• 76 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by Wraxend (570 posts) -


#2 Posted by Wraxend (570 posts) -

So I'm seeing The Hobbit tomorrow and I can't decide if I should see it in 2D or 3D. Anybody seen it in 3D? If so how is it?

#3 Posted by Colourful_Hippie (4495 posts) -

I think I might go see it in 3D because it should be better than most due to the higher framerate.

#4 Edited by Droop (1916 posts) -

I'm seeing it in 3D HFR on Sunday. Since they hype up the 3D and high frame rate, I thought I might as well check it out 'as intended'.

#5 Posted by Ghost_Cat (1472 posts) -

You can't pass up on the very first film to feature HFR in 3D.

#6 Posted by Bocam (3822 posts) -

I did not know they were also showing it in 2D.

#7 Posted by sawtooth (457 posts) -

I don't care about the 3d but i do want to see the 48 fps.

#8 Posted by triple07 (1198 posts) -

They still make 3D movies? I thought we were done with this national nightmare.

#9 Posted by steelerzfan101 (283 posts) -

I will most likely see the movie in 3D because: why not! I don't really care that I have to pay a couple extra bucks.

#10 Posted by VilhelmNielsen (1743 posts) -

I saw this in 3D today. I must say, it was a very well-looking film. Some of the close-ups were really great in 3D, and after 45 minutes I practically forgot the 3D and just enjoyed the movie. But, the action sequences became a complete mess. I'm not sure wether the higher framerate helped or worsened this, but my eyes just don't know where to focus whenever 3D movies do any rapid camera movement. See it in 2D, I'm thinking of doing so, just to experience the action in a less confusing way.

That being said, it was fantastic. Everything I could've hoped for.

#11 Posted by JasonR86 (9726 posts) -

2D out of my irrational hate of 3D. But I'm also not a fan of 48 fps. I'm conflicted.

...maybe I just won't see this movie.

#12 Edited by MagickPants (3 posts) -

I've always had an issue with 3D when it comes to motion. Whenever they pan the camera everything looks crazy blurry to me in a way that 2D films never have. It happened with Avatar too and they were talking up the 3D in that movie like it was going to change the world. Maybe the higher frame rate might fix that panning issue but I have yet to see a movie in 3D that I felt benefited from it. I'll be looking to see The Hobbit in 2D but at 48 fps. Hopefully it doesn't cause the "soap opera effect" the entire movie as the frame rate interpolation on televisions has always really bothered me when people have it enabled.

Edit: It looks like Warner Brothers isn't releasing a 2D, 48 fps version. That's unfortunate.

#13 Posted by BirdkeeperDan (400 posts) -

I saw some making of features during development. It seems they made the colours really extreme on set to offset the loss of colour in 3d. I wish they had focused on 2d but thats not the case. They would have had to alter the film in 2d also (those colours were pretty ghastly) the film really was intended for 3d so I'd recommend that.

#14 Posted by Vonocourt (2164 posts) -

2D, if you really want 3D, I'd suggest going for the early bird or matinee price to take some bite off the 3D surcharge.

#15 Posted by PeasantAbuse (5138 posts) -

@triple07 said:

They still make 3D movies? I thought we were done with this national nightmare.

Me too :'(

#16 Posted by crusader8463 (14429 posts) -

I don't watch movies in theaters so it will be in 2D for me when it eventually comes out on DVD.

#17 Posted by face15 (1306 posts) -

Question: Is it still 48fps even in 2D?

If so I'm gonna have to see that movie twice to check that shit out.

#18 Posted by Hunter5024 (5964 posts) -

Whoa the hobbit is this friday? Shiiit.

#19 Posted by medacris (674 posts) -

2-D, but because I'm seeing it with my family, and my mom/sister are both really prone to migraines and/or getting sick if they try to watch a 3-D and/or IMAX film. They want to see it even more than I do, so I don't want them to have to miss huge chunks of the film because they don't feel well.

The thing I'm most bummed out about about missing the IMAX is actually the IMAX-exclusive preview of Star Trek: Into Darkness. I'm sure The Hobbit will be great regardless of how I see it, though.

#20 Edited by CreepingDeath0 (178 posts) -

2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.

I believe the extreme colours where due to the new HD cameras they were using. Seeing it in 2D or 3D in the cinema they should appear much more muted.

As for what I'm going to see, 2D and 24 fps. 2 reasons for this. The first is I have a wonky eye and can't see 3D films (they just result in migraines) and secondly, I've heard from many different sources that watching it in 48fps can cause quite a bit of eye strain and, in some cases nausea. For a film that is quite long, and that I've been looking forward too for a long time, I want to be as comfortable as possible while watching it.

In short, I want to enjoy the film and not have to spend the rest of the day in a dark room with my head buried in a cold pillow. :P

Edit: For those curious about if their cinema is showing it in 48fps or not (at least for UK folks) there's a list of cinemas here that have upgraded for it.

