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

Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Skywalker, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. Emh

    Emh The Doctor Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2000
    Location:
    Durham, North Carolina
  2. Set Harth

    Set Harth Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Location:
    Morrowind
    Holy crap.
     
  3. JarodRussell

    JarodRussell Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
  4. Alidar Jarok

    Alidar Jarok Everything in moderation but moderation Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    That's not quite as bad as I thought it was, I thought he translated it from Khuzdul. Still, quite a lot of effort he put into that.

    The longer contract probably made a better visual image, which is the only reason for it.
     
  5. M'Sharak

    M'Sharak Definitely Herbert. Maybe. Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2002
    Location:
    Terra Inlandia, Kelvin timeline
  6. Skywalker

    Skywalker Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Damn, you beat me to it. If only I hadn't stopped to watch it first! :lol:

    Here's a YouTube link:

    [yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d34zAgYWcYg[/yt]

    Man, New Zealand is beautiful.
     
  7. Cutter John

    Cutter John Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    OMG, is it Christmas yet?!

    1:29. Blimey, its the Old Gaffer. Sam would be thrilled.
     
  8. Evil Twin

    Evil Twin Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2005
    http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

    Reaction to the film's 48fps footage here. *sigh* This has me very worried. His complaints sound exactly like the ones I had about the way Public Enemies was shot. Anything higher than the standard 24fps just totally cheapens the way a film looks and feels.
     
  9. DarthPipes

    DarthPipes Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2006
    Hopefully they'll have time to fix the finished project. To shoot a film like The Hobbit this badly and for the final product to look that bad is inexcuseable.
     
  10. JD

    JD Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Location:
    Arizona, USA
    They had an article about the footage on IGN, and they weren't thrilled either. One of the big complaints they had was the the shooting method makes the CGI stuff look even more fake than it already does. I'm really hopping they can do something to fix this before the movie comes out, because it would be really disappointing for something this big to look as bad as it apparently does right now.
     
  11. Neroon

    Neroon Mod of Balance Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2000
    Location:
    On my ship the Rocinante
    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. :(
     
  12. Harvey

    Harvey Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
  13. davejames

    davejames Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Location:
    Sac, Ca
    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.
     
  14. 137th Gebirg

    137th Gebirg Vice Admiral Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2000
    Location:
    Who is John Galt?
    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...
     
  15. Skywalker

    Skywalker Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    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.
     
  16. Klaus

    Klaus Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2003
    Location:
    Beach condo, Bay of Eldamar
    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! :D
     
  17. davejames

    davejames Vice Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2001
    Location:
    Sac, Ca
    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.
     
  18. AvBaur

    AvBaur Captain Captain

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    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.
     
  19. Hunter X

    Hunter X Rear Admiral Rear Admiral

    Joined:
    May 19, 2001
    Location:
    Vancouver
    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.
     
  20. 23skidoo

    23skidoo Admiral Admiral

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2002
    Location:
    Fifth Circle of Hell
    Huffington Post's coverage:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/hobbit-48-fps-footage-divides-audiences_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