The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Elandyll]

Asylum can go get lost ...

http://www.thewrap.com/movies/articl...bit-film-68646

A U.S. District Court in California granted a temporary restraining order on Monday preventing a parody of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” from going on sale three days before Peter Jackson’s movie opens in theaters nationwide.

Global Asylum, a film production company that makes parodies of blockbuster films, such as “Transmorphers” in place of ‘Transformers,” has made a parody of “The Hobbit” titled “Age of the Hobbits.” It was set to go on sale on DVD, Blu-Ray and online platforms Dec. 11.

“The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” the first in Peter Jackson's series of three films adapting J.R.R. Tolkien’s classic book, opens in theaters Dec. 14.

The studios behind “The Hobbit” franchise -- Warner Bros., New Line MGM and producer Saul Zaentz -- had asked the court to prevent that release and have already filed suit against Global Asylum.

The court for the central district of California granted the studios’ request, as Judge Phillip S. Gutierrez said that they had satisfied the legal standard for a temporary restraining order. The standard requires the applicant to demonstrate that it has a valid copyright infringement claim, that there would be danger to the plaintiff if the order is not granted, that the plaintiff would suffer more and that the order would advance the public interest.

Global Asylum, which has also parodied “Sherlock Holmes” and “Paranormal Activity” among many other titles, argued that its film was not trying to deceive viewers or use the impending debut of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” to boost its own profits.

Among its many arguments, it argued that because it had already started to ship DVDs to retailers, a temporary restraining order would hurt it more than Warner Bros. Asylum also said its use of the word hobbit was referring to a human sub-species with the Latin name Homo Floresiensis.

Gutierrez disagreed.

“The evidence of the advertising and promotion for ‘Age of Hobbits,’ as well as the media coverage the film has received, provides support for Plaintiffs’ contention that Asylum intended to deceive consumers by associating its movie with Plaintiffs’ works,” he wrote in his decision.

[Damage Inc.]

This probably has been discussed before, but I have several questions about it:

I just found out that they did a "48fps version" of this movie.
Well, first of all, does that mean that between every usual frame (when 24fps) there's an extra frame, hence making it smoother?

Here's the part that mindf***s me though; I thought that more frames per second would make the motion slower.
I know that life isn't like "set in 24 frames per second" and that any more frames would make life appear slower.
But that's what I understood, that more frames pumped into a second makes for slower motion on-screen.
I'm probably just getting it wrong though... Cause I also understand that more frames, as in 48 compared to 24 per second, would obviously make it smoother.
I'm just not seeing how it connects to time, why the speed of motion doesn't change (even if slightly), when there are more frames.
And at the same time, I even heard someone say in a review of this movie that everything "seems(!) faster". Just what the heck...


Then, as I've heard talk of "versions", does this mean there are different versions playing at theaters?
And is that also a third version next to the regular 24fps-version and 3D-version, or is there no 2D-version?

On top of that, is this just for this movie, or is it something that they're working towards for the future?
As far as I could find, Jackson and Cameron are wanting to do their upcoming films in 48fps.
(And on a side-note; Is this done on film or digitally? Or even both?)

Too many questions... I'd be screwed as a filmmaker... Technology: *makes 1 step/change* > Me: "What's going on!?" XD

[Ernest Rister]

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

Here's the part that mindf***s me though; I thought that more frames per second would make the motion slower.

Only when shown at 24fps. Does that make sense? The projector displays at 24fps, so yes, adding more frames during photography creates a slow-motion effect. But if the projector is running at 48fps, and you shoot in 48fps, you don't have that problem, and instead have more visual information to process.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Ernest Rister

Only when shown at 24fps. Does that make sense? The projector displays at 24fps, so yes, adding more frames during photography creates a slow-motion effect. But if the projector is running at 48fps, and you shoot in 48fps, you don't have that problem, and instead have more visual information to process.

Ah, so it's when you pump more frames into a lower display-framerate?

So I guess it would be half the speed if they'd put the supposed 48fps-film through a 24fps-projector?


Oh, and I forgot a question; How would this work for homevideo? Would there be a 48fps-version?
And if so, how would that work with players (and displays) that have a specific 24fps-feature? And will new players be "48fps-equipped"?
Yeah sorry, that last question should probably go into a thread about the technology. But I'm just wondering all this with the release for this movie.

[Blu Ian]

I hope 48 fps doesn't make me ill.

[Damage Inc.]

Originally Posted by Blu Ian

I hope 48 fps doesn't make me ill.

Why would thát be? All it is is smoother motion, I think pretty similar to when you use the "MotionFlow" in TVs, except the additional frames are real.
If anything less frames should make you sick, as it's more of a "strobe"-effect than with more frames at once. So I think it will probably be more comfortable.
Unless you're thinking that it might be more "lifelike" and that it's more as if it's real and the motion might make you sick?

The one thing I'm kind of worried about that it might look too "live", which can bring quite a "cheesy" look to it like with the MotionFlow-tech I mentioned.
I really hate that look... But it's probably not completely the same.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by Elandyll

Asylum can go get lost ...

