Welcome Guest! To access all forums & features, please register an account or sign-in. → Why register?



Peter Jackson unsurprised by critics of Hobbit footage


36 replies to this topic - - - - -

#1 PurpleHaze420

    Neowinian

  • 352 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 01
  • Location: Wales

Posted 29 April 2012 - 23:00

Director Peter Jackson claims to be unsurprised by the mixed reaction to footage from his long-anticipated film The Hobbit earlier this week.

"It wasn't particularly surprising because it is something new," Jackson told the Hollywood Reporter. But he added: "Ultimately, it is different in a positive way, especially for 3D, especially for epic films." The 3D film has been shot at a rate of 48 frames per second, compared with the industry standard of 24 frames. The 10 minutes of unfinished footage, shown at the CinemaCon convention in Las Vegas last week, was criticised as uncinematic - with some detractors claiming it "looked like a made-for-TV movie".

SOURCE: http://www.bbc.co.uk...t-arts-17885833


#2 OP PurpleHaze420

    Neowinian

  • 352 posts
  • Joined: 05-November 01
  • Location: Wales

Posted 29 April 2012 - 23:02

The biggest thing i'm annoyed with is the fact that they've made the movie into a two-parter for monetary reason's when the book is tiny. Especially in comparision to the Lord of the Rings. Pfft.

#3 rajputwarrior

    olé olé olé olé

  • 12,924 posts
  • Joined: 20-June 04
  • Location: BC, CANADA

Posted 29 April 2012 - 23:11

View PostPurpleHaze420, on 29 April 2012 - 23:02, said:

The biggest thing i'm annoyed with is the fact that they've made the movie into a two-parter for monetary reason's when the book is tiny. Especially in comparision to the Lord of the Rings. Pfft.

eh, it's the best outta the books though. i haven't watched the footage. imma go into the movie with a clear mind.

#4 G_0

    Neowinian

  • 291 posts
  • Joined: 01-May 02

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:07

After what Jackson did for the "Un-filmable" LOTR trilogy, you would think people would be giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I guess not. This is going to end up like The Dark Knight Rises with people overhyping it themselves. No matter how excited I am for this movie as soon as it starts my mind is clear and I can only hope it will give me the same feeling as LOTRs did. It doesn't have to be the same, just needs to be good. I think Jackson will make sure of that as he's a huge fan and has all the right people to make this work around him.

Also, seriously people! Fans are dying for some footage from the movie that we haven't seen. Jackson is nice enough to throw out some unedited footage for the fans and what happens? People complain. IT'S UNEDITED!!!!!!!!

#5 Stetson

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,798 posts
  • Joined: 04-October 06

Posted 30 April 2012 - 01:14

That's the trouble with playing with framerate. Small changes in framerate and lighting can make something look like a feature film or a daytime soap opera.

#6 Razorwing

    藤原 拓海

  • 13,803 posts
  • Joined: 14-March 03
  • Location: Markham,Ontario
  • OS: Windows 8 / OSX Mountain Lion
  • Phone: HTC One

Posted 30 April 2012 - 14:24

It looked fine in the trailer. Not sure what the big fuss is about.

#7 vetMathachew

    Wise beyond my youth... that's what she said!

  • 11,041 posts
  • Joined: 19-September 04
  • Location: Spring, TX
  • OS: Windows 7

Posted 30 April 2012 - 14:32

View PostRazorwing, on 30 April 2012 - 14:24, said:

It looked fine in the trailer. Not sure what the big fuss is about.

The trailer does not look like it was filmed at a higher rate, though I'd guess there could be several reasons for that.

#8 HawkMan

    Badass Viking

  • 16,567 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway

Posted 30 April 2012 - 14:55

View PostG_0, on 30 April 2012 - 01:07, said:

After what Jackson did for the "Un-filmable" LOTR trilogy, you would think people would be giving him the benefit of the doubt, but I guess not. This is going to end up like The Dark Knight Rises with people overhyping it themselves. No matter how excited I am for this movie as soon as it starts my mind is clear and I can only hope it will give me the same feeling as LOTRs did. It doesn't have to be the same, just needs to be good. I think Jackson will make sure of that as he's a huge fan and has all the right people to make this work around him.

Also, seriously people! Fans are dying for some footage from the movie that we haven't seen. Jackson is nice enough to throw out some unedited footage for the fans and what happens? People complain. IT'S UNEDITED!!!!!!!!

You mean mostly disregard the books after the first movie and change the whole story around...

#9 +Jdawg683

    Neowinian ULTRAKILL

  • 11,353 posts
  • Joined: 01-September 03
  • Location: Cleveland, Ohio

Posted 30 April 2012 - 15:10

View PostG_0, on 30 April 2012 - 01:07, said:

Also, seriously people! Fans are dying for some footage from the movie that we haven't seen. Jackson is nice enough to throw out some unedited footage for the fans and what happens? People complain. IT'S UNEDITED!!!!!!!!
you missed the point - people arent complaining about the unedited footage, theyre complaining about the 48fps issue. since humans are so used to 24fps, suddenly 48fps looks terrible. we're not used to it, so it's going to look bad.

#10 zeta_immersion

    Neowinian Senior

  • 3,194 posts
  • Joined: 08-October 04
  • Location: Toronto

Posted 30 April 2012 - 15:15

human eye can detect 48 fps? ... really? ...

#11 jakem1

    Neowinian Wise One

  • 5,440 posts
  • Joined: 17-November 06

Posted 30 April 2012 - 15:21

View PostHawkMan, on 30 April 2012 - 14:55, said:

You mean mostly disregard the books after the first movie and change the whole story around...

+1

I loved the first film and was amazed by how authentic it was. The others were not nearly as good. I hope he doesn't make the same mistake with The Hobbit :(

I don't really see how Jackson can use the frame-rate of 3D films to support what he's doing with The Hobbit. 3D looks awful.

#12 Co_Co

    g status

  • 6,033 posts
  • Joined: 26-July 04
  • Location: Toronto, Canada

Posted 30 April 2012 - 15:24

48fps will be better for keeping the 3D smooth but i'd rather not see my future films in 3D and i severly dislike the amateur digicam look that higher 30/60fps give to video. ive never seen 48fps though :s

#13 vetDirtyLarry

    ®®\vers.12.vis.13.u.03.al\DL

  • 16,052 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 03
  • Location: dirty jersey
  • OS: Win 7 & 8 | OS X 10.8.3 | iOS 6.1.3
  • Phone: (Coming Soon) Galaxy S4

Posted 30 April 2012 - 16:32

View Postzeta_immersion, on 30 April 2012 - 15:15, said:

human eye can detect 48 fps? ... really? ...
Absolutely the human eye can detect the difference between 24 and 48 fps, which is what the article is stating.
Perhaps you need to read this if you feel otherwise.

#14 giantpotato

    Neowinian Senior

  • 2,992 posts
  • Joined: 27-January 04
  • Location: Montreal, Canada

Posted 30 April 2012 - 17:03

I'm going to withhold my judgement until I see 48fps 3D myself.

I wonder how they're going to handle this on Blu-Ray. Will they just release it at 24fps, or introduce a new profile for higher fps 1080p. 60fps is only a part of the spec for 720p.

#15 HawkMan

    Badass Viking

  • 16,567 posts
  • Joined: 31-August 04
  • Location: Norway

Posted 30 April 2012 - 17:16

View PostDirtyLarry, on 30 April 2012 - 16:32, said:


Absolutely the human eye can detect the difference between 24 and 48 fps, which is what the article is stating.
Perhaps you need to read this if you feel otherwise.

You can't really see it as such, but 48 will seem to be sharper