|
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net? Consider a donation!
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
goken100
Registered User
Jan 24 2013, 7:30pm
Post #1 of 47
(1215 views)
Shortcut
|
|
High Frame Rate Fallout
|
Can't Post
|
|
We can all agree that the High Frame Rate version of The Hobbit is receiving mixed reviews. I'm wondering if PJ has responded yet, or if any other news studios adjusting to the feedback has come out. Why might there be a response, you ask?
A lot of folks don't like it, and that creates a lot of negative energy surrounding the whole affair. Enough of a negative energy to make it land on some jerk's worst-of list and make a lot of ill-informed people think the movies are under-performing.
My feelings on the subject are best summed up by my favorite web comic: Weregeek link "If the best you can say is that you didn't hate it as much as you thought, it may not be worth it." Wisdom, that is.
I know the comic is talking about 3D, and that's a questionable inclusion as well, but I think the more egregious technology here is HFR. Not because its terrible, but because of the subject matter. The Hobbit is fantasy. When people complain about seeing fake costumes too clearly, it makes me sad. For the same reasons that a beautiful anime movie is beautiful, maybe a fantasy movie is more fantastical without crisp realism. At least, until the technology is more widely accepted.
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Rostron2
Gondor
Jan 24 2013, 7:42pm
Post #2 of 47
(601 views)
Shortcut
|
I've yet to see a real-world survey about it. If someone can show me a sample of 1000 average movie-goers that were surveyed and "a lot of folks" didn't like it, then I would say that's significant.
An informal poll of friends of mine( not very scientific perhaps) but a real world non TORN educated group had these results:
11 of 13 I spoke with were in the "liked" or really liked the way the films looked in HFR. The other two didn't really notice much difference or felt it took some getting used to. However, nearly all complained that the 3-D HFR price per ticket was quite high.(In our areas they can run up to 15 US dollars per ticket)
|
|
|
Eruonen
Valinor
Jan 24 2013, 7:44pm
Post #3 of 47
(577 views)
Shortcut
|
" Pioneers Take the Arrows, Settlers Take the Land"
PJ is taking the arrows right now, but the future film land will reflect what he has pioneered.
(This post was edited by Eruonen on Jan 24 2013, 7:45pm)
|
|
|
goken100
Registered User
Jan 24 2013, 7:47pm
Post #4 of 47
(567 views)
Shortcut
|
A survey's a good idea! Can we do those on this site? I know we're probably a biased group, but we could phrase the question as something like "what is your preferred method for viewing The Hobbit?".
|
|
|
entmaiden
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 24 2013, 7:49pm
Post #5 of 47
(561 views)
Shortcut
|
allows you to put up a poll.
|
|
|
Aragalen the Green
Gondor
Jan 24 2013, 7:52pm
Post #6 of 47
(534 views)
Shortcut
|
|
There is a site in The One Ring Forums called the "Pollantir"
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
in the "Off Topic" section, where you can set up a poll. I've never done it but you could ask one of the awesome Forum Moderators/Administrators :) (Or look at the FAQ's?)
There it is: dwarves are not heroes, but calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not, but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.
|
|
|
bborchar
Rohan
Jan 24 2013, 7:53pm
Post #7 of 47
(534 views)
Shortcut
|
It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I haven't spoken to anyone who didn't think it looked amazing. I won't say it was perfect, but I think it's a matter of getting used to it, as well as figuring out the best uses for it. I was very hesitant to watch it in the HFR myself, but decided to before it left theaters...and then went and saw it again because I was so astonished. I will definitely be seeing DoS in HFR the first time.
|
|
|
Aragalen the Green
Gondor
Jan 24 2013, 7:54pm
Post #8 of 47
(541 views)
Shortcut
|
I take too long to type 
There it is: dwarves are not heroes, but calculating folk with a great idea of the value of money; some are tricky and treacherous and pretty bad lots; some are not, but are decent enough people like Thorin and Company, if you don't expect too much.
|
|
|
Rostron2
Gondor
Jan 24 2013, 7:54pm
Post #9 of 47
(526 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't know...some sites can do polls. {okay Pollantir]
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Maybe one of the Mods can say.... OKAY MY QUESTION WAS ANSWERED THAKS!!!
There was a lot of talk about 3-D as being a gimmick for the last few years. All I see are complaints about ticket price on a regular basis, and how some people's eyes don't adjust well to 3-D.
I can't imagine they didn't show this in HFR to sample audiences. Where are the results of those surveys? Some group was a guinea pig for this. Just like they did test runs of the new 3-D technologies a few years ago. The amount of misinformation from web talk is legion and subjective.
