[Traveller]

Ha, me too. Tickets for 3d Imax. The link on the site for the super HD business just lead to the 3D Imax bit so who knows what I'll get.

11.30am on the 13th for me. First trip to 3d imax..

This post has been edited by Traveller: 12 November 2012 - 06:00 PM

[QuickTidal]

Traveller, on 12 November 2012 - 05:58 PM, said:

Ha, me too. Tickets for 3d Imax. The link on the site for the super HD business just lead to the 3D Imax bit so who knows what I'll get.

11.30am on the 13th for me. First trip to 3d imax..

Mine specifically says "3D HFR" the HFR should be listed if they are showing it as such. If the link took you there you'll likely get HFR tho.

[Traveller]

Yeah, looks like it. Really can't wait.

[Defiance]

Figured I'd pitch in my opinion.

Not sure about it being split into 3 movies. It'll be interesting to see how much Peter Jackson adds to the plot, as well as what other stuff from Tolkien's work he draws upon. Really makes me wonder if we'll be seeing a lot more dwarf history and other types of flashbacks.

Honestly, though, what I'm looking forward to the most at this point are the inevitable extended editions that are going to be released. I'm usually not that into special features, but I really enjoyed watching the hours of bonus content that the LotR trilogy had.

[QuickTidal]

Holy crapbuckets, I just found out that not only am I seeing it in 3D and HFR, but I'm in one of the only theatres in Canada playing the sound in the brand spankety new 64-channel Dolby Atmos!

So. Excited!

[QuickTidal]

World Premiere took place last night in NZ (Wellington), and the reviews coming in are positive across the board, with most saying it's absolutely amazing.

The most telling tweet is from Bryan Singer (who was at the premiere) and he said he LOVED 48FPS and is having frame rate envy.

[McLovin]

It ain't the matte; it's the motion.

[QuickTidal]

Eh?

[McLovin]

Sorry. Movie tech joke fail.

[polishgenius]

Strange kind of review from IGN... Spend the whole page slating it then give it four stars. Not the greatest review ever.

[QuickTidal]

Hmmm, it's annoying to see people break the review embargo like that.

I've been avoiding TV spots for this as I want to go in as fresh as possible (minus the 2 trailers I've seen), so I'll be avoiding reviews as well.

[Defiance]

Doesn't the review Embargo end today or tomorrow? Doesn't really bother me that people are breaking it by a few hours if so, it's their loss when they stop getting advanced screenings.

Early reviews are disappointing but not unexpected. I expected The Hobbit movies to be good, but I never thought that they'd surpass the quality of the LotR movies.

One thing that really frustrates me is people say that the orcs/goblins aren't as good this time due to the fact that they're all CGI. This sucks, considering how amazing the Uruk-hai were. Yes, I'm sure it takes a lot of time to put so much makeup on people every day, but in the end I think it's worth it.

[polishgenius]

Was there actually an embargo? Coz it seems baffling to me that they'd do press screenings- this far in advance- and then ask them not to review it. And there's enough reviews going up, from some big names not just the cheeky little sites.

Mind you, I dislike the whole idea of review embargoes anyway. It usually smacks of a company not confident in their product, even though in this case it's more likely that they just don't think it needs extra hype.

I'ma keep my thoughts on the actual reviews spoilered, for QT and other avoiders:

Spoiler

Yeah, I was worried about the CGI overload beforehand. I commented on the second trailer that it looked more Clash of the Titans than LotR. Shame to hear that borne out. And the worry that the plot might just be a tiny bit thin... They also seem to have added some extraneous epic clashes to it as well, but interestingly it seems as if those are some of the best bits - in fairness, Jackson does know how to stage a fight sequence, that was never his problem.

And it sounds like they've pulled off the Riddles in the Dark section, which is a relief.

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 04 December 2012 - 02:41 PM, said:

Was there actually an embargo? Coz it seems baffling to me that they'd do press screenings- this far in advance- and then ask them not to review it. And there's enough reviews going up, from some big names not just the cheeky little sites.

Mind you, I dislike the whole idea of review embargoes anyway. It usually smacks of a company not confident in their product, even though in this case it's more likely that they just don't think it needs extra hype.

