Jackson's "Hobbit" = Fail.

[eits]

http://news.yahoo.com/disappointing-hobbit-debuts-cinemacon-011841272.html

shoulda stuck with guillermo del toro...

 

[shortylickens]

Hordes of angry nerds will descend upon him.
Me? I will watch it on video either way.

 

[alent1234]

people complained it looked too real

i always preferred home video to movie theater because the quality was always better

 

[dougp]

Your thread title is quite misleading given the article, eits. It's mostly talking about the effect of 48fps on the visual reproduction, making it feel far too real - thus exposing the line between obvious CGI/effects and reality. He only previewed 10 minutes of the movie - far too much to say it's a fail. Also, the author mentions a scene with Gollum that captures the essence of what Tolkien did in the books - far from being considered a fail.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

There will be plenty for fans to savor. However, the richness of Jackson's imagery, while beautiful, was marred because the 48 frames made each scene too crisp, if that's possible. It looked more real, in fact -- too real. Instead of an immersive cinematic experience, Middle Earth looked like it was captured as part of a filmed stage play.

What a stupid argument. I get there will always be people that want a movie to look like a movie, but there has to be some progress in higher framerate. 24fps looks like shit in many action scenes and slow camera pans. It may not fit for every movie, but calling it too real is just close minded.

 

[Anonemous]

He probably got the soap opera effect on the screen just like the 240hz LED LCDs...

 

[Drako]

Wow, some people will complain about anything

 

[AFurryReptile]

Um, I've been running frame interpolation on my TV for over a year now - I don't even notice the effect anymore. It certainly doesn't make it seem "too real." Not anymore anyway.

 

[Ns1]

Comments 36
Pete Hammond

Warner Bros played to a full house this morning for its 2012 product presentation at the enormous Caesars Palace Colisseum theatre on the second day of CinemaCon. The Hobbit 2012 FootageOne reason was certainly pre-publicity about 10 minutes of footage of Peter Jackson’s The Hobbit being debuted in the revolutionary new format of 48 frames per second. The exhibs had to wait until the end of Warner Bros topper Jeff Robinov’s entire presentation to see how this potential game-changer looks. But before they did, Jackson gave them a history lesson on the subject in taped introductory remarks (also shot in 3D but at 24 frames per sec) from New Zealand. That’s where he is working on the first of the two new films, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which opens December 14 (the second follows a year later). Jackson explained as the process got more talked-about in the industry he became intrigued by it and was hopeful Hobbit could be the first mainstream major studio feature to be projected at 48 frames (24 frames has been the norm for the last 80 years). Now having done it, he feels there is no reason at all to stick with 24. “It gives you much more of an illusion of real life; in 3D it also offers much less eye-strain,” he said, adding that with digital technology taking over the exhibition industry now, it’s “simple”, and he asked for the exhibitors’ support. With that, he intro’d 10 minutes of Hobbit footage but warned the crowd that it might take their eyes a little time to get used to. He also noted that the footage was far from finished but that this taste will give them the idea.

Related: ‘Dark Shadows’, ‘Dark Knight Rises’ Light Up Warners’ Summer Preview: CinemaCon

No question the crisp, high-def-to-the-max look of the work-in-progress was wildly different and quite startling to those used to film and 24-frame digital 3D. One industry observer next to me said afterwards, “It was like seeing Live From The Met at IMAX. Kinda cold.” Another three-time Oscar winner in attendance who has worked on innumerable classic films told me later, “I think we should let him finish it and see what it’s like then, but it seems a little like the look of a soap opera”. Still another media member thought it looked “extraordinary” but felt the high-defness of it all would deeply divide moviegoers, especially those who like the grain of film.

Of course with every new innovation it takes time to get used to and 10 unfinished minutes isn’t the whole story, but applause from the exhibs was only polite. For me, I’m a purist. I am already kinda missing film. As the clip from the 1957 musical Silk Stockings that opened this morning’s confab reminded, “you’ve gotta have glorious Technicolor, breathtaking Cinemascope and stereophonic sound”.

txt

 

[Sentrosi2121]

Brent Lang is just following what ATOT always does, find a minor flaw in something and report on it.

See "Pointy elbows"

 

[sigurros81]

Sounds like a bunch of nerdy crybabies to me. If anything, I'm more concerned about the movie as a whole. The Hobbit to me was rather slow and boring compared to the actual Trilogy, so I'm going to see how Peter Jackson will pull it off. He did a helluva job with Fellowship of the Ring so I will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Personally, I really enjoy watching Blurays in the 120/240hz. I don't even notice the "soap opera" effect anymore, and I just love the fluidity of the movies.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Perhaps the theater owners objected to pretentious buffoons shooting films in unnecessarily complicated ways and then attempting to force the little guys to buy new equipment to display the films. The original LOTR trilogy did nearly $3 billion in worldwide box office without 3D or 48fps, so it's pretty natural for these guys to balk at the "need" for new tech to show The Hobbit.

 

[bearxor]

Troll Thread Title

 

[Imp]

Is this about the 48fps? Is that similar to what the used for "Pubic Enemies" - the one with Johnny Depp and Christian Bale during the gangster era? That movie looked beautifful, but soap opera like.

 

[sigurros81]

Perhaps the theater owners objected to pretentious buffoons shooting films in unnecessarily complicated ways and then attempting to force the little guys to buy new equipment to display the films. The original LOTR trilogy did nearly $3 billion in worldwide box office without 3D or 48fps, so it's pretty natural for these guys to balk at the "need" for new tech to show The Hobbit.

By your argument, watching the old black and white movie Voyage to the Moon shot at like 10FPS will be just as well. It's call progress, get a clue. Most theaters these days are equipped with digital projectors, and from what I've read, upgrading comes down to a software patch, which may or may not end up costing money.

1. It's not pretentious or complicated when you set your camera to shoot at high frame rate...
2. If you are to shoot 3D, it will look the best at high frame rate.
3. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, lol.

 

[AFurryReptile]

Is this about the 48fps? Is that similar to what the used for "Pubic Enemies" - the one with Johnny Depp and Christian Bale during the gangster era? That movie looked beautifful, but soap opera like.

Highlighted for comedic effect.

 

[CPA]

One of the things we've experienced with our 3D TV are images that look "too real". For instance, The Office looks different on the 3D TV from the Plasma TV. It's almost like the way it was explained in the article. Some have commented that the picture is too weird and it's difficult to watch.

Not sure if this is the same thing.

 

[AFurryReptile]

By your argument, watching the old black and white movie Voyage to the Moon shot at like 10FPS will be just as well. It's call progress, get a clue. Most theaters these days are equipped with digital projectors, and from what I've read, upgrading comes down to a software patch, which may or may not end up costing money.

Plus the human eye can't really see the difference with anything over 40fps. Get it up to 48 and there will be no need to go higher.

 

[sigurros81]

Plus the human eye can't really see the difference with anything over 40fps. Get it up to 48 and there will be no need to go higher.

Another statement that's completely full of shit. If you're a gamer, try locking your FPS of a game at 40FPS vs. 60FPS vs. 100+ FPS. The eye can still discern easily the difference between 40 vs 60 vs 100.

 

[sactoking]

One of the things we've experienced with our 3D TV are images that look "too real". For instance, The Office looks different on the 3D TV from the Plasma TV. It's almost like the way it was explained in the article. Some have commented that the picture is too weird and it's difficult to watch.

Not sure if this is the same thing.

My friends in CA have their Netflix routed through their PS3 and they have some weird settings with upscaling and their TV that gives a "hyper-realistic" look. It's very disconcerting at first and takes quite a while to get used to. The effect it almost as if the actors were shot individually and placed in layers in front of the background.

 

[AFurryReptile]

Another statement that's completely full of shit. If you're a gamer, try locking your FPS of a game at 40FPS vs. 60FPS vs. 100+ FPS. The eye can still discern easily the difference between 40 vs 60 vs 100.

Gaming is different, because you are in control and the framerate is fluctuating.

If you want to nitpick, the number is actually in the 70 FPS range where your eye cannot tell the difference between higher numbers at all. But it matters if that FPS is changing and if you're in control.

 

[Imp]

Highlighted for comedic effect.

Woops... going to leave that one alone.

 

[Texashiker]

Seems people are stuck on technology that is 70 years old.

Time to get with the times people.

Why aren't we using 60 or 120 fps? If the technology exist, then use it.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

By your argument, watching the old black and white movie Voyage to the Moon shot at like 10FPS will be just as well. It's call progress, get a clue. Most theaters these days are equipped with digital projectors, and from what I've read, upgrading comes down to a software patch, which may or may not end up costing money.

1. It's not pretentious or complicated when you set your camera to shoot at high frame rate...
2. If you are to shoot 3D, it will look the best at high frame rate.
3. You don't know what the hell you're talking about, lol.

No Zippy, by your argument it's like forcing theater managers to install equipment to show movies in infrared and ultraviolet with special speaker software to make sounds in the 60khz range. There is absolutely no evidence that 48fps is distinguishable to moviegoers or that it enhances the experience in any way. Sticking 200GB of RAM in a Windows95 computer isn't called "progress", it's called stupidity. And that same word, "stupidity", also applies to children who automatically assume that more is better and that 48 has to be superior to 24 because it's higher. It's only true progress if it makes something better and nobody can show that's true here.

Look up "Sensurround" and educate yourself on the idiocy of jumping on some silly "progress" bandwagon just because one idiot filmmaker demands that it's necessary.

 

[ElFenix]

One of the things we've experienced with our 3D TV are images that look "too real". For instance, The Office looks different on the 3D TV from the Plasma TV. It's almost like the way it was explained in the article. Some have commented that the picture is too weird and it's difficult to watch.

Not sure if this is the same thing.

sounds like the 240hz setting on an LCD. i can't stand looking at that.