[Edmond-Dantès]

WB screens 10 minutes of The Hobbit in 48fps at CinemaCon.

The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live... but these looked like sets.

The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/24/c...mes-per-secon/

More impressions:

"48fps makes it look like you're almost watching real life & not a movie. It's a massive change. Positive is the 3d has much less eye strain"

https://twitter.com/#!/colliderfrosty:

"Saw the 10 minutes of raw The Hobbit footage in 48FPS 3D. Intriguing, the footage looks amazing, but the 48FPS experience is an odd change."

"There are going to be endless debates about 48FPS and how good/bad it looks. I just think we need to get used to change after 80yr of 24FPS."

https://twitter.com/#!/slashfilm:

"Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I'm now very unsure about higher framerates"

"We're recording a video blog about the Warner Bros presentation shortly and will talk more in depth than 140 characters will allow"

https://twitter.com/#!/slashfilm:


Interesting info on the Nazgul there. I had suspected that they would be featured in some way.

[Iggyman]

It sounds really bad. The badassdigest review is especially damning. This remark says it all:

"It's unlikely you're going to see The Hobbit at 48fps (especially if all the grumbling I heard from theater owners is any indication. Walking out of the theater I didn't hear a single positive remark)"

[performingmonk]

These comments aren't good...though part of the problem (yet again) is the whole shooting for 3D bollocks! Avatar was fine because there's so many 100% CGI scenes. CGI in 3D is brilliant. Live action shot in 3D has to be overlit and the colours messed with so much just to get a useable picture. The result is usually something that looks fake and non-cinematic. (I say usually because Prometheus is looking pretty good in the trailers...)

The 48fps framerate won't help matters at all seeing as it's on 2fps away from a PAL interlaced look (i.e. how shows like Corrie and Eastenders look as opposed to more filmic-look drama like Merlin and Silent Witness).

I reckon they're gonna have to do a brilliant final lighting and colour grade on The Hobbit to hide that 'fake set' look if they expect anyone to enjoy the 48fps screenings. Maybe it looks okay on a 24" monitor, which is probably all anyone from the production team views the footage on, but on the big screen it evidently leaves a lot to be desired...

[James2001]

Then again, the people making these comments are the sorts of film purists who probably hate anything "new" or "different" anyway. Considering how many people have been slagging off the decision to film in 48fps before they'd even seen a frame of footage, it's obvious some people's minds were made up and they were going to hate it no matter what. I'm sure plenty of critics were doing similar moans in the early days of sound and colour. Shall we wait until normal people have seen it, and actually get used to the look, rather than a few critics based on 10 minutes of unfinished footage?

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by James2001

Then again, the people making these comments are the sorts of film purists who probably hate anything "new" or "different" anyway. Considering how many people have been slagging off the decision to film in 48fps before they'd even seen a frame of footage, it's obvious some people's minds were made up and they were going to hate it no matter what. Shall we wait until normal people have seen it, and actually get used to the look, rather than a few critics based on 10 minutes of unfinished footage?

Na. This convention consisted of fans, critics, journalists and other filmmakers and apparently on the way out there were NO positive reactions to what they saw. Apparently it looked like a soap-opera and not cinematic.

[James2001]

Originally Posted by Deserana 12

and apparently on the way out there were NO positive reactions to what they saw.

None at all? Not a single one? Or is that just the opinion of critics who hated it and presumably heard what they wanted to hear. There's certainly a positive review here: http://movies.about.com/b/2012/04/24...e-screened.htm

And from what I'm reading online, a lot of the opinions seem to be neutral rather than negative, saying things like "it will take getting used to", "not everyone will like it" and "it's a big change" rather than flat out calling it bad.

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by James2001

None at all? Not a single one? Or is that just the opinion of critics who hated it and presumably heard what they wanted to hear. There's certainly a positive review here: http://movies.about.com/b/2012/04/24...e-screened.htm

Then I guess it was very mixed responses -

@colliderfrosty Saw 10 min of THE HOBBIT in 48fps. It's def a drastic change from 24fps and many are not going to be on board with it. #thehobbit

@Variety_JLD Great Scott, THE HOBBIT in 48 frames-per-second is a thing to behold. Totally different experience. Not all will like the change.

