I just can't wait! I LOVED the LOTR films so much, and still watch them every year with my brother and sister (a geeky ritual that we never seem to tire of!)
December was always LOTR time and so I'm very happy that's when the Hobbit is being released, it's bringing it all back. The trailers look fantastic so far and i can't wait to see how they've imagined and brought to life one of my favourite books from childhood.
Are most cinemas showing this 48fps?
can most modern cinemas handle this format?
Depends on whether it's 2D or 3D. If it's 2D, then theoretically any digital cinema should be able to handle it, as 48fps at 2K resolution has been part of the digital standard from Day 1. It's in 3D or at higher resolutions- some projectors can handle it, some need a hardware upgrade, some need a software upgrade, where some (especially the older ones) can't handle it at all.
An eagle-eyed film fan thought he was seeing double when he spotted the latest poster for Peter Jackson’s big screen adaptation of The Hobbit.
The teaser image, just released in movie magazine Total Film, shows wizard Gandalf – played by Sir Ian McKellen – striding through JRR Tolkien’s mythical Shire.
But for Gazette reader Phil Murray, it all looked a bit too familiar and not at all like New Zealand, where the forthcoming film has been shot.
In fact, the backdrop proved to be none other than the view from Corby Crag, above Alnwick, looking west towards Edlingham Castle and the Simonside Hills.
And to eliminate any doubt, even the old Alnwick to Wooler railway viaduct can clearly be seen in the atmospheric artwork, as can the ruined keep.
How cool is that! No wonder I love this poster so much.
Still not convinced by Kili, but I assume they're drawing inspiration from Tolkien's own view on dwarf aging.
"Dwarves remained young – e.g. regarded as too tender for really hard work or for fighting – until they were 30 or nearly that (Dáin II was very young in 2799 (32) and his slaying of Azog was a great feat). After that they hardened and took on the appearance of age (by human standards) very quickly.
By forty all Dwarves looked much alike in age, until they reached what they regarded as old age, about 240. They then began to age and wrinkle and go white quickly (baldness being unknown among them), unless they were going to be long-lived, in which case the process was delayed.
Almost the only physical disorder they suffered from (they were singularly immune from diseases such as affected Men, and Halflings) was corpulence. If in prosperous circumstances, many grew very fat at or before 200, and could not do much (save eat) afterwards. Otherwise ‘old age’ lasted not much more than ten years, and from say 40 or a little before, to near 240 (two hundred years) the capacity for toil (and for fighting) of most Dwarves was equally great.”
May also explain Thorin's youthful experience and Balin may just be a discrepancy. One of those 'Tolkien contradictions'.
I really dont want to see this film in 48fps, cheap and nasty looking IMO
Have you seen it? I'm betting not...and i don't include the Comic Con footage as that was rough footage that hadn't been through post production and so wasn't representative of the final film. But regardless, nobody will be forcing you to see it in 48fps, they are releasing it in the standard 24fps as well (3D, 2D and IMAX).
Personally i definitely want to see it in 48fps if any of the cinemas near me show it at that speed, 24fps has been the standard for so long that it'll be nice to see the industry making progress for the first time in 80 years. I'm sure it'll be a shock to the eyes at first, but i'm hoping that it's a pleasant shock.
I really dont want to see this film in 48fps, cheap and nasty looking IMO
How the hell can you possibly know that when you've never even seen it? Or are you going to compare a professionally shot hollywood movie to someone's home videos, or a 1970s costume drama, as people usually do?
There's so much naysaying about it, I'm not suprised the people at Cinemacon critisised it- the people there were the short of people who are resistant to change, already pre-judged how it would look, and would have said that sort of thing no matter how it actually did look. Lots of people in the industry (film and TV) are just against high framerates full stop. Thankfully, your average Joe Public who'll be seeing this film doesn't have the sort of "cheap and nasty" prejudice about high framerates so will hopfully give it a fair hearing when it actually comes out.
24fps was picked as the standard for no reason other than it was the lowest framerate that could get decent quality sound using 1920s sound-on-film technology. Not because it "looked the best" or whatever people these days seem to claim. Yes, film making should move on from a format that was picked because it was "just good enough" 85 years ago. People shouldn't cling to it just because it's how "it's always been done" and be scared of change without even SEEING how it looks. If they had, we'd still be stuck with black & white silent films.
