The Hobbit - starts filming March 21

[Proper]

Holy Cinematic Calamity, Batman! Just saw the 3DHFR with my wife and my son. We all thought the HFR was terrible! It looked artificial, like there was something wrong with the speed. At one point my wife turns and asks me if it's acomputer-animated movie, it looked so phony and video-game like. Really disappointed and p****d that I took the HFR-bait.

Even the 3D effect in general was less than great. Never mind that the 3D glasses make the image look dark and deadens the color. I always say I won't go see another 3D movie because of that, and I always end up caving and going. The color was horrible with the 3D glasses. I kept doing the ol' peekaboo and comparing with and without the glasses, and groaning each time I did. I feel like I was duped into paying extra $$ for less movie quality. What a bad joke! :facepalm

 

[Kit Rae]

I do still feel that pretty much any scene with Radagast, and that stupid land sled, were pretty bad. They felt very green screen.

A few of those shots were slightly questionable when I saw it in HFR 3D Imax. Nothing really bad though. Interestingly, when I saw it later in 24fps I looked close at those shots for the small digital tells I noticed in HFR. They were not there at all. The shots were seamless in 24fps, so HFR does reveal some flaws in compositing digital shots occasionally. That was really the only scene I recall like that in the film though. For the most part, the HFR was stunningly detailed and beautiful to watch in the big vista shots and action scenes, like Erebor's destruction. Far better in that regard than 24. But I had the opposite reaction to the static camera shots, especially at Bag End.

Not sure if shooting at a variable rate would have good results when projected; until such a thing as a variable frame rate projector is invented,

Already invented. With a digital projector, it's simply a software upgrade.

You can turn it off on Sony and LG LCD tv's. Haven't tested others.

Not all. My father has an LG LCD that he bought last year. There is no way to turn the frame doubler off. We checked the manual, and with LG. Some models have it permanently on, so beware. It makes everything look like absolute S*it.

 

[Treadwell]

Already invented. With a digital projector, it's simply a software upgrade.

It can change on the fly?

 

[Kit Rae]

Yes. DLP projectors are basically just streaming light. There is no film. It's all digital. The shutter speed is set on the digital camera when shooting the footage, then it can be reduced to whatever frame rate needed when editing the film together in post, like what was done when the 48fps original was converted for the 24fps version of The Hobbit. It all just data running through software, so it can be set to whatever one wants.

Whether or not instant changes from one frame rate to another would be best, or ramped, gradual changes, would be better would need to be determined. Beyond the visual advantage, another pro I can see of doing this is for the emotional impact that can be created by changing frame rates for certain scenes.

Douglas Trumbull tried to do multiple frame rates in his film Brainstorm way back in the 80's. It would have projected from 24fps up to 60fps for the in-brain sequences, so those sequences would have a completely different and more real look than the regular parts of the film. The technology was there, it's just that he could not get people to buy into it. In the end those parts of the film simply jumped up to a wider aspect ratio than the normal parts of the film, and the sound went from mono to surround to enhance the effect. That's how I saw the film and the effect was quite dramatic.

All that was pre-digital cinema. Now it is much easier to do what Douglas originally intended, since the the restrictions we had with old film projectors don't apply. The film maker can jump to different frame rates, different aspect ratios, types of surround, all within the same film, to enhance the emotional impact of certain scenes. The shifts can be done as subtly or as jarring as one wants.

 

[Darth Lars]

I saw it in 3D HFR twelve hours ago, and I did not notice any of the "digital artifacts" or "cheap video game feel" that people talk about. Maybe my eyes are not good enough, maybe I was just too distracted by the 3D to notice or maybe the cinema company lied to me and showed it in 24 fps...

What did feel fake to me in certain scenes, though, was lighting and colour grading, obvious 3D-animation and that some action scenes were just ridiculously, over-the-top unbelievable ... and those things would feel just as fake in any frame rate.

 

[Jannix Quinn]

I saw it last night and was really disappointed. The actors were fine, but the vast amount of cgi ruined for me. The main Orc and his wargs looked very, very fake.

I wonder too if dwarves are made with rubber bones? The cgi stunt show in the goblin cave was awful. There's no way they would survive those falls through the wood like that.

I can take a world with magic and elves and goblins, but please obey the basic laws of physics with falls and the consequences. Same with that terrible 'hey look what our computers can render' mountain giant scene. ***** ****** that was dumb.

If it weren't for Gandalf holding together every scene, this would be LOTR's Phantom Menace.

 

[Nwerke]

Yes, because Ents are SO MUCH more plausible. :rolleyes Sorry, haven't used rolleyes in forever and just felt the urge. Blame Tolkien for that one though. Agree on the falls...falls hurt!

 

[Jannix Quinn]

It's not that the Orcs and stuff weren't plausible, it's just that they looked fake. The guy who killed Sean Bean in LOTR was MUCH better.

 

[Kit Rae]

Yes, because Ents are SO MUCH more plausible. :rolleyes Sorry, haven't used rolleyes in forever and just felt the urge. Blame Tolkien for that one though. Agree on the falls...falls hurt!

None of the falls bothered me because because I always took it that Dwarves are much tougher beings than Men or Hobbits (notice Bilbo landed on something soft), but also because those scenes is are obviously more over the top and meant to be fun. It is not only geared to a younger audience than LOTR, but we are seeing a visual retelling of what Frodo has written in the Red Book, and I expect it is embellished a bit. The tone will get darker in film 3, just as it does in the book when we get to the Five Armies battle, but it SHOULD be lighter in the beginning when you think of this in context as a whole story told in six parts.

Had Jackson made the tone completely in line with the book, he would have been criticized for making a kiddie flick, and had he made it exactly in the tone of LOTR, he would have been criticized for not staying true to the tone of the book. You can't win.

 

[Nwerke]

My problem with it is that it was Temple of Doom stuff. Less is more! There's no need to top the previous movies in every shot.

I hated how CG Gollum was, he looked so damn fake.

 

[Kit Rae]

Fake looking Gollum? Maybe you saw a different film than I did.

 

[Nwerke]

No, no, fake as anything. Totally fake CGI, just like Azog and the wolves. You could tell.

 

[Jathoris]

Didn't care much for the wargs at all, or for the mass dwarf army battle sequences for that matter, but I thought Gollum looked absolutely spectacular.

 

[Jannix Quinn]

Azog the Rendered looked worst.

 

[Treadwell]

There was a little bit among the throng of goblins in the caves that weren't quite up to par, and in the final shot of Smaug snuggled in the gold, the coins on his head weren't quite registering properly on his skin, kind of floating around.

 

[jedimarkj]

I loved watching it. I didn't mind the HFR but I'm reserving judgement until I see in a standard framerate...


So now that the White Council has the Witchking's dagger in its posession, how does he regain it in Fellowship of the Ring?

 

[Shadow345]

I loved watching it. I didn't mind the HFR but I'm reserving judgement until I see in a standard framerate...


So now that the White Council has the Witchking's dagger in its posession, how does he regain it in Fellowship of the Ring?

Presumably Saruman.

 

[jedimarkj]

I loved watching it. I didn't mind the HFR but I'm reserving judgement until I see in a standard framerate...


So now that the White Council has the Witchking's dagger in its posession, how does he regain it in Fellowship of the Ring?

Presumably Saruman.

Yeah, I was thinking that as well... But I did wonder whether we would see Saruman's fall in this trilogy.

 

[Jedi2016]

The odd part about that is that they always refer to it as a Morgul blade, not the Morgul blade. I always figured there was more than one (as I think it was in the book).

 

[Kit Rae]

Gandalf refers to it as "a" Morgul-knife, and it is stated in what he told Frodo in Rivendell what they use them to make people into wraiths controlled by Sauron. I always presumed from the book that this was standard operating procedure for the Ringwraiths, and that they each had a Morgul-knife for that purpose. Gandalf other staements to Frodo confirm that, and he states he has seen these knives used before.

"They tried to pierce your heart with a Morgul-knife which remains in the wound. If they had succeeded, you would have become like they are, only weaker and under their command. You would have became a wraith under the dominion of the Dark Lord".

"Elrond is a master of healing, but the weapons of our Enemy are deadly. To tell
you the truth, I had very little hope; for I suspected that there was some fragment of the blade
still in the closed wound. But it could not be found until last night. Then Elrond removed a
splinter. It was deeply buried. and it was working inwards."

"`Don't be alarmed!' said Gandalf. `It is gone now. It has been melted. And it seems that Hobbits fade very reluctantly. I have known strong warriors of the Big People who would quickly have been overcome by that splinter, which you bore for seventeen days.'"