THE HOBBIT (2012/2013): News, Rumors, Pics Till Release

[Neroon]

One thing I have learned is to take previews with a large amount of salt. Many times, the involved journalist is simply trying to "make a name for themselves." Still, the much ballyhooed 48 fps frame rate is maybe the pivotal aspect - at least, technically - of this film. Bear in mind that the trailers we've seen are in the 24 fps we've always been used to.

I have to confess this early word is a bit unsettling.

[Harvey]

http://www.avclub.com/articles/the-h...-too-ga,73007/

One or two complaints could be dismissed as journalists trying to make a name for themselves, but the overall reaction seems much more negative. The trailer (in 24fps, I suppose?) looked fine, but this reaction leaves me a little worried.

[davejames]

Yeah I can see the higher frame rate being useful for some types of movies (like an indie drama or documentary), but for a fantasy movie it seems like you would actually WANT that dreamlike, cinematic sheen.

I remember watching one of the Pirates movie at a higher rate, and it really did look like you were watching behind the scenes footage the entire time. Very cool to watch but almost impossible to get involved in the story.

[137th Gebirg]

Interesting. 48fps. I'm curious how that will translate to home viewing. 1080p hi-def still operates at 30fps. True, they're experimenting with 50 and 60 fps standards for the future, but probably won't be ready for prime-time any time soon. If the film relies on the higher frame rate, it may loose something when it hits BluRay. I'm genuinely curious how this is going to look in theaters.

With regard to the concerns about this new frame rate, I would agree that this may be very jarring for movie-goers. I remember how weird it was to see old shows like Fawlty Towers, Monty Python and other British shows switch back-and-forth between film for outdoor shots and video for indoor shots. It's amazing what a lack of film grain and a couple extra frames per second does to a moving picture. I cannot conceive of what 48 is going to look like. Yep - could be really weird...

[Skywalker]

It sounds to me like the issue is more that we're just not used to it than anything else. It's going to be jarring. But if 48 FPS becomes the norm, we'll get used to it.

[Klaus]

How hard would it be to convert it back to 24? Just take out every other frame...


...hell, they could make 2 prints, one with the odd-numbered frames and one with the even-numbered ones. Two versions, just slightly different!

[davejames]

Skywalker wrote:

---

It sounds to me like the issue is more that we're just not used to it than anything else. It's going to be jarring. But if 48 FPS becomes the norm, we'll get used to it.

This sounds like a different situation to me. That video-style, high frame rate look has already been around for years and years, and it still looks as cheap and uncinematic as ever.

Unless everyone suddenly decides that we want all our movies to look like live stage productions or something. But I don't really see that happening.

[AvBaur]

Klaus wrote:

---

How hard would it be to convert it back to 24? Just take out every other frame...

They are definitely going to do that, too, because many theaters will not be able to play 48 fps movies yet by the time The Hobbit comes out.

[Hunter X]

Cinema Blend posted a neutral to positive reaction to the footage. They say the 3D looked better with the higher frame rate, although they also seem a little uneasy with the different aesthetic the 48 fps creates between The Hobbit and LOTR.

[23skidoo]

Huffington Post's coverage:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1452391.html

The key statement is the footage is described as looking like a soap opera. That means it looks like video. That's the complaint I've had about high-def - if you watch it on a 1080 plasma it makes films look like bad 1970s chroma key. I was watching Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and everything was so obviously greenscreened - Doctor Who circa 1976 looked better. But watching the same thing on a 720 plasma, with the filmic look restored, it looked fine and you didn't notice these things.

Fortunately, it is easy to "dial down" things so they look like films. Doctor Who is actually videotaped even today and they run it through a processor to give it a film sheen. It's not too late for Jackson to dial things back on the Hobbit before release (oh, and drop that stupid 3D while they're at it - Hunger Games proves you don't need it to have a huge hit).

Alex

[Alidar Jarok]

I'm willing to give it a chance. I trust Peter Jackson to do things right.

