The Hobbit...

[Scott T]

You know who?

I don't know, Orlando Bloom prancing around Mirkwood?

He who must not be named?

 

[Tgace]

You know who?

I don't know, Orlando Bloom prancing around Mirkwood?

Smaug of course...

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[arnisador]

I see it is 3 films now--eh, I would've been OK with two (but not one).

 

[Makalakumu]

It's three movies! That's news. I wonder why they broke it up like that? I'm listening to the Hobbit right now with my kids. I can see two films, but three?

 

[jks9199]

From what I'm reading -- the third one is meant to make the connection to the Lord of The Ring trilogy more direct and make more of a transition between The Hobbit and others.

Of course, it couldn't possibly be about, oh... money. Nah... That's not it at all...

 

[billc]

Plus three years of awards ceremonies instead of just two.

 

[Gemini]

Plus three years of awards ceremonies instead of just two.

Not to mention 3 times the ticket sales. Why settle for a mere $8.50 a person for a one time showing when you can 3 times that.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

mmmm 48 ffs. headaches and dizzyness in HD here I come!

 

[jks9199]

mmmm 48 ffs. headaches and dizzyness in HD here I come!

I don't know... I might like it better, because I have a tendency to spot motion in movies, especially at the edges of my vision. 3D, though, tends to give me a headache.

 

[K-man]

I kind of wish they would have just done the Hobbit, in two parts. The added material might distract from the main story. If it is three books then we won't see you know who for another 2 years. I really wonder how they will handle him.

The 'added' material is actually the bits from Tolkien's notes that never made the book. It just fleshes out the characters and background.

 

[arnisador]

From what I'm reading -- the third one is meant to make the connection to the Lord of The Ring trilogy more direct and make more of a transition between The Hobbit and others.

Hmmm...that could be where the material from The Simarillion comes in, if that's accurate info.

Of course, it couldn't possibly be about, oh... money. Nah... That's not it at all...

Corrupt Tolkien's legacy for something so base?!? I won't believe it!

 

[arnisador]

48 ffs.

I need more context here. What does this rate really mean to me?

 

[Sukerkin]

Also, FFS means something entirely different to me than FPS :lol:

 

[Flying Crane]

Not to mention 3 times the ticket sales. Why settle for a mere $8.50 a person for a one time showing when you can 3 times that.

over ten bucks where I live.

 

[arnisador]

Also, FFS means something entirely different to me than FPS :lol:

Heh, I assumed he meant FPS!

 

[Bob Hubbard]

I need more context here. What does this rate really mean to me?

http://www.48fpsmovies.com/The_Hobbit_An_Unexpected_Journey_Trailer.mp4

There's been plenty of buzz about the upcoming film The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, but it's not just about the movie itself. It's also about the format the director Peter Jackson has decided to use, which he just defended in detail in a Facebook post yesterday. Normally, films are shot at 24 frames per second (fps), and have been for roughly 80 years. American television is broadcast at 29.97 fps, while European television is broadcast at 25 fps. Each of these have a unique look to which we've all grown accustomed.
What makes The Hobbit different is Peter Jackson's method for shooting it. He has employed an array of high-resolution RED Epic cameras recording video at 5,120-by-2,700-pixel resolution, and at 48 fps (known in the industry, along with 60 fps, as High Frame Rate). Depending on your viewpoint, the result either looks more lifelike than ever before, or it seems oddly cold, and too much like digital footage from live sports channels or daytime television.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2403746,00.asp

 

[Carol]

Some say the high frame rate is making some people motion sick?

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/entertainment/2012/12/hobbit-headaches-reports-new-film-sickens-fans/

 

[arnisador]

I've heard motion-sickness concerns. It's true about what's said in the quote from Bob Hubbard--objectively soap operas look more real, but I experience them as being cheap-looking. I'm not sure why.

 

[Carol]

I've heard motion-sickness concerns. It's true about what's said in the quote from Bob Hubbard--objectively soap operas look more real, but I experience them as being cheap-looking. I'm not sure why.

Well...soap operas are cheap. No one tunes in for the great production values, educational content, or artistic merit. They tune in for short-attention-span drama thats produced in high volume.

 

[arnisador]

This article was interesting reading about the frame rate.