You're right, at least a poll here would get some percentages around this enjoyment factor.
(This post was edited by Rostron2 on Jan 24 2013, 7:55pm)
|
|
|
Ataahua
Superuser
/ Moderator
Jan 24 2013, 7:59pm
Post #10 of 47
(550 views)
Shortcut
|
maybe a fantasy movie is more fantastical without crisp realism.
For me, the HFR removed the gritty sweatiness we felt from LOTR and made The Hobbit seem more fantastical.
Each to their own.
Celebrimbor: "Pretty rings..."
Dwarves: "Pretty rings..."
Men: "Pretty rings..."
Sauron: "Mine's better."
"Ah, how ironic, the addictive qualities of Sauron’s master weapon led to its own destruction. Which just goes to show, kids - if you want two small and noble souls to succeed on a mission of dire importance... send an evil-minded beggar with them too." - Gandalf's Diaries, final par, by Ufthak.
Ataahua's stories
|
|
|
Loresilme
Valinor
Jan 24 2013, 8:03pm
Post #11 of 47
(545 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I had the opposite reaction to HFR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
"If the best you can say is that you didn't hate it as much as you thought, it may not be worth it."
______________________________________
I went in not expecting to like it, because I had never liked 3D. I came away with a complete different opinion. I loved it in HFR.
|
|
|
goken100
Registered User
Jan 24 2013, 8:15pm
Post #12 of 47
(526 views)
Shortcut
|
Thanks, that's nifty. I put up a quick poll:
http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=566445
There's also an older poll that is pretty close:
http://newboards.theonering.net/forum/gforum/perl/gforum.cgi?post=551281
|
|
|
LordMaximus
Rivendell
Jan 24 2013, 8:35pm
Post #13 of 47
(505 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Did anyone else get the weird speeding up thing happening in 48 fps?
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I have talked about this previously and someone thought I was talking about the differences between formats. I was watching with my gf and she did not notice what I described to her in the same viewing. I am guessing something is wrong with my brain. It basically happened only when things were moving fast on screen, like the dwarves running around and the sled chase.
Did anyone else have this weird thing happening to them?! or is it just me?
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Jan 24 2013, 8:36pm
Post #14 of 47
(507 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I don't really think he's a pioneer...
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
One of the main reasons people don't like HFR, is because it's not new. Almost everyone has seen it in soap operas, and cheap video programs. Thus, it's bad reception. If no one had ever seen HFR before, the reaction would probably be a lot different. Granted, 48fps is higher a frame rate than those things, it still gives that same feel.
Yes, he's the first person to release a feature film in this format, but there is a reason that it hasn't been done before. IDK, maybe it's just because I really don't like HFR, but I just don't think it's right for narrative storytelling on the big screen. Something like Planet Earth would benefit a lot more from HFR and 3D.
I think PJ would have been a bigger pioneer if he decided to shoot The Hobbit the same way he shot LOTR. On film, with miniatures, and a combination of practical and CGI effects. So far, every director to re-ignite a franchise has drastically changed the aesthetic of the film in order to keep up with the industry, or to "pioneer" new technology. What they don't realize, is that their original films are timeless because of their original methods and feel.
Of course, It's probably getting more and more difficult to persuade a studio to let you shoot a film with "old" technology, and not in 3D. Again, that would just make it more of an accomplishment, especially if it still looked as good as any film released today (which I really think it would).
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
|
|
|
stoutfiles
Rohan
Jan 24 2013, 8:38pm
Post #15 of 47
(505 views)
Shortcut
|
|
HFR doesn't work because of LOTR
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
They did such a good job (at first glance, yes there are mistakes) with the effects in LOTR that it felt real. Once you add in HFR, all that CGI and costume work is more evident and took a lot of people out of the movie. Remember, this is the film following up RotK, which won Best Picture. It was always going to be under the microscope.
HFR is the future, though. I predict Avatar 2 will get glowing reviews with its 60 FPS, because it's a video game world and the whole thing is basically CGI. People aren't expecting realism there where they do with The Hobbit...because of LOTR.
|
|
|
Owain
Tol Eressea
Jan 24 2013, 8:39pm
Post #16 of 47
(492 views)
Shortcut
|
|
I actually really enjoyed HFR 3D.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
BTW, welcome to tORN!
Middle Earth is New Zealand!