#21 Posted by Little_Socrates (5715 posts) -

I'm seeing it in 2D at 48fps.

#22 Posted by JonathanAshleyMoore (283 posts) -

2D. Cheaper, the better.

#23 Posted by zoozilla (984 posts) -

Seeing it in 3D in 48fps. That's the way Peter Jackson filmed it, so I figured I might as well watch it the way he intended it to be seen. If I don't like it, I could also go 2D and/or 24fps for the other two movies.

#24 Edited by BlatantNinja23 (928 posts) -

@CreepingDeath0 said:

2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.

Sorry that is not true. The only 48 fps version is the HFR 3D version.

Anyways, I will be seeing the HFR 3D version.

#25 Posted by sawtooth (457 posts) -

@BlatantNinja23 said:

@CreepingDeath0 said:

2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.

Sorry that is not true. The only 48 fps version is the HFR 3D version.

Anyways, I will be seeing the HFR 3D version.

That's what i was lead to understand as well. As i understand it, if you want to see the film in 48fps then you have to see it in 3D, which i think is a bummer.

#26 Posted by FunkasaurasRex (847 posts) -

@sawtooth said:

@BlatantNinja23 said:

@CreepingDeath0 said:

2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.

Sorry that is not true. The only 48 fps version is the HFR 3D version.

Anyways, I will be seeing the HFR 3D version.

That's what i was lead to understand as well. As i understand it, if you want to see the film in 48fps then you have to see it in 3D, which i think is a bummer.

I was under the impressions that some cinemas were showing it in 2D in 48 fps, but I haven't looked into it too extensively. Regardless my understanding is that the way to see it is either in 48 fps in 3D or 24 fps in 2D. Feel free to correct me on any of that though.

#27 Posted by Zacagawea (1613 posts) -

Last time I tried to watch a 3D movie I got a headache after about 2 minutes, so 2D. Not going to take that chance.

#28 Posted by CreepingDeath0 (178 posts) -

@FunkasaurasRex said:

@sawtooth said:

@BlatantNinja23 said:

@CreepingDeath0 said:

2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.

Sorry that is not true. The only 48 fps version is the HFR 3D version.

Anyways, I will be seeing the HFR 3D version.

That's what i was lead to understand as well. As i understand it, if you want to see the film in 48fps then you have to see it in 3D, which i think is a bummer.

I was under the impressions that some cinemas were showing it in 2D in 48 fps, but I haven't looked into it too extensively. Regardless my understanding is that the way to see it is either in 48 fps in 3D or 24 fps in 2D. Feel free to correct me on any of that though.

If that really is the case then the cinema I called to confirm the whole 2D/48fps thing straight up lied to me. Lovely.

#29 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

It's done by the Avatar studio which the 3D was mind blowing, plus got to give this 48fps a chance so 3D for me. 3D was great in Avatar saw it multiple times, no other movie I have seen has been anywhere near that quality also want to see what Peter Jackson can do with the format because Martin Scorsece did some great stuff with the technology in Hugo, real makes me feel only the great directors really take advantage of it.

#30 Posted by TheHT (11786 posts) -

I'm not putting glasses over my glasses and not wearing contacts just to watch a movie in 3D. 2D is just fine.

#31 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@CreepingDeath0 said:

@FunkasaurasRex said:

@sawtooth said:

@BlatantNinja23 said:

@CreepingDeath0 said:

2D showings are in 24fps and 48fps, depends if the cinema you are seeing it at has invested in new projectors or not.

Sorry that is not true. The only 48 fps version is the HFR 3D version.

Anyways, I will be seeing the HFR 3D version.

That's what i was lead to understand as well. As i understand it, if you want to see the film in 48fps then you have to see it in 3D, which i think is a bummer.

I was under the impressions that some cinemas were showing it in 2D in 48 fps, but I haven't looked into it too extensively. Regardless my understanding is that the way to see it is either in 48 fps in 3D or 24 fps in 2D. Feel free to correct me on any of that though.

If that really is the case then the cinema I called to confirm the whole 2D/48fps thing straight up lied to me. Lovely.

Yep www.cinemablend.com/new/Find-Out-Where-You-Can-See-Hobbit-Groundbreaking-48-fps-33928.html, 48fps is only 3D so I don't know what all the fuss was about.

@Zacagawea said:

Last time I tried to watch a 3D movie I got a headache after about 2 minutes, so 2D. Not going to take that chance.

Apparently the 48fps helps eliminate that, Peter Jackson was saying they were spending hours and hours editing and watching 3D footage and never got headaches, but ofcourse he would say that since he is pioneering the technology in movies, I feel this is the next step in 3D since Avatar.

#32 Posted by Video_Game_King (36272 posts) -

I'll split the difference and see it in 2.5D.

#33 Posted by Snail (8661 posts) -

Is it possible to watch the movie at 48 FPS but not in 3D?

