The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

DesperateDan

Sad Professor wrote: »

No, that was years ago. Most of the building used to be dedicated to a 50 foot 70mm IMAX cinema. UGC/Cineworld converted it to a multiplex when they bought it. What's going in now is just a regular size Digital IMAX screen.

Interesting, I remember seeing an 3D educational film about fish there when I was about 11 (so around 2000) on the biggest screen I had ever seen in my life Such a shame it's gone. So I guess I'll just book the pseudo-IMAX in Cineworld and hopefully it'll be in HFR

Actually I've never been to the Odeon, would these "iSense" screens be better maybe? (They sound bigger) http://www.odeoncinemas.ie/fanatic/isense/

Sad Professor

iSense is trying to be Digital IMAX minus the branding. I'm not sure it will be showing The Hobbit in HFR. Cineworld's new IMAX screen definitely will be though.

maquiladora

Sad Professor wrote: »

iSense is trying to be Digital IMAX minus the branding. I'm not sure it will be showing The Hobbit in HFR. Cineworld's new IMAX screen definitely will be though.

Odeon :

Please note that High Frame Rate (HFR) performances of 'The Hobbit' have not been confirmed as yet. They will be available at selected cinemas, and at no additional cost. As soon as we have more information, we'll announce it in this space.

WolfForager

Something tells me it's gonna be hard to get a seat in the Cineworld IMAX screen over the Christmas period....

maquiladora

WolfForager wrote: »

Something tells me it's gonna be hard to get a seat in the Cineworld IMAX screen over the Christmas period....

Well you can book tickets now.

WolfForager

maquiladora wrote: »

Well you can book tickets now.

Between exams and unforseen Christmas happenings, twould be a bad idea!

fillefatale

Are there any cinemas in Dublin offering midnight screenings of The Hobbit?

maquiladora

Odeon have now confirmed The Hobbit will be shown in HFR ISENSE 3D at Point Village. They've added it to the list of films and you can book tickets now.

spank_inferno

Just watched production video #9.

Its baffling the amount of post-production that goes into these things.

Principle photography almost seems of little importance!

johnny_ultimate

What I'd give for a 2D HFR The distributor is missing out on a sizable niche market there.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

What I'd give for a 2D HFR The distributor is missing out on a sizable niche market there.

I'm glad they aren't as that could lead to cinemas showing three different versions of the same film meaning that other films lose out.

Far as I'm concerned people should at least wait for reviews of the 3D version before writing it off. I get that people have been burnt by 3D in the past but that's down to them not bothering to do a little research before leaving the house. There have been a number of films which have done great things with the format, Avatar, Hugo, Dredd, Transformers 3, Drive Angry and others all look great and there is very, very little loss of colour. Unlike Thor or Clash of the Titans the 3D enhanced the experience. Sure the 2D version of Deeds is something I'm really looking forward to but once I get a 3D TV ill be giving the Blu a watch.

Mellor

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm glad they aren't as that could lead to cinemas showing three different versions of the same film meaning that other films lose out.

Not really.
If they are showing more formats of a film, they tend to show/sell less of each type, but the totals are the same. Places showing 3D HFR will probably put on less 2D and 3D screenings compared to a similar sized place without HFR.

BTW there is 3 version, Johnny ultimate was talking about a 4th type 2D HFR.

Mellor

Mellor wrote: »

Not really.
If they are showing more formats of a film, they tend to show/sell less of each type, but the totals are the same. Places showing 3D HFR will probably put on less 2D and 3D screenings compared to a similar sized place without HFR.

BTW there is 3 version, Johnny ultimate was talking about a 4th type 2D HFR.

I assumed that any cinema showing the 3D version was showing the HFR version. Pretty much every cinema ive seen selling tickets are advertising it as 3DHFR.

The problem with big films such as The Hobbit is that you can end up with the same film playing on 4 or 5 screens st the same time. It's not something any film fan wants to see as it means that other films will not get a chance. Over the past month many cinemas have had Twilight playing 10 times a day on 3 screens while films such as Argo and The Master aren't even playing.

Mellor

Deleted User wrote: »

I assumed that any cinema showing the 3D version was showing the HFR version. Pretty much every cinema ive seen selling tickets are advertising it as 3DHFR.

I don't think its 100% confirmed how it will be distributed yet. It was originally reported that about 10% of venues in the US would have it at 48FPS. If cinema are advertising it in 48 now, they could be simply copying a generic press release.

The IMAX here is Sydney, the largest screen in the world apparently, is showing 3d in 24FPS, not 48FPS. As its isn't yet set up for it. maybe that will change.

johnny_ultimate

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with big films such as The Hobbit is that you can end up with the same film playing on 4 or 5 screens st the same time. It's not something any film fan wants to see as it means that other films will not get a chance. Over the past month many cinemas have had Twilight playing 10 times a day on 3 screens while films such as Argo and The Master aren't even playing.

