I want to see you review Aliens on 4K. Cameron recently bashed his fan base, calling criticism of his 4K remaster losers who need to move out of their parents basement and get lives. What a guy. Great video. Loved The Hobbit trilogy John.
James Cameron was only taking the Michael there. He made me chuckle. I will do an Aliens video sometime but I'm not paying £25 for a home video disc I'll never watch all the way through. Once it's a £15 job then it will be a case of arranging with a colleague to get over to see his 35mm print and compare it to the 4K. I can understand why Mr. Cameron has completely re-worked every frame because it will mean for the general purchaser and not us film enthusiast nutters, it will look like a class 4K like most other top films do. It doesn't affect me because nothing is ever going to supplant my first run Super 8 print which I watched twice recently. The film grain is there, that's for sure. But it is entirely natural and not how it would appear after a cine to video scan. That's the point at which these things go wrong and why film grain has to then be reined in during the mastering process. Aliens would certainly need a huge reining in. But I'll see how right I am about that after viewing a 35mm print. John.
Personally I think just about all of James Cameron's recent 4k are horrible. As it is I'm not a fan and don't own any of his films. But the 4K are rightly hated. The over the top DNR/ AI scrub gives the actors a wax/rubber look ?. They honestly look like they have just had a skin stretch , they all look like plastic surgery versions with True Lies being biggest offender . Anyway only My opinion.
@@rikaardyyz3039 I've only been shown a few clips from the 4K of The Abyss but they looked very good. They should too because the film prints looked excellent in cinemas. I haven't seen Aliens yet but that was a bit like Highlander and therefore a little too much obvious film grain which would need some work to rein it in. It might have even been the same negative stock given they were made almost concurrently. True Lies looked best of all the home video formats in here. But we did re-work some of the settings to achieve the best result. I've pretty much stayed with those settings for everything with only a few minor adjustments. But what I have come to realize is that even though we all go through our systems and turn off all the 'digital enhancements' quite often they are somehow coming back on and spoiling the image quality. This is why so many report anomalies that I do not see on my system. The 'sharpen' function seems to be the prime reason why people report and even show things from their 4K disc viewings that simply do not exist on a properly setup system. I've been caught out myself a few times but this latest video projector seems much better at keeping the specified settings. Famous last words no doubt! John.
The Lord of the Rings movies are still masterpieces I watch that trilogy nearly every year. The Hobbit was a big let down for me but it still had some good scenes especially the first one.
One day I'll watch all three of the Lord of the Rings films Bob. Maybe another friend will loan them so I won't have to shell out a fortune. I might never have seen these Hobbit discs were it not for my colleague Mark. He was surprised and impressed with how they looked in his home cinema so sent them over to so I could tell him my opinion. I think we pretty much concurred. John.
I didn't realise how much of the cinematic feel is down to the frame rate. I watched the 48fps version at the cinema upon release and it felt like a soap opera.😮
@@MrBrax Agreed, but that's what we like. It's like the QWERTY keyboard. Those keys were originally in that order because it made sense, mechanically, but now it's just what we're used to and anything else is jarring.
I enjoyed The Hobbit series Paul so I may be able to enjoy the Lord of the Rings films now too. I didn't much care for the first film when I saw it. A lot of that was the pretty dreadful image quality which gave it a lacklustre look. It probably would have been okay on a smaller screen but not in the West End of London at around 50 feet. John.
I need to watch the Lord of the Rings films one day Dave having only seen the first and not liking it much. I enjoyed the Hobbit films but they were too slow. Many comments have educated me on why that was and how they came to be three films when there clearly wasn't the material for them and certainly not for the overly long running times of the first two. An experienced editor would be able to sort that out thought and probably turn them into very good films. Maybe just one film at that. John.
Genuinely think a 4k release was the best thing to happen to these films. When they came out on bluray initially they image was not good. They did a really good job fixing the look of them with the grading and the HDR really makes it shine. Obviously, there's problems with the content, but technically they are great. Nice video as always John
I ended up rather appreciating these movies and I think a lot of that was down to the grading of the video to make it look so much like film. It wasn't always possible to achieve that look owing to the unrealistic look to so many shots but it was good enough and given how much CGI there was, I had to admire the achievement. John.
Yeah, I watched these in the cinema and thought they were awful because they were heavily protracted and drawn out thus being so boring. Never again!! LOTR was pure quality I thought and the two towers was the best one for me out of that trilogy!! Thanks for the review John.
I found that first Lord of the Rings drawn out and dull Dark but I think I was just too old for it. These days I'm a little more forgiving with movies in general but you should have seen my reaction to Alien 3 when it ended. I was so angry when those credits rolled whereas I was just a bit bored with Lord of the Rings. One day I'll look at the sequels though. John.
I didn't like the first film though so that's always kept me away from the sequels. The trailers are excellent on Super 8 though but because I was so bored watching the first film I didn't want to risk going through the same thing again but I'll get there eventually. John.
@GarethScho79 True… the main reason for game feel was not so good cgi. The movement clarity was definitely better than I have ever seen in movies. But those uncanny, cgi parts were bad.
You should have made this video Daniel. But they were massive money makers so that was a good thing for the industry as a whole. We could do with some more huge money earners today to thwart the terminal decline we're seeing. John.
@@moviecollector5920 If the Movie industry wants huge money earners it needs to find some really good stories to turn into really good films. The best films, in my opinion are the ones with good stories and often, but not always, those good stories are based on true stories. Where might the good stories come from? How about looking at books. The Lord of the Rings was a story for adults (as far as I know) while The Hobbit was a story for children. The second and third books and films are better than the first but you need the foundation of the first film/book to make the other 2 work. Where the Lord of the Rings films is less then great is where the films deviate from the book for odd reasons that never made since to me. You have only watched the first Lord of the Rings film and I have only watched the first of the 3 Hobbit films. I'd also be very happy for any of my books to simply sell more copies let alone be made into films!
I kinda agree although I think they are Ok as in not bad but hardly LOTR. If U ever watch the extra stuff u will see a point they shut down for the day. Peter Jackson head in his hands . LOTR had years of prep etc but " the hobbit was done on the fly ", they honestly were making it up as they went along. Ian Mckellen was permanently unhappy 😔 especially with ott green screen use. Anyway extended Ist no real difference, desolation etc is better longer but battle etc looks like a video game and I think it's a 15 as it's a lot more gory with decapitated head flying about like confetti. It's well documented the problems. Del Torro only wanted a Two film story. The whole thing was a film making nightmare.. I have the extended blu rays ( just because) , they are very crisp with bright Colour gamut and wouldn't bother with 4k. As for LOTR a lot of people don't like the 4K?. If so get the hmv remastered with a new colour. Gone is the horrible green. I have 500 4K but still 350 blu rays. I still believe not all 4 K are better. But yeah certainly it was a cash grab from a mess of a film. That's what makes the extras more entertaining 😮🤔😀
@@rikaardyyz3039 I had a look at the Highlander 4K last night and the Blu-ray, although clearly inferior, would be good enough. If I was mainly projecting Blu-ray though I'd set up the projector to offer the best image quality with Blu-ray. I'm not, so I therefore have it configured to suit 4K discs best. However, DVD often seems to have a more pleasing appearance than Blu-ray but that is going to be mainly down to my system. They're all different. As for Highlander, it was never a great looking film in terms of definition owing to the coarse grain negative stock. The cine to video scan has exacerbated the appearance and intrusion of the film grain and combine that with yet another overly bright HDR application it makes it even worse. I'd just watched the film before putting the 4K home video on and even though the Super 8 film was a bit average owing to the film's origins (i.e. the negative) I still preferred the more natural look of the Super 8 to the 4K. I shall look at the 4K again on Saturday evening but right now I think I'd recommend the Blu-ray in the pack simply because Highlander simply never looked particularly good. But it's a great film and I've loved it from the day I saw it. The sad thing is that I almost know the script off by heart and my wife isn't far off that either. John.
Personally...I really love the hell out of these movies. They have their faults yes (a good number warranted) but as someone who got into Tolkien via the expanded lore (especially the Silmarillion which is my favorite Tolkien work) I actually liked what was added to the films for the most part (not everything worked) to make an entertaining Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy. The length never bothered me. From everything I saw, Jackson was very candid about its production difficuties but still stated he had no regrets making them and took responsibility making them (also not attacking fans for not liking them is a plus). As I see it, the middle earth films are entertainment representations of the lore where as the books are where the real thing is at. Want actual Tolkien? Read the books. I have the 4K editions of this and I think they are fine but I have the older transfers from the first extended blu-ray set (similiar to LOTR) just so I can have both. Haven't bothered with Rings of Power. Never will. And I don't care to watch War of the Rohirrim.
You're not alone there. A variety of opinions have been expressed within these comments but thankfully, so far, only one person who cannot accept anyone may have a different opinion to himself. It's hard to believe anyone could get upset about a film but I don't suppose I should be surprised at all these days. John.
The making of these films is just as fascinating if not more than the originals. Basically Peter Jackson had to jump in last minute to direct otherwise hundreds of people would be jobless. The docs on the original extended blu-rays are surprisingly raw and real and honest, really worth checking out.
I didn't actually look for any extras on the longer discs. I think they would have been listed on the back of the box though so presume they're not included. At 3 hours for two of those extended versions I bloomin' well hope there are no extras on those discs actually. John.
It was much more of a rush job for Jackson than Rings was. As such he deliberately sacrificed practical effects for CGI. This might explain their un-polished look.
@@davidjames579 Overall they were very good and excellent in places. But I don't think it would have been possible to finish the whole lot to the same high standard. It doesn't matter though, the box office results speak for themselves.
I read The Hobbit in college and The Lord of the Rings trilogy on my own soon after that. I fell in love with Middle Earth and its characters and stories. Watching them through Peter Jackson's movies and vision were wonderful for me. I saw them in theaters and on home video ( Blu-ray and 4K, theatrical, extended, and 3D versions). I couldn't get enough of Middle Earth. I think all of these movies are beautiful.
Jackson put effort into the 4K release and it shows compared to what I saw at the cinema. I enjoyed them much more this time around. Yes, they are long. Jackson only wanted to make one movie but the studio wanted three (big surprise). Thanks again, John, for another quality review. ❤
That makes sense about Peter Jackson wanting to make just one movie. It probably would have been far more watchable for me but there's no denying the appetite there was for three films simply because of the revenue they brought into box offices around the world. Glad you enjoyed this video Matt. I woke up on Sunday morning with little to say about the Hobbit films and decided that I'd only do a video if the way they were filmed and distributed was interesting. Looked them up on IMDB and that was all the information I needed. Well, I find all that side of the subject interesting anyway but I thought the video turned out alright despite having little to show to accompany me blathering on on screen for ten minutes. John.
@moviecollector5920 Thank you for taking the time to provide some further insight behind your video prep. I agree it would've been far more watchable as one movie. I hadn't bought this set initially, as it hadn't left me with a memorable experience at the cinema. However, recently I saw a video of Jackson discussing how rushed they were in post-production to get it finished how he'd wanted so he made some updates for the 4ks. I know this is dangerous behaviour ala Star Wars, but it piqued my interest, so I picked it up on sale. I hadn't even noticed you hadn't shown very much in the way of footage, but the way you present your videos along with your personal filmic insights is why we keep coming back for more. Terrific stuff. 😊
@@mattcavanough I didn't know any of that about the Hobbit films but I think Peter Jackson did the right thing by making some updates. I'd heard horror stories about how awful it looked in cinemas (clearly not everyone agrees with that judging by the comments on here) so it was a surprise to see them all looking so filmic. Yes, there were quite a few sequences that looked artificial but they found a big audience and a lot of that audience loves them so that's good enough for me. Sometimes I end up working on UA-cam videos for days. It's ridiculous at times but if I'm not happy with something then I don't feel I can put it out. I do compromise more often these days though. John.
I remember watching the first two in that 48fps 3D format in the theater. That smooth video effect you described was present throughout the entire runtime. As you noted in describing the video effect, the VFX felt less realistic and the picture was so detailed you could see the seams in the makeup effects. By the time the third movie came out, I deliberately avoided the 48 fps showings and had a more enjoyable viewing experience.
I think people used to playing video games appreciated the more video game look to them and those of us who don't play computer games so much or at all, didn't appreciate the video game look. It's probably down to what we're used to more than anything else. I'm used to film and therefore try to make everything I watch on video look as much like a film as is possible. The Hobbit movies in here looked like films... for the most part. John.
John, today I attended a 'History of Cinema film' day at the Electric Palace Cinema, Harwich, this is a 100yr old Cinema and really is a Cinema Paradiso Theater. I was shown how to cut and glue 35mm film and was also shown how to use their 35mm projectors, this was truly amazing. I now understand what an art this was, and extremely physical. I really would love my own 35mm projector, and now understand your passion, do you have Alien on 35mm? I'm off to the BFI imax tomorrow to watch Jaws, Saturday, really excited, and also going to visit the Fopp store for the first time, anyway just wanted to share, and say thank you for a great channel, and for keeping the Magic alive, Darren..
What a wonderful day you've just had Darren. If you do every fancy getting a 35mm projector for home then I can quite likely put you in touch with some people who might be able to find you something that will work. It's a steep learning process though but I've enjoyed that learning process so much. I do have the slightly re-hashed version of Alien on 35mm and thanks to the work Ben Wales has done on my 35mm and the Dolby CP500 processor a couple of weeks ago I finally watched it on the Kinoton FP20 on two big reels. That means just the one short break to change the reel and I had a wonderful time. I've seen Alien many times, including one of the few 70mm blow up prints at the Odeon Marble Arch when it was an all-in-one enormous, special auditorium, but I have never enjoyed Alien as much as I did on 35mm here. At only 9 feet wide it shouldn't be so impressive but it was so detailed to look at and the sound was better than I'd ever heard it so it was like watching a different film... apart from that fact that I knew the script off by heart! Good luck with Jaws. The BFI do actually have a new 35mm print somewhere and that's what I'd aim for but I'm completely nuts! John.
John, thank you for your reply, as always, I watched jaws and omg it was amazing, many of todays movie just don’t come close, I don’t know if they showed the 35mm and to be honest it was still brilliant, some scenes did look older then others so would you say that this could be film and not digital? With regards my projection day at Harwich, which was also amazing, I call it my Cinema Paradiso day lol they have 2 35mm working projectors that I was shown how to use and when I first looked through the glass at the screen I got goosebumps, truly magical, the owners said that although the projectors are fully working, they can’t really get hold of the 35mm films, and the licenses to show them to an audience, they have a digital projector, but as the staff are mainly volunteers, they only have to push a button once programmed and that even opens the curtains, I could ramble on forever, there probably is a question in here somewhere, thank you John..
@@ChaseCapital2826 If the entire width of the screen was filled a the IMAX then it was a video projection. I say that because when I was last in there they did not have a lens capable of filling the screen from the 35mm/70mm projector. I'm sure the team responsible always have their 4K video projectors setup to replicate a film print anyway because they know what they're doing. Jaws is a great film and one of my all-time favourites. As for the Harwich cinema, there are 35mm prints available because other film enthusiast cinemas are able to book them, not least the Prince Charles just off Leicester Square. I think the name of the distributor who is able to licence most of them is Park Circus and can be found here: www.parkcircus.com/ Film Is Fabulous has come about as a result of the British Film Collectors Convention and led by my friend John Franklin. His team are uncovering a wealth of 35mm films from deceased collectors and helping the bereaved families to get these treasures to new homes. Enthusiast cinemas will be able to actually buy these prints and then probably get the licence to actually screen them from Park Circus. They'd have to check Park Circus are the distributor responsible first though. All the salvaged films are going to auction in a selection of specialist auction houses but we do distribute all the information well in advance of the auctions. I believe some Technicolor James Bond (Connery) titles have been found and they may be going to collector conventions first so true collectors have a chance to own them. Recently a top print of Midnight Express was auctioned so they are already showing up and going on sale. John.
Thanks again, John. I hope you do watch the rest of the Lord of the Rings trilogy - if you found the Hobbit trilogy to be alright, I think you'll find the earlier ones are more enthralling - hope you enjoy them.
Pretty sure the high frame rate (HFR) was for each eye field in 3D (48fps/left and right image). I remember watching the first one with my son in 3D HFR because I sought out a cinema in my area in Minnesota that was presenting it at its maximum technical quality. I distinctly remember even the movie having that soap opera effect due to HFR. I know there was a backlash to the HFR because some felt myself included that it took away the cinematic feel. I know I felt that props and some of the environments didn’t look as convincing as Jackson’s Lord of the Rings film. I saw the second and third in 3D but I’m not sure if they were HFR because of the backlash from he first. I don’t remember them having such a blatant soap opera effect.
I think someone told me the second one looked like an episode of 'Neighbours' Craig so it's likely that one had the same high frame rate. I can't remember when 'Gemini Man' was released but that should have been the lesson to film makers that video at high frame rates doesn't work. Sometimes it takes several disasters to confirm what is obvious but in the case of the Hobbit films, they were all massive successes so it couldn't have looked so bad to most who saw them. I suppose many people don't spot technicalities and flaws as much as some of us. John.
