The Hobbit

Going to see it again in 2D tomorrow, this time with my parents. They both wear glasses and can't really stand 3D.

That's not correlation. I wear glasses too and can see 3D just fine.

It isn't seeing the 3D that is the problem. It is how uncomfortable it is to wear the 3D glasses over your own glasses.

I hate 3D because of that and when I bought my tickets about a month ago, there was no mention of a 2D version in the session finder. Checking the website now to get the finishing time I see that there are now 2D sessions available. GRRRR........
 
Well, your cinema sucks for offering glasses that don't fit over prescription ones. Every cinema I've been to with 3D has had those (and a different design every time).
 
Re: The Hobbit

I too wear glasses and if I didnt look at the screen dead straight and watch w even the slightest askew angle, the images would separate and go blurry even w the 3D glasses on. I only watched the IMAX version to see the 9 min star trek preview, otherwise I hate 3D and hope this current fad dies out soon.

Also it does suck to wear not only two pairs of glasses on my face but also the 3D glasses are like sunglasses and make everything in the film darker. This was a real problem in Thor 3D
 
Just watched it again in 3D, some of the fast moving scenes were hard to follow. Definitely prefer it in 2D.
 
A lot of the visual effects look really fake in 3D. I look forward to seeing it again, but in 2D. I thought the movie itself was brilliant and just like 11 years ago at the first session of The Fellowship of the Ring, the audience applauded Peter Jackson's name at the end.
 
They do fit, but they aren't comfortable and that pevents you from being immersed in the movie.

This. In fact, I got a bit of a headache from wearing both glasses and I have done this before, but without the headache. Will have to see it again in 2D. And the 48 frames per sec. made it look like I was watching a documentary on Dwarves and they were all re-enactment scenes. (I still love the movie of course)
 
That's exactly what a friend of mine said: it looked like a documentary, especially when in the Shire.
 
Hmm, I saw it in 3d (very good, IMHO, on par with Avatar and the best Pixars) but not in HFR. Technically I loved it. The rest was ok. I wasn't blown away by it like I was with LOTR...
 
I think we're kinda brainwashed by 100 years of grainy, flickery and blurry picture in cinemas. Now for the first time we see a movie with the picture quality, that shows the exact conditions on the movie set and we complain about too much reality.

It reminds me of the times, when CD replaced vinyl. Vinyl fans complained, that the CD sounded too clean, too "cold" and they missed the "warmth" of the soft crackle of a needle going through plastic.

I predict, though, that time will have the same effect on classic 24 fps movies, than CD had on vinyl: It will remain a niche for enthusiasts but the rest will smile or shake their heads about it.
 
Die hard fans still claim vinyl sounds better than any CD, with the right equipment, so not exactly the same thing.

I want to know how it looks in HFR without 3D, that would be the next step in 2D for me, we will all get used to it, and it doesn't have to be 3D exclusive
 
Die hard fans still claim vinyl sounds better than any CD, with the right equipment, so not exactly the same thing.

Well, you see, that's the thing that isn't true. Vinyl sounds a bit more pleasant, yes. But that's because of harmonic distortions or - in other words - soundbits, that don't belong to the recording but are added by the equipment. Vinyl is objectively worse, than a CD. It can be measured and proven in a scientific way. Same with tube amps, by the way.

Also a CD is much closer to live music, than a vinyl recording. But I understand the appeal of making something feel more pleasant by actually making it a bit worse ;) In hifi it's called "sounding". Devices are sounded, which means designed to produce a certain sound.

We also have a movie counterpart for that. Movies are being tempered with for many years already. Look at some recent films by Steven Spielberg for example. Nobody complains, when a director takes the colour off a movie and adds grain to it. But if you make it more realistic, you're being criticized. Strange.

I can understand those, who are critical about 48 fps. I just believe they're fighting a losing battle.
 
Last edited:
Nobody complains, when a director takes the colour off a movie and adds grain to it.

I do. Quite often. I've seen a few cases where it helps create the right effect, but it's used far too much.

The same goes for stuff shot with unstablized cameras. I understand why it might be used, and every once in a while it works nicely, but more often than not it just makes scenes vertigo-inducingly unwatchable.
 
Yeah. The Wilhelm scream is becoming so common it's more notable when an action movie doesn't have it.
 
Yeah. The Wilhelm scream is becoming so common it's more notable when an action movie doesn't have it.

One of my pet peeves and a guaranteed suspension of disbelief issue, how focking misguided a moviemaker do you have to be to pump millions in things like special effects, all star casts, over-hyping, in this case a change in picture quality nobody asked for, but you still end up using stock soundbits because you could not be arsed to record something original.
 
Am I the only one who goes to the cinema for the entertainment, rather than going there to analyse the movie and point out every mistake?
 
Am I the only one who goes to the cinema for the entertainment, rather than going there to analyse the movie and point out every mistake?

:wave:
thanks for that, i go there and pay those ridiculous prices to sink into the movie as much as i can, who cares about anything else?
 
Top