Cube

The Hobbit

Recommended Posts

So it's the framerate that gives feature films and home videos such distinct qualities? I've always wondered!

 

Yep. Presumably the industry kept at 24fps for so long because of the limits of the mechanical cameras and projectors. A film reel shot at 48fps would be physically twice as long, and they're very big as they are. They'd have to capture it and play it back twice as fast. I assume these higher framerates are possible because of digital cameras and projectors with no moving parts.

 

Personally, I'm all for it, as I always preferred the higher framerate of video. Red Dwarf, for instance, switched to film for Series 7 onwards and didn't look as good

 

James Cameron is set to film Avatar 2 in 60 fps: http://www.techradar.com/news/home-cinema/peter-jackson-to-shoot-the-hobbit-at-48fps-942373

 

Would 48fps and 60fps be viewable on normal TVs and from Blu-Ray? I know some HDTVs have a 24fps mode, but I'm not sure exactly what that's for (I assume matching it exactly), so maybe there will be 48/60fps modes on future TVs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's also something to do with the human eye not being able to keep up after 60pfs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so maybe there will be 48/60fps modes on future TVs?

 

There already is. It's called 60 hz. Or even 120 hz if you're feeling exotic.

 

One of the reasons things are shot in 24fps is to give films that cinematic "feel". 48fps might make it look like a home movie or something, lol. Though Jackson seems very visual, I don't think this will be the case.

 

It's the other way around. 24fps feels "Cinematic" because that's what frame rate film has always been shot at. Hence why it's traditional. It's taken this long to go to 48 and beyond because it will cost even more.

 

On 48fps film, you will instantly need twice as much film. With visual effects you will be rendering twice as many frames. This means twice as long to render them. It's possible now because based on computing power in render farms, you could say.. render a shot from transformers twice now, in the same time as you could back once.

Of course it would be a pretty big piss take to do a 48fps WITH post processed 3D. That would be fucking harsh haha.

But I doubt anyone would be as insane and heartless to do that.

Edited by Tissue Town

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jackson said he's hoping more cinemas will be capable of screening 48FPS films by the end of next year. Should we assume that cinemas are going to introduce another pricing tier to watch it at 48FPS?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be an odd thing to do tier pricing for. I would think that most digital screens are capable of 48Hz/fps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Personally, I'm all for it, as I always preferred the higher framerate of video. Red Dwarf, for instance, switched to film for Series 7 onwards and didn't look as good

 

That's all well for a TV show, but for a film you want to keep that cinematic feel with 24ps. It also keeps it in line with the Rings Trilogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Final Titles and Release Dates:

 

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/117/1171505p1.html

 

New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures and MGM have announced the titles and release dates for filmmaker Peter Jackson's two-film adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's enduringly popular masterpiece The Hobbit. The first film, titled The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, will be released on December 14, 2012. The second film, titled The Hobbit: There and Back Again, is slated for release the following year, on December 13, 2013.

2012 is gonna be another awesome year for movies what with Batman and The Avengers aswell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Hobbit" follows the journey of title character Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who is swept into an epic quest to reclaim the lost Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor, which was long ago conquered by the dragon Smaug. Approached out of the blue by the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). Their journey will take them into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Giant Spiders, Shapeshifters and Sorcerers.

 

Although their goal lies to the East and the wastelands of the Lonely Mountain first they must escape the goblin tunnels, where Bilbo meets the creature that will change his life forever… Gollum (Andy Serkis).

 

Here, alone with Gollum, on the shores of an underground lake, the unassuming Bilbo Baggins not only discovers depths of guile and courage that surprise even him, he also gains possession of Gollum’s "precious" ring that holds unexpected and useful qualities… A simple, gold ring that is tied to the fate of all Middle-Earth in ways Bilbo cannot begin to know.

 

the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-20110713111341600-000.jpg

 

Source - IGN

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great trailer! :D

 

Gives you that lovely warm feeling, being back in The Shire and that world again. Plus showed just enough to really build the excitement without giving anything away from the look/rest of the film! (although I've read the book anyway but still)

 

Really looking forward to it!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is excite.

 

I really need to read the books actually, I've only ever seen the LoTR films but love them. Should I read the Hobbit first or the trilogy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is excite.

 

I really need to read the books actually, I've only ever seen the LoTR films but love them. Should I read the Hobbit first or the trilogy?

May as well read The Hobbit First. It's the way it was intended and not too long either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I found an old copy of the Hobbit in my parents bookcase, so read it I shall!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh... :blank:

 

http://uk.movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

 

The Hobbit ... Didn't Look So Good

 

Warners screens 10 minutes at their CinemaCon panel.

 

Warner Bros. screened roughly 10 minutes of footage from The Hobbit today at their CinemaCon presentation in Las Vegas. The footage was projected in 3D at 48 frames per second for theater owners and press attending the conference.

 

A taped intro from director Peter Jackson preceded the footage. There is no honest discussion that can be had about this Hobbit footage without emphasizing the 48fps presentation. The film was shot this way and will be digitally projected this way, as well as presented in 3D. So what does 48fps movie footage look like as opposed to your usual 24fps theatrical movie experience? In this reporter's opinion, it looks like live television or hi-def video. And it didn't look particularly good. Yes, this is shocking, but I was actually let down by the Hobbit footage, as were a number of the other journalists that I spoke with afterward.

