Yes, I'm really not understanding the obsession with "rollercoaster" sequences. Ugh.
So I saw The Hobbit again just now, this time in HFR 3D. I really wanted to compare, though it's been a month since I first saw it, so not quite the direct comparison I wanted. It was also in a smaller theater and I don't think it was 4k as I saw it before (which was really clear, crisp, and awesome - frankly of more benefit than 3D, in my view!). So here are my thoughts now, both comparative notes, as well as just general comments.
First off, HFR unfortunately comes with 3D as a requirement. I have seen perhaps 5 movies in 3D in the theater, such a small number because I have very consciously avoided it after my first few experiences. I simply find it unconvincing, tacky, and a detriment to my immersion in and enjoyment of *any* film. Yes, even the poster child for 3D, Avatar, was I think cheapened and made even more gimmicky and fake-seeming by the addition of 3D. So if you like 3D, you can skip the next few paragraphs and/or take these comments with a big helping of salt.
I have 3 major problems with 3D as it stands now, 2 are technology issues we'll just have to wait to be fixed, but 1 is a production/direction decision that should, in my view, be fixed *now*, and I don't get why it hasn't been. #1: I wear glasses (don't have contacts yet, I know I should get them), so the glasses aren't comfortable; they work, perhaps to the surprise of some, but they, along with the weight of my regular glasses, make my nose sore by the end. So, glasses-free 3D would be great. Even if I had contacts I'd much prefer this. 2: The 3D approach currently used causes significant and distracting dimming to the images on screen. So again, glasses-free 3D would be a lot better.
3: Perspective, distance, scale are all distorted, exaggerated, and just generally messed-up with at least some scenes, and often many scenes, and this really breaks my sense of immersion tremendously. It makes things look like a model, often-times, or just clearly wrong. I think this is fixable, though, and I am guessing at least some of it comes down to the choice of depth separation for elements. Perhaps it is even technically realistic, but I don't think all the elements in the equation are being accounted for if that's the case, such as the variable size and distance of the screen. Perhaps it's not technically possible to make the effect work ideally for everyone all the time, but I think reducing the overall depth separation, i.e. making the effect more subtle, helps all around with this. Certainly there were a number of scenes in The Hobbit that were far less jarring and more natural-seeming, with just a hint of the 3D effect.
What makes it worse is that some directors, or whomever makes the decisions about 3D elements, seem to really buy-into the gimmicky aspect of it. I would have thought with a film-maker like Peter Jackson, someone who knows drama and spectacle like few others, would not stoop to cheap gimmicks like teeth flying at the screen when someone is hit in the face! And yet... there it is, tacky as hell. Completely ruining the ability to take the film as anything but slapstick and farce, at least for that moment, at best. Cheapening the entire film experience, at worst. At other times things that would work well in 2D with simple depth of field, such non-focal point birds flying across the camera on a landscape pull-out, instead look awkward and out of place in 3D, being so obviously separated from the background. I think DoF is often over-used or incorrectly used in CGI, sort of exaggerated almost to make a point (so to speak), and the same seems to be true of 3D right now.
The issue of combining 3D with Depth of Field has been commonly mentioned as well, and if the right directorial decisions are made I think it's less of an issue, but for example at the end of The Hobbit, on a pull-back in the treasure room, the foreground was fuzzy, but I found myself wanting to focus there, and indeed the eventual focal point ended up being there. It was only pushed into the background momentarily for dramatic effect. I feel like DoF works well to accomplish this goal, but 3D less so. I'm not sure how to necessarily reconcile the use of DoF with 3D, except to say I think it is probably less problematic in scenes with less depth, or less potential points of interest. In any case I certainly think there's room for improvement there.
I also think a lot of the compositing is made more difficult, complicated, or just more obvious with 3D. Especially with blurred elements (either by motion or depth of field) or lit elements (e.g. sparks). They just look incredibly obvious and awkward, like they're standing out from the screen, not fitting into what I'm watching at all. I don't know if this is just a problem of compositing, or (I think more likely) has to do with the higher-than-they-should-be distances/depths that are portrayed. I suspect if the 3D was overall more subtle, these things would stand out less. I'm sad to say I would guess the 3D effect is somewhat exaggerated deliberately so that audiences know they're getting the "3D Experience" and thus getting their money's worth. But it really does detract from most cinematic experiences for me.
OK, so with that out of the way, what about HFR? Well, sadly I feel like it was hard to separate the effect of HFR from the 3D, however I did notice everything being smoother. At first it did seem kind of like a soap opera or something, and some scenes even seemed to literally move a little too fast (like an old movie from the 1920's or something), but after the first 10-15 minutes I didn't see that anymore, except 1 scene toward the end. And after that I have to say it lost its strangeness fairly quickly. I feel like the 3D did a lot more to ruin my immersion or the effect of the CGI than the HFR, and I suspect (and hope) that I would get used to HFR in the cinema fairly easily, provided it didn't come with 3D as a requirement. I certainly hope that ends up being the case!
Now, on 2nd viewing I found the prosthetics actually less distracting. Some still not ideal (especially hobbit feet and ears, unfortunately), and the tremendous difference between dwarfs was kind of annoying and nonsensical, but somehow it all still worked a bit better for me. Maybe it was the HFR or 3D? Hard to say.
As Alex mentions, the pale orc really is rather lacking. I think I get what they were going for with his look, a sort of creepy, ethereal, ghostly creature, jarring in a way *because* he is smoother, less ragged and harsh than the other orcs, a sort of "savage refinement/beauty" or something. But it really just ends up looking simplistic and, well, unfinished. The scars in particular, as he points out, are just bad-looking. It seems like they're trying to depict some kind of ritual scarring since they're essentially symmetrical, but no other orcs seem to have them (sure, I get it, he's special, but then the orc king doesn't have them either), and the patterns themselves seem really simple and awkward. Then there's the look of the scarring itself, just very basic-looking, unrealistic, overly-smooth. Definitely a disappointment for such a major character, the central villain. In contrast I thought the orc king had grit, realism, subtlety and nuance, unique character, and everything else you'd want, yet he was on screen for all of 2 minutes. A shame.
Overall a pretty enjoyable film, and I once again found the time went by faster than I would expect, which is a good thing (and is in contrast to the previous 3 LotR films, which *felt* long). I will be looking forward to the next ones, but really hoping they choose to do HFR *without* 3D, and that they improve the prosthetics.
- Oshyan
