The Hobbit 3D 48fps Angry Review

[@kevnar]

The Hobbit films were thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread.

[@blakekneippfilms]

kevnar in my opinion, yes, you are correct. but I still enjoy them.

[@davidfalloutbandit]

kevnar I liked the characters better.

[@AnarchHive]

kevnar I see what you did there..... and I agree. ;)

[@kristinaamuan7577]

daaannggg

[@aaronricard6186]

kevnar references ;)

[@saranshsharma4005]

I don't know why but everytime I watch the Hobbit(any of the 3), it just fills me with so much happiness and love inside :)

[@lordtesram4499]

People are always like "why didn't they just use the eagles to get there?" The fuck makes you think those eagles want to cart them around. They only ever showed up in emergencies

[@GGA007Gaming]

​@@Ryanbenitezfilms its more complicated than that the eagles speak and have thier iwn culture and beliefs. They are not just mindless birds to tame.

[@paytonkilmer282]

I saw that comment about the eagles flying them to Erebor coming a mile away, and, as a huge nerd, would like to explain. 1. The eagles didn't help the party out of the kindness of their hearts. In fact, if there weren't any orcs or wargs to kill, they probably wouldn't have bothered. 2. The eagles aren't beasts of burden. As powerful as Gandalf is, he cannot command them to do what he wants, and they won't help you if they don't want to. 3. If they did fly them to Erebor, which they could have, they would have had to worry about Smaug's retribution if they failed. Gwaihir(Lord of Eagles) looks first to his own people, and then to others. Hopefully that will clear that point up for some people, it's just that everyone I've talked to about it mentioned that, and I just wanted to put the answer out there.

[@oivasuppula4530]

sad that Gwaihir wasnt in the movie he was in the book

[@Sultan-Murad-IV]

Iisakki Suppula there were alot of things in the movie that werent in the book and vice versa. Peter Jackson finest moments... I hope he didn't screw up the third movie that movie, lore wise.

[@oivasuppula4530]

Sultan Murad IV i know he,s adding way too much shit in those movies it just anoys me

[@Sultan-Murad-IV]

Iisakki Suppula Yep I know, i mean Tauriel come on a female elf in the Hobbit, nothing anyhting close to that was mentioned in the book. Same shit happened with Lotr trilogy. But he is an awesome director, he would be perfect if he didnt meddled with the lore that much

[@oivasuppula4530]

Sultan Murad IV i know right

[@KaijuFanatic-fq7dy]

i loved this movie

[@chameleontrapper]

Loved the trilogy people give it shit for no reason.

[@squaeman_2644]

​@@chameleontrapper uh for very good reason, like Tauriel and Kili...

[@GangsterSedGaming]

i'll watch 2d 24fps movies til i die

[@HereticDuo]

Most people will, 3D isn't catching on & its just pissing people off at this point.

[@WaliMusta]

So you go to the movies to watch something in the worst quality they have available? LOL...that's like refusing to upgrade your shocks and tires because it "doesn't let you feel the road"...LOL. Stick with grainy goodness. Pay for inferior quality. The American Dream! LOL.

[@CrazyeyesDark]

WaliMusta 3D isn't superior at all... They tell you it is, but is it worth it's price tag? No...

[@WaliMusta]

***** Until now, I would agree. Those things gave me headaches because it was too blurry during regular motion and the 3D effect wasn't up to par. HFR made 3D realistic for me. I even flinched a couple of times during the battle scenes and that's quite an accomplishment since I HATE to flinch...I make a conscious EFFORT not to let things suck me in like that. So WAS 3D worth it? Not during the 24fps Era. Is it worth it now? 48fps or higher and yes...anything less is a waste. By the way, I think I've said that HFR has been the biggest advance in cinematography in recent history, right? It actually IMPROVES the viewer quality if not experience, whether you wish to admit that or not. HFR should have come first...then IMAX, then > 4K, then 3D.

[@CrazyeyesDark]

WaliMusta I will take your advice and try it in 48 fps... I'm no expert nor a critic, I only know that 3D was no good for me a few years back...

[@deckire]

Angry Joe probably never read the book. The Eagles, fear getting killed by Men for a cause not their own. Quote from book " The Lord of Eagles would not take them anywhere near where men lived. 'They would shoot us with their great bows of yew,' he said..........'No! we are glad to cheat goblins of their sport, and glad to repay our thanks to you, but we shall not risk ourselves for dwarves in the southward plains.' " so yeah not explain in movie but still a reason why they rarely showed to help even in Lord of the Rings

[@Bourikii2992]

So not afraid of goblins with bows but are afraid of humans with bows? Also how the hell is anyone going to hit an eagle 300 ft in the air........

[@deckire]

Con Cahill Well the Goblins were never really known to be archers in the Hobbit, they were just brute fighters. So the Eagles feared them less

[@Bourikii2992]

deckire And a human can hit an eagle flying in the air 300ft above the ground or higher? Yeah I don't think so, the only ones who could do that would be the elves and they aren't just going to shoot at eagles.

[@deckire]

Con Cahill You have to think it is not just flat lands that they are going to go through. Bows have some good range to them Two they are large targets. Three Arrows can reach pretty far distances in air. and Four Fantasy world, We seen in Narnia that Griffons can be taken out in by Arrows in Greats Heights, what the difference between them and the Eagles?

[@Bourikii2992]

deckire Both are completely bullshit. Men don't have any magical powers unlike elves which is why they wouldn't be able to shoot an eagle in the air. When approaching a mountain they wouldn't maintain their height they would adjust it to go high over the mountain.

[@CrimeaRiver]

The Hobbit - A Totally Expected Letdown

[@oivasuppula4530]

book was better made more sense

[@Jesskiss33]

Iisakki Suppula Book is boring as shit

[@oivasuppula4530]

J Ma how

[@sr.3161]

Iisakki Suppula she probably saw the movie before the book

[@Jesskiss33]

that is true, but I am a huge fan of those books, it's just that the hobbit goes on and on, the movie is okay, not as good as lord of the rings though.

[@brandon9271]

BTW, 48fps is only "bad" because it reveal the flaws that weren't as apparent in 24fps. Its just like when we went to HD. Suddenly flaw we'd never seen are now more obvious. Nobody would suggest we go back to SD resolution. 48fps is just a natural progression and it isn't going any where. People resisted color TV and stereo sound as well.

[@kaptaincups]

who resisted color tv? hahaha

[@brandon9271]

kaptaincups well, I wasn't alive at the time but some people didn't like it! And personally, I know of some old TV show that I enjoy the B&W versions better. The Andy Griffith Show being one example. The color episodes are just... weird. lol Some people also preferred the mono Beatles albums over the stereo. Oh and another thing a lot of people don't know.. Several albums were released in "Quadraphonic" 4-channel sound back in the 60s. Pink Floyd had at least on album like that.

[@jay15951]

i belive in the year since this video was uploaded joe adjusted and changed his views on afew of the gimicks specifically imax 3D

[@seafood_hater]

kaptaincups People who are called technophobes.

[@WastedPo]

It has nothing to do with 'flaws.' That's a complete canard. It has to do with the fact that when you shoot things like a soap opera, the magic goes away. People look cheaper in movies these days because for whatever reason, the public has come to believe that movies are meant to look like real life. Movies are meant to transport us to another place. To make our imaginations work. That's the purpose of storytelling and art--to make the viewer's mind work by evoking wonder and empathy. (i.e. by NOT looking like the mundane reality we see every day.) We now have a generation that thinks that the ideal in images is an episode of American Idol or "The View" with Barbara Walters. There is a reason actors used to be regarded by the public as icons--because when people watched them, they didn't just look like dumb shit actors with makeup on. They didn't look like everyday reality. How they were shot made them look timeless, and so every little gesture or line they said had this sense of great, iconic import. Now when people go to movies, there is little to distinguish the people on the screen from any KZbin upload.

[@qwertyrewtywyterty]

why does people complain 48fps, its absolutely smoother movement, theres no downside of it. You can only complain about the 3D because its still sucks these days

[@TheJincorporated]

It's that we have nothing to compare it to. So it's hard to say its good or bad. We have a ton of 3D films to compare. Not a lot of hfr tho

[@Archetype77]

qwertyrewtywyterty The special effects look bad. They're like OOOH NEW TECHNOLOGY, and amazingly it looks far worse than the original trilogy from 15 years ago...with a similar budget... God help us all.

[@qwertyrewtywyterty]

Archetype77 im not talking about special effects, im talking about why people say that 48fps look like soap opera, they are so used to 24fps and called it 'cinematic'. and actually 48 fps is not new technology at all, its been here years ago.

[@chrisjohnston2043]

+qwertyrewtywyterty Frankly I would prefer to see it as high as an FPS as possible. Put it at 120 for all I care.

+qwertyrewty There is downside. If the movie isn't done very well, it just shows it more. Some action scenes in movies are so fast and blurry. And the blurriness hides a lot. 48 FPS is awesome. But only if it's done right. I love watching any movies with Smooth Video Project. It converts anything to like 60 FPS. Yeah, it's not true 60 FPS but adds a lot of smoothness. I always disliked watching movies at 24 FPS, because it didn't feel smooth. So yeah, the higher FPS can be better but movies need to be done well for that. Some movies have action scenes with overly shaking camera and barely visible action. That's very 48 FPS is worthless. Also CGI needs to grow up to it. If it's actually needed to use, because I'm still more of a fan of the practical effects. It still feels more real. CGI can stand out of all the sets. I think LOTR actually looked better than Hobbit, because Hobbit had so many fake looking CGI characters, while LOTR had only where it was necessary.

[@VinxTerranova]

The Hobbit included the the albino orc, and Raddagast because they included background information about the Middle Earth.

[@Jakwan01]

The whole idea of 3D movies is stupid.

[@SkeeNnN]

i agree with you

[@TastesLikePanda]

There was one good 3D movie once, Avatar. but all the rest is just a piece of shit

[@Matt-ko6lv]

I went to see gravity in 3D and it was........AWSOME! Partly coz I'm British

[@SolarFlarehorse]

Heh, Down in Texas, we have boxes to recycle the glasses.

[@Blasteroid01]

Same in Australia :D They fully clean them and even have made 3D aviator glasses

[@desmondtester373]

and in Canada also have fun with your Ebola

[@Blasteroid01]

Quinton Webber So Canada has it? What you just said doesn't make sense, "and in Canada also have fun with your Ebola" so Canada has it.

[@desmondtester373]

Blasteroid01 no i said Canada has 3d glasses recycling and saying to the Texan in a sarcastic manor to have fun with the Ebola that just showed up in Texas the other day

[@SolarFlarehorse]

Is there a need to be rude when nobody here was being rude?

[@nanoman172]

"If Baggins loses, we eats it whole =)" XD PFTTTHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!

[@TheBurleybrawler]

I think Angry Joe would prefer Black and White movies with subs and no audio. Cause you don't need any of the improvements offered since then.

[@objectdefiance4027]

wtf

[@kingbyeah5407]

They said why they needed Bilbo in this movie. They needed him to infiltrate Erebor to get the Arkenstone to call the armies together.

[@timattwood9828]

In the hobbit the eagles drop them there because the men of dale would shoot them on sight

[@timattwood9828]

and the bowmen of the river village.

[@timattwood9828]

Ch4rl3magn3 indeed, thus the foward propulsion and halting previosuly rather than before their faces, and also dey don't fuck with arrows of any kind, and soldiers might just think they are dragons or something, also rogue giant flying things steal peoples cattle ect...

[@timattwood9828]

***** Yea, but if they went up to the mountain, he would be asleep. And also servants of Sauron were trying to bribe Smaug, so they would want to get the hell out of their faces.

[@jamesglandon3737]

the reason why the eagles drop them where they did was because they dont get involved in, they help whom ever calls for their help, thankfully they dont befriend allot of people, but gandalf is one of few they will help.

[@timattwood9828]

***** well there is a contradictory statement

[@josephglatz25]

Both the films were disappointing. I hated the sequelbation, I want the practical effect orks back, and to be honest I liked the CGI in the Lord of the Rings better to be honest, mainly because they did less with it. The original used a ton of miniatures and real sets, but now we get scenic green screens and computer generated backgrounds. It just ruined the immersion for me. I came out of the theater disappointed, and openly pissed off by the second film.

[@guitarman0365]

consider yourself lucky then that peter made lord of the rings back when he did and not started now because he actually wanted lord of the rings to be done exactly the same as the hobbit was effects wise. The CGI just was not up to par then so he had no choice but to go with actors for the orcs. He always thought that orcs should not be comparable to humans and should have disproportionate bodies that actors in suits just cannot obtain. However no one else seemed to care and I always agree that perhaps the technological limitations was what made lord of the rings so much better. I loved the physical presence of the orcs because it actually gave actors something to work off off versus imagining a bunch of orcs infront of you.

[@Al0neStillAlive]

Cool story, fucking nerd.

[@fb9222]

Battle of the Five Armies was so rubbish in comparison to the Return of the King.

[@TheJincorporated]

It wasn't trying to be that tho.

[@amorecredibleusername692]

+Fergus Bailey ROTK= Epic Journey/ Epic End of the Road Conclusion BOTFA= Battle/Conclusion

[@AJudgeFredd]

The Dragon would have smelled the Eagles and fucking killed them... Not hard.

[@user-ut6sj9vg5x]

Look I know there's a dragon there and everything, but couldn't the eagles have dropped them a little bit closer to the mountain? Lazy birds... -screenjunkie epic trailer voice.

[@laynerice4012]

The eagles aren't taxis.

[@LongLiveTrueFreedom]

How the hell would you even ask an eagle to drop you in a particular place? I mean in books they could talk so maybe it would be possible, but they disagreed. However in PJ's version, eagles are just like normal animals. They are pretty intelligent and they help from time to time, but they do it on their own and there is no telling where they'll take you.

[@JukaDominator]

LongLive TrueFreedom Tolkien shouldn't have put those stupid eagles in his books in the first place.

[@LongLiveTrueFreedom]

JukaDominator Eagles in Tolkiens books made perfect sens. They could talk in his books, and they said that they're neutral and they won't help. That's it. How is that stupid? PJ made it confusing because in his verson it seems like Eagles aren't intelligent at all. but again, even in his version it wouldn't make much sens if they were just controlling the eagles in the first place.

[@laynerice4012]

LongLive TrueFreedom Actually, The Eagles aren't neutral, they just don't feel as if it is their war.

[@kambion]

Peter Jackson has become George Lucas.

[@hueylongdong347]

);

[@ThePowerHalo]

+kambion uhmm no!

[@eazyplayer9818]

The hobbit trilogy is exactly like the star wars prequels

[@KingInfernagon]

+eazy player your crazy!

