Why? Don't most TVs support 60?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The Hobbit - Official Thread of Officially In Production
- Thread starter WyndhamPrice
- Start date
- Status
Ape Gone Insane
Member
Peter Jackson is a strange director. He's brilliant at making films set in Middle-Earth but shit at making any other type of film.
freenudemacusers
Member
This is a terriblely incorrect post.
Pre-LOTR he was best known as a beloved director of horror comedies such as Bad Taste, Braindead, & The Frighteners. He had a ton a geek cred when he took on LOTR thanks to those films. He was very much a Sam Raimi sort of figure for film geeks in the 80's and 90's. And damn good at what he did.
Not to mention his non-Middle Earth, non-horror comedies Meet the Feebles and Heavenly Creatures are great.
Yes, but that doesn't mean they support frame rates less than that. For a long time, you couldn't get TVs that natively displayed 24 frames per second, so DVD players had to do what's called 3:2 pulldown (alternately display one frame 3 times, display next frame 2 times). Generally speaking, the TV has to work in multiples. A TV that supports 24hz playback likely displays at 120hz, as that is the least common multiple of 24 and 60. A TV would have to support 240hz to display 48hz, as that is the least common multiple of 48 and 60. 3D 48hz complicates things further.
Buckethead
Banned
Heavenly Creatures >
Although I started The Frighteners but didn't stick with it.
Although I started The Frighteners but didn't stick with it.
Ixion
Member
Those are interesting numbers, and while I agree that three long movies is probably too much, this is a different situation than the LOTR.
The Hobbit may be one book, but it's very fast paced and goes through many events and locations over the course of the story. The difference is that LOTR had less events, but took more time to detail each situation. So if Peter Jackson further details the narrative to the equivalent of LOTR, then one movie is not enough.
And then we have the White Council/Necromancer storyline that ran parallel to Bilbo's story, but was not elaborated upon in the book. If added to the films, then two long movies will definitely be needed, if not a bit more.
But of course, we're getting THREE long movies, of which I'm a bit skeptical of. But if Bilbo's story is further detailed and The White Council story is added and also further detailed, then it's understandable.
The extended cut adds a lot to it, The Frighteners EE is a lot of fun.
As for the Hobbit there were so many details skimmed over, it was not written in the same detail as LOTR. For example the battle of the five armies was pretty much entirely skipped over in the book while in reality it was a far bigger and more epic battle than Helms Deep in TTT, it can take up almost the entire run time of There and Back Again possibly.
LegendofJoe
Member
I will always be disappointed that the Hobbit was not the sole source material for these movies. Maybe one day the world will be less focused on money and we'll get to see the Hobbit, and the Hobbit only, adapted for film.
I can't see that happening anytime soon if ever. Jackson's verisions are clearly the definitive on screen adaptions. No one is going to want to try re-adapting these with someone other than McKellen as Gandalf, someone other than Serkis as Gollum, etc.
Not to mention J.R.R. Tolkien himself regrets not including the Necromancer storyline and other LOTR elements in The Hobbit and attempted to re-write it from scratch in the 60's.
maquiladora
Member
I was a fan of Heavenly Creatures before LOTR. Braindead is amazing too.
Steiner_Zi
Member
I did, too. The movie was awesome.
Buckethead
Banned
I love it outside of the ice skating in Central Park scene. Unforgivably terrible.
The EE is the definition of self-indulgent, though.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
His most interesting films were pre-LotR >_>
Post-LotR though...yeahhhhh just stick to Middle-Earth homey
Post-LotR though...yeahhhhh just stick to Middle-Earth homey
maquiladora
Member
Haven't watched it since it came out, but I remember enjoying it at the time.
maquiladora
Member
9pm PST
No The Lovely Bones love?
Ok, so I would not say I love it, but I thought it was well done.
Napalm_Frank
Member
Expect a fanbase edit when all 3 movies have been released.
i never understand when people complain about this
money?
maybe i'm just naive, but i believe all of this stuff is a pure passion project for peter jackson.
Yeah, I thought it was fantastic, flaws and all. I am fully aware that it was bloated in some places, but I've come to realize that I seem to like bloated films, for whatever reason. I have no idea why.
LegendofJoe
Member
The possibility of that never even occured to me, I'll definitely keep an eye out for it.
Passion project or not Peter has basically been given a blank check by the studios. Too much freedom can be a bad thing if you're prone to excess as PJ has proven himself to be. Also, no movie executive in today's world is ever going to say no to turning a guaranteed money maker into several guaranteed money makers. The recipe for bloat and excess is all there, and make no doubt about it money is the primary driver behind it.
Confidence Man
Member
I wish this had a different feel from the LotR films. Everything looks sort of the same, like they're just banging out another one.
Ixion
Member
Eh, I understand why some fans would want a strict adaption of The Hobbit, but you have to admit, the White Council/Necromancer storyline would be really cool to see on screen if done right.
But of course, both storylines need to be tied together well. You can't show two different storylines with completely unrelated goals. There are ways to tie them together though, such as
But of course, both storylines need to be tied together well. You can't show two different storylines with completely unrelated goals. There are ways to tie them together though, such as
explaining in the beginning of the movie that a Smaug/Necromancer union would be disastrous for Middle-Earth, which is something Gandalf mentioned in the appendices if I'm not mistaken.
Napalm_Frank
Member
And that money comes from people that want to see these movies so I don't get the problem.
LegendofJoe
Member
It very well could negatively affect the quality of the movies, that's the problem I have with it. I know the movies will at least be of decent quality, but when you're adapting the most beloved fantasy novel of all time decent isn't good enough.
Napalm_Frank
Member
Well the impressions of the first movie have been extremely positive so I'll wait and see the movies before burning the witch.
There will be a fan edit that caters to this need. Count on it.
maquiladora
Member
It's amazing how divisive the higher frame rate seems to be.
From this...
to this...
lol
From this...
to this...
lol
Napalm_Frank
Member
On the positive side, it's superbly shot and Ronan and Tucci give standout performances, but as an adaptation it largely falters while the CGI is simply awful in both its quality and over-abundance. The three-hour Filming The Lovely Bones documentary, which comes with the SE BD, is a great watch, though, and for me gave rise to a somewhat melancholic appreciation for what was ultimately a labour of love troubled by misguidedness.
well i meant specifically lotr/tolkien related stuff haha
king kong was fun the first time. i never want to watch it again, though
maquiladora
Member
If anyone in LA is interested.
Little Old Man
Member
Indeed. I've just been re-reading The Hobbit, currently just past where film one will end. If you tried to convert the book straight to a film it would make for awkward viewing, given that the book is written in the style of a children's tale, and therefore is often scant on detail, focusing on only the important things to the story. You see few mentions of many of the Dwarves throughout, so that requires expanding upon, and of course, filling in the blanks of the journey. You can't just keep skipping to scenes days apart like in the book. Same goes for Gandalf's merry adventures you never hear about.
Hopefully Jackson has the balance right, especially since some of the material is from other sources.
The marmite reactions to HFR make me glad that I'm seeing it first time round without it.
Hmm. How noticeable would it be if every fourth frame of a 48fps movie was shown twice? Or do some kind of interpolation? I mean, I've heard of pulldown and the issues with 24fps video on 60hz displays, but it seems something updated Blu-ray players could handle without too much trouble and still be compatible with current TVs.
ScreenSplitter
Member
Lovely Bones was good. I didn't enjoy it, but other people like King Kong. Maybe you just don't like child abuse and giant monkeys, which is understandable.
This I can agree with (although I do worry that someone might try anyway)...
...This I cannot. It's simply untrue. JRRT attempted rewriting The Hobbit in the early 1960s from scratch to make it more mature and similar to LOTR, but there's no indication that he ever planned to include the Necromancer storyline. More importantly, he abandoned the project after only a couple of chapters, despite not being one to let negative feedback stop him when he was determined to write a certain way. He actually did return to The Hobbit again in 1966 ... when he made only minor revisions and left it similar in tone and scope to the Second Edition.
Jackson himself has tried to manipulate the textual history of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings to justify his changes, but adding the White Council and the Necromancer to the story of The Hobbit is all PJ.
Spoilers at link! Another Expanded Role.
If any character besides Radagast got an expanded role,
This news makes me happy.
If any character besides Radagast got an expanded role,
Beorn would be my choice.
Yes, I can definitely get behind this!
I'm not sure it'd be worth it if they had to do something like that. I think I'd rather watch true 24 fps than modified 48fps.
I'm really interested to see how WETA does
Beorn's transforming effects
Ixion
Member
Another positive review. 4.5 stars out of 5...
http://www.odt.co.nz/entertainment/film/237613/visual-feast-cinema
Some very slight spoilers in there. But some key points from the review:
-Took him 10 minutes to get used to HFR, but thought it was game changing once he got used to it and called the film a 'visual feast'.
-Also felt the beginning Shire section drags.
-Says McKellin and Serkis are fantastic.
-Says LOTR fans will love it, but this movie won't convert any skeptics.
http://www.odt.co.nz/entertainment/film/237613/visual-feast-cinema
Some very slight spoilers in there. But some key points from the review:
-Took him 10 minutes to get used to HFR, but thought it was game changing once he got used to it and called the film a 'visual feast'.
-Also felt the beginning Shire section drags.
-Says McKellin and Serkis are fantastic.
-Says LOTR fans will love it, but this movie won't convert any skeptics.
I dont think anyone would have thought otherwise, the good news for the film is that the people who want to see it should be pretty damn huge. I do wander however how the box office will fair with people knowing how the story turns out + the notion of investing with another 3 films. I honestly dont think well see rings numbers, but im sure it will make a nice tidy profit for all involved.
Dabookerman
Member
I think the other valid point was that this would probably be the last time we'll see Middle Earth in film form, so let's make the most of it!
StrangeADT
Banned
Damnit, don't ruin my suspension of disbelief! Don't ruin these movies for me!
- Status