Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 7

[Destructus86]

Do we really live in such a sad ADD world that every scene needs to keep pushing the story? We can't just see the daily life of Bilbo, etc..? So sad that that is a downside to movies from a critic view.

 

[jmc]

I did address that in that post or the last one but the same issues were brought up when hd tv first came out. The people behind the scenes simply stepped their games up and adjusted for the new clarity they had to deal with.

Make-up and prosthetic, set-designs became much better.

If anything this tech could be a boon to the movie make-up and prosthetic industry, something that has probably been lacking with the switch to cg for so much. From what some have described it as this could be just the natural progression to the HD stage of film making. 24 fps is not some golden figure it was something decided upon 80 years ago purely for cost reasons. FPS could have been much higher from the get go had film-stock not been so pricey back then.

The thing is though film budgets these days are already ridiculous and I fail to see studios adding further costs to ensure sets and prosthetic are more believable. The more detail you put into these sets/costumes etc the more it's going to cost, it's more labour, more time, it's not just a matter of them 'upping their game', you're talking about essentially building sets and creating effects that have to look 100% real.

 

[CGHulk]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - TV Spot #11
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10101880523293066

 

[HowardStark]

Just saw the goblin Chase clip. The goblins look really fake but the scene was fun, love the inventive killing.

Um hate to tell people but the Goblins look like the fake Goblins because they are CGI fake Goblins. We all know that weither they are cgi or a stunt actor. But these Goblins are in a fake world made with blue screen. I think the scene looks good compared to the cheesy looking Clone and Droid Star Wars battles.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Um hate to tell people but the Goblins look like the fake Goblins because they are CGI fake Goblins. We all know that weither they are cgi or a stunt actor. But these Goblins are in a fake world made with blue screen. I think the scene looks good compared to the cheesy looking Clone and Droid Star Wars battles.

You don't have to crawl to this film's defense every time someone makes a less than glowing comment on the film.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The thing is though film budgets these days are already ridiculous and I fail to see studios adding further costs to ensure sets and prosthetic are more believable. The more detail you put into these sets/costumes etc the more it's going to cost, it's more labour, more time, it's not just a matter of them 'upping their game', you're talking about essentially building sets and creating effects that have to look 100% real.

Exactly, if movies are costing 200 to 350mil now imagine how much they will cost to update the costumes and sets for 48frames. That cost is going to be made up by the consumer. Imagine, every blockbuster movie costing 350 at least to like 500mil. Yep the tickets are going to be 35 to 45 dollars for one person just so the studios can make a profit. If true, the fakey costume and sets thing is going to be an enormous problem for the studios if 48 frames becomes the only game in town.

 

[Bruce Malone]

The thing is though film budgets these days are already ridiculous and I fail to see studios adding further costs to ensure sets and prosthetic are more believable. The more detail you put into these sets/costumes etc the more it's going to cost, it's more labour, more time, it's not just a matter of them 'upping their game', you're talking about essentially building sets and creating effects that have to look 100% real.

The whole point though of these new innovations is to get butts into seats. Less and less people are going to movies these days, the rise of home theaters probably plays a role in that. So they need to find that edge that you can't get at home or watching on your laptop, 48 fps is one of those.

While it may add to the cost of budgets if it creates an urge for more people to come and see it in theaters as opposed to waiting til it's on netflix they may feel that it's well worth it.

Also the more studios and directors adopting a technology the cheaper it becomes. James cameron had to wait a decade for the tech to become cheap enough for the 3d he used in avatar now that process is much cheapre and others have adopted it.

 

[redhawk23]

Exactly, if movies are costing 200 to 350mil now imagine how much they will cost to update the costumes and sets for 48frames. That cost is going to be made up by the consumer. Imagine, every blockbuster movie costing 350 at least to like 500mil. Yep the tickets are going to be 35 to 45 dollars for one person just so the studios can make a profit. If true, the fakey costume and sets thing is going to be an enormous problem for the studios if 48 frames becomes the only game in town.