[@williamozier918]

My overall feeling on the Hobbitt movies was that it's unnecsary padding and filler...done REALLY well! So while I was constantly like 'what is this bullshit?' I thoroughly enjoyed it. But I did not like the 48fps.

[@NoisePollutionMNFP]

I really wish the real Tolkien fans would speak up a bit and tell everyone that IT WAS A KIDS BOOK! The point they made, and accomplished, was to make it less serious and more like a kids book. Many kids were read this book as children, but not many were read LOTR, because it was not for younger audiences. I understand how 3D and green screens gave the effects some trash, but the acting and story line were done exactly how they were supposed to be done. Its fits as a prequel, and no one is saying it is better then LOTR, but that doesn't make it bad .

[@randomnumbers84269]

Definitely the best one of the trilogy. Although that's not saying much.

[@bostontowny4life744]

Why didn't Joe review the other Hobit movies?

[@bamboy420]

The Hobbit was a massive disappointment for me. The 48 fps was probably my biggest problem. Close behind that was the whole necromancer deal. They're just massively watering down the story with random elements in order to cash in on people paying for 3 movies. The fight scenes were just extremely exaggerated and all over the place. None of it was believable within the context of the story because it was just everywhere. It certainly didn't help that I saw this expecting it to be a single movie. Like Joe said, the single movie doesn't stand up on its own. For me, I left the theatre feeling disappointed because it felt as if the movie just cut short. It felt as though I had watched an unfinished movie. I did not get this feeling from ANY of the LOTR movies.. at least nowhere near as much. My opinion: Go watch LOTR if you haven't already, or go find a copy of the old Hobbit cartoon movie. Even the books. This isn't worth your time or money.

[@umpahm69]

It is his opinion so shut up.

[@REChronic54]

it's a good movie but not necessarily a 'great' movie.

[@rbaleksandar]

Btw the eagles are said to be very neutral towards the actions of others and kick butt only if they are threatened. They also help Gandalf from time to time but still they cannot be used in a similar fashions as you use ponies. Just answering your question why the band of dwarfs, Biblo and Gandalf didn't use them as a mean of fast transportation. Also note that eagles usually nest and live high in the mountains and most of the journey was through valleys and basically land that was flat or hilly at best.

[@huskershomebrew]

+rbaleksandar They are informants to Manwe an he's forbidden them to take too much action in the fate of Middle-earth. They aren't allowed to.

[@ninja0x0thegreat]

ur censoring so fucking Godda*n irregular.

[@WastedPo]

I'm not at all surprised to hear that the 48-fps makes the film world look like a cheap soap opera. After all, that's what frame interpolation does on every other film. What's depressing is that seems to be the direction that all movies are going in, because the masses don't seem to understand that the magic of movies come from it NOT looking like real life. The magic comes from being shown a world OTHER than the room you occupy, a different, timeless place. But in our Big Gulp world, try to tell Joe Six Pack that less is more. They automatically see more frames per second, and their gut reaction is that it's "improved." They love how "real" it looks, and they drive the market. (And now frame interpolation is a handy feature on all the latest TVs so you can "improve" all those old-fashioned movies and make them look like The Today Show as well!)

[@eazyplayer9818]

I love LOTR but i was so dissapointed in the hobbit franchise. Exspecialy the 3rd and i just couldn't love the characters

[@Awesomey126]

Actually the reason they need Bilbo to steal the jewel to unite the dwarf armies to fight the dragon.

[@maggazilla]

I love that Joe cares about the environment, also a horrible movie.

[@tabuu9]

But they put them in bins to reuse…

[@Mysot057]

Not everyone uses the bins, tons of people take them home and tons throw them in the garbage. No movie theatre employee can ask you to throw them in the right place, a customer would throw a fit and complain. Think of the millions made by these movies worldwide, you think every country bothers with the bins? I doubt they do in East Asia.

[@TheApostleofRock]

I agree. I also found myself laughing a lot. At how ridiculous many of the sequences are. The escape from the goblins made me hang my head in disgust. The rabbit sled is fucking obnoxious. The addition of Azog disgusts me and serves only to stretch out the movies and suck as much money from the fans that they know will pay for admission. HOWEVER. The Gollum sequence was FUCKING FANTASTIC. I loved it. It was the only time I felt like I was being taken back to Lord of the Rings. I also did like the addition of the lore and Necromancer story arc because it let's us into what was going on behind the scenes of the Hobbit book and ties it to the original films. But other than that..I did not care for it. Empty characters, CGI orcs, laughable action sequences that make Pirates of the Carribbean seem reasonable, and most of all, bullshitted story to expand the length of the series. Overall, it was a disappointing return to Middle Earth.

