36 replies to this topic

[PurpleHaze420]

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

[PurpleHaze420]

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.

[rajputwarrior]

PurpleHaze420, 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.

[G_0]

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!!!!!!!!

[Stetson]

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.

[Razorwing]

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

[Mathachew]

Razorwing, 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.

[HawkMan]

G_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...

[+Jdawg683]

G_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.

[zeta_immersion]

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

[jakem1]

HawkMan, 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.

[Co_Co]

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

[DirtyLarry]

zeta_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.

[giantpotato]

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.

[HawkMan]

DirtyLarry, 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