The Hobbit (2012/2013)

[sickrubik]

Also, a real IMAX screen and not a licensed projection system.

[rattran]

An early reviewer calls Radagast the Jar Jar Binks of this movie.  Forgot the link.  I think I've blocked it out of my memory.
NOW I'm worried.   

They cast Sylvester McCoy for that role, right? It's to be expected.

[Morat20]

Radagast? Radagast the Brown?

That sounds about right. I mean, Gandalf ranged from kooky old man to terrifying, depending on who he was talking to and what he wanted. Radagast basically came across as less hippy than Bombadil, but still basically the hermit-archtype living with the animals and stuff.

[Khaldun]

I don't think he actually has any dialogue of his own in LOTR or the Hobbit--just reported speech in the recountings of other characters. Nor do I think we get any really detailed description of him except that he is friends with animals and lives in Southern Mirkwood. I don't remember for sure if it's actually said in LOTR that he was summoned to the Council of Elrond but had disappeared, or if that's in the Silmarillion.  Most of the lore on him, what little there is, comes from Tolkien's later notes and reflections on the Wizards in letters and so on.

[Venkman]

If I recall correctly (debateable...) he appears most described in Simarillion, whereas he's only referenced by others in Hobbit and LoTR. There was a trailer at some point this year which featured him. He was sitting at a desk, talking, surrounded by plants and rats or mice. Kinda reminded me of a sedate Robin Williams in his physical actions and way of speaking. Which from what I remember, was about right.

Or maybe I made the link because there was a rumor Williams would play Bombadil in the LoTR movies or something.

[Tannhauser]

Does anyone else cringe when Bilbo faints in front of the dwarves?  It just seems so phoney and slapsticky.  Maybe it's better in context.

[Khaldun]

I dunno, "slapsticky" would be pretty true to the source material as far as that moment goes.

[Ironwood]

Christ.  OK, look;  I'm imposing a rule.

You can't have it both ways.  If you wanna gripe about the film (and I will) then you can either be 'it's like the book yay' or 'it's not like the book boo'

You can't do the 'wait that's lame when he does that thing that's IN THE BOOK and that's lame when he surfs down smaugs neck and punches the master of laketown in the throat'

OTHERWISE IT'LL BE ANARCHY.  IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT ?

[Tannhauser]

JUST WALK AWAY

[Draegan]

Brand new trailer of the Hobbit hits the airwaves.

[Ratman_tf]

Brand new trailer of the Hobbit hits the airwaves.

[Surlyboi]

JUST WALK AWAY

 

[Soln]

All is well.  Pete Bradshaw saeth it's fine.  Mostly falls down on the wonky format that makes it look like TV.

linky

edit: spellingz

[Venkman]

I only just learned this week the movie is now a trilogy. Not paying close enough attention

So, 48fps, why bother? What does it provide? Is it all about the panoramics, and does that justify the audience needing to adapt?

[eldaec]

In principle I'm a big fan of 48 frames.

 I spend the first half hour of any film being irritated by flicker before I adjust. I have the same issue watching 50 frame TV as opposed to 100 fps.

It's especially visible (to me) on high contrast screens (imax or similar) or anything fast moving where I start to see gaps between frames.

I imagine this varies from person to person, but 48fps is a plus whereas 3d I hate.

We'll see how it goes, but I suspect the issues people have with image being too clean are the usual problem that post processing needs tuning to the new format in order to smudge up the flaws that better images reveal. Same problem was reported a lot with HD.

[Ratman_tf]

I only just learned this week the movie is now a trilogy. Not paying close enough attention

So, 48fps, why bother? What does it provide? Is it all about the panoramics, and does that justify the audience needing to adapt?

Movies need something to bring audiences away from their home entertainment, 72" HDTV plasma, surround sound theater systems.

I predict even more odd gimmicks in the years to come, until the theater industry implodes into direct to Blu-Ray.

[eldaec]

For several years I had stopped visiting local cinemas altogether because poor image quality from automated non-digital projection made it a painful experience.

They weren't wrong in identifying that they needed to do something to get custom back.

[Ingmar]

I predict even more odd gimmicks in the years to come, until the theater industry implodes into direct to Blu-Ray.

Not happening. I guess it could *maybe* happen in a couple select markets, but the idea that most of the world has even decent home theater systems widely owned that will replace movie-going is wrong. See: overseas ticket sales for basically every movie.

[Mrbloodworth]

48 frames, a crazy idea in movies. But required in gaming?

Some of you perplex me.

[Ingmar]

It isn't really the same thing at all.

[Sheepherder]

In games low framerates means stuttering, because each frame is rendered from a discrete game state at whatever rate your card can render it at, and some states are more computationally complex to render than others.  In movies the framerate is always a constant, but lower framerates tend to exhibit motion blur, because for the most part they still film using actual film.  Bumping up the framerate should increase level of detail, but that may not necessarily be a good thing.

[Samwise]

In movies the framerate is always a constant, but lower framerates tend to exhibit motion blur, because for the most part they still film using actual film.

Digital cameras show motion blur too, because they still work by capturing light over one frame's worth of time (blur is the effect of the moving image averaging out over that period of time).  But yeah, games haven't historically had that (although they are now starting to simulate it, which is pretty cool).