[@Archetype77]

TheApostleofRock How does it make you feel when you take into account the massive success of this with how bad it was? (Hint: The answer is "depressed")

[@AK99581]

+TheApostleofRock Yeah, I agree. The addition of Azog was complete bullshit, if they really needed an Orc antagonist they should have just used Bolg in that role, since he was the leader of the Orcs in the book. Azog had been dead for like 150 years in the book. Also, the ridiculous Elf/Dwarf love triangle subplot that began in the 2nd film was horrendous. And WHAT is with Jackson's goddamn Legolas obsession? I could've dealt with Legolas being present in the Mirkwood scenes, and later on the battlefield, but why did he have to be a main character with a story arc all his own (and one that was completely fabricated by Jackson and his writers)? Just seems like Peter Jackson was not taking this story nearly as seriously as he took Lord of the Rings. An Elf/Dwarf romance? Fucking really?

[@LingLing-lz8vi]

8:00 the review starts here

[@johannesdolch]

The biggest problem of the Hobbit is that they showed it in reverse order. And while normally a prequel can work, here even the source material has matured while progressing from TH to LotR. So even before the first shot was filmed it was clear that the biggest problem is that story-wise they would take the LotR's setting, story and characters and turn it down three notches. Just because the source material is turned down three notches. TH is a children's book after all. That being said i think they made what they could out of the material they were given. Ideally they should've shot The Hobbit first and then cranked everything up to maximum for The Lord of the Rings. But for various reasons that just wasn't possible. The real problem here, as i see it isn't Peter Jackson, it's the story of the Hobbit. It's meant for children, with silly characters and no real danger or darkness. They tried to crank it up as far as they could, but there just is a ceiling that you have when you still want to respect the source material. I distinctly remember back in the early 90s a friend came to me and went on and on about TH and LotR. And I said i would try it. He gave me an audio book version of the Hobbit to start. I still remember it was about some sort of talking badger who lived by a river and by tape #3 i was done. I wish he would've just given me the LotR Book. That would've made my year back then. I don't know, maybe i was just too young, but as i see it today, the Hobbit doesn't do justice to Middle Earth as far as the book is concerned and so the movie didn't really have much room to work with. What i do really like is that we see Bilbo Baggins in his prime instead of the old man he became.

[@VanpyroGaming0]

Don't developers get it yet? 3D FUCKING SUCKS.

[@animusrot7353]

Frodo was far braver than Bilbo angry joe. that's obvious. I could point out many different things but look how when Bilbo is alone he always uses the ring to go invisible. and Frodo and sam put on orc armor and walked amongst their ranks to get past all the orcs. many other things happen in the movies but I think Frodo beats Bilbo in terms of bravery. Bilbo acts on adrenaline in that moment that demands it

[@thadmeboy1129]

Bilbo is more fun

[@collink6118]

glad to see magneto again as a wizard

[@johnrose1012]

Ratagast tries to save a hedgehog. Just setting the record straight.

[@Al0neStillAlive]

One would think the difference between a hedgehog and a porcupine would be obvious to anyone..

[@nic4850]

3D gives you Cancer in California... j/s

[@blakekneippfilms]

Nic just like everything else in California

[@terrrific7600]

Why

[@Thimmet]

The Hobbit was just a CGI orgy. It looks just too polished...

[@GreatBritishbtchoff]

"AGENT SMITH!!!!!" LOL XD

[@kingbyeah5407]

The reason the eagles didn't fly them to Erebor was because, well, in the book, the eagles owed Gandalf a favor, but they refused to fly past a certain point. ( I forgot where, Mirkwood I think. )

[@jcairns472]

This movie was epic yes more childish than lort but the next 2 will get so much darker :-)

[@tmod231]

I agree with you 100% about the theme ride seats and the shitty 3d glasses. It's bullshit

[@brandon9271]

4:47 They get recycled. There's a bin to put them in as you walk out of the theater. There is know way you missed it :) And I still don't understand all the bitch about the OPTIONAL viewing methods. The vanilla 2d versions are available even in my little podunk town :)

[@jay15951]

that might not have been a thing when this video was made the recycle boxs keep in mind that this video was made last year so things probably have changed

[@Zzerberus]

yeah but i remember that he said that it is almost impossible to find the normal 2d version of a movie in his area... only 3d and upwards to milk the customer :D.

[@RyeRob.]

I tried to see the second Hobbit film in 2D and there were only 3D showings in many theaters. This is more of a problem when you aren't seeing it within the first week or two of release.

[@mrrockmonkey1]

Joe doesn't really have the option of picking his preferred viewing method as he ha to review all viewing methods.

[@rounderhenry]

They should make a chair if the character died,the people watching it die too.

