As much as this isn't a follow-up to LOTR, it is PJ's follow-up, and he will be graded by critics in some part as a comparision to LOTR. Good movies get bad ratings. The question will be how audiences react.
As much as this isn't a follow-up to LOTR, it is PJ's follow-up, and he will be graded by critics in some part as a comparision to LOTR. Good movies get bad ratings. The question will be how audiences react.
i reckon people will be up in arms at first but after all 3 films are out in extended form, a majority of people will like them. I love the lotr extended trilogy im sure ill enjoy these.
I'm an admitted LOTR/Hobbit fan and have read the books, but I just don't see how there's enough material to stretch it into 3 movies. Using both 48 fps and 3D to film it has more to do with creating a buzz than artistic achievement. I think he needed a hook to try to keep people's attention for 3 more films. To me, it seems Jackson has made a conscious decision to flog this franchise to drain every last nickel out of the fans.
w/movies like this....it's almost getting to the point where people think it's "cool" to hate on it and pick it apart.
something i never really understood. next friday can't get here fast enough.....i'll be geeking out the entire time enjoying the sh!t out of this movie!!!
i reckon people will be up in arms at first but after all 3 films are out in extended form, a majority of people will like them. I love the lotr extended trilogy im sure ill enjoy these.
Yea, this is a very good point.
While I might be getting restless while watching this in my theater seat, as soon as I am viewing the extended Blu-ray in the comfort of my home, most bloated or long scenes become acceptable. As in the King Kong comparisons, I only find the dino stampede and bug scenes bothersome as they are just overboard goofy. But the rest of that looong film I am fine with. As long as I am watching it at home.
If you see this film in the new HFR/48 fps format, you’ll likely break into lively discussion, as well. I’m sure the film’s visual appeal is on a par with Jackson’s other work, but with HFR 3D you’ll be too taken with the strangeness of the new format to compare. Is 48 fps good? It isn’t a case of good or bad. It’s an aesthetic choice, like Michael Mann’s use of video in ‘Public Enemies.’ I never “got used to it.” In fact, I found it a distraction. When Ian Holm was giving his early exposition, I couldn’t hear a word of it, because everything looked so unusual and that’s what held my attention. Here are some things you can expect:
- When people run, they look like they are on the ‘Benny Hill Show.’
- Fire looks weird. This doesn’t matter too much when it is just a burning hearth, but when it is dragonbreath or hurled, flaming weapons, it is a problem. As a result, a moment that should read as triumph ultimately comes across as goofy. It looks so strange and unusual (as do many of the special effects) that it looks somewhat. . .cheap.
- Anything shot in daylight looks like a BBC production from the 1970s. The movement is too smooth. And yet, when the camera moves, too, it looks somewhat jerky.
- You really recognize the cuts between exteriors, effects shots and sets. There’s a scene on a cliff where Storm Giants fight that probably looks terrific in the traditional format. Watching it here all I could think about was “oh, that’s them on a set. Oh, that’s an effects shot. That looks like an actual mountain. Ooh that cut brought us back to the set again.” I’ve watched the similar Misty Mountain sequence in ‘The Fellowship of the Ring’ many times and I never once considered our heroes being on a set – I fully suspended my disbelief and thought they were in peril.
People interested in tech should see ‘An Unexpected Journey’ in 48fps (which is being marketing as HFR 3D). People just looking to see a great movie should just see it in 24.
When people run, they look like they are on the ‘Benny Hill Show.’
.
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.
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.
No dude. That what high frame rates look like. It looks like reality. Which, contrary to what you might think or some numbskull tells you, is not what you want when going to the movies.
No dude. That what high frame rates look like. It looks like reality. Which, contrary to what you might think or some numbskull tells you, is not what you want when going to the movies.
I am sorry, but that is not correct. When does reality look like a Benny Hill sketch?(Which I wouldn't mind) High Frame Rate does not look like Benny Hill or old Silent Films. It can look like a BBC show.
That effect where everything is sped up, occurs when 18FPS is projected at 24FPS.
So, the effect people may be seeing in the theaters may have to do with 48FPS being incorrectly projected, like at say 50 FPS. I am not saying that is the case. But, it makes sense. New technology is always going to have some hiccups.
I am sorry, but that is not correct. When does reality look like a Benny Hill sketch?(Which I wouldn't mind) High Frame Rate does not look like Benny Hill or old Silent Films. It can look like a BBC show.
That effect where everything is sped up, occurs when 18FPS is projected at 24FPS.
So, the effect people may be seeing in the theaters may have to do with 48FPS being incorrectly projected, like at say 50 FPS. I am not saying that is the case. But, it makes sense. New technology is always going to have some hiccups.
That would also speed up the audio, no? Or if the audio and video are on separate files, the audio would fall out of registration with the video.
That would also speed up the audio, no? Or if the audio and video are on separate files, the audio would fall out of registration with the video.
True. Yes. But, the audio sped up ever so slightly wouldn't affect you, as much as the video sped up. Projecting 48 at 50 frames per second, your eyes would notice that change before your ears.
Here is another take on the 48fps by slashfilm. I may have posted this earlier, I can't remember.
Quote:
One of the biggest advancements Jackson chose to embrace with The Hobbit was shooting at 48 frames per second, now referred to as High Frame Rate (HFR). My screening employed this new technology and it’s a bit of a mixed bag. At times, the film looks immaculate. Regular landscapes and normal shots with static digital effects look so beautiful, it’s almost as if you could press pause and step through the screen.However, when there are a lot of effects on screen, or they move quickly (as when animals are present, for example) they look overly digital and obviously inserted. Fortunately, even with this problem, the look of the film never took me out of the story. I left feeling that HFR is a technology with a promising future, but it’s not quite there yet.
Here is another take on the 48fps by slashfilm. I may have posted this earlier, I can't remember.
Reminds me of older days with earlier CGI not blending in well at 24fps.. well even some current movies CGI doesn't blend well. Raimi's Spiderman CGI stands out, even some of the shots in LOTR's Trilogy stand out quite a bit as CGI, so I don't expect the CGI to perfect in The Hobbit either.
Looking forward to all the panning vistas, they will be so much smoother and engrossing
I'm seeing all these early reviews of "The Hobbit" getting bizarre reactions regarding the 48 fps. I will admit that even in some of the trailer shots, the picture does look overly fake. I certainly hope this issue doesn't end up being something that distracts from my enjoyment of the film, of which I still have the highest anticipation of seeing (in 2D).
I'm still at a loss to explain (and understand) why it was deemed necessary to shoot this trilogy in native 3D like this? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just stay in tune with the original LOTR trilogy? It's not like people wouldn't have gone to the theater to see "The Hobbit" because it wasn't shot in 3D...
I hate to use this analogy, because I hope it's not anything of the like, but this is ever so slightly reminding me of what Lucas did when he butchered the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy by prematurely ushering in his supposed "vastly improved" CGI techniques on "Phantom Menace" (which generally looked awful), and thus changing the entire "Star Wars" world, of which fans were familiar with...
What's wrong with sticking to the basics, and staying true to what works?
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the way the new "Hobbit" films have been shot, but if (when I end up seeing the new film) I feel like I'm in an entirely different "world" than I was with the original LOTR trilogy, I can't say that I won't be at least somewhat disappointed...
Oh well, haven't seen it yet, so I'm not going to make any official statement until I have. I still have the highest level of faith that this is going to be a great experience...and I certainly hope it will be, as I'd hate for the last 3 films I see on the big-screen, to leave me with a bittersweet or all-out sour feeling...
Fulfilling just a fraction of J.R.R. Tolkien's "There and Back Again" subtitle, "The Hobbit" alternately rewards and abuses auds' appetite for all things Middle-earth. While Peter Jackson's prequel to "The Lord of the Rings" delivers more of what made his earlier trilogy so compelling -- colorful characters on an epic quest amid stunning New Zealand scenery -- it doesn't offer nearly enough novelty to justify the three-film, nine-hour treatment, at least on the basis of this overlong first installment, dubbed "An Unexpected Journey." The primary advance here is technical, as Jackson shoots in high-frame-rate 3D, an innovation that improves motion at the expense of visual elegance.
The critic also mirrors Drew Mcweeny's observation that this may not be appropriate for children, due to frights, gore, and violence.
Last edited by Ernest Rister; 12-04-2012 at 05:13 PM.
I'm seeing all these early reviews of "The Hobbit" getting bizarre reactions regarding the 48 fps. I will admit that even in some of the trailer shots, the picture does look overly fake. I certainly hope this issue doesn't end up being something that distracts from my enjoyment of the film, of which I still have the highest anticipation of seeing (in 2D).
I'm still at a loss to explain (and understand) why it was deemed necessary to shoot this trilogy in native 3D like this? Wouldn't it have made more sense to just stay in tune with the original LOTR trilogy? It's not like people wouldn't have gone to the theater to see "The Hobbit" because it wasn't shot in 3D...
I hate to use this analogy, because I hope it's not anything of the like, but this is ever so slightly reminding me of what Lucas did when he butchered the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy by prematurely ushering in his supposed "vastly improved" CGI techniques on "Phantom Menace" (which generally looked awful), and thus changing the entire "Star Wars" world, of which fans were familiar with...
What's wrong with sticking to the basics, and staying true to what works?
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the way the new "Hobbit" films have been shot, but if (when I end up seeing the new film), I feel like I'm in an entirely different "world" than I was with the original LOTR trilogy, I can't say that I won't be at least somewhat disappointed...
Oh well, haven't seen it yet, so I'm not going to make any official statement until I have. I still have the highest level of faith that this is going to be a great experience...and I certainly hope it will be, as I'd hate for the last 3 films I see on the big-screen, to leave me with a bittersweet or all-out sour feeling...
I pretty much agree with you. Although, I don't believe it was the CGI that butchered the prequel SW films.
