The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

I'm not really familiar with these digital times, but isn't 4k the norm in cinema, since ever?

I'm pretty sure I saw it in 4K. I know how 48fps works you guys, jeez. I'm just saying it looks like shit. Everything looks more fake, because you can see every little detail and little motion. You'll see what I mean when you hit the theater. I hope I never have to see another film using the tech.

  On 12/13/2012 at 11:17 PM, funkaholic said:

what other fantasy scandinavian films are there? robbers daughter looks interesting

 

Another movie based on Astrid Lindgren's book comes to mind, Brothers Lionheart. Also a Finnish movie called "Pessi ja Illusia" but I don't know if that's ever been dubbed or subbed in any other language except probably to Swedish. I remember seeing other movies also, but can't really remember names. One was about this Ice Queen or something.

48 fps would probably be great for epic nature documentaries, it's really the only place I think it would have any merit.

Edited December 14, 2012 by Gocab

Just returned from the movie. So absolutely unnecessarily long. It would have been 1000x better had they simply hinted at the future and what happens in the LOTR trilogy instead of making this movie feel like one giant prelude to it. The Dwarves and the actors playing them felt disjointed, unfunny, and as corny as I expected them to be when I first saw them in the youtube behind the scenes videos. I was glad that they tried to incorporate the music and songs from the book, but it just fell flat. They could have easily skipped most of the shit Peter Jackson felt he needed to add, and stopped the movie right before they enter Mirkwood. I am just being a bit naive about how the movie machine works I guess. ONLY TWO MOVIES? NO WAY. IT HAS GOT TO BE THREE.

 

Gotta say, I am a bit butthurt over this. It was more or less poop.

 

Also, remind me to never go to a midnight showing ever again. I saw the local Gamestop manager come in, walk up to a friend in the theater and show him a picture of his newborn son (born yesterday) on his iPhone and say "He really wanted to be here tonight but he was sleepy". Then he proceeded to sit down, and as the movie started, pulled out a take out box of food (which was a sub) stuff french fries in to the sub, and noisily eat it for the first 20 minutes of the movie. Awesome.

  On 12/14/2012 at 7:44 AM, kokoon said:

I'm not really familiar with these digital times, but isn't 4k the norm in cinema, since ever?

 

good question, i mean what is even the closest approximation of 30mm film stock to a digital resolution? or 70mm for that matter. It seems like 1080p captures most of the information in a 30mm film stock, but that's also not an accurate comparison since most Blueray's are digitally cleaned up and in some cases the original film stock is cleaned up and treated for the cleanest transfer possible (in most cases even if you saw say Lawrence of Arabia being re-shown in a theatre, chances are it will look technically worst than a blueray)

  On 12/14/2012 at 1:17 AM, compson said:

Lawrernce of Arabia in new 4K remaster comparisons, u have to enlarge as they are very big caps:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This shows a interesting problem with more detail. Because everything so far was to a degree blurry, you could easily focus on important bits of the scene and also use a bit of imagination on what everything is really like.

 

Those super detailed ones are harder to comprehend, the focus gets a bit lost and since people that watch movies are getting dumber, the higher the detail of everything, the stupider the plot will have to be.

 

I still see a chance that moviemakers will steadily get to understand how to regain focus and use this technology advancements to actually make a better movie, not just a more fancy looking one. But I'm not sure who today will finance this kind of enterprise.

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gaarg" data-cid="1917271" data-time="1355480334">

<p>This shows a interesting problem with more detail. Because everything so far was to a degree blurry, you could easily focus on important bits of the scene and also use a bit of imagination on what everything is really like.<br />

<br />

 <br />

Those super detailed ones are harder to comprehend, the focus gets a bit lost and since people that watch movies are getting dumber, the higher the detail of everything, the stupider the plot will have to be.<br />

 <br />

I still see a chance that moviemakers will steadily get to understand how to regain focus and use this technology advancements to actually make a better movie, not just a more fancy looking one. But I'm not sure who today will finance this kind of enterprise.<br />

