The Hobbit Page 21

  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

  • Feanor 21 Dec 2011 18:29:55 14,049 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien_bibliography
  • Zizoo 21 Dec 2011 19:32:18 8,094 posts
    Seen 11 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    And to think, all this from a man born in Bloemfontein.

    Dis lekker in die Vrystaat!
  • Ged42 21 Dec 2011 21:34:45 7,700 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    Dirtbox wrote:
    TRAILER!



    Good grief, it looks amazing.
    Got a shiver at the dwarves singing, I was worried they'd mess up the songs, but that one looked and sounded great.

    I wonder if Smaug is being held back to the second film, since there's no sign of him, unless the FX department just haven't got him anywhere near ready for screentime yet.
  • Deleted user 21 December 2011 21:48:53
    He's credited for both films, so probably the latter.
  • mrpon 21 Dec 2011 21:55:21 28,414 posts
    Seen 53 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    I thought the dwarves were supposed to look ugly, like Gimli. Nesbitt looks like he's just come from a facial.

    Give yourself 5 or gig, you're worth it.

  • _Price_ 21 Dec 2011 22:44:51 3,072 posts
    Seen 22 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Good trailer. I wondered if they were going to show Gandalf tracking-down the 'Necromancer' in Mirkwood. Looks like he might be getting his own separate / expanded storyline. Or was that always going to be the plan?
  • Nasty 21 Dec 2011 23:32:05 4,741 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I understood it was two films because they were going to expand on a few thing like Dol Guldor and possibly some 1st age stuff.
  • Dirtbox 10 Jan 2012 09:20:18 77,454 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    Tom and Jerry animator Gene Deitch's long lost version of The Hobbit.

    +1 / Like / Tweet this post

  • HoriZon 9 Feb 2012 08:14:18 13,495 posts
    Seen 28 minutes ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Billy Connolly has been announced as the latest addition to the cast of The Hobbit.

    I used to be a gamer like you, then I took an arrow in the knee.

  • Nasty 10 Feb 2012 12:49:46 4,741 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Hmm. He can be cheesy, shite or passable (Mrs Brown). Never seen him being good. He always seems to be putting on one of the daft voices he uses in his standup or his faux-posh Glaesga accent.

    Hope he makes a good Dain and doesn't fuck it up.
  • RobAnybody 24 Apr 2012 23:33:36 881 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    The Hobbit using the 'new' 48fps filming method isn't going down too well (based on a 10 minute screening today):

    "here's what The Hobbit looked like to me: a hi-def version of the 1970s I, Claudius. It is drenched in a TV-like - specifically 70s era BBC - video look. People on Twitter have asked if it has that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy, and the answer is an emphatic YES."

    "The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live... but these looked like sets.
    The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely."


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

    And that's just from one person.

    It's being bad-mouthed a lot on other blogs, Twitter as well, from those who were present at the screening.

    Edited by RobAnybody at 23:34:17 24-04-2012
  • Deleted user 24 April 2012 23:48:20
    Hehe. It always amazes me how this cultural association stuff works so heavily.
  • Ged42 25 Apr 2012 09:00:03 7,700 posts
    Seen 29 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    I wonder if this will be one of those things that one harcore movie buffs notice and everyone else doesn't give a shit about.
  • kalel 25 Apr 2012 09:16:58 86,242 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    As I understand it, the problem is this.

    Film has been shot at 24fps for the best part of a century, and because of those people have naturally learnt how to shoot a film to avoid the pitfalls of this (stutter etc). So certain panning shots are done in a specific way etc. This has now become common practice. It's how you shoot film.

    So, the move to 48fps will now need a whole new way of shooting, but nobody has developed that yet. So shooting a film in 48fps will naturally look quite weird as it's still being done in the style that was based around 24fps.

    These are the early days of the digital revolution, and it will take time to learn how to use the new tech properly. In the same way early films with sound and colour look totally different to how they are today (and had mixed reactions when they came out), we are going to have similar stuff today. And films in twenty years will probably look completely different to how they do right now, much as a film from the 70s looks completely different to a film from the 50s, even though the tech was pretty similar.
  • neilka 25 Apr 2012 09:20:24 15,623 posts
    Seen 33 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Isn't it a non-issue given that the problem can always be fixed retroactively by... removing every second frame?

    Can most projectors currently in cinemas even project 48fps?
  • Deckard1 25 Apr 2012 09:20:30 27,051 posts
    Seen 1 minute ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Ged42 wrote:
    I wonder if this will be one of those things that one harcore movie buffs notice and everyone else doesn't give a shit about.
    I doubt it. You ever watched a film on one of those TV's that ups the framerate? Looks fucking awful.

