• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Vote now in wave 1 of the FEOTM Reboot!

The Hobbit

I hope to god it doesnt have that unnatural pan/scan look to it. I disable the 120hz feature on my TV because I cant stomach that effect. unless i misunderstand what this means for a film. more fps has no negative effect in videogaming.
 
elbarto1 said:
I hope to god it doesnt have that unnatural pan/scan look to it. I disable the 120hz feature on my TV because I cant stomach that effect. unless i misunderstand what this means for a film. more fps has no negative effect in videogaming.
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.
 
The noticeable difference between 48 to 60 fps will be far less noticeable than 24 to 48. On every objective level possible, 48 fps is superior to 24 fps. There should be no weird "pan and scan" issues or anything like that. The video based on objective criteria should look crisper and smoother than anything we are used to. Action shots will be less blurry. Slow landscape panning shots will not appear jumpy. This is awesome.

The problem is that it will just feel "different" in a slightly uncomfortable way because we are not used to it. I remember the first time I watched a football game on an HDTV with an HD signal. Everything looked weird and somehow fake looking to me at first even though it was actually vastly superior and less fake than anything I had ever seen before. It took a couple games to get used to it, but now I can't imagine going back. Hopefully movies will be the same for most people.

Hopefully the movie industry will have some balls and not lose all courage to continue this trend when people initially flip out about it. It wouldn't surprise me though if the studio is already flipping out at reactions and pushing to drop it down to 24 fps for theatrical release. Since it is just a matter of dropping every other frame, they have made it easy to do this.

This is only a theory, but I am guessing young kids who only know HDTV won't mind at all. It is us old farts that will probably have the biggest problem adapting to it because we unconsciously as children came to associate cheap television with fast frame-rates and expensive movies with slow 24fps frame-rate. Ironic.
 
While I fully support higher frame rates (which, for people who are initially skeptical: you do get use to it), I think the look of 24 fps works better for some films. I think stuff like the Hobbit is perfect for 48 fps, but in an ideal world, 24 fps or 48 fps would be just a stylistic choice.
 
All the hubbub about the 48 fps screening makes me more curious and eager than ever to see The Hobbit. I want to see it with all the bells and whistles, just as Peter Jackson wants it to be shown. I think the negative reactions were responding to footage that was not much more than raw video. It hadn't been graded and processed and that makes all the difference in the look and feel of the image.

One reviewer compared it to episodes of the Twilight Zone that were shot in video instead of film. The episodes looked more "live" but worse than film. But that wasn't because of frame rate, it was because video cameras in 1962 were primitive and produced a crappy image, with low resolution, ghosting, crushed dynamic range, etc. etc.

What Jackson should have done was show the footage in 24 fps, then again in 48 fps to make the comparison. That way people would be able to separate the frame rate from the raw, ungraded quality of the footage.

The bottom line is if higher frame rates catch on with movie audiences it will be a bonanza for movie theaters. As far as I can tell 60 fps at high def would need a new blu-ray standard and a new generation of consumer players. So for a few years at least theaters will be the only place to view higher frame rate movies.

And The Hobbit will also be shown in 24 fps for anyone who prefers the traditional look.

Here are some reports-

Against
http://movieline.com/2012/04/25/the-hobbit-48-fps-preview-divides-audiences-at-cinemacon/
http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html
http://www.slashfilm.com/cinemacon-...ates-cinematic-future-james-cameron-promised/

For
http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/04/48_frames_chang.php
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212#
 
Harry Knowles interview with Doug Trumbull about higher frame rate and the future of cinema
(a bit off topic, but since the discussion has moved about higher frame rate, I guess it's okay):

 
Nice interview.

Brumous, according to wikipedia you are sorta correct. Blu-ray can only support 59.94 fps progressive as 1280x720 res. 1920x1080 max progressive is 24. :( That would make for an interesting debate. More FPS with lower resolution better?
 
Jackson just announced via his facebook page that there will be three movies about The Hobbit
 
Sunarep said:
Jackson just announced via his facebook page that there will be three movies about The Hobbit
Click to expand...

yeah, I read the rumor for a certain time.
Part of me is pleased that it's confirmed, but I'd wish it could be a third movie making a "bridge" leading to LOTR rather than expanding The Hobbit story on 3 movies.
 
