Support NeoGAF

[PhoncipleBone]

LieMAX is great for everything that isn't a 2D film shot in IMAX. It is my preferred choice for seeing The Hobbit. It see it in 48fps or I don't see it!

The glasses at my local LieMAX are large and uncomfortable. The bridge pinches my nose shut. The 3D effect did not seem as effective either compared to the RealD screens in the same place, at least when I saw Avatar multiple times.

The screen is smaller than many other auditoriums in the same multiplex. The tickets are more expensive. In fact, the LieMAX was put in one of their smaller auditoriums here, and is probably the second smallest screen in the building.

They don't have the projector set up correctly, so movies that should be letterboxed, like most of Dark Knight or Star Trek, just take up the entire 1.85 frame. I know there is something being cut off.

The only benefits my LieMAX gets me is reserved seating so I can show up at the last minute, and better sound.

 

[jett]

24fps/3D=48fps

48fps/3D=96fps would require upgrade because the input bandwidth is doubled.

3D 48fps is part of the digital standard spec, unless I'm misreading something. I hope there's not gonna be some sort of clusterfuck with The Hobbit where they send both 24fps and 48fps edits of the movies to digital theaters, and we'll only find out which we got after we actually pay for our ticket. :|

 

[SCULLIBUNDO]

The glasses at my local LieMAX are large and uncomfortable. The bridge pinches my nose shut. The 3D effect did not seem as effective either compared to the RealD screens in the same place, at least when I saw Avatar multiple times.

The screen is smaller than many other auditoriums in the same multiplex. The tickets are more expensive. In fact, the LieMAX was put in one of their smaller auditoriums here, and is probably the second smallest screen in the building.

They don't have the projector set up correctly, so movies that should be letterboxed, like most of Dark Knight or Star Trek, just take up the entire 1.85 frame. I know there is something being cut off.

The only benefits my LieMAX gets me is reserved seating so I can show up at the last minute, and better sound.

Well then that seems like a problem with your LieMAX, not LieMAX in general. I get the absolute best 3D and image quality at my LieMAX.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Well then that seems like a problem with your LieMAX, not LieMAX in general. I get the absolute best 3D and image quality at my LieMAX.

I will not complain about the sound quality at my LieMAX. I remember the thumping in my chest from the bass during Avatar.

 

[callmedave]

Could someone answer some IMAX questions that have been bugging me? My city has a full sized IMAX which I believe went digital a few years back, since the TDKR prologue wasn't shown there. Is the difference between the 70mm and digital substantial? And are the extra scenes filmed in 70mm, such as Dark Knight Rises and MI:4, fully shown in the Digital IMAX theaters?

 

[Edmond Dantès]

WB to preview The Hobbit at CinemaCon.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/the-hobbit-preview-cinemacon-314880


The attendees will most likely be under NDA's, but you never know.

 

[maquiladora]

It seems Peter Jackson's grandfather was serving in a unit during the battle of the somme that was relieved by the unit Tolkien was in at the time.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/201...d-connection-peter-jackson-and-j-r-r-tolkien/

I wonder if they passed each other on the road to the trenches.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

Great to see some love for Ted Nasmith, I always loved his Balrog:-

However to me Alan Lee's Glaurung is more relevant to the Hobbit, I really hope he channel's some of this awesomeness for Smaug!:-

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Smaug the Magnificent tops rich list.

Source

The list

 

[Grakl]

Smaug the Magnificent tops rich list.

Source

The list

Fun facts:
Unfamiliar with the phrase "Achilles' heel".

Too good.

 

[mjc]

Nasmith's Balrog is a little too plain looking for me. Can't explain it.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Nasmith's Balrog is a little too plain looking for me. Can't explain it.

Lack of flames might be the issue.

John Howe's Bridge of Khazad-dum is the definitive depiction, except for the wings of course.

 

[Vulcano's assistant]

Smaug the Magnificent tops rich list.