[@Xboxishomo]

I hated the gay child orientated humour. It really didn't hold my interest the whole way through. Me and all my fiends were disappointed and it was no where near as good as the LoR films. Your reviewed it way too high because you love LoR alot haha

[@heezdeadjim]

It simply baffles me how people refuse to let go of "old limitations" like 24fps. I can guarantee that if cinema had used 15fps instead of 24....people would cling on that for dear life. People didn't mind sharper lenses instead of the "vaseline rubbed on the glass around the corners" look old movies had. People didn't complain about color coming to movies. It's like listening to photographers complaining that digital sensors are "too smooth" and film grain looks better. Your EYES don't see grain! Your eyes don't see a slow 24fps (closer to 85-115fps) and they also don't have perfect clarity to the edges (that's why you can't read text unless it's straight ahead, try it yourself)! But once we introduce3D or 48fps, people have a b*tch fest over it. If your optometrist gave you glasses or contacts that blurred your vision like you were drunk all the time, made everything grainy like a mesh door, and one eye was blocked covered so you could only see in 2D...you'd demand your money back because these things limit visual detail, response, and depth! There hasn't been much complaint over going widescreen since it mimics our wide field of view, and many people are indifferent over increasing the resolution like 2K or 4K screens. There is a HUGE difference between playing a PC's 120fps games like Farcry's, Witcher's, etc, and the joke 3D 48fps on the PS3 like Batman Arkham City. Movies are pathetic in 3D right now since nothing comes out of the screen unlike active shutter glasses like Nvidia 3D. Watching a movie is like looking at a closed window from the couch. Proper 3D 120hz is like things coming through the window. That doesn't mean to say making a book in "3D" with text that pop out of the pages will make things more "immersive", clearly it's being used for the "wrong" reasons. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll be listening to my old brass cylinder mono music in the study. This stereo, high resolution audio is a bunch of nonsense. Hopefully it's only a fad and will go away.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

48 fps, sadly, drops it directly into the uncanny valley. It looks realistic enough that you have expectations - 24 fps my brain knows not to expect "real" because we're accustomed to that in theaters. It's a change that doesn't add anything to the storytelling. Joe touches on the concept that it might be a shot by shot decision - for high speed action scenes or landscape shots it works really well, but for most scenes it just looks odd. It's an interesting alternative to, say, slow-motion, for making something "pop" in a specific scene.

[@heezdeadjim]

Justanotherconsumer I'm just not happy that people who cling on to "limitations" will be the ones dictating what will "prevail". Most people don't know how photography/cinematography work, so they aren't going to know the technicalities of shutter speed (fps), clarity of super sharp/fast lenses, or why there was so much grain in dark scenes. They just....watch...it. That's why they are perfectly fine watching a movie with shallow DOF and anamorphic lenses...then turn right around and use a crappy cellphone to take flat, washed out colors of themselves/friends and think it's worth showing. There's a reason why movies aren't shot with cellphones and camcorders.The general audience doesn't care. The ads tell them to get higher resolution screens for their cell phones, and they do. They are told that AMOLED is better than IPS, and they believe it because the reds (and other colors) pop. They don't understand color accuracy, refresh rates, and bunch of other buzz words that they think matter. So because other people see a 48fps 3D movie....get dizzy and say they hated the experience, the media bombs and we're stuck with old technology again. A lateral movement instead of progressing. Splendid. At least PC side lets me move forward a little bit.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

heezdeadjim It's not clinging to "limitations" when it's not embracing useless whiz-bang features like 48 fps that are more distracting than impressive. Changing what works by adding something that's new-for-the-sake-of-new is almost never a good decision. If the technowizardry adds nothing but jarring visits to the uncanny valley, it isn't "good." People aren't clinging to limitations - they're clinging to proven methods with proven results. 3D likewise is hit-or-miss. It's a clear hit in movies like Gravity where it helps the viewer understand the presentation. In movies like The Habit, it's just a gimmick. Honestly, I don't care very much about the technology - I care about good storytelling, and if the technology allows good storytelling (q.v. Gravity) then I'm all for it. If you're calling it "clinging to limitations" because you're impressed with gimmicks for the sake of gimmicks, then I'm afraid I just don't agree.

[@heezdeadjim]

You're only looking at it as a "movie" basis. I'm looking at technology through other means such as video games (that really DO have full 3D rendered objects and shading). If you don't care about technology and good storytelling, read a book. I call it "clinging to limitations" because it is. Just because something was introduced before it actually looks good/convincing doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be progressed. Imagine if color film for cameras made people look like clowns and oversaturation on everything. Since it would look so unrealistic, I'm betting people would have said color film is a "gimmick" and let's keep B&W...even though we don't see in B&W. Movies in 3D aren't done well YET. Movies in 48fps aren't done well yet either. My sony camera shoots in 1080p@60 and it's amazing to see how smoothly squirrels and pets move. It makes me feel like I'm actually there. Something a movie in 24fps doesn't do. It's too...surreal. I'm the guy who likes the 120hz turned on when I watch TV. I know most people hate it, but again, that's a preference. When I saw the PS1 and N64 do "3D" rendering, it looked like crap...a gimmick. Somehow 3D games are here to stay and look more realistic with each console release. Imagine if people said the PS2 looks too realistic with its 60fps gameplay. Let's go back to 960p@30fps. Oh wait...they do. It's called the Xbox One and PS4.

[@Justanotherconsumer]

heezdeadjim There are stories that cannot be told with a book the way they can be told with a 3D movie."Show don't tell" is one of the most basic maxims of storytelling, and movies allow that in a way books can't begin to approach. Mostly, and I think AJ has expressed this in the video this is a rebellion against including 3D for the sake of including 3D (and jacking up the price of admission in the process). I don't think I've seen anyone yet complain about the use of 3D in Gravity, and I don't think I'm the only one that's expressed the view that the movie isn't really worth seeing without it. Gaming has similar problems - please tell me that Kinect should be used in every single game that's released just because it's new and could potentially be good some day. I'll go get some popcorn while you put that argument together, because that's exactly the argument you're making for 3D in movies.