I'm not saying it is cheap and nasty, I'm just saying to my eyes it looks that way. I have seen 48fps and dont like it, its too clean, my eyes dont like it. Its no big deal, dont act like I just dug up your gran. I'm sure there are people that love it. I not seen this film in 48 obviously, my point is i'd rather not becaasue i'm aware of the look.
The likes of Cirdan, Celeborn, Erestor and Glorfindel were possible members but won't be featuring in the trilogy.
Radagast wouldn't bother showing up so that's why he is missing.
I wonder why no Celeborn? Could Marton not make it or something? I always felt Celeborn got a bit bum deal with the movies but he is a bit of a bad ass in Middle Earth.
I wonder why no Celeborn? Could Marton not make it or something? I always felt Celeborn got a bit bum deal with the movies but he is a bit of a bad ass in Middle Earth.
Peter and co probably decided that it wasn't worth the expense to bring him back for such a small role.
And finally, among the new films you can expect on Blu-ray and DVD in 2013 are The Wachowski's Cloud Atlas and officially confirmed here for the first time Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Extended Edition (Q4). One suspects a theatrical cut will be released earlier in 2013, following the home video release pattern of the previous Lord of the Rings films. And it's reasonable to suspect that a Blu-ray 3D version will be forthcoming as well.
How the hell can you possibly know that when you've never even seen it? Or are you going to compare a professionally shot hollywood movie to someone's home videos, or a 1970s costume drama, as people usually do?
There's so much naysaying about it, I'm not suprised the people at Cinemacon critisised it- the people there were the short of people who are resistant to change, already pre-judged how it would look, and would have said that sort of thing no matter how it actually did look. Lots of people in the industry (film and TV) are just against high framerates full stop. Thankfully, your average Joe Public who'll be seeing this film doesn't have the sort of "cheap and nasty" prejudice about high framerates so will hopfully give it a fair hearing when it actually comes out.
24fps was picked as the standard for no reason other than it was the lowest framerate that could get decent quality sound using 1920s sound-on-film technology. Not because it "looked the best" or whatever people these days seem to claim. Yes, film making should move on from a format that was picked because it was "just good enough" 85 years ago. People shouldn't cling to it just because it's how "it's always been done" and be scared of change without even SEEING how it looks. If they had, we'd still be stuck with black & white silent films.
24fps may have been a happy accident whether you like it or not.
when we switched from tape cassettes to cd, people did not suddenly wonder why everything sounded "wrong". we aren't clinging to it for no reason, most anyone who has seen super smooth video has remarked on the strangeness of it all. why? perhaps because film was never about just increasing smoothness or attempting to recreate reality. you know they color grade films right? the entire color pallete of many films is skewed for artistic impact both pre and post production. the thing is, film was never meant to reproduce what our eyes see the way that recorded audio does. what do our eyes really see? a circular field with only a tiny center area of total clarity, the rest is progressive blur, our eyes literally shut off as they flick from position to position, you don't notice this, but its scientifically proven, you don't get motion sick from all your eye darting around because the feed is cut and your brain smooths it over. human vision is darting and not smooth. what the 48 fps and such soap opera effects do is not recreate reality, they accidentally create artificiality and they pull people out of the experience because they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of why film works.
Comments
December was always LOTR time and so I'm very happy that's when the Hobbit is being released, it's bringing it all back. The trailers look fantastic so far and i can't wait to see how they've imagined and brought to life one of my favourite books from childhood.
can most modern cinemas handle this format?
I agree, It's just a shame that they're releasing the third film in the middle of Summer 2014. It'll just feel weirdly "wrong".
Depends on whether it's 2D or 3D. If it's 2D, then theoretically any digital cinema should be able to handle it, as 48fps at 2K resolution has been part of the digital standard from Day 1. It's in 3D or at higher resolutions- some projectors can handle it, some need a hardware upgrade, some need a software upgrade, where some (especially the older ones) can't handle it at all.
Middle-earth is in Northumberland!
"Middle-earth Is Closer To Home Than You Think"
An eagle-eyed film fan thought he was seeing double when he spotted the latest poster for Peter Jackson’s big screen adaptation of The Hobbit.
The teaser image, just released in movie magazine Total Film, shows wizard Gandalf – played by Sir Ian McKellen – striding through JRR Tolkien’s mythical Shire.
