The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:15 AM, mokz said:

I just read about the Hobbit movie(s). Haven't really bothered with them earlier. Anyway, I think I've read the book about four times and the book takes about 3-4 hours to read. Why the fuck are they padding it up to make it to 2 film epic movie series? It would perfectly well work as a single average length movie. It also has pretty good story arc that would fit into a movie nicely, better than LOTR anyway that goes on forever with all kinds of unnecessary epic bullshit, politics, etc, but now they have to make the Hobbit also a snoozefest when they just could have taken the story as it is and converted it directly into a movie script? What's next? Farmer Giles of Ham as a 6 part epic movie series with Legolas and Frodo popping in?

 

If they wanted to do something epic out of Tolkien's work they could have gone with something out of Silmarillion or the Children of Hurin.

 

</fanboy rant>

without reading the book at all, i'm equally as confused why they would pad out the (seemingly more simple and benign) story of the Hobbit into 2 movies. The reason they don't make a movie out of Silmarillion is unfortunately they dont have the rights to it. Would be great if they did though

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:15 AM, mokz said:

I just read about the Hobbit movie(s) Anyway, I think I've read the book about four times and the book takes about 3-4 hours to read. Why the fuck are they padding it up to make it to 2 film epic movie series? It would

If they wanted to do something epic out of Tolkien's work they could have gone with something out of Silmarillion or the Children of Hurin.

</fanboy rant>

It's a 2 filmee because they are borrowing a lot of stuff from the Silmarillion and other stuff dawg. (at least that's what I remember reading quite a few times)

EDIT: Well I'm really sleep deprived and kinda drunk, too lazy to do some really top shelf googling and I can't find any references for the claims above but I swear to Jebus that I read some good explenations on why they are doing two films and I swear it was because they pulling stuff from the Similarion but I've been wrong before.

at the very least Peter Jackson is shooting the movie IN 3d, no fucking conversions but lots of real giant epic landscape shots and live action shots in 3d. The last time i saw filmed 3d look great was the live action shots in Avatar, the rest of the CGI stuff just didn't pop as much in the 3d realm, it was immersive but not as much as that epic opening shot of them waking up in the space ship

i for one am excited to finally see a proper big budget 3d movie with the 3d technology done correctly, I've seen too many shitty conversions and bad CGI '3d' movies like monsters vs aliens. I'm confident PJ is going to kind of kick those in the ass (hopefully)

its really a shame they rush out movies so quickly these days, the last amazing 3d movie i saw (simply for how 'real' the 3d effect felt) was James Cameron's Aliens of The Deep

this might interest you Awepittance:

link?

edit: i forgot about Polar Express also, that was the first movie i saw in 3d that made me feel like i was actually inside the movie during parts. It wasn't a great or even a good film, but the technology i remember being very impressive. Either my memory of it is way over hyped, or nobody since that movie has dialed in the 3d depth as strongly, instead opting for a kind of half-3d look. there are parts during a lot of these new 3d movies where if you take the glasses off, it looks the same. I'd say maybe 40% of Clash of the titans and Green Lantern was not in 3d at all.

links sorted

wow watching those video comparisons was very weird, at first it seemed like it was moving way too 'fast' but then i realized i was just seeing finer movement. Like someone else said in this thread, if the scenes in the movie look too plasticy then this shit's not going to work. I could see making a great documentary style movie using this, but not polystyrene movie sets with people in latex/makeup

a lot of people complaining about 48fps video recording look like 'trumotion' effect on a lot of new plasma tv screens. totally disagree on that, you can tell when you watch movies especially on it it's doing some sort of bad looking interpolation effect. To me this just feels like an extension of making HD video look so hyperreal in the first place.

48fps looks like the recent michael mann stuff, which looks really great to me, but alot of it depends on the context and the director obviously.

from what i read he shot that film with a simple high fps hd camera, but converted to the 24 fps for blu ray it still retains that super-detailed motion effect.

I think higher frame rates will eventually become more popular once people get used to them. But the 3D fad in movies should die until at least they come up with some better technology than the stereoscopic glasses they have now.

I'm in the minority that finds wearing glasses akin to wearing headphones for music. Its not ideal and of course its probably much more annoying when you wear glasses already, but it really doesn't bug me too much. The 3D stuttering of the image is much worse/poor editing for 3D... most films just don't design the production around it (most are just post-converted)... but I have seen enough good 3D to know I want more of it. Faster framerates will help significantly with the stuttering.

obviously not ideal as YouTube compression etc and you need to select to watch in highest quality but i actually prefer the 48FPS one!

