In case you don’t read past this first sentence, I’ll get this message out up front: Don’t go see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in HFR3D. (More on what that is and why it sucks in a sec).
The Hobbit takes place 60 years before the events of The Lord of the Rings. It follows a group of outcast dwarves on a quest to reclaim their kingdom from a dragon, an adventure that, in the film version of the children’s tale, feels more like it’s really about tying a new trilogy into LOTR. After a lengthy setup, this gang of shorties and wizard Gandalf (played once more by charming old dude Ian McKellen) embark on a hike that frames the events that lead a young Bilbo Baggins (played by the ridiculously likable Martin Freeman, a.k.a. Dr. Watson from the BBC’s Sherlock — which, if you haven’t seen, you should probably just stop reading, skip The Hobbit and marathon immediately on Netflix like your friends have been telling you for months — a.k.a. Tim, the British Office’s much cooler version of the U.S. Office’s goodie-two-shoes Jim) to come to possess that "precious" One Ring.
The plot is a tad simpler than the LOTR trilogy, though it amounts to about the same: three hours of walking. But, then of course there’s that rich and wonderful world of Tolkien that all the fantasy fans go so bonkers for. (And, of course, walking is hella good for you, which could explain why Gandalf looks younger 60 years in the future than he does in The Hobbit.) It also tries harder to be more light-hearted and funny than the LOTR films, though there's still plenty of sword clashing, snarling nightmare beasts, and a decent villain in the form of a one-armed white orc named Azog the Defiler.
So, should you go see it? The answer to this question, trolls, disembowelment and HFR after the jump!
The Hobbit takes place 60 years before the events of The Lord of the Rings. It follows a group of outcast dwarves on a quest to reclaim their kingdom from a dragon, an adventure that, in the film version of the children’s tale, feels more like it’s really about tying a new trilogy into LOTR. After a lengthy setup, this gang of shorties and wizard Gandalf (played once more by charming old dude Ian McKellen) embark on a hike that frames the events that lead a young Bilbo Baggins (played by the ridiculously likable Martin Freeman, a.k.a. Dr. Watson from the BBC’s Sherlock — which, if you haven’t seen, you should probably just stop reading, skip The Hobbit and marathon immediately on Netflix like your friends have been telling you for months — a.k.a. Tim, the British Office’s much cooler version of the U.S. Office’s goodie-two-shoes Jim) to come to possess that "precious" One Ring.
The plot is a tad simpler than the LOTR trilogy, though it amounts to about the same: three hours of walking. But, then of course there’s that rich and wonderful world of Tolkien that all the fantasy fans go so bonkers for. (And, of course, walking is hella good for you, which could explain why Gandalf looks younger 60 years in the future than he does in The Hobbit.) It also tries harder to be more light-hearted and funny than the LOTR films, though there's still plenty of sword clashing, snarling nightmare beasts, and a decent villain in the form of a one-armed white orc named Azog the Defiler.
So, should you go see it? The answer to this question, trolls, disembowelment and HFR after the jump!
Yes, so long as the following are true:
With nearly a decade since the visually impressive original Jackson trilogy, the cities, fortresses and fantastical creatures of The Hobbit shine and dominate the screen thanks to latest advances in computer magic. Gollum and a Three Stooges trio of trolls appear particularly lifelike, and the locales — from an underground goblin lair to the grand, glistening elf city where Hugo Weaving and the film's lone female character (Cate Blanchett) hangout — are intricate and immense. But, these bigger-then-life bits of eye candy are also the perfect pieces for showcasing why HFR3D isn’t (please don’t let it be, Hollywood) the future of movies. Not yet at least.
A not-so technical explanation of why HFR sucks
HFR stands from "high frame rate," and it’s exactly what it sounds like. 24-frames per second is the typical speed film has been shown in for pretty much the past century; HFR is double that — 48 frames-per second. Sounds effing amazing, right? Like making the jump from standard def to HD? Sign me up! But wait.
Imagine if in making that jump things suddenly no longer looked like a movie any more but just a damn bunch of actors standing on a set. Oh, and those painstakingly crafted, multimillion-dollar computer-generated creations? Now the contrast between those jumbo-sized eagles and sled-pulling bunnies (no joke) and the real actors and scenery is so much more obvious that it’s like taking a huge step backward in the believability of special effects.
While the new clarity should give us a sharper look at CG creatures, their interactions with human players somehow looks more fake in this unforgiving detail, and sweeping shots of epic cities seem to stutter on the screen without the “blur” of slower frame rate. (Fortunately, the effect is hardly noticeable in scenes without fast-moving action — and there's a lot of sitting/standing and talking about why Bilbo's such a pansy who should just go home and lost dwarf greatness and so on.)
The results are jarring. Whereas a traditional film has that... well, film-like quality that differentiates it from the way things like football or a soap opera look on TV, HFR makes it like you’re right there. I found it distracting at best and almost unwatchable at worst.
Those in favor of HFR say it looks more like real life — that it’s like being there. But “there” is a place I don’t want to be. I don’t want to be on the set; I want to be in the world of the film.