But for Gazette reader Phil Murray, it all looked a bit too familiar and not at all like New Zealand, where the forthcoming film has been shot.
In fact, the backdrop proved to be none other than the view from Corby Crag, above Alnwick, looking west towards Edlingham Castle and the Simonside Hills.
And to eliminate any doubt, even the old Alnwick to Wooler railway viaduct can clearly be seen in the atmospheric artwork, as can the ruined keep.
How cool is that! No wonder I love this poster so much.
http://apps.warnerbros.com/thehobbit/wallpapergenerator/img/downloads/cast_download.jpg
Still not convinced by Kili, but I assume they're drawing inspiration from Tolkien's own view on dwarf aging.
May also explain Thorin's youthful experience and Balin may just be a discrepancy. One of those 'Tolkien contradictions'.
Thanks for posting that.:)
I see what you mean about Kili, but at the same time, I'm glad they've not masked Aiden's gorgeousness.
Bolg son of Azog with the ashen face.
http://i.minus.com/ib29NYkKhP1I7x.jpg
The White Council
Have you seen it? I'm betting not...and i don't include the Comic Con footage as that was rough footage that hadn't been through post production and so wasn't representative of the final film. But regardless, nobody will be forcing you to see it in 48fps, they are releasing it in the standard 24fps as well (3D, 2D and IMAX).
Personally i definitely want to see it in 48fps if any of the cinemas near me show it at that speed, 24fps has been the standard for so long that it'll be nice to see the industry making progress for the first time in 80 years. I'm sure it'll be a shock to the eyes at first, but i'm hoping that it's a pleasant shock.
How the hell can you possibly know that when you've never even seen it? Or are you going to compare a professionally shot hollywood movie to someone's home videos, or a 1970s costume drama, as people usually do?
There's so much naysaying about it, I'm not suprised the people at Cinemacon critisised it- the people there were the short of people who are resistant to change, already pre-judged how it would look, and would have said that sort of thing no matter how it actually did look. Lots of people in the industry (film and TV) are just against high framerates full stop. Thankfully, your average Joe Public who'll be seeing this film doesn't have the sort of "cheap and nasty" prejudice about high framerates so will hopfully give it a fair hearing when it actually comes out.
24fps was picked as the standard for no reason other than it was the lowest framerate that could get decent quality sound using 1920s sound-on-film technology. Not because it "looked the best" or whatever people these days seem to claim. Yes, film making should move on from a format that was picked because it was "just good enough" 85 years ago. People shouldn't cling to it just because it's how "it's always been done" and be scared of change without even SEEING how it looks. If they had, we'd still be stuck with black & white silent films.
The likes of Cirdan, Celeborn, Erestor and Glorfindel were possible members but won't be featuring in the trilogy.
Radagast wouldn't bother showing up so that's why he is missing.
Of course Saruman would be there, but I hadn't thought about him!
It will be interesting to see him pre-LOtR.
I started to tell my son (5), the story (a very abridged version) and now he keeps asking me if he can watch the films!
http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/10/08/62953-neil-finn-of-crowded-house-provides-the-end-title-song-for-an-unexpected-journey/
Male voice as expected. The ethereal songs of The Lord of the Rings wouldn't seem right for this dwarf laden adventure.
24fps may have been a happy accident whether you like it or not.
when we switched from tape cassettes to cd, people did not suddenly wonder why everything sounded "wrong". we aren't clinging to it for no reason, most anyone who has seen super smooth video has remarked on the strangeness of it all. why? perhaps because film was never about just increasing smoothness or attempting to recreate reality. you know they color grade films right? the entire color pallete of many films is skewed for artistic impact both pre and post production. the thing is, film was never meant to reproduce what our eyes see the way that recorded audio does. what do our eyes really see? a circular field with only a tiny center area of total clarity, the rest is progressive blur, our eyes literally shut off as they flick from position to position, you don't notice this, but its scientifically proven, you don't get motion sick from all your eye darting around because the feed is cut and your brain smooths it over. human vision is darting and not smooth. what the 48 fps and such soap opera effects do is not recreate reality, they accidentally create artificiality and they pull people out of the experience because they betray a fundamental misunderstanding of why film works.
And for that reason, I hate it all the more.
From what I read The Hobbit will now be 3 (?) films?