'Hobbit' may become a trilogy

[VintageComics]

I have to say that after seeing the preview a few weeks ago, I was not a big fan of the new film style they were using. I can't remember what it was called but it did look a little...too clear - if that makes sense - to me.

[fantastic_four]

I have to say that after seeing the preview a few weeks ago, I was not a big fan of the new film style they were using. I can't remember what it was called but it did look a little...too clear - if that makes sense - to me.

 

It's 48 fps (frames per second) instead of the standard 24 fps film has used forever. I need someone to explain to me the problem with 48 fps without sounding like crotchety old farts afraid of new-fangled change and technology--that's what all the filmmakers railing against it have sounded like so far.

[the420kid]

with all of the Hollywood churns out month after month, another Hobbit film is absolutely welcome.

 

- I say give Peter Jackson the reigns of the Star Wars franchise next...

[VintageComics]

I have to say that after seeing the preview a few weeks ago, I was not a big fan of the new film style they were using. I can't remember what it was called but it did look a little...too clear - if that makes sense - to me.

 

It's 48 fps (frames per second) instead of the standard 24 fps film has used forever. I need someone to explain to me the problem with 48 fps without sounding like crotchety old farts afraid of new-fangled change and technology--that's what all the filmmakers railing against it have sounded like so far.

 

It might just be that the change takes some getting used to, but it almost looks "too clear" to me. It's almost like 3D without the 3D glasses, I think because the back ground has suck clarity as well as the characters in the foreground.

 

Hard to describe without actually seeing it first hand.

 

They didn't show the preview for the hobbit when you saw DKR?

[fantastic_four]

They didn't show the preview for the hobbit when you saw DKR?

 

Yea, I've seen Rises twice and that trailer twice, yesterday in IMAX. Yes it looks more clear--I don't see why people think that's bad.

[VintageComics]

They didn't show the preview for the hobbit when you saw DKR?

 

Yea, I've seen Rises twice and that trailer twice, yesterday in IMAX. Yes it looks more clear--I don't see why people think that's bad.

 

In the section that I remembered seeing, it didn't look real. Maybe I over thought it based on the reviews I'd read about it.

 

[bane]

They need to make a Silmarillion trilogy!

 

Actually they need to make like a 5 or 6 part Silmarillion!!!

 

I hope not!

 

That book was a headache.

[DeliBebek]

I have to say that after seeing the preview a few weeks ago, I was not a big fan of the new film style they were using. I can't remember what it was called but it did look a little...too clear - if that makes sense - to me.

 

It's 48 fps (frames per second) instead of the standard 24 fps film has used forever. I need someone to explain to me the problem with 48 fps without sounding like crotchety old farts afraid of new-fangled change and technology--that's what all the filmmakers railing against it have sounded like so far.

One of my favorite things about technology is that higher numbers almost always indicate higher quality. Some of us old farts like that thinking.

[DeliBebek]

, I think because the back ground has suck clarity?

Freudian slip much? Good one though.

[fantastic_four]

In the section that I remembered seeing, it didn't look real. Maybe I over thought it based on the reviews I'd read about it.

 

 

Dunno, maybe. I've heard a few good directors say they don't like it--I haven't seen it enough to make a call. I suspect there may be some valid aesthetic arguments against it--I just haven't heard any cogent ones articulated yet.

[Loki]

In the section that I remembered seeing, it didn't look real. Maybe I over thought it based on the reviews I'd read about it.

 

 

Dunno, maybe. I've heard a few good directors say they don't like it--I haven't seen it enough to make a call. I suspect there may be some valid aesthetic arguments against it--I just haven't heard any cogent ones articulated yet.

 

Roy's observations are in line with the complaints I've heard from other folks. There seems to be a segment of viewers who think that 48 fps makes the visuals look so clear, that the film doesn't seem realistic anymore. That's kind of important when you're trying to draw people into a fantasy setting. If it looks fake, you won't get as immersed in the film. I think the term used by film-types is "suspension of disbelief" or something like that.