But, if you look at what Lucas and Jackson went thru when making the original films of their trilogy's, you can see why the prospect of staying close to home and shooting more on green screen would be tempting. I think it is more of a convenience factor and the ability to shoot what you want and whatever you can imagine (Which is not necessarily a good thing). One of the reviews mentioned that their wasn't a weight to some of the fighting sequences, which I understand. When you are fighting a stunt double you are hitting something. When you are fighting CGI characters, you are swinging at nothing and it comes across on screen.
Found this Huffingtonpost discussion on the 48fps issue over on the neogaf forum-
Quote:
Q: How does the 48-FPS format differ from most other films?
A: It has twice as many frames per second. This gives it an incredibly clear picture. Which is part of the problem.
Q: Why would a clearer image be a problem?
A: Because, as it turns out, it's possible for an image to look so clear that it no longer looks real. Or so real that it takes you out of the film. As in: that film set looks like ... a film set. Put it this way: the picture is so clear that in one scene I could see Ian McKellen's contact lenses. I won't claim to be a Tolkien expert, but I am pretty sure Acuvue does not exist in Middle Earth.
Q: Did you enjoy watching The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS?
A: Yes and no, for completely different reasons. I'll admit, it was fascinating to watch a movie in 48 FPS because, honestly, I've never seen anything like it. Ever. So, from a technology standpoint, I enjoyed it quite a bit. But! To the extent that I simply wanted to watch a movie and be immersed in another world, it was distracting.
Q: How was it distracting?
A: Granted, this could be related to my own attention-deficit issues, but I was often taken out of the story because I just wanted to look at things. There's a scene that takes place in Rivendell in which Gandalf (McKellen) and Galadriel (Cate Blanchett) are having an important conversation near a waterfall -- but all I could do was stare at the waterfall. It was so pretty. I mean, I could see each and every droplet of water coming out of this waterfall. All I wanted in the world was to drink from this waterfall. Of course, with all of my attention drawn to this waterfall, I missed most of what Gandalf and Galadriel were talking about.
Q: So everything in the film looks beautiful at 48 FPS? This sounds like a good thing.
A: Well, not so fast. Quite a few things don't look great in 48 FPS. Most of the scenes that take place outdoors look fantastic, but indoors it was difficult to stop being conscious of the fact that we were staring at a movie set. And the scenes that were heavy on CGI yielded mixed results.
Q: Speaking of CGI, how does Gollum look in 48 FPS?
A: Absolutely outstanding. The close-ups of Gollum's face were stunning. But, unfortunately, a scene featuring
[Show spoiler]Radagast the Brown, on a sled powered by rabbits fleeing an approaching Orc army
, looks quite terrible. The screen is so clear, it rendered the CGI in the scene (which was shot from a distance) into something that looked a lot like a game of Duck Hunt.
Q: Is Peter Jackson right that, even if it takes some time to get used to watching a film in 48 frames per second, you eventually do grow accustomed to it?
A: Yes and no. First, never once did I not notice that I was watching a film in a different format. Sometimes this is a good thing and sometimes this is a bad thing. But the most troubling aspect was that the first 10 minutes of the film looked sped-up.
Q: Sped-up?
A: Have you ever watched old footage of Babe Ruth running the bases back in 1927? Well, imagine that, only with the clearest picture that you've ever seen. After my screening, I talked to other writers who had noticed the same thing. My understanding is that it took our brains a few minutes to adjust to the new format, and this was the resulting sensation. It's really quite a trip -- because it's not like the voices are sped up. And the voices certainly sync with the video, but, still, everything looks fast. Then, after a few minutes, the speed returned to normal.
Q: Will watching more films in 48 FPS alleviate this issue?
A: This was a topic of conversation after the film. It seems natural to assume that our eyes will learn to adjust more quickly as we see more and more films in 48 FPS, but it's possible that it will always resemble the sensation of having a flashlight shined in your face in an otherwise dark room.
Q: Does 48 FPS have a future as a commercially viable format?
A: Maybe? It really depends on the eye thing.
Q: Should I see The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in 48 FPS or 24 FPS.
A: Honestly, if you're curious about the technology, see it in 48 FPS -- if only to see something you've never seen before. But if you're just a fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy and you want to watch The Hobbit without any distractions, see it in 24 FPS.
Q: Oh, how is The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey as a movie?
A: Well, briefly: it's no doubt fun to see these characters again, but the movie isn't quite as good as any of the individual The Lord of the Rings movies. It hits a lot of the same notes as The Fellowship of the Ring (there is a lot of walking from one location to another), and Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins is quite great. But aside from Ian McKellen as Gandalf, the supporting characters are less interesting this time around. Still, as a fantasy adventure film, it's certainly entertaining. Put it this way: it felt about 45 minutes shorter than its nearly-three-hour running time -- and, no, that has nothing to do with 10 minutes of that time spent with an illusion of warp speed.
Boy! This issue sure has become VERY interesting.
Those AVATAR sequels that Cameron is planning on shooting in 60-FPS should really be something!
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
next friday can't get here fast enough.....i'll be geeking out the entire time enjoying the sh!t out of this movie!!!
Linear Mode
