Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit' movie

Discussion in 'Visual Arts' started by Mohojo, Apr 27, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Mohojo

    Mohojo Forum Resident Thread Starter

    An interesting article....

    Peter Jackson's 'The Hobbit' looks "like *****"
    By Marcus, April 26, 2012

    "Uh oh. Ten minutes of Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first of his two prequels to Lord of the Rings, had a US screening for critics on Tuesday and many were unimpressed."

    Click here.
     
  2. DragonQ

    DragonQ Forum Resident

    Location:
    The Moon
    Is this about the 48p display format making it look "too realistic"? :rolleyes:
     
  3. PaulKTF

    PaulKTF Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    It's a kids book aimed at kids, adapted into a movie aimed at Tolkien geek late-teens and adults. It's going to do badly. People are going to expect it to be LOTR 4 and that's not what it is (or not what it's supposed to be). It's not going to get the lavish praise or awards that the LOTR trilogy got.

    Peter Jackson and his team should not have been the ones to handle this particular story.
     
  4. Mohojo

    Mohojo Forum Resident Thread Starter

  5. thegage

    thegage Forum Currency Nerd

    To be clear: the slam is not about the content of the film, but about the way Jackson has chosen to film it, and that it makes things look too much like a movie set rather than an envisioned world.

    John K.
     
  6. GregM

    GregM The expanding man

    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    I wish Del Toro had stayed on for this. Jackson is just not that good at the relationships between characters, and that is really what these books are all about. I'm not a huge fan of his technical prowess and action sequences either. Del Toro would have been better all around.
     
  7. AVTechMan

    AVTechMan Forum Resident

    Location:
    Texas, USA
    I had planned to watch this movie at the end of the year, and still plan to. It would be interesting to see how the prequel to the LOTR series will turn out. Plus since it will have some of the characters from the original trilogy, to me it will be worth checking out. Not going to pay any attention to the critics right now.
     
  8. Matthew B.

    Matthew B. Scream Quietly

    Location:
    Tokyo, Japan
    The only critic cited is one "Devin Faraci of Badass Digest." So I'll wait for further reports.

    Too many asterisks in the thread title.
     
  9. MasterGlove

    MasterGlove Active Member

    Location:
    Argentina
    Filming at such a high frame rate cause what it's known as the Soap Opera Effect.

    As far as I know, it can be reversed, so don't worry.
     
  10. sgtmono

    sgtmono Seasoned Member

    Just curious, how can it be reversed?
     
  11. yamfox

    yamfox Forum Resident

    Location:
    USA
    They used to have expensive "film-look" machines to do it (probably software now).
     
  12. PaulKTF

    PaulKTF Senior Member

    Location:
    USA
    This movie is going to end up looking like it was shot on video, isn't it? :(
     
  13. autodidact

    autodidact Forum Resident

    I recall Roger Ebert at one time waxing enthusiastic about a film-based 48fps system developed by Doug Trumbull (sp?) -- the effects guy on 2001. I dunno. 48fps looks good on film, but not digital? Well, just because Ebert liked it does not mean it was good. I'm happy with 24fps. I'll probably end up seeing this movie on DVD, so it doesn't much matter to me. This week I started listening to a BBC radio production of the Hobbit from some years back. I wouldn't recommend it. I'm going to go to Rob Inglis' reading on unabridged audio book. Then I'll be ready for the film whenever it comes.
     
  14. agentalbert

    agentalbert Senior Member

    Location:
    San Antonio, TX
    One of the best decisions Jackson made in adapting LOTR to film was dropping most of the silly singing. I hope he does the same for Hobbit, but seeing the song in the preview has me a bit worried. It just seems hokey. However essential some consider the songs to the stories, I don't share that view at all.
     
  15. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    Bad reviews here:

    http://movies.ign.com/articles/122/1223523p1.html

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...hobbit-48-fps-exhibition-lord-of-rings-315685

    http://www.deadline.com/2012/04/the...ing-warner-bros-exhib-presentation-cinemacon/

    http://www.thewrap.com/movies/colum...hobbit-higher-frame-rate-effect-lacking-37254

    I think the reality is that exhibitors rarely react favorably to something new. The 24fps frame rate has been ingrained in cinemas since the invention of sound, more than 90 years ago. Suddenly jumping to 48fps 3D is a tough technological hurdle to accept, especially if you've been watching 24fps for decades (as we all have).

    Note that the process is easily convertible to 24fps, as all the previews and trailers already up on the web will confirm. Jackson is a terrific filmmaker who understands technology like few other directors in the world, so if fixes can be made, I'm sure he's the guy who capable of doing it.
     
  16. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    It was shot on video . . . . . . but I know what you mean. :D
     
  17. Pinknik

    Pinknik Senior Member

    Actually he waxed enthusiastic about Maxivision 48 which was developed by someone else. Trumbull developed the 60fps 70mm Showscan system. Just so ya know.
     
  18. mbrennem

    mbrennem Active Member

    Will be really interesting to see what the general public thinks. Most people could not even tell you that film is shot at 24 fps, in fact they wouldn't know what fps stands for!

    When I have frame interpolation turned on watching TV, it looks awful and unnatural to me but my wife doesn't see anything unusual, even when I try to explain what I am seeing.

    I like the "idea" of making things more clear and realistic but I'm not sure I will like the actual implemented solution. I would LOVE this for sports on TV though, this is the only time I actually use frame interpolation today, and even then I cringe when commercials are on.
     
  19. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    BTW, note that a lot of films projected in theaters are shown at 24fps with a 4-bladed shutter, giving the "effect" of 96fps; each frame is shown 4 times. The advantage of this method is that the image tends to flicker less. We use the same technique with a lot of conventional D-Cinema projectors as well.

    The big issue to me is the loss of brightness with 3D. Jackson's system is impressive, but it does nothing to improve brightness... yet. We'll see if they're able to compensate for this by the end of the year, when the first of the Hobbit movies comes out.
     
  20. subatomic09

    subatomic09 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey
  21. will_b_free

    will_b_free Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boulder, CO
    So they'll toss a layer of grain on it to make it look less perfect. Not a problem.
     
  22. Vidiot

    Vidiot Now in 4K HDR!

    Location:
    Hollywood, USA
    An updated story (which I can't find at the moment) also quoted a theater chain owner as saying it looked like a "soap opera." That seems to be the overwhelming criticism.

    The good news is that at least the projectors can be upgraded inexpensively ($3000):

    http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cinemacon-2012-sony-digital-cinema-projector-315578

    Me, I'd wait to criticize it until I actually see it. I would admit, though, that the emotional impact of 24fps is kind of ingrained in our heads. Tampering with this is risky.

    Adding grain and/or noise does not change frame rate. As one comparison, if you overcompress and slam the levels of an album, and then add tape hiss, it doesn't reduce the distortion of the overcompression.
     
  23. subatomic09

    subatomic09 Forum Resident

    Location:
    New Jersey
    I don't know, I get pretty emotional when the Cubs win, and that's 60fps. :winkgrin:
     
  24. will_b_free

    will_b_free Forum Resident

    Location:
    Boulder, CO
    Of course not, but the complaint is that the image is so clear, so transparent, that it makes everything look like it is shot on video. Everything looks like behind-the-scenes footage of a film set, and the makeup look like makeup. Degrade the image and all that clarity will go away, and people will be happy again.
     
  25. Mohojo

    Mohojo Forum Resident Thread Starter

    It seems that when the quality is too good, the picture become hyper real, which ironically makes things looks less real. Or least that my understanding of the complaint by critics.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

molar-endocrine