Don't dodge the arrows

I went to see "The Hobbit. An Unexpected Journey" for the fourth time last week. I've picked each of these four showings carefully, because I wanted to see "The Hobbit" in all possible formats.

And so I've seen it:
1) in 3D, 24 fps, in IMAX
2) in 3D, 24 fps, on a classic screen
3) in 2D, 24 fps, on a classic screen
4) in 3D, 48 fps, on a classic screen
... and I wanted to share some reflections about which of these formats I consider the best and the worst.

Let me start by saying I'm not a fan of 3D in general. Most cinemas offer crappy 3D glasses which spoil the colors and make movements blur. What irony! - the technique that's supposed to make you feel immersed in the movie makes it difficult to watch :/ Also, most movies have very little scenes were you can actually experience the depth of the screen. And because of all that watching "The Hobbit" in 3D, 24 fps, on a classic screen was my biggest mistake.

Thankfully, it was my second showing, after I've already fallen in love with "The Hobbit", so no harm done. And that's interesting, because my first showing was in fact very similar - 3D, 24 fps, but on IMAX screen. The 3D glasses had a good quality, the colors were close to original, the motion - fluid and I've really enjoyed the screen which was so big it practically surrounded me from left to right and from the top to the bottom.

It reminded me of my trip to EuroDisneyland in France 20 years ago, when I was 6 or 7 years old, where there was this huge cinema with a circular screen, which literally surrounded you from 360 degrees - you could turn and watch what happens wherever you like. I've imagined taking part in the Battle of Azanulbizar or watching The Lonely Mountain fall in that circular cinema - now that would be an option which would really make you feel like you were there, like you were one of the dwarves, in the very heart of hell! But watching an entire movie like that would probably be tiresome and you wouldn't know where to focus your attention, so it's unlikely we'll be seeing movies like that any time soon.

For me, it wasn't the 3D – dodging the arrows or knocked-out troll teeth – that made me feel like I was there. It was, like in case of "LOTR", the atmosphere of the movie based on on the heroes, the screenplay, the music (oh, the music!) and all the wonderful details on the screen (and that's where IMAX seems the only possible 3D showing I'd gladly go to).

Probably like all of you, I was curious about the 48 fps format. I wanted to see it in 2D but no cinemas in my town played it with this option, so I was forced to face 3D once more. People have been writing different things about 48 fps but they had one thing in common: they were seldom positive. And I have to agree. Even though the clarity is stunning, the movie seems - especially on close-ups - as if it's played on fast-forward. Because of this heroes and objects in motion are cut-out from the background and look as if they were copy-pasted into the landscape (add 3D and it gets even worse!). It seems unnatural, artificial - a trait unwelcomed in such a convincing world as PJ's Middle-Earth! You'll surely agree with me that the "The Hobbit's" plot is more light-hearted than "LOTR's", many people were expecting "The Hobbit" to be as dark as the trilogy and they'll leave the cinemas disappointed. I left satisfied – "The Hobbit" cannot be compared to "LOTR" but it's a whole new quality and I like the fact that the atmosphere sparkles with the humor of the book. For people who'd prefer "great halls and evil times", as Pippin says in "ROTK", the 48 fps will only make it worse, because it really seems to stress out the cartoon-like threads and situations instead of adding to the image of an epic tale.

Some reviewers have been writing that your eyes adapt after 10-30 minutes of watching the movie. Mine didn't. It disturbed me to the very halls of the Goblin King and I found it hard to concentrate on the most important events happening on the screen because - when the clarity is so excellent - you can focus your attention on practically everything in the same degree. This, perhaps, is this format's biggest advantage and the biggest flaw, it depends on your own taste. I found it great during the scenes with numerous characters (> 50) – especially with the Battle at Azanulbizar - where you could pick practically any warrior on the battlefield and see exactly what he was doing. But overall, this took away the "water-color" feel of the battles, which I loved and enjoyed so much in "The Lord of the Rings" - you couldn't see what each Rohirrim or orc was doing but you had a feeling of one great, flowing motion where thousands collide and a thought came to your head: "this is an epic battle which will go down in history!". Sadly, 48 fps battles remind you more of computer games than Alan Lee's watercolors.

So which format I've enjoyed the most? The answer is very easy. Classic 2D, classic screen, classic 24 fps! Why? No glasses, rich and stunning colors, no blurs, with the most important characters at the front - and I could still switch to the background whenever I liked to discover something new.

My final verdict:
1) 2D, 24 fps, classic screen - THE BEST!
2) 3D, 24 fps, IMAX
3) 3D, 48 fps, classic screen
4) 3D, 24 fps, classic screen – the worst…

So what's your opinion, Tolkien-lovers?
Which format did you enjoy most?