It was for HFR, the theatrical experience was 3D 48fps (HFR) and it was an odd experience. The in set pieces felt like a theatre (as if you are in the rooms with them). I loved the reality of it, but it was so strange at the time, not many liked it. Now Cameron uses a mix so some scenes are 24 and other > 48. HFR makes more sense with sport and is meant to look great (sadly we never seem to get any broadcasters wanting to show it, tennis / rugby was demoed in HFR 5-6 years ago and we still don’t have it ). I’m sure the oleds support it.
@@orionv75 I think all tellies and video projectors output up to 60fps but possibly a lot more now. The lack of motion blur is what generates the unrealistic nature of movies with frame rates that are too high but fortunately these 24fps versions in here looked pretty natural much of the time. Not for all of it though and at times even normal scenes were somehow artificial and that could be the high frame rate of the shoot to blame. A lesson for film makers today not to use the same thing perhaps. Gemini Man is the worst quality video I've ever seen but that was completely intended for 3D and I expect it looked wonderful in that format. The version I saw is the 4K disc but don't for gawd's sake look at that one. It's enough to make you want to weep!
@@moviecollector5920 yes, tv’s since 2019 support 120hz, looks great from a gaming perspective. As for broadcast tv, I assumed it was still 50/60 with the hope sport may go higher (possibly have to rely on streamed content for it, iPlayer for eg (they way they show content in HLG (HDR)).
Hi John. I understand and agree that at my age (60) it becomes harder to relate and patiently wade through a film like this. I understand the broad appeal, but as you stated it takes a bit to warm up to. The other thing is as I get older, I am far more inclined to see less action orientation films and more character-story driven cinema. For example, we recently watched a couple films with Dame Judy Dench. Watching MS Dench is like watching acting as God intended. Perfection. I do not know your opinion but I find her to be in the top three of all time for both British and American cinema. She's the most authentic personae in her work. You lose yourself watching her. More my cup of tea. Joe O’Donnell
I find the same with Rachel McAdams Joe, but for partially different reasons. She is a fine actress though. Judi Dench has grown on me over the years so it seems to be an effect of maturity and increasing experience. I still like action movies but rarely find them as enthralling as I once did. However, the action movies I loved when I was younger mostly have the same effect on me today so perhaps they were just better years ago. Some haven't aged so well but they didn't impress me as much as the better action films which have appeared to age well. I watch movies of all kinds and sometimes it's surprising what can stay in your mind and what doesn't. The ones that stay in mind are the better films of course. I'm sure I'll keep these Hobbit movies in mind but for partially different reasons and mainly because working out the why and what all about them made it more interesting for me. If I wasn't doing a review video though I might not have thought about that side of them at all. John.
Jackson absolutely added more artificial sharpening to these 4K editions, adding to that effect you mentioned in your review (the third one is the worst offender). The HDR looks good though. I still prefer the 3D versions- thankfully 48fps is not in the Blu-ray spec, so they kept it at 24fps for all the home video releases.
I did suspect someone had been a bit liberal with the 'sharpen' facility in Davinci Resolve or another video editing tool. Overall they all look very good so it's a minor gripe given how quickly they were made and how. John.
Hi John! Thanks for the review and you mention the film earnings being important and i'd agree. I do miss the Christmas blockbuster releases like we had with these, LOTR and Harry Potter films etc. For some reason these movies just don't fly with me and I really can't explain it. Like many I loved the first trilogy but these (the Hobbit x 3 films) just bother me whenever they are on. I have the low cost blu rays and will not upgrade these. Again to enjoy this wonderful story I will read the novel over again. It does the trick. If re released at cinema perhaps I could sit through them again but will choose other 4ks for my collection instead. Great review I also will look for a LOTR review from you in the future but no rush haha Meanwhile hope all is well and all the best to you guys over there D in BC!!
The Hobbit films are overly long Dave. I expect the backers/producers envisaged a Lord of the Rings type of epic with epic earnings to match and so the people tasked with bringing the story to screen had to find ways to string it all out to replicate the three LOTR films and three massive box office successes. For some of us, the drawn out sequences were simply that; drawn out. And that doesn't make for an enjoyable film. But if you're enveloped in the whole magical world then you'd enjoy staying in that world for as long as possible. This could be why some love these movies and others don't. I enjoyed them despite being a little bored at times. But I'm a little more forgiving with movies these days than I was when I was younger. Today I might actually have given the Lord of the Rings sequel a chance but having been largely bored sitting through the first I didn't bother risking the same thing with the sequels. John.
Conversely Chirs, I didn't much care for the first Lord of the Rings film so I didn't see either of the sequels. Great trailers though. Thinking about it, if I'd have seen the first Hobbit movie in a cinema I wouldn't have bothered seeing the sequels for that. I think they're all aimed at a younger audience but if you saw it as a youngster then like so many films that appeal to us in our formative years, they stay with you. John.
I love all six films personally. I never expect films to match books, ever. So I just go into them to enjoy them for what they are. The only part of the Hobbit that I didn't like was the poorly edited barrel scene down the river. The mix between real imagery and CGI for that part was bad.
@@RayneDr0ps There was quite a lot of inadequate computer animation in them but with so much of it being CGI that's to be expected. I don't know how they manage to turn out so much so quickly but they did and it must have put the quality under pressure at times.
Would have been so interesting to see Guillermo del Toro’s version before all the financial issues meant he had to pull out. Would have been special and he only wanted to do 2 films. Still - I really like the Hobbit films. Even the Blu Rays looks class on a 4k TV and the 3D versions are pretty good.
A pair of films running around two hours probably would have been far more watchable as far as I'm concerned. But the box office returns do confirm there was a big enough audience to stretch them out to three films so it doesn't matter what I think and nor should it. I suspect their reputation would be even better today were there to have been just the two films though.
I picked up one of the (many) 4k boxsets with all 6 Lord of the rings and Hobbit movies (have yet to get on to watching them yet), originally seen them all at cinemas but never seen any at Imax. With the Hobbit movies, I remember seeing the first movie projected at 48fps and I have to say I really noticed the difference and not for the better. The issue with it as you touched upon, is that it made the image look like video and not cinematic. The movement looks unnatural, and if anything the best comparison is when you watch a movie on one of these TV's with the motion smoothing option turned on. Aside from that aspect, the Hobbit movies are solidly entertaining (if definitely feeling the length by the end of the third movie) but very lazily made in my opinion by Peter Jackson, falling into a filming pattern - you can literally count how many times there is a scene of dialogue up close, then a wider cut, then a sweeping CGI camera movement through a large vista. Essentially the filming and editing felt very formulaic as opposed to natural storytelling as we had with the Lord Of The Rings movies. Regarding the released disc sets, I have to say I am VERY disappointed with the release. I have all 6 of the movies purchased on 3D blu rays with the extended versions, which I will be keeping, if not for the 3D versions, for the extras, as each movie comes with TWO extra discs of appendices and are crammed full of behind the scenes and extra features. A very rich set and the 6 movie 4k set that I bought came with a measly single disc DVD disc, which just feels such a 'can't be bothered' attitude from the distributors. I do highly recommend seeing the Lord Of The Rings trilogy in its entirety, and the extended versions of those and it' such a rich trilogy and vastly superior in story and pacing than The Hobbit. Yes, it's a long watch, but well worth it. Andrew
Don't worry about seeing them at an IMAX cinema Andrew because they weren't genuine IMAX films so there won't be much of a difference other than perhaps the 15/70 blow-ups of the first two Hobbit films which will benefit from a more natural look having been printed onto film stock. There were 35mm prints around too because a colleague does have the first one on 35mm. I did enjoy them but they took some effort to get through. It will take me a while to work up to the Lord of the Rings films so bear with me on that. I did nearly purchase a second hand box of them from CEX about a year ago but my wife begged me not to. Not a good sign. Neither of us liked the first film much as we both find it boring. Shorten it with the services of a skilled editor and there is probably a very entertaining movie in there. But I do have the trailers for the two sequels on Super 8 and they're impressive. Unfortunately, given how boring we found the first film we didn't risk venturing to the cinema for either of the sequels and I still haven't seen them to this day. I'll get there though. These sort of films aren't really my thing but as I said, I did enjoy the Hobbit series in the end so there's hope for me yet. John.
@@moviecollector5920 i get that the first movie perhaps was slow in parts, but it was doing a lot of world building and introducing of the characters of the members of the fellowship. The first 1/3 of the movie maybe indulges in the shire a bit, but it’s setting up how the hobbits are not used to the world they’ll encounter outside of the safety of the shire. The second and third movies are certainly more action packed throughout, and have some impressive setpieces. Fantasy seems the one genre that a lot of people avoid in movies because it’s so often badly realised and doesn’t make the transfer to screen easily without being laughable or just plain bad. Like for example the two Arnold Conan movies are great examples of it done well, and what was originally going to be the third movie, turned into a Kevin Sorbo movie called Kull The Conquerer - and that one was terrible - as i said, easily the hardest genre to do.
Greetings from Canada 🇨🇦 I think I’m going to be one of the few people who don’t consider these movies as a direct representation of the books. I went into the movies expecting that there would be changes made to the story so that it had some sort of new and fresh angle to view it from. I liked Smaug the most. Cumberbatch was a great casting decision. Im glad the resolution/transfer is good on this movie set. I’ve been humming and hawing about upgrading my Bluray extended editions up to this 4k boxset. Thanks for another great review John!
They look more like film than I was expecting Jeremy but also look artificial quite a lot. After so many people had told me how awful they'd looked in the cinema I was expecting another Gemini Man type mess but thankfully they looked quite natural most of the time... apart from the excessive CGI which is very good for the most part but with so much of it there's no way it could all be very good. John.
That's a shame Michael. You could have done a Hobbit all-nighter with them and fill the house out every time. I hope the latest Alien film is packing them in. If I could get to London at the moment I'd be in there. Can't get up the enthusiasm for a local cinema these days. Well, none of them have an 85 foot wide screen. John.
Great video as always. I agree that this trilogy is good at best and awful at worst. The second film is the best one. I did not like the third as much, but it had its moments where it was interesting and fun. The first one was better but was very slowly and it felt like an conversation with an ent in entish. Nothing come close to Lord of the rings tho.
One day I'll give Lord of the Rings another try. Then maybe I'll finally get onto the sequels. But I did find that first Lord of the Rings interminably slow and it looked awful on the huge screen. That was a sign of the times though as the downturn in image quality generally was under way by then. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Do that, you want regret it. It is one of my favourite trilogies of all time. After watching those back to back you will be exhousted and in tears. I know i was at the theater watching it. And many others as well. I swear to the EE.
Funnily enough, I think Fellowship of the Ring is the best film out of all the Tolkien movies - LOTR or The Hobbit. John, I’d advise you to watch the LOTR trilogy and also give Fellowship another chance. It’s one of the last truly remarkable achievements in practical effects of cinema: the production design in that film is staggering, and the film itself is sublime - the most cohesive of all Tolkien films. Just give it time and let it tell its story. Also, as a whole, the entire LOTR trilogy is leaps and bounds beyond The Hobbit in terms of story and execution. Like you said yourself, The Hobbit was drawn out. The LOTR trilogy isn’t (nearly as much, anyway). It really is an essential watch.
I can remember how awful The Lord of the Rings looked on the huge screen but that was just the way things were heading at the time. The image quality downturn was in full swing then and it continued and never fully recovered to this day - with some notable exceptions of course. I did spot many of the stop motion effects in the film and was surprised at the image stagger but perhaps they were re-shot of completely finished for the recent releases. Whatever I thought of it didn't matter because all three were big successes and that's all that matters. Film making is a business above anything else and all six of the Peter Jackson Tolkein movies have earned a fortune so that's a very good thing. I'll watch the first film again one day and hopefully I'll enjoy it enough to watch the sequels next time. John.
I read the hobbit and quite enjoyed it I read the lolr and found it hard work as a big 3 books in one book but enjoyed it and tought the movies where brilliant but the hobbit as a movie was far to stretched it might have work over 2 films but 3 was like seeing how much money you could scam out of the loyal fan base
I think making as much money as possible was what it was all about Mark. But most seem to have very much enjoyed them so it wasn't all bad. And the money that did come in would have helped other movies to get made and keep cinemas in business too. John.
Enjoyed this Trilogy series.My favorite was Smaug.Benedict Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug. Also liked Martin Freeman. Cumberbatch was also Dr Strange in Marvel movie.
I liked the dragon Craig but after the first hour or so of him gabbling on I rather lost interest. I know, I'm exaggerating but these movies needed an experienced and capable editor to get them flowing along at a pace. John.
But for youngsters who have lived their lives through telephone and computer screens playing video games, the 48fps represents real life. Most of us are used to seeing life like a 24fps film but maybe the TODD-AO 30fps might actually be preferable to all of us if we still had the chance to see it. I did see Showscan 60fps but I don't recall being as impressed as we were all supposed to be. That was genuine Showscan before it was diluted down like all these superior systems tend to be... IMAX for example which is now largely a 4K video projection a fraction of the quality of the real thing. John.
Cheers John. Yeah my only excitement for these initially was that del Toro was doing them. But he dropped out. Shame as i really wanted to see his take on it. Wouldn't have been any of this 48 fps guff either... makes interiors look like a soap opera set.
They did look very good in here but some scenes looked artificial as well as some characters which presumably was down to the high frame rate of the shoot but I can't be certain of that. It could be that CGI was added just about everywhere and that could be the reason, or part of the reason, for the unnatural look at times.
Great video. I saw the first film in High Frame Rate, and the cheap-looking banality of HFR made it feel like I had a front row row seat at the local amateur pantomime. Thank goodness Blu-ray doesn't support 48fps, so I never have to suffer the ghastliness of watching these quite fun films in HFR again. (Personally, I prefer the 3D Blu-ray to the 4K release.)
Yes they do render a very expensive and lavishly made film into looking like a cheap TV rip-off of Lord Of The Rings. If you're ever curious, you can view the trailers on YT in 48fps.
I think I'd like the 3D versions but I don't think I could bear almost 3 hours with the glasses on my nose. I prefer to completely relax when watching a movie with 3D being more of an occasional novelty. John.
@@davidjames579 I just had a look at the 48 fps trailer. To me, it looked like I could see some interpolation artefacts, suggesting that the one I watched was "fake" HFR, but I could have imagined it. Before the film came out I was telling anyone who was interested (that'll be very few people, if I'm honest) that *native* HFR would look so much better than the garbage frame interpolation on TVs. Turned out I was wrong: It looked almost exactly the same, just as hideous, albeit without some of the more obvious artefacts. I also thought that Cameron's use of Variable Frame Rate was even worse: Way of Water's HFR was full of the usual artless banality that all HFR possesses, but the constant jumping from 24 to 48 fps was very jarring. To be fair, I only saw Gemini Man at 60 fps, so *perhaps* 120 fps is the magic moment where HFR doesn't look like cheap junk ...but I doubt it!
@@Willy_Elres Oh okay. It's possible there are fake HFR Hobbit trailers online. As I recall the official Warner Bros ones should be up. I saw Gemini Man in a cinema in 60fps 3D and that had the soap opera effect. I personally thought the Avatar remaster and Avatar 2 sorted the problem with much less intrusive HFR. Although only used sporadically I thought it worked much better at seeming like a more there feeling. A whole movie of it might have been a bit disconcerting though.
I have only been really impressed by 3D in the case of one film … the original Avatar shown at the old Birmingham IMAX at Millennium Point. Indeed, I was so impressed that I actually returned for a 2nd viewing. The difference then was that the glasses were (Dame Edna like) sized to be big enough for the screen and to enable me to wear my standard glasses as well. As a result, I could quickly forget I had the extra encumbrance. The only time the effect was somewhat broken was during some of the flight sequences where the frame rate could not capture very rapid movements and everything stuttered awfully. This is nowhere near as much of a problem when watching the Blu Ray. I assume the problem with the 3D IMAX was the attempt to show alternate polarised frames at the standard combined frame rate… equating to an equivalent of half standard frame rate in each eye. Although I have seen a couple of 3D movies since (including Avatar: The Waterworks) on digital IMAX, I have always struggled with the rubbish standard specs which just don’t really work with my varifocals … and the effect has (in my experience) consistently been a bit of a letdown and disappointment. A particular shame in the case of the Avatar Waterworks as the 3D should at least have provided an “immersive” (sorry, couldn’t resist) experience … where the story/script seemed unable … and, at the ticket cost, I was determined to sit through to the end (I always live in hope that a weak script may be redeemed at some point)😢 … it did feel like a rather long 3 hours. On the plus side, I was not distracted by the stuttering at times of rapid movement, so assume the variable frame rate was applied… and I will give Cameron due credit for the general look of the CGI world he generated … I just wish he had given the same attention to the script 🥺 With my exception of Avatar, my general take on 3D is one of disappointment and discomfort for the obligatory opportunity of the director to try and use the effect to poke a pointy stick into my face in some attempt to impress me with a wow factor that isn’t. If the only reason to use high frame rate is to support 3D, I fail to be convinced it to be worth the effort … I wonder if maybe quite a large proportion of the audience demographic may actually be discouraged from going to the cinema because of the disappointment/discomfort … the only benefit I can identify is to combat stuttering with fast moving action or to avoid a flickering that I don’t appear to be sensitive to. I do wonder if the human eye processes images better (more comfortably?) at the lower (standard) frame rate ? .. as I understand it, the brain does generally process data as a series of still images … maybe this explains why we perceive high frame rate material “differently”??