 </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br />

I'd rather see the 4k version on a huge theater sized screen personally. I mean I know you are an abstract artist, so totally understand that you have a particular ideal aesthetic, but like with photography or drawings, I like both sharp detail and abstract/worn, it really depends on context which would be better for something. I do not correlate more visual information = worse films. If the DP switched off the "high definition" setting on accident, the filming production team (not knowing this until film is developed) would shoot a better film? Should all films add more blur so that people have to imagine more? Only B&W too? A good film comes down to a good script and a good production. For every advancement in tools/tech for film there have been people saying its a horrible idea because it's different from the norm. Films getting dumber has more to do with big studio execs, same with the big label execs and music. It does not have anything to do with the tools. As it develops it gets cheaper and the independent studios/artists gain access to it. Plenty of films use CG subtly to the point that you don't even realize (Zodiac) and plenty examples of technology opening up new ideas in cool ways (Chris Cunningham, WATMM artists). The whole thing is a process where the people who can afford such tech use it in a more flashy sense, but overtime is better understood and applied with more thought. It's always been like this, since the beginning of time. Do you think cavemen were more impressed with some abstract/random cave paint or the one dude who can paint a black bear eating a man and use his own real blood for painting the blood gushing out, probably done in some kind of "performance" setting so that he could prove himself and get laid...</p>

 

Edited December 14, 2012 by compson

  On 12/14/2012 at 9:31 AM, thanks robert moses said:

 

Also, remind me to never go to a midnight showing ever again. I saw the local Gamestop manager come in, walk up to a friend in the theater and show him a picture of his newborn son (born yesterday) on his iPhone and say "He really wanted to be here tonight but he was sleepy". Then he proceeded to sit down, and as the movie started, pulled out a take out box of food (which was a sub) stuff french fries in to the sub, and noisily eat it for the first 20 minutes of the movie. Awesome.

flol...ouch.

  On 12/14/2012 at 9:31 AM, Awepittance said:

 

  On 12/14/2012 at 7:44 AM, kokoon said:

I'm not really familiar with these digital times, but isn't 4k the norm in cinema, since ever?

good question, i mean what is even the closest approximation of 30mm film stock to a digital resolution? or 70mm for that matter. It seems like 1080p captures most of the information in a 30mm film stock, but that's also not an accurate comparison since most Blueray's are digitally cleaned up and in some cases the original film stock is cleaned up and treated for the cleanest transfer possible (in most cases even if you saw say Lawrence of Arabia being re-shown in a theatre, chances are it will look technically worst than a blueray)

 

 

 

I'm sure even 35mm benefits from 8k over 4k. 70mm (Lawrence of Arabia) even more so. But as you know film grain size varies with sensitivity (din/asa/iso), so it can look less detailed sometimes.

 

Still, I know for sure that the upcoming 4k home cinema UHD stuff is absolutely ridiculous for anything but the biggest of big screens. Lately I often don't even bother to get 1080p rips but settle for 720p instead. I look at a few caps and especially with older sources the details just aren't there. And even if they were, there's only so much detail human eye can register. That's on 50" plasma from cca 2m distance. I'll probably upgrade to 65" someday and then I'll watch 1080p.

  On 12/14/2012 at 2:38 PM, compson said:

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="gaarg" data-cid="1917271" data-time="1355480334">

<p>This shows a interesting problem with more detail. Because everything so far was to a degree blurry, you could easily focus on important bits of the scene and also use a bit of imagination on what everything is really like.<br />

<br />

 <br />

Those super detailed ones are harder to comprehend, the focus gets a bit lost and since people that watch movies are getting dumber, the higher the detail of everything, the stupider the plot will have to be.<br />

 <br />

I still see a chance that moviemakers will steadily get to understand how to regain focus and use this technology advancements to actually make a better movie, not just a more fancy looking one. But I'm not sure who today will finance this kind of enterprise.<br />