Source

The list

Swag

 

[RetroMG]

Speaking of the contributing singers; Emiliana Torrini really did a fantastic job with Gollum's Song (Long Ways To Go Yet on the complete score) in capturing Smeagol's utter despair and hopelessness.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-VUt_UWKfw

Goddamn, thanks for posting this. I've had this in my head for days, but I haven't heard it in years and I couldn't remember exactly how it goes.

 

[anonymous_abc]

Smaug the Magnificent tops rich list.

Source

The list

that is quite a funny read all round ^^

 

[Expendable.]

CinemaCon 2012: THE HOBBIT Underwhelms At 48 Frames Per Second

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.

As I said above the landscape shots are breathtaking. 48fps is the future of nature documentaries. But if it's the future of narrative cinema I don't know if that future includes me.

More at the link.

 

[Cheebo]

Had a feeling that would happen. Films need to looks like films.

 

[DeathbyVolcano]

ruh-roh

 

[Tucah]

Well that's really disheartening.

 

[Loxley]

A fair warning, there's a bit of a character spoiler in that article when the guy talks about the footage they were shown.

CinemaCon 2012: THE HOBBIT Underwhelms At 48 Frames Per Second



More at the link.

Also, I'm not going to let one guy's overtly negative thoughts about it get to me, I'll wait until more outlets talk about it to get a better overall impression (edit - especially outlets I'm familiar with, I've never heard of "Badass Digest" before ). It could just be the fact that we've been looking at 24FPS film for the last 80 years that it's all anyone is used to, and as soon as something with a higher frame-rate comes along it automatically looks weird.

Ultimately I'll wait to see it myself to form an opinion.

 

[Dan]

"Your [directors] were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn't stop to think if they should."

 

[Jokergrin]

aw crap

 

[Edmond Dantès]

Interesting info on the

Spoiler

Nazgul

there. I had suspected that they would be featured in some way.

 

[Genesis Knight]

So from what I can tell, there are going to be several ways to see The Hobbit depending on what your options are in your part of the country:

1) 2D, Digital Projection
2) 3D at traditional FPS
3) 3D at 48 FPS

What I'm less sure of:

4) 2D, Standard Projection
5) 2D, Digital Projection, 48 FPS

Does anyone with more knowledge know which of these options will/won't be available?

 

[apana]

Here we go, 48 fps vs. regular is going to make console wars look like child's play.

 

[Expendable.]

Also, I'm not going to let one guy's overtly negative impressions get to me, I'll wait until more outlets talk about it to get a better overall impression. It could just be the fact that we've been looking at 24FPS film for the last 80 years that it's all anyone is used to, and as soon as something with a higher frame-rate comes along it automatically looks weird.

Ultimately I'll wait to see it myself to form an opinion, if I go into the movie expecting it to be awful, then it's all I'll think about.

I think I've read all the impressions and they at the very least range from "a lot of people will hate it" to "it's terrible." But yeah, I still can't wait to see it myself.

 

[Edmond Dantès]

More impressions:

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

"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/#!/firstshowing:

"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 #CinemaCon "

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

 

[Wiggum2007]

Guys this movie looks too good they should make it look shittier cuz I'm used to movies looking shittier.

 

[Father_Brain]

Also, I'm not going to let one guy's overtly negative thoughts about it get to me, I'll wait until more outlets talk about it to get a better overall impression. It could just be the fact that we've been looking at 24FPS film for the last 80 years that it's all anyone is used to, and as soon as something with a higher frame-rate comes along it automatically looks weird.

I'm guessing that this is all it comes down to. This is the first-ever big-budget film to be shot at a framerate higher than 30fps, and it's going to be tough to break that conditioning, particularly for older viewers.

Heck, even on the gaming side of GAF, you occasionally get people bashing 60fps for certain titles because they "don't want it to look like a soap opera."

 

[Ogni-XR21]

I don't think it will be shown in 48fps anywhere around here. Probably good because I'm usually very easy to distract and taken out of a movie if something feels off.

