PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit (And 48 fps)


Lance
December 11th, 2012, 12:33 PM
JTSoD4BBCJc
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2012/12/Hobbit_Elfin_vista_660.jpg

While the jury may still be out on how effective/useful the increased frame rate is, so far, the Hobbit looks to add to Peter Jackson's already large Oscar trophy display case. I personally can't wait to see it.

What do you think? If you want to see the Hobbit, will it be in standard def (24 fps) or the higher frame rate? And what of the film in general?

------------------------

For those of you who don't know what 48fps means:


48p is a progressive format and is currently being trialed in the film industry. At twice the traditional rate of 24p, this frame rate attempts to reduce motion blur and flicker found in films. Director James Cameron stated his intention to film the two sequels to his film Avatar at a higher frame rate than 24 frames per second, in order to add a heightened sense of reality. The first film to be filmed at 48 FPS was The Hobbit, a decision made by its director Peter Jackson. At a preview screening at CinemaCon, the audience's reaction was mixed after being shown some of the film's footage at 48p, with some arguing that the feel of the footage was too lifelike (thus breaking the suspension of disbelief)



Do you want to see 48p become the standard definition for movies? (The normal now is half that, 24p)

TRIFORCE89
December 11th, 2012, 01:02 PM
Is there and 48FPS IMAX 3D version?

I want to see it in IMAX (I think? Was it shot in it? I have no idea :X). And I want to see it in 48FPS. But not twice.


EDIT: A little research goes a long way. Was not shot in IMAX. So, I'll skip out on that. Was shot in 3D though, plus 48FPS of course.

Anyway, I want to check out the 48FPS version but I'm a little wary. I don't think I'll find it as jarring as some film critics have because games operate at 30 or 60 FPS generally. Probably wouldn't need to adjust. But, apparently it really makes certain flaws stand out more and it takes you out of the experienced. And I don't want that to happen. Jackson's Tolkien movies should be super immersive.

Cassino
December 13th, 2012, 03:18 PM
I always thought 24FPS was terribly low. This happens to be one of the few films I would want to watch so I'll definitely look out for the 48FPS version. Seems strange to me that well-funded films can't be shot at 600FPS, which I understand to be the approximate rate of the human eye, since it can be done. I suppose film rolls would have to be absurdly large but I don't see why those should be in use anymore regardless.

TRIFORCE89
December 13th, 2012, 04:15 PM
I suppose film rolls would have to be absurdly large but I don't see why those should be in use anymore regardless.
You mean going strictly digital instead?

Archer
December 13th, 2012, 08:13 PM
I always thought 24FPS was terribly low. This happens to be one of the few films I would want to watch so I'll definitely look out for the 48FPS version. Seems strange to me that well-funded films can't be shot at 600FPS, which I understand to be the approximate rate of the human eye, since it can be done. I suppose film rolls would have to be absurdly large but I don't see why those should be in use anymore regardless.

Remember they have to be able to display the right framerate at the other end. There's no point filming something in such a framerate if the projectors at the movie theatre can't display anywhere near that (I daresay a lot of them can't handle 48p at the moment), nor can Blu-Ray players or TVs handle anywhere near that.

100/120 Hz I can certainly understand, but there are massive diminishing returns past that.

All of the film critics complaining about the high framerate are being ridiculous and afraid of change. Higher framerates are better in every way possible. That's not up for debate. If you're not used to it, that doesn't make it bad.

I will see the 2D 48fps version, if possible. 3D doesn't look great to my eyes, but a higher framerate certainly will. In fact, I'm MORE interested in this because of the framerate.

Lance
December 13th, 2012, 08:51 PM
I will see the 2D 48fps version, if possible. 3D doesn't look great to my eyes, but a higher framerate certainly will. In fact, I'm MORE interested in this because of the framerate.

Yes. Jackson himself has specifically said that the film was edited and cut with the intention of being viewed in 48 fps, so that's what I'm going to do.

Cassino
December 14th, 2012, 07:02 AM
You mean going strictly digital instead?
Yes; I presume the main reason they keep films is only for copyright purposes, but feel free to correct me.