#34 Posted by Wraxend (570 posts) -

Well the cinema I'm seeing it at doesn't support the new HFR so I'll be seeing it in 2D, plus that's what the majority have voted.

#35 Posted by Vexxan (4614 posts) -

Always go 2D. I admit I'm a bit interested in seeing the 48 fps version but 3D can go suck it.

#36 Posted by gaminghooligan (1480 posts) -

After all the framerate discussion, I want to see it at 48fps. So 3d.

#37 Posted by Bell_End (1203 posts) -

i actually quite like 3D when its done well. so i can't wait to get really stoned with the gf and go see it.

#38 Posted by Mr_Skeleton (5154 posts) -

Got tickets for 3D in high frame rate, going to see it in two days.

#39 Posted by James_ex_machina (899 posts) -

I'm going to follow the suggestion of several reviews to watch the movie in 2D @24 FPS first. After you've seen the movie and enjoyed it, go watch it in 48 FPS 3D or 2D. I'm curious about the 48 FPS hype, but there is an overwhelming number saying the CGI stuff looks like bad CGI at that speed.

#40 Posted by Brewmaster_Andy (524 posts) -

It was filmed at 48 fps and filmed in 3D. That's how I am going to see it.

#41 Posted by Nightriff (5343 posts) -

3D needs to go away and die

#42 Posted by Bell_End (1203 posts) -

@Nightriff said:

3D needs to go away and die

3D's ok if it done well. i'd rather have the choice

#43 Posted by Nightriff (5343 posts) -

@Bell_End said:

@Nightriff said:

3D needs to go away and die

3D's ok if it done well. i'd rather have the choice

No, it needs to go away, everything doesn't need it, it doesn't enhance the film, it doesn't make it better. If they want to release Speed Racer in 3D, then I am 100% backing that decision.

#44 Posted by James_ex_machina (899 posts) -
@Nightriff

3D needs to go away and die

It's overrated, but Avatar in 3D was incredible to me.
I bought a new TV last month and almost bought a 3D TV after watching the demo. The reason I didn't is because I only know 2 movies I have 3D interest in is Avatar and The Hobbit. I figured I can save a hundred dollars not getting it and in 5 years when I need a new TV, 3D will be glasses free and have more things to watch.

I'm all for 3D when it's perfected and glasses free.
#45 Posted by James_ex_machina (899 posts) -
@Video_Game_King

I'll split the difference and see it in 2.5D.

Like Duke Nukem 3D!
#46 Posted by JCGamer (671 posts) -

Just bought my ticket for 3D 48 FPS. Will be interesting to see how it is.

#47 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

@James_ex_machina said:

@Nightriff

3D needs to go away and die

It's overrated, but Avatar in 3D was incredible to me. I bought a new TV last month and almost bought a 3D TV after watching the demo. The reason I didn't is because I only know 2 movies I have 3D interest in is Avatar and The Hobbit. I figured I can save a hundred dollars not getting it and in 5 years when I need a new TV, 3D will be glasses free and have more things to watch. I'm all for 3D when it's perfected and glasses free.

It's worth getting a 3D TV even if you don't use 3D, they have better processors in them that produce higher refresh rates and less latency for games.

@Nightriff said:

@Bell_End said:

@Nightriff said:

3D needs to go away and die

3D's ok if it done well. i'd rather have the choice

No, it needs to go away, everything doesn't need it, it doesn't enhance the film, it doesn't make it better. If they want to release Speed Racer in 3D, then I am 100% backing that decision.

Avatar was awesome in 3D, nothing has even come close to how great the 3D in that movie was, I'm hoping Hobbit in 48FPS3D will top it.

#48 Edited by Bourbon_Warrior (4523 posts) -

Just got back from seeing it, took about 10 minutes to get used to and when I did I was immersed into the film, some of the scenes while watching 48fps were just mindblowing. The scene with Gollum, the detail and movements he was making seemed so life like I felt like I was looking through the window at a Gollum enclosure. The cave trolls mixing with the real actors looked insane, the final scene is one of the best uses of 3D I've seen, hell the whole movie was a technical masterpiece. It was the first 3D movie that I had seen that I real forgot I was wearing the glasses, there was real depth to the scenes, not unlike other 3D movies that just looked like cut outs like a diorama you made at school, I felt I could look anywhere and just see alot of detail, the scenes filmed on location were just so huge. And the CGI was mindblowing. Easily the greatest 3D movie I have ever seen and the best movie of the year, I could of sit in that theatre for another 6 hours and watch the rest of the trilogy. I can't recommend enough people go and see this movie in 48FPS.

#49 Posted by VisariLoyalist (3000 posts) -

3d and 48fps ;)

#50 Posted by Clonedzero (4196 posts) -

i went 2d.

i honestly didnt even know it was in 3d.

absolutely LOVED the movie btw.