em absolutely ruined the film

You were probably given kids 3D glasses. I was at a Vue cinema last night (to see Life of Pi, brilliant movie btw) where they'd run out of adult 3D glasses and were handing out kiddy specs. After the guy working there swore blind that they were adult glasses one of his colleagues admitted they'd run out up front and went to get some more from storage.

dhope

I saw at IMAX Waterloo a few weeks back. They don't have HFR there though.
And getting tickets to the largest screen in the known universe was a mission, so ended up at the edge, thus the 3D was a bit pants.
And I thought the movie was a bit of a chore.

Sorry, I sound like a grumblebum. I'd really been looking forward to it but was hugely underwhelmed by the whole thing

notsoblue

3D is pretty awful if you're at the side, thats probably what made it a bit of a chore!

meanredspider

Slight thread deviation but I was reading the BBC's item on the way TVs are going - 4k then 8k. They were making the point that you only really notice the improved resolution close to the TV. Call me stupid, but I don't want to sit close to the TV and, if I did, everybody else would only see the back of my head. So are we going the route of some of the high end HiFi where the sound maybe fantastic only we can't actually appreciate the difference? There's also the question of bandwidth too...

rubertoe

Errr.....

I'm not interested in seeing this at the moment as I am again re-reading the book. There is no better experience than the one in your own head.

vermin

I saw it in Brixton. No idea if they have HFR. Thought the 3D was the same as ever - just looks like a pop-up book to me, with features placed at various depths, but with no connection between those depths. Oh and they just couldn't resist that most cliched of 3D cliches could they; the random bird/butterfly flying into/out of the screen. :roll:

As for the film, I was pleasantly surprised - following the seemingly endless, remorseless monotony of the LOR trilogy, I had set my sights pretty low. This one was markedly better in my opinion. Particularly liked Gollum.

YIMan

Where did you see it Kieran - Corner House Nottingham?

Kieran_Burns

YIMan wrote:

Where did you see it Kieran - Corner House Nottingham?

Yup. My cycling mate has a season pass thing and it was Orange Weds, so was basically next to nothing to watch

DonDaddyD

I absolutely hate all this 'enhanced cinema experience'. First it was 3D then its enhanced frame rate (which I don't mind) and now there is a cinema where a chef will whip you up a gourmet meal and cocktail while you watch 'Wreck it Fred'.

What's next a cinema where you put 50p into a machine and out pops a Thai woman who then proceeds to suck your johnson? I am not interested... unless its the Champions League Final with Arsenal in it and Thai woman has been replaced by Ms DDD (or Melissa Joan Hart).

Who remembers going to the cinema and your only luxury was coping a feel of your 'date' sitting next to you.

Anyway, I was expecting the Hobbit to be one movie - not sure why it needs to be three. But still it was alright, can't explain and the early tie-ins to LotR footage was cool. Eagels need to be shot though, once again they could fly the good guys to the mountain but don't just like how they dicked Frodo over as well. I know its a RPG (Role Playing Game, Greg) and the main characters need to level (increase their attributes and skills, Greg) to fight the last boss - but for fucksake take the friggen Eagels out damn Deus ex Machina (Layla Miller, Greg, Layla Miller).

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I absolutely hate all this 'enhanced cinema experience'. First it was 3D then its enhanced frame rate (which I don't mind) and now there is a cinema where a chef will whip you up a gourmet meal and cocktail while you watch 'Wreck it Fred'.

What's next a cinema where you put 50p into a machine and out pops a Thai woman who then proceeds to suck your johnson? I am not interested... unless its the Champions League Final with Arsenal in it and Thai woman has been replaced by Ms DDD (or Melissa Joan Hart).

Who remembers going to the cinema and your only luxury was coping a feel of your 'date' sitting next to you.

Anyway, I was expecting the Hobbit to be one movie - not sure why it needs to be three. But still it was alright, can't explain and the early tie-ins to LotR footage was cool. Eagels need to be shot though, once again they could fly the good guys to the mountain but don't just like how they dicked Frodo over as well. I know its a RPG (Role Playing Game, Greg) and the main characters need to level (increase their attributes and skills, Greg) to fight the last boss - but for fucksake take the friggen Eagels out damn Deus ex Machina (Layla Miller, Greg, Layla Miller).

You should have a column in the Metro.

EKE_38BPM

I'm currently re-reading the book and I'm in two minds about seeing the film in the cinema.

Should I bother and if so, 2D, 3D or 3D HFR?

DonDaddyD

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I'm currently re-reading the book and I'm in two minds about seeing the film in the cinema.

Should I bother and if so, 2D, 3D or 3D HFR?

Watch the 'angry review': http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_87DLnq92X4

I think it concludes 2D HFR - so that you can say you've experienced it.

notsoblue

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I'm currently re-reading the book and I'm in two minds about seeing the film in the cinema.

Should I bother and if so, 2D, 3D or 3D HFR?

3D HFR, just make sure you get a center seat.

Kieran_Burns

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I'm currently re-reading the book and I'm in two minds about seeing the film in the cinema.

Should I bother and if so, 2D, 3D or 3D HFR?

All of them to be honest... apparently the experience is very different.

Personally I can't fault the 3D HFR version I saw. Just make sure you are sat a fair way back.

rubertoe

EKE_38BPM wrote:

I'm currently re-reading the book and I'm in two minds about seeing the film in the cinema.

Should I bother and if so, 2D, 3D or 3D HFR?

Man after my own heart.

Chapeau.