I wouldn't buy them either Aidey but ultimately I did enjoy them and would probably get more out of them with a second watch. At about eight hours to do that though I think there are other movies to watch. John.
I never know what is going to be popular and what isn't. It's a funny old game. Some uploads barely register to start with and then I have a look through the stats a year or two later and those same videos have done very well. Others get off to a rip-snorting start and then suddenly die a death and never get going again. John.
@@DP12321 I certainly have not "brushed aside" anything. I am entitled to an opinion as is everyone. I didn't like the film - so what? My opinion does not matter at all. It's a bloody film so why should you or anyone else care that I found the first Lord of the Rings film boring.
@@moviecollector5920As I always like to say " each to their own " in art , film etc there is no right or wrong opinion it's personal. While I'm a Fan of LOTR I agree the first is the worst, the pace is all over but generally slow. IMHO " that's just my opinion for what it's worth". I think LOTR is for all ages especially if you read the books 40 years ago. And the 2nd and 3rd are a massive improvement. After all return of king for 11 Oscars. Personally my favourite is the second " The Two Towers ". Anyway as they say so many films and so little time 😊. A lot of film fans would hang me for my dislike of Cameron. Avatar lol original? No pocahontas in space or Dances with wolves in space. I love Alien but IMHO Aliens is a popcorn John Wayne in space ?!😮. Sacrilege lol. NO just how I feel. Believe it or not some people don't like Apocalypse now or The Godfather 🤔🤔. I'm sure the world will continue to spin even with our different views of what's a life changing film and what isn't 🤔😉✌️✌️✌️
You are on for a treat John if you’ve not seen part 2 and 3 of The Lord of the Rings trilogy… the ending of part 3 does drag on a bit, although still good. Anyway, they are much better than the Hobbit trilogy… hope you enjoy when you get a chance…
I think it will take me a while to get to the Stephen. Sometime soon I'll have to find the reel of 'Scope trailers with the two Lord of the Rings sequels included. Haven't run some trailer reels for a few years now. John.
@@moviecollector5920 likewise, John. In fact I have some trailer reels with adverts spliced in with ‘pearl and dean’ opening and closing logos… Stephen
I'll take a look at them one day. It takes some working up to when you've seen a film previously and it was a disappointment. Lord of the Rings did look awful on a huge screen and the stop motion effects weren't exactly up to the standard I would have expected at the time either. Usually I like stop motion effects so that was a real shame. I was still waiting for the story to get going when the end credits rolled. Those are some of my memories from that night at the Odeon Leicester Square. Things declined even further a year or so later when a low quality video projector presented Star Wars Attack of the Clones which to this day is still the worst quality I've ever seen in a cinema. John.
I hear that the LOTR films were downgraddd in the 4k released in order to “match” the look of the Hobbit films. There are many videos online pointing out edge enhancement and DNR that even remove a portion of Shadowfax’s head in one scene. And that is tragic sine the original LOTR films were generally received much better than the later Hobbit films.
@@AZBuckeye96 I only saw the first Lord of the Rings and that was at the Odeon Leicester Square. The image quality was lacklustre and probably did nothing to enhance my viewing pleasure for what I found to be a dull and even a bit of a boring evening. I have had other comments over the years on this channel that have told me the image quality had been sorted out for the 4K disc releases so I suppose a few trade-offs have been made in order to bring them up to standard. I have never seen the sequels though so I can't tell you how they originally looked in cinemas but I'll work up to seeing them at home now having finally seen The Hobbit movies which I rather enjoyed in the end. John.
I remember watching the Hobbit films in the cinema tbh the 3rd is OK because of the Battle of the Five Armies however I've never been so bored in the cinema 👎 LOTRs Fellowship of the Ring for me is a Master Piece leaving the Cinema after seeing that I still get chills to this day. Great review John 👍
I was too old for The Lord of the Rings so I didn't bother with either of the sequels but if you were young enough when you saw it then that would stay with you. I do remember how awful it looked at times on the huge screen but that was the way things in general were heading then and not exclusive to Lord of the Rings. I'll get to the sequels eventually but even though I'm not expecting to think they're the greatest movies ever made I do like the trailers so I'll dig those out soon as I haven't watched them in a few years now. There in trailer compilation reels somewhere on the shelves. John.
@@moviecollector5920 I was in my early 20s when the original LOTRs came out but I did know the books really well from my youth my Dad and Grandad both had the books
@@andylikesstuffchannel I was somewhat older. Therein lies the answer to why I didn't like it. But I am more forgiving when I see a film and find it a little slow or dull these days so I might be more likely to give a movie a second chance or perhaps watch the sequel before writing it off today. John.
@@moviecollector5920 yeah remember when you reviewed The Matrix you didn't really get caught up in buzz with those films aswell as the Star Wars Prequel films 👍 those 3 IPs dominated the Cinemas for around 6 years 1999 onwards.
@@andylikesstuffchannel I do appreciate The Matrix for its place in cinema history though Andy and I think Star Wars The Phantom Menace is one of the better Star Wars films even if the image quality wasn't exactly up to snuff. I plan to watch my 35mm print of that again sometime soon but I always remember it as a disappointing image so I doubt that will change. The CGI revolution was a large part of the reason for the decline in image quality so The Phantom Menace was a prime candidate and the sequel to that was the worst quality I think I have ever seen in a cinema. John.
Always been quite happy with the Hobbit trilogy I've got on bluray especially since getting a 4k projector and 4k dvd player to upscale them. Just thought I'd mention something else. Just been to the cinema to watch Alien Romulus and walked out halfway through because I found the image onscreen totally unacceptable. It's a dark film but the picture was just so dark it was imposdible to make out what was going on! Havent been to the cinema for many years. Stopped after cinemas went from screening film and went digital as those early days of digital were so bad. I had hoped things had improved but no they haven't. Will stick to my home cinema in future. Sent a complaint to the cinema which I won't name.
You're not alone with giving up on cinema Keith. I stopped going in 2006 with only an occasional visit after that but quality continued to deteriorate to the point I only tend to go now when I know a film print is being screened. However, I have seen some very good video projection in cinemas more recently and in both 2K and 4K. But most are still crap as they're using older video projectors that were never up to the job in the first place. The experience you just had could be because the lamp in the video projector is on the way out or has shifted due to the heat and constant on/off every day so needs re-aligning. Projectionists used to be capable of this type of job themselves but they don't exist any longer in most cinemas. To be fair to the remaining cinemas though, the industry is in terminal decline so they're having to do what they can to survive. Sadly, that tends to mean sub-standard presentations and quality. There's a pretty good cinema near here though... about eight paces up the hall from where I'm currently typing. It has video projection, 35mm, 16mm and Super 8 capabilities.
Thanks for that John. I suppose many cinema goers who have never seen film projected in cinemas just accept what they're shown today. I have sent a complaint to the cinema concerned but expect nothing back. I sent many letters of complaint when my local cinemas in Bath went over to digital projection. I did get replies telling me all was well and more or less telling me to go away!! I had been a cinema goer for most of my life. The last film I saw which was a film projected image was 'The Kingdom Of Heaven'. A few months later I went again to the same cinema to watch 'Salmon fishing in the Yeamen'. I hadn't realised that film projection had ceased. I went out to the foyer and asked to speak to the manager as I felt there was something wrong with the projection as the image on the screen was truly awful. He told me that all was well and that State of the Art digital projectors were now being used. Perhaps the poor bloke was having to lie as he'd had no choice in the changeover. He was an elderly chap so I'm sure he'd noticed the drop in quality having been in the industry for many years. Anyway as you say it's home cinema all the way from now on unless I can get to the BFI to watch 70mm Imax!!
@@keithevans7996 The very fact that the video projection solutions installed everywhere around 2011 was labelled 'digital' should have told us all what to expect. But most people are sold on that one word and assume because it's 'digital' it's better. It isn't always the case though and cinema has been the case in point. I was mainly watching master prints in the main West End cinemas so you can imagine the torture I was being put through. General release prints are another couple of generations down and yet they were still superior to video in cinemas. Call 'digital' what it is i.e. 'binary' and people wouldn't be so easily fooled. We're not far from you and use the same National Express service to get to London for special cinema screenings. Sometimes it's only cost us about £12 each to get up and back. We haven't done there and back in a single day yet but it is possible. We usually find a Travelodge for about £75 per night and made a couple of days of it. We must continue to support cinemas whenever possible because they're not going to survive without us. I seek out showings on film prints because I know I'm unlikely to be disappointed like I often am with video. John.
I have this and like it. Although not related but I’m wondering is if you’ve gotten twister on 4k yet? If not I know that zavvi dise have a nice steelbook coming a couple of months. I’m also curious of your thoughts on twisters which is in theaters right now and was shot mostly on 35mm.
I don't have Twister on 4K but it's not released over here yet. I will get it but I've watched the NTSC LaserDisc so many times that I could probably recite a lot of the script. That LD has the original theatrical soundtracks on it so it's rather special. I hope thinning it out into Dolby Atmos hasn't spoiled it but however good it sounds in here I don't think anything is going to match what we heard - and saw - at The Empire Leicester Square. That was a sensational night. As for Twisters, lightning rarely strikes twice... or tornadoes for that matter. But I will see it when it's released on home video. If there were a cinema screening it in 35mm then I might make the trip so perhaps I'll see if anything has been publicized for reel/real film screenings. John.
Unfortunately at least according to IMDb no 35mm prints but I can say it dose look rather filmic in theatres. Personally i prefer the new one myself. But part of it may have to do more with more romantic tension instead of re-kindelling a broken relationship, a more cowboy attitude and a country music soundtrack that I adore. But that’s just me. I’ve enjoyed this film enough to have seen it three times in the theater and I’m tempted for a fourth if I can.
@@jessechristensen6028 Video projection in cinemas has been so disappointing over the years that I've all but given up on it. But I've seen some very nice imagery via the 4K projector at the BFI IMAX lately and the new 2K projector at the Hereford Courtyard was impressive too. I'd make use of those two cinemas on occasion if they were closer but alas, they're not. It's a good sign that you like Twisters so much though Jesse so perhaps I'll feel the same when I finally see it. I know it will sound fantastic in here. If you haven't seen 'Into The Storm' I think you'll like that one too. It's basically a Twister rip-off. John.
Neat I will say that on my last viewing I did watch it with the D box seats that shake you around in sync with the action. For the storms and the trucks it was well worth it.
@@jessechristensen6028 I didn't know the 1950's interactive nonsense had been reintroduced anywhere Jesse. I did go through all of these systems in the early 1990's but I felt they were a novelty rather than anything suitable for cinema. For a film like Twister though, it might be a novelty worth living through. Then again, that was the effect the sound system had on us watching it in The Empire in 1996 or 97, whenever it was. The THX in there shook that enormous auditorium. John.
Ive got 3D box set,and probably that will be my ultimate version to watch it.Unless some silly deal on 4k version.I bought 4k Titanic and was disappointed,3D with Ai crap looks way better
I have Titanic on LaserDisc. It's good image quality but alas, I can't stand any of the characters in that film so it's only ever been run twice. I did see the 70mm blow-up but it didn't improve the film any. Sorry to learn you're not happy with the 4K. One piece of advice is to make sure all digital 'enhancements' are off or minimized with 'sharpen' being the main culprit of image problems. That should have an alternative name such as 'Completely mess up your picture quality here'. John.
@@moviecollector5920 John,im trained thx video callibrator,so my display is calibrated up to the standard.And obviously all unnecessary settings are off.Ive got no problem with darker scenes on Titanic,but daylight scenes are tend to on a flat side and the faces of the characters are devoid of definition at the times.I see the problem is with Ai set on the same level on night and day scenes.J.Cameron got "grainphobia" that goes to the extreme at some scenes.3D master also 4k,had some moderate dnr as well,but without Ai help so it looks more natural.Another disappointed on the way is Terminator 4k.I saw the trailer and its obvious they overdone it with dnr.And possibly even worse than on T2
@@romualdspizans3163 I've only seen clips from the HD of The Terminator but that looked very good to me so if you don't already have it, purchase the Blu-ray and stick with that. Whatever I end up with on home video, I'm sticking with the Super 8 as that's the best representation of real cinema to me. Then again, if someone wants to donate a 35mm print... John.
My thoughts on the Hobbit trilogy is there is a masterpiece buried in those three films. If it could be all edited into one 3-4 hour fiim would be a perfect starting point for LOTR trilogy
Or perhaps edited by someone so experienced they could get all three down to a two hour film. Then it would really punch its way along but get rid of the worst of the CGI action sequences which served no purpose at all. While watching the first I felt I could have cut it down to 45 minutes so someone should be able to completely shred them and turn them into one movie that could be something really quite special. John.
Yeah… there are fan edit that are better than this… but because they don`t have original footage, they are not very good in some transitions. But one 2.5 to 3 hours movie is story wise much better and in more style of the book. So you can cut 6h away from the trilogy and get a good full movie! It tells how much unnesessary stuff there are in the films!
@moviecollector5920 understood. I recently acquired The Man From Uncle limited edition 4k from Arrow. It's another lovely package with a great presentation of the film. I'm beyond chuffed to bits. I heard that there is a Bond boxset in the works, featuring Sean Connery's films in 4k. No telling what it will go for, but Goldfinger in 4k is a great idea.
I’m disappointed the films have never been available to buy in their original 48fps form. There must have been many production choices made with this frame rate in mind so it’s unfortunate we can’t view the finished product as it was first intended to be seen. In my research I haven’t found even a trailer available in 48fps! It’s a cinematic experience lost to time.
The movies looked very good in here so all the awful things I'd heard about the 48fps have been sorted. I think it's the criticism of the frame rate that gave Peter Jackson the authority to sort it out for the home video market. The majority of home video collectors are probably older so getting rid of every other frame to make the motion more natural and more what we're used to was probably the right choice. I suppose there is a 48fps Blu-ray in a way because 3D is essentially 24fps for each eye. John.
I like the first two, battle of five armies was a mess. I do think the extended version of that was better though. I saw them in 48FPS 3D and i thought in the cinema it looked like video, and I missed the Super 35mm filmgrain structure. Also the lack of bigatures and practical effects too much cgi.
To be fair Matthew, they had to be largely created in a computer given the subject matter. Some of it was excellent such as the dragon. But those sequences went on too long and I'd lost interest by the time each sequence was over. These films needed an experienced editor to slash them down to more manageable levels. John.
I wonder what was done to them to make them look amazing. The first film looked awful on the huge screen at the Odeon Leicester Square. Perhaps some of the lesser special effects were re-worked at some time. Interesting. One day I'll get to the 4K discs and hopefully it will be a different experience. After all, the Super 8 trailers are excellent. John.
I watched the first in 48 FPS, and I left part way through, got my tickets swapped for 24 FPS and watched it later. For so much CG, the "soap opera" effect of the higher frame rate was too much for me.
The 48fps versions do seem to have generated a mixed reaction judging by the comments on here. Perhaps it's telling that the 4K discs are 24fps. Someone learned from the mistake perhaps. John.
The EE versions are the only way to go. These follow the way Peter Jackson did LOTR. The funny enough part is that the EE of the third Hobbit film is rated R due to excessive violence and some brutality.
@@moviecollector5920 Extended Edition. All of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit films should be experienced in their extended edition versions. Granted, I’m a Middle-Earth fan, so it’s easy to venture into these very long films.
@@whysoblutube I can understand that. I would prefer shortened versions. Actually, either one two hour long film or perhaps a pair of them. Then I think they'd really fly along nicely.
After the masterpiece that the Lord of The Rings trilogy was, the Hobbit saga was a totally unnecessary thing to do, especially in that length -three super long films to tell a story that was short and simple compared to the later books- However, I agree with you that perhaps it would’ve made more sense to make it in two 2hr films or better, a single 3 1/2 hour film. Side comment, how to DM you about suggestions on setting up a proper home cinema?
Morning Steve. Comments have come in on here about how these films were made and the instructions given to the people making them by the studio. Apparently it was ordered that there would be three films so when Peter Jackson ended up as director because the original director dropped out, he was limited in his ability to fashion films and story as he would have preferred. This does explain why all three films drag at times. But to be fair to the studio, the movies found massive audienced - all three of them - so they were right. They would have been better as two or even one film running at a tight length but they wouldn't have brought the money in which was probably a big, big help in keeping the studio fully operational with every other production on the slate. We do need more big earners like this even if we're not entirely enamoured with the end results. Cinema is certainly desperate for some movies to draw the audiences back in now. John.
