The Hobbit Trilogy Discussion Thread

[Cook]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

But a new edition wouldn't replace the Extended Edition, just as the Extended Edition didn't replace the theatrical version (which is still the 'definitive' cut). No-one is going to force new additions into your copy of the EE or take it away and make you only watch an Ultimate Edition.

The difference between this and Star Wars is that Lucas 'replaced' every prior version with his latest one (and proved that by not giving the option of the different cuts with the new media available, thus rendering them 'obsolete'). Jackson released the EE for those who want the extra stuff, not to replace the theatrical version. If - and that's a big if because this all comes from someone's guessings - a longer cut was released with added ties to The Hobbit trilogy then that also would just be an alternative version - not a replacement.

No-one will or can changed the Extended Edition. We will still always have them. Just as those who only want the theatrical editions will always have them. But if, after The Hobbit, a new, longer version of the trilogy was released, then I welcome it. It'll just be another way to see the story. No more, no less.

Lol I was using hyperbole. If they were to alter the film I would of course watch it. I think it works just fine as is, but I wouldn't complain about a new cut.

[keb33509]

Wow....You all know so much about Middle Earth lore!

[Col. Zombie]

It looks as if those who wish to see this in 24fps, won't have to look far.

Warner Bros. is convinced that high-frame-rate movies are the next big thing -- but they're keeping the first HFR release fairly small.

According to source familiar with Warner's release plans for Peter Jackson's first "Hobbit," the HFR version will go out to only select locations, perhaps not even into all major cities.

People who have seen much of the film in 48 frames-per-second 3D tell Variety the picture now looks vastly better than the test footage shown this April at CinemaCon, which had not yet undergone post-production polishing and got a mixed reception from exhibitors.

But the studio still wants to protect the format by going into a limited release for the HFR version, hoping to test the marketplace and expand the HFR release for the second and third installments -- provided auds are enthusiastic. As of now, there are still no theaters ready for HFR projection, though some require only a software upgrade that will be ready in September. Warners is satisfied with the pace of efforts to ready theaters for HFR.

Since Jackson is capturing at 48 frames per second, it actually requires some expense to down-convert it to 24, the frame rate at which most theaters will play it. Filmmakers can't simply drop every other frame; they must add motion blur or the picture looks choppy.

Among vendors of projection gear, there seems to be little doubt that HFR is the future.

"It's going to be the next big thing," said Hany Adeeb, marketing & communications manager for Doremi Labs, the leading maker of digital cinema playback gear.

Don Shaw, director, product management for projector maker Christie says "High frame rate truly is night-and-day. Even the lay person can see the difference."

But d-cinema systems weren't originally conceived for a 3D, high-frame-rate world -- not all digital cinema projectors can even make the switch. The early generation of d-cinema projectors, dubbed "Series 1," simply aren't capable of showing high frame rate 3D.

More recent "Series 2" projectors can be upgraded, but the expense and difficulty of those upgrades varies. Theaters storing digital prints on a server, for instance, need to attach to each projector hardware called an "Integrated Media Block."

The easiest upgrade is for a series 2 projector that already has an IMB; in that case, the switch to 48 fps is just a software upgrade. Most recent "Series 2" installed used IMBs.

Each of the makers of the most popular 3D projection systems (RealD, MasterImage, Xpand and Dolby) says its systems are either HFR ready or easily upgradable, though several doubt each others' claims. One thing that won't be happening soon is a combination of 4K resolution -- which is already in some theaters -- 3D and high frame rates. Today's gear and networks can't handle that much data.

"That's going to be a forklift upgrade when that comes about," said Shaw. "That would require a full-scale replacement of all of the equipment in a movie theater."

High frame rates will be the subject of an expert panel at the SIGGRAPH conference at the L.A. Convention Center at 11 Wednesday morning. Among those skedded to speak is Doug Trumbull, who pioneered high frame rates with his Showscan system and is now working on HFR for digital cinema.

Souce ... http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057587

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Col. Zombie

It looks as if those who wish to see this in 24fps, won't have to look far.