Major Ziggs
December 14th, 2012, 07:31 AM
The film was amazing ahhh. I've never seen any of the Lord of The Rings Films, nor read the books, but it was such a great film and it's making me want to watch them all! I was surprised about how Gandolf acted in the film since I had different expectations of him based on what I'd heard and Golem was... just wow... but the film was incredible. As for the 48fps, I honestly couldn't tell the difference whilst watching it other than having to pay extra to see it, but the 3D in this film was very effective and added a lot to the experience. Plus they gave me two sets of 3D glasses by mistake - win.

TRIFORCE89
December 14th, 2012, 07:36 AM
Yes; I presume the main reason they keep films is only for copyright purposes, but feel free to correct me.
With a talented cinematographer, film will likely look much better than digital.

In any event, I'm pretty sure film still features a greater colour range and better low light capabilities than digital. Most important is that film is of a higher resolution. A much higher resolution.

Using Star Wars as an example, George Lucas shot Episodes II and III in digital HD. The other four movies were shot on 35mm film. The end result of traditionally projected 35mm would essentially be like 1080p. But, going forward as we adopt newer and greater screen resolutions? 35mm film can be digitally transferred to a nearly 4000-line resolution image! That is, if you had to somehow talk about raw 35mm in pixels, about where it would be. But something shot in 1080p is stuck in 1080p forever. So, in the next round of movie playing home devices - "Super HD" maybe? - Episodes II and III will look worse than their film counterparts because they are stuck in 1080p (but will probably be upscaled somehow) while the other four movies would be transferred to (if we're talking about the potential for ultra-high definition televisions, for example) 4320p (upscaled from 4000p).

And then if we're talking 70mm IMAX film, well that's just massive. As an example, you're missing a lot of the picture in the IMAX The Dark Knight scenes on the Blu-ray print.

Digital is... convenient. Not yet better.

For the record, me discussing how film would translate into raw pixel resolutions isn't entirely accurate as that never happens. There's a lot of middle-processes that prevent a 1:1 transfer of that resolution. 35mm generally sits at around 2000-lines in vertical resolution, still greater than 1080p though. It'd actually be better if you look at megapixel equivalents for an accurate number. The general idea is the same though

---

Anyway, I want to see this in 3D because it was shot in 3D. I'm not sure I want to see in HFR because it apparently makes interior sets look more fake. But at the same time it makes 3D look better (no longer dim). So... I don't know what to do XD

Mr Cat Dog
December 14th, 2012, 08:09 AM
I'd love to start a thread about the differences between film and digital cinematography... but let's just keep discussion focused on The Hobbit for the time being. I'll probably start a thread of that nature at some point over the weekend (or if anyone else wants to, they're more than welcome to do so)!

Back to The Hobbit, I have absolutely no intention of seeing it. I think I liked the LOTR films when I saw them way back when, but the biggest memories I have of them are sitting for hours and hours in a cinema waiting for them all to end. Suffice to say that the negative things I've heard about 48ps have done nothing to endear me to a film that I was - at best - tentative about seeing. I'm glad that the people who have seen it tend to enjoy it, but this is a definitely "not for me" type of film.

TRIFORCE89
December 14th, 2012, 08:41 AM
I'd love to start a thread about the differences between film and digital cinematography... but let's just keep discussion focused on The Hobbit for the time being. I'll probably start a thread of that nature at some point over the weekend (or if anyone else wants to, they're more than welcome to do so)!

Back to The Hobbit, I have absolutely no intention of seeing it. I think I liked the LOTR films when I saw them way back when, but the biggest memories I have of them are sitting for hours and hours in a cinema waiting for them all to end. Suffice to say that the negative things I've heard about 48ps have done nothing to endear me to a film that I was - at best - tentative about seeing. I'm glad that the people who have seen it tend to enjoy it, but this is a definitely "not for me" type of film.
I'll probably go see it this weekend or next. But... I'm wary. I liked the LotR movies for what they were. The Hobbit is not LotR. It looks like Jackson tried to make LotR-light, but that seems offputting to me because that isn't really what it is.

Esper
December 16th, 2012, 09:32 AM
Saw it yesterday.