 </p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br />

I'd rather see the 4k version on a huge theater sized screen personally. I mean I know you are an abstract artist, so totally understand that you have a particular ideal aesthetic, but like with photography or drawings, I like both sharp detail and abstract/worn, it really depends on context which would be better for something. I do not correlate more visual information = worse films. If the DP switched off the "high definition" setting on accident, the filming production team (not knowing this until film is developed) would shoot a better film? Should all films add more blur so that people have to imagine more? Only B&W too? A good film comes down to a good script and a good production. For every advancement in tools/tech for film there have been people saying its a horrible idea because it's different from the norm. Films getting dumber has more to do with big studio execs, same with the big label execs and music. It does not have anything to do with the tools. As it develops it gets cheaper and the independent studios/artists gain access to it. Plenty of films use CG subtly to the point that you don't even realize (Zodiac) and plenty examples of technology opening up new ideas in cool ways (Chris Cunningham, WATMM artists). The whole thing is a process where the people who can afford such tech use it in a more flashy sense, but overtime is better understood and applied with more thought. It's always been like this, since the beginning of time. Do you think cavemen were more impressed with some abstract/random cave paint or the one dude who can paint a black bear eating a man and use his own real blood for painting the blood gushing out, probably done in some kind of "performance" setting so that he could prove himself and get laid...</p>

 

I understand that a clearer image can provide visual pleasure in itself, but the medium of film is about following things through time. And you can only focus on so much. So yes, it can and will be possible to have amazing detail that flows superfast on our screens but we are yet very far from making that work. And since money is going in all sorts of weird directions I'm not sure when we'll see a product made properly. "Properly" is subjective, but you all know what I mean.

David Fincher is a good example of digital and CG being used "properly"

I'll check it out, I'm not familiar with him yet!

Edited December 14, 2012 by compson

Saw this today and I'll probably post up more detailed thoughts. Initial opininion however is that whilst I did enjoy it (very much so in places), it fails to reach the heights of the LOTR movies.

 

48fps will split the audience right down the middle: it looks stunning in places and it helps blend the 3D and CGI beautifully, but when you first see it it looks very weird indeed and it almost makes the film look made-for-tv at times.

  On 12/14/2012 at 11:18 PM, Higgins VanHiggins said:

Saw this today and I'll probably post up more detailed thoughts. Initial opininion however is that whilst I did enjoy it (very much so in places), it fails to reach the heights of the LOTR movies.

 

48fps will split the audience right down the middle: it looks stunning in places and it helps blend the 3D and CGI beautifully, but when you first see it it looks very weird indeed and it almost makes the film look made-for-tv at times.

 

i'm seeing it at 7pm pst tonight, anticipation is killing me. I'm walking in with my expectations lowered, i do not think it's possible for a movie based off the Hobbit to reach the heights of LOTR, especially emotionally speaking. I'm hoping at the very least the visuals are ground breaking and beautiful enough to keep my attention especially if it is much lighter in tone. Did you experience sort of a virtual tactile movement effect like on a motion simulator ride during some of the fast camera panning? It's been a while since i've seen a 3d movie that made me feel this way.

Yes, I definitely got that in the goblin chase sequence, it's quite something else in 48 fps and 3D.

Just saw it. It was definitely better than LOTR which I absolutely loathed when I saw it weeks ago. It even felt like watching a movie on a few occasions. 3D 24p, lowest possible expectations.

We share a lot of opinions anyway I'd just add that nothing made me so sad here than Frodo did with his sad looks and Orlando with surfing down the stairs. They came pretty close though!