There's a mix of opinions on here William but it would be a sad world if we all liked the same movies. Very few achieve anything close to all of us liking them. And who cares what anyone else thinks anyway, it's only what we think personally that matters. John.
John Much as I like fantasy I simply couldn't get into LOTR or the Hobbit why I don't know I never managed to get around to buying them. Completely unrelated my local CEX had a mint copy complete with sleeve of Three Billboards outside of Ebbing Missouri which I bought on a whim and enjoyed. Horses for courses boring if we were all uniform in our tastes.
Three Billboards is excellent. I've had that 4K for years. I think you had to be a certain age to appreciate Lord of the Rings and I wasn't. Maybe it was similar for you Mike. John.
People are way too critical about these movies. Yes there shouldn't be a female elf because she was never actually in the original book. But the way they brought Smaug to life made me forgive a lot more than some of these fan boys
Why are they are too critical? It seems most people just don't think they stand up to the original trilogy. The Hobbit book is 300 pages V 1200 pages for the LOTR trilogy. Therein lies the problem, the Hobbit trilogy was padded out so much it completely drags with many overly long sequences for the sake of it. The Hobbit would be an amazing film of it was trimmed to one 3-4 hour fiim or two 2 hour fiims. Yes lots of fanboys moaning about other stuff, but cinema fans also not happy for many genuine reasons
I actually liked that female elf character and her relationship with the dwarf chappie. It gave me a couple of characters to root for in an otherwise fairly characterless series of films. But the chap who played Bilbo Baggins was brilliant and he did much to hold my interest and the interest of the movies overall. The dragon was brilliant but the dialogue sequence with Bilbo at the end of the second film when on and on and on and on and on.... Just kill the bloody thing and get on with the story! John.
You're certainly not alone there but there are mixed views being reported within these comments. They weren't entirely for me but I did still enjoy them. John.
Greetings from Santiago de Chile. I think that "The Hobbit" trilogy is very good but not as a great as "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in terms of the constructions of characters and the way it was shoot. I saw the six films in the same screen and to be honest, I disagree with the criticism against 48 frames per second. At first it looks as TV look but later you could discovered many details and capture in camera things that were not possible with conventional cameras. But only if you are watching it in a movie screen with your 3D glasses on. Maybe that is the reason why I can review many times "Lord of the Rings" in Blu-ray or 4K because I know that I am discovering new things in a new revision, but with the "Hobbit" I got that feeling that I am loosing something not watching it as it was intended. But any way, those six films confirms the talent of Peter Jackson behind the camera and the need for another of its movies. Adiós, amigo.
I'm not sure I'd be able to take almost 3 hours with the glasses on Gaspar. I do prefer films the conventional way but an occasional 3D novelty is enjoyable. But that first Hobbit film is too long for me even in 2D/flat format. I'm sure I could have successfully cut it down to less than an hour actually but nobody asked! John.
@@moviecollector5920 The 48fps was also in a 2D release. You can see this in trailers for The Hobbit films on YT now where you can experience the higher frame rate by selecting from Settings cog at the bottom of the image.
@@davidjames579 It couldn't have looked too bad at 48fps because dropping every other frame for the 4K discs does appear to have worked quite nicely but that basic solution wouldn't have introduced the natural life motion blur. Interesting. But it could be the reason why sections look fake I suppose.
John, I watched Unexpected Journey in the Manchester IMAX at 48fps in 3D and it was absolutely hideous, all the effects looked terrible, it was a shocking experience and I didn't go back for the sequels.
Ah! the dreaded 'Soap Opera Effect'. So named for how the higher rate reduces a 200 million dollar fantasy epic to looking like a 30 fps Soap. I've seen the trailers on YT at 48fps and it really does look like behind-the-scenes footage. Props and costumes look less magical because of the increased detail, and lines of dialog seem like that and not things characters are saying. I also found this watching Gemini Man at 60fps. James Cameron employed a new technology for this on the 2022 Avatar remastering, and the sequel, and I have to say it does make the high frame rate bits work so much better. They're less ugly and intrusive. They just gives their parts a different reality feel, and a sense we're experiencing something more 'here'.
I haven't seen the Avatar sequel David. I found the first film such a bore once it had gone through 90 minutes so to learn that the sequel was even longer than the first probably means I will never want to watch it. Maybe I'll change my mind one day. After all, people have convinced me I need to give Alien 3 another chance so anything is possible. John.
@@moviecollector5920I can only say John if you didn't like the first Avatar you're probably not going to like the sequel! However if you can maybe give it a go one day. The CGI in the sequel is almost lifelike, convincing you these Alien beings are there.
@@moviecollector5920would Manchester need to have two IMAX 15/70 projectors side by side to do that As far as I was aware they only have one (along with The BFI IMAX, Science Museum, and Bradford)?
I think these three films totalled about eight hours. Gawd only knows how the team responsible for making them managed to draw them out to be so long but the planning must have been enormous. John.
@@moviecollector5920 He also added characters that didn't exist in the book. Evangeline Lilly's character Tauriel. He also put Legolas in which he may have very well been but he actually had not been created yet.
I saw all three of these in 3d HFR at the cinema. I like the effect. Gemini Man and Avatar Way of Water were also excellent in 3d HFR. It gives a different experience you can't get at home.
Glad you liked them Paul. These Hobbit films looked very good for the most part in here at 24fps. Gemini Man doesn't but I can see that was wholly aimed at 3D and it really should never have been released or seen any other way. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Gemini Man was pretty bad in HFR 3D to be honest, John. It really did look like an episode of Eldorado! Watching the trailers on YT side-by-side in 120fps and 24fps, it really shows why the former doesn't work. There seems a lot of awkward extra pauses in dialog exchanges than would happen in real life. It really feels like actors waiting for their next line. Compared to the 24ps which is more engaging/immersive.
@@davidjames579 I simply found Gemini Man looked like a video game. I suppose this was an attempt to attract the younger audience it was aimed at who by then had lived their lives in front of a computer screen. Nowadays I suppose many have lived their lives looking at a telephone.
I watched all of The Hobbit Trilogy at the Southampton Odeon in 48fps 3D and I believe the screen (an official Sony screen as it said on the door before going in) was showing each on in full 5K…at a push 4K. It looked stunning and the 48fps and 3D worked so well, for me at least.
As far as I know Robert, there aren't any cinema video projectors out there capable of more than 4K. The video master files issued for these films was just 2K. But someone out there may know something I don't. They were compiled at 2K and that is understandable given so many scenes had CGI added into them and there wouldn't have been the time to compile all of them a 4K as it takes four times longer than 2K for obvious reasons. John.
@@moviecollector5920 Oh right! Yeah that makes sense with the 2K DI given the CGI, it would cost a lot to redo the CGI in 4K! Love the channel by the way! 👍🏻
@@robertyoung3801 It occurred to me that there are projectors out there in excess of 4K Robert but there all film projectors of 35mm and up to way off the scale at 15/70 IMAX.
Yeah in 2012-2014 CGI was still being rendered at no higher than 2K. And yes, even now there aren't any cinemas with digital projectors higher than 4K. Even IMAX and Dolby Vision ones.
@@davidjames579 I wonder if many cinemas will be able to afford new video projectors when a better resolution solution is developed. The way it's gone lately not many will, that's for sure. Some of the 35mm machines had been on duty from the 1930's when they were taken out in 2011. They'd all been upgraded and maintained of course but at least the cinemas weren't having to invest vast sums into completely new projectors every few years. It's all gone Pete Tong!
I watched the extended version of An Unexpected Journey on 4k recently and found it to be a slog. I saw all 3 films when they were first released a decade ago and remember liking the latter 2, but I've just never had much of a desire to rewatch them. The whole trilogy was just big and bloated and stuffed with too many characters. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece in my opinion. I do recommend giving that trilogy another try, but do NOT watch the extended versions first. You've got to ease into it.
I rarely ever watch extended versions of films so you have no concerns there. These movies are something you have to see in your formative years though because when you're older it's harder to accept the obvious fantasy of it all and some of the CGI which simply gets too much. I do remember how poor The Lord of the Rings actually looked on a huge screen but that was a product of the time and we were in the early stage of the planned downgrade in image quality back then. John.
@@moviecollector5920 I will say that my dad as well as my aunts and uncles and older cousins saw the films at the time and enjoyed them, and they were all well into middle age, or older. I do think that fantasy is a polarizing genre, though.
@@DoncoEntAgain That's a good point. I may never have really enjoyed fantasy films so I'll have to think about that. The Never Ending Story was a good load of nonsense and then there was Krull and also another one with Claire Danes that I can't recall the name of right now. Some of them apparently work for me but perhaps taking the special effects too far tips the balance a little where I'm concerned. John.
They are terrible films. Truly awful. The fact they're kind of based on a Tolkien book and made by the same people that made the sublime LOTR trilogy makes them a travesty on a whole different level. Same goes for all none OT Star Wars films.
They're just slow and drawn out Billy. Get past that - which I didn't entirely though - and there is much to appreciate in them. I can see why youngster and those who saw them when they were young enough, love them. I had the same problems with Lord of the Rings so that's why I didn't see the sequels. One day though. John.
As a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings films,(especially the extended editions), I found the Hobbit trilogy to be almost unwatchable! They stretched out a relatively short story into three films for business and financial reasons, so most of the 7+ hours are filled with made up content that feels like absolute filler to me! : ( Years ago I watched a documentary on UA-cam about some independent filmmakers who were doing a book edit of the films, but for obvious legal reasons it's not something that's easy to come by, so I wasn't able to watch it.
We often seem to have similar opinions of movies and you're certainly not alone in your assessment of The Hobbit films. I found that even though I was bored for most of the first film that I began to learn who the characters were in the sequels and that helped me to enjoy them more. I think they're made for lovers of the Lord of the Rings films and it seems that they worked in that regard as evidenced by the box office takings. But whatever I think of them, they're so spectacular that I can't help but like them. And they were turned out so quickly too so it's amazing the computer animation was as good as it was. Not always of course, but much of the time. John.
When the first movie came out, I was like 11 and had just recently read the book it was based on, I was really excited to watch the movie but came out disappointed 😞 they should've done just one movie of 2:30hrs. The stuff they added was bad 👎
I watched Them in 48fps and they didnt look like a soap opera, in fact the smooth motion and the 3d was the way they were intended to be seen. Wathing Them this way was like looking into a fairy tale world where the screen completely disappeared. The movies Are not as good as the lord of the rings films but still worth a watch, john i think you Will enjoy the two towers. PS cant wait for your review of raiders.
I'll get to Raider of the Lost Ark eventually Benjamin. I pulled the Super 8 feature out earlier but I think Highlander will probably be the first of the 4K and Super 8 feature review videos. I put Highlander onto two big reels for that very purpose today. John.
Hope highlander Will look good, i really liked that movie as a child and would consider buying it on 4k disc, it Will be interresting to hear what you have to say about that one, i have a feeling that you really like this movie, with the pictures and all you had on your wall.
@@benjaminjensen7402 One of my favourites Benjamin. I have little interest in the 4K disc though as nothing is ever likely to replace the Super 8 feature as far as I'm concerned. It is very special to own a film print of a favourite film and it re-creates the magic of the movies every time I run one in a way that any video simply cannot match.
@@benjaminjensen7402 Had great fun revisiting it. A bit The Terminator influenced which is something I've always seen but interesting when you think that hardly anyone went to see The Terminator in 1984 and yet two years later the look and feel of that great film was used in Highlander two years later with Clancy Brown in the role of The Terminator. Well, the New York sequences of him anyway. John.
Horrible films. The book was a simple children's story, and would have made for a great single film. The padding on these films is appalling, spread over three films and a story that isn't even The Hobbit!
I agree Ian. But they did bring in huge amounts of money and that's good for the industry. We need more big earners to get the surviving cinemas out of the mess they're left in today. John.
I saw it in cinema at 48fps. It was truly horrendous. The second and third movie is saw in the regular 24fps thankfully. 48fps never broke through, and probably never will. Double the cost in film, maintenance, and not to mention, double the special effects (cgi cost) at least in render times. It was the worst decision Peter Jackson made. Also, the dreaded soap opera effect. Looked so stupid and cheap.
The good thing was that at 48fps it was possible to drop half the frames and it looked normal. I was expecting another Gemini Man type mess but it was nothing of the sort which was a relief. John.
It was always going to be two movies, going back to Jackson's first attempt at Miramax. And when Guillermo Del Toro came on as director. It was the studio that advised three films, to match the original trilogy. Or make more money, depending on your perspective.
I felt like that after the first movie but I stuck with them and now that we know they are all overly long it's quite possible that I would enjoy them a whole lot more than I did. They're all certainly slow at times but there is still much to admire about them. And at least they didn't look anything like the 60fps mess of Gemini Man so that was a relief. People had warned me how awful the Hobbit films looked in cinemas so I had been fearing the worst but with half the 48fps dropped out they looked quite normal in here... most of the time. John.
@moviecollector5920 I respect that, but honestly, if I ever decided to watch this again in 4K, I would be slamming down on the fast forward button quite frequently.
Pitch meeting: Hey, here's an idea -- let's take a light-hearted fairytale (that Tolkien himself tried and failed to re-write in a darker tone) and turn it into a three-part war epic on par with the LOTR trilogy! We'll introduce new, unnecessary characters and use crappy CGI. Middle-earth fans will love it! 🤮
@@moviecollector5920 I enjoy your reviews, but not this particular trilogy of films, no matter how good they look in 4K. I'll stick with the Rankin-Bass animated Hobbit, as it more accurately captures the spirit of the book. Cheers.
@@afrose71 I expect I'd enjoy that cartoon too so maybe I should find a copy. These live action movies are not my recollection of the book either. John.
The trilogy isn’t that bad lol. They made some mistakes, especially because the studio was pushing for 3 films and a love triangle etc. But the movies are still good
I want to see you review Aliens on 4K. Cameron recently bashed his fan base, calling criticism of his 4K remaster losers who need to move out of their parents basement and get lives. What a guy. Great video. Loved The Hobbit trilogy John.
James Cameron was only taking the Michael there. He made me chuckle. I will do an Aliens video sometime but I'm not paying £25 for a home video disc I'll never watch all the way through. Once it's a £15 job then it will be a case of arranging with a colleague to get over to see his 35mm print and compare it to the 4K. I can understand why Mr. Cameron has completely re-worked every frame because it will mean for the general purchaser and not us film enthusiast nutters, it will look like a class 4K like most other top films do. It doesn't affect me because nothing is ever going to supplant my first run Super 8 print which I watched twice recently. The film grain is there, that's for sure. But it is entirely natural and not how it would appear after a cine to video scan. That's the point at which these things go wrong and why film grain has to then be reined in during the mastering process. Aliens would certainly need a huge reining in. But I'll see how right I am about that after viewing a 35mm print.
John.
Personally I think just about all of James Cameron's recent 4k are horrible.
As it is I'm not a fan and don't own any of his films.
But the 4K are rightly hated.
The over the top DNR/ AI scrub gives the actors a wax/rubber look ?.
They honestly look like they have just had a skin stretch , they all look like plastic surgery versions with True Lies being biggest offender .
Anyway only My opinion.
@@rikaardyyz3039 I've only been shown a few clips from the 4K of The Abyss but they looked very good. They should too because the film prints looked excellent in cinemas. I haven't seen Aliens yet but that was a bit like Highlander and therefore a little too much obvious film grain which would need some work to rein it in. It might have even been the same negative stock given they were made almost concurrently. True Lies looked best of all the home video formats in here. But we did re-work some of the settings to achieve the best result. I've pretty much stayed with those settings for everything with only a few minor adjustments. But what I have come to realize is that even though we all go through our systems and turn off all the 'digital enhancements' quite often they are somehow coming back on and spoiling the image quality. This is why so many report anomalies that I do not see on my system. The 'sharpen' function seems to be the prime reason why people report and even show things from their 4K disc viewings that simply do not exist on a properly setup system. I've been caught out myself a few times but this latest video projector seems much better at keeping the specified settings. Famous last words no doubt!
John.
The Lord of the Rings movies are still masterpieces I watch that trilogy nearly every year. The Hobbit was a big let down for me but it still had some good scenes especially the first one.
One day I'll watch all three of the Lord of the Rings films Bob. Maybe another friend will loan them so I won't have to shell out a fortune. I might never have seen these Hobbit discs were it not for my colleague Mark. He was surprised and impressed with how they looked in his home cinema so sent them over to so I could tell him my opinion. I think we pretty much concurred.
John.
I didn't realise how much of the cinematic feel is down to the frame rate. I watched the 48fps version at the cinema upon release and it felt like a soap opera.😮
Many others have said exactly that. It looks filmic on 4K and that's got to be due to the 24fps. John.
