Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 7

[Hunter Rider]

Sexy beast.

 

[Victarion]

Mmmhmmm. Big Beautiful Goblins.

I think GG and Goblin Town are the Del Toro inspired pieces. Bolg looks more Jacksonish.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The 13 min special was pulled. Anyone got a new link?

 

[redhawk23]

Jackson offers rebuttal to the 48fps negative reception. I'm calling bullcrap on his insistence that "People under 20" don't have a problem with it. How many people under 20 got to be in one of the screenings and have written reviews?

"I'm fascinated by reactions. I'm tending to see that anyone under the age of 20 or so doesn't really care and thinks it looks cool, not that they understand it but they often just say that 3D looks really cool. I think 3D at 24 frames is interesting, but it's the 48 that actually allows 3D to almost achieve the potential that it can achieve because it's less eye strain and you have a sharper picture which creates more of the 3-dimensional world... Warner Bros. were very supportive. They just wanted us to prove that the 24 frame version would look normal, which it does, but once they were happy with that, on first day, when we had to press that button that said '48 frames' even though on that first day we started shooting at 48 FPS, you could probably say there wasn't a single cinema in the world that would project the movie in that format. It was a big leap of faith.

"The big thing to realize is that it's not an attempt to change the film industry. It's another choice. The projectors that can run at 48 frames can run at 24 frames - it doesn't have to be one thing or another. You can shoot a movie at 24 frames and have sequences at 48 or 60 frames within the body of the film. You can still do all the shutter-angle and strobing effects. It doesn't necessarily change how films are going to be made. It's just another choice that filmmakers have got and for me, it gives that sense of reality that I love in cinema.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

When did "not caring" become a good thing? Jackson just seems defensive.

 

[Marvolo]

Jackson offers rebuttal to the 48fps negative reception. I'm calling bullcrap on his insistence that "People under 20" don't have a problem with it. How many people under 20 got to be in one of the screenings and have written reviews?

Sorry, but i have to disagree with Jackson. You cant have24 fps films with 48 fps section in it. It clearly takes people time to adjust to 48 fps. Could you imagine the clash of watching a 24fps film and all of a sudden it goes into 48 fps and then back to 24fps 5 minutes later. This isnt a simple aspect ratio shift like 35mm to IMAX and back to 35mm. You cant mix and match 24fps and 48fps seamlessly in the same film. For him to even suggest that makes me wonder if he is thinking realistically. I admire him defending what he believes in, but this experiment isnt going the way he hoped and he needs to come to terms with it. It got a bad general audience reaction when it was shown off at convention and now others are not liking it at the premier. It isnt an age problem.

 

[redhawk23]

Well also what would be the point? Unless the disconcerting effects were intentional.

 

[Marvolo]

Furthermore, imo 48fps is not more immersive. Its increased clarity allows flaws in the film to be more easily seen which in most cases will pull someone out of a film.

Then there is the biggest problem of the increased frame rate being an obvious distraction which it is. If the audience has to spend the first fifteen minutes adjusting isnt that a flaw? Why would you want an audience to spend the first fifteen minutes distracted and adjusting. Shouldnt they be focusing on the dialogue and story and not the dang frame rate?

If i was a director I wouldnt be worrying about being the first to use shiny new tech. I would be striving to engage my audience and see to it that they get the story. Distracting them with high frame rate would be the last thing I would want to do.

 

[Brother Jack]

"The big thing to realize is that it's not an attempt to change the film industry. It's another choice. The projectors that can run at 48 frames can run at 24 frames - it doesn't have to be one thing or another. You can shoot a movie at 24 frames and have sequences at 48 or 60 frames within the body of the film. You can still do all the shutter-angle and strobing effects. It doesn't necessarily change how films are going to be made. It's just another choice that filmmakers have got and for me, it gives that sense of reality that I love in cinema.

I'm not sure James Cameron would agree with that.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Furthermore, imo 48fps is not more immersive. Its increased clarity allows flaws in the film to be more easily seen which in most cases will pull someone out of a film.

Then there is the biggest problem of the increased frame rate being an obvious distraction which it is. If the audience has to spend the first fifteen minutes adjusting isnt that a flaw? Why would you want an audience to spend the first fifteen minutes distracted and adjusting. Shouldnt they be focusing on the dialogue and story and not the dang frame rate?

If i was a director I wouldnt be worrying about being the first to use shiny new tech. I would be striving to engage my audience and see to it that they get the story. Distracting them with high frame rate seems would be the last thing I would do.

Which makes me wonder why you think he is still thinking of his story decisions are going to be just fine.

Everyone keeps on talking about how the story will be fine and it is the critics being overly critical. But Jackson's recent track record combined with his attention being so focused on the tech makes me wonder why there is so much confidence in him.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Zatanna]

6 films in one sitting...

*goes back to lurking*

 

[Marvolo]

Which makes me wonder why you think he is still thinking of his story decisions are going to be just fine.

Everyone keeps on talking about how the story will be fine and it is the critics being overly critical. But Jackson's recent track record combined with his attention being so focused on the tech makes me wonder why there is so much confidence in him.