Martin Freeman was great and every scene with him in it was a good scene.
It was never boring, which is a great thing. Sure it may have had its faster and slower parts, but I never felt like I was waiting for something to happen.
The special effects didn't seem as good as the ones in LotR. I saw this in 2D and have no idea if it was 24, 48 or whatever that stuff you were all talking about.
Makeup, especially hair, was amazing to look at.
I liked that there was some fun built in it and not just random comedic moments that feel out of place like they do in LotR. I feel like del Toro's hand is in that somewhere.
I didn't especially like the parts where they were trying overly hard to tie the movie into LotR, especially during the Council of Reprised Roles scene. (I mean, I like Hugo Weaving, Cate Blanchett, and Christopher Lee, but they didn't need to be in this movie.)
I laughed every time "Sexy the Dwarf" was on screen. You'll know which one I'm talking about when you see the movie. But you know, sure, why not have hot dwarfs? After all, the Lord of the Rings was practically cast entirely by models anyway.

Not an especially great movie. Won't be seeing it again for a long time, but I saw it at a matinee for $7 and I've paid more for worse.

TRIFORCE89
December 16th, 2012, 11:28 AM
Is you saw in 2D then it was not HFR, just 24fps

Yuoaman
December 16th, 2012, 12:42 PM
I'll probably see it at some point but I still don't understand why they felt the need to artificially split the duology into a trilogy in post, it's just ridiculous and will result in a lot of unnecessary padding. I doubt 48fps will bother me at all, I'm used to playing games at 60fps and above, so no issues there.

Ryoutarou
December 16th, 2012, 01:13 PM
I'll probably see it at some point but I still don't understand why they felt the need to artificially split the duology into a trilogy in post, it's just ridiculous and will result in a lot of unnecessary padding. I doubt 48fps will bother me at all, I'm used to playing games at 60fps and above, so no issues there.

That was probably going to happen even if it had remained a pair. While The Hobbit isn't long as a book, it's one of those stories where the long run time feels beneficial and necessary. When you do that over more than just a single film, it's going to drag. But I suppose the line of thinking is "why make 200 million dollars when you can make one billion?" that lead to this becoming a trilogy.

Just you wait, we'll probably get a five movie series based on The Silmarillion some day as well.

TRIFORCE89
December 16th, 2012, 06:02 PM
Saw an HFR 3D UltraAVX presentation of the film today. That's a lot of acronyms. UltraAVX is essentially the local cineplex chain's lingo for "one of the auditoriums that we've bothered to upgrade recently and you can pay a premium to be in it".

The movie was a mixed bag. The first act in the Shire could use some editing. A lot of editing. It takes a good long while to get going and the burp-jokes feel out of place. Pacing and tone is still kind of broken until after the troll scene. After that it's enjoyable and it feels more like you're back in the old films. But it always has a very evident feeling (at least if you're familiar with the book, I guess) that this is lighter fare being padded and stretched beyond its limits. I don't mind the extra material and trying to make it fit better with the first trilogy, and as two well-paced films it can work. But three? No. Also, as if bowing to pressure from Tokien fans after complaints in the last trilogy for not following every single word - this movie, unwisely, includes the songs. In short, this movie needs editing.

As for HFR, I don't think it adds much. The first ten minutes or so (basically, the prologue) looked really awkward as I adjusted to the speed. Actions were jittery and people walked around like in an old-timey movie. After I adjusted, I didn't notice it anymore. Which I guess it good, but also... then what's the point if it ultimately looks like same? Action scenes were still blurry, it didn't solve that problem. Sure still scenes were really clear, but IMAX does this already. It made 3D look terrific though, some of the best I've seen. And yet...I didn't enjoy the 3D. Whereas Hugo (which I think made the best use of 3D), embraced 3D and used it to enhance the movie into a beautiful work of art - with The Hobbit, 3D coupled with HFR feels very realistic. And I don't want realistic. I want film. This is Tolkien. This is fantasy. Hyper-realism doesn't fit. it feels like you're really there - not in Middle-Earth, but on a film set. The best description I've seen likened the effect to the greatest BBC or PBS production. A soap opera. A high-end home video camera. It lacks the filmic quality that I want when I go the movie theatre. The magic. Throughout the whole movie though, any quick shots or inserts felt too fast and would take me out of the movie.