@@moviecollector5920 problem is, it will have the faster exposure of the 48fps version. So less motion blur like would get in a standard 24fps movie.
@@FatNorthernBigot I expect that's why so much of it looks artificial. But overall, they did look filmic, without the film grain. John.
48 fps is so good. We're just so conditioned to enjoy 24.
@@MrBrax Agreed, but that's what we like. It's like the QWERTY keyboard. Those keys were originally in that order because it made sense, mechanically, but now it's just what we're used to and anything else is jarring.
I love the hobbit and whole LORS TRILOGY.
Thank you.
I enjoyed The Hobbit series Paul so I may be able to enjoy the Lord of the Rings films now too. I didn't much care for the first film when I saw it. A lot of that was the pretty dreadful image quality which gave it a lacklustre look. It probably would have been okay on a smaller screen but not in the West End of London at around 50 feet.
John.
For me I did enjoy the Hobbit films, but LOTR trilogy quite simply is cinema royalty, I absolutely love them.
I need to watch the Lord of the Rings films one day Dave having only seen the first and not liking it much. I enjoyed the Hobbit films but they were too slow. Many comments have educated me on why that was and how they came to be three films when there clearly wasn't the material for them and certainly not for the overly long running times of the first two. An experienced editor would be able to sort that out thought and probably turn them into very good films. Maybe just one film at that.
John.
Genuinely think a 4k release was the best thing to happen to these films. When they came out on bluray initially they image was not good. They did a really good job fixing the look of them with the grading and the HDR really makes it shine. Obviously, there's problems with the content, but technically they are great. Nice video as always John
I ended up rather appreciating these movies and I think a lot of that was down to the grading of the video to make it look so much like film. It wasn't always possible to achieve that look owing to the unrealistic look to so many shots but it was good enough and given how much CGI there was, I had to admire the achievement.
John.
Yeah, I watched these in the cinema and thought they were awful because they were heavily protracted and drawn out thus being so boring. Never again!! LOTR was pure quality I thought and the two towers was the best one for me out of that trilogy!! Thanks for the review John.
I found that first Lord of the Rings drawn out and dull Dark but I think I was just too old for it. These days I'm a little more forgiving with movies in general but you should have seen my reaction to Alien 3 when it ended. I was so angry when those credits rolled whereas I was just a bit bored with Lord of the Rings. One day I'll look at the sequels though.
John.
Great work John..... Keep them coming 👍
Thank you Roy.
Glad you got around to these John. You would love the Lord of the Rings trilogy more.
I didn't like the first film though so that's always kept me away from the sequels. The trailers are excellent on Super 8 though but because I was so bored watching the first film I didn't want to risk going through the same thing again but I'll get there eventually.
John.
I watched the first one on 4k HFR. It was a strange experience. The action scenes felt like a video game.
This disc was 24fps Rhu. It looked normal which was a nice surprise after all the things I'd heard about how awful these movies looked. John.
@GarethScho79
True… the main reason for game feel was not so good cgi. The movement clarity was definitely better than I have ever seen in movies.
But those uncanny, cgi parts were bad.
Nice video John. I love the extended versions of the 3 movies. Watch many times.
Glad to hear it Robert. I'd probably do the same if there were cut downs of them. Actually, Super 8 3x400ft editions would probably be the ideal.
3 books = 3 Films = The Lord of the rings. 1 slim book = 3 films = money making rubbish known as the Hobbit.
You should have made this video Daniel. But they were massive money makers so that was a good thing for the industry as a whole. We could do with some more huge money earners today to thwart the terminal decline we're seeing.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 If the Movie industry wants huge money earners it needs to find some really good stories to turn into really good films. The best films, in my opinion are the ones with good stories and often, but not always, those good stories are based on true stories. Where might the good stories come from? How about looking at books. The Lord of the Rings was a story for adults (as far as I know) while The Hobbit was a story for children. The second and third books and films are better than the first but you need the foundation of the first film/book to make the other 2 work. Where the Lord of the Rings films is less then great is where the films deviate from the book for odd reasons that never made since to me. You have only watched the first Lord of the Rings film and I have only watched the first of the 3 Hobbit films. I'd also be very happy for any of my books to simply sell more copies let alone be made into films!
I kinda agree although I think they are Ok as in not bad but hardly LOTR.
If U ever watch the extra stuff u will see a point they shut down for the day.
Peter Jackson head in his hands .
LOTR had years of prep etc but " the hobbit was done on the fly ", they honestly were making it up as they went along.
Ian Mckellen was permanently unhappy 😔 especially with ott green screen use.
Anyway extended Ist no real difference, desolation etc is better longer but battle etc looks like a video game and I think it's a 15 as it's a lot more gory with decapitated head flying about like confetti.
It's well documented the problems.
Del Torro only wanted a Two film story.
The whole thing was a film making nightmare..
I have the extended blu rays ( just because) , they are very crisp with bright Colour gamut and wouldn't bother with 4k.
As for LOTR a lot of people don't like the 4K?.
If so get the hmv remastered with a new colour.
Gone is the horrible green.
I have 500 4K but still 350 blu rays.
I still believe not all 4 K are better.
But yeah certainly it was a cash grab from a mess of a film.
That's what makes the extras more entertaining 😮🤔😀
@@rikaardyyz3039 I had a look at the Highlander 4K last night and the Blu-ray, although clearly inferior, would be good enough. If I was mainly projecting Blu-ray though I'd set up the projector to offer the best image quality with Blu-ray. I'm not, so I therefore have it configured to suit 4K discs best. However, DVD often seems to have a more pleasing appearance than Blu-ray but that is going to be mainly down to my system. They're all different. As for Highlander, it was never a great looking film in terms of definition owing to the coarse grain negative stock. The cine to video scan has exacerbated the appearance and intrusion of the film grain and combine that with yet another overly bright HDR application it makes it even worse. I'd just watched the film before putting the 4K home video on and even though the Super 8 film was a bit average owing to the film's origins (i.e. the negative) I still preferred the more natural look of the Super 8 to the 4K. I shall look at the 4K again on Saturday evening but right now I think I'd recommend the Blu-ray in the pack simply because Highlander simply never looked particularly good. But it's a great film and I've loved it from the day I saw it. The sad thing is that I almost know the script off by heart and my wife isn't far off that either.
John.
Personally...I really love the hell out of these movies. They have their faults yes (a good number warranted) but as someone who got into Tolkien via the expanded lore (especially the Silmarillion which is my favorite Tolkien work) I actually liked what was added to the films for the most part (not everything worked) to make an entertaining Lord of the Rings prequel trilogy. The length never bothered me. From everything I saw, Jackson was very candid about its production difficuties but still stated he had no regrets making them and took responsibility making them (also not attacking fans for not liking them is a plus). As I see it, the middle earth films are entertainment representations of the lore where as the books are where the real thing is at. Want actual Tolkien? Read the books. I have the 4K editions of this and I think they are fine but I have the older transfers from the first extended blu-ray set (similiar to LOTR) just so I can have both. Haven't bothered with Rings of Power. Never will. And I don't care to watch War of the Rohirrim.
You're not alone there. A variety of opinions have been expressed within these comments but thankfully, so far, only one person who cannot accept anyone may have a different opinion to himself. It's hard to believe anyone could get upset about a film but I don't suppose I should be surprised at all these days.
John.
The making of these films is just as fascinating if not more than the originals. Basically Peter Jackson had to jump in last minute to direct otherwise hundreds of people would be jobless. The docs on the original extended blu-rays are surprisingly raw and real and honest, really worth checking out.
I didn't actually look for any extras on the longer discs. I think they would have been listed on the back of the box though so presume they're not included. At 3 hours for two of those extended versions I bloomin' well hope there are no extras on those discs actually.
John.
It was much more of a rush job for Jackson than Rings was. As such he deliberately sacrificed practical effects for CGI. This might explain their un-polished look.
@@davidjames579 Overall they were very good and excellent in places. But I don't think it would have been possible to finish the whole lot to the same high standard. It doesn't matter though, the box office results speak for themselves.
I read The Hobbit in college and The Lord of the Rings trilogy on my own soon after that. I fell in love with Middle Earth and its characters and stories. Watching them through Peter Jackson's movies and vision were wonderful for me. I saw them in theaters and on home video ( Blu-ray and 4K, theatrical, extended, and 3D versions). I couldn't get enough of Middle Earth. I think all of these movies are beautiful.
Jolly good show Alan. I didn't read The Lord of the Rings so maybe that's why I couldn't get into it on screen. One day perhaps. John.
Jackson put effort into the 4K release and it shows compared to what I saw at the cinema. I enjoyed them much more this time around.
Yes, they are long. Jackson only wanted to make one movie but the studio wanted three (big surprise).
Thanks again, John, for another quality review. ❤
That makes sense about Peter Jackson wanting to make just one movie. It probably would have been far more watchable for me but there's no denying the appetite there was for three films simply because of the revenue they brought into box offices around the world.
Glad you enjoyed this video Matt. I woke up on Sunday morning with little to say about the Hobbit films and decided that I'd only do a video if the way they were filmed and distributed was interesting. Looked them up on IMDB and that was all the information I needed. Well, I find all that side of the subject interesting anyway but I thought the video turned out alright despite having little to show to accompany me blathering on on screen for ten minutes.
John.
@moviecollector5920 Thank you for taking the time to provide some further insight behind your video prep.
I agree it would've been far more watchable as one movie. I hadn't bought this set initially, as it hadn't left me with a memorable experience at the cinema. However, recently I saw a video of Jackson discussing how rushed they were in post-production to get it finished how he'd wanted so he made some updates for the 4ks. I know this is dangerous behaviour ala Star Wars, but it piqued my interest, so I picked it up on sale.
I hadn't even noticed you hadn't shown very much in the way of footage, but the way you present your videos along with your personal filmic insights is why we keep coming back for more. Terrific stuff. 😊
@@mattcavanough I didn't know any of that about the Hobbit films but I think Peter Jackson did the right thing by making some updates. I'd heard horror stories about how awful it looked in cinemas (clearly not everyone agrees with that judging by the comments on here) so it was a surprise to see them all looking so filmic. Yes, there were quite a few sequences that looked artificial but they found a big audience and a lot of that audience loves them so that's good enough for me.
Sometimes I end up working on UA-cam videos for days. It's ridiculous at times but if I'm not happy with something then I don't feel I can put it out. I do compromise more often these days though.
John.
I remember watching the first two in that 48fps 3D format in the theater. That smooth video effect you described was present throughout the entire runtime. As you noted in describing the video effect, the VFX felt less realistic and the picture was so detailed you could see the seams in the makeup effects. By the time the third movie came out, I deliberately avoided the 48 fps showings and had a more enjoyable viewing experience.
I think people used to playing video games appreciated the more video game look to them and those of us who don't play computer games so much or at all, didn't appreciate the video game look. It's probably down to what we're used to more than anything else. I'm used to film and therefore try to make everything I watch on video look as much like a film as is possible. The Hobbit movies in here looked like films... for the most part.
John.
John, today I attended a 'History of Cinema film' day at the Electric Palace Cinema, Harwich, this is a 100yr old Cinema and really is a Cinema Paradiso Theater. I was shown how to cut and glue 35mm film and was also shown how to use their 35mm projectors, this was truly amazing. I now understand what an art this was, and extremely physical. I really would love my own 35mm projector, and now understand your passion, do you have Alien on 35mm? I'm off to the BFI imax tomorrow to watch Jaws, Saturday, really excited, and also going to visit the Fopp store for the first time, anyway just wanted to share, and say thank you for a great channel, and for keeping the Magic alive, Darren..
What a wonderful day you've just had Darren. If you do every fancy getting a 35mm projector for home then I can quite likely put you in touch with some people who might be able to find you something that will work. It's a steep learning process though but I've enjoyed that learning process so much. I do have the slightly re-hashed version of Alien on 35mm and thanks to the work Ben Wales has done on my 35mm and the Dolby CP500 processor a couple of weeks ago I finally watched it on the Kinoton FP20 on two big reels. That means just the one short break to change the reel and I had a wonderful time. I've seen Alien many times, including one of the few 70mm blow up prints at the Odeon Marble Arch when it was an all-in-one enormous, special auditorium, but I have never enjoyed Alien as much as I did on 35mm here. At only 9 feet wide it shouldn't be so impressive but it was so detailed to look at and the sound was better than I'd ever heard it so it was like watching a different film... apart from that fact that I knew the script off by heart!
Good luck with Jaws. The BFI do actually have a new 35mm print somewhere and that's what I'd aim for but I'm completely nuts!
John.
John, thank you for your reply, as always, I watched jaws and omg it was amazing, many of todays movie just don’t come close, I don’t know if they showed the 35mm and to be honest it was still brilliant, some scenes did look older then others so would you say that this could be film and not digital? With regards my projection day at Harwich, which was also amazing, I call it my Cinema Paradiso day lol they have 2 35mm working projectors that I was shown how to use and when I first looked through the glass at the screen I got goosebumps, truly magical, the owners said that although the projectors are fully working, they can’t really get hold of the 35mm films, and the licenses to show them to an audience, they have a digital projector, but as the staff are mainly volunteers, they only have to push a button once programmed and that even opens the curtains, I could ramble on forever, there probably is a question in here somewhere, thank you John..
@@ChaseCapital2826 If the entire width of the screen was filled a the IMAX then it was a video projection. I say that because when I was last in there they did not have a lens capable of filling the screen from the 35mm/70mm projector. I'm sure the team responsible always have their 4K video projectors setup to replicate a film print anyway because they know what they're doing. Jaws is a great film and one of my all-time favourites. As for the Harwich cinema, there are 35mm prints available because other film enthusiast cinemas are able to book them, not least the Prince Charles just off Leicester Square. I think the name of the distributor who is able to licence most of them is Park Circus and can be found here: www.parkcircus.com/
Film Is Fabulous has come about as a result of the British Film Collectors Convention and led by my friend John Franklin. His team are uncovering a wealth of 35mm films from deceased collectors and helping the bereaved families to get these treasures to new homes. Enthusiast cinemas will be able to actually buy these prints and then probably get the licence to actually screen them from Park Circus. They'd have to check Park Circus are the distributor responsible first though. All the salvaged films are going to auction in a selection of specialist auction houses but we do distribute all the information well in advance of the auctions. I believe some Technicolor James Bond (Connery) titles have been found and they may be going to collector conventions first so true collectors have a chance to own them. Recently a top print of Midnight Express was auctioned so they are already showing up and going on sale.
John.
Thanks again, John. I hope you do watch the rest of the Lord of the Rings trilogy - if you found the Hobbit trilogy to be alright, I think you'll find the earlier ones are more enthralling - hope you enjoy them.
One day Mark. I'll have to find a copy of the three Lord of the Rings films singing like a bird... cheap, cheap.
John.
Pretty sure the high frame rate (HFR) was for each eye field in 3D (48fps/left and right image). I remember watching the first one with my son in 3D HFR because I sought out a cinema in my area in Minnesota that was presenting it at its maximum technical quality. I distinctly remember even the movie having that soap opera effect due to HFR.
I know there was a backlash to the HFR because some felt myself included that it took away the cinematic feel. I know I felt that props and some of the environments didn’t look as convincing as Jackson’s Lord of the Rings film. I saw the second and third in 3D but I’m not sure if they were HFR because of the backlash from he first. I don’t remember them having such a blatant soap opera effect.
I think someone told me the second one looked like an episode of 'Neighbours' Craig so it's likely that one had the same high frame rate. I can't remember when 'Gemini Man' was released but that should have been the lesson to film makers that video at high frame rates doesn't work. Sometimes it takes several disasters to confirm what is obvious but in the case of the Hobbit films, they were all massive successes so it couldn't have looked so bad to most who saw them. I suppose many people don't spot technicalities and flaws as much as some of us.
John.
It was for HFR, the theatrical experience was 3D 48fps (HFR) and it was an odd experience. The in set pieces felt like a theatre (as if you are in the rooms with them). I loved the reality of it, but it was so strange at the time, not many liked it. Now Cameron uses a mix so some scenes are 24 and other > 48.
HFR makes more sense with sport and is meant to look great (sadly we never seem to get any broadcasters wanting to show it, tennis / rugby was demoed in HFR 5-6 years ago and we still don’t have it ). I’m sure the oleds support it.
@@orionv75 I think all tellies and video projectors output up to 60fps but possibly a lot more now. The lack of motion blur is what generates the unrealistic nature of movies with frame rates that are too high but fortunately these 24fps versions in here looked pretty natural much of the time. Not for all of it though and at times even normal scenes were somehow artificial and that could be the high frame rate of the shoot to blame. A lesson for film makers today not to use the same thing perhaps. Gemini Man is the worst quality video I've ever seen but that was completely intended for 3D and I expect it looked wonderful in that format. The version I saw is the 4K disc but don't for gawd's sake look at that one. It's enough to make you want to weep!
