[Movies] The Hobbit (Possible Spoilers)

[Mongoose19]

No, it won't look fake, you and others who have trained themselves to think "30/29.97 fps = direct-to-TV, 24 fps = cinema" might think so but no.

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...

I am just saying how I felt after seeing the Hobbit trailer in 48 fps, it really looks god damn weird. Maybe I will get used to it at some point but for now it just doesn't look right.

[Arrowstorm]

I am just saying how I felt after seeing the Hobbit trailer in 48 fps, it really looks god damn weird. Maybe I will get used to it at some point but for now it just doesn't look right.

Where is that trailer anyway?

[Wilian]

No, it won't look fake, you and others who have trained themselves to think "30/29.97 fps = direct-to-TV, 24 fps = cinema" might think so but no.

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.

Actually the reason why it became 24 was that silent films were ran with anything between 20 and 26 fps but when sound was introduced to them, human ear very easily picked up on the "change" so the standard was built around 24.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate

[Saturate]

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.

You are definitely not alone.


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.

[Frontenac]

You are definitely not alone.


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.

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. No need to get almost religious about a movie. No need to feel threatened by small writings. Maybe they do not understand the "magic" of Middle-Earth. Still they have a right to dislike the movie and write about it. It is no blaspheme against Tolkien. I can't count the number of movies I liked that were flamed by the critics. Like Robert Charlebois, a singer where I live, sang : "I don't care much about critics. They are sympathetic failures." (J'me fous pas mal de la critique. Ce sont des ratés sympathiques.)

[Arrowstorm]

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. No need to get almost religious about a movie. No need to feel threatened by small writings. Maybe they do not understand the "magic" of Middle-Earth. Still they have a right to dislike the movie and write about it. It is no blaspheme against Tolkien. I can't count the number of movies I liked that were flamed by the critics. Like Robert Charlebois, a singer where I live, sang : "I don't care much about critics. They are sympathetic failures." (J'me fous pas mal de la critique. Ce sont des ratés sympathiques.)

Sympathetic failures? I do wish to have that explained.

[Frontenac]

Sympathetic failures? I do wish to have that explained.

He meant that critics are often people who would have liked to be artists themselves, but since they don't have the talent to do it, they criticize the works of others. Hence, failures. However, they have their use and they usually like artists too in general, so they are sympathetic. At least that's how I understand the lyrics.

[Arrowstorm]

He meant that critics are often people who would have liked to be artists themselves, but since they don't have the talent to do it, they criticize the works of others. Hence, failures. However, they have their use and they usually like artists too in general, so they are sympathetic. At least that's how I understand the lyrics.

I guess becoming a reviewer is easier than becoming a director.

[wildrush]

It shall be epic.

[Fuzzzie]

Hearing mixed reviews about it. I'm sure I'll like it though.

[kitt]

I also can't wait for this movie. But i heard that there will be 3 parts of the movie? Isn't this true?

[Saturate]

Everyone is entitled to his opinion. No need to get almost religious about a movie. No need to feel threatened by small writings. Maybe they do not understand the "magic" of Middle-Earth. Still they have a right to dislike the movie and write about it. It is no blaspheme against Tolkien. I can't count the number of movies I liked that were flamed by the critics. Like Robert Charlebois, a singer where I live, sang : "I don't care much about critics. They are sympathetic failures." (J'me fous pas mal de la critique. Ce sont des ratés sympathiques.)

You make a good point of course, but mine has been only that these people - don't. I might have seemed a bit overzealous there, but I just can't stand this huge dislike of change that is embedded deep in our society. It happens all the time, in every aspect of our lives, until the hate gradually fades into oblivion and the new stuff completely replaces the old. Guess I'm just tired of that backward way of experiencing life. Especially when I see it happening to something that has been a huge part of my childhood and has partly made me the person I am today.

[Arrowstorm]

I also can't wait for this movie. But i heard that there will be 3 parts of the movie? Isn't this true?

Yes. The critics, seeing a small book and a trilogy of movies, and seeing how the movie is really long without constant action, doesn't like it. However, it should be noted that a bunch of things are added, both a lot of lore, The Necromancer, and Battle of the Five Armies (I doubt it will be cut short in the movie by Bilbo getting knocked out like in the book). Add to the fact Fellowship of the Ring was given the same critic, it's kinda meh criticism. Plus, one of them giving it a bad rating said it was better for extended version, and being a guy that would never watch LOTR in none-extended version, I'm happy I don't have to wait for extended version to get the whole thing (at least not missing a huge amount.)

EDIT: A guy over at the IMDb forums has seen a pre-screening of the movie:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/...&p=1#207894517

Skrew the critics, this movie is going to be amazing.

[Badhairday]

Sir Ian McKellen is going live with a chat Q&A on twitter in a few minutes, thought I'd leave a link here in case someone was interested.

http://twitter.com/TheHobbitMovie/with_replies

[Vellerix]

Ugh, critics really do grind my gears. I don't know why people pay heed to them. Films are such a subjective thing IMO, either take opinions from friends who have seen it or just go and make your own mind up if its a title that interests you, critics should never be taken seriously.

[Forfax]

Can someone explain to me the 48fps thing?
i've read that it 48 image per min? or something , correct me if im wrong but how is it suppose to be bad? more image sound just much better ;O

[Gamdwelf]

Can someone explain to me the 48fps thing?
i've read that it 48 image per min? or something , correct me if im wrong but how is it suppose to be bad? more image sound just much better ;O

usually movies are filmed in 24 frames per second or fps, this one is in 48, its not bad, its better but old movie critics are complaining

[Ausr]

Ugh, critics really do grind my gears. I don't know why people pay heed to them. Films are such a subjective thing IMO, either take opinions from friends who have seen it or just go and make your own mind up if its a title that interests you, critics should never be taken seriously.

Don't you know, every movie has to be an Oscar, Golden Globe winning masterpiece with such wonderful movies like Life of Pi, Anna Kenadahrah (or whatever) and whatever dumb artsy movie people poop out.


/sarcasm over

[Arrowstorm]

Don't you know, every movie has to be an Oscar, Golden Globe winning masterpiece with such wonderful movies like Life of Pi, Anna Kenadahrah (or whatever) and whatever dumb artsy movie people poop out.


/sarcasm over

Calling them dumb artsy and then say /sarcasm over makes me think you DON'T think they're dumb and artsy.

[conscript]

Can someone explain to me the 48fps thing?
i've read that it 48 image per min? or something , correct me if im wrong but how is it suppose to be bad? more image sound just much better ;O

Gamdwelf already explained what it is, but what is causing people the most outrage is that it just looks different than what you are used to. Since you are on this site I imagine you play or have played WoW. Imagine running the game on a mediocre graphics card getting only 24 fps giving you a slightly choppy game experience, but over time you are used to it and you grow used to that. Then one day you install a newer card and that FPS doubles and suddenly the game looks much more vibrant and smooth. It is basically the same experience between the 48 FPS he shot this in and the traditional 24 FPS. We are so used to watching movies at a certain quality that such a dramatic bump makes it tough to adjust at first. Everything looks more hyper-realistic and less of a traditional movie style. That seems to be the biggest hang up for so many negative reviews. I hope my theater is showing it in 48 FPS on the 3d and 24 FPS on the 2d so I can see both firsthand and see if the reported differences are really that noticeable.

Apparently the end credits run for SIXTEEN minutes.