Speaking of which...40 minutes of commercials and advertisements before the movie actually started. Holy cow. Did not have to make this movie any longer than it already was.

CarcharOdin
December 16th, 2012, 08:32 PM
I liked the use of some of the songs in the movie, thank you very much.

Loved the movie very much. Can't wait for the second one, but I agree in that stretching it to three films is a bit much, especially considering in terms of the books The Hobbit was shorter than Fellowship of the Ring, if I recall.

TRIFORCE89
December 17th, 2012, 07:09 AM
I liked the use of some of the songs in the movie, thank you very much.

Loved the movie very much. Can't wait for the second one, but I agree in that stretching it to three films is a bit much, especially considering in terms of the books The Hobbit was shorter than Fellowship of the Ring, if I recall.
I know they're in the book, but when acted out it just seemed super cheesy. They could keep the one that was in the trailers about the mountain. But really no point to the Goblin King's little song or the dwarfs singing about what Bilbo hates

(I enjoyed the movie by the way, if that wasn't clear. But once is enough for me)

Antemortem
December 27th, 2012, 12:08 PM
Note: This thread may contain spoilers.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, released December 14th internationally, is the first in a fantasy adventure trilogy adaptation of J. J. Tolken's The Hobbit, written in 1937. The movie starts with Bilbo Baggins writing a memo that composes the setting of the story - Middle-earth approximately 60 years prior to the events of The Lord of the Rings.

Did you venture to see this movie when it came out? If so, how did you feel about it? If you have read The Hobbit, did the movie do it justice by adapting its elements/characters, etc well? Did it live up to your expectations, if any, overall, or was it a complete flop? If you haven't seen it yet, do you plan on seeing it? If so, what are your expectations of it at this time?

I, myself, saw it last Friday and quite honestly, I thought it wasn't nearly as good as I expected, and it was definitely not worth the sixteen dollars I paid for myself and a friend to see it. The basis of the story is solid, but the progression of said story was, at best, at a snail's pace. The movie moved very, very slowly, and the only notable event that occurred was Bilbo finding the ring. That's fantastic, but what else happened? Gandalf saved everyone on multiple occasions because everyone went limp every time they were captured/in a bind of some sort. To top all that off, the 'cliff hanger ending' was hardly a cliff hanger and it ended so suddenly that it didn't make me want to see the second one; it made me want to get a refund. v___v

Share your thoughts/expectations of this movie!

Wandering~Leaf
December 27th, 2012, 08:22 PM
I truthfullly kind of liked it, except for the fact that it didn't really have that "Lotr fantasy" atmosphere like the trilogy did. Not only that, but Gandalf used more magic/power in that movie than he did out of all the trilogy movies combined. I just hope the second movie is better...

Antemortem
December 27th, 2012, 11:06 PM
I truthfullly kind of liked it, except for the fact that it didn't really have that "Lotr fantasy" atmosphere like the trilogy did. Not only that, but Gandalf used more magic/power in that movie than he did out of all the trilogy movies combined. I just hope the second movie is better...
Not even a little bit, I agree. Perhaps the only moments that it felt remotely like genuine Lord of the Rings fantasy was when the characters were in the notable cities, Erebor and Rivendale. Only then it was because the cities were an entire fantasy world all their own. On another note, Gandalf absolutely used magic more in this movie than ever, but perhaps it's a foreshadow? Maybe the overuse of magic causes something to happen that discourages extensive use in the future... Now I'm mildly curious. :x

Wandering~Leaf
December 27th, 2012, 11:41 PM
Not even Erebor, for me. It reminded me waaayyy too much of World of Warcraft. But on the magic part, maybe? I'm not very sure...I haven't read the Hobbit in a year, but I can't recall anything like that...who knows. I guess we'll see when the next movie comes.

Frostweaver
December 28th, 2012, 12:02 AM
It's not that good because you didn't actually watch the Hobbit movie.


What you ACTUALLY watched is a 3 hour prequel to the hobbits movie, which will be released next year!