[fantastic_four]

Roy's observations are in line with the complaints I've heard from other folks. There seems to be a segment of viewers who think that 48 fps makes the visuals look so clear, that the film doesn't seem realistic anymore. That's kind of important when you're trying to draw people into a fantasy setting. If it looks fake, you won't get as immersed in the film. I think the term used by film-types is "suspension of disbelief" or something like that.

 

I agree his observations are in line with a popular sentiment about the technology--this is the third or fourth time I've heard the "too clear" critique. I just don't get why clarity is making things less realistic. Did makeup and CGI artists have an easier time at 24 fps, is that it, and that far more of their flaws are evident at higher frame rates? I'm not sure how clarity and greater realism detracts from movies that are already attempting to be clear and realistic with their visuals.

[Loki]

Well, the few examples of 48 fps I've viewed do all seem to have a sort of unreal quality about them. It's something that I just can't express any more clearly. I haven't found it to be necessarily "bad" like some critics, just "different". Perhaps it's just a case of being something that people will need time to adapt to through more exposure.

[NewWorldOrder]

OMG Please do not let this crappy movie get two sequels.

[TeddieMercede]

OMG Please do not let this crappy movie get two sequels.

 

You've seen it already ? How was it ?

[Doohickamabob]

Roy's observations are in line with the complaints I've heard from other folks. There seems to be a segment of viewers who think that 48 fps makes the visuals look so clear, that the film doesn't seem realistic anymore. That's kind of important when you're trying to draw people into a fantasy setting. If it looks fake, you won't get as immersed in the film. I think the term used by film-types is "suspension of disbelief" or something like that.

I agree his observations are in line with a popular sentiment about the technology--this is the third or fourth time I've heard the "too clear" critique. I just don't get why clarity is making things less realistic. Did makeup and CGI artists have an easier time at 24 fps, is that it, and that far more of their flaws are evident at higher frame rates? I'm not sure how clarity and greater realism detracts from movies that are already attempting to be clear and realistic with their visuals.

The argument isn't merely that 48 fps makes things more realistic, it's that it makes it more ordinary. At 28 fps, movies have a feel of being more painted, more flowing, and more of an idealized version of reality -- more like a dream or fantasy, which is the way most people are used to experiencing movies: as something larger-than-life, or even better-than-life. At 48 fps, the moving image more closely resembles something like video. The comparisons I've heard have been to soap operas, "making of" behind-the-scenes movies, and Best Buy display TVs that need to have their settings tweaked. (I've accidentally left my TV on its default "TruVision" mode, and it's funny how it makes even old movies like "Nosferatu" or "Metropolis" look like they were shot with video on a soundstage just last week.)

 

If the movie ends up looking more like really artfully produced high-def video, then perhaps the pluses will outweigh the minuses. The verdict is out until I see the movie, but the negative reaction to the 10-minute sample reel back in April was pretty scathing, and seemed to be a majority opinion among the attendees. I am curious if there will be some post-production tweaking to address some of the downsides to the new technology. The upsides are supposedly pretty important to getting the best 3-D visuals, so maybe the problems in 2-D will not be such problems in 3-D. Apparently the 48 fps format makes action scenes much, much crisper in 3-D. I've also read that 48 fps looks far better for displaying slow-motion action. James Cameron is going to shoot the "Avatar" sequels in 48 fps too, which is a pretty strong endorsement considering he's one of the most tech-savvy directors in the business, along with one of the most financially successful.

 

I also wonder if the 10 minutes of the sample reel just weren't long enough of an adjustment period to get used to the different look/feel. When I watch movies with subtitles, usually the first few minutes are a little annoying to me because I'm not used to having to constantly scan the bottom of the screen to understand what's being said. But after about 5-10 minutes I am doing it unconsciously and start to enjoy the movie normally. Maybe that's what it will be like for people watching "The Hobbit."

