[Robert the Bruce]

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/2...sponds-hobbit/


Peter Jackson says the negative reaction this week over new technology he’s using to shoot The Hobbit won’t hold him back, and he hopes moviegoers will give it a try and judge for themselves.

“Nobody is going to stop,” he said. “This technology is going to keep evolving.”

[Robert the Bruce]

There is more from Jackson.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/peter-jackson-the-hobbit-cinemac on-317755

Here are some quotes from the article.

“It does take you a while to get used to,” he said. “Ten minutes is sort of marginal, it probably needed a little bit more. Another thing that I think is a factor is it’s different to look at a bunch of clips and some were fast-cutting, montage-style clips. This is different experience than watching a character and story unfold.”

Because of that, he isn’t planning to release a 48 fps trailer for the movie. “I personally wouldn’t advocate a 48-frame trailer because the 48 frames is something you should experience with the entire film. A 2 1/2 minute trailer isn’t enough time to adjust to the immersive quality.”

...

Because production is not scheduled to wrap until July, the customary postproduction that affects the overall look of a film has not yet been done, so the clips were unfinished. They were not yet color corrected, nor had the visual effects been completed. (In various scenes the actors were shown performing in front of a greenscreen.)

Jackson explained that his original The Lord of the Rings used various postproduction techniques to create a certain look for the movies, including “extensive” digital color grading, “added texture, and we took out highlights."

“We’ll do the same with The Hobbit, to make it consistent and give it the feeling of otherworldliness – to get the mood, the tone, the feel of the different scenes,” he said. “We are certainly going to experiment with different finishing techniques to give the 48 frames a look that is more organic. But that work isn’t due to start until we wrap photography in July (both Hobbit films are being shot simultaneously)."

This is encouraging.

[Mistoffelees]

Sounds insincere to have the trailer look different than the film.

Let's hope there'll also be a 24 fps version at the theatres.

[Atomic Cow]

Originally Posted by Mistoffelees

Sounds insincere to have the trailer look different than the film.

Let's hope there'll also be a 24 fps version at the theatres.

I'm hoping against it if you don't mind.

[Atomic Cow]

I have been hearing about Showscan since I think the early nineties and I want to see it probably more than I want to see the film content which is The Hobbit. The Luddites here have already decided they don't want to see the high frame rate version before seeing it. Whether its great or its not great it will be film history and you would have been there for it to pass judgement and tell your children's children.
The cavemen fear change. Its not about change, its about having options.

Its 2012 and we still have black and white and even silent films being made. In the toobox we have, color, black and white, mono, stereo, surround sound, 3D, high frame. If you can shoot 3D you can make it as 3D or flat as you want. With color it can be as saturated or desaturated. You can always take back, but you can't put in what you can't yet do. We didn't hit on 24 because it was optimal. We hit on that limit because it was what we could do and it was practical.

I'd rather see some premier theaters have a 60 frame option than a 24.

[Mistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

I'm hoping against it if you don't mind.

If people want to see the Hobbit with the conventional 24 fps, the theatres probably are more than happy to take their money. It's similar to how there are 3D and 2D screenings of the same film.

[Atomic Cow]

I'm not going to cry if it happens. I'm just not wishing for it. But the other alternative I'd rather see is a 2D high frame rate. People who even verbalize that they want 24 FPS 2D should be banned from seeing it at all in theaters and condemned to watching the DVD.

[JRSly]

Heh, soon megaplexes will only be showing one film in a dozen variations.

[Mistoffelees]

Originally Posted by JRSly

Heh, soon megaplexes will only be showing one film in a dozen variations.

Like Francis Ford Coppola's new movie Twixt. It has lots of different versions. Coppola says, he can just shuffle the scenes, creating different versions of the film. And twixt has two scenes filmed in 3D.

[Commander Kook]

Originally Posted by Mistoffelees

Sounds insincere to have the trailer look different than the film.

Let's hope there'll also be a 24 fps version at the theatres.

Read this today.

Originally Posted by IGN

Warner Bros. brass want filmgoers to know that they will still have options when The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey opens this December 14, including 3D, 2D and IMAX 3D and in both 24fps and 48fps.

[Mistoffelees]

Thanks, that's good to know!

[Dead and Messed Up]

Originally Posted by Atomic Cow

Whether its great or its not great it will be film history and you would have been there for it to pass judgement and tell your children's children.

I hope to Christ we have more interesting things to talk about with our children's children.

[pluckylump]

I'm still mad they increased frame rate from 12 fps and added sound.

[Finwë]

I'm still baffled that the same people who are anti-subtitling foreign films and anti-coloring b&w films would watch a 3D or high framerate film in a format not intended by the filmmaker for it to be seen in.

[Dead and Messed Up]

Originally Posted by Finwë

I'm still baffled that the same people who are anti-subtitling foreign films and anti-coloring b&w films would watch a 3D or high framerate film in a format not intended by the filmmaker for it to be seen in.

You mean anti-dubbing?

[Finwë]

Originally Posted by Dead and Messed Up

You mean anti-dubbing?

Yeah that.

[Mystic]

I'll watch it both ways and decide for myself which version is better. As long as it doesn't look like those terrible Twilight Zone episodes that were shot on video, I'll probably be good.

[Hipster Thor]

I just bought the LOTR trilogy(theatrical because they have nothing wrong with them, while the EE's have great stuff added, but also have some terrible things, so it evens out anyway. May as well pick the versions with the more convenient run time)on Bluray today. First Bluray purchases ever. Wow they look great. I don't understand why there's a need to fix something that isn't broken. It seems to me that this is James Cameron viciously trying to make his 3D vision for cinema's future come true with all this "Higher frame rate" crap.