Well in order of preference I'd put it this way:

2D HFR (sheer curiosity)
Standard 2D
3D HFR
Standard 3D

So if, in an ideal world, there was only two versions, I'd prefer the top two. Can't imagine I'm the only one, but alas such a thing is never going to happen. 90% sure it will just be standard old 2D for me, unless I happen to score a free ticket to a HFR somehow. I'm pessimistic about the new tech (the one person I know who has seen 48 FPS test footage said it gave them a headache after two minutes), but undoubtedly curious.

krudler

I think I'm going to see this in 2D first, so at least I'll have seen it and enjoyed it (hopefully) before seeing the HFR version and either hating it or spending the duration gawking and not paying attention.

Sad Professor

Of course, there's also the issue of how the 24fps version is going to turn out given that Jackson shot the film for 48fps using a faster shutter speed, which means there won't be as much motion blur unless they added it digitally. Nobody has seen enough of the 2D print of the film yet to comment on this. The trailer looks okay though.

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Well in order of preference I'd put it this way:

2D HFR (sheer curiosity)
Standard 2D
3D HFR
Standard 3D

So if, in an ideal world, there was only two versions, I'd prefer the top two. Can't imagine I'm the only one, but alas such a thing is never going to happen. 90% sure it will just be standard old 2D for me, unless I happen to score a free ticket to a HFR somehow. I'm pessimistic about the new tech (the one person I know who has seen 48 FPS test footage said it gave them a headache after two minutes), but undoubtedly curious.

My first trip to see it will most likely be in 2D buy I do plan on watching it in 3D. Jackson shot it for 3D so I imagine that its going to be one of the more impressive examples of the tech. What I hate is how so many people are actively boycotting the 3D version even though its the directors preffered version. I get that people dislike 3D because they've had a few bad experiences but there's been some pretty impressive uses of it and to write every 3D film off is narrow minded. Just think of how many people missed out on Dredd because of some stubborn narrow minded mission to avoid all 3D.

Ive heard two quite different reactions to the test footage. The first said that while it fir look very artificial and modern there was a fluidity to it the image that he liked. The other complained of getting a headache but he also complains of them after 10 minutes on his PS3.

maquiladora

So which would be the best place to see this? Cineworld IMAX or Odeon ISENSE at Point Village? I heard some people saw the viewing angle isn't great in the Odeon?

Mellor

Sad Professor wrote: »

Of course, there's also the issue of how the 24fps version is going to turn out given that Jackson shot the film for 48fps using a faster shutter speed, which means there won't be as much motion blur unless they added it digitally. Nobody has seen enough of the 2D print of the film yet to comment on this. The trailer looks okay though.

I think he shot at 1/64s shutter speed. So slightly faster than the 1/48s standard used at 24FPS. Blur in single frames will be proportionally less, but I'm not sure if the eyes will notice.

neilloc

stoneill wrote: »

Recognise this place?


It's been built up since my last visit, what with new tenants moving in and all that.

stoneill wrote: »

Actual location where this was filmed:

Not to be pedantic, cos that is a beautiful shot, and I'm sure some of the river sequence was shot there, but that's not the location of the Argonath! I was only there in August, and I've attached a photo of it.

The shot is from the imagined perspective of the Argonath, looking down at the boats coming towards you. Which is why I'm pretending to be one of the Argonath (Yup, I'm that cool). Crazy that there's a major road running right along the top of the cliff, just out of shot in the movie!

Also, I've included a couple of photos of what Hobbiton looks like now. They've left it literally 100% as it is in the movies, which is just magical. Everyone should go...

jaykhunter

wow! Hey, got any more pics from Hobbiton/LOTR country?

neilloc

jaykhunter wrote: »

wow! Hey, got any more pics from Hobbiton/LOTR country?

You wouldn't believe how many I have... Spent a month in New Zealand, and I think I counted 22 different movie locations we visited!

In all between myself and my girlfriend we took over 3,500 photos. The place is just incredible. You can't move without seeing something jaw-dropping. Not all LOTR photos of course, but I've finally sorted through them all and have several hundred LOTR ones. Obviously can't attach them all here though. Any suggestions as to a good website to post some of them to? (not overly keen on just giving everyone my Facebook details....)

Here's a couple more for a taste anyway.

Mickeroo

Only visited a couple when I was there myself.

These are near Twizel on the South Island. Gandalf crosses this river on Shadowfax when he has Pippin with him i think:



This was used as the Pelennor Fields:



They gave us props to play with, here's me :P



Took these while trekking in Tangariro NP, thats Mt. Ngarahoe in the background which was used as Mt. Doom for some parts I think. Climbed it earlier that day but was too cloudy to get good pics of the crater.





This spot was used in The Two Towers for a shot when everyone was fleeing Rohan for Helm's Deep, think it's just before the Warg attack:



Sorry about the low res, had to take them off bebo as someone nicked my hard drive with the hi-res versions on it

johnny_ultimate

I was more impressed by the non-picturesque stuff on my Wellington LotR tour. Like how the scene where the orcs rip the giant tree down was just in a bog-standard local park. Minis Tirith / Helm's Deep is just a grim industrial quarry along the motorway. And how the scenes where the hobbits first encounter the Ringwraiths / Aragorn looks out over the vast armies are shot on basically the Wellington equivalent of Killiney Hill!