[Show spoiler]

Souce ... http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118057587

It's not surprising really. It's taken people a while to get used to 3D and those prices, I expect Warners are worried about people being faced with being charged yet another premium and ignoring it. This makes sense - roll it out a bit for this one, get word of mouth on it. If people know what it is by the time the next one rolls around then they're more likely to take a gamble.

Same with cinemas - if it works well in a limited capacity this time around then other cinemas will be willing to update their projection systems (not all are just a case of a software update) ready for the next one.

Hell, look at how many 3D screens suddenly got installed after Avatar - I don't think this will be as widespread as it's a harder sell but I can see a similar growth by the time the third film rolls out.

Still, I have plans for my third viewing of An Unexpected Journey to be at London's BFI IMAX - and if there's one cinema in this country that will adopt the 48fps option it'll be that one. I can't wait.

[Aragorn the Elfstone]

I didn't think I was going to have to look that far for 24fps anyway. My understanding was that both 24fps & 48fps were going to be widely available.

In any case, my plan has always been to see this in 24fps 2D. I may check out the 48fps 3D as a curiosity later on, but I want my Middle Earth cinema experience to emulate 'The Lord of the Rings', which didn't need 3D to tell it's story. I also don't like higher frame rates. But PJ seems very excited about it, so I'll give it a chance at some point.

[Member-115369]

I'd definitely check it out in 48FPS 3D to just see what I think of the technology.

I'm skeptical and don't like 3D much in general. But I'll see it that way for at least the first film and see what I think.

[Monkey]

Awesome, can't wait to check out the vastly superior, for more immersive experience of 48fps when this hits. I have no doubt I'll be able to find a play in the S.F. Bay Area.

[My_Two_Cents]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Awesome, can't wait to check out the vastly superior, for more immersive experience of 48fps when this hits. I have no doubt I'll be able to find a play in the S.F. Bay Area.

Based on what? Where has anything been shown that was filmed in 48fps where anyone can make definitive statements like that, either for or against? Maybe I missed something somewhere.

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Based on what? Where has anything been shown that was filmed in 48fps where anyone can make definitive statements like that, either for or against?

Like anything, people are for and against 48fps, regardless if they've seen footage of it or not.

[Buddy Ackerman]

I can't wait to see what it looks like in 48 fps. No-one can say what it looks like yet - it'll be the first major film released in the format. It's going to look much different to any shorts or digital video examples that have been done in the past with the amount of money and technology going into it. Even those who are basing comments on reports from what was shown at Cinemacon are off-base - the footage has been through much post-production since then (as noted in the Variety story, those who have seen it since have been impressed). It's also worth noting that a lot of people were impressed with it at Cinemacon, it's just that it was a more interesting story for the press to concentrate on the negative reports.

It may end up looking bizarre, who knows? The point is none of us will know what it looks like, good or bad, until it's completed and put onscreen. For me, if Peter Jackson says that's how it should be seen then that's how I'll see it (though not at first). He's earned enough trust with me. I'll see his film how he intended it to be seen. If I don't like it, well that's that.

I'm with Aragorn84 on how best to first approach The Hobbit - 24fps, 2D. That'll be my first screening (at a cinema staff screening) - stepping back into Middle-Earth the way I left it. Second time, 24fps, 3D. Then third time (hopefuuly) 48fps, IMAX, 3D. However I see it I really can't wait.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Aragorn84

I want my Middle Earth cinema experience to emulate 'The Lord of the Rings', which didn't need 3D to tell it's story.

I love Lord of the Rings beyond any sensible amount and I agree, it didn't need it. But if they ever convert it to 3D I'll be there for one simple reason - to watch the opening of The Two Towers and Gandalf's plunge after the Balrog.

I'm sure there's lots of scenes that could look great in the format but I remember watching that shot one day and thinking 'you know, if they ever did re-release these in 3D it'd be worth it just for that shot'.

[NARMAK]

I'm gonna go into a 48fps showing first if they have it on anywhere near me otherwise it'll just be a standard 24fps 3D showing at the local cinema

[radagast]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I'd definitely check it out in 48FPS 3D to just see what I think of the technology.

I'm skeptical and don't like 3D much in general. But I'll see it that way for at least the first film and see what I think.

I will too. I don't see any intelligent reason to avoid seeing some new technology just because so many people who have not seen it yet are so against it.