@@moviecollector5920 yes, tv’s since 2019 support 120hz, looks great from a gaming perspective. As for broadcast tv, I assumed it was still 50/60 with the hope sport may go higher (possibly have to rely on streamed content for it, iPlayer for eg (they way they show content in HLG (HDR)).
Hi John. I understand and agree that at my age (60) it becomes harder to relate and patiently wade through a film like this. I understand the broad appeal, but as you stated it takes a bit to warm up to. The other thing is as I get older, I am far more inclined to see less action orientation films and more character-story driven cinema. For example, we recently watched a couple films with Dame Judy Dench. Watching MS Dench is like watching acting as God intended. Perfection. I do not know your opinion but I find her to be in the top three of all time for both British and American cinema. She's the most authentic personae in her work. You lose yourself watching her. More my cup of tea. Joe O’Donnell
I find the same with Rachel McAdams Joe, but for partially different reasons. She is a fine actress though. Judi Dench has grown on me over the years so it seems to be an effect of maturity and increasing experience. I still like action movies but rarely find them as enthralling as I once did. However, the action movies I loved when I was younger mostly have the same effect on me today so perhaps they were just better years ago. Some haven't aged so well but they didn't impress me as much as the better action films which have appeared to age well. I watch movies of all kinds and sometimes it's surprising what can stay in your mind and what doesn't. The ones that stay in mind are the better films of course. I'm sure I'll keep these Hobbit movies in mind but for partially different reasons and mainly because working out the why and what all about them made it more interesting for me. If I wasn't doing a review video though I might not have thought about that side of them at all.
John.
@@moviecollector5920Kids!
@@garyharper2943 I don't mind getting older Gary, but I'll never grow up.
Jackson absolutely added more artificial sharpening to these 4K editions, adding to that effect you mentioned in your review (the third one is the worst offender). The HDR looks good though. I still prefer the 3D versions- thankfully 48fps is not in the Blu-ray spec, so they kept it at 24fps for all the home video releases.
I did suspect someone had been a bit liberal with the 'sharpen' facility in Davinci Resolve or another video editing tool. Overall they all look very good so it's a minor gripe given how quickly they were made and how.
John.
Hi John! Thanks for the review and you mention the film earnings being important and i'd agree. I do miss the Christmas blockbuster releases like we had with these, LOTR and Harry Potter films etc. For some reason these movies just don't fly with me and I really can't explain it. Like many I loved the first trilogy but these (the Hobbit x 3 films) just bother me whenever they are on. I have the low cost blu rays and will not upgrade these. Again to enjoy this wonderful story I will read the novel over again. It does the trick. If re released at cinema perhaps I could sit through them again but will choose other 4ks for my collection instead. Great review I also will look for a LOTR review from you in the future but no rush haha Meanwhile hope all is well and all the best to you guys over there D in BC!!
The Hobbit films are overly long Dave. I expect the backers/producers envisaged a Lord of the Rings type of epic with epic earnings to match and so the people tasked with bringing the story to screen had to find ways to string it all out to replicate the three LOTR films and three massive box office successes. For some of us, the drawn out sequences were simply that; drawn out. And that doesn't make for an enjoyable film. But if you're enveloped in the whole magical world then you'd enjoy staying in that world for as long as possible. This could be why some love these movies and others don't. I enjoyed them despite being a little bored at times. But I'm a little more forgiving with movies these days than I was when I was younger. Today I might actually have given the Lord of the Rings sequel a chance but having been largely bored sitting through the first I didn't bother risking the same thing with the sequels.
John.
Thank you John.
Well done Cheekster.
@@moviecollector5920 🫡
John most lord of the rings fans didn't enjoy the hobbit trilogy i was so let down by it and i loved all 3 lord of the rings films
Conversely Chirs, I didn't much care for the first Lord of the Rings film so I didn't see either of the sequels. Great trailers though. Thinking about it, if I'd have seen the first Hobbit movie in a cinema I wouldn't have bothered seeing the sequels for that. I think they're all aimed at a younger audience but if you saw it as a youngster then like so many films that appeal to us in our formative years, they stay with you.
John.
I love all six films personally. I never expect films to match books, ever. So I just go into them to enjoy them for what they are. The only part of the Hobbit that I didn't like was the poorly edited barrel scene down the river. The mix between real imagery and CGI for that part was bad.
@@RayneDr0ps There was quite a lot of inadequate computer animation in them but with so much of it being CGI that's to be expected. I don't know how they manage to turn out so much so quickly but they did and it must have put the quality under pressure at times.
The Hobbit 2012 is a great movie. The two sequels were disappointing alright.
I used to agree with u but I will watch these a million times over the crappy TV show
Would have been so interesting to see Guillermo del Toro’s version before all the financial issues meant he had to pull out. Would have been special and he only wanted to do 2 films.
Still - I really like the Hobbit films. Even the Blu Rays looks class on a 4k TV and the 3D versions are pretty good.
A pair of films running around two hours probably would have been far more watchable as far as I'm concerned. But the box office returns do confirm there was a big enough audience to stretch them out to three films so it doesn't matter what I think and nor should it. I suspect their reputation would be even better today were there to have been just the two films though.
I picked up one of the (many) 4k boxsets with all 6 Lord of the rings and Hobbit movies (have yet to get on to watching them yet), originally seen them all at cinemas but never seen any at Imax. With the Hobbit movies, I remember seeing the first movie projected at 48fps and I have to say I really noticed the difference and not for the better.
The issue with it as you touched upon, is that it made the image look like video and not cinematic. The movement looks unnatural, and if anything the best comparison is when you watch a movie on one of these TV's with the motion smoothing option turned on.
Aside from that aspect, the Hobbit movies are solidly entertaining (if definitely feeling the length by the end of the third movie) but very lazily made in my opinion by Peter Jackson, falling into a filming pattern - you can literally count how many times there is a scene of dialogue up close, then a wider cut, then a sweeping CGI camera movement through a large vista. Essentially the filming and editing felt very formulaic as opposed to natural storytelling as we had with the Lord Of The Rings movies.
Regarding the released disc sets, I have to say I am VERY disappointed with the release. I have all 6 of the movies purchased on 3D blu rays with the extended versions, which I will be keeping, if not for the 3D versions, for the extras, as each movie comes with TWO extra discs of appendices and are crammed full of behind the scenes and extra features. A very rich set and the 6 movie 4k set that I bought came with a measly single disc DVD disc, which just feels such a 'can't be bothered' attitude from the distributors.
I do highly recommend seeing the Lord Of The Rings trilogy in its entirety, and the extended versions of those and it' such a rich trilogy and vastly superior in story and pacing than The Hobbit. Yes, it's a long watch, but well worth it.
Andrew
Don't worry about seeing them at an IMAX cinema Andrew because they weren't genuine IMAX films so there won't be much of a difference other than perhaps the 15/70 blow-ups of the first two Hobbit films which will benefit from a more natural look having been printed onto film stock. There were 35mm prints around too because a colleague does have the first one on 35mm.
I did enjoy them but they took some effort to get through. It will take me a while to work up to the Lord of the Rings films so bear with me on that. I did nearly purchase a second hand box of them from CEX about a year ago but my wife begged me not to. Not a good sign. Neither of us liked the first film much as we both find it boring. Shorten it with the services of a skilled editor and there is probably a very entertaining movie in there. But I do have the trailers for the two sequels on Super 8 and they're impressive. Unfortunately, given how boring we found the first film we didn't risk venturing to the cinema for either of the sequels and I still haven't seen them to this day. I'll get there though. These sort of films aren't really my thing but as I said, I did enjoy the Hobbit series in the end so there's hope for me yet.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 i get that the first movie perhaps was slow in parts, but it was doing a lot of world building and introducing of the characters of the members of the fellowship. The first 1/3 of the movie maybe indulges in the shire a bit, but it’s setting up how the hobbits are not used to the world they’ll encounter outside of the safety of the shire. The second and third movies are certainly more action packed throughout, and have some impressive setpieces.
Fantasy seems the one genre that a lot of people avoid in movies because it’s so often badly realised and doesn’t make the transfer to screen easily without being laughable or just plain bad. Like for example the two Arnold Conan movies are great examples of it done well, and what was originally going to be the third movie, turned into a Kevin Sorbo movie called Kull The Conquerer - and that one was terrible - as i said, easily the hardest genre to do.
Greetings from Canada 🇨🇦
I think I’m going to be one of the few people who don’t consider these movies as a direct representation of the books. I went into the movies expecting that there would be changes made to the story so that it had some sort of new and fresh angle to view it from. I liked Smaug the most. Cumberbatch was a great casting decision. Im glad the resolution/transfer is good on this movie set. I’ve been humming and hawing about upgrading my Bluray extended editions up to this 4k boxset.
Thanks for another great review John!
They look more like film than I was expecting Jeremy but also look artificial quite a lot. After so many people had told me how awful they'd looked in the cinema I was expecting another Gemini Man type mess but thankfully they looked quite natural most of the time... apart from the excessive CGI which is very good for the most part but with so much of it there's no way it could all be very good.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 even for a genre that was STEEPED in practical effects and costumes, they had to bend the knee somewhere!
Hi John , the third film did not have any 15/70mm prints made, it was only Digital IMAX.
That's a shame Michael. You could have done a Hobbit all-nighter with them and fill the house out every time. I hope the latest Alien film is packing them in. If I could get to London at the moment I'd be in there. Can't get up the enthusiasm for a local cinema these days. Well, none of them have an 85 foot wide screen.
John.
salut bonne revue sur le film bien comme toujour
Merci Alain, comme toujour. John.
Great video as always. I agree that this trilogy is good at best and awful at worst. The second film is the best one. I did not like the third as much, but it had its moments where it was interesting and fun. The first one was better but was very slowly and it felt like an conversation with an ent in entish. Nothing come close to Lord of the rings tho.
One day I'll give Lord of the Rings another try. Then maybe I'll finally get onto the sequels. But I did find that first Lord of the Rings interminably slow and it looked awful on the huge screen. That was a sign of the times though as the downturn in image quality generally was under way by then.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Do that, you want regret it. It is one of my favourite trilogies of all time. After watching those back to back you will be exhousted and in tears. I know i was at the theater watching it. And many others as well. I swear to the EE.
Funnily enough, I think Fellowship of the Ring is the best film out of all the Tolkien movies - LOTR or The Hobbit.
John, I’d advise you to watch the LOTR trilogy and also give Fellowship another chance.
It’s one of the last truly remarkable achievements in practical effects of cinema: the production design in that film is staggering, and the film itself is sublime - the most cohesive of all Tolkien films. Just give it time and let it tell its story.
Also, as a whole, the entire LOTR trilogy is leaps and bounds beyond The Hobbit in terms of story and execution.
Like you said yourself, The Hobbit was drawn out. The LOTR trilogy isn’t (nearly as much, anyway).
It really is an essential watch.
I can remember how awful The Lord of the Rings looked on the huge screen but that was just the way things were heading at the time. The image quality downturn was in full swing then and it continued and never fully recovered to this day - with some notable exceptions of course. I did spot many of the stop motion effects in the film and was surprised at the image stagger but perhaps they were re-shot of completely finished for the recent releases. Whatever I thought of it didn't matter because all three were big successes and that's all that matters. Film making is a business above anything else and all six of the Peter Jackson Tolkein movies have earned a fortune so that's a very good thing. I'll watch the first film again one day and hopefully I'll enjoy it enough to watch the sequels next time.
John.
I read the hobbit and quite enjoyed it I read the lolr and found it hard work as a big 3 books in one book but enjoyed it and tought the movies where brilliant but the hobbit as a movie was far to stretched it might have work over 2 films but 3 was like seeing how much money you could scam out of the loyal fan base
I think making as much money as possible was what it was all about Mark. But most seem to have very much enjoyed them so it wasn't all bad. And the money that did come in would have helped other movies to get made and keep cinemas in business too.
John.
Enjoyed this Trilogy series.My favorite was Smaug.Benedict Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug. Also liked Martin Freeman. Cumberbatch was also Dr Strange in Marvel movie.
I liked the dragon Craig but after the first hour or so of him gabbling on I rather lost interest. I know, I'm exaggerating but these movies needed an experienced and capable editor to get them flowing along at a pace. John.
I think that's why that high frame rate technology never took off because of the way it looks it doesn't look like film.
But for youngsters who have lived their lives through telephone and computer screens playing video games, the 48fps represents real life. Most of us are used to seeing life like a 24fps film but maybe the TODD-AO 30fps might actually be preferable to all of us if we still had the chance to see it. I did see Showscan 60fps but I don't recall being as impressed as we were all supposed to be. That was genuine Showscan before it was diluted down like all these superior systems tend to be... IMAX for example which is now largely a 4K video projection a fraction of the quality of the real thing.
John.
Cheers John. Yeah my only excitement for these initially was that del Toro was doing them. But he dropped out. Shame as i really wanted to see his take on it. Wouldn't have been any of this 48 fps guff either... makes interiors look like a soap opera set.
They did look very good in here but some scenes looked artificial as well as some characters which presumably was down to the high frame rate of the shoot but I can't be certain of that. It could be that CGI was added just about everywhere and that could be the reason, or part of the reason, for the unnatural look at times.
Great video. I saw the first film in High Frame Rate, and the cheap-looking banality of HFR made it feel like I had a front row row seat at the local amateur pantomime. Thank goodness Blu-ray doesn't support 48fps, so I never have to suffer the ghastliness of watching these quite fun films in HFR again. (Personally, I prefer the 3D Blu-ray to the 4K release.)
Yes they do render a very expensive and lavishly made film into looking like a cheap TV rip-off of Lord Of The Rings. If you're ever curious, you can view the trailers on YT in 48fps.
I think I'd like the 3D versions but I don't think I could bear almost 3 hours with the glasses on my nose. I prefer to completely relax when watching a movie with 3D being more of an occasional novelty.
John.
@@davidjames579 I just had a look at the 48 fps trailer. To me, it looked like I could see some interpolation artefacts, suggesting that the one I watched was "fake" HFR, but I could have imagined it. Before the film came out I was telling anyone who was interested (that'll be very few people, if I'm honest) that *native* HFR would look so much better than the garbage frame interpolation on TVs. Turned out I was wrong: It looked almost exactly the same, just as hideous, albeit without some of the more obvious artefacts. I also thought that Cameron's use of Variable Frame Rate was even worse: Way of Water's HFR was full of the usual artless banality that all HFR possesses, but the constant jumping from 24 to 48 fps was very jarring. To be fair, I only saw Gemini Man at 60 fps, so *perhaps* 120 fps is the magic moment where HFR doesn't look like cheap junk ...but I doubt it!
@@Willy_Elres Oh okay. It's possible there are fake HFR Hobbit trailers online. As I recall the official Warner Bros ones should be up. I saw Gemini Man in a cinema in 60fps 3D and that had the soap opera effect. I personally thought the Avatar remaster and Avatar 2 sorted the problem with much less intrusive HFR. Although only used sporadically I thought it worked much better at seeming like a more there feeling. A whole movie of it might have been a bit disconcerting though.
I have only been really impressed by 3D in the case of one film … the original Avatar shown at the old Birmingham IMAX at Millennium Point. Indeed, I was so impressed that I actually returned for a 2nd viewing. The difference then was that the glasses were (Dame Edna like) sized to be big enough for the screen and to enable me to wear my standard glasses as well. As a result, I could quickly forget I had the extra encumbrance. The only time the effect was somewhat broken was during some of the flight sequences where the frame rate could not capture very rapid movements and everything stuttered awfully. This is nowhere near as much of a problem when watching the Blu Ray.
I assume the problem with the 3D IMAX was the attempt to show alternate polarised frames at the standard combined frame rate… equating to an equivalent of half standard frame rate in each eye.
Although I have seen a couple of 3D movies since (including Avatar: The Waterworks) on digital IMAX, I have always struggled with the rubbish standard specs which just don’t really work with my varifocals … and the effect has (in my experience) consistently been a bit of a letdown and disappointment. A particular shame in the case of the Avatar Waterworks as the 3D should at least have provided an “immersive” (sorry, couldn’t resist) experience … where the story/script seemed unable … and, at the ticket cost, I was determined to sit through to the end (I always live in hope that a weak script may be redeemed at some point)😢 … it did feel like a rather long 3 hours. On the plus side, I was not distracted by the stuttering at times of rapid movement, so assume the variable frame rate was applied… and I will give Cameron due credit for the general look of the CGI world he generated … I just wish he had given the same attention to the script 🥺
With my exception of Avatar, my general take on 3D is one of disappointment and discomfort for the obligatory opportunity of the director to try and use the effect to poke a pointy stick into my face in some attempt to impress me with a wow factor that isn’t. If the only reason to use high frame rate is to support 3D, I fail to be convinced it to be worth the effort … I wonder if maybe quite a large proportion of the audience demographic may actually be discouraged from going to the cinema because of the disappointment/discomfort … the only benefit I can identify is to combat stuttering with fast moving action or to avoid a flickering that I don’t appear to be sensitive to.
