The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsNew 'Hobbit' film makes some moviegoers sick
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/people/2012/12/03/new-hobbit-film-makes-some-moviegoers-sick/1742247/[font size="4"]New 'Hobbit' film makes some moviegoers sick[/font]
The new Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is causing some unexpected reaction.
Some in the audience for the New Zealand premiere last week are reporting that the high-speed cinematography is not good for the stomach or the head.
The Daily Mail reports that U.K.'s Sunday Times quotes one "avid Middle Earth fan,", who had flown to New Zealand from Australia for the Nov. 28 world premiere, as saying, "My eyes cannot take everything in, it's dizzying, now I have a migraine."
Another fan apparently tweeted: "It works for the big snowy mountains, but in close-ups the pictures strobes. I left loving the movie but feeling sick."
And another described having motion sickness similar to being on a rollercoaster, saying, "You have to hold your stomach down and let your eyes pop at first to adjust. This is not for wimps."
So here's our question of the day. Are you tough enough to take 196 frames per second, slicing into your retinas like hobbit-colored razors, or are you some kind of cornea wimp, doting along at 24 frames per second while you're cranking it out to your grandmama's nickelodian? Well, boy? Are ya tough enough?
barbtries
(28,798 posts)i don't even like it when the camera circles and circles around the action.
hlthe2b
(102,283 posts)because there is nothing in this world that would make me want to risk one of my most severe migraines, some which have incapacitated me 72 hours or more.
This is stupid, if true.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)Real3D
real 3D with the high frame rate
and regular 24fps 2D.
If you can see regular movies without problems you should be able to find it in regular Ds.. it was worth going.
pipi_k
(21,020 posts)wimp here.
I don't get migraines or headaches, but I do have a problem with strobes setting off disorientation. Even riding along in a car with the sunlight flickering from behind tree branches will cause it.
Fluorescent lights can cause the same thing, plus anxiety.
Archae
(46,328 posts)Camera is wobbling all over the place, add too much lens flare and I really lose interest.
LiberalEsto
(22,845 posts)so although it breaks my heart, I will have to give this film a pass
Zorro
(15,740 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)That will cost some people as much as 60 bucks (and the same again for a personal copy) and take two years to consume.
It's the Greed of the Thing as Catherine Tate would say. Two movies would have done the job well and with that I would have done a Christmas followed by Summer release.
There's just not enough story in The Hobbit for a trilogy. As Bilbo himself would say ". . . sort of stretched. . . like butter scraped over too much bread."
WilmywoodNCparalegal
(2,654 posts)I am prone to migraines, but I didn't have any problem. I thought the images were crisp and the action scenes were spectacular. I loved the movie and I enjoyed it more than I did The Fellowship of the Ring. I thought this movie was a masterpiece technically, artistically and visually.
Baitball Blogger
(46,720 posts)Xyzse
(8,217 posts)For some reason or another during the scene where they were running away through the caves I felt dizzy.
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)ceile
(8,692 posts)My first 3D movie and I thought it was great. It did take about 20 mins to get used to though. We did see it at a small theatre, however. I don't think I could have taken it in IMAX form...
shanti
(21,675 posts)i saw a 3D movie a few years ago, and right after it started, people started leaving, stating that they were feeling sick. 3D must do that to some people...
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)It was mostly to give a bit of a foreground/background thing, and occasional surprise stuff - if there's a bird flying around near the camera, for instance, they made those jump out. Not too much otherwise, though; it wasn't Avatar style, or like animated movies where things get launched out of the screen all the time.
FloridaJudy
(9,465 posts)So I'll probably choose to bypass the 3-D version. I should think the flickering effect from less frames per second would be worse, though.
Jeff In Milwaukee
(13,992 posts)But I found it difficult to follow the combat scenes. The quick cuts made it difficult to determine who was striking whom.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)I can actually see the point of that style in group fights, if just to get across the fact that in those it actually is hard to see what's going on.
On the other hand, I've watched things like The Duellists or the 1940 Mark of Zorro. You don't need one-frame-per-shot filming to do a competent fight scene.
Grantuspeace
(873 posts)It did seem like there was a lot of hurkey jerkey camera work and quick glances and cut aways. I always have found this technique annoying. It is bad enough that so many commercials are shot this way.
Posteritatis
(18,807 posts)And they always Bruckheimer them up even more than the scenes they're chopping up do.
Outside of "time to hew someone asunder" scenes I found the movie was pretty good at not doing that.
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Neither of us felt the least bit queasy and I didn't notice any hurling in the isles.
OriginalGeek
(12,132 posts)but we went to the regular D, 24 fps.
Yup, 2 Ds is plenty of Ds for me.
That 3rd one gives me a headache.
But I agree with the poster upstream - I think I liked this (and will end up liking the series) better than LotR. I was totally caught up in it and sad when it was over. Irritated I gotta wait for the rest but am excited for it.
On a side note, the trailers for upcoming movies were freakin great. Saw a lot of things that looked interesting.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The last time my head hurt in a movie was when I say Natural Born Killers.
Saw the Hobbit in 3D, don't know what the frame rate was though.