The Hobbit loses Guillermo Del Toro

  On 12/22/2011 at 12:50 AM, Murveman said:

Holy crap, just watched the trailer. It looks just like the other movies. I am so excited now!

True indeed, this looks awesome.

Interestingly, I read one story on the internet regarding some people being underwhelmed by this trailer. One of the points raised by the (many) persons it quoted was that 'it looks just like the previous three'. Seeing as one of the concerns raised by many when The Hobbit was announced was that it would be too different from the LOTR films and that they may not blend, it seems a curious criticism.

so what frig those people

  On 12/21/2011 at 10:36 PM, Braintree said:

The trailer looks great. I'm excited to see the end result.

 

I absolutely adore the LOTR trilogy.

Same here. I am actually going to spend an entire day iof my Christmas holiday watching the extended movies on blu-ray, hopefully through my new 5.1 system :)

  On 12/22/2011 at 12:43 PM, Higgins VanHiggins said:

  On 12/22/2011 at 12:50 AM, Murveman said:

Holy crap, just watched the trailer. It looks just like the other movies. I am so excited now!

 

True indeed, this looks awesome.

 

Interestingly, I read one story on the internet regarding some people being underwhelmed by this trailer. One of the points raised by the (many) persons it quoted was that 'it looks just like the previous three'. Seeing as one of the concerns raised by many when The Hobbit was announced was that it would be too different from the LOTR films and that they may not blend, it seems a curious criticism.

I agree, only hoping that they don't make it EPIC with EPIC FIGHT SCENES and an EPIC dragon, etc. LOTR was written as an epic and it translated to film in epic proportions. The hobbiit is quite different, and I hope they make that distinction instead of trying to attract the most people by "you loved this.." scenario. That said, I haven't the hobbit since second grade, and I find the LOTR books stultifying and the movies equally ponderous.

there were epic fight scenes tho lol

the scenes look far too plasticky :(

hot off the presses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFUh_k2ipqo

  On 12/23/2011 at 12:10 AM, kokoon said:

the scenes look far too plasticky :(

pretty much what the viewers of the 10-minute taster have said

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-17836380

  Quote

The Los Angeles Times said the footage was "hyper-realistic": "An opening aerial shot of dramatic rocky mountains appeared clearer than the images in most nature documentaries.

"But the effect was different when applied to scenes with actors dressed in period costume, whose every move - and pore - was crystal clear," it added.

One projectionist told the newspaper it "looked like a made-for-TV movie".

I wonder if this 48fps thing is something that takes time to adjust to and 10 minutes isn't really enough time for that.

Lol @ Peter Jackson telling the audience it makes it more smooth and nice to the eyes. Fucking noob.

I don't know about this 48fps thing, but the recent Michael Mann films have been 60fps and look like shit.

my bad, apparently it was shown in 30fps. still looks like shit though, but that could be the camera used.

Yeah, I recently stumbled on Public Enemies and it looked like a cheap TV movie, thought it was some fancy SmoothPix thing of the TV doing it, but apparently not.

just like how 3D looks shit when you watch it for 10 minutes, and its awesome when you have sat through 2 hours of it.

Oh, wait.

  Quote

I felt astonished & amazed...the term is WOWED...and yet a bit uncertain about the 48 fps 3D footage from Peter Jackson's "The Hobbit."

 

The fact is that 48 fps 3D is the most startlingly "real" 3D I've ever seen in my life. The downside for older types is that it's too real.

 

In a word, 48 fps 3D looks like high-def video. It doesn't look "cinematic", lacking that filtered or gauzy look we're all accustomed to.

 

And yet it's breathtaking, especially w/ action scenes and CG stuff. Younger auds will cream in their pants. Older viewers not so much.

Our sense of cnema as we know it changed radically today. Henceforth 48 fps will not just become the norm but we're going to hear calls...

The opinions have been mixed. But there is no reason 24fps is superior or more artistic... we are just used to it. Only reason it was ever established was due to limitations of film technology.

