The Hobbit - starts filming March 21

[rodneyfaile]

I think that will push directors to film on location more. The Shire only looked great in HFR because it WAS real.
It will also push them to do better work. Gollum looked great in HFR because someone put a whole lot of effort into it.
Poorly built miniatures will be exposed as poorly built miniatures by HFR, while the work of true craftsmen will only be more amazing.

 

[Paul Andrew]

I think that will push directors to film on location more. The Shire only looked great in HFR because it WAS real.
It will also push them to do better work. Gollum looked great in HFR because someone put a whole lot of effort into it.
Poorly built miniatures will be exposed as poorly built miniatures by HFR, while the work of true craftsmen will only be more amazing.

I think this pretty much nails it. Part of why I hate what high refresh rates on newer tvs is because of how clear it makes the faults in what you're watching. Shoddy effects, digital or practical, show through like a lighthouse in the fog.

 

[Astrokid248]

I'm so afraid to see the HFR.

1. Because I suffer from migraines and
2. Because I don't want to take away from the feeling that I'm watching a fantastical story play out in front of me. I've seen HFR before on Blu Rays and it's just...I can't describe it other than I hate it.

Don't do it. My mother suffers from severe migraines, and 24fps 3D Avatar was enough to make her vomit. I'm taking her to the 2D showing and seeing the HFR with my best friend later, because I know she's going to just suffer all the way through it.

 

[CelticRuins]

Don't do it. My mother suffers from severe migraines, and 24fps 3D Avatar was enough to make her vomit. I'm taking her to the 2D showing and seeing the HFR with my best friend later, because I know she's going to just suffer all the way through it.

I figured as much . Of course I'm a huge Tolkien/Jackson fan, but I've seen higher film rate in the past and never liked it anyway. I know tech-savvy individuals are raving over it, but I'm still old fashioned .

 

[nwjedidave]

Instead of feeling like I am looking at a well made film, I get the feeling of what it actually looked like when it happened on set. Instead of seeming fake, its actually more real.

PERFECTLY said!

 

[laserpistol76]

So, how much of the book does the film actually cover? I'm going tomorrow to see it.

 

[Reelo]

Without going into any spoilers story-wise (if you've read the book) the first film ends after the rescue by the eagles.

Sent from my GT-N7000

 

[laserpistol76]

Without going into any spoilers story-wise (if you've read the book) the first film ends after the rescue by the eagles.

Sent from my GT-N7000

Thanks. I read that part last night. I'm at the part where they are at Beorn's house.

 

[Reelo]

Thanks. I read that part last night. I'm at the part where they are at Beorn's house.

Then you should be all set for the movie...

Sent from my iPho..... just kidding!

 

[Nwerke]

I'm still not sure I like that. I don't much like seeing that it is just a set. I want to see it as a "world". The set is "fake reality" even though it is real, as it is exactly as the set looked for the actors and filmmakers. That's not a + in my opinion. That's a downgrade. A movie is movie magic creating a world that feels real, but really isn't real.

If it was the intent of the filmmaker to make it look exactly as it was when it was filmed, then that's one thing, but most use multiple effects to remove exactly that effect, such as optical effect, digital effects, color grading, and all those things. We are not watching a stage play - we are watching a meticulously constructed reality that should feel real.

Like CGI - most complaints against it is its overuse and drawing attention to itself and not really being up to par with the look of practical effects and miniatures. The fake-ness is usually the issue.

QFT. Perfectly said. I will see the film in both versions but now that there's such a body of opinion that the HFR hasn't had the curse taken off it, I'm very pessimistic about liking it. OTOH that's what I said about the new 3D techs also, so you never know...but I detest motion smoothing on my TV and I find myself almost lost for words when seemingly rational human beings say they like it. :lol

My wife ordered the art book, it arrived yesterday. Danged actual film doesn't even open here until Boxing Day! The art book is completely gorgeous though; another in-house winner from Weta, and if you preordered, it's signed. As endpapers it includes a large foldout copy of Thror's map (without the copyrights printed on the separate prop replica version) and a gatefold of Bilbo's burglar contract, with the foldout pages shown and tabs indicating where they fit. You could very easily scan and print this at a larger size, and it really looks like that's what they have in mind. You have to love Weta!

 

[Treadwell]

I didn't see sets and costumes. What details (or lack thereof) were revealed that made it look that way to you guys? Could you see plywood grain on stone walls, or machine stitching on "handmade" garments? I suspect there's a more psychological reason, again, association with "cheap video".

 

[Nwerke]

Oh god yes. It looks like cheap video. That's a look nobody has ever loved, and for good reason.

 

[Jedi2016]

Oh god yes. It looks like cheap video. That's a look nobody has ever loved, and for good reason.

No, NOT good reason.

People think it makes things look "cheap" because, previously, only cheap TV was shot at high frame rate. It's association, not cause. Those bad TV shows weren't bad because of the high frame rate, they were bad because they were just bad. Over the years, it became ingrained in our minds that HFR=bad, but that's not necessarily true.