Unlike the whole deal with digital replacing film, 48fps won't ever rule out 24 as an option as any camera or projector that can handel 48 can just easy be calibrated for 24. 48 will never be the only game in town, especially with how little the consumer interest in it is.

 

[redhawk23]

The whole point though of these new innovations is to get butts into seats. Less and less people are going to movies these days, the rise of home theaters probably plays a role in that. So they need to find that edge that you can't get at home or watching on your laptop, 48 fps is one of those.

While it may add to the cost of budgets if it creates an urge for more people to come and see it in theaters as opposed to waiting til it's on netflix they may feel that it's well worth it.

Also the more studios and directors adopting a technology the cheaper it becomes. James cameron had to wait a decade for the tech to become cheap enough for the 3d he used in avatar now that process is much cheapre and others have adopted it.

They assume that people give a s*** or that they will prefer it. Also home tv's very easily could handle 48 fps if they find away to store the data for home video.

 

[Quasimod0]

This thread is no longer fun to come to. It's nothin but arguing about 48fps by the same 5 or so people.

 

[Victarion]

48 fps...Crashing this thread. With no survivors.

I don't really care for slice of life stuff unless it kickstarts character development. Such as the prolonged time in the Shire in FOTR. We saw how laid back, relaxed and bucolic life was for the hobbits.

 

[jmc]

The whole point though of these new innovations is to get butts into seats. Less and less people are going to movies these days, the rise of home theaters probably plays a role in that. So they need to find that edge that you can't get at home or watching on your laptop, 48 fps is one of those.

While it may add to the cost of budgets if it creates an urge for more people to come and see it in theaters as opposed to waiting til it's on netflix they may feel that it's well worth it.

Also the more studios and directors adopting a technology the cheaper it becomes. James cameron had to wait a decade for the tech to become cheap enough for the 3d he used in avatar now that process is much cheapre and others have adopted it.

You've still missed the point I made though in regards to the additional costs in man hours. The only way to make something look 100% real is if you put in the extra man hours to do it, it requires set builders to make things look extra believable using better materials, costume designers to add more details and use the best fabrics, make up artists to do more work to ensure prosthetics look genuine etc. With 24fps you can get away using cheaper materials due to the nature of the frame rate.

 

[Boom]

I'm almost starting to wonder if Jackson should have risked enraging the Tolkien fanbase and killed off a few of the dwarves, because it sounds like he's having a hard time managing a group of fourteen characters (fifteen with Gandalf).

 

[jacobed]

Um hate to tell people but the Goblins look like the fake Goblins because they are CGI fake Goblins. We all know that weither they are cgi or a stunt actor. But these Goblins are in a fake world made with blue screen. I think the scene looks good compared to the cheesy looking Clone and Droid Star Wars battles.

Attack of the Clones was 10 years ago, this goblin should look better than they did but they dont. Caesar and Maurice were complete fake cg creations in a real world so they needed to blend in even more than these goblins and they were the most life like creations I've ever seen.

 

[Marvolo]

Attack of the Clones was 10 years ago, this goblin should look better than they did but they dont. Caesar and Maurice were complete fake cg creations in a real world so they needed to blend in even more than these goblins and they were the most life like creations I've ever seen.

Caesar had some iffy moments, but Maurice was, dare I say it, perfect

 

[CGHulk]

This thread is no longer fun to come to. It's nothin but arguing about 48fps by the same 5 or so people.

Just tune them out as I do.

 

[HowardStark]

Early today I kinda got too worked up and had an episode and had chest pains and had to go to the hospital. They think it was just anxiety not angina which my father had. Will know on Tuesday.

I defend the film too much because I just have faith Its going to be amazing to see. I don't really mind the 48 because plan to see it in 2D. If some Goblins look not as good as costumed Goblins then i can over look it. I can because I plan on wanting to study the whole movie which is the performances and how there gonna do 3 movies out of a small book.

