The Hobbit Trilogy (Dec 14, 2012; Dec 13, 2013; Dec 17, 2014)

[radagast]

In case anyone is interested: I saw 4 Hobbit posters at Walmart for $5 each. One is a map. Another is a group shot. Another is like a movie poster, and the 4th is Bilbo.

[zafisher94]

I have a question, and I was hoping someone help elaborate.

This movie has X amount of frames in the finished version.

If this movie was filmed/projected in 48 fps, how does the projected 24 fps have the same run time? Wouldn't it take longer for the 24 fps projection to play that X amount of frames?

Is this a valid question, or am I simply over thinking?

[42041]

Originally Posted by zafisher94

I have a question, and I was hoping someone help elaborate.

This movie has X amount of frames in the finished version.

If this movie was filmed/projected in 48 fps, how does the projected 24 fps have the same run time? Wouldn't it take longer for the 24 fps projection to play that X amount of frames?

Is this a valid question, or am I simply over thinking?

The 24fps version shows every other frame.

[Propellarhead9]

It may have just been me but the 24 fps version looked really choppy during scenes with a lot of motion.

[zafisher94]

Originally Posted by 42041

The 24fps version shows every other frame.

ahh thanks, makes sense now

[besi]

Originally Posted by Propellarhead9

It may have just been me but the 24 fps version looked really choppy during scenes with a lot of motion.

for me it was always like that,in every movie.
that's were the 48fps shine,it looks much better than 24fps.I loved right away all the action scenes and "panorama"shots in 48fps ,but the "dialogue"scenes looked strange at first.(still)
I wonder if you can mix 24 and 48fps,and how would it look?

[besi]

R.I.P Mike Hopkins

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ns-dies-407156

[Randyman94]

I so wish Benedict Cumberbatch was a character other than Smaug and the voice of the Necromancer that interacts with Bilbo. I love the chemistry him and Martin Freeman have on BBCs Sherlock.

Who knows? Maybe the exchange between Smaug and Bilbo is made better because of that chemistry even though its only Benedict's voice. We shall see.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by besi

R.I.P Mike Hopkins

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...ns-dies-407156

That is terrible terrible news. I cant even imagine what his family and Jackson and his crew must be going through. Not only was it a loss to life it was a loss to the industry. Man was an artist.

[raygendreau]

A scholarly dissertation about why 48FPS unsettles some of us:

http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452...ct-perception/

[Starmartyr]

Originally Posted by raygendreau

A scholarly dissertation about why 48FPS unsettles some of us:

http://www.tested.com/art/movies/452...ct-perception/

Good article, it pretty much hits the nail on the head. I'm still surprised when people say they don't notice the odd look of HFR; I wonder if they're the same people that leave frame interpolation on their displays and don't notice anything strange.

I had wanted to bring up the idea of variable frame rates but I don't know enough about the medium so I assumed it would be stupid to mention it, but I'm glad to read it is something that can be done and that it is being developed. I think those types of innovations will be the key - high frame rates during fast motion and slower frame rates when there is less, like at the beginning of the Hobbit - so it won't end up looking strangely sped-up in the slower parts. The only other way I could think of to offset that would be for the actors to slow down their movements or something, but that would probably look strange as well. I'm a bit concerned about the film-look of movies going away though; film grain and all being replaced by a hyper-clear reality - is that really the point of a movie?

Anyway it sounds like there may still be hope for each side to get their way: the tech-savvy and the artistic preservationists both.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Starmartyr

I'm a bit concerned about the film-look of movies going away though; film grain and all being replaced by a hyper-clear reality - is that really the point of a movie?

I watch movies for the story. I don't care all that much about how the director chooses to make it look. Film grain, crystal clear etc. just doesn't matter to me that much.

The only things that bothered me about the HFR were that a lot of scenes seemed like they were on 1.5 fast forward or something, and some of the sets/CGI effects looked fake.

If they can fix those two things, I'd be fully behind HFR.

[raygendreau]

Originally Posted by Starmartyr

Good article, it pretty much hits the nail on the head. I'm still surprised when people say they don't notice the odd look of HFR; I wonder if they're the same people that leave frame interpolation on their displays and don't notice anything strange.

I had wanted to bring up the idea of variable frame rates but I don't know enough about the medium so I assumed it would be stupid to mention it, but I'm glad to read it is something that can be done and that it is being developed. I think those types of innovations will be the key - high frame rates during fast motion and slower frame rates when there is less, like at the beginning of the Hobbit - so it won't end up looking strangely sped-up in the slower parts. The only other way I could think of to offset that would be for the actors to slow down their movements or something, but that would probably look strange as well. I'm a bit concerned about the film-look of movies going away though; film grain and all being replaced by a hyper-clear reality - is that really the point of a movie?

Anyway it sounds like there may still be hope for each side to get their way: the tech-savvy and the artistic preservationists both.

Yes. The variable frame rate could reduce some of the complaints about HFR. 24FPS for closeups and 60FPS for fast action.

I never experienced any "sped up" effect watching the film. That may be due to my using motionflow and cinemotion on my 3D TV for televised programs and Blu-rays. I suspect I have already been aclimatized to HFR as a result. I found The Hobbit in HFR more comfortable to watch in 3D, which is what Jackson was going for.

I think 2D and 24FPS will always be an option for those who can't or won't adjust to the high frame rate. I don't think HFR is going to go away and neither is 3D.