This is the first time in history that HFR has been used on a AAA, high-budget production. It's time to make new associations.

24p is not going to last forever. The reasons for that limitation hasn't been an issue for decades, and filmmakers are starting to wake up to that fact.

 

[EyeofSauron]

No, NOT good reason.

People think it makes things look "cheap" because, previously, only cheap TV was shot at high frame rate. It's association, not cause. Those bad TV shows weren't bad because of the high frame rate, they were bad because they were just bad. Over the years, it became ingrained in our minds that HFR=bad, but that's not necessarily true.

This is the first time in history that HFR has been used on a AAA, high-budget production. It's time to make new associations.

24p is not going to last forever. The reasons for that limitation hasn't been an issue for decades, and filmmakers are starting to wake up to that fact.

thats not how it works tho. this was the first movie ever done in hfr. now, most of the people didnt like it. so all those people wont watch any new movie in hfr if available in 24fps. so the higher production cost for 48fps will not be justified. therefor i dont think we will see a lot of hfr movies in the future.

 

[Jedi2016]

most of the people didnt like it.

And where are you getting that from? From what I've seen, the opposite is true. Most people do like it. Smoother motion, no juddering or motion blur, better 3D, yada yada.

It's not "bad", it's just "different". And some people hate it for being different.

3D was just a gimmick, too. So was color. And sound.

Wouldn't surprise me if we started seeing more people shooting HFR in the future. In another five or ten years, it may be hard to find any 24p releases anymore.

There's absolutely no reason to hold onto 24p, beyond "it's always been that way".

 

[Too Much Garlic]

I don't understand why there should be no motion blur? There is a blur when you move fast out in real life, so if the blur is gone from the movies, that's a step back towards stop motion animation.

There's no reason to hold onto 24fps, sure... but the format chosen has to be comfortable for the eye and present naturalistic movements. 24fps was just that, except when doing fast pans. The juddering of the fast pan wasn't completely removed by 48fps and that speed added a feel of unnatural speed to movements and making things look exactly what they were instead of what they were supposed to look.

Higher frame rate sure brings new challenges to the table for the prop and set designers. And, picking the wrong frame rate is like watching something in strobe light. It has to be just right.

 

[EyeofSauron]

And where are you getting that from? From what I've seen, the opposite is true. Most people do like it. Smoother motion, no juddering or motion blur, better 3D, yada yada.

It's not "bad", it's just "different". And some people hate it for being different.

3D was just a gimmick, too. So was color. And sound.

Wouldn't surprise me if we started seeing more people shooting HFR in the future. In another five or ten years, it may be hard to find any 24p releases anymore.

There's absolutely no reason to hold onto 24p, beyond "it's always been that way".

The Hobbit?s HFR Reviews Are In, and They?re Not So Good | Studio Daily
Critics on The Hobbit?s High Frame Rate -- Vulture
Why does ?The Hobbit? look so weird? - Going Out Gurus - The Washington Post
'Hobbit' high frame rate getting bad buzz online - latimes.com

According to data collected by research firm Fizziology, an overwhelming 60% of the conversation on social media platforms like Twitter and Facebook about the 48 frames per second version of "The Hobbit" -- which will be shown at only about 450 theaters out of 4,000-plus in the U.S. and Canada -- is negative. Only 10% is positive, while 30% is neutral.

 

[rodneyfaile]

The negative always seems to come across louder. Haters are passionate and take their hating seriously. Lol

 

[Nwerke]

No, NOT good reason.

Sorry but I just can't agree; it's VERY good reason IMO. At least for me it isn't simply correlation with cheap productions, it's not arbitrary conservatism. Aesthetically, it's faintly nauseating. It gives a weak seasickness effect and it looks disgusting.

Disclaimer; I haven't seen Hobbit yet but if they're right, I won't like it one bit in 48fps. I'm speaking here of bad 30fps video and motion smoothing on a modern TV, not native 48FPS, but it seems many people are describing the look as pretty much interchangeable.

24p is not going to last forever. The reasons for that limitation hasn't been an issue for decades, and filmmakers are starting to wake up to that fact.

Why not? You could say the same of many accepted standards for which there's no particular public appetite for change. New Coke wasn't such a big hit.

The negative always seems to come across louder. Haters are passionate and take their hating seriously. Lol

And we're a clear majority, it seems. So EoS may very well be on the money; this could be a dead end - and Too Much Garlic's point has been made again and again here and elsewhere - our *eyes* don't operate at the equivalent of a frame rate that high. Thus motion blur is something we experience in real life, and its absence makes motion WEIRD.

I still don't understand why anyone would be happy about removing motion blur. Wasn't there talk at some stage that it was going to be put back digitally? Hell of a downgrade, IMO.

Still can't see the film until Boxing Day, still open to the possibility I won't hate 48fps. Actively hoping so in fact...

 

[rodneyfaile]

The reason I think HFR is here to stay, is because of 240hz refresh rate TVs. If you regularly watch tv with this setting turned on, after a while you won't even notice it. It will become the new norm and watching without it looks like a Buster Keaton movie.