I do wonder if the human eye processes images better (more comfortably?) at the lower (standard) frame rate ? .. as I understand it, the brain does generally process data as a series of still images … maybe this explains why we perceive high frame rate material “differently”??
Do not sleep on the third film's extended cut!
Sorry I didn't reply immediately but I was asleep!
Thanks for the review John , I don’t think I could ever sit through these films again , they are ok but I wouldn’t buy these
I wouldn't buy them either Aidey but ultimately I did enjoy them and would probably get more out of them with a second watch. At about eight hours to do that though I think there are other movies to watch.
John.
2 thousand views in 5 hours.
Hoping for 10 thousand views.
Thanks & good luck!
I never know what is going to be popular and what isn't. It's a funny old game. Some uploads barely register to start with and then I have a look through the stats a year or two later and those same videos have done very well. Others get off to a rip-snorting start and then suddenly die a death and never get going again.
John.
You’ve not seen LOTR parts 2&3?
*sets flame to emergency beacon*
I'm still not in a rush Mark. They were for younger audiences and I'd just about gone passed that stage when the first film was released. John.
@@moviecollector5920 My parents love them!
@@moviecollector5920The way you brush aside the greatest film trilogy ever created makes me want to unsubscribe.
@@DP12321 I certainly have not "brushed aside" anything. I am entitled to an opinion as is everyone. I didn't like the film - so what? My opinion does not matter at all. It's a bloody film so why should you or anyone else care that I found the first Lord of the Rings film boring.
@@moviecollector5920As I always like to say " each to their own " in art , film etc there is no right or wrong opinion it's personal.
While I'm a Fan of LOTR I agree the first is the worst, the pace is all over but generally slow.
IMHO " that's just my opinion for what it's worth".
I think LOTR is for all ages especially if you read the books 40 years ago.
And the 2nd and 3rd are a massive improvement.
After all return of king for 11 Oscars.
Personally my favourite is the second " The Two Towers ".
Anyway as they say so many films and so little time 😊.
A lot of film fans would hang me for my dislike of Cameron.
Avatar lol original? No pocahontas in space or Dances with wolves in space.
I love Alien but IMHO Aliens is a popcorn John Wayne in space ?!😮.
Sacrilege lol.
NO just how I feel.
Believe it or not some people don't like Apocalypse now or The Godfather 🤔🤔.
I'm sure the world will continue to spin even with our different views of what's a life changing film and what isn't 🤔😉✌️✌️✌️
You are on for a treat John if you’ve not seen part 2 and 3 of The Lord of the Rings trilogy… the ending of part 3 does drag on a bit, although still good. Anyway, they are much better than the Hobbit trilogy… hope you enjoy when you get a chance…
I think it will take me a while to get to the Stephen. Sometime soon I'll have to find the reel of 'Scope trailers with the two Lord of the Rings sequels included. Haven't run some trailer reels for a few years now. John.
@@moviecollector5920 likewise, John. In fact I have some trailer reels with adverts spliced in with ‘pearl and dean’ opening and closing logos… Stephen
@@moviecollector5920 Please watch the Extended Edition. Especially Two Towers is that much better with the additional runtime.
It would be awesome if you reviewed Lord of the Rings- always love your reviews John!
I'll take a look at them one day. It takes some working up to when you've seen a film previously and it was a disappointment. Lord of the Rings did look awful on a huge screen and the stop motion effects weren't exactly up to the standard I would have expected at the time either. Usually I like stop motion effects so that was a real shame. I was still waiting for the story to get going when the end credits rolled. Those are some of my memories from that night at the Odeon Leicester Square. Things declined even further a year or so later when a low quality video projector presented Star Wars Attack of the Clones which to this day is still the worst quality I've ever seen in a cinema.
John.
I hear that the LOTR films were downgraddd in the 4k released in order to “match” the look of the Hobbit films. There are many videos online pointing out edge enhancement and DNR that even remove a portion of Shadowfax’s head in one scene. And that is tragic sine the original LOTR films were generally received much better than the later Hobbit films.
@@AZBuckeye96 I only saw the first Lord of the Rings and that was at the Odeon Leicester Square. The image quality was lacklustre and probably did nothing to enhance my viewing pleasure for what I found to be a dull and even a bit of a boring evening. I have had other comments over the years on this channel that have told me the image quality had been sorted out for the 4K disc releases so I suppose a few trade-offs have been made in order to bring them up to standard. I have never seen the sequels though so I can't tell you how they originally looked in cinemas but I'll work up to seeing them at home now having finally seen The Hobbit movies which I rather enjoyed in the end.
John.
I remember watching the Hobbit films in the cinema tbh the 3rd is OK because of the Battle of the Five Armies however I've never been so bored in the cinema 👎 LOTRs Fellowship of the Ring for me is a Master Piece leaving the Cinema after seeing that I still get chills to this day. Great review John 👍
I was too old for The Lord of the Rings so I didn't bother with either of the sequels but if you were young enough when you saw it then that would stay with you. I do remember how awful it looked at times on the huge screen but that was the way things in general were heading then and not exclusive to Lord of the Rings. I'll get to the sequels eventually but even though I'm not expecting to think they're the greatest movies ever made I do like the trailers so I'll dig those out soon as I haven't watched them in a few years now. There in trailer compilation reels somewhere on the shelves.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 I was in my early 20s when the original LOTRs came out but I did know the books really well from my youth my Dad and Grandad both had the books
@@andylikesstuffchannel I was somewhat older. Therein lies the answer to why I didn't like it. But I am more forgiving when I see a film and find it a little slow or dull these days so I might be more likely to give a movie a second chance or perhaps watch the sequel before writing it off today. John.
@@moviecollector5920 yeah remember when you reviewed The Matrix you didn't really get caught up in buzz with those films aswell as the Star Wars Prequel films 👍 those 3 IPs dominated the Cinemas for around 6 years 1999 onwards.
@@andylikesstuffchannel I do appreciate The Matrix for its place in cinema history though Andy and I think Star Wars The Phantom Menace is one of the better Star Wars films even if the image quality wasn't exactly up to snuff. I plan to watch my 35mm print of that again sometime soon but I always remember it as a disappointing image so I doubt that will change. The CGI revolution was a large part of the reason for the decline in image quality so The Phantom Menace was a prime candidate and the sequel to that was the worst quality I think I have ever seen in a cinema. John.
Always been quite happy with the Hobbit trilogy I've got on bluray especially since getting a 4k projector and 4k dvd player to upscale them. Just thought I'd mention something else. Just been to the cinema to watch Alien Romulus and walked out halfway through because I found the image onscreen totally unacceptable. It's a dark film but the picture was just so dark it was imposdible to make out what was going on! Havent been to the cinema for many years. Stopped after cinemas went from screening film and went digital as those early days of digital were so bad. I had hoped things had improved but no they haven't. Will stick to my home cinema in future. Sent a complaint to the cinema which I won't name.
You're not alone with giving up on cinema Keith. I stopped going in 2006 with only an occasional visit after that but quality continued to deteriorate to the point I only tend to go now when I know a film print is being screened. However, I have seen some very good video projection in cinemas more recently and in both 2K and 4K. But most are still crap as they're using older video projectors that were never up to the job in the first place. The experience you just had could be because the lamp in the video projector is on the way out or has shifted due to the heat and constant on/off every day so needs re-aligning. Projectionists used to be capable of this type of job themselves but they don't exist any longer in most cinemas. To be fair to the remaining cinemas though, the industry is in terminal decline so they're having to do what they can to survive. Sadly, that tends to mean sub-standard presentations and quality.
There's a pretty good cinema near here though... about eight paces up the hall from where I'm currently typing. It has video projection, 35mm, 16mm and Super 8 capabilities.
Thanks for that John. I suppose many cinema goers who have never seen film projected in cinemas just accept what they're shown today. I have sent a complaint to the cinema concerned but expect nothing back. I sent many letters of complaint when my local cinemas in Bath went over to digital projection. I did get replies telling me all was well and more or less telling me to go away!! I had been a cinema goer for most of my life. The last film I saw which was a film projected image was 'The Kingdom Of Heaven'. A few months later I went again to the same cinema to watch 'Salmon fishing in the Yeamen'. I hadn't realised that film projection had ceased. I went out to the foyer and asked to speak to the manager as I felt there was something wrong with the projection as the image on the screen was truly awful. He told me that all was well and that State of the Art digital projectors were now being used. Perhaps the poor bloke was having to lie as he'd had no choice in the changeover. He was an elderly chap so I'm sure he'd noticed the drop in quality having been in the industry for many years. Anyway as you say it's home cinema all the way from now on unless I can get to the BFI to watch 70mm Imax!!
@@keithevans7996 The very fact that the video projection solutions installed everywhere around 2011 was labelled 'digital' should have told us all what to expect. But most people are sold on that one word and assume because it's 'digital' it's better. It isn't always the case though and cinema has been the case in point. I was mainly watching master prints in the main West End cinemas so you can imagine the torture I was being put through. General release prints are another couple of generations down and yet they were still superior to video in cinemas. Call 'digital' what it is i.e. 'binary' and people wouldn't be so easily fooled.
We're not far from you and use the same National Express service to get to London for special cinema screenings. Sometimes it's only cost us about £12 each to get up and back. We haven't done there and back in a single day yet but it is possible. We usually find a Travelodge for about £75 per night and made a couple of days of it. We must continue to support cinemas whenever possible because they're not going to survive without us. I seek out showings on film prints because I know I'm unlikely to be disappointed like I often am with video.
John.
I have this and like it. Although not related but I’m wondering is if you’ve gotten twister on 4k yet? If not I know that zavvi dise have a nice steelbook coming a couple of months. I’m also curious of your thoughts on twisters which is in theaters right now and was shot mostly on 35mm.
I don't have Twister on 4K but it's not released over here yet. I will get it but I've watched the NTSC LaserDisc so many times that I could probably recite a lot of the script. That LD has the original theatrical soundtracks on it so it's rather special. I hope thinning it out into Dolby Atmos hasn't spoiled it but however good it sounds in here I don't think anything is going to match what we heard - and saw - at The Empire Leicester Square. That was a sensational night.
As for Twisters, lightning rarely strikes twice... or tornadoes for that matter. But I will see it when it's released on home video. If there were a cinema screening it in 35mm then I might make the trip so perhaps I'll see if anything has been publicized for reel/real film screenings.
John.
Unfortunately at least according to IMDb no 35mm prints but I can say it dose look rather filmic in theatres. Personally i prefer the new one myself. But part of it may have to do more with more romantic tension instead of re-kindelling a broken relationship, a more cowboy attitude and a country music soundtrack that I adore. But that’s just me. I’ve enjoyed this film enough to have seen it three times in the theater and I’m tempted for a fourth if I can.
@@jessechristensen6028 Video projection in cinemas has been so disappointing over the years that I've all but given up on it. But I've seen some very nice imagery via the 4K projector at the BFI IMAX lately and the new 2K projector at the Hereford Courtyard was impressive too. I'd make use of those two cinemas on occasion if they were closer but alas, they're not. It's a good sign that you like Twisters so much though Jesse so perhaps I'll feel the same when I finally see it. I know it will sound fantastic in here. If you haven't seen 'Into The Storm' I think you'll like that one too. It's basically a Twister rip-off.
John.
Neat I will say that on my last viewing I did watch it with the D box seats that shake you around in sync with the action. For the storms and the trucks it was well worth it.
@@jessechristensen6028 I didn't know the 1950's interactive nonsense had been reintroduced anywhere Jesse. I did go through all of these systems in the early 1990's but I felt they were a novelty rather than anything suitable for cinema. For a film like Twister though, it might be a novelty worth living through. Then again, that was the effect the sound system had on us watching it in The Empire in 1996 or 97, whenever it was. The THX in there shook that enormous auditorium.
John.
Ive got 3D box set,and probably that will be my ultimate version to watch it.Unless some silly deal on 4k version.I bought 4k Titanic and was disappointed,3D with Ai crap looks way better
I have Titanic on LaserDisc. It's good image quality but alas, I can't stand any of the characters in that film so it's only ever been run twice. I did see the 70mm blow-up but it didn't improve the film any. Sorry to learn you're not happy with the 4K. One piece of advice is to make sure all digital 'enhancements' are off or minimized with 'sharpen' being the main culprit of image problems. That should have an alternative name such as 'Completely mess up your picture quality here'.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 John,im trained thx video callibrator,so my display is calibrated up to the standard.And obviously all unnecessary settings are off.Ive got no problem with darker scenes on Titanic,but daylight scenes are tend to on a flat side and the faces of the characters are devoid of definition at the times.I see the problem is with Ai set on the same level on night and day scenes.J.Cameron got "grainphobia" that goes to the extreme at some scenes.3D master also 4k,had some moderate dnr as well,but without Ai help so it looks more natural.Another disappointed on the way is Terminator 4k.I saw the trailer and its obvious they overdone it with dnr.And possibly even worse than on T2
@@romualdspizans3163 I've only seen clips from the HD of The Terminator but that looked very good to me so if you don't already have it, purchase the Blu-ray and stick with that. Whatever I end up with on home video, I'm sticking with the Super 8 as that's the best representation of real cinema to me. Then again, if someone wants to donate a 35mm print...
John.
My thoughts on the Hobbit trilogy is there is a masterpiece buried in those three films. If it could be all edited into one 3-4 hour fiim would be a perfect starting point for LOTR trilogy
Or perhaps edited by someone so experienced they could get all three down to a two hour film. Then it would really punch its way along but get rid of the worst of the CGI action sequences which served no purpose at all. While watching the first I felt I could have cut it down to 45 minutes so someone should be able to completely shred them and turn them into one movie that could be something really quite special.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 totally agree John, buried in that 6 + hours is ~ 2 hours of pure magic which would serve as a perfect prequel to the LOTR films.
Yeah… there are fan edit that are better than this… but because they don`t have original footage, they are not very good in some transitions. But one 2.5 to 3 hours movie is story wise much better and in more style of the book. So you can cut 6h away from the trilogy and get a good full movie! It tells how much unnesessary stuff there are in the films!
@@haukionkannel They brought in the audience and the money though. That's the most important factor for any movie.
These films aren't really my cup of tea, but I enjoyed your video.
They're not really mine Timothy but I enjoyed them despite any reservations of things about them I didn't like so much.
John.
@moviecollector5920 understood. I recently acquired The Man From Uncle limited edition 4k from Arrow. It's another lovely package with a great presentation of the film. I'm beyond chuffed to bits. I heard that there is a Bond boxset in the works, featuring Sean Connery's films in 4k. No telling what it will go for, but Goldfinger in 4k is a great idea.
I’m disappointed the films have never been available to buy in their original 48fps form. There must have been many production choices made with this frame rate in mind so it’s unfortunate we can’t view the finished product as it was first intended to be seen. In my research I haven’t found even a trailer available in 48fps! It’s a cinematic experience lost to time.
The movies looked very good in here so all the awful things I'd heard about the 48fps have been sorted. I think it's the criticism of the frame rate that gave Peter Jackson the authority to sort it out for the home video market. The majority of home video collectors are probably older so getting rid of every other frame to make the motion more natural and more what we're used to was probably the right choice. I suppose there is a 48fps Blu-ray in a way because 3D is essentially 24fps for each eye.
John.
I like the first two, battle of five armies was a mess. I do think the extended version of that was better though. I saw them in 48FPS 3D and i thought in the cinema it looked like video, and I missed the Super 35mm filmgrain structure. Also the lack of bigatures and practical effects too much cgi.
To be fair Matthew, they had to be largely created in a computer given the subject matter. Some of it was excellent such as the dragon. But those sequences went on too long and I'd lost interest by the time each sequence was over. These films needed an experienced editor to slash them down to more manageable levels.
John.
Should do the Lord of the Rings 4k in comparison, that looks amazing compared to the Hobbit movies
I wonder what was done to them to make them look amazing. The first film looked awful on the huge screen at the Odeon Leicester Square. Perhaps some of the lesser special effects were re-worked at some time. Interesting. One day I'll get to the 4K discs and hopefully it will be a different experience. After all, the Super 8 trailers are excellent.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Lot's of sins were made in LotR UHD discs, that are not in the newest 1080p Blu-ray release!
I watched the first in 48 FPS, and I left part way through, got my tickets swapped for 24 FPS and watched it later. For so much CG, the "soap opera" effect of the higher frame rate was too much for me.
The 48fps versions do seem to have generated a mixed reaction judging by the comments on here. Perhaps it's telling that the 4K discs are 24fps. Someone learned from the mistake perhaps.
John.
The EE versions are the only way to go. These follow the way Peter Jackson did LOTR. The funny enough part is that the EE of the third Hobbit film is rated R due to excessive violence and some brutality.
I'm not sure I've come across the 'EE' term. I expect it's something to do with the 3D 48fps but please correct me if I'm wrong. John.