A lot of people are complaining about this, but I am rather excited. Last time around, Peter Jackson made three instant classics. Since he's working on this too, I'm inclined to trust him. Honestly, in my mind, three awesome movies is more awesome than two awesome movies or one. Also, it always felt unbalanced to me that there would be two prequels to three films. Hopefully this can be a six film saga that works. Of course there is one problem - we have to wait longer!
 
DominicCobb said:
A lot of people are complaining about this, but I am rather excited. Last time around, Peter Jackson made three instant classics. Since he's working on this too, I'm inclined to trust him. Honestly, in my mind, three awesome movies is more awesome than two awesome movies or one. Also, it always felt unbalanced to me that there would be two prequels to three films. Hopefully this can be a six film saga that works. Of course there is one problem - we have to wait longer!
Click to expand...

i love tolkien's world. Tolkien’s work is so layered you could make a movie about anything. But in terms of this story of the one ring I just hope it doesn’t get dragged down too much. Just bear in mind that you would have watched half of the story before the main story actually started going…
 
Sunarep said:
Jackson just announced via his facebook page that there will be three movies about The Hobbit
Click to expand...

Crap.

At least it is a proven writing staff. Maybe they will invent some cool stuff, but scary to diverge so far from the book.
 
Well, I'm actually excited about that. I mean, in The Lord of the Rings Extended Edition, there was added 2 hours of footage (which essentially makes a fourth movie). With this, there will be no need for two editions altogether by making an uncut trilogy instead of a cut duology. Although I'm quite curious how, even with all the behind-the-scenes and appendices stuff, the story will play out, as the journey in the Hobbit is much shorter than the one in The Lord of the Rings.

(And we have to wait only half a year, the third Hobbit movie is released Summer 2014, not Winter)
 
Farlander said:
Well, I'm actually excited about that. I mean, in The Lord of the Rings Extended Edition, there was added 2 hours of footage (which essentially makes a fourth movie). With this, there will be no need for two editions altogether by making an uncut trilogy instead of a cut duology. Although I'm quite curious how, even with all the behind-the-scenes and appendices stuff, the story will play out, as the journey in the Hobbit is much shorter than the one in The Lord of the Rings.

(And we have to wait only half a year, the third Hobbit movie is released Summer 2014, not Winter)
Click to expand...

The extended edition footage for LOTR actually brings the movies more in line with the books overall. That is an important distinction in comparison to what it sounds like is happening with Hobbit.
 
I'm very exicted to see that "The Hobbit" will be a trilogy as it will equal out to make an entire saga, but on the other hand it makes me feel sad that LOTR had to be cut so much since the three LOTR could have easily been six, given how much footage is still unreleased. But hey, it's Peter Jackson, so I respect with this desicion considering how good the LOTR products were, I keep feeling the media forgets that.
 
I'm kinda scared when I compare the two projects

with LotR I think the reason why it was such a great adaption was because of the pressure from everywhere. EVerything that didn't serve the story thematically or anything was reconsidered, restructured until the project stood up to scrutiny, made sense within itself and was accessible for non-readers

With Deathly Hallows being a best-of the book with no real sense of its own I fear that because LotR is such a beloved thing the pressure to refine and repolish the story is gone.. I hope I'm wrong
 
I greet this as good news. Jackson was proven with LOTR, I like what he's saying, that they've sat back, looked at what they've got and ultimately thought - there's more we can do here. Tell the whole story. He's already said there are things in the appendices he wanted to film, but couldn't. Now he can. I just hope we don't have to wait 3 years for the third film.
 
white43 said:
I greet this as good news. Jackson was proven with LOTR, I like what he's saying, that they've sat back, looked at what they've got and ultimately thought - there's more we can do here. Tell the whole story. He's already said there are things in the appendices he wanted to film, but couldn't. Now he can. I just hope we don't have to wait 3 years for the third film.
Click to expand...

Part III is coming out summer 2014
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom