The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Rainhurt]

Originally Posted by 42041

If it breaks suspension of disbelief, then yes, it is bad.

Yes, I bet it does but that doesn't make it bad. It just means they were preoccupied with the stunning image quality of a new format. I can imagine watching most of the new technology breakthrews in movie history were distracting the first time or first few times.

[blakeyamc]

All these comments remind me of a few weeks ago, when I was watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I believe it was the season 2 Halloween episode and Spike was videotaping Buffy fight another vampire, to learn her tendencies. The show kept switching back and forth between the 16mm shots and the videotaped shots. And I kept thinking how fake the same exact scene looked on the videotape. Suddenly, all the punches and kicks looked choreographed and the scene looked like it was on a soundstage. Not to mention the obvious stunt double (which to be fair, was pretty obvious at 16mm). Is this what I am in for at 48FPS? Is it our subconscious that decides whether a higher frame rate is fake, when it is actually more real, or should I say unforgiving? Either way, I am curious to see it.

[Strevlac]

Originally Posted by blakeyamc

All these comments remind me of a few weeks ago, when I was watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I believe it was the season 2 Halloween episode and Spike was videotaping Buffy fight another vampire, to learn her tendencies. The show kept switching back and forth between the 16mm shots and the videotaped shots. And I kept thinking how fake the same exact scene looked on the videotape. Suddenly, all the punches and kicks looked choreographed and the scene looked like it was on a soundstage. Not to mention the obvious stunt double (which to be fair, was pretty obvious at 16mm). Is this what I am in for at 48FPS? Is it our subconscious that decides whether a higher frame rate is fake, when it is actually more real, or should I say unforgiving? Either way, I am curious to see it.

Yes.

[42041]

Originally Posted by blakeyamc

All these comments remind me of a few weeks ago, when I was watching Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I believe it was the season 2 Halloween episode and Spike was videotaping Buffy fight another vampire, to learn her tendencies. The show kept switching back and forth between the 16mm shots and the videotaped shots. And I kept thinking how fake the same exact scene looked on the videotape. Suddenly, all the punches and kicks looked choreographed and the scene looked like it was on a soundstage. Not to mention the obvious stunt double (which to be fair, was pretty obvious at 16mm). Is this what I am in for at 48FPS? Is it our subconscious that decides whether a higher frame rate is fake, when it is actually more real, or should I say unforgiving? Either way, I am curious to see it.

Yeah, it's an odd thing. Sometimes DVDs have behind-the-scenes footage shot on 60i video, where its the actors doing a take, and even if you can't see crew and equipment it looks like a bunch of actors on a set. I fear it will be difficult for me to not associate the look of The Hobbit with that or live television.

[blakeyamc]

Here is an excellent article on the 48FPS process and experience of watching it.

http://twitchfilm.com/2012/12/an-unk...he-masses.html

"There's one particularly aggravating comparison that should certainly be avoided, and that's to the 120/240hz "motion smoothing" mode that exists on many new television sets. In this instance, the TV manufactures interleaved frames to boost the rate, crafting artificial images that really do look more like plasticine than either broadcast video or a "cinematic" look. One should not confuse this digital processing trickery with the actuality of capturing images using higher frame rates.

No real-time post processing could ever approach HFR capture, and what many of these TV tricks do is simply exacerbate the limitations inherent in the signal, over emphasizing the limitations motion blurry source, and then running a subsequent "clean" pass that gives the image a particularly repulsive, Claymation-like look. Fear not, those that have messed with their settings on their TVs, The Hobbit looks nothing like these abominations, and you should take time to disable any such processing whenever you come into contact with such setups."

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

One things fer shure, I'm doing a Benny Hill marathon before I go and see this.
Just to help me adjust to this frame rate issue of course.

Originally Posted by EricJ

"And tell me, Fred Scuttlebaggins, has it been difficult dealing with dwarves?"

"Oh, and the stories they've been telling me, sir, some of them you simply wouldn't believe! Just the other night, they were telling me about these creatures they found in the caves, horrible lot they were, sir: Twenty feet tall, some of them, all flipping great whips about, and burning up as if they were on fire!"
"'Balrogs'."
"--It's true, I tell you!"

Originally Posted by blakeyamc

No real-time post processing could ever approach HFR capture, and what many of these TV tricks do is simply exacerbate the limitations inherent in the signal, over emphasizing the limitations motion blurry source, and then running a subsequent "clean" pass that gives the image a particularly repulsive, Claymation-like look. Fear not, those that have messed with their settings on their TVs, The Hobbit looks nothing like these abominations, and you should take time to disable any such processing whenever you come into contact with such setups."

IOW, it's should be like the 60fps Showscan that came and went briefly in novelty theaters near the end of the 80's:

[Show spoiler]

Showscan Digital from Douglas Trumbull - YouTube

Only saw it once or twice, but it specialized in hyper-reality, sort of an HDTV for movies. (A favorite trick was to show film of someone walking onto the bottom of the screen, which did look like the director had walked on stage in the theater.)

I'll watch an occasional motion-smoothed movie for fun, but it only works with the clear 4K mastered prints that have the high clarity and definition to begin with.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Rainhurt

I've read a lot of comments and the general negative take on HFR seems to be "I was so distracted by something beautiful I haven't seen before that I was too busy soaking up the imagery to follow what is going on" ...So yeah, because they are wowed by something new it is a... bad thing?

Exactly, too much detail and picture information Sign me up

[Underworld54]

Originally Posted by 42041

Did you see the list of theaters showing in HFR? Looks like both will offer it, but there's many more non-IMAX screens.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...x-dolby-atmos/

I missed that link, thanks for bringing it to my attention. There's X's all the way across for my theater.