Global Asylum, a film production company that makes parodies of blockbuster films, such as “Transmorphers” in place of ‘Transformers,” has made a parody of “The Hobbit” titled “Age of the Hobbits.” It was set to go on sale on DVD, Blu-Ray and online platforms Dec. 11.

BUS-ted...Told ya "Hobbits" wasn't a public-domain scientific paleontological term for midget Philippine cavemen.

So much for their "You don't own the sky!" attempts at cribbing PD source material.

Originally Posted by Damage Inc.

So I guess it would be half the speed if they'd put the supposed 48fps-film through a 24fps-projector?

...YEEEE-esss!!

Seriously, go back and look at this "I'm afraid of 48 fps, will it hurt me? " discussion, and attempts to think up every thing that can Go Wrong (it'll look soap-opera!...it'll make the audience ill!...it won't play on Blu-ray!), the next time a 3DTV Haterz discussion comes up.
We've become so paranoid of studios "forcing" new theater gimmicks on us to "rob" us of our ticket dollars, that we get the baseball bats already the minute anything's announced, and come up with some of the loopiest mock-science rationales since 19th-cty. farmers thought eating a tomato would kill you.

I only wish I could see it in 48fps, but there's no capable theater in an hour's drive, which means I'm stuck with the cineplexes. And given Peter Jackson will probably deliver a good movie anyway, I don't feel downgraded for it. (Although I might if I had to see the 2D version.)

[L-Rouge]

wanted to go see the movie today, apparently the main auditorium is encountering technical difficulties (this one has HFR 3d, fully refurbished). I'll hold off till it's fixed.

(crap just found out they need parts from Aussie). Owell no matter

[Britnasty]

I don't know WHAT format to see it in. HFR3D (the only theatre that has it has posted signs saying the increased fps can cause motion sickness and migraines and will give refunds to those who can't handle it), IMAX3D or regular boring 3D.

[stvn1974]

I am seeing it in 2D.

[mattymoron]

I'll either be going to see it in IMAX or IMAX3D. It just depends. I've yet to be impressed by a 3D movie, though. Probably gonna' swing for 2D.

[Dead By Shaun]

I'm rolling the dice and going for 3D HFR. Already got my tickets and will be at the cinema bright and early Friday morning at 10am. I have no worries over motion sickness as I don't suffer from such things. I'm sure most of those reporting dizziness and nausea are the same people who can't handle Star Tours at Disneyland or Universal's The Simpsons ride.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

I'm excited about giving the 48fps a chance on a later viewing, if only because PJ's so gun-ho about it. But for viewing #1 it will definitely good 'ole fashioned 2D 24fps. That's how I saw LotR, and I want to experience this in the same way.

[42041]

I'll be seeing it in 3D HFR Dolby Atmos Have very low hopes for the movie itself based on the reviews, which make it sound like this magnifies everything I didn't like about the LOTR trilogy, but it'll be nice to check out all the new gimmicks.

On a side note, it amazes me how so many movie enthusiasts don't understand this whole frame rate thing

[jbig31]

2D for me.

[Duffy12]

.

I will try for 2D first to get better seating, and assuming that all the 3D showings will be sold out. I do not want to have to wait a month to see this.

.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Barbossa

And another review ...........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/f...ie-review.html

There were a number of gems in the review. Most disturbing is that two of the names are mispronounced throughout the movie.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by jbig31

When I saw The White Council clip my thoughts were

[Show spoiler]This the kind of scene that PJ could and should expand on....something evil is stirring in Middle Earth. From all my readings of The Hobbit, LOTR and Appendices and Unfinished Tales, Gandalf knew/sensed that evil (Sauon) had come back. He wasn't ignorant enough to think that he was gone. He knew that IF he (Sauron) got the services of Smaug then it would be game over for any resistance. Silently growing and gathering in strength in Dol Guldor and moving his pawns (The Ringwraiths to govern Dol Guldor and Mirkwood) he was setting the chessboard up for checkmate. Gandalf took a gamble at getting Thorin and Co. fired up to reclaim their home and treasure and through in the "wildcard" of a mister Bilbo Baggins-who I believe even surprized Gandalf himself.

I view The Hobbit as not the "prequel" to the LOTR, but part of the bigger picture of Tolkien's Middle Earth story. Sure, it has fun and adventure, but there is an underlying current that runs through the story that the casual watch may not see or get ot may not want to. It's the story of good vs, evil and the coming of age of a little "nobody" that changes Middle Earth forever.

Just my .02.

I believe an older edition of The Hobbit called it the "enchanting prelude" to LOTR.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by tommyboy81

just about every review says it's too long, but were fine with the LotR movies. I know 10 years have passed but man. I can imagine the reviews if The LotR came out now.

The difference is that they had to cut stuff out of the LOTR books to make the movies shorter.

[radagast]

Originally Posted by Duffy12

Here you go Mahatma-



5/5 STARS




http://film.list.co.uk/article/47374...ected-journey/


__________________



5/5 STARS




http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/...l-film-review/

.

Didn't P. T. Barnum say "A fool and his money are soon parted"?