The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers)

[Samuel Walters]

I think "what is cinematic" is a question that is far too vague. Semantic debates rarely end well (if they ever end ). Better is: How "realistic" should cinema look? When you're in a theater (home or otherwise), is illusion preferable to near-reality? I suppose it all comes down to personal preference. There are people who still prefer 2D over 3D, models and puppets over CGI, b&w over color. But with very few of us actually having seen 48fps yet, it's difficult to say how this new development will fit into the evolution of: "what is cinematic"?

[JD]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

For me, the argument that 24 fps is "more cinematic" is silly. Its just something we've HAD for a 100 years. That's all. It's something that we are used to. We've been trained to accept as HOW films should look.

But WHY, why does motion blue equal more cinematic?

Exactly. If we'd had 48fps for 100 years, and someone decided to try something new and do 24fps, people would be saying the same thing.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

That might sound rational to say, but I don't think it's the actual truth. It only makes sense in syllogistic form

[Professor Zoom]

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

That might sound rational to say, but I don't think it's the actual truth. It only makes sense in syllogistic form

You're right. We wouldn't want to bring rational thought to a discussion. It IS the internet after all.

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

You're right. We wouldn't want to bring rational thought to a discussion. It IS the internet after all.

Har Har Har but of course you fail to see the actual point I was making.

But not just me:
From Den of Geek:

The suspension of disbelief is what cinema is built upon. Whether it is simply accepting one person can pretend to be another, or something as grandiose as believing a man can fly, films are nothing without it. And this suspension of disbelief is one step closer to being ripped away by High Frame Rate (HFR). It essentially makes most of the film look completely unrealistic and fake, which in a grand fantasy film is not something you want. While it works superbly in the large scale set-pieces and with CGI, removing the boundaries between what is model work and what is computer generated, whenever it cuts back to the actors you are instantly back in the studio with them, complete with terrible lighting and obvious prosthetics, and away from Middle Earth. It’s the first thing you notice from the very first scene, with a jerky motion blur apparent in many of the actors movements. You'll barely be able to get used to it over the three hours of the film, and as much as we like seeing every pore of Martin Freeman’s face, this is a film best watched with the more traditional filmic substance of 24fps.

[JarodRussell]

That Den of Geek quote is hilarious. It's the typical rant you hear every single time something new is introduced.

whenever it cuts back to the actors you are instantly back in the studio with them, complete with terrible lighting and obvious prosthetics, and away from Middle Earth.

But HFR is to blame?

and as much as we like seeing every pore of Martin Freeman’s face, this is a film best watched with the more traditional filmic substance of 24fps.

Sure it's not the 4K projection that's at fault here?




btw, anyone a fan of Miami Vice, Collateral and Public Enemies?

[Kegg]

Frankly this entire argument reminds me of how people scoffed at Birth of a Nation because in many scenes you couldn't see people's feet or legs. It was a completely ridiculous way to shoot scenes, as obviously films should look like stage plays.

If your objection to 48 is that it doesn't look blurry and it looks too real, then I have no idea what to say to that because that's kind of the entire point (and also a good thing).

If your objection is, in the case of the Hobbit, this higher resolution makes the fact the film is fake appear more obviously fake, that sounds more like a problem with the movie, and one which I doubt blur would fix much if at all.

[Sindatur]

Funny, that Den of Geek quote is exactly the opposite of what everyone else is saying, that the 48fps is making it look more unrealistic and the motion blur is jerky, while everyone else is saying it removes the motion blur and makes everything too realistic <sigh>

[JarodRussell]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Funny, that Den of Geek quote is exactly the opposite of what everyone else is saying, that the 48fps is making it look more unrealistic and the motion blur is jerky, while everyone else is saying it removes the motion blur and makes everything too realistic <sigh>

I guess people don't know what it is exactly that they are criticizing. Again.

[Professor Zoom]

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

Har Har Har but of course you fail to see the actual point I was making.

Har har har, you weren't making an actual point, other than some claim towards "truth" which any reasonable person couldn't make until they've seen it... And even then... it's still opinion...

But not just me:
From Den of Geek:

1. Who cares what the Den of Geek says? Is it some sort of statement of fact that I should listen to over anyone else? When do Dens of Geeks become some sort of authority over my own experience?

2. Again, are we just so used to 24 fps that its going to take time, and certainly better technology, for us to adjust? What is so magical about 24 fps? Its just a number that we are used to. Its a frame rate chosen by technology we no longer use, why should we be beholden to something chosen by people long since dead?

[JarodRussell]

This thread about revelations in TNG-HD should put that Den of Geek thing into perspective for some. Higher resolution, and you can suddenly see bad prosthetics and zippers and carpet seems and stuff. Some would argue that it takes you totally out of the film, and that it's devilry.

[Aeronef]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

So the only argument against it is, again, just like with 3D, is "OMG IT'S NEW I DON'T LIKE NEW!"

[JarodRussell]

Aeronef wrote:

---

It's not, I take?

[Neroon]

Everyone take a breath and step away for awhile, if you feel the need to be this testy.

[Claudia]

I'm not a big fan of the 3d-technology. I'm wearing glasses and having to put on those 3d-glasses over my own... it's uncomfortable and causes headache. So, I've been really looking forward to seeing the Hobbit (and Star Trek, of course, in May) but my enthusiasm has waned quite a bit now.