That being said here, how many people here are upset with the visual presentation for the 48 fps who also complain about other visual presentations (too much CGI and 3D).

[23skidoo]

Alidar Jarok wrote:

---

I'm willing to give it a chance. I trust Peter Jackson to do things right.

That being said here, how many people here are upset with the visual presentation for the 48 fps who also complain about other visual presentations (too much CGI and 3D).

It's not the same - even the 3D which I rail against regularly. Even with 3D, it still looks like a movie. This isn't a case of trying to adjust to anything "new" and "scary". This is a case where, in a quantifiable manner, a technological advance is actually making something worse in people's opinion. I don't care for 3D but that's because I don't enjoy it. I still acknowledge that 3D movies still look like "movies", and a side benefit is the 2D version often ends up being more vivid, colorful, and detailed (which is ironic since 3D usually looks washed out and blurry to a lot of people). CGI is only an issue if it's poorly done, really. This move to the faster FPS is fundamentally changing how the movie looks, and not to the better.

There were people who thought back in the 1960s that video was a far superior look to film. You don't hear that much anymore. The fact it was shot mostly on video (with 16-mm exteriors) is why we'll never see classic-era Doctor Who on Blu-ray. Or All in the Family, for that matter. Now we have a new format that is making film look like video and it cheapens the experience.

There's also another issue here. The Hobbit doesn't really count in this too much because it's based on very strong source material (translation: even Owe Boll could not f--- it up), but even so, I'd rather filmmakers concentrate on the story, the cast, the characters, than spending time reinventing the wheel. The Hunger Games' huge success this past few week shows you don't need big gimmicks like 3D to get people to go to the movies. That whole argument that "oooh they need 3D or a million FPS to get people to buy tickets" is an outright lie and you have your proof courtesy Miss Katniss and Co.

The Hobbit could be done in Claymation and make $500 million, so it'll be a hit regardless what people think of the presentation. At least that's the theory. Back in 2002 I'd have sworn on a stack of Bibles that a Star Trek movie was a guaranteed hit, too. But Nemesis was sunk was a groundswell of negative word of mouth, and just because Jackson and Tolkien's name is on it doesn't make The Hobbit immune. Enough people get annoyed by the new FPS, it's going to cause a problem.

The key will be people's responses to further preview showings. Maybe this was a fluke. Maybe if they show a fully finished excerpt, or fix a setting somewhere, people will go "OK, that works". If so, great. But a repeat of what we just saw at, say, San Diego ComicCon, and Jackson might as well release the thing right to Blu-ray...

Alex

[Klaus]

I agree, except that Uwe Boll could in fact frak it up...

...but I do trust PJ to figure out what works and what doesn't -- when push comes to shove he'll do what's best for the film even it means admitting he made a mistake. Ask Stuart Townsend!

[23skidoo]

Klaus wrote:

---

I agree, except that Uwe Boll could in fact frak it up...

...but I do trust PJ to figure out what works and what doesn't -- when push comes to shove he'll do what's best for the film even it means admitting he made a mistake.

Unless he's so far committed to it that he can't back out.

By the way one thing I hope folks are noticing, and it will happen when the video production comes out too. All this debate over the technology - with people hating it and a few people loving it (sorry, I'm seeing a majority opinion against so far) - is completely overshadowing discussion over the actual content. I've seen very little discussion over whether the 10 minutes is any good or not as far as being a dramatic presentation. If the same holds true when the complete video production is released later this year, then Jackson will have indeed frakked it up because it'll become about the tech and not about the actual story and the adaptation. I hope that doesn't happen as it would make for a sad coda to the Lord of the Rings films.

BTW you'll notice I've stopped using the term "film" or "movie" when referring to The Hobbit; it's now "video production". As the term "soap opera effect" has now taken hold and is being used quite a bit to refer to the resolution issue, I figure there's room for another neologism.

Alex

[Alidar Jarok]

What's your definition of "movie" that somehow doesn't include the Hobbit?