Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 4

[dark_b]

trust me if it look sbad i will complain for 12 months. but until i dont watch footage that is screened with 48fps in a theater that supports 48 i will not complain.

again Cameron and Jackson are screening footage in updated theaters that are able to project footage at 48fps. my theater can not because its not updated.

 

[Tim_Riggins]

Yep, seeing reports that it looks amazing, and others like Devin Faraci that it looks terrible. Knew it would happen anyway, 24 fps is the cinematic standard we've always had, it's the very definition of "cinematic", even though 24 fps footage can not look cinematic.

48 fps and I'm eager to see it will make it look so real that some can"t handle the change like Faraci. He does say however that the CGI creatures, etc look so much more real, some will love it, others hate it.

 

[Boom]

Devin's reactions:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/cinemacon-2012-the-hobbit-underwhelms-at-48-frames-per-secon/

 

[dark_b]

Devin hates digital and he hates Cameron because of Avatar. i belive that a lot didnt like the hobbit footage.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Devin hates digital and he hates Cameron because of Avatar.

That might be part of it but I don't think it's some grand conspiracy against Cameron or Jackson. I happen to love their movies. I cannot for the life of me understand why you would want to get rid of gorgeous cinematography and make everything look as if you're watching a live performance. That's just not what I expect of movies. They should look different from a live performance, they should look "cinematic" as so many people like to say.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

This sounds bad... To be honest, I had forgotten all about this movie having 48 fps until about a week ago. I just want to watch The Hobbit, plain and simple.

 

[Boom]

It will be available in 24 fps.

 

[Boom]

EDIT: **** this lag.

 

[Octoberist]

Devin hates digital and he hates Cameron because of Avatar. i belive that a lot didnt like the hobbit footage.

To be honest, I've grown to like Devin. I don't agree with him all the time but when I do, it's all the way.

 

[dark_b]

It will be available in 24 fps.

the trailer that is online is proof that they can transform a 48 movie to 24 .
so if it will get bad reviews i will watch it in a 24 fps theater.

 

[Octoberist]

It will be available in 24 fps.

I'm all for advanced tech but I'm betting the reason why we've stuck with 24 is because it just looks good to the eyes. If The Hobbit looks like video, good lighting and all, that sucks.

 

[dark_b]

To be honest, I've grown to like Devin. I don't agree with him all the time but when I do, it's all the way.

he is very honest. and doesnt play the hollywood game where they try to invite all those critics and give them gifs. abd he also has a lot connections. he has a good track record with spoilers,leaked info and scoops.

but if he hates something he will do everything to bash. the same if he likes something. for example he liked the story and footage from Rise of the Apes from the first week. and he promoted the movie the whole year.

the problem with his opinion about digital and 48 is that he hates with a passion Cameron . i am not just trying to writte over the top. he literally hates James Cameron. hates.

 

[Armored Avenger]

Hearing more of what was in the footage doesn't exactly fill me with excitement. Radagast has birds under his hat, a sled pulled by bunnies and is described as being silly. I was fearful they would reduce him down to comic relief. Also, Gandalf investigating the Ringwraith's tombs better have some decent explanation behind it because if the film is saying they have been entombed since Sauron's fall in the Last Alliance then the entire fall of Arnor to the Witch King blows this addition apart. I know I should wait until I see the final product but this along with the disappointing reaction to the 48fps does bring me down a bit (for now anyway. I'm sure the next video blog will boost me right back up again).

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'm all for advanced tech but I'm betting the reason why we've stuck with 24 is because it just looks good to the eyes. If The Hobbit looks like video, good lighting and all, that sucks.

Exactly man, exactly. Why would anyone assume that we don't LIKE the way movies have looked for 100 years? It would be one thing if there was some obvious problem that people were complaining about, but there isn't. I don't like the "motion flow" effect on HDTV's when you try to watch movies, and I am definitely not wanting my experience at a movie theater to be the same as watching a live performance.

 

[Boom]

I'm getting the sinking feeling that Radagast will be awful.

 

[Octoberist]

It would be hell if everything looked like true motion years from now.

 

[redfirebird2008]

It would be hell if everything looked like true motion years from now.

No kidding man. I couldn't believe it when I saw Pirates of the Caribbean playing in "motion flow" at Best Buy years ago. It was the climactic fight scene between Jack and Barbossa. I honestly thought it was a behind-the-scenes featurette. Had to stand there for a good 30 seconds before realizing it was the actual movie. It just doesn't look right. I saw an article praising Hobbit's 48 fps footage because "it looks so realistic, like you're standing on the set watching the actors." That sounds EXACTLY like what I saw with motion flow for Pirates. I don't want movies to look like I'm standing there on the set. If I want to watch a live performance, I'll go watch someone perform a play.

 

[redfirebird2008]

All that being said, the good news is the trailer looked good in 24 fps. Let's hope the full conversion of the movie to 24 fps turns out to have a similarly nice appearance. I'm more afraid of what the future holds though (10-20 years from now). If they don't even give us a choice to watch in 24 fps, that will be depressing.

 

[dark_b]

we will know if it looks bad or good in december.i think it will not work because we are not used.

but again.TV motion flow is not the same as projected 48 fps. the new theaters that are able to project footage at 48-60 fps. this is different.

 

[redfirebird2008]

we will know if it looks bad or good in december.

BUT AGAIN.TV motion flow is not the same as the new theaters that are able to project footage at 48-60 fps. this is different.

It sure doesn't sound like it. "So realistic it feels like you're standing on set." When I watch a movie, I don't WANT to feel like I'm standing on set.

 

[Doc Ock]

It would be hell if everything looked like true motion years from now.

Oh God. That would be a nightmare! I'd have to stick to video games forever or cartoons...or something for onscreen entertainment.

I sure hope The Hobbit doesn't look like true motion.

 

[Kane52630]

Some of you are overreacting...

 

[Doctor Jones]

Some of you are overreacting...

May I remind you that this is the internet.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

I'm eager to see what 48fps looks like consistently throughout a film. I really just want to see how action scenes look without all the blur. I love seeing more detail out of my frame. I'm still completely hesitant about the 3D aspect of this film. As much as I admire and trust Jackson as a film maker, I can't help but wonder if he simply got caught up in all the 3D hype and wanted to make his mark on it. When I saw Tin Tin, the 3D did absolutely nothing for me. It detracted from the overall experience and I hate what 3D did to the image. It was smaller and the colors were dimmed down substantially. I really don't want to see that happen to the Hobbit.

I like what Chris Nolan has been saying lately about IMAX film. He's pretty much been voicing what I've been trying to articulate for a while now. I truly do believe that IMAX is the proper step forward for film making, not 3D. But I do think Jackson has something going with 48fps and I can only imagine what that would be like combined with IMAX. Here's hoping.

 

[dark_b]

http://www.slashfilm.com/cinemacon-...ates-cinematic-future-james-cameron-promised/