[@vanterlexx1880]

the hobbit was epic

[@mctwist13]

Interesting 5 years later when 3D glasses have security nodes that send the Alamein if you try to steal them.

[@matthew721199]

I say 8.5/10

[@DeepSpaceNinja]

how can 48 fps be bad? the higher the framerate the better right?

[@JohnDoe-vh1zf]

The hobbit movies are dumb. Jackson got lucased.

[@jacobisaacs600]

Amen

[@bigbruno2232]

Except he was stressed for the 3 part thing he hated it. At least the hobbit trilogy is watchable. Episode 2 can fuck off.

[@user-zh5ih3em3t]

Wrong they are great movies

[@Blittsplitt5]

Thanks for showing the clips of the land waste! Really drove home your point

[@ge2719]

except he complained at first about wanting glasses that hadnt been pre used, and then complains about throwing them away. he couldnt have taken care of the glasses he got and reuse them?

[@nbdbro]

They explain in the book that the eagles don't want to fly too near to human settlements because they tend to get arrows shot at them, since the men think they're going to steal their livestock, it's also explained that that's a very logical fear, because beside the noble eagles that are always saving them, most other eagles are kind of cowardly and like to harass humans. So that's why they don't fly them all the way to the mountain.

[@RubinRahman]

In Belgium, we have to return the glasses after the movie. They then get washed thoroughly for the next show :p And they are super durable.

[@SalamenceKidd2000]

The 3D glasses rant tho

[@SupermachoStan]

in belgium they wash the glasses so the next person can use it. We're not allowed to take it with us outside of the cinema

[@ionluv]

really hard to take someone who can't key a green screen properly seriously.

[@jdzencelowcz]

3D has gotten better since the days of red & blue glasses, but it's not necessary, unless you're watching how to train your dragon

[@Xirphi]

I believe it's stated in either the movie or the book that the Eagles couldn't fly the group all the way to the Lonely Mountain because there are no Eagle-designated perches set up in that area, making the returning trip for the Eagles impossible. The group was flown as far as possible though.

[@dragonmares59110]

Beers and food in a theater ? hell no ! I hate this thing, it make a lot of noise and make a mess in the theater room.

[@mathouyusef7419]

2 things: They have explained why they don't fly on the eagles in both lotr and the hobbit in the books; and I like that the Hobbit is split into 3 as it allows it to go into everything

[@blitzwarp7236]

The eagles could carry them to the mountain but they only saved them by the tree because the eagles owed Gandalf a favor just to save them. Before the hobbit movies Gandalf saved the eagle king, Gandalf doesn't control the eagles so it was merely just a favor to get them out of trouble. The same goes for the time in the fellowship of the ring. "Loyalty is but a flower in the winds of fear and temptation." -Drift Transformers 4

[@GregorysMode]

Big screen, loud, comfortable chair, good food, end of, that all, thank you everso, totally agree with you on that Joe

[@zerga303]

Fighting another guy in a field is a lot easier than getting shot by a guy across the field.

[@ashleynesh1]

It's 2018.. And I still agree with you

[@phoreman88]

Im so glad you called Hugo weaving Agent Smith. Love it

[@Rord64]

I watched the movie in 48 FPS and then again in an IMAX at 24 FPS. I can honestly say I had a much better experience in the 48 FPS theater, it almost felt like a different movie.

[@happymcmurdersaurus3972]

The dwarves were pretty cool, but the only ones you ever truly remember are Thorin, Balin and Kíli.

[@Gardensartoria]

I'm pretty sure that the eagles didn't want to get shot because people would think that they were stealing their sheep.

[@ahotes.]

The reason why the eagles cant fly straight there, is because that would be a fucking long flight!

[@joshsmith8744]

The reason they didn't fly them all the way is because the eagles are noble and proud creatures not some kind of taxi. They saw that the dwarves were in trouble and simply helped them

[@worthypook]

I like options, sometimes I watch in 3D sometimes not. I don't complain about having options. I liked 48fps for this, and have wanted it in other movies with action and sweeping camera views, because now that our images are crisp/clear and don't blur, the images stutter sometimes with 24fps.

[@spikeharusame]

I like Joe's stance here, he's not in the camp that brainlessly hates everything about the film and he's not in the camp that absolutely loves it. He's in the camp that enjoyed the film but know it's not perfect

[@Velociter]

My theater recycles the 3D glasses but they don't repackage them and wash them instead. But they do such a piss poor job cleaning them that you end up with smudges.

[@FexCinema]

The reason the eagles are not flying them is because they just rescue them. They are not getting bossed around because they are higher up than humans/dwarves and elves

[@thelvadamee3467]

I think that the reason the dwarves aren't likable as much as the Three Hunters from LotR (Aragorn Legolas and Gimli) is because there are 13 dwarves and only 3 movies, I don't know how they planned on fleshing out 13 characters in about 6-7 hours. Another point is in the book the dwarves knew that they had very little chance of slaying the dragon, but I do agree that the idea of reclaiming their home rather than their gold sounds more honourable and heroic.

[@TrumpetDinopup]

The Hobbit was a great tiny little book. It should have easily fit into one film. This was an extensive use of silly putty to money grab. Also the 48p made it look like a school play (a very high budget school play).

[@GenXstacker]

6/10 in 3D at 48fps, but 7/10 for second viewing on DVD. I liked it a lot better when I went back and saw it again after seeing part 2 at the theater.

[@Poonard]

To me, they needed Bilbo because he was the only one simple, witty, sneaky, yet brave enough to actually sneak into the dragons lair and get away with it. Pay attention to how much Gandalf reveres Hobbits, that's a really important part of the book to me.

[@wasteman3259]

I love how 3D has been completely scrapped

[@judcrandall3170]

I loved the first hobbit. The third one was a mess though.

[@stupidburp]

The moving seats are going to make you feel worse because it adds additional confusion to your inner ear when movement fails to precisely match your apparent motion. This is why those hydraulic/pneumatic VR roller coaster rides you find in malls tend to make you feel sick as well. The motion of the ride cannot precisely match the visual motion as it does in a real ride. Even if it does sync pretty well, too much will still make you feel ill.

[@kukuhimanputraraharja8084]

what joe describes about how current movie makers force many different ways to enjoy the movie like 2d, 24 48 fps, 3d, imax and so on is kinda make sense... once you watched various types of movie with different effects, like grainy filter, blur, white black filter, michael bay explosions, crystal clear pixel... you'll feel that you already nearing the limit of human eye's capacity of enjoying things... then you think that it seems better to stop wasting effort on experimenting different screen filter/resolution/effects etc.

[@donwonlongdong]

They say why the eagles dont just fly them to the mountain in the books

[@Saga529]

i know why they didnt ride the eagles all the way there. Its because then they'd arrive early and a wizard is never early or late. He arrives just when he is needed.

[@AdventurerRhowin]

It explains in the book. They couldn't carry them too far because they couldn't get far from their home because of goblins, wargs, and other creatures.

[@MattRieckman]

The Hobbit really was a children's book in its time. It did things such as regularly breaking the forth wall and talking about lessons Bilbo would learn later in the book long before it actually happened. These are very common conventions that children's books had at the time. The book was unexpectedly popular with adults and that motivated Tolkien to write the Lord of the Rings books in a more adult tone.

[@OlaNordmann123]

You haven't really seen the WHOLE dragon in-action yet.

[@Youyoucrazy45]

I'm confused, here in Illinois, our 3-D glasses are nice big Square 3D glasses. And they're nicely packaged. And it's clear

[@bighands69]

Some day there will be no need for the glasses but some day we may also have VR direct to our brain.

[@TheBeastlybret]

Tired of the eagle question. They do what they do as a favor because Gandalf saved their lives at one point, it's like calling your friend for a ride and they say "Ugh fuuuuuck, you got gas money?"

[@donjezza10]

1135 people had nothing to call 'Precious'

[@Dowlphin]

The good old times of moviemaking seem to vanish. People used to move around in their seat on their own when the action was thrilling. Today lack of excitement is compensated by simulating the effects for you I guess. It's also immersion breaking, thus they can put their "REALISTIC motion effects" where the sun doesn't shine. Especially if you're not supposed to be a character in the movie, viewing things from that perspective all the time, then those motion effects are totally ruining immersion. As for why gimmicks like this are being pushed more and more, you gotta blame the insane economic and monetary system we have that requires constant growth and people trying to get a bigger slice of the pie. "Gotta do more, gotta make more, gotta sell more." I watched MIB in 3D, but since there are so many variations, I think it was a half-assed technology I paid extra for. Low screen brightness was a problem, where I thought: "Are you kidding me?! You gotta compensate for that!". I was also angry that the 3D effect itself had half frame rate, so every 3D-relevant scene with motion would be weirdly juddery. And after half an hour, I stopped even noticing the 3D effect. Probably because we perceive ordinary reality in 3D anyway, the effect in the movie became totally transparent to me and added nothing to the experience. I found it funny when Joe talked about 48 fps being odd. Man, that technology has been around for LCD TVs for a loooong time. Yeah, it really just requires you to dissolve the association with TV programs that you have in your mind.

[@chanceneck8072]

This video is funny, Joe beeping over "fucking" in one second but letting it slide in the next and beeping "god damn" instead! xD

[@TrevorLentz]

The contradiction is when the pale orc says "This one is mine" (about bilbo) then when Bilbo is at his most vulnerable moment the pale orc proceeds to tell one of his grunts to finish off bilbo... wtf m8

[@Obi-WanKannabis]

The people who said the movie was too slow in the beggining never watched the original trilogy....