Another impression:

  Quote

In the opening minutes, I thought to myself "this looks like the TV department when they turn on 120Hz or TruMotion or whatever they call it". At once, it really doesn’t look like that. The smooth motion clarity is similar, but the 120Hz TV setting is the TV inventing visual information to fill in loads of completely nonexistent frames, creating the bullshit garbage you see walking through most TV departments in stores. Again, there is an element that 48fps and TruMotion share (which is where the comparison comes from), but 48 fps does not simply “look like Korean soap operas” or TruMotion-enhanced TV images. That’s a reductive, sensationalist, utterly bullshit equivocation.

 

To be honest, it kind of terrified me at first. In his pre-recorded intro, Peter Jackson said that the reason we were seeing 10 minutes of content was that "it takes your eyes a little bit to adjust", and that is absolutely the case. The immersive experience was not immediate, but gradual. I felt much more comfortable toward the end of the presentation, but still disconcerted and outside a comfort zone.

 

I have major reservations, but at the same time am beyond awed at many elements of what hit my visual cortex. Recalling the sweeping landscape shots they opened with now, I almost feel tears welling, and I can’t explain why. It was overwhelming in the most literal sense. It directly assaults your synapses with twice as much information through your retinas as you have become conditioned to expect. I did not see the digital seams around creatures like Gollum and the trolls, a major benefit over 24fps. The creatures had a sense of mass in the environment, which was disconcerting in a good way.

I dunno, I'm not optimistic, I can certainly understand where the descriptions of 48FPS looking like a weird, made for TV, digital camera movie are coming from. That's how I feel whenever I see "natural motion" on HDTVs with fake frames 120hz or 240hz, it looks really uncinematic un-natural poop mcgoop digital for sure. So if it looks like that, which is what the opinions seem to suggest, It will definitely feel less artistically cinematic for me. Apparently I really love the way 24FPS film looks above all.

I have wondered if it's possible, has ever been done, with great quality, to take a digitally shot edited movie and then somehow get a quality film reel post mastering to make it look like it was shot on film the whole time.

I know it's a pretty simple concept to master a digital recording to a reel to reel in post after it's all said in done where most people wouldn't be able to tell if it was recorded straight to tape or to a computer. I can see why there would be a big difference in the possibilities for film though.

48fps isn't trumotion or 120 hz or whatever though. the only reason that looks weird is because they're filling in frames with fake visual info, lending the whole thing an unreal quality.

i'm anxious to see how this will look and i don't really understand how people can be so immediately dismissive of it.

I've seen some natural motion things that were funny, awkward and out of place. If this proves to work I'll be ok with it.

  On 4/26/2012 at 3:41 PM, zaphod said:

48fps isn't trumotion or 120 hz or whatever though. the only reason that looks weird is because they're filling in frames with fake visual info, lending the whole thing an unreal quality.

 

i'm anxious to see how this will look and i don't really understand how people can be so immediately dismissive of it.

What all the reviewers seem to be describing is that it looks exactly liek faek arse Truemotion/Natural Motion "or whatever". I can understand how it's totally possible that movies simply don't look like films if they are higher than 30FPS.

Yeah, but that's the whole point of it isn't it? Trying to make it more like reality and less like film.

edit: Maybe I'm just an old fart, but in approaching natural motion you also lose that movie magic, and it just turns into some awkward bullshit.

It doesn't work dude, it doesn't feel real, it really does seem cheap, fake, watching live theater from the spectacles of Bruce Vilanch, plastic shit tits, at least in my opninion, from my perspective. Do you like the way that the Craptual Motion 120/240hz setting looks on HDTVs transposing films? I can honestly and truly completely say, I fucking do not dig it in any way shape or form. I'm making a pretty big assumption but, I'm confident The Hobbit any other film done with super high rez digi cams in more than 30FPS will look similar.

This is coming from an idiot who was excited about hearing that The Hobbit was shooting in like 6 times the resolution of 1080p and in 48FPS? All the time I was frowning and mocking at how films looked with Craptual Motion on my brothers and others HDTVs.

yeah, agreed.

