http://www.youtube.com/user/kclovesgaming <---- My Youtube Channel.
While I'm excited that there will be so many movies of one book, I don't understand how. The book is 300 pages, that's usually a bit thin for TWO movies. But people told be that so much happens in it (I read it a while ago). But Tolkien was an author that described things very greatly.
But anyway, it will be an awesome trilogy and hopefully as good as LotR!! (Tickets for the 12th, check)
They are taking content out of Tolkien's other works, not just the Hobbit, to make these movies as well so they can put more stuff in the movies.
I'm probably the only person in the world who is happy the movie is long. More middle-earthy goodness. Heck, make it 6 hours...
Can't wait for Extended Edition releases.
Just a side note about the 48fps videos that had been released to the public previously - they were released without any after effects/CGI work done. The reason why the sets looked like sets, was... because they were just sets. Closed screenings of the fully finished footage at 48fps, with all after effects/CGI/lighting in place has been widely regarded as very impressive by those who were able to see it.
It may be strange moving at 48fps when released, but I fully intend to see both the 48fps/3D and 2D/24fps versions.
The early clips shown weren't, from what I've read, fully posted (post = post-production, not "posted on teh intarwebz").
24 fps is horribly low and the only reason movies wound up at that frame rate was because it was a trade-off between smooth motion and the cost of film back in the day. Then once everyone standardized on 24 fps the cost of new equipment kept most producers of movies from even trying to go to higher frame rate.
What makes soap operas look like shit isn't just the frame rate, it's also the crummy lighting, limited budgets for wardrobes and sets and acting that often feels like the actors are just phoning it in (seriously, look at the lighting, post work, sets and wardrobes used in the average soap opera and compare it to a big budget movie, there's a huge difference, even in TV shows with a decent-sized budget it's rare to see lighting, post, sets and wardrobes near the quality of most movies).
Now, when you get accustomed to seeing all these bad things along with a higher frame rate while the choppy and blurry 24 fps frame rate is only used for "real movies" you begin to associate the former with cheap and ugly productions (since it's an easy visual cue that you can pick up on almost immediately).
Edit: Cameras deserve a mention as well, a new RED cam that can capture proper high-res video will give much better results than a cheaper camera that just barely handles 1080p @ 30 fps with the same lighting, sets and all that junk. Guess which cameras are used for big budget movies and which are used for long-running soap operas with a tight budget...
Last edited by mludd; 2012-12-05 at 12:34 PM.
I am the Kwisatz Haderach
I wonder if the critics are just doing this to thrive on conflict. Seems like that, when they focus on such minor and ridiculous things. Some of them seems like being positive, but then throws the 48fps card and deems the whole movie a fail. Are they angry Peter Jackson didn't instantly throw the 48fps idea out the window when they didn't like the 10 minutes they saw in Las Vegas earlier this year?
And then they talk about the length, which they also criticized in Fellowship of the Ring, despite it being the best of three movies in some peoples opinion, and being the shortest of the trilogy (and they didn't seem to complain all that much about length during those.) Heck, I only watch the movies in Extended Edition!
Being critical is a burden which some people loves to bear.
Modern gaming apologist: I once tasted diarrhea so shit is fine.
"People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an excercise of power, are barbarians" - George Lucas 1988
I've seen almost every review of the Hobbit available online, and the more I read through them, the more it seems to me that these critics that give the movie 6/10 or similar score do it either for publicity or out of sheer blind hatred towards the higher frame rate/Peter Jackson's vision. I can't understand how those websites can give people who are not even fans of the LoTR to review the Hobbit, and bitch about the length of the movie, the lack of female characters, or how the first 40 minutes of the movie are so boring. Those are all shitty points, that only raise one question: Who are these people? They should never ever touch anything remotely connected to Middle Earth, because they obviously haven't felt the magic that flows through it's veins, both in the books and the movies.
Luckily, there is a whole different side to the story, and the amount of online support the Hobbit is getting is just incredible, seeing that the movie is yet to come out. I honestly believe that nothing can, will, nor should stop the Hobbit in becoming the highest grossing trilogy of all time. Basically everyone I know is going to theater to see this baby, and believe me, never before have I seen so many people excited about one movie. The hype blows Avengers and TDKR out of the water, with ease.
Still waters run deep.