[Robert the Bruce]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

I just bought the LOTR trilogy(theatrical because they have nothing wrong with them, while the EE's have great stuff added, but also have some terrible things, so it evens out anyway

uhh

yikes. definitely no accounting for taste on RT.

Originally Posted by Mystic

I'll watch it both ways and decide for myself which version is better. As long as it doesn't look like those terrible Twilight Zone episodes that were shot on video, I'll probably be good.

what worries me is that everyone defending the look are the people who didn't see the 10 minute screening + the fact that theatre owners seemed to universally dislike it.

[Dead and Messed Up]

Originally Posted by Finwë

Yeah that.

You bring up a very good point.

If I see this movie in theaters, I'll see it on the 48fps format. I won't see it in 3D, but I'll give the 48fps a go.

[Hipster Thor]

Originally Posted by montferrat

uhh

yikes. definitely no accounting for taste on RT.

You don't even know to what I'm referring. There are some GREAT additions to the EE's, don't get me wrong, but a lot of them sometimes feel unnecessary,are poorly executed, obvious padding, or just plain lazily added as ****. Why should I go for a 99 dollar version of a film with some added depth, but also with some major detractors, when I can just get what PJ considers his director's cuts, which include no real flaws at all to speak of, for 30 dollars? Let me put it these terms, I can enjoy an adventure film that's only slightly more shallow and be immersed throughout, or I can go for a deeper experience that breaks my suspension of disbelief in more than one instance. If I get a laptop than can edit high res video, then I'll make my own cuts, but for now, theatrical for me.

In any case, I'll give the 48fps a shot, but as far as I know, we've had the capabilities to shoot movies like this for a bit now, and I thought there were reasons that director's stuck to the industry standard. You also have to think that in order to view a 48fps film on home video, we'd need a brand new media format to replace bluray, because they would have contain twice as much data per disc.

[Master King Sexington]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

You don't even know to what I'm referring. There are some GREAT additions to the EE's, don't get me wrong, but a lot of them sometimes feel unnecessary,are poorly executed, obvious padding, or just plain lazily added as ****. Why should I go for a 99 dollar version of a film with some added depth, but also with some major detractors, when I can just get what PJ considers his director's cuts, which include no real flaws at all to speak of, for 30 dollars? Let me put it these terms, I can enjoy an adventure film that's only slightly more shallow and be immersed throughout, or I can go for a deeper experience that breaks my suspension of disbelief in more than one instance. If I get a laptop than can edit high res video, then I'll make my own cuts, but for now, theatrical for me.

In any case, I'll give the 48fps a shot, but as far as I know, we've had the capabilities to shoot movies like this for a bit now, and I thought there were reasons that director's stuck to the industry standard. You also have to think that in order to view a 48fps film on home video, we'd need a brand new media format to replace bluray, because they would have contain twice as much data per disc.

I'm fairly certain most bluray rips are around 25 gigs in size. Most bluray films are put on dual layer blurays which have a 50 gig capacity.

Just put special features on another disc.

[Hipster Thor]

On longer films, you will definitely see more of splitting the film on to two discs. This is fine occasionally, but It would be bothersome to do so with every movie over 2 hours long. Also, the amount of storage a film takes up varies quite a bit by the quality of the master and sound. A Fistful of Dollars remaster would take up substantially less space on a Bluray than, say The Avengers. Or at least that's how I've come to understand it.

[facsm]

Man, those cameras are awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D-sD...3&feature=plcp

[radioman970]

I don't like that video look. Give me a film look any day.

[Mistoffelees]

Originally Posted by facsm

Man, those cameras are awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6D-sD...3&feature=plcp

I just rewatched this vlog and those two Howe/Lee drawings really match up to one 3D image! Of course the dwarf is flat, as is the dwarf behind him and the spider too. But since they use 3D cameras I hope the 3D in the movie will look more like "real life 3D" instead a cardboard cutouts in a row.

[HappyDaiz]

Production Video #7.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151028043926807

[JdlC]

i am very open to the idea of the 48fps. heck they could make it a 60 or 120.

the only slight concern that i have is how the cgi effects would look like with that frame rate

as for how the background, set or the scenery would look like, i actually think it's going to be delish on 48 fps

[signal to noise]

It was as shocking as when The Twilight Zone made the boneheaded decision to switch from film to tape one season, and where perfectly good stories were ruined by that aesthetic

At first I didn't comprehend what "looks too real" meant in the context of the Hobbit footage- but that quote in the article now makes it understandable. I had always wondered what was going on with those certain TZ episodes that looked "far too real" to me when viewing them. I remember I could never sit through one of those episodes because they just looked so completely odd. Like someones bad self-made movies.

Another thing that is unsettling is the apparent need for another completely out-of-place female character. I hated every Arwen scene in the LotR series (okay, not every scene- but most of them). I though the flight to the fords scene was completely ruined by her inclusion. So I'm not thrilled about a new completely invented female bass-ass character who will undoutedly carry Bilbo on her shoulders to fight Smaug, while crying defiantly, "He is the barrel-rider and the riddlemaster! He is he who walks unseen!"

Yet I still hope... this will be good.

[Satoris]

Originally Posted by HappyDaiz

Production Video #7.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10151028043926807

Awesome.