    Edited by Deckard1 at 09:21:32 25-04-2012
  • OllyJ 25 Apr 2012 09:56:35 3,245 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    I remember watching the fantastic "Stardust" for like the 3rd time round my mums with my kids when she purchased a new TV, it was on Sky Movies HD and it just looked utter shit and I remember thinking how much it broke the illusion, everything looked cheap like it was missing that cinematic magic.

    So I took the remmote control in hand and would you believe it she had Tru-Motion on, now this is what I imagine The hobbit looks like and anything that makes you think more about what it looks like than what the movie feels like is a bad thing.

    I totally understand what the article is saying as I had the same fear about moving to HD if films looked as shit as Stardust did running in "Tru Motion".
  • disusedgenius 25 Apr 2012 10:19:57 5,195 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    FPS has nothing to do with Digital, apart from the fact that it gives you the option.
  • kalel 25 Apr 2012 10:28:24 86,242 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Erm, yes, exactly. It's an option with digital.
  • OllyJ 25 Apr 2012 10:49:41 3,245 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Yes, the fear was unfounded as it can be turned off, but I caught a glimpse of the future nontheless.
  • disusedgenius 25 Apr 2012 10:55:07 5,195 posts
    Seen 18 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Yep: a glimpse of becoming an old man harking back to some golden age of the past. Progress sucks... :(
  • kalel 25 Apr 2012 10:58:34 86,242 posts
    Seen 1 hour ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Making The Hobbit in 48fps was a mistake, but that doesn't mean it won't be used to good effect in the future.

    Some things will look believable "real". Other things will need to look more classically cinematic for us to believe them.
  • ReadingAid 25 Apr 2012 11:04:54 212 posts
    Seen 8 months ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I used to sell TVs for Sony and yeah I guess it's the same as the whole 100-200hz framerate increase our TVs used to do. Now I loved it I thought it was so smooth and really added an extra sheen to hi def, I can really notice the stutter on 25fps now but my friends nd some customers hated it.

    This will really divide audiences when it's released, it's also worth mentioning that Peter Jackson also mentioned that the footage was unfinished.
  • Deleted user 25 April 2012 11:07:25
    Sorry if I'm getting confused here but is that thing you sometimes see in cheap American shows where everything is bright and defined but looks really artificial? I hope not as I hate it makes everything look cheap.
  • nickthegun 25 Apr 2012 11:09:50 58,782 posts
    Seen 25 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Thats because it used to be shot on video tape rather than film to save money.

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    He totally called it

  • RobAnybody 25 Apr 2012 12:05:50 881 posts
    Seen 5 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    neilka wrote:


    Can most projectors currently in cinemas even project 48fps?
    Only with a software upgrade, which apparently costs about 10,000 Dollars .........

    "... exhibitors/theater owners will need to upgrade the software on their 3D project[or]s to handle 48fps, and it's not cheap (about $10,000)."

    http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/68467640.html
  • barchetta 25 Apr 2012 21:11:47 1,315 posts
    Seen 17 minutes ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I do like the juxtaposition of this thread bemoaning 48fps and the gaming threads salivating over 60fps+!

    I know it is probably chalk and cheese and yes, our brains have become adapred to accept 24fps but I really do dislike some of the choppiness seen at the cinema and on hdtv.
    I'm looking forward to seeing this latest footage at a res to do it justice to be honest, the idea of a smoother rate appeals to me and I would imagine it would allow action sequences to be resolved more clearly.
    By the sound of the negativity it isn't simply down to the fps but the lighting and tone of the film... Maybe this can be tweaked and is all part of the learning curve I guess.
    Forgive my ignorance but aren't these 'TruMotion' gimmicks interpolating between frames, is the effect absolutely identical to 48fps?

    Edited by barchetta at 21:14:58 25-04-2012
  • OllyJ 25 Apr 2012 23:05:40 3,245 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    It probably gives you a good idea of the effect.
  • Lukus 25 Apr 2012 23:14:12 18,996 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    RobAnybody wrote:
    neilka wrote:


    Can most projectors currently in cinemas even project 48fps?
    Only with a software upgrade, which apparently costs about 10,000 Dollars .........

    "... exhibitors/theater owners will need to upgrade the software on their 3D project[or]s to handle 48fps, and it's not cheap (about $10,000)."

    http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/68467640.html
    They should just torrent it :D

    Paintings & Photographs

  • Brave_Dave 26 Apr 2012 00:08:21 109 posts
    Seen 1 year ago
    Registered 2 years ago
    Tru-Motion is fucking fantastic. Try watching Baraka on BR with it...Same goes for local dimming, beats any plasma hands down for inky blacks.
  • Page

    of 52 First / Last

Log in or register to reply