[Mahatma]

There was an article in my local net-paper which had good and bad news depending on what you want.Good news is that they are including everything and more,so those who'll like the epic storytelling will be catered to.They said that that made it cumbersome and drawn out-read boring.They also said that the 48fps made a few dizzy...I take that with a grain of salt.

Little over a week now.Many here seeing it premiere day,or will most do like me and wait a few days and get perfect seats without camping out?

[frogmort]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

There was an article in my local net-paper which had good and bad news depending on what you want.Good news is that they are including everything and more,so those who'll like the epic storytelling will be catered to.They said that that made it cumbersome and drawn out-read boring.They also said that the 48fps made a few dizzy...I take that with a grain of salt.

Little over a week now.Many here seeing it premiere day,or will most do like me and wait a few days and get perfect seats without camping out?

It premieres here on Friday 14th, but my friends and I will be going Monday 17th in the afternoon to avoid the crowds and talking/texting kids, and hopefully we can get the best seats too.

[aiman04]

166 minutes? How long will the sequels will be? And will there be extended edition?

I finished the book in a few hours. Roughly the book is only 300 pages, compared to Lord of the Rings with more than 1000 pages.

[Constitution 101]

Originally Posted by 42041

Did you see the list of theaters showing in HFR? Looks like both will offer it, but there's many more non-IMAX screens.
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012...x-dolby-atmos/

Thank god-one 10min from my house! Hopefully, it's doesn't overdo the cheesy/campy stuff like some reviewers have written.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by blakeyamc

Huh? That doesn't sound right, and I have seen other reviews mention this effect as well.

I don't see how Peter Jackson could have seen these issues and just ignored them.
This sounds like a projection issue with the 48FPS, not projecting at 48FPS correctly.

I don't think he means that people are speeded up. The problem with high frame rates is that they capture movement clearly. I know that's counterintuitive, but the look that we associate with film has blur in most frames because the exposure is as little as 1/24th of a second. Even at 1/60th of a second, you can get motion blur.

Action scenes at high frame rates don't have any blur. So we can see the action better. But it makes the image look like a "soap opera".

You can see this in any documentary about a making of a film that was shot on video at 30fps. You see the actors going through the action scenes and it all looks terribly fake. Then you see the final film at 24fps whether projected on film or digitally and it seems believable.

Douglas Trumbull, who did the special effects on 2001 and was also responsible for the large-format Showscan system has done a lot of research into high frame rates. He believes that variable frame rates should be used. But when he demoed this a few months back, the action scenes still had the dreaded "soap opera" effect.

My bet is that parts 2 and 3 will not be shot at 48fps. I think there's going to be a lot of backlash if in fact, this does look like a TV show. The TV spots I've seen for the film actually look okay, so I'm hoping it all works out in the end, but this first review is not a good sign.

[ZoetMB]

Originally Posted by aiman04

166 minutes? How long will the sequels will be? And will there be extended edition?

I finished the book in a few hours. Roughly the book is only 300 pages, compared to Lord of the Rings with more than 1000 pages.

In reality, you can't cover more than 100 pages of any novel in a 2-hour movie. So while I realize the movie is a bit longer than that (although the credits are probably at least ten minutes), it sounds right that this could easily stretch to three movies.

An average movie script is 120 pages, but the density of text on the page (both dialog and descriptions) is very low compared to a novel.

[Jonno2009]

W0ot i just purchased my tickets for Saturday Dec 15th at 3pm for IMAX 3D(No HFR)!

I was really curious about the 48fps but i decided i wanted to see a MOVIE first and technology second. So maybe i'll see it again but with HFR



So is the HFR akin to what some HD TVs have nowadays which is Motion Plus?

My 55'' Samsung LED TV has that option and whenever it's turned on it looks like live/soap TV. Like it's just not natural, or maybe TOO natural?

Either way i always turn it off as it's really ugly and distracting.

[Doughoef]

Help! The early reviews have dampened my excitement. I'm not sure what to think, I expected much higher scores.

[toddly6666]

Can I just watch this film without the soap-opera look?

So it seems the director's cut is gonna be the short versions this time.

[tommyboy81]

in one of the reviews the guy said that the credits itself runs 16mins.

[tommyboy81]

Originally Posted by Doughoef

Help! The early reviews have dampened my excitement. I'm not sure what to think, I expected much higher scores.

The bad ones look like they're taking a lot off because of the 48fps

[SkillzthatKillz]

Originally Posted by ZoetMB

I don't think he means that people are speeded up. The problem with high frame rates is that they capture movement clearly. I know that's counterintuitive, but the look that we associate with film has blur in most frames because the exposure is as little as 1/24th of a second. Even at 1/60th of a second, you can get motion blur.

Action scenes at high frame rates don't have any blur. So we can see the action better. But it makes the image look like a "soap opera".

You can see this in any documentary about a making of a film that was shot on video at 30fps. You see the actors going through the action scenes and it all looks terribly fake. Then you see the final film at 24fps whether projected on film or digitally and it seems believable.

Douglas Trumbull, who did the special effects on 2001 and was also responsible for the large-format Showscan system has done a lot of research into high frame rates. He believes that variable frame rates should be used. But when he demoed this a few months back, the action scenes still had the dreaded "soap opera" effect.

My bet is that parts 2 and 3 will not be shot at 48fps. I think there's going to be a lot of backlash if in fact, this does look like a TV show. The TV spots I've seen for the film actually look okay, so I'm hoping it all works out in the end, but this first review is not a good sign.

They shot most of The Hobbit films at the same time, so they've all been captured at 48 fps.