 

It looked like an old Doctor Who episode, or a videotaped BBC TV production. It was as shocking as when The Twilight Zone made the boneheaded decision to switch from film to tape one season, and where perfectly good stories were ruined by that aesthetic. Here, there were incredibly sharp, realistic images where colors seem more vivid and brighter than on film, but the darker scenes were especially murky (and the 3D only dims that image even more). Frankly, it was jarring to see Gandalf, Bilbo or the dwarves in action against CG-created characters or even to move quickly down a rocky passage. The whipping of a camera pan or the blur of movement was unsettling.

 

While 48fps may create a more realistic, "you are there" picture quality, it actually works against The Hobbit from the 10 minutes of footage we saw. This undeniable "reality" kept pulling me out of the movie rather than immersing me fully into its world as the Lord of the Rings films did; the very fantasy element, the artifice of it all (whether it's the wigs, fake beards or CG monsters) was plainly, at times painfully, evident. There was none of the painterly gentleness that film offers a fantasy film, as was so beautifully the case with the original (shot on film) LOTR trilogy. I fully expect the 48fps issue to become the much-talked about "mumbling Bane" flap to come out of CinemaCon.

 

The best sequence shown was one between Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and Gollum (once again played by Andy Serkis). The latter is his old, split personality self as he debates between killing Bilbo or helping him out. Bilbo finally agrees to play a game of riddles with Gollum. If he wins, Gollum will show Bilbo the way to Bilbo's destination. If Gollum wins? Well, it makes you wonder if Hobbit tastes like chicken. One reason why the 48fps wasn't as distracting here was that it was an extended sequence, the longest by far of the clips shown from An Unexpected Journey today. The CG-ness of Gollum was more evident in this digital format than it was on film back in the LOTR trilogy, but you'd be hard-pressed not to feel goosebumps seeing Serkis back in deceitful action as Gollum.

 

Also back in action in the footage screened today? Orlando Bloom's archer Legolas and Elijah Wood's Frodo Baggins, although we only got a few glimpses of those two characters. There were also scenes shown between Gandalf the Grey and Radagast the Brown, as well as an action-oriented one seeing Bilbo imperiled by three giant troll-like monsters before Thorin Oakenshield and the dwarves come to his rescue. There were some moments of Ian Holm as the elder Bilbo, life in the Shire, and the heroes' journeys across the snow-capped mountaintops of New Zealand, er, Middle-earth. Jackson stressed in his intro that the footage was unfinished, and this was evident in many of the green screen backdrop scenes we saw, such as the Rivendell one between Gandalf, Elrond and Galadriel.

 

I didn't go into CinemaCon expecting to write anything less than great things about The Hobbit, but the very aesthetic chosen by Peter Jackson has made me very nervous about this film. It just looked ... cheap, like a videotaped or live TV version of Lord of the Rings and not the epic return to Tolkien that we have all so long been waiting for. I still have hope for The Hobbit, but I'd be lying if I didn't say my expectations for the film have now been greatly diminished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I have absolutely no idea why Peter Jackson did this. It is an utterly barbaric idea, and will make the whole series appear completely mismatched.

 

There is a reason why Instagram is so popular. People don't like seeing things crystal clear just because they can. Film makes things look better, whether it makes you "feel there" or not is irrelevant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly... there's obviously a fundamental reason why film haven't been doing it.

 

He had to try and be different!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even with older TV shows like SG-1, I thought the older seasons looked more "authentic" as the cameras weren't as good, so the sets looked less "set like". The polystyrene ruins, etc, looked more realistic. Whereas in season 10, with better cameras, everything looked a little... cheaper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds to me like "it's different...I don't like it".

 

When I got my new TV (which adds frames) it looked odd. After about 20 minutes I got used to it and it looked amazingly smooth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sounds to me like "it's different...I don't like it".

 

When I got my new TV (which adds frames) it looked odd. After about 20 minutes I got used to it and it looked amazingly smooth.

 

This.

 

10chars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the facility to simulate this kinda effect on my television. Gonna have to put it back on and remind myself why I turned it off in the first place.

 

Then again, an artificial frame increase will never look as good as something pure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peter Jackson on Hobbit Criticisms

 

Director says audiences will (need to) get used to 48fps.

 

The Hobbit director Peter Jackson has responded to criticisms about the 48 frames per second footage from his film shown at this week's CinemaCon. And he's basically saying that people will just have to get used to it.

 

Jackson told Entertainment Weekly that the 48fps train isn't going to get derailed and that the "technology is going to keep evolving."

 

"At first it's unusual because you've never seen a movie like this before. It's literally a new experience, but you know, that doesn't last the entire experience of the film; not by any stretch, after 10 minutes or so," said Jackson. "That's a different experience than if you see a fast-cutting montage at a technical presentation."

 

"A couple of the more negative commenters from CinemaCon said that in the Gollum and Bilbo scene [which took place later in the presentation] they didn't mind it and got used to that," the director added. "That was the same 48 frames the rest of the reel was. I just wonder if it they were getting into the dialogue, the characters and the story. That's what happens in the movie. You settle into it."

 

Warner Bros. brass want filmgoers to know that they will still have options when The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opens this December 14, including 3D, 2D and IMAX 3D and in both 24fps and 48fps.

I don't understand, they surely can't be releasing 4 versions of the film into cinema's?...

... 3D 24fps, 3D 48fps, 2D 24fps, 2D 48fps???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't understand, they surely can't be releasing 4 versions of the film into cinema's?...

... 3D 24fps, 3D 48fps, 2D 24fps, 2D 48fps???

 

Heh, it's a bad time to work in the Cinema business. The person who organises the timetables is probably looking at that and crying in a corner somewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites