Our Sponsor Sideshow Collectibles Send us News
Lord of the Rings Tolkien
Search Tolkien
Lord of The RingsTheOneRing.net - Forged By And For Fans Of JRR Tolkien
Lord of The Rings Serving Middle-Earth Since The First Age

Lord of the Rings Movie News - J.R.R. Tolkien
Do you enjoy the 100% volunteer, not for profit services of TheOneRing.net?
Consider a donation!

  Main Index   Search Posts   Who's Online   Log in
The One Ring Forums: Tolkien Topics: Movie Discussion: The Hobbit:
48fps - yay or nay!
First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All

Elenorflower
Gondor


Dec 7 2012, 11:35pm

Post #26 of 37 (104 views)
Shortcut
But there is the risk [In reply to] Can't Post

that al this hoo-ha over the tech will distract from the story, we dont need bells and whistles on Tolkien, why not just make a simple little tale? as was written? Old Dwarves with coloured hoods and silver tassels, gentle humour, no bombast, hunks and dizzy roller coaster rides, just a wonderful story about a little Hobbit. surely it wasnt difficult?


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Dec 7 2012, 11:40pm

Post #27 of 37 (98 views)
Shortcut
Well, [In reply to] Can't Post

at least there's still the cartoon...


Tim
Tol Eressea


Dec 8 2012, 12:56am

Post #28 of 37 (93 views)
Shortcut
The answer is probably [In reply to] Can't Post

he thought the risk was worth it and he thought the simple little movie you describe wasn't to his taste. It also wouldn't work with what he'd done with LOTR. He did rather well following his instincts before, if I were in his shoes I would continue to follow that instinct.

Arthur: What manner of man are you that can summon up fire without flint or tinder?
Tim: I... am an enchanter.
Arthur: By what name are you known?
Tim: There are some who call me... 'Tim'...?
Arthur: ...greetings, Tim the Enchanter.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Dec 8 2012, 1:25am

Post #29 of 37 (87 views)
Shortcut
I feel bad for the true fans of the book, [In reply to] Can't Post

because i'm actually glad about what they're doing with the films, even though i realize that they're sort of playing fast and loose with lot of aspects that many fans love about the book. When i read The Hobbit in junior high, i liked it, but when i read The Lord of the Rings, i *loved* that. Ever since then, i've been of the mind that The Hobbit is ok, but The Lord of the Rings is great. So not only do i love that they're making the tone of the adaptation more in line with their LotR films, but i'm thrilled that they're including as much as they can from the Appendices. I even wish they had the rights to Unfinished Tales so that they could include even more. So i feel bad that all this stuff that i love that they're adding to The Hobbit, the stuff that is keeping it from being a simple, fanciful childrens tale, is the exact same stuff that bothers some fans so much.


totoro
Lorien

Dec 8 2012, 6:11am

Post #30 of 37 (83 views)
Shortcut
Speak for yourself! I'm an "older person" [In reply to] Can't Post


In Reply To
old fashioned 24fps film is beautiful, and I have never looked at LOTR and thought, well that looked juddery jiggly what a shame. I thought it was amazing, even after 10 years. Like Lawrence of Arabia is still great and the Wizard of Oz is still great. Its not the tech that counts but the artistry and vision and aesthetic creativity of the film makers. 3D is just a gimmick and I think this 48fps is a gimmick, for those under 18, who find these things 'kewl'. No offence to kiddies, its a different generation and older people appreciate differing things.



totoro
Lorien

Dec 8 2012, 6:14am

Post #31 of 37 (83 views)
Shortcut
I think it is the reality bubble in which PJ lives [In reply to] Can't Post

Mitt Romney had the same problem with his Fox News reality bubble, which is why he was going to win the election by 10 points. It's not hard to imagine PJ loving his own stuff, hearing everyone agree it is wonderful, and then trotting it out with the full knowledge that everyone will ooh and ahh.

In Reply To
I don't understand why they did the first press screenings for critics in HFR. Even if they like it, it's still a distraction from the film itself; and if they don't like it, or hate it, that will certainly color their judgements. Either way, it seems like it backfired.



totoro
Lorien

Dec 8 2012, 6:17am

Post #32 of 37 (86 views)
Shortcut
I read a review that complained PJ hewed too closely to TH (the book) [In reply to] Can't Post

Just sayin'.

In Reply To
because i'm actually glad about what they're doing with the films, even though i realize that they're sort of playing fast and loose with lot of aspects that many fans love about the book. When i read The Hobbit in junior high, i liked it, but when i read The Lord of the Rings, i *loved* that. Ever since then, i've been of the mind that The Hobbit is ok, but The Lord of the Rings is great. So not only do i love that they're making the tone of the adaptation more in line with their LotR films, but i'm thrilled that they're including as much as they can from the Appendices. I even wish they had the rights to Unfinished Tales so that they could include even more. So i feel bad that all this stuff that i love that they're adding to The Hobbit, the stuff that is keeping it from being a simple, fanciful childrens tale, is the exact same stuff that bothers some fans so much.



Elenorflower
Gondor


Dec 8 2012, 3:30pm

Post #33 of 37 (67 views)
Shortcut
I was speaking largely for myself [In reply to] Can't Post

and I was thinking of the things tweenagers generally love but generally 'older people' move on and their taste develops and grows more sophisticated, 'generally'. Obviously there are those who love Michael Bay kind of 'wham bam thank you maam', way past adolescence. But I find it boring and obvious stuff. The things I loved as a kid I dont love now, I am more cynical and aware for one thing about getting ripped off by lazy film makers. Luckily PJ is not one of these. I think he is wonderful, I think he really cares. I know he wanted it to tie in with LOTR, and I am glad to go back to the familiar world. I am sure it will be fine, and exciting stuff, no worries really, I was only discussing some of my concerns.


DarkJackal
Rohan


Dec 8 2012, 3:54pm

Post #34 of 37 (76 views)
Shortcut
My answer is Nay [In reply to] Can't Post

Watching it at the Ziegfeld on Thursday, I was struck by how wrong it all looked in HFR 3D (it was not in IMAX). It was a distraction the whole way through. Scenes that looked charming in the trailers (such as in Bag End) felt very different. But my guest didn't notice anything bizarre and loved it all. So I suppose it is going to be a matter of perception.

The Hobbit Photo Gallery


HeatherEntwood
The Shire

Dec 8 2012, 4:17pm

Post #35 of 37 (61 views)
Shortcut
Definitely -Not- IMAX [In reply to] Can't Post

I'm more than happy to see it in 24x first and then give the 48x 3D version a try. What I will not do is see it in IMAX. Only films shot in actual IMAX filmstock look good on an IMAX screen. Any commercial action movie, whether filmed in 24/48 frames or shot in 3D, that are simply blown up to match the IMAX screen, transfer terribly to such a large screen size ratio. No wonder the eyes don't know where to focus. It turns what should be a pleasurable movie-going experience into a 2 hr + exercise in eyestrain. No thanks.


sauget.diblosio
Tol Eressea

Dec 8 2012, 4:20pm

Post #36 of 37 (61 views)
Shortcut
I was thinking about 48fps... [In reply to] Can't Post

As i was reading the new article on the front page, and i was wondering if in the future they'll be able to dial HFR up or down as the film requires from scene to scene. There's no reason they shouldn't be able to, since it's all digital anyway. And it wouldn't be much different than the switches between slo-mo, normal speed, sped up, bullet-time and all the other photographic effects that are used in almost every film we've seen since the 60s and 70s. So for action sequences or scenes with a lot of camera movement they could go with 48fps (or higher even), but in more intimate, character scenes they could just go with the more traditional 24fps. In this way it's just another tool that the filmmakers can use when it's required of the material, and not some new, different thing we have to either take or leave. I don't know, just thinking "out loud".


DarkJackal
Rohan


Dec 8 2012, 5:22pm

Post #37 of 37 (76 views)
Shortcut
I think so [In reply to] Can't Post

I believe I read a while back that it would be possible to just add or delete frames scene by scene.

The Hobbit Photo Gallery

First page Previous page 1 2 Next page Last page  View All
 
 

Search for (options) Powered by Gossamer Forum v.1.2.3

home | advertising | contact us | back to top | search news | join list | Content Rating

This site is maintained and updated by fans of The Lord of the Rings, and is in no way affiliated with Tolkien Enterprises or the Tolkien Estate. We in no way claim the artwork displayed to be our own. Copyrights and trademarks for the books, films, articles, and other promotional materials are held by their respective owners and their use is allowed under the fair use clause of the Copyright Law. Design and original photography however are copyright © 1999-2012 TheOneRing.net. Binary hosting provided by Nexcess.net

Do not follow this link, or your host will be blocked from this site. This is a spider trap.