The Hobbit debuted some footage in 48 fps and everyone hated it

  Quote

Jackson put his money where his beardy mouth is, shooting The Hobbit at 48 fps, and today Warner Bros debuted some of the footage at CinemaCon.

Peter Jackson said in a videotaped message that he hopes his movie can be played in 48fps in “as many cinemas as possible” when it opens on Dec. 14.

In his message, Jackson stated that higher frame rates could make cinema “more attractive,” especially in 3D as it is “more gentle on the eyes.” He added that 2D at 48fps also looks “fantastic.”

The clarity Jackson described was visible in the presentation, but since the clips were described as “a work in progress” Warner did not screen footage that was fully color-corrected, or featuring completed VFX work.

And if I could sum up the collective reaction, I’d say it’s something along the lines of “OH MY GOD A WITCH, BURN IT!”

Saw the 10 minutes of raw The Hobbit footage in 48FPS 3D. Intriguing, the footage looks amazing, but the 48FPS experience is an odd change. – Alex Billington, Firstshowing

Oh no. Not a fan of 48fps. Oh no no no. [...] Listening to Cinemacon people – theater owners – this 48fps demo sold NOBODY. [...] THE HOBBIT, frankly, did not look cinematic. -Devin Faraci, BadassDigest

Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I’m now very unsure about higher framerates #CinemaCon -Peter Sciretta, SlashFilm

Saw 10 min of THE HOBBIT in 48fps. It’s def a drastic change from 24fps and many are not going to be on board with it. #thehobbit -Steve Weintraub, Collider

I had a feeling this 48fps stuff was gonna just look like amped up 120Hz on an HDTV, which looks awful. Seems to potentially be the case. -Kris Tapley, InContention

The fact is that 48 fps 3D is the most startlingly “real” 3D I’ve ever seen in my life. The downside for older types is that it’s too real. [...] In a word, 48 fps 3D looks like high-def video. It doesn’t look “cinematic”, lacking that filtered or gauzy look we’re all accustomed to. -Jeff Wells, HollywoodElsewhere

All of you clever critics there and not one person had the wherewithal to say, “Frame Rate? More like FRAME RAPE!” I mean talk about a missed opportunity.

I was giving him the benefit of the doubt, but all along, I had the thought that this would either be amazing or terrible.

Whenever I see a Blu-Ray at soumeone's house that is playing back a 30fps, if makes me want to punch the TV. Something tells me 48fps @ 48fps playback would look very similar.

24fps playback is the industry standard for a reason. Many times over the years, people have attempted to use different shooting/playback frame-rates and have tested them out with audiences to negative reactions. 24fps just holds strong. I don't think it's becuse people are stupid and just like what they're accustomed to. I think it works. People respond to it on an emotional level. Something about it helps people suspend their disbelief in the story they are being told. I don't think people want lifelike quality. You go to the movies to escape life.

I think If he wants to limit the blur, shooting at 48 fps and playing back at 24fps could do a good job of minimizing it.

Jackson did make that crotch stain of a film, King Kong. People trusted he would reinvent the wheel with that one and were dead wrong.I love the LOTR trilogy, but people need to stop giving this clown carte blanche.

On a related note, I recently found a 2nd run theater near me that is $3 and $1.50 on tuesdays that ONLY projects film. To me, that is like feeding lobster to the homeless. Amazing!

Also, I'm tring to find an interview I heard on NRP with Douglass Trumbull (special effects wizard behind Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Tree of Life, and more) about this whole frame-rate issue. It was really fascinating. He talks about how he's experimented over the years with many different fram rates and even shot a film at 120fps in the 80s with the same intention of Jackson, to change the industry playback standard. Unfortunately for him, if made people sick. I'll post it if I find it. In the meantime, here is something else...

http://onpoint.wbur....future-of-films

is there anywhere i can find examples of 48 vs 24, because i really have no fucking clue what visual difference it makes to the untrained eye

basically will make everything look like a TV movie