*awaits awepittances impressions*

 

didnt end up seeing it today, maybe tomorrow

ok honest first impressions. The 48frames took me at least 30 minutes before i got used to it. After that i didn't notice it anymore (for the most part). There were a few scenes that looked pretty jarring after the getting used to it period. Overall, does 48fps add anything to the cinematic experience? In some ways yes, closeups on some of the CGI creatures especially the Goblin King and Gollum looked fucking amazing, some of the closest to photo-real cgi i've ever seen. It does remove some of the majestic quality of Middle Earth though. It did eliminate the blurring/focus problem with 3d in general, but was the 3d effective in it's own right? Not that much. I didn't feel like this was an improvement on 3d compared to what i had seen before. I think if i was to be disappointed by anything specifically i was how little depth the 3d had compared to what i expected to see. I could tell they shot it in 3d, it looked better than 3d conversions, but did shooting it in 48fps drastically improve the quality and depth of the 3d? not really. Odd too because PJ claims that's the main reason why he shot it in 48fps. Maybe since my cinema was only projecting it in 2k i didn't get the full immersive effect. Honestly can't say for sure. Also really missed the bigatures, the locations while beautiful at times did not have the very tangible feel of LOTR.
And the one thing i agree with most of the reviewers on is that the best moment is when Gollum appears.
It definitely does not rank up there with any of the LOTR films
Still really enjoyed the shit out of it though, ill probably be seeing it again in 24fps just to compare

and yeah i'm going to make a phantom menace comparison here, which i honestly hate to do. There is something to be said about having limitations and being inventive with a limited budget. The original LOTR films were big budget productions but CGI in and of itself wasn't good enough yet to rely on it so heavily. This film's crutch is cgi, and it shows.

edit: a lot of people are saying Azog the pale orc looks too fake. Parts of him look incredibly real, mostly his movements. The part that looks fake is that he has all these deep scars all over his body and face that to me, as someone who's done a little bit of 3d rendering screams obvious bump-mapping. The texture of him looks fake.

edit2: i walked in expecting something a little more ground breaking in the vein of King Kong or Avatar or even the original trilogy in terms of special effects, and i walked out a little underwhelmed that it didn't even blow me away as much visually as those films. Moments did, but not enough of them and they were juxtaposed with not very good effects, especially the Wargs and all the fake fire and magic lighting stuff, that stuff in particular looked almost SyFy channel quality. Even the smallest bit of fake fire like Gandalf lighting his pipe by summoning a spark from his hand looked like something made for TV, not what i would expect in a 200+million dollar Peter jackson/weta production. I'm sure there was plenty of FX wizardry happening that i did not notice to the movie's credit, for instance none of the rain was real, they added it in with post production.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Awepittance

  On 12/15/2012 at 2:43 AM, kokoon said:

Just saw it. It was definitely better than LOTR which I absolutely loathed when I saw it weeks ago.

 

interesting, couldn't disagree more.

It really is. I guess all the "drama" in LOTR bothers me much too much to be able to give the whole any credit. It's just not on an adequate level - the acting, the dialogs, the characters in general. LOTR feels like a children's tale made into "serious" movie for teenagers.

 

But Hobbit, on the other hand, doesn't even try to appear serious. At least to me it didn't. It's fun, it's silly, it's made for teens. I can get with that and enjoy.

 

Now those are my thoughts the morning after. After the movie they were a bit different. I thought both LOTR and Hobbit were more or less same level of fun, same level of crap. But I was able to enjoy a contemporary version (Hobbit) more easily than the one from more than 10 years ago (LOTR). The movies have changed since, the tropes have changed, the times are different. LOTR just doesn't stand the test of time, it fails completely. It just doesn't work for me as a movie. But I'm pretty certain the same will happen with The Hobbit, so they will appear on the same general level.

i never read any of the books, but part of the reason i love LOTR so much is i don't think i've seen anything with an epic scale that is fantasy/scifi or anything existing in a parallel world with as much emotional weight and character arcs. Star Wars comes close but Return of the Jedi sort of wipes out the emotional momentum that they carried so well into the ending of Empire Strikes Back.

but you're right about the Hobbit, it isn't trying to force any emotions on you, they come a lot more naturally than in LOTR and sort of out of nowhere. I had no idea i'd be feeling a weight in my chest when Bilbo spared Gollum, i thought it was a truly touching scene that was in an otherwise very light movie.

Edited December 15, 2012 by Awepittance