sorry, my spelling is bad, I meant Sauron, not the way I spelt it! Which I admit looks like Christopher Lee's character!! But Benedict Cumberbatch voices Smaug doesn't he?? And we have Sylvestor McCoy as the Brown wizard featured in LotR, so no doubt there will be a big meeting of Wizard scene discussing the Necromancer/ Sauron
With apologises
did juat check, he does voice both characters which has thrown me!!!
It's nice to see Royd Tolkien (great-grandson of J.R.R. Tolkien) in that advert (32 seconds in). He's always been on good terms with Peter Jackson and co and even had a cameo in Return of the King. Bodes well for the future of the Tolkien Estate.
Looking forward to Hobbit in 48fps. It's obvious from the trailer the cinematography is as lush as ever, and it's how that comes across in this new format that intrigues me greatly.
How the hell can you say that when you've not even SEEN it?
And, unless The Hobbit's been shot in a multicamera format, with cheap TV cameras, in brightly lit, wobbly sets, I somehow doubt it's going to look anything like a US soap opera. There's a hell of a lot more than frame rates that decide how something looks. Hence why a hell of a lot of "film effect" TV shows over here look like total shite.
If so, are you sure it's not just different to what you're used to viewing in a cinema?
The "US soap opera" argument is one I've seen echoed a lot on this 48fps thing, to me it doesn't make any sense as The Bolt & The Beautiful & all that crap was all filmed on video, giving that rubbish hazy look you get when you watch the old TV versions of Start Trek TNG, high frame-rates will produces exactly the opposite wouldn't they?
To me it sounds like a bunch of nerds were show early footage which hadn't gone through full post-production and all decided to spread the same lazy line round the internet, but that's just my opinion.
To me it sounds like a bunch of nerds were show early footage which hadn't gone through full post-production and all decided to spread the same lazy line round the internet, but that's just my opinion.
These people were against the concept of higher frame rates from day one- things like that were going round the internet well before that footage was screened! To be honest, to me it smacks of people being resistant to change. Like people in the 20s saying that "sound" and "colour" would ruin cinema (which most likely people were saying back then). Not to mention all the moaning about digital cinema from some people (and to be honest, the arguments that digital cinema is "too clear" and "too crisp" is laughable. Isn't that a good thing?).
I've just seen some people online moaning that the 48fps makes the trailer look like a "cheap home video". Well, that's funny because all the trailer footage out there, both online and showing in cinemas, is 24fps, and to me doesn't look any different to any other film. This just proves people have bought into the "48fps is crap" hype, believe it, and see it even when it isn't there! Thankfully when the film comes out, it will be seen by members of the public who haven't heard any of this stuff and will be judging it entirely neutrally- after all, these will be the people who decide the fate of the format, not cinema snobs and internet geeks.
I've just seen some people online moaning that the 48fps makes the trailer look like a "cheap home video". Well, that's funny because all the trailer footage out there, both online and showing in cinemas, is 24fps, and to me doesn't look any different to any other film. This just proves people have bought into the "48fps is crap" hype, believe it, and see it even when it isn't there! Thankfully when the film comes out, it will be seen by members of the public who haven't heard any of this stuff and will be judging it entirely neutrally- after all, these will be the people who decide the fate of the format, not cinema snobs and internet geeks.
just looked at the graded footage on this page taken with a RED camera(2nd half of the clip)
I'm sure we will be, after all I'm pretty sure we're actually ahead of the US in terms of digital projection in cinemas. I strongly dislike 3D, but it seems I'm going to have to see it that way as it doesn't look like there'll be a HFR 2D release, sadly.
the problem for me is and im sure lots of others is i have allready booked my hobbit tickets in my case odeon southampton imax 3d so if odeon anonce 48fps i dont know if i will have to pay any more has anyone got any ideas
Comments
With apologises
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZydiK35TFc
That's very clever! Very good
http://www.48fpsmovies.com/48-fps-theater-list/
The list is growing all the time though so just keep an eye on that link.
Odeon and Cineworld have both said on twitter when i asked them that they cant confirm any screenings yet,and to ask warners via twitter
i suspect they want to see how many people want to see it in the format before confirming
Cheers for the info.;)
Looking forward to Hobbit in 48fps. It's obvious from the trailer the cinematography is as lush as ever, and it's how that comes across in this new format that intrigues me greatly.
Radagast the Brown.
http://sidiview.tumblr.com/post/35021768864/radagast-the-brown-howard-shore
yes,there is less motion blur,less flicker and more importantly it improves the 3D experience
http://vimeo.com/40316231
And it makes it look like a US soap opera.
Unnatural and horrid.
How the hell can you say that when you've not even SEEN it?
And, unless The Hobbit's been shot in a multicamera format, with cheap TV cameras, in brightly lit, wobbly sets, I somehow doubt it's going to look anything like a US soap opera. There's a hell of a lot more than frame rates that decide how something looks. Hence why a hell of a lot of "film effect" TV shows over here look like total shite.
Is this opinion based on your own experience?
If so, are you sure it's not just different to what you're used to viewing in a cinema?
The "US soap opera" argument is one I've seen echoed a lot on this 48fps thing, to me it doesn't make any sense as The Bolt & The Beautiful & all that crap was all filmed on video, giving that rubbish hazy look you get when you watch the old TV versions of Start Trek TNG, high frame-rates will produces exactly the opposite wouldn't they?
To me it sounds like a bunch of nerds were show early footage which hadn't gone through full post-production and all decided to spread the same lazy line round the internet, but that's just my opinion.
These people were against the concept of higher frame rates from day one- things like that were going round the internet well before that footage was screened! To be honest, to me it smacks of people being resistant to change. Like people in the 20s saying that "sound" and "colour" would ruin cinema (which most likely people were saying back then). Not to mention all the moaning about digital cinema from some people (and to be honest, the arguments that digital cinema is "too clear" and "too crisp" is laughable. Isn't that a good thing?).
and your opinion is based on what?
the footage showed months ago,that hadn't been through post production?
just looked at the graded footage on this page taken with a RED camera(2nd half of the clip)
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?281621-48FPS-Footage-amp-24FPS-comparison-Shot-with-RED-Realtime-Not-slow-motion
and it looks great,none of this dodgy soap opera stuff that people said
http://www.amctheatres.com/events/the-hobbit-high-frame-rate-theatres
That means the following options:
The Hobbit 2D standard
The Hobbit 3D standard
The Hobbit HFR 2D
The Hobbit HFR 3D (the recommended option)
if i could get any type of response out of warners with confirmation that the UK is getting a decent release of the HFR version i would be happy
Old Friends (Extended)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_zhuAkVsbk&feature=youtu.be
http://www.qobuz.com/album/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-original-motion-picture-soundtrack-special-edition-howard-shore/0794043163920