@slashfilm Saw ten minutes of Hobbit in 48fps 3D. Very exciting, but I'm now very unsure about higher framerates #CinemaCon

LA Times - "It looked like a made-for-TV movie. It was too accurate -- too clear."

[James2001]

Originally Posted by Deserana 12

Then I guess it was very mixed responses -

And isnn't "mixed" to be expected from something new and different to what you're used to? You can't expect people to jump with glee at a massive change to the norm from day one.

[Deserana 12]

Basically its gonna look very different to what we've seen before. I'm sure it will get some backlash no matter what but I think the main problem is that many will feel it sort of ruins the continuity between both "The Hobbit" and "Lord of the Rings" its like having 4 well made and cinematic Harry Potters to begin a franchise and is then finished off by 4 ITV tv films (going by some descriptions), they suddenly don't feel like the same thing which is what many people would likely want.

[CJClarke]

I think that the key thing to remember here is that the footage shown at the convention was raw, unfinished footage from a film that isn't even out for another 8 months. The final thing will most likely look a lot better than whatever was shown at CinemaCon.

Plus, i think it's naive of people to think that the people behind the film have only seen 48fps footage on a small monitor, they will blatantly have done 48fps tests and viewed it on a cinema screen, i highly doubt that Peter Jackon would have pushed for it if he didn't think it would suit his vision for the film.

[CD93]

48fps makes it look like you're almost watching real life & not a movie

Considering this seems to be the ultimate goal of most medias - expect to see more of it.

Additionally, the above - eight months is a fair amount of time for change. Patience hobbitses.

[grimtales1]

Watching "real life" but in a fantasy with elves and dwarves? Hmmmm.....

[CD93]

Originally Posted by grimtales1

Watching "real life" but in a fantasy with elves and dwarves? Hmmmm.....

Real life, but not in our world. We're supposed to believe Middle Earth is real, after all. If it's so awful that you can't suspend your disbelief long enough to enjoy it - then it's a failure.

We're entering interesting realms if it's "too real."

[stafs]

Reminds me of watching TV Shows in the 70s and 80s, especially Doctor Who, where the studio scenes were videotaped and the external shots filmed. I always though the filmed sections looked better because they seemed less fake, probably because it hid many imperfections whereas with video you saw it all.

However, nowadays there is a lot of post-production work that can be done to hide those imperfections, so I expect it will look great when actually released.

[Moony]

I'm going to hold out opinion on this until I see it.

I went to see Star Trek on IMAX and hated it. The action was so fast and the picture so big - that at 24fps, everything was just a jumpy/juddering blur. I thought the same when I first saw Transformers at the cinema. Both movies look far better on a smaller screen/TV just because the jumps between frames is less noticeable - which is a pity. I always wondered why modern films were still shot at such an antiquated frame rate.

Fine, film purists may not like it because it no longer looks like the cinema of old and it may take a little getting used to for the rest of us (not to mention the film makers themselves) - simply because movies will feel different to how we remember, but I reckon many movies (especially fast paced sci-fi and CGI movies) will benefit greatly from a jump in frame rate.

[GARETH197901]

As Many people have said its Unfinished footage,they add a filmic look to TV all the time these days so adding this kind of Post Production to it will be a piece of piss for Weta,so the chances of the film looking like the 10 minutes did is slim

[Johnny Clay]

Originally Posted by stafs

Reminds me of watching TV Shows in the 70s and 80s, especially Doctor Who, where the studio scenes were videotaped and the external shots filmed.

Many moons ago I was talking about this to one of my tutors. We were discussing how films can express/accentuate the physical sensation of being inside and outside - something we as people acknowledge very strongly but film often doesn't capture. Who, with its claustrophobic sets and grainy exterior shots, always captured this exceptionally well.

Originally Posted by CJClarke

I think that the key thing to remember here is that the footage shown at the convention was raw, unfinished footage from a film that isn't even out for another 8 months. The final thing will most likely look a lot better than whatever was shown at CinemaCon.

Plus, i think it's naive of people to think that the people behind the film have only seen 48fps footage on a small monitor, they will blatantly have done 48fps tests and viewed it on a cinema screen, i highly doubt that Peter Jackon would have pushed for it if he didn't think it would suit his vision for the film.

Quoted for truth.

