Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: The Hobbit

  1. #1
    Cynic Jomama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    816

    Angry The Hobbit

    Idk about anyone else, but I hate the look they are talking about here... Total distraction.

    As you may know, Peter Jackson is directing his two ‘Lord of the Rings’ prequels in 3D and at 48 frames per second, twice the old standard of 24 frames per second. ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey’ will be the first major movie filmed at this rate.

    Well today he screened 10 minutes of footage at CinemaCon in Las Vegas, and according to some, it sorta sucked. Because now the images are actually too crisp and clear, and it doesn’t look like a movie any more.

    Devin Faraci on Badass Digest says:

    “…it has that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy.
    The footage I saw looked terrible … completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets … sets don’t even look like sets when you’re on them live, but these looked like sets. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.”
    A reporter from Variety (via IndieWire) was slightly kinder:

    “…a thing to behold. Totally different experience. Not all will like the change. 48 fps has an immediacy that is almost jarring … unfortunately, (it also) looks a bit like television.”
    Well between this new clarity and the 3D, ‘The Hobbit’ should be just like going to a super elaborate LARP battle, complete with me calling everyone in a costume a fag.

  2. #2
    Senior Member Kyrillian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    548

    Default

    I was upset to see this as well. I hate the way those TVs look in Best Buy. The TV I got looked like that and took a while to get it to look normal. It just doesn't look right!

  3. #3
    Administrator Klaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    I am sure they will figure out how to tame it down before release. But I would like to see the 48fps version to see the advance in technology. I would think it's 24fps to each eye to get the smooth motion and no flicker.... but it seems like it's 48fps for both so I am confused.

  4. #4
    Administrator Klaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    Seriously....wtf

    When asked at Comic-Con if he was considering turning his adaptation of The Hobbit into a trilogy of movies, Peter Jackson told reporters that those 'discussions were ongoing' and that he was currently 'talking to the studio about some of the material we can't film and we've asking them if we can do a bit more filming'

    According to the Hollywood Reporter those discussions have heated up since San Diego last weekend and the production team is scrambling to prepare a budget and schedule for filming footage to round out a third film. Will this make The Hobbit another unnecessary trilogy? (Check out the gallery above to see others)


    It's not surprise that studios would want the New Zealand director to mirror the success of his first Lord of the Rings trilogy (the films earned $2.9 billion worldwide), but it raises concerns that the source material may be getting stretched too thin to accomodate a new set of three films. Jackson was able to make due with one movie per book for the first set of films (despite Return of the King's eternal running time), so it makes sense he'd be able to manage to do the same for The Hobbit. One book-one movie, right? Or at the very least one book-two movies. I mean, we don't want another Deathly Hallows - Part 1 on our hands here. But if there's one thing you can count on in Hollywood, it's studios finding any way possible to squeeze another few dollars out of your wallets.

    The first chapter, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, travels from Middle-Earth to cinemas on December 14th.
    Source

  5. #5
    Cynic Jomama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    816

    Default

    That quote leaves out a key piece of info. He's not just making stuff up to stretch the movies, he has rights to the Silmarillion as well and wanted to incorporate parts of that into the story line, parts that give backstory and details...

  6. #6
    Administrator Klaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    It's fine but I just don't think the hobbit needs 6 hours to tell (even with back story). You can read the book in that amount of time...

  7. #7
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    334

    Default

    Six? I'm sure it will be 7.5 for theatres cut, again, down from 3 hour extended editions that will have everyone buying the DVD boxed sets for $100 again.
    RIP Rocklobster & Straph

  8. #8
    Cynic Jomama's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Anchorage, AK
    Posts
    816

    Default

    I want it to be as long as it needs to be to tell the story as found in the books, and if he wants to throw stuff in from the Silmarillion, thats cool too..

    I never re-watch the theater release of the LOR, the Dir Cuts are sooo much better...


    ....first world problems... lol

  9. #9
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    334

    Default

    lol, yes

    Now you know how us A Song of Ice and Fire readers feel!
    RIP Rocklobster & Straph

  10. #10
    Administrator Klaus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    2,188

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chadwick View Post
    lol, yes

    Now you know how us A Song of Ice and Fire readers feel!
    Exactly!

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •