Well, then he's an idiot. He should have seen for himself that the sets look like sets at 48FPS (which they do IMO) before claiming it as his own view.
I guess there are people out there who always want to attack things regardless and latch on to anything they can find - just like there are people who force themselves to valiantly defend something because a film they like is being criticised, even if they know deep-down there is actually a problem.
Both sides of the 48FPS debate are probably made up of a fair amount of bullsh*ters in this way tbh.
I spoke to a co-workers husband the other day who had seen the film in 2D, hilariously he was trying to make out that the 48fps made the film look "fake" and that "sets looked like sets", clearly regurgitating what he'd read online in an attempt to sound like he knew what he was on about, the look of intense confusion on his face when i told him that all 2D showings are good old 24fps was priceless!
If this is true, i'd have been too mortified for him to even bother with any correcting.
If this is true, i'd have been too mortified for him to even bother with any correcting.
I've got better things to do with my time than to make up stories on the internet...
Personally i found 48fps to be a bit of a non-issue, but that's not to say that i'm a 48fps apologist, i'll be the first to admit that some of the CGI looked a bit crummy in this format (particularly Radagast's sleigh and the Wargs) and certain bits seemed oddly sped up.
I was genuinely tempted to just let him keep spewing his regurgitated garbage, it was very entertaining, but the look on his face when corrected was worth it:p
I was genuinely tempted to just let him keep spewing his regurgitated garbage, it was very entertaining, but the look on his face when corrected was worth it:p
I'd have been just as embarrassed FOR him, lol. I don't do well in those situations.
I wonder how many others are going around slamming HFR when they haven't even seen it. :eek:
That's true. Quite a lot of people (the older, less technical minded cinema goers) are seeing it 48fps and aren't even noticing any real difference between The Hobbit and the last film they saw.
That's me! Maybe you see what you look for. Anyway, I was too engrossed in the story to notice any technical problems. Maybe if there had been any serious difficulties I would have noticed, but there just wasn't.
I spoke to a co-workers husband the other day who had seen the film in 2D, hilariously he was trying to make out that the 48fps made the film look "fake" and that "sets looked like sets", clearly regurgitating what he'd read online in an attempt to sound like he knew what he was on about, the look of intense confusion on his face when i told him that all 2D showings are good old 24fps was priceless!
I've only seen it in 2D so far, and I did think that some of the sets looked less real than in LOTR; there also seemed to be some rather blurry moments. I don't know what the reason for that might be.
I've only seen it in 2D so far, and I did think that some of the sets looked less real than in LOTR; there also seemed to be some rather blurry moments. I don't know what the reason for that might be.
I think it's because the visual effects were made to be viewed at 48fps. I've seen both versions and I thought the big shots of the mines and things looked really blurry at 24fps, too. In 48fps the visual effects look right, everything looks sharp and clear.
Most of the visual effects actually look astonishing in 48fps. I expected to hate it but all the CG characters and environments look amazingly real- unsettlingly real in Gollum's case.
I would never encourage anyone to see the film for the first time in 48fps but if you've seen in at the normal frame rate and can be arsed/afford to go again, I'd say give it another go at the higher frame rate. I didn't really enjoy it the first time i saw it (...i fell asleep) but i went back to see the 48fps just out of curiosity and it knocked my socks off, it's one of the weirdest effects I've ever seen
Yes, I think you're probably right. Because it's made to be seen at 48, some bits don't look right at 24 - makes sense. Maybe that's what the person mentioned above was trying to get at. I'm going to see it again in the HFR 3D (tomorrow, if things go to plan).
I've only seen it in 2D so far, and I did think that some of the sets looked less real than in LOTR; there also seemed to be some rather blurry moments. I don't know what the reason for that might be.
I'm not certain, but i believe that the 2D 24fps version had a kind of artificial motion blur added to the film to compensate for the downgrade from 48fps. One of my friends who saw it in 48fps and then again in 2D 24fps made a similar comment about there being a strange blurriness to some of it in 2D, he also said that some of the battle scenes looked a bit "flat" and confusing in 2D, whereas the 3D version had more depth and allowed you to take more in visually.
After reading all the criticism in reviews about HFR I went to see it with a little trepidation, but I thought it was fantastic. Battles and sweeping camera movements over landscapes looked so good - most of the detail in these scenes would normally be lost at 24fps. The only awkard parts were in Bag End and Rivendell during dialogue scenes with panning shots; a little TV-ish.
I'm not sure if HFR is the future, but I think you should always try to watch a movie how the director intended. Whether that be in full-frame for Kubric films, IMAX for the new Batman and in 48fps 3D for this. For better or worse, this was Jackson's vision.
I think it's because the visual effects were made to be viewed at 48fps. I've seen both versions and I thought the big shots of the mines and things looked really blurry at 24fps, too. In 48fps the visual effects look right, everything looks sharp and clear.
Most of the visual effects actually look astonishing in 48fps. I expected to hate it but all the CG characters and environments look amazingly real- unsettlingly real in Gollum's case.
I would never encourage anyone to see the film for the first time in 48fps but if you've seen in at the normal frame rate and can be arsed/afford to go again, I'd say give it another go at the higher frame rate. I didn't really enjoy it the first time i saw it (...i fell asleep) but i went back to see the 48fps just out of curiosity and it knocked my socks off, it's one of the weirdest effects I've ever seen
I saw the film first in HFR (my friend thought he had booked SFR) and I must say that I found I was analysing the image quality more than enjoying the film. Interesting now having seen the film with my daughter in SFR. HRF certainly improves the wide panning shots however makes the images in static scenes too sharp and almost computer generated. SFR suffers in the wide sweeping shots however looks much better in the static shots. Horses for courses and coin flipping....
Watched it tonight, never since the LOTR have I smiled all the way through a film. Its great being back in middle earth.
I could have watched 9 hours of it, it flew by and when the last scene ended I could have swore I had only been sitting for 1.5 hours.
Anybody have a clue where the next film is going to end.
Without giving too much away.
Bilbo will encounter a certain, rather large being. The Necromancer sub-plot will continue and be expanded upon. Thranduil and his Elves will feature prominently. A female Elf will be introduced, who will also play a key part in the next two films. Many new locations never before featured in a live action Tolkien adaptation will be seen. Bilbo will really come into his own. The Arkenstone will set-up another story facet that will be heavily featured in the third film.
I saw The Hobbit again last night Enjoyed it more than the first time I saw it (though I DID enjoy it the first time), Martin Freeman is excellent. The foreshadowing (?) with LOTR is apparent though.
I didnt see it in 48 fps (only ordinary 2D) but sometimes some scenes/shots still stood out for me as actors on a set/against a green screen In LOTR I didnt get that feeling.
I read the book but I refuse to pay £10 on three movies each based on one book. Sorry, but two movies was just about okay but three? I've seen reviews from IMDB and a lot of people either love it or hate it (putting aside that HFR). I'll buy it on DVD or blue-ray when its cheap and make my own decision.
Sorry guys, rant over. I'm still cheesed off about the whole three movie thing.
I get what you mean - 'The Chronicles of Middle Earth' actually sounds a very good umbrella title for The Hobbit + LOTR, imo
You wouldn't use it now because of the Narnia series, but something along those lines. It would perhaps have lessened the disappointment of some of those who had different expectations of the latest film.
Comments
No, i swear that it happened, it made my night!:p
I guess there are people out there who always want to attack things regardless and latch on to anything they can find - just like there are people who force themselves to valiantly defend something because a film they like is being criticised, even if they know deep-down there is actually a problem.
Both sides of the 48FPS debate are probably made up of a fair amount of bullsh*ters in this way tbh.
If this is true, i'd have been too mortified for him to even bother with any correcting.
I've got better things to do with my time than to make up stories on the internet...
Personally i found 48fps to be a bit of a non-issue, but that's not to say that i'm a 48fps apologist, i'll be the first to admit that some of the CGI looked a bit crummy in this format (particularly Radagast's sleigh and the Wargs) and certain bits seemed oddly sped up.
I was genuinely tempted to just let him keep spewing his regurgitated garbage, it was very entertaining, but the look on his face when corrected was worth it:p
I'd have been just as embarrassed FOR him, lol. I don't do well in those situations.
I wonder how many others are going around slamming HFR when they haven't even seen it. :eek:
That's me! Maybe you see what you look for. Anyway, I was too engrossed in the story to notice any technical problems. Maybe if there had been any serious difficulties I would have noticed, but there just wasn't.
I've only seen it in 2D so far, and I did think that some of the sets looked less real than in LOTR; there also seemed to be some rather blurry moments. I don't know what the reason for that might be.
I think it's because the visual effects were made to be viewed at 48fps. I've seen both versions and I thought the big shots of the mines and things looked really blurry at 24fps, too. In 48fps the visual effects look right, everything looks sharp and clear.
Most of the visual effects actually look astonishing in 48fps. I expected to hate it but all the CG characters and environments look amazingly real- unsettlingly real in Gollum's case.
I would never encourage anyone to see the film for the first time in 48fps but if you've seen in at the normal frame rate and can be arsed/afford to go again, I'd say give it another go at the higher frame rate. I didn't really enjoy it the first time i saw it (...i fell asleep) but i went back to see the 48fps just out of curiosity and it knocked my socks off, it's one of the weirdest effects I've ever seen
I'm not certain, but i believe that the 2D 24fps version had a kind of artificial motion blur added to the film to compensate for the downgrade from 48fps. One of my friends who saw it in 48fps and then again in 2D 24fps made a similar comment about there being a strange blurriness to some of it in 2D, he also said that some of the battle scenes looked a bit "flat" and confusing in 2D, whereas the 3D version had more depth and allowed you to take more in visually.
I'm not sure if HFR is the future, but I think you should always try to watch a movie how the director intended. Whether that be in full-frame for Kubric films, IMAX for the new Batman and in 48fps 3D for this. For better or worse, this was Jackson's vision.
I saw the film first in HFR (my friend thought he had booked SFR) and I must say that I found I was analysing the image quality more than enjoying the film. Interesting now having seen the film with my daughter in SFR. HRF certainly improves the wide panning shots however makes the images in static scenes too sharp and almost computer generated. SFR suffers in the wide sweeping shots however looks much better in the static shots. Horses for courses and coin flipping....
I could have watched 9 hours of it, it flew by and when the last scene ended I could have swore I had only been sitting for 1.5 hours.
Anybody have a clue where the next film is going to end.
Bilbo will encounter a certain, rather large being. The Necromancer sub-plot will continue and be expanded upon. Thranduil and his Elves will feature prominently. A female Elf will be introduced, who will also play a key part in the next two films. Many new locations never before featured in a live action Tolkien adaptation will be seen. Bilbo will really come into his own. The Arkenstone will set-up another story facet that will be heavily featured in the third film.
I didnt see it in 48 fps (only ordinary 2D) but sometimes some scenes/shots still stood out for me as actors on a set/against a green screen
he does,he says hes Bilbo Baggins a hobbit of the Shire
Sorry guys, rant over. I'm still cheesed off about the whole three movie thing.
The Lord Of The Rings: An Unexpected Journey
The Lord Of The Rings: The Desolation of Smaug
The Lord Of The Rings: There And Back Again
Or use something like The Chronicles Of MiddleEarth.
You wouldn't use it now because of the Narnia series, but something along those lines. It would perhaps have lessened the disappointment of some of those who had different expectations of the latest film.
I agree. Just got back from the cinema and thoroughly enjoyed it. The time just flew by! Aiden Turner!
Aidan Turner indeed!
I can't understand why people are moaning about there being three films. I wish there were more!