We shall have to wait and see about this here 48fps, which seems to have kicked off on many sites as of last night. Personally, I imagine it may work best for films that are more reality based (war or docu-dramas say, could benefit from a more realistic presentation of human motion). Applying it to fantasy may just, as some already have said, underline the unreality of it all.

[Edmond-Dantès]

In terms of the actual narrative content:

Spoiler

PJ's intro was mostly about the technical aspects, saying that this change in frame rate is analogous to moving from silent to sound.

Opening shots were helicopter shots, similar to opening of TTT. Gorgeous. Sunrise over Misty Mountains to the fluting strains of Howard Shore music. Followed by a few shots that were seen in the trailer, intros of characters, etc.

Dol Guldur/Thrain - Gandalf is seen wandering through sub-dungeon of Dol Guldur, searching through corridors as if being chased. Thrain crazed, out his mind from torture, jumps out of the dark in a "Boo!" moment and attacks Gandalf. Yes, this is the scene from the trailer. Thrain's face is not closely seen. No other creatures are seen there.

Scenes of Bilbo in the Shire, mostly stuff we've seen in the trailer or vlogs. Martin Freeman as Bilbo is very different from other hobbits. He has a lightness and elan, with a very light comedic touch. Not like slapstick humor of Merry & Pippin. Fresh, funny, approachable, comedic but not too much. Quickbeam was very enthusiastic about his performance.

Saruman/White Council - this was still green screen, no grading or background effects added yet. Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf are shown sitting with Saruman. Radagast was not present. Galadriel looking at a sword, identifies as a Morgul blade. Everyone is aghast as she tells the history of the blade as she says it is the sword of the Witch-King and he was destroyed long before in battles with the North Kingdom. He was held in a dungeon in the North from which he should not have been able to escape but Galadriel is afraid that this means he has. Saruman is studying it carefully, with maybe a glint in his eye.

Galadriel touching Gandalf's face. The context is Galadriel asking Gandalf why he chose this particular hobbit. Gandalf says, almost to himself, that it is because he sometimes feels a little afraid and Bilbo gives him courage. Galadriel touches his face and tells him not to be afraid, that he always has friends.

Radagast - Gandalf is shown alone in the dark with his staff lit, searching through catacombs where the ringwraith's tombs are...then Radagast appears suddenly. Both put their staffs down the tunnel to see the tombs broken open. Radagast seems rather childlike, like he is more in tune wth animals than people. Radagast's staff is similar to Gandalf's; a knobbly wooden staff. Radagast is "weird and wonderful" looks nothing like the Decipher card. This is a new Radagast is an "unbelievable, crazy, cool, mess", with a bird's nest on his head. Quickbeam loved his appearance and style. Radagast was only shown in the dark, "Moria-style" dungeon which was only lit by Gandalf's staff. It was hard to see costume details but they appeared to be a mixture of black and brown, with a "weird shaped" hat with flaps on it. He has a bird nest on his head under his hat. Was conversing with Gandalf about the crypts/tombs that had once belonged to the Ringwraiths. Radagast also has a staff. The only other shot of Radagast was him flying by in his sled. Radagast has a sled that runs on the forest floor, drawn by larger-than-life (but not giant) grey jackrabbits. Q really liked the sled, thought it was cool.

Mirkwood, the dwarves are shown after their spider sequence, they are covered in spider webs. Don't see much of Mirkwood, what is seen has spider webs everywhere. Tauriel slides into the scene with bow and arrow at the ready. Brown outfit with braided hairdo. Medium brown hair (not blond). Legolas appeared at the end of the scene with Tauriel. AS the dwarves are running covered in webs, they are suddenly confronted by Elves, and Legolas has an arrow pointed at Thorin's nose, saying "I will not hesitate to kill you, dwarf!" setting up for his attitude in LOTR. His costume is the same as LOTR. Tauriel's is similar, but in brown rather than green.

Not shown in the footage - No shot of Thranduil. No Laketown, no Elven halls. No shots of spiders or eagles. No Beorn. No Rhosgobel or Necromancer. No shots of Dale, Lonely Mountain or any hint of Smaug. No shots of goblins. No Bard or Master of Laketown. No hint of Aragorn/Rangers, etc. No shots of the Ring. Not much of the music, it's still be worked on. No dwarf singing, no Elves on horseback, no wargs, no goblins. No dwarf women.

