The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

remember the alamo?

  On 4/28/2012 at 11:24 PM, Awepittance said:

yeah at least he's not back peddling, maybe some professional 3d animators here can speak to this. Am i correct in thinking that Weta will at the very least need to let their creations render for twice as long, given that there are twice as many frames?

Sometimes when i skip frame by frame in HD quicktime trailers, i can see sometimes how 'half-assed' the frame by frame animation is of some of the explosions and particle animation. Its almost like a cartoonist, using the limitation of 24 fps to create visual illusions for the person watching it by creating movement so fast you cant really tell whats going on.

I'm looking forward to seeing how 'clear' and fluid the 3d animations and creations WETA comes up with for the hobbit. Seems like 48fps will make it much more difficult for a 3d artist to 'cut corners' when doing complex action shots and stuff.

yeah it will take twice as long to render everything, but from some of the impressions, critics are saying the CGI has more weight and is more physical feeling compared to 24fps.

I really don't know how that could be (the increased weight and physical feeling). As said it's just increasing the render time, it's not like it magically moves animation keyframes or something...The one thing I could think of is it might make some vfx a bit more accurate if the live action bits are clearer and have more "in betweens". For rotoscoping, for example. So if a scene blended live action and cg, the live action elements could be separated out more cleanly, with fewer artifacts.

  On 4/29/2012 at 4:40 AM, lumpenprol said:

I really don't know how that could be (the increased weight and physical feeling). As said it's just increasing the render time, it's not like it magically moves animation keyframes or something...The one thing I could think of is it might make some vfx a bit more accurate if the live action bits are clearer and have more "in betweens". For rotoscoping, for example. So if a scene blended live action and cg, the live action elements could be separated out more cleanly, with fewer artifacts.

I think it has something to do with CGI generally having a bit of a clean/plasticy element to it, unless its really well done... so at 24fps the natural blurring that occurs is not entirely matching the blur applied to the CGI, leaving you with something that sticks out more... while when everything is at 48fps it doesn't change much in regards to the CGI, but because everything is more defined it allows the CGI to blend better with the actors and real elements.

Remember when they really did used to use a hook to get you offstage in vaudeville?

well i remember when i first saw CGI in an HD movie, it looked significantly better to me than normal resolution.

  Quote

I really don't know how that could be (the increased weight and physical feeling)

just from seeing frame by frame separations of action shots in movies like Transformers, i can easily see how an extra 24 frames would make the movement look a lot more clean and less blurry. It seems like a lot of the time they do traditional 2d cell animation tricks to make an explosion or fast action shot look more complex than it actually is. thats just my 2 cents, last time i did any 3d rendering was in 1997

didn't the Public Enemies movie have that 48fps technology aswell?

It made the movie look awful.

I like the title of this thread, I see Frodo grasping vainly at the air, as a tiny Guillermo Del Toro tumbles into Gollum's outstretched hands

  On 5/2/2012 at 9:43 AM, Npoess said:

didn't the Public Enemies movie have that 48fps technology aswell?

 

It made the movie look awful.

I think it was 24fps, but they used a different shutter speed which made it look all funny.

also:

  On 4/28/2012 at 10:21 AM, chenGOD said:

  On 4/28/2012 at 12:07 AM, encey said:

Remember when IDM had snare rushes?

go on, give us a stutter edit

edit

edit

tid

eerrrrrrrrrrrrsgh

Jackson has officially decided to turn the shortest book in the series into 3 drawn out movies:

http://m.ign.com/articles/2012/07/30/the-hobbit-3-officially-announced

The third movie is going to be 2:35 of awkward homoerotic plot resolutions and goodbyes.

there was a day and an age where i would have had triple boners for this movie, and the recent news. but now..

what i don't get is why Peter Jackson wants to spend such a large chunk of his life doing the same thing over and over again. It makes me wonder how effected he was by the Lovely Bones critical reception. The movie was widely regarded as a pile of shit, and since LOTR universe it's the only thing he's done. I'd like to see him spending more time doing stuff like District 9

  On 7/30/2012 at 10:54 PM, Awepittance said:

what i don't get is why Peter Jackson wants to spend such a large chunk of his life doing the same thing over and over again. It makes me wonder how effected he was by the Lovely Bones critical reception. The movie was widely regarded as a pile of shit, and since LOTR universe it's the only thing he's done. I'd like to see him spending more time doing stuff like District 9

You're forgetting that piece of shit King Kong.

as long as he's doing tolkien stuff :)

i do hope this first one is going to be as good as the lotr trilogy, otherwise i'm not even going to care for any prequels obviously.

but i've got a good eye on the production, since i followed all the vlogs and stuff. really wonderful stuff, huge studios lots of filming outside, not too much green screen we'll do it in postprod bs.

so... a third movie, should i go into another ineternet rage fit?

Bring it on! I want more dwarf beards!

I'm a hater and I'm gonna hate

Of course theses movies all rest on the realism and design of Smaug.

I still think the best version of Smaug is from the cartoon, so realism isn't exactly a necessity for me. But considering that they are like, 1000% off the mark with the Dwarves, I think we can assume that Smaug will look like a piece of shit dipped in piss.

  On 7/30/2012 at 10:54 PM, Awepittance said:

what i don't get is why Peter Jackson wants to spend such a large chunk of his life doing the same thing over and over again. It makes me wonder how effected he was by the Lovely Bones critical reception. The movie was widely regarded as a pile of shit, and since LOTR universe it's the only thing he's done. I'd like to see him spending more time doing stuff like District 9

He gets a ton of money, whatever internet nerds think of this the movies are still going to make a shitload of money. And he didn't make D9, just produced. PJ will do the next Tintin.

  On 7/31/2012 at 7:20 PM, azatoth said:

  On 7/30/2012 at 10:54 PM, Awepittance said:

what i don't get is why Peter Jackson wants to spend such a large chunk of his life doing the same thing over and over again. It makes me wonder how effected he was by the Lovely Bones critical reception. The movie was widely regarded as a pile of shit, and since LOTR universe it's the only thing he's done. I'd like to see him spending more time doing stuff like District 9

 

He gets a ton of money, whatever internet nerds think of this the movies are still going to make a shitload of money. And he didn't make D9, just produced. PJ will do the next Tintin.

Yeah, Occam's Razor would suggest that the motivation for splitting one narrative with a built-in audience into three distinct opportunities for ticket revenues at lower production cost than three discrete movies is... well, just that.

I'm sure Newline/MGM/Warner Bros. tossed this one around for 30 seconds before calling PJ and ordering him to increase bloat by 3 hours. And I'm sure PJ wet his pants in excitement at the opportunity to be moar overwrought and even shittier in the editing room.