 

[Expendable.]

@kingbry7:

I've been in an exam, but what I gather is that 48 FPS is worse than the Holocaust.

That cracked me up.

 

[Cheebo]

Guys this movie looks too good they should make it look shittier cuz I'm used to movies looking shittier.

you dont want it to look like it was filmed on sets either though and most impressions so far show concern on how it looks.

 

[ckohler]

I'm glad they are going 48fps. Even if some people can't adjust this soon, it's nice to know that those other 24 frames are already shot and available for a future generation who may demand it.

Also, great thing about shooting at 48fps is that reverting to 24fps is effortless.

The comments about it looking too much like "fake sets" concerns me. However, it sounds like the extra 24fps make CGI characters look more realistic and that's intriguing and unexpected.

 

[mattp]

dammit, im still really curious to see the 48fps footage but man these impressions are really disappointing and sort of proving everyones' fears to be true

 

[Wiggum2007]

you dont want it to look like it was filmed on sets either though and most impressions so far show concern on how it looks.

Yeah I'm strictly referring to the fps thing, set design and lighting stuff could certainly be an issue.

 

[Ixion]

I wonder if Jackson would consider reverting to 24 FPS if early impressions are mostly negative.

 

[-Plasma Reus-]

They should release a 48fps trailer to reassure our confidence in the added feature.

Spoiler

pleasepleaseplease!

 

[Loxley]

I'm glad they are going 48fps. Even if some people can't adjust this soon, it's nice to know that those other 24 frames are already shot and available for a future generation who may demand it.

Also, great thing about shooting at 48fps is that reverting to 24fps is effortless.

The comments about it looking too much like "fake sets" concerns me. However, it sounds like the extra 24fps make CGI characters look more realistic and that's intriguing and unexpected.

Yep, if the there's such a huge freaking backlash against the 48s FPS (on unfinished film) and New Line decides to go to DEFCON 1, theaters could probably opt to show the 24 FPS version.

I wonder if Jackson would consider reverting to 24 FPS if early impressions are mostly negative.

I highly doubt it, he and James Cameron have been the biggest proponents of the film industry moving forward into higher frame-rates from the stone-age 24FPS we've been using since the 1930s. For Jackson to just go back on everything due to internet blogs whining about the quality of the 48FPS on *unfinished film* would be a very odd move. Personally I hope he sticks t his guns regardless of how it looks.

Someone always has to be first, people.

 

[Genesis Knight]

Yep, if the there's such a huge freaking backlash against the 48s FPS (on unfinished film) and New Line decides to go to DEFCON 1, theaters could probably opt to show the 24 FPS version.

I am 100% sure that the theaters in my area will have a 2D 24FPS DP release. They always do.

 

[Cheebo]

This sounds like it would be good for a nearly entirely CGI movie like Avatar but is having mixed results for a primarily set/location based film like the hobbit

 

[apana]

I imagine that it looking like real life would be a big positive. I'm not sure how 48 FPS causes the sets to look like sets.

 

[Demoncarnotaur]

CinemaCon 2012: THE HOBBIT Underwhelms At 48 Frames Per Second



More at the link.

Uh oh.

Im interested in reading more impressions, I really hope if it really is this bad that it may have something to do with the footage still being early.

 

[THE-Pink-Dagger]

I'd like to weigh in here. As it's said, it was predictable for 48 fps in The Hobbit to be polarizingl Faraci is being trollish a bit though because he acknowledges the fact that it looks real, the 3D looks better, but he says it looks terrible JUST because it doesn't look cinematic. But what is cinematic?! 24 fps footage doesn't necessarily look cinematic, just try to shoot something with your DSLR, raw, it'll look like crap, cinematic comes from other factors such as cinematography, lighting etc, captain obvious sure but 24 fps is the norm, it's what our eyes have been accustomed to for decades and decades.