Dwarves - Dwarves look great, with a lot of detail. Some are presented in a comedic way, some serious, all very different and distinct characters. No more dwarf singing. Sounds like mostly what we've already seen in trailer and vlogs except for one brief shot of dwarves in barrels on the river, with some effects tape visible - not a finished scene.

Trolls - They showed about a minute and a half of troll scene. Features some camera shots from above, creating a good sense of perspective with the live actors. Scene begins with a scene of Bilbo suddenly caught by "ginormous" hill trolls. In the troll scene, all the dwarves come runnign to rescue Bilbo. One of the younger ones takes an axe stroke at the legs of one troll, others stab at their feet. The trolls are articulate in speech with heavy Cockney accents. The scene goes similar to the book but not exactly. Wallet is not shown (or heard). "burrahobbit" is in, though we hear a "g" sound in there so it comes out like "burgahobbit". One of the trolls reminded Q a little of "Sloth" from The Goonies, with a slightly misshapen face

Riddle scene - Gollum is a "new vision" because he is now in 48fps. Scene is established with Bilbo begging for a way out of the cave but Gollum wants to play riddles. He identifies himself as Smeagol. Gollum regrets giving his name as Bilbo later regrets giving his. The Riddle scene was shown intercut with action scene with trolls, running with spiderwebs, Bilbo in the Shire. Gollum is mostly being Smeagol because he's trying to interact with another being that isn't a goblin. Bilbo still feels threatened and has Sting out in a defensive way. Sting is not glowing yet (there are no orcs present). Bilbo is wearing the same color jacket in the cave scene as in LOTR - he apparently leaves Rivendell wearing that jacket. - the scene ends with Gollum proposing the "stakes" - Bilbo saying if he wins, Gollum has to show him the way out. Gollum agrees and says that if he wins, "we gets to eats it raw". Bilbo hesitates and then agrees. Gollum comes off as attracted by the idea of talking with a fellow being, but also hungry, so we get a sense of the schizophrenic Seamgol/Gollum divide.

Returning characters - Christopher Lee might look slightly older, but Gandalf and Galadriel look the same. The returning characters look just the same as in LOTR. Legolas appears briefly.

Frame rate/3D - 48fps was crystal-clear and vivid, not like watching film. The images are "very sharp", the depth of field is "amazing". Quickbeam says he doesn't know if it's "too clear", it is very different and it you'll have to acclimate to it. The prosthetics did not look fake. The digital work of the CGI creatures looks even better at the higher frame rate. He says the trolls look fantastic. It will take some getting used to, whether people will like it immediately or not is hard to tell. It looks brighter and more vivid than LOTR footage. If there are complaints about the new framerate "I'm not surprised, welcome to the new frontier." It's a major change that will take adjustment. Fans will have the choice to see it in 2D or 3D -yes, 3D glasses will be needed. Quickbeam wore his comfortably over his usual glasses at this event. There were no scenes of "gimmick" 3D with things coming straight out of the screen, more a sense of depth in the image.

Radagast's depiction seems quite out there. There isn't really much written about him in any of Tolkien's works, so his character is certainly open to interpretation and Peter and co are certainly taking advantage of that.

[Vashetti]

Gosh it sounds so disappointing.

[GARETH197901]

Originally Posted by Vashetti

Gosh it sounds so disappointing.

i wouldn't be disappointed yet, after all its 10 minutes of unfinished footage that hasn't been through Post Production yet

i will keep an open mind and wait till december

[CD93]

Originally Posted by Vashetti

Gosh it sounds so disappointing.

For unfinished footage of a product eight months away from release without post? Featuring a change in framerate on top?

It sounds exactly as was to be expected. From the above post, sounds like the production holds up with it. Certainly nothing to be disappointed about yet.

[CoolioD1]

Here's someone who actually seemed to like the frame rate change

http://hollywood-elsewhere.com/2012/...ames_chang.php

[Margo Channing]

surely the whole 48fps thing will be pointless once its released on blu-ray????

[Voynich]

Originally Posted by Margo Channing

surely the whole 48fps thing will be pointless once its released on blu-ray????

I'd say the idea is to try and lure you into the cinema with it.

[Deserana 12]

Originally Posted by Margo Channing

surely the whole 48fps thing will be pointless once its released on blu-ray????

Isn't the whole point of blu-ray to be as close to the source material as possible, if the source material is 48fps then the blu-ray will also be like that.