Good point i can tell a difference in him this go around. It almost feels like the only reason he stepped up to direct was because he had to and because he got to experiment with 48fps. With LOTR it felt like a passion project and yoi cpuld see that. Here I just get this vibe that its a big experiment. But i could be reading to much into it. As long as I get to see the films in 24fps and they turn out good I dont care what his motivation is. But if said motivation results in three average or subpar films I will be really disappointed.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Good point i can tell a difference in him this go around. It almost feels like the only reason he stepped up to direct was because he had to and because he got to experiment with 48fps. With LOTR it felt like a passion project and yoi cpuld see that. Here I just get this vibe that its a big experiment. But i could be reading to much into it. As long as I get to see the films in 24fps and they turn out good I dont care what his motivation is. But if said motivation results in three average or subpar films I will be really disappointed.

Well put. I am at this place where I know I will be disappointed in some way, but I also feel like it will still work for me, to the point that I will be fully capable of looking past any flaws and enjoy the hell out of it.

 

[Quasimod0]

I've seen the man speak about doing the hobbit. He was reluctant to come back to such a big project, but then he got into the swing of things, and loves working with many of the same people. Doesn't seem to me at all that he isnt passionate. I don't care if he wants to implement some new technology. Innovations don't always work just right at first. Perhaps this will pave the way for the kinks to be worked out and we will be enjoying incredible looking 48fps films in the near future thanks to mr Jackson helping to get it started

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I've seen the man speak about doing the hobbit. He was reluctant to come back to such a big project, but then he got into the swing of things, and loves working with many of the same people. Doesn't seem to me at all that he isnt passionate. I don't care if he wants to implement some new technology. Innovations don't always work just right at first. Perhaps this will pave the way for the kinks to be worked out and we will be enjoying incredible looking 48fps films in the near future thanks to mr Jackson helping to get it started

And as George Lucas showed up, the introduction of tech on highly anticipated returns to franchises works so well.

It isn't the tech. It is the tech getting in the way of the goal of telling the best story as possible.

 

[Quasimod0]

The 48fps has little to do with the story. You don't even have to see it in that format.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The 48fps has little to do with the story. You don't even have to see it in that format.

It does if it becomes the director/writer's main goal. A distraction is a distraction.

 

[Marvolo]

The 48fps has little to do with the story. You don't even have to see it in that format.

It does when it distracts from the story which it is doing for the first ten to fifteen minutes that people require to adjust. Im sorry but any tech that requires that much adjustment time before an audience can fully engage has no business being in a film.

And before anyone says that years ago people had to adjust to color and sound, sound and color we see every day and both are perfectly natural to us. When I watch 48fps there is nothing natural looking about it. I dont see everything sped up like 48fps in my day to day life. Our eyes also see motion blur so to completely remove it looks very unnatural. Despite what these pushers of the tech would have me believe 24fps looks much closer to what my eyes see on a daily basis.

 

[Kane52630]

The 13 min special was pulled. Anyone got a new link?

[YT]pisaxtEARAE[/YT]

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You are awesome Kane.

I know I can sound like a contradiction about these films, but I truly am excited even with all my misgiving.

 

[HowardStark]

Has anyone fallowed his Blogs and interviews because it sure seemed to me that Jackson easily got back into middle earth once he decided he would direct it. As for King Kong it was long yes but it was visually stunning and I enjoyed the movie more so at home. Jackson also gave us District 9 as a producer. Lovely Bones is the only really bad film since the LOTR is ask me.

Yes I may sound like a defender but thats coming from hearing all this panic and slamming of this 48 compared to 24 deal. No one is trying to study the actors and story of Hobbit 1. I think it looks great in 2D and plan to see it that way and I plan to enjoy seeing the Dwarvs and more humor.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You just gave him credit for District 9, seriously?

 

[Victarion]

[YT]pisaxtEARAE[/YT]

I spy with my little eye, some pretty decent Goblin Town goblin costumes. Just sayin'.

 

[Bruce Malone]

It does when it distracts from the story which it is doing for the first ten to fifteen minutes that people require to adjust. Im sorry but any tech that requires that much adjustment time before an audience can fully engage has no business being in a film.

And before anyone says that years ago people had to adjust to color and sound, sound and color we see every day and both are perfectly natural to us. When I watch 48fps there is nothing natural looking about it. I dont see everything sped up like 48fps in my day to day life. Our eyes also see motion blur so to completely remove it looks very unnatural. Despite what these pushers of the tech would have me believe 24fps looks much closer to what my eyes see on a daily basis.

I've been very on the fence about 48 fps i've heard the good and the bad but upon more research it appears it may indeed be the future of film. There is nothing inherently natural about 24 fps.

It was chosen due to the fact it is the bare minimum of frames per second you need to match up with sound. Back in the late twenties when film stock was expensive that's the number they settled on. Thomas Edison actually thought 50fps was the minimum needed to accurately capture natural movement. Think of the flicker movement of old films shot in sub 24 fps.

24 fps has a distinct look for the very fact it does not represent what we see when we look out a window. That "cinema look" comes from the 24fps which is why live hd tv per se looks very different and more lifelike as well.

The arguments made by people saying you will be able to see the makeup or sets etc. reminds me of what people said when hd tv first came out and that things would look too fake and take you out of it. All that happened is that people in the biz adjusted. The same will happen if 48fps becomes more standard.

This is coming from someone who thinks 3D is a gimmick by the way but if this is an actual innovaton i'm quite interested.