"Question everything, embrace the bad, and hold on to the good."
|
|
|
bborchar
Rohan
Jan 24 2013, 8:39pm
Post #17 of 47
(486 views)
Shortcut
|
...the second time I watched it. I didn't have it in the action parts, though, just the slow parts (Riddles in the Dark). I didn't have that at all the first time I watched it, though. I'm wondering if it was where I sat. The first time, I was sitting in the middle...the second time, I was sitting in the back and a little bit above the screen. It didn't last, though...I would refocus and it would go away.
|
|
|
Rostron2
Gondor
Jan 24 2013, 8:41pm
Post #18 of 47
(482 views)
Shortcut
|
Of course, It's probably getting more and more difficult to persuade a studio to let you shoot a film with "old" technology, and not in 3D.
This may have been a more serious consideration for green lighting it than we realize.
Side note: If the films had been made around 2005-7 as originally estimated, this technology wasn't ready yet.
|
|
|
Rosie-with-the-ribbons
Forum Admin
/ Moderator
Jan 24 2013, 8:43pm
Post #19 of 47
(481 views)
Shortcut
|
and he figured out why.
Your mind is used to watching movies in 24 fps. And since objects move faster, your brain is used to adding some movement so it looks real. So as soon as your brain sees something moving fast, it "adds" extra images in your mind so it looks correct.
Now your eyes see 48 fps, double speed. But your brain is still thinking, I'm seeing a movie, oh, something is moving fast, I have to add extra frames.
And so you get that jumpy speeding in the beginning. After a few seconds your eyes have told your brain it is already seeing the extra movement, so no adding is necessary. But your brain is so used to it, that it takes a while to "remember" not to add the extra images.
I think it is a very reasonable explanation, with what I have learned in school about the brain adding stuff your eyes can't see and making a complete picture in your mind, even when you don't see some things. (and I hope I have made myself clear, that's probably the hardest part  ).
|
|
|
Tintallë
Gondor
Jan 24 2013, 8:49pm
Post #20 of 47
(466 views)
Shortcut
|
And I still am. I think HFR 3D is what has kept me going back over and over again.
|
|
|
Kimtc
Rohan
Jan 24 2013, 8:51pm
Post #21 of 47
(452 views)
Shortcut
|
...but I think my brain is slowing down.
Seriously, though, I thought HFR 3D was the most amazing thing ever, and if I could have seen it in that format in IMAX, I would have been a happy camper.
|
|
|
LordMaximus
Rivendell
Jan 24 2013, 8:52pm
Post #22 of 47
(451 views)
Shortcut
|
I am interested now to see if I still get this if I see it again in 48 fps.
Maybe a screw driver is necessary to make a couple of adjustments to fix it...
|
|
|
Eruonen
Valinor
Jan 24 2013, 9:01pm
Post #23 of 47
(450 views)
Shortcut
|
|
Being the first to release a film at 48 fps qualifies him as a pioneer.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
I understand you don't like it, but you do acknowledge
it has its applications. This is all part of the "pioneering" of a technology. The film was also released in standard 24 fps 2d format as well so it was a consumer choice.
Personally, I did not have an issue with the new format, it was just different...brighter, deeper saturations etc. It is like saying you don't like plays because the viewing is too real. As far as losing the "fantasy", I think that is just a learning situation of when to edit certain scenes to preserve that look.
When Cameron comes out with Avatar in 60 fps he will probably hear the same things.
(This post was edited by Eruonen on Jan 24 2013, 9:01pm)
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Jan 24 2013, 9:03pm
Post #24 of 47
(458 views)
Shortcut
|
I still think there is room to advance practical effects until CGI is totally indistinguishable from real life.
In AUJ, you can tell where all the work went with the CGI. The things they spent a lot of time on look great, the things that they didn't...not so much. For me, a majority of the effects in LOTR look much better than The Hobbit. This isn't because of nostalgia for practical effects, this is because they combined so many different methods of special effects until I couldn't tell what was a miniature, what was CGI, what was a set...etc. It just made everything blend together nicely and feel very cohesive and believable. I can't say the same for AUJ,
It's also true that the 5k, 48fps, and 3D, made miniatures and a lot of practical effects impossible to do at all. Selling a film as believable is about hiding the things that are fake as best you can. Until EVERY SINGLE effect used in film is completely photo-realistic, you need to hide your films imperfections. Not put them on display for everyone to see.
It's like a magic trick. Is the magician going to let his audience see everything he is doing? No, because the trick isn't real.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
|
|
|
jtarkey
Rohan
Jan 24 2013, 9:08pm
Post #25 of 47
(439 views)
Shortcut
|
I guess he's more of a pioneer for the use of 48fps in general, and not necessarily for narrative storytelling that includes sets and special effects.
I do think they should start releasing HFR 3D nature documentaries. THAT would be impressive. I guess my problems are more with effects than HFR. I just don't think they are up to that sort of scrutiny yet.
"You're love of the halflings leaf has clearly slowed your mind"
|
|
|
|
|
1