Mickeroo wrote:

had to take them off bebo as someone nicked my hard drive with the hi-res versions on it

Must... not... make... joke

Deleted User wrote: »

What I hate is how so many people are actively boycotting the 3D version even though its the directors preffered version. I get that people dislike 3D because they've had a few bad experiences but there's been some pretty impressive uses of it and to write every 3D film off is narrow minded. Just think of how many people missed out on Dredd because of some stubborn narrow minded mission to avoid all 3D.

This argument seems to come up everytime a major blockbuster is primed for release, although I guess there are twenty-four extra variables this time around. But is it really incomprehensible that some of us just really & truly hate 3D after giving it a fair chance (I have seen several of the films you cited as exemplary 3D in the format)? That we don't enjoy paying extra for what we perceive to be a vastly inferior image quality and will actively (or is that passively in some cases?) make a stand until it goes way? If it's stubborn and narrow-minded, well I feel entirely justified in my stubborn narrow-mindedness

greeneyedspirit

in a hole in the ground, ...





Loved visiting Hobbiton, it was definitely one of the highlights of my NZ trip

qz

Great pics guys, I'm getting goosebumps looking at them.

neilloc

Yeah that's the Remarkables in Queenstown in the background of that shot (the last one posted by Mickeroo that is). They were used for about 5 or 6 different locations.

Very jealous you got up to Deer Park Heights where that lake is though, cos loads of the scenes from Rohan were shot there, but in the last year they've stopped letting people up to it. Apparently the Deer Farmer who owns the park has gone a bit senile and literally might shoot people who're wandering around his farm in case they hurt his Deer. True story!

The Remarkables really are Remarkable though. Right on the edge of the town. Those Kiwis know how to name their stuff too. Except for Doubtful Sound, that doesn't really make any sense. Then again, it was an Englishman named it ;-)

johnny_ultimate

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

This argument seems to come up everytime a major blockbuster is primed for release, although I guess there are twenty-four extra variables this time around. But is it really incomprehensible that some of us just really & truly hate 3D after giving it a fair chance (I have seen several of the films you cited as exemplary 3D in the format)? That we don't enjoy paying extra for what we perceive to be a vastly inferior image quality and will actively (or is that passively in some cases?) make a stand until it goes way? If it's stubborn and narrow-minded, well I feel entirely justified in my stubborn narrow-mindedness

The argument comes up every time a film shot in 3 D opens. I rarely go see 3D showings as most times its just something tacked on in post go make a few extra bucks. Avengers, Thor, Clash of the Titans, etc are all shameless and cynical conversions made to add 3 euro onto the ticket price. Its a shallow scam that does nothing to enhance the experience and just makes the whole thing look murky as if you were watching the film through a layer of vaseline. A film such as Avatar or Dredd used the tech to enhance the experience, it brings a little extra to the table and while given the choice between a 2D or 3D screening of Dredd I'd have gone for the 2D version but there's not a chance I'd have missed it because of some stubborn hatred of 3D.

3D is a tool that when used right can be a lot of gun, 3D gaming is impressive as hell and really adds to the experience and when it comes to 3D cinema I'd have faith in Jackson doing something interesting with the tech.

Mickeroo

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

I was more impressed by the non-picturesque stuff on my Wellington LotR tour. Like how the scene where the orcs rip the giant tree down was just in a bog-standard local park. Minis Tirith / Helm's Deep is just a grim industrial quarry along the motorway. And how the scenes where the hobbits first encounter the Ringwraiths / Aragorn looks out over the vast armies are shot on basically the Wellington equivalent of Killiney Hill!



Must... not... make... joke

It was the first time I logged in in about 3 or 4 years to get those pics I reckon! I was bummed that I missed the LOTR display in the Museum in Wellington which had loads of props and such.

neilloc wrote: »

Yeah that's the Remarkables in Queenstown in the background of that shot (the last one posted by Mickeroo that is). They were used for about 5 or 6 different locations.

Very jealous you got up to Deer Park Heights where that lake is though, cos loads of the scenes from Rohan were shot there, but in the last year they've stopped letting people up to it. Apparently the Deer Farmer who owns the park has gone a bit senile and literally might shoot people who're wandering around his farm in case they hurt his Deer. True story!

The Remarkables really are Remarkable though. Right on the edge of the town. Those Kiwis know how to name their stuff too. Except for Doubtful Sound, that doesn't really make any sense. Then again, it was an Englishman named it ;-)

There's a Mt. Awful over past Wanaka too

Yeah i was lucky enough to live in Queenstown and work on Coronet Peak for 2 whole winter seasons, used to ski up the Remarkables most weekends. Good times! Those pics were taken about 5 or 6 years ago, was no trouble with the farmer back then, tis a shame, used to go up there quite a bit.