///

That's what you get when you take a something that's a third of LOTR in number of books, yet you decide to make the same number of movies with it.

Mr Cat Dog
December 28th, 2012, 02:28 AM
There's already a Hobbit thread, so I'mma merge them together now. Kthxbai!

Merged

Hiroshi Sotomura
December 28th, 2012, 03:23 AM
Apparently, a lot of screenings in Australia were done with a 24 fps version. I'm sorry, what? Why?

So I watched the movie and missed out on the camera magic. :(

Keiran
December 28th, 2012, 02:15 PM
I thought it was decent, I enjoyed it I suppose. I don't think the "increased" quality is noticeable, tbh, and I couldn't care less.

It was quite odd watching The Hobbit AFTER LOTR, I must say.

Antemortem
December 28th, 2012, 05:00 PM
I thought it was decent, I enjoyed it I suppose. I don't think the "increased" quality is noticeable, tbh, and I couldn't care less.

It was quite odd watching The Hobbit AFTER LOTR, I must say.
I saw it in 48fps and I hardly noticed a difference in it compared to a regular viewing experience as well. It's all hype, I believe. And I agree, I think The Hobbit movie(s) should have been made prior to Lord of the Rings rather than after. Where is the sense in making the sequels before the prequels? v__v;

Lance
December 29th, 2012, 09:55 PM
And I agree, I think The Hobbit movie(s) should have been made prior to Lord of the Rings rather than after. Where is the sense in making the sequels before the prequels? v__v;

Yup. Just imagine if you could take the greatness that was the LOTR trilogy and add in today's CGI and effects. Dear God almighty.

Major Ziggs
December 29th, 2012, 10:02 PM
I saw it in 48fps and I hardly noticed a difference in it compared to a regular viewing experience as well. It's all hype, I believe.
Ahh I agree entirely. It basically felt like paying £2.50 extra for three fancy letters to tell people about. I'd heard reviews that the new framerate made the movie seem too realistic and that it was an incredible step forward in cinema so I was expecting great things from it, but I could hardly tell the difference between it and a regular shooting. Maybe it's just because I'd hyped it up too much in my head beforehand so when I actually went it was just a big disappointment compared to what I'd hoped, but it's not something I'd really pay extra for again.

CarcharOdin
December 29th, 2012, 10:06 PM
HFR took a little bit for me to get used to, but my eyes adjusted accordingly.

My opinion though...it's a bit of a double-edged sword. While it can enhance certain special effects, at the same time it makes certain other fake things (like CGI) look even more fake.

I love the movie itself, but for me HFR is a mixed bag.

Antemortem
December 29th, 2012, 10:18 PM
Yup. Just imagine if you could take the greatness that was the LOTR trilogy and add in today's CGI and effects. Dear God almighty.
Absolutely! I was just watching the LotR movies on Christmas Day and admiring the CGI and special effects even then - what was it, 2002? - and was considering how amazing they would be if they were made in more recent times. My brain can't even contain it tbh

Ahh I agree entirely. It basically felt like paying £2.50 extra for three fancy letters to tell people about. I'd heard reviews that the new framerate made the movie seem too realistic and that it was an incredible step forward in cinema so I was expecting great things from it, but I could hardly tell the difference between it and a regular shooting. Maybe it's just because I'd hyped it up too much in my head beforehand so when I actually went it was just a big disappointment compared to what I'd hoped, but it's not something I'd really pay extra for again.
Yeah, I was kind of the same way. A new breakthrough in cinema? That must be great! Got my hopes up much too far so the fall was more painful, unfortunately. The experience of the movie was still fantastic, but I don't feel like the realism of the movie was any more or any less. Hell, it's a fantasy adventure, how real could it possibly get?

curiousnathan
December 29th, 2012, 10:22 PM
I watched it last night and I found it to be great! The only downside for me personally, is I found the beginning (as in the storyline) dragged onto a little as well as having seen it in 3D, I was expecting tons of it, but not much really popped out of the screen besides birds and fireball pinecones. I think if more of the 3D popped (meaning, came right out toward the audience) it would have been much more intense. But other than those things, I enjoyed it thoroughly. Golem was particularly amazing -- I definitely loved that segment, and I'm especially looking forward to part two! (There will be one! It's overt.)