I'ma keep my thoughts on the actual reviews spoilered, for QT and other avoiders:

Spoiler

Yeah, I was worried about the CGI overload beforehand. I commented on the second trailer that it looked more Clash of the Titans than LotR. Shame to hear that borne out. And the worry that the plot might just be a tiny bit thin... They also seem to have added some extraneous epic clashes to it as well, but interestingly it seems as if those are some of the best bits - in fairness, Jackson does know how to stage a fight sequence, that was never his problem.

And it sounds like they've pulled off the Riddles in the Dark section, which is a relief.

There were apparently official review embargoes, but since Twitter wasn't outlawed as a way of getting out feelings about it, the reviewers have been lax about the embargo. That's as far as I know, via One Ring. I'm not sure which screening IGN was at tho....the embargo was for the WW premieres...like the first in NZ that I think the NY Post broke?

And the idea of embargo is not really that the company has no faith....like book review embargoes, it's to give everyone a fair shake at seeing it without any preconceived ideas set out by someone else about what to expect beyond the marketing. So the reviewer gets to see it unencumbered by previous reviews...so should the casual viewer. They do it with big book releases too for the same reason. And I THINK....not totally sure, but I THINK movie review embargoes came about because the "newspaper reviews" which the average viewer who wouldn't seek out a review of a film, might stumble across it as they read the rest of the paper. It means less in this day and age of the internet mind you, but like breaking street date, it carries penalties....like said above, IGN may not get invited to more preview screenings.

Anyways, I can see how embargoes don't exactly work in this day and age...if you don't want to read a review you simply don't. As someone who has had to abide an embargo or two I understand their need tho.

EDIT: My mistake, the embargo was lifted at Midnight.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 04 December 2012 - 03:27 PM

[polishgenius]

I get it more in books because of the mechanics of the situation - they have to send them out some time before the release to make sure the reviewers get them, and to ensure they have time to read them amidst all the other books they're undoubtedly getting, but if a reviewer gets and reviews a book five months before street date then by the time it actually rolls around, the review's not really contributing to build anticipation. Plus I get the impression that with a lot of books, reviews are a far bigger part of the marketing strategy than in movies, where you have posters and trailers and chat-show tours and the like to build awareness. I could be wrong, but customer-side that's certainly my experience.

Quote

if you don't want to read a review you simply don't.

This is the main source of my puzzlement, I guess. I don't think I've ever in my life read a review by accident.

[QuickTidal]

So reading all the notes about the 48FPS now I'm concerned about the HFR now...more than I was before. I mean I watch HD BBC stuff all the time, so I'm no stranger to that "real" / "video" look that hides nothing...but now I'm trepidatious with a number of people saying it takes away from the movie and a seemingly equal number saying you get used to it, but it's still jarring.


I worry, I worry....

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 04 December 2012 - 03:48 PM

[QuickTidal]

I'm slowly coming to the realization that it will not be us film buffs over the age of 30 who embrace something like 48FPS as the next wave in film...but the kids and teens who have literally been weaned and raised on HD TV and video games...to them this is not going to be a jarring experience....meanwhile for me I'm 35 and I've been raised on 24FPS and my brain is going to experience a disconnect.

So we probably aren't the demographic.

Though a co-worker assures me that he left his HD TV motion smoothing feature on and after a week or two him and his gf got totally used to it and film will be the same...it just may not happen with one film.

[QuickTidal]

Note: The Yahoo reviewer saw it in 48FPS the first time and was really unsure/bothered by it...but then saw it again and updated the post:

SECOND THOUGHTS: At the time this story was originally published on Monday night, I was seeing "The Hobbit" for the second time, again at 48fps. And I have to admit that not only did the movie strike me as better -- faster and more entertaining, though still padded and at times silly -- but the format wasn't as bothersome.

I still think the high frame rate takes you out of the movie at times, particularly in scenes that feature well-lit actors prominently in the frame. But about half the time, the format came closer to justifying Jackson's experiment than it had seemed on first viewing.

So maybe I'm just one of those viewers who needs more time to adjust.

That's good to hear and pretty much what I was expecting to happen a few weeks a go when I was more gungho about HFR....still worried, but less so now.

[Morgoth]

I still think that the lack of 3 movies worth of content will shine through, but I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[QuickTidal]

Morgoth, on 04 December 2012 - 06:19 PM, said:

I still think that the lack of 3 movies worth of content will shine through, but I hope I'll be pleasantly surprised.

I was going to write out a long reply...but here, this person spells it out better than I ever could...for the skeptical about the content and that there actually IS enough material for 3 films...read the link article.

http://www.theonerin...hobbit-trilogy/