EE = Extended Edition
@@moviecollector5920 Extended Edition. All of Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings & The Hobbit films should be experienced in their extended edition versions. Granted, I’m a Middle-Earth fan, so it’s easy to venture into these very long films.
@@whysoblutube I can understand that. I would prefer shortened versions. Actually, either one two hour long film or perhaps a pair of them. Then I think they'd really fly along nicely.
@@HerbdogTillybones I never would have worked that one out.
After the masterpiece that the Lord of The Rings trilogy was, the Hobbit saga was a totally unnecessary thing to do, especially in that length -three super long films to tell a story that was short and simple compared to the later books- However, I agree with you that perhaps it would’ve made more sense to make it in two 2hr films or better, a single 3 1/2 hour film.
Side comment, how to DM you about suggestions on setting up a proper home cinema?
Morning Steve. Comments have come in on here about how these films were made and the instructions given to the people making them by the studio. Apparently it was ordered that there would be three films so when Peter Jackson ended up as director because the original director dropped out, he was limited in his ability to fashion films and story as he would have preferred. This does explain why all three films drag at times. But to be fair to the studio, the movies found massive audienced - all three of them - so they were right. They would have been better as two or even one film running at a tight length but they wouldn't have brought the money in which was probably a big, big help in keeping the studio fully operational with every other production on the slate. We do need more big earners like this even if we're not entirely enamoured with the end results. Cinema is certainly desperate for some movies to draw the audiences back in now.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Sent!
I was under the impression most people like the hobbit trilogy. It appears I was wrong.
There's a mix of opinions on here William but it would be a sad world if we all liked the same movies. Very few achieve anything close to all of us liking them. And who cares what anyone else thinks anyway, it's only what we think personally that matters.
John.
John Much as I like fantasy I simply couldn't get into LOTR or the Hobbit why I don't know I never managed to get around to buying them. Completely unrelated my local CEX had a mint copy complete with sleeve of Three Billboards outside of Ebbing Missouri which I bought on a whim and enjoyed. Horses for courses boring if we were all uniform in our tastes.
Three Billboards is excellent. I've had that 4K for years. I think you had to be a certain age to appreciate Lord of the Rings and I wasn't. Maybe it was similar for you Mike.
John.
People are way too critical about these movies. Yes there shouldn't be a female elf because she was never actually in the original book. But the way they brought Smaug to life made me forgive a lot more than some of these fan boys
Why are they are too critical? It seems most people just don't think they stand up to the original trilogy. The Hobbit book is 300 pages V 1200 pages for the LOTR trilogy. Therein lies the problem, the Hobbit trilogy was padded out so much it completely drags with many overly long sequences for the sake of it. The Hobbit would be an amazing film of it was trimmed to one 3-4 hour fiim or two 2 hour fiims. Yes lots of fanboys moaning about other stuff, but cinema fans also not happy for many genuine reasons
I actually liked that female elf character and her relationship with the dwarf chappie. It gave me a couple of characters to root for in an otherwise fairly characterless series of films. But the chap who played Bilbo Baggins was brilliant and he did much to hold my interest and the interest of the movies overall. The dragon was brilliant but the dialogue sequence with Bilbo at the end of the second film when on and on and on and on and on.... Just kill the bloody thing and get on with the story!
John.
I don’t know but I like the movies…
You're certainly not alone there but there are mixed views being reported within these comments. They weren't entirely for me but I did still enjoy them. John.
Greetings from Santiago de Chile. I think that "The Hobbit" trilogy is very good but not as a great as "Lord of the Rings" trilogy in terms of the constructions of characters and the way it was shoot. I saw the six films in the same screen and to be honest, I disagree with the criticism against 48 frames per second. At first it looks as TV look but later you could discovered many details and capture in camera things that were not possible with conventional cameras. But only if you are watching it in a movie screen with your 3D glasses on. Maybe that is the reason why I can review many times "Lord of the Rings" in Blu-ray or 4K because I know that I am discovering new things in a new revision, but with the "Hobbit" I got that feeling that I am loosing something not watching it as it was intended. But any way, those six films confirms the talent of Peter Jackson behind the camera and the need for another of its movies. Adiós, amigo.
I'm not sure I'd be able to take almost 3 hours with the glasses on Gaspar. I do prefer films the conventional way but an occasional 3D novelty is enjoyable. But that first Hobbit film is too long for me even in 2D/flat format. I'm sure I could have successfully cut it down to less than an hour actually but nobody asked!
John.
@@moviecollector5920 The 48fps was also in a 2D release. You can see this in trailers for The Hobbit films on YT now where you can experience the higher frame rate by selecting from Settings cog at the bottom of the image.
@@davidjames579 It couldn't have looked too bad at 48fps because dropping every other frame for the 4K discs does appear to have worked quite nicely but that basic solution wouldn't have introduced the natural life motion blur. Interesting. But it could be the reason why sections look fake I suppose.
John, I watched Unexpected Journey in the Manchester IMAX at 48fps in 3D and it was absolutely hideous, all the effects looked terrible, it was a shocking experience and I didn't go back for the sequels.
Ah! the dreaded 'Soap Opera Effect'. So named for how the higher rate reduces a 200 million dollar fantasy epic to looking like a 30 fps Soap. I've seen the trailers on YT at 48fps and it really does look like behind-the-scenes footage. Props and costumes look less magical because of the increased detail, and lines of dialog seem like that and not things characters are saying. I also found this watching Gemini Man at 60fps. James Cameron employed a new technology for this on the 2022 Avatar remastering, and the sequel, and I have to say it does make the high frame rate bits work so much better. They're less ugly and intrusive. They just gives their parts a different reality feel, and a sense we're experiencing something more 'here'.
And it would have been on 15/70 film prints there too - two of them locked into sync' to provide the 3D.
I haven't seen the Avatar sequel David. I found the first film such a bore once it had gone through 90 minutes so to learn that the sequel was even longer than the first probably means I will never want to watch it. Maybe I'll change my mind one day. After all, people have convinced me I need to give Alien 3 another chance so anything is possible.
John.
@@moviecollector5920I can only say John if you didn't like the first Avatar you're probably not going to like the sequel! However if you can maybe give it a go one day. The CGI in the sequel is almost lifelike, convincing you these Alien beings are there.
@@moviecollector5920would Manchester need to have two IMAX 15/70 projectors side by side to do that As far as I was aware they only have one (along with The BFI IMAX, Science Museum, and Bradford)?
Have it in 3D, the best way to watch them!
Or perhaps on 2X speed?
Haha
Look at Lord Of The Rings Trilogy next please
One day Daniel. John.
How is Peter Jackson going to make a 6-hour movie over three films and cut out The Bjorn's Bjornings
I think these three films totalled about eight hours. Gawd only knows how the team responsible for making them managed to draw them out to be so long but the planning must have been enormous. John.
@@moviecollector5920 He also added characters that didn't exist in the book.
Evangeline Lilly's character Tauriel. He also put Legolas in which he may have very well been but he actually had not been created yet.
@@Geerladenlad I thought that elf gal was one of the best things about the films. And her relationship with the dwarf chappie.
I saw all three of these in 3d HFR at the cinema. I like the effect. Gemini Man and Avatar Way of Water were also excellent in 3d HFR. It gives a different experience you can't get at home.
Glad you liked them Paul. These Hobbit films looked very good for the most part in here at 24fps. Gemini Man doesn't but I can see that was wholly aimed at 3D and it really should never have been released or seen any other way.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Gemini Man was pretty bad in HFR 3D to be honest, John. It really did look like an episode of Eldorado! Watching the trailers on YT side-by-side in 120fps and 24fps, it really shows why the former doesn't work. There seems a lot of awkward extra pauses in dialog exchanges than would happen in real life. It really feels like actors waiting for their next line. Compared to the 24ps which is more engaging/immersive.
@@davidjames579 I simply found Gemini Man looked like a video game. I suppose this was an attempt to attract the younger audience it was aimed at who by then had lived their lives in front of a computer screen. Nowadays I suppose many have lived their lives looking at a telephone.
I watched all of The Hobbit Trilogy at the Southampton Odeon in 48fps 3D and I believe the screen (an official Sony screen as it said on the door before going in) was showing each on in full 5K…at a push 4K. It looked stunning and the 48fps and 3D worked so well, for me at least.
As far as I know Robert, there aren't any cinema video projectors out there capable of more than 4K. The video master files issued for these films was just 2K. But someone out there may know something I don't. They were compiled at 2K and that is understandable given so many scenes had CGI added into them and there wouldn't have been the time to compile all of them a 4K as it takes four times longer than 2K for obvious reasons.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 Oh right! Yeah that makes sense with the 2K DI given the CGI, it would cost a lot to redo the CGI in 4K!
Love the channel by the way! 👍🏻
@@robertyoung3801 It occurred to me that there are projectors out there in excess of 4K Robert but there all film projectors of 35mm and up to way off the scale at 15/70 IMAX.
Yeah in 2012-2014 CGI was still being rendered at no higher than 2K. And yes, even now there aren't any cinemas with digital projectors higher than 4K. Even IMAX and Dolby Vision ones.
@@davidjames579 I wonder if many cinemas will be able to afford new video projectors when a better resolution solution is developed. The way it's gone lately not many will, that's for sure. Some of the 35mm machines had been on duty from the 1930's when they were taken out in 2011. They'd all been upgraded and maintained of course but at least the cinemas weren't having to invest vast sums into completely new projectors every few years. It's all gone Pete Tong!
I watched the extended version of An Unexpected Journey on 4k recently and found it to be a slog. I saw all 3 films when they were first released a decade ago and remember liking the latter 2, but I've just never had much of a desire to rewatch them. The whole trilogy was just big and bloated and stuffed with too many characters. The Lord of the Rings trilogy is a masterpiece in my opinion. I do recommend giving that trilogy another try, but do NOT watch the extended versions first. You've got to ease into it.
I rarely ever watch extended versions of films so you have no concerns there. These movies are something you have to see in your formative years though because when you're older it's harder to accept the obvious fantasy of it all and some of the CGI which simply gets too much. I do remember how poor The Lord of the Rings actually looked on a huge screen but that was a product of the time and we were in the early stage of the planned downgrade in image quality back then.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 I will say that my dad as well as my aunts and uncles and older cousins saw the films at the time and enjoyed them, and they were all well into middle age, or older. I do think that fantasy is a polarizing genre, though.
@@DoncoEntAgain That's a good point. I may never have really enjoyed fantasy films so I'll have to think about that. The Never Ending Story was a good load of nonsense and then there was Krull and also another one with Claire Danes that I can't recall the name of right now. Some of them apparently work for me but perhaps taking the special effects too far tips the balance a little where I'm concerned. John.
They are terrible films. Truly awful. The fact they're kind of based on a Tolkien book and made by the same people that made the sublime LOTR trilogy makes them a travesty on a whole different level. Same goes for all none OT Star Wars films.
They're just slow and drawn out Billy. Get past that - which I didn't entirely though - and there is much to appreciate in them. I can see why youngster and those who saw them when they were young enough, love them. I had the same problems with Lord of the Rings so that's why I didn't see the sequels. One day though.
John.
As a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings films,(especially the extended editions), I found the Hobbit trilogy to be almost unwatchable! They stretched out a relatively short story into three films for business and financial reasons, so most of the 7+ hours are filled with made up content that feels like absolute filler to me! : (
Years ago I watched a documentary on UA-cam about some independent filmmakers who were doing a book edit of the films, but for obvious legal reasons it's not something that's easy to come by, so I wasn't able to watch it.
We often seem to have similar opinions of movies and you're certainly not alone in your assessment of The Hobbit films. I found that even though I was bored for most of the first film that I began to learn who the characters were in the sequels and that helped me to enjoy them more. I think they're made for lovers of the Lord of the Rings films and it seems that they worked in that regard as evidenced by the box office takings. But whatever I think of them, they're so spectacular that I can't help but like them. And they were turned out so quickly too so it's amazing the computer animation was as good as it was. Not always of course, but much of the time.
John.
When the first movie came out, I was like 11 and had just recently read the book it was based on, I was really excited to watch the movie but came out disappointed 😞 they should've done just one movie of 2:30hrs. The stuff they added was bad 👎
I agree. But they all took so much money that it was a good thing for cinemas and the film industry in general. Many people seem to love them.
John.
I watched Them in 48fps and they didnt look like a soap opera, in fact the smooth motion and the 3d was the way they were intended to be seen. Wathing Them this way was like looking into a fairy tale world where the screen completely disappeared. The movies Are not as good as the lord of the rings films but still worth a watch, john i think you Will enjoy the two towers. PS cant wait for your review of raiders.
I'll get to Raider of the Lost Ark eventually Benjamin. I pulled the Super 8 feature out earlier but I think Highlander will probably be the first of the 4K and Super 8 feature review videos. I put Highlander onto two big reels for that very purpose today.
John.
Hope highlander Will look good, i really liked that movie as a child and would consider buying it on 4k disc, it Will be interresting to hear what you have to say about that one, i have a feeling that you really like this movie, with the pictures and all you had on your wall.
@@benjaminjensen7402 One of my favourites Benjamin. I have little interest in the 4K disc though as nothing is ever likely to replace the Super 8 feature as far as I'm concerned. It is very special to own a film print of a favourite film and it re-creates the magic of the movies every time I run one in a way that any video simply cannot match.
I can only imagine. It is a good movie and queen on the soundtrack and sean connery. Great.
@@benjaminjensen7402 Had great fun revisiting it. A bit The Terminator influenced which is something I've always seen but interesting when you think that hardly anyone went to see The Terminator in 1984 and yet two years later the look and feel of that great film was used in Highlander two years later with Clancy Brown in the role of The Terminator. Well, the New York sequences of him anyway.
John.
Horrible films. The book was a simple children's story, and would have made for a great single film. The padding on these films is appalling, spread over three films and a story that isn't even The Hobbit!
I agree Ian. But they did bring in huge amounts of money and that's good for the industry. We need more big earners to get the surviving cinemas out of the mess they're left in today.
John.
@@moviecollector5920 I won't go ever to the cinema again, unless they reinstate mask mandates and install HEPA aircleaners.
I saw it in cinema at 48fps. It was truly horrendous. The second and third movie is saw in the regular 24fps thankfully. 48fps never broke through, and probably never will. Double the cost in film, maintenance, and not to mention, double the special effects (cgi cost) at least in render times. It was the worst decision Peter Jackson made. Also, the dreaded soap opera effect. Looked so stupid and cheap.
The good thing was that at 48fps it was possible to drop half the frames and it looked normal. I was expecting another Gemini Man type mess but it was nothing of the sort which was a relief.
John.
Boring!
Just tried to watch the 1st; by the time the 2nd 'guest' arrived was out!
Like the actors & the sets, just everything was sooooo drawn out.
It was always going to be two movies, going back to Jackson's first attempt at Miramax. And when Guillermo Del Toro came on as director. It was the studio that advised three films, to match the original trilogy. Or make more money, depending on your perspective.
That was the main problem that I saw too.
Well, that clears that up David, thank you. I'd guessed all that was the case and it all makes sense now. John.
I will never watch this bloated mess of a movie ever again. Instead, I will enjoy some of the excellent fan edits that are available.
I felt like that after the first movie but I stuck with them and now that we know they are all overly long it's quite possible that I would enjoy them a whole lot more than I did. They're all certainly slow at times but there is still much to admire about them. And at least they didn't look anything like the 60fps mess of Gemini Man so that was a relief. People had warned me how awful the Hobbit films looked in cinemas so I had been fearing the worst but with half the 48fps dropped out they looked quite normal in here... most of the time.
John.
@moviecollector5920 I respect that, but honestly, if I ever decided to watch this again in 4K, I would be slamming down on the fast forward button quite frequently.
@@JPFalcononor Ho ho. I know what you're saying. Maybe try running the 4K at 48fps and then you'd get through it in half the time. That might work.
More movies need to go over 24 fps. We're just used to the stutter at this point and it's a bit of a shame.
Bring back TODD-AO perhaps.
Pitch meeting: Hey, here's an idea -- let's take a light-hearted fairytale (that Tolkien himself tried and failed to re-write in a darker tone) and turn it into a three-part war epic on par with the LOTR trilogy! We'll introduce new, unnecessary characters and use crappy CGI. Middle-earth fans will love it! 🤮
I get the impression you were not impressed. Perhaps they will appeal more on 4K disc if you ever get the chance to have a look. John.
@@moviecollector5920 I enjoy your reviews, but not this particular trilogy of films, no matter how good they look in 4K. I'll stick with the Rankin-Bass animated Hobbit, as it more accurately captures the spirit of the book. Cheers.
@@afrose71 I expect I'd enjoy that cartoon too so maybe I should find a copy. These live action movies are not my recollection of the book either. John.
The trilogy isn’t that bad lol. They made some mistakes, especially because the studio was pushing for 3 films and a love triangle etc. But the movies are still good
@@mathijnd I enjoyed them in spite of anything I may have found distracting or not liked about them. That's all that's required sometimes. John.