Peter Jackson unsurprised by critics of Hobbit footage


Recommended Posts

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

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.

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.

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!!!!!!!!

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

and 1080i

The 24 to 48 effect is the same thing that was brought about with running films with smooth motion turned on. TV sets when using this feature give the picture a POP or Soap Opera/Real Life effect. I for one do not use these features. Yes they crisp up the image, but we are so used to seeing 24fps/60fps. I believe eventually the change will be made; we just have to get used to it.

No one likes change. I see the benefits with 3D and sharpness. So unless your watching these films in 3d, I suspect a negative effect.

Artificially created 50/60 fps from 24 is not the same as real 48. It will however indeed look sharper and pop more. The problem is on ever existing non 48 capable systems, you can't just cut every second frame, then it'll appear jerky or like watching a cartoon. So the alternative is to artificially merge or morph every second frame with the next. Which again will create an artificial "feel" to the picture.

It would have worked better with say 96 fps. As merging 4 frames or sub frames not one would create a much better effect than two.

Are people really complaining that a movie will have higher FPS rate than usual, horribly bad, 24?

Thats is like complaining that your FPS game is running at 60 FPS instead of 30.

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

Well the trailer footage and the final footage should be the same for fps. It doesn't make sense to have different fps for the trailer itself. If it is filmed at 48fps, everything is at 48fps.

When I go to the movies to watch something in 3D, say Hugo, I loved how the 3D was done but got eye strained with the judder from panning shots and fast scenes. Also even with Avatar I got "tired" of the 3D effect later on in the movie. So what Mr. Jackson has done is solve this issue when seeing something in 3D and making it smoother and easier on the eyes. I'm an observer of this problem since Avatar came up (because of the eye strain) and have high hopes for the Hobbit to solving this issue and really feeling I'm in the Shire. People said it looked too perfect and somewhat fake (Although the AintitcoolNews guy said it wasn't a negative effect on him), but they failed to aknowledge that it was unfinished scenes (some with green screens visible).

Personally I like the smoother effect on my TV, looks more lifelike and vivid and when I watch something else without the effect it just looks dated and can tell the difference more of the slower framerate.

Well the trailer footage and the final footage should be the same for fps. It doesn't make sense to have different fps for the trailer itself. If it is filmed at 48fps, everything is at 48fps.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere the trailers will all be 24fps, with half the frames missing. Just because it's filmed at 48fps, doesn't mean it will be displayed at that frame rate. I even read some theaters are planning to play the film at 24fps just to avoid complaints. Other theaters are probably incapable of displaying 48fps.

the movie will look smoother ? less cutting frames in fast moving action.

Also whats a challenge is for the CGI team. As more framerates mean more detail and more frames to render an effect and as they will look smoother (sharper) they would have to do a better job at it.

Are people really complaining that a movie will have higher FPS rate than usual, horribly bad, 24?

Thats is like complaining that your FPS game is running at 60 FPS instead of 30.

This is what I would of thoughts, however movies don't seem to lag even at 24FPS. What's the difference between a game running at 60fps and a movie at 60fps? Most games where the fps gets down to 24 or less it can seem very jittery, the higher FPS (before tearing occurs) the better. Why isn't it like that for a movie?

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Ummmm that is what is it supposed to do. Just turn if off in settings if you do not want it analyzing your open tabs. Chrome does the same thing with Gemini. Sarfari will do the samething after Apple's AI and even more so with the release of their 27 versions that is now powered by Googles LLM/ML models. Understanding why it is doing it and how it can help you vs jumping to some conspiracy theroy is a much better approach. As long as it can be turned off, all is good. Yes the default should be off but the a lot of people would never discover these features.
    • Just another reason (aside from many others) not to use Edge. Firefox 153.0b5 DEx64 has a similar feature added recently in prior builds that I will turn off at some point when I get around to it. It's the new "Something looks suspicious" page that pops up here and there. It cleverly hides itself between web pages that I've actually visited; as a result, you know, of selecting a web page and telling the browser where to go. The interesting thing is that it does not produce these warnings from pages that I, as the only intelligent user of the browser in my system, have ever directed the browser to open! What seems to be happening is that the browser looks at all the goofy ad links on a web page I do actually open and selects one that "looks suspicious" and then creates the "something looks suspicious" web page, which is neatly inserted, as mentioned, between web pages my RB ("real brain") has directed the browser to load in a session. The thing is, I usually look at links I am considering to follow before I ask the browser to load them, and in cases I have noticed where the link does indeed look suspicious, most of the time I will choose to not follow the link at all. Doesn't everyone do this or something similar? I am picky about what I voluntarily load... (I don't like links that start off fine, with a site designaiton that seems normal enough but then is followed by indecipherable alphanumeric strings many, many lines long, etc. I tend to reject those because they look suspicious. They may not be, but I don't care... I'll stay with Firefox, of course, if for no other reason than they usually let you turn off the junk you don't like. And because it isn't Edge... But at some point Microsoft will come to realize that putting your bookmarks on the left side is a Good Thing for a lot of people, just as Microsoft discovered when it had the bright idea of nailing the Windows taskbar to the bottom of the screen, when for decades Microsoft browsers had left that placement up to the user. They have finally reversed the obscenity of that decision. Finally.
    • Google was using the old CATPCHAs data to train their LLMs. What is the say they won't use this camera data of users to train their LLM? these companies need some strict regulations!
    • Depends on what you need. Might be a bit clearer on what you plan to do with it. Sort of a waste if you get the newest and greatest, but don't know how to use it.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
    • First Post
      carols23 earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      Tom Willson earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      513
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      258
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      94
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!