Of course, I should say this was just my experience with my eyes and brain. Your results may vary. I’d be shocked if you didn’t at least notice it to be odd at first, but those who have been won over by HFR say it just takes some time to adjust to it. (This could be true, but The Hobbit is not a short film, and I never “adjusted” to it during the 170-minute screening.)
If you know what HFR is and are intrigued, then check it out for yourself. But if you have no idea or care about the lastest film tech, save your money and let others play Guinea pig — go see The Hobbit in trusty ol’ 24-frames per second in glorious 2D.
In the end, no matter which of the half-dozen formats you see it in, any of the inevitable comparisons to The Phantom Menace are made by people who haven’t recently watched that crap. Yes, The Hobbit is a lighter, simpler tale than the LOTR that feels overlong at times, but that's exactly what I imagine most fans of Jackson's trilogy are expecting. If you can overlook some minor annoyances (most of which will comes as no surprise to those who have watched the previous films), the return to Middle-earth is certainly worth the price of admission.
--Eric Pulsifer
- You like your children’s bedtime tales with a pinch of not-so-family-friendly decapitation, hacked off arms and goblin king disembowelment (only kind of exaggerating).
- You don’t mind long-ass movies (this one’s just shy of three hours) and scenes that sometimes feel so stretched out you wonder if it's some kind of test — the opening dinner scene between Bilbo and his road-trip buddies must have lasted like 30 minutes.
- You have at least some interest in Jackson’s take on the LOTR universe. If you skipped the LOTR trilogies, I feel you’re unlikely to get what all the fuss was about here. My non-LOTR-watching date found it boring and formulaic (walk > get in trouble > somehow get out of trouble without really having to fight > rinse > repeat).
- You aren’t a hardcore Tolkien fan who might be offended by more than a few artistic liberties to the source material to make this kid’s story feel more in sync with the darker world of the Jackson trilogy that follows.
- The crystal-clear sight of gorgeous New Zealand scenery doesn’t make you want to gouge your eyes out.
- You don’t go see it in HFR3D unless you know what you’re getting yourself in for.
With nearly a decade since the visually impressive original Jackson trilogy, the cities, fortresses and fantastical creatures of The Hobbit shine and dominate the screen thanks to latest advances in computer magic. Gollum and a Three Stooges trio of trolls appear particularly lifelike, and the locales — from an underground goblin lair to the grand, glistening elf city where Hugo Weaving and the film's lone female character (Cate Blanchett) hangout — are intricate and immense. But, these bigger-then-life bits of eye candy are also the perfect pieces for showcasing why HFR3D isn’t (please don’t let it be, Hollywood) the future of movies. Not yet at least.
A not-so technical explanation of why HFR sucks
HFR stands from "high frame rate," and it’s exactly what it sounds like. 24-frames per second is the typical speed film has been shown in for pretty much the past century; HFR is double that — 48 frames-per second. Sounds effing amazing, right? Like making the jump from standard def to HD? Sign me up! But wait.
Imagine if in making that jump things suddenly no longer looked like a movie any more but just a damn bunch of actors standing on a set. Oh, and those painstakingly crafted, multimillion-dollar computer-generated creations? Now the contrast between those jumbo-sized eagles and sled-pulling bunnies (no joke) and the real actors and scenery is so much more obvious that it’s like taking a huge step backward in the believability of special effects.
While the new clarity should give us a sharper look at CG creatures, their interactions with human players somehow looks more fake in this unforgiving detail, and sweeping shots of epic cities seem to stutter on the screen without the “blur” of slower frame rate. (Fortunately, the effect is hardly noticeable in scenes without fast-moving action — and there's a lot of sitting/standing and talking about why Bilbo's such a pansy who should just go home and lost dwarf greatness and so on.)
The results are jarring. Whereas a traditional film has that... well, film-like quality that differentiates it from the way things like football or a soap opera look on TV, HFR makes it like you’re right there. I found it distracting at best and almost unwatchable at worst.
Those in favor of HFR say it looks more like real life — that it’s like being there. But “there” is a place I don’t want to be. I don’t want to be on the set; I want to be in the world of the film.
Of course, I should say this was just my experience with my eyes and brain. Your results may vary. I’d be shocked if you didn’t at least notice it to be odd at first, but those who have been won over by HFR say it just takes some time to adjust to it. (This could be true, but The Hobbit is not a short film, and I never “adjusted” to it during the 170-minute screening.)
If you know what HFR is and are intrigued, then check it out for yourself. But if you have no idea or care about the lastest film tech, save your money and let others play Guinea pig — go see The Hobbit in trusty ol’ 24-frames per second in glorious 2D.
In the end, no matter which of the half-dozen formats you see it in, any of the inevitable comparisons to The Phantom Menace are made by people who haven’t recently watched that crap. Yes, The Hobbit is a lighter, simpler tale than the LOTR that feels overlong at times, but that's exactly what I imagine most fans of Jackson's trilogy are expecting. If you can overlook some minor annoyances (most of which will comes as no surprise to those who have watched the previous films), the return to Middle-earth is certainly worth the price of admission.
--Eric Pulsifer
RSS Feed