It HAS to be a shock to see something so real looking because this is much closer to reality, to what we see. Purists (and I'm one of them in theory) will cry out that this is shit, and not cinema, but I'd say that once you're used to it, it won't feel as odd or shocking. Plus 3D will be much more comfortable to look at, AND the plague of 24 fps aka this fu cking motion blur when the camera is panning will be gone, it just pisses me off to not see anything but a blur in movies, and here in 48 fps, it will look so much more fluid, realistic.

A lot will hate it, that's for sure, but as we can see it with the comments, some loved it, and I feel this is gonna be mind-blowing to experience, like surreal. Plus they will not impose it, there'll be the classic 24 fps version, and TVs and projectors. etc will always have the ability to play back 24 fps material, you'll always have a choice, it's a nice feature for those who want a new experience, take it this way.

 

[Expendable.]

@GabeTheShogun:

The 48fps in TheHobbit looks shit & THIS IS A MOVIE W/ MAGICAL LITTLE PEOPLE W/ HAIRY FEET & I AM ALMOST 30, WATCHING THIS UNIRONICALLY.

This is the gift that keeps on giving.

 

[ThatCrazyGuy]

So some people saw raw early footage and panicking?

I don't expect PJ to change everything up from a few people who saw early raw footage and have a problem with it or aren't used to it.

It's something new. Of course people aren't used to it yet!

 

[Mr Cola]

cant lie after kong and lovely bones i was sceptical of the hobbit films, and honestly the trailer looked odd to me, the parts with gandalf looked like sets, perhaps its because of the amount of behind the scenes stuff ive seen but it did not immerse me.

I cant lie as a diehard lotr fan im more than a little concerned :[

 

[maquiladora]

SPOILER ALERT! (Read no further if you don't want to be spoiled)

Spoiler

Just spoke with Quickbeam on the phone about what he saw in the 10 minutes footage from CinemaCon...Radagast, The White Council, The Trolls (Talking!), Tauriel and Legolas action sequence, Dol Guldur, Thrain, Riddles in the Dark...oh my!

He's going to dish the dirt tonight on TORn Tuesday! Be there!!!

http://www.facebook.com/TheOneRingnet

 

[Kud Dukan]

http://www.facebook.com/TheOneRingnet

Finally, some actual impressions besides the 48 FPS issue.

 

[Expendable.]

Better write-up: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55212

In the opening minutes, I thought to myself "this looks like the TV department when they turn on 120Hz or TruMotion or whatever they call it". At once, it really doesn’t look like that. The smooth motion clarity is similar, but the 120Hz TV setting is the TV inventing visual information to fill in loads of completely nonexistent frames, creating the bullshit garbage you see walking through most TV departments in stores. Again, there is an element that 48fps and TruMotion share (which is where the comparison comes from), but 48 fps does not simply “look like Korean soap operas” or TruMotion-enhanced TV images. That’s a reductive, sensationalist, utterly bullshit equivocation.

To be honest, it kind of terrified me at first. In his pre-recorded intro, Peter Jackson said that the reason we were seeing 10 minutes of content was that "it takes your eyes a little bit to adjust", and that is absolutely the case. The immersive experience was not immediate, but gradual. I felt much more comfortable toward the end of the presentation, but still disconcerted and outside a comfort zone.

I have major reservations, but at the same time am beyond awed at many elements of what hit my visual cortex. Recalling the sweeping landscape shots they opened with now, I almost feel tears welling, and I can’t explain why. It was overwhelming in the most literal sense. It directly assaults your synapses with twice as much information through your retinas as you have become conditioned to expect. I did not see the digital seams around creatures like Gollum and the trolls, a major benefit over 24fps. The creatures had a sense of mass in the environment, which was disconcerting in a good way.

 

[anonymous_abc]

So some people saw raw early footage and panicking?

I don't expect PJ to change everything up from a few people who saw early raw footage and have a problem with it or aren't used to it.

It's something new. Of course people aren't used to it yet!

I agree, films used to be black and white, surely there was equal backlash then that movies no longer looked like movies should. xD