[Doohickamabob]

OMG Please do not let this crappy movie get two sequels.

That's it, we're kidnapping you, walking you blindfolded into the theater, and then removing the blindfold only to clamp your eyes open, put 3-D glasses over them, and force-feed you popcorn while "The Hobbit" overloads your mind.

[VintageComics]

Roy's observations are in line with the complaints I've heard from other folks. There seems to be a segment of viewers who think that 48 fps makes the visuals look so clear, that the film doesn't seem realistic anymore. That's kind of important when you're trying to draw people into a fantasy setting. If it looks fake, you won't get as immersed in the film. I think the term used by film-types is "suspension of disbelief" or something like that.

 

I agree his observations are in line with a popular sentiment about the technology--this is the third or fourth time I've heard the "too clear" critique. I just don't get why clarity is making things less realistic. Did makeup and CGI artists have an easier time at 24 fps, is that it, and that far more of their flaws are evident at higher frame rates? I'm not sure how clarity and greater realism detracts from movies that are already attempting to be clear and realistic with their visuals.

 

I think the clarity might be causing a problem when the back ground is just as clear as the foreground.

 

It's a depth perception that we are not used to after watching Hollywood movies made one way for decades.

 

I'd really have to see it again to make a better judgment.

[fantastic_four]

The argument isn't merely that 48 fps makes things more realistic, it's that it makes it more ordinary. At 28 fps, movies have a feel of being more painted, more flowing, and more of an idealized version of reality -- more like a dream or fantasy, which is the way most people are used to experiencing movies: as something larger-than-life, or even better-than-life. At 48 fps, the moving image more closely resembles something like video. The comparisons I've heard have been to soap operas, "making of" behind-the-scenes movies, and Best Buy display TVs that need to have their settings tweaked. (I've accidentally left my TV on its default "TruVision" mode, and it's funny how it makes even old movies like "Nosferatu" or "Metropolis" look like they were shot with video on a soundstage just last week.)

 

If the movie ends up looking more like really artfully produced high-def video, then perhaps the pluses will outweigh the minuses. The verdict is out until I see the movie, but the negative reaction to the 10-minute sample reel back in April was pretty scathing, and seemed to be a majority opinion among the attendees. I am curious if there will be some post-production tweaking to address some of the downsides to the new technology. The upsides are supposedly pretty important to getting the best 3-D visuals, so maybe the problems in 2-D will not be such problems in 3-D. Apparently the 48 fps format makes action scenes much, much crisper in 3-D. I've also read that 48 fps looks far better for displaying slow-motion action. James Cameron is going to shoot the "Avatar" sequels in 48 fps too, which is a pretty strong endorsement considering he's one of the most tech-savvy directors in the business, along with one of the most financially successful.

 

I also wonder if the 10 minutes of the sample reel just weren't long enough of an adjustment period to get used to the different look/feel. When I watch movies with subtitles, usually the first few minutes are a little annoying to me because I'm not used to having to constantly scan the bottom of the screen to understand what's being said. But after about 5-10 minutes I am doing it unconsciously and start to enjoy the movie normally. Maybe that's what it will be like for people watching "The Hobbit."

 

Excellent insight! We should wait to see an entire film at 48 fps. Have any at all been shot? I wonder how many of the filmmakers railing against it have seen more than a short clip?

[Doohickamabob]

Excellent insight! We should wait to see an entire film at 48 fps. Have any at all been shot? I wonder how many of the filmmakers railing against it have seen more than a short clip?

Thanks! I don't think any movies have been shot that way, because as far as I know, current projectors can't display 48 fps. I don't know what's going to happen for the "Hobbit" movies...maybe somebody can give us the rundown.

 

One thing I do know is I am glad it will be 3 movies. I nerded out on the first trilogy and have watched the extended versions a couple of times as well. Even the parts of the movie that bother me (like the dramatic gimmick where characters are constantly "dying" and then coming back to life) are things I let slide because I like the good parts so much.