[Ratman_tf]

In movies the framerate is always a constant, but lower framerates tend to exhibit motion blur, because for the most part they still film using actual film.

Digital cameras show motion blur too, because they still work by capturing light over one frame's worth of time (blur is the effect of the moving image averaging out over that period of time).  But yeah, games haven't historically had that (although they are now starting to simulate it, which is pretty cool).

Heh. Videogames try to emulate what movies are trying to get rid of.

[Samwise]

Well, the reason to emulate it is that it's also what our eyeballs do in real life when things fly past us faster than we can track them. 

Which raises an interesting question of whether a DP might want to not have blur on an object that's moving within frame and is the audience's primary point of focus -- in real life your eyeballs would be tracking that object closely and you wouldn't perceive any blur.  Hm.

[Margalis]

In games low framerates means stuttering, because each frame is rendered from a discrete game state at whatever rate your card can render it at, and some states are more computationally complex to render than others. 

Low framerate and uneven framerate are two different things.

As far as 48 FPS film shot and projected digitally - looks awful. Maybe it will improve but right now it just looks bad. It could be in part because it has a look we associate with soap operas, it could be because the extra detail makes sets and makeup look fake - but it does look bad, and I don't think that's *purely* psychological.

Games and movies are a pretty terrible comparison. Games should be responsive to input and framerate is a huge factor in that. Games are already fake and digital and don't need to look real so increasing framerate doesn't break any illusions. On the other hand movies rely a lot on "Hollywood magic" that can break down under scrutiny as image clarity increases.

[Ratman_tf]

Why do soaps look like they've been filmed in 48 fps?

[Trippy]

No grain and faster frame/field rates (29.97 frames or 59.94 fields per second for NTSC).

[UnSub]

Why do soaps look like they've been filmed in 48 fps?

Why are you watching soaps?

[eldaec]

Almost all television is shot faster than 48fps.

This is no different to arguing that HD is bad because it requires more work to hide problems. I can completely see why a filmmaker might go for a lower frame rate for a specific artistic reason but it confuses me why people see this as anything other than a resolution increase. Resolution, contrast, frame rate mean the film works on larger screens and are all improvements I can get behind. 3d on the other hand can go fuck itself.

Without seeing this I'm wondering if half the problem isn't that weta are much better at cool design than they are at photorealism.

[eldaec]

Also:

I went to the theatre last week and was getting 72fps from my EYEBALLS. Fuck you reality you look like a daytime soap!

[Cyrrex]

Also:

I went to the theatre last week and was getting 72fps from my EYEBALLS. Fuck you reality you look like a daytime soap!

So if you are watching a 48fps movie with your 72fps eyeballs, I think that means you are technically watching the Hobbit at 3456fps.  That is some crazy amount of detail, dude.

You are all being crazy, by the way.  More frames is a good thing.

[Riggswolfe]

Not to sidetrack the framerate discussion or anything but am I the only person that has no interest in seeing this? Advance word of mouth is so mixed and I'm getting a "Peter thinks he's the shit now and doesn't need an editor" vibe from what I'm hearing. I'll probably watch it on Blu Ray but have resisted attempts by friends to rope me into seeing it in the theater.

[calapine]

Not to sidetrack the framerate discussion or anything but am I the only person that has no interest in seeing this? Advance word of mouth is so mixed and I'm getting a "Peter thinks he's the shit now and doesn't need an editor" vibe from what I'm hearing. I'll probably watch it on Blu Ray but have resisted attempts by friends to rope me into seeing it in the theater.

Pretty sure I am going to see it. Not because I am expecting anything great, but it's that type of film all most types of people can agree on seeing. Usually it's a hassle because one of my cliques doesn't like anything English with subtitles (while I am used to original actors voice and find dubbed voice-over distracting).  My more artsy-intellectual friends are mostly low on cash and rarely actually go, and if do they it's some repressed minority issues and/or family drama. Whiich is fine, but I have my own actual family drama to deal with, and for the moment just rather watch something uplifting or at least nothing that hit's close to home. So usually agreeing on anything is a big hassle.

Going alone is not an option as cinemas are usually full of couples. Depressing to pay 7€ for the privilege of being reminded one is single - at least at home I can stay in my pjamas, start drinking screwdrivers when the opening credits start and later pause every 15 minutes for a pee break.  

I kind of forgot what I was trying to say though. I think it's that the LOTRs film (and thusly Hobbit now too) have a nice cross section appeal. Mass-market blockbuster BUT Tolkien. Elf & dwarf geekery BUT it's mainstream.

[eldaec]

Not to sidetrack the framerate discussion or anything but am I the only person that has no interest in seeing this? Advance word of mouth is so mixed and I'm getting a "Peter thinks he's the shit now and doesn't need an editor" vibe from what I'm hearing. I'll probably watch it on Blu Ray but have resisted attempts by friends to rope me into seeing it in the theater.

I was bordering on this opinion until the nerd-slash-beret-sphere blew up with the 48 frame debate.

Wanting to be informed in telling people they are wrong pushed me back into definitely seeing it.

Damn you techno marketing gimmick squad.

[Mrbloodworth]

It isn't really the same thing at all.

Yes it is.