The Sly Fox
January 3rd, 2013, 07:34 AM
I saw it last week! I originally didn't want to go, because i'm not much of a fan of the series, but im glad I did. It was really good and worth seeing! Just a tad bit long, but still good!

Carter
January 3rd, 2013, 03:24 PM
Why stretch it into three movies? There was no valid reason behind this.

The movie was frustratingly paced -- though not as much as Fellowship. The story had no momentum: repetitive action scenes, some characters weren't properly portrayed, the 'adventure' was way too long and formulaic. In no way was it better than any of the LotR trilogy for me. I didn't really fancy the 48fps; I noticed a lot of character looked beyond real and that ticked me off. It might get voted for best picture because of the hype.

It wasn't a bad watch, but it wasn't a great one two. I'd wait for the trilogy to be released then watch it again.

The_Consumer
January 12th, 2013, 06:21 PM
I watched it in 48 frames per second with someone else. I had felt sick before the film had even begun, and I had to run to the toilet 3 times during the screening.
It wasn't a very nice experience :L
He didn't even know I was sick =P
It was a good movie though, for what I saw. I preferred the Fellowship and I haven't fanned over the series since I was younger, but I have to say that it was nice to see Gollum again.

Evanlyn
January 20th, 2013, 10:10 PM
I don't think I watched it in 48fps, but I loved the movie all the same! I have read the book, and at first I didn't realize it would be split into 3 movies..
They mostly followed the book (from what I remember), there was one extra enemy added, but I thought that was really good, as an enemy before they reach Smaug (the dragon).

But I actually really enjoyed it, it was at a good pace (nowhere near as rushed as the Harry Potter movies). When I first read it would be in 3 movies I thought.. 'wooah, that's like 1 for 100 pages, this'll drag on a bit..', but, as previously said; I loved it. It. Was. Totally. Amazing!

Cordelia
January 21st, 2013, 05:45 AM
I really enjoyed the film and it was quite visually stunning. Peter Jackson has done it again. He was snubbed by the Academy, but in the long run that doesn't matter to me. They usually pick a whole bunch of films that I have no interest in. I feel like it being split over there movies will really help tell a complete story, so I'm quite excited for this. Jackson is such a great director, so this will just be wonderful!

Major Ziggs
January 24th, 2013, 10:41 PM
I really enjoyed the film and it was quite visually stunning. Peter Jackson has done it again. He was snubbed by the Academy, but in the long run that doesn't matter to me. They usually pick a whole bunch of films that I have no interest in. I feel like it being split over there movies will really help tell a complete story, so I'm quite excited for this. Jackson is such a great director, so this will just be wonderful!
This is pretty much my thoughts entirely. I was pretty p'd off when I saw the Academy's reaction to the Hobbit, it deserved much more recognition than it received. Whilst the HFR perk didn't add too much to the quality, that shouldn't take away from the fact of it being an outstanding and incredibly gripping movie which seems to be looked over a lot amongst all the quality/expectation complaints. There's also common complaints of the story not needing three films to tell the story, but I have no idea about that since I haven't read the book haha. Though judging by the first film I don't think this is an issue - it didn't feel too padded out or dragged on or anything of the like when I watched it. I just can't wait for part 2.

Lance
January 27th, 2013, 10:52 AM
So I finally saw it last Monday and loved it. I love how more of the Tolkien legendarium was explained than in LOTR, and the familiar faces like Hugo Weaving and Kate Blanchett made it feel familiar and more of a continuation in a giant LOTR saga than a prequel 10 years later. And visually, it was incredible. I saw it in IMAX 3D (Against my wishes) but even still it was a good movie, I got used to the 3D after awhile. If only the original Trilogy had this kind of VFX and editing, holy crap.

CarcharOdin
January 30th, 2013, 06:12 PM
Expanding the Necromancer plot is seriously the only way I can see them extending it to three films.

Sort of like how Two Towers and Return of the King switched back and forth between Frodo/Sam and the rest of the cast.