[frogmort]

I turned on the frame interpolation on my projector the other day while watching FotR just to see what it looked like, and to me it looked very similar to the HFR of The Hobbit. Not exactly the same, but very similar. I personally don't care for the way it looks. I prefer the motion judder and what I would consider an "etheral" quality of the 24fps image.

I could see 48~60fps working for a "real life crime drama" type movie, but to me personally, I think it actually detracts from the other-worldly fantasy vibe.

[Duffy12]

.

I found this posted on another forum today and thought that it was pretty damn funny-

Why Tolkien Nixed a Beatles Lord of the Rings

Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 3:37 PM

Matthew Schmitz | @matthewschmitz



In 2002, the internet was set abuzz by news that the Beatles had approached J.R.R. Tolkien about doing a film version of Lord of the Rings starring the Fab Four:

Once upon a time, the Fab Four—having slain the pop charts—decided to set their sights on the Dark Lord Sauron by making a Lord of the Rings feature, starring themselves. One man dared stand in their way: J.R.R. Tolkien.

According to Peter Jackson, who knows a little something about making Lord of the Rings movies, John Lennon was the Beatle most keen on LOTR back in the ’60s—and he wanted to play Gollum, while Paul McCartney would play Frodo, Ringo Starr would take on Sam and George Harrison would beard it up for Gandalf. And he approached a pre-2001 Stanley Kubrick to direct.

McCartney told Jackson about the failed scheme when the two bumped into each other at the Academy Awards: “It was something John was driving and J.R.R. Tolkien still had the film rights at that stage but he didn’t like the idea of the Beatles doing it. So he killed it,” Jackson told the Wellington Evening Post in 2002.

“There probably would’ve been some good songs coming off the album,” said Jackson.

That Tolkien didn’t care for the Beatles will come as no surprise to fans of either one, but Tolkien’s letters give us a hint that his opposition to the Beatles may have had a more personal dimension.

In 1953, Tolkien purchased a house on Oxford’s Sandfield Road, a cul-de-sac at the time of his move that later was opened to through traffic. In a 1964 letter to Christopher Bretherton, Tolkien complained about “radio, tele, dogs, scooters, buzzbikes, and cars of all sizes but the smallest” making noise “from early morn to about 2 a.m.”

“In addition,” Tolkien wrote, “in a house three doors away dwells a member of a group of young men who are evidently aiming to turn themselves into a Beatle Group. On days when it falls to his turn to have a practice session the noise is indescribable.”

Tolkien’s complaints about the “Beatle Group” are particularly striking given that he had purchased the Sandfield Road property to provide a quiet place for his ailing wife Edith. Tolkien wrote in a 1953 letter to his publisher that the move to Sandfield Road was prompted by “a doctor’s ultimatum” to find a house on “high dry soil and in the quiet.”

Tolkien’s annoyance at Sandfield Road’s first garage band is understandable. Yet if its practice sessions helped us avert the disaster that would have been a Beatles Lord of the Rings, we owe its anonymous members no small amount of thanks.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/fir...-of-the-rings/


________________



And also this shot of Bree after a tsunami strike from the upcoming films-

[Show spoiler]

.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

Personally, I'm very happy about this. To me, this is a December franchise. It would have been weird to finish in the middle of Summer. Plus, it gives Jackson longer to work on "There and Back Again".

Third ‘Hobbit’ movie release moved from July to December 2014

It has just been announced via press release that the third movie in the Hobbit trilogy, “The Hobbit: There and Back Again,” has been moved to a December 17, 2014 release date. Originally planned as a summer film, the move now mirrors the release of the three Peter Jackson directed Hobbit films with his also-directed “Lord of the Rings,” film trilogy. The second movie, “The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug,” is scheduled for a Dec. 13 release this year.

The shift makes the release consistent with the pre-holiday releases of the previous films pitting it in competition with two family friendly films, one a spinoff of “Despicable Me,” and the other from Pixar’s Brad Bird titled “Tomorrowland,” although those films will come two days later. It also moves the film away from competition of an X-Men film, “X-Men: Days Of Future Past.”

The bulk of all three films has already been shot with planned “pick ups” set for May which are expected to last for several weeks or even months. The first film, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” has grossed nearly $1 billion world wide at the box office and $300 million in the U.S. The three movies are based on the book “The Hobbit,” by J.R.R. Tolkien, released 75 years ago.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Personally, I'm very happy about this. To me, this is a December franchise. It would have been weird to finish in the middle of Summer. Plus, it gives Jackson longer to work on "There and Back Again".

Third ‘Hobbit’ movie release moved from July to December 2014

I'd rather have it in July. Tradition is over-rated. I figure this could have some to do with the box-office of the first one. It was decent, but nothing to write home about. I wonder what is taking it's place?

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

I'd rather have it in July. Tradition is over-rated.

Far too hasty.

Personally, I'm of the mind that they never planned to release it in July. It always seemed like too little post production time for the last film.

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Far too hasty.

Personally, I'm of the mind that they never planned to release it in July. It always seemed like too little post production time for the last film.

Yeah, I'm sure this is for the better. I was just looking forward to a 7 month wait instead of a 12 month wait.

[Beast]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

Far too hasty.

Personally, I'm of the mind that they never planned to release it in July. It always seemed like too little post production time for the last film.

Agreed. I think it was just a placeholder date. Since the Extended Cuts usually take time to prepare.

Plus that would have only been 3-4 months between Theatrical and Extended Cut on Blu originally.