24FPS

[youtubehd]MElb0NPzOzA&feature=youtu.be[/youtubehd]

48FPS

[youtubehd]l8ZZ-Z-yJE8[/youtubehd]

it looks like youtube transcodes it to lower fps, i downloaded the vid with "youtube downloader hd" app and it got me a 30 fps file.

check the azatoths link for real 48 fps, it's very clear in comparison.

Youtube is no good to demonstrate the difference.

yeah, my bad

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:26 AM, Blanket Fort Collapse said:

  On 4/27/2012 at 9:15 AM, mokz said:

I just read about the Hobbit movie(s) Anyway, I think I've read the book about four times and the book takes about 3-4 hours to read. Why the fuck are they padding it up to make it to 2 film epic movie series? It would

If they wanted to do something epic out of Tolkien's work they could have gone with something out of Silmarillion or the Children of Hurin.

</fanboy rant>

It's a 2 filmee because they are borrowing a lot of stuff from the Silmarillion and other stuff dawg. (at least that's what I remember reading quite a few times)

 

EDIT: Well I'm really sleep deprived and kinda drunk, too lazy to do some really top shelf googling and I can't find any references for the claims above but I swear to Jebus that I read some good explenations on why they are doing two films and I swear it was because they pulling stuff from the Similarion but I've been wrong before.

It wasn't that many pages ago where i raged about the same thing, someone said that the second movie will not be based on the hobbit but on events inbetween the hobbit and lotr, or something like that.

It does look better though. Then the actual 48 fps version. So that kinda proves again the lower fps looks better.

The 48 fps is just awkward. I can't put my finger on it why. I mean, in real life you're looking at unlimited fps without any awkwardness. It doesn't make sense. It should look better, but it doesn't.

I didn't find the 48fps in those example videos too jarring. Different, but not worse. It's just a thing that you are accustomed to and will change once people get used to it.

Less frames per second makes visuals more humanly than too many. It's been proven by so many movies it's a fail to even discuss this. Any move that will have smoother moving about will have to be defined as a slightly different medium.

I personally don't think its the 48 fps on its own, but the fact the footage is also 4k and shot with a type of 3d thats not been shown yet (on double red cameras), and people just need to get used to it, bit like the olden days when people saw a train coming toward the camera and thought it would crash through the screen.

  On 4/27/2012 at 6:06 PM, gaarg said:

Less frames per second makes visuals more humanly than too many. It's been proven by so many movies it's a fail to even discuss this. Any move that will have smoother moving about will have to be defined as a slightly different medium.

What?

  On 4/27/2012 at 3:58 PM, BCM said:

obviously not ideal as YouTube compression etc and you need to select to watch in highest quality but i actually prefer the 48FPS one!

24FPS

  On 4/27/2012 at 4:49 PM, azatoth said:

Youtube is no good to demonstrate the difference.

The compression isn't the problem. It's the fact that the youtube time-base will NEVER play back at 48 fps. It is most likely playing back at 30fps (technically 29.97fps) or 24 fps (technically 23.97fps).

Even on the fanciest TV, the only other choices you'd have are maybe 60i or 60p.

The heart of the argument lies in the playback framerate. Peter Jackson (or the dude who shot those 2 vids that BCM posted) could shoot in any frame rate multiple of 24 he wants to at the moment and it will really only be viewed in 24fps (respectively) or 30fps (respectively) or 60i or 60p.

There is no youtube preset for 48fps playback. Those examples merely emphasize the loss of motion blur when shot at 48 and conformed to a 24fps editing sequence.

In order for us to really know what this stuff acually looks like, we need to view it, not on a computer, but on a fancy 48fps, 5k projector.

Chances are, it will look gay.

At this point all we can do is wait and see. Watching youtube clips although kind of interesting, is really not an indication at all. Claiming 24 fps is more humanly, well yeah lets just wait and see. Familiarity and tradition doesn't mean superiority...

@jefferoo

i didn't get that last part, are you saying that the computer and computer monitor can't actually show 48 fps ?

remember when people were afraid to get their photograph taken because they thought it would steal their soul?