I may see it again in 24fps to compare and see which I like better.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Like anything, people are for and against 48fps, regardless if they've seen footage of it or not.

Kinda like Congress passing a bill without reading it first.

[TruBlu06]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

I can't wait to see what it looks like in 48 fps. No-one can say what it looks like yet - it'll be the first major film released in the format. It's going to look much different to any shorts or digital video examples that have been done in the past with the amount of money and technology going into it. Even those who are basing comments on reports from what was shown at Cinemacon are off-base - the footage has been through much post-production since then (as noted in the Variety story, those who have seen it since have been impressed). It's also worth noting that a lot of people were impressed with it at Cinemacon, it's just that it was a more interesting story for the press to concentrate on the negative reports.

It may end up looking bizarre, who knows? The point is none of us will know what it looks like, good or bad, until it's completed and put onscreen. For me, if Peter Jackson says that's how it should be seen then that's how I'll see it (though not at first). He's earned enough trust with me. I'll see his film how he intended it to be seen. If I don't like it, well that's that.

I'm with Aragorn84 on how best to first approach The Hobbit - 24fps, 2D. That'll be my first screening (at a cinema staff screening) - stepping back into Middle-Earth the way I left it. Second time, 24fps, 3D. Then third time (hopefuuly) 48fps, IMAX, 3D. However I see it I really can't wait.

That's what I plan on doing. I haven't seen a 3D movie in theaters yet because I think I could get sick from it, but I'll try it eventually after I've seen the regular version. I'm not sure about the 48fps, I think it may end up being very popular, but you never know.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by TruBlu06

That's what I plan on doing. I haven't seen a 3D movie in theaters yet because I think I could get sick from it, but I'll try it eventually after I've seen the regular version. I'm not sure about the 48fps, I think it may end up being very popular, but you never know.

I fyou're worried about that then it might be better to test it out with something that's not three hours long, just in case! Maybe something like Brave - a film that will use 3D well (as Pixar have always done and as The Hobbit will do) but is a lot shorter.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Ricshoe

Based on what? Where has anything been shown that was filmed in 48fps where anyone can make definitive statements like that, either for or against? Maybe I missed something somewhere.

Based on seeing Imax footage in 48fps.

Originally Posted by Foggy

Like anything, people are for and against 48fps, regardless if they've seen footage of it or not.

see above.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Monkey

Based on seeing Imax footage in 48fps.

Can I ask what it was?

As I said above, this is the first major film to be released in the format. The technology, resources, money and post-production going into it are going to be vastly different compared to prior usage. You can say that the 48fps stuff you've seen before was rubbish but no-one can fairly judge The Hobbit's use of the format (good or bad) until it's seen on-screen.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Can I ask what it was?

As I said above, this is the first major film to be released in the format. The technology, resources, money and post-production going into it are going to be vastly different compared to prior usage. You can say that the 48fps stuff you've seen before was rubbish but no-one can fairly judge The Hobbit's use of the format (good or bad) until it's seen on-screen.

That latest was at Disneyland Soaring Over California. I've watched Imax movies prior as well many years ago. I love the smoothness on panning shots in 48fps, that 24fps has huge issues with, probably the most obvious type of motion to notice the benefits of having more picture information.

LOTR the rings has some amazing vistas and panning shots that would have benefited quite a bit from 48fps. Of course action shots as well as others will be better.

"You can say that the 48fps stuff you've seen before was rubbish "

I said the exact opposite actually.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Monkey

I said the exact opposite actually.

Sorry, that wasn't aimed specifically at you. It should have been the more general 'One can say it was rubbish'

I agree about the vistas, they should look amazing. Even the negative reports of the Hobbit footage at Cinemacon said that the New Zealand landscape shots looked stunning.

[Monkey]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

Sorry, that wasn't aimed specifically at you. It should have been the more general 'One can say it was rubbish'

I agree about the vistas, they should look amazing. Even the negative reports of the Hobbit footage at Cinemacon said that the New Zealand landscape shots looked stunning.

Good to hear. That is the biggest aspect of 24fps that irks me, lack of smooth panning shots.

I would love to see things like Planet Earth and other content at higher frame rates.