In the clips Balin looks wonderful to me and Thorin looked heroic. I am passionate about all Things Tolkien.

The Hobbit is my favorite childhood story. I am a big critic of it being great but for some reason from all that I have seen its in good hands. Based on clips trailers and the blogs.

 

[jmc]

^ Hope you're ok man.

 

[HowardStark]

Ah I am as ok as I'll ever be. Can someone tell me why is The Great Goblin so much bigger then regular Goblins.

 

[Boom]

It's possible that The Great Goblin is a boldog - a lesser Maiar spirit in orc/goblin form.

 

[Still Wynning]

It's possible that The Great Goblin is a boldog - a lesser Maiar spirit in orc/goblin form.

Maiar? As in, the same race as Gandalf?

Why the heck would a powerful being like that settle for such a lowly, grotesque form as a fat, slimy goblin?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You don't have to crawl to this film's defense every time someone makes a less than glowing comment on the film.

Early today I kinda got too worked up and had an episode and had chest pains and had to go to the hospital. They think it was just anxiety not angina which my father had. Will know on Tuesday.

I defend the film too much because I just have faith Its going to be amazing to see. I don't really mind the 48 because plan to see it in 2D. If some Goblins look not as good as costumed Goblins then i can over look it. I can because I plan on wanting to study the whole movie which is the performances and how there gonna do 3 movies out of a small book.

In the clips Balin looks wonderful to me and Thorin looked heroic. I am passionate about all Things Tolkien.

The Hobbit is my favorite childhood story. I am a big critic of it being great but for some reason from all that I have seen its in good hands. Based on clips trailers and the blogs.

It isn't that you defend the film that is the problem, it is that you do so by making not so great points. Makes you come off like a fanboy. You know, like giving Peter Jackson credit for a film he had little to no creative input into.

The Hobbit is my favorite book and one of my favorite stories. That doesn't mean I need to ignore what is right in front of my face.

Do we really live in such a sad ADD world that every scene needs to keep pushing the story? We can't just see the daily life of Bilbo, etc..? So sad that that is a downside to movies from a critic view.

There is a daily life and there is daily life in excruciating detail on film. At some point you are just simply waiting for the story to progress.

 

[HowardStark]

It isn't that you defend the film that is the problem, it is that you do so by making not so great points. Makes you come off like a fanboy. You know, like giving Peter Jackson credit for a film he had little to no creative input into.

The Hobbit is my favorite book and one of my favorite stories. That doesn't mean I need to ignore what is right in front of my face.


There is a daily life and there is daily life in excruciating detail on film. At some point you are just simply waiting for the story to progress.

I am not blinded by my faith. I just think people are dwelling on The 48 thing too much and need to not be so negative nelly about a few reviews.
Its simply don't see it in 48. See it in 2D like The LOTR.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I am not blinded by my faith. I just think people are dwelling on The 48 thing too much and need to not be so negative nelly about a few reviews.
Its simply don't see it in 48. See it in 2D like The LOTR.

You seem to think the 48fps is the only talking point. It clearly isn't.

The problem with the cgi is the cgi doesn't look great. We live in a world after ROTS, Avatar, POTC, Bayformers, Iron-Man, and Harry Potter. Your cgi needs to look consistently great. These aren't small budget films. District 9 looks far more convincing.

Perhaps many are willingly to sit in a theater and watch the most mundane things. That doesn't mean critics need to be like "oh that ok, I am sure the fans will like it."

 

[Bruce Malone]

I recently re-watched the fellowship and just basing it on the trailers/clips they've released for the hobbit i don't notice that much of an improvement in the cg department despite a decade plus in time, at least the kind of improvements you would expect over that period.

I know TLOR was ahead of it's time in cg but why shouldn't the hobbit be as well i suppose?