|
On December 11 2012 19:18 lonelyPotato wrote:
I hate 3D movies, they make me nauseous. I always felt it was brought out just to get the movie theater a few extra bucks when you go.
I think 3D has been pushed because it helps film companies stop piracy. Though I also wonder if the cost of 3D equipment can justify 50% higher costs for customers.
On the other hand, I finally saw a film which made great use of 3D (Life of Pi), so it isn't completely pointless.
Back on topic, I'm incredibly excited about the Hobbit. It sounds like it's going to be less action based and more about exploring Tolkien's world - which is just what I want.
|
On December 11 2012 22:50 Tal wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 19:18 lonelyPotato wrote:
I hate 3D movies, they make me nauseous. I always felt it was brought out just to get the movie theater a few extra bucks when you go. I think 3D has been pushed because it helps film companies stop piracy. Though I also wonder if the cost of 3D equipment can justify 50% higher costs for customers. On the other hand, I finally saw a film which made great use of 3D (Life of Pi), so it isn't completely pointless. Back on topic, I'm incredibly excited about the Hobbit. It sounds like it's going to be less action based and more about exploring Tolkien's world - which is just what I want.
The two main reasons for forcing 3D down the public's throats are:
1. Increasing per-transaction cost at theaters, who now have more content than ever to compete with (Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/HBO/DVRs)
2. Consumer electronics retail market. This requires a bit of background. When technology changes, there's a huge influx of money into the consumer electronics market, which has been struggling lately. Circuit City went under, Best Buy is struggling. Because of very low-overhead online retailers like Amazon, margin on consumer electronics (media players, TVs) is razor-thin except on the highest end items.
Over the last decade, there have been several major technology shifts that have injected money into the consumer electronics market, which increases media consumption (DVDs and Blu-Rays to go with your new TV, etc.). I'll detail a few here:
- (2001-2009) The introduction of flat-screen technology (the plasma vs LCD). This drove high-end sales, and lower-end companies made those "flat-screen" CRTs for a while, where they were still CRTs, but the actual screen itself was flat. Monitor manufacturers did this as well, and money buyers were duped into buying flat-screen CRTs from magazine adds that simply said "flat screen monitor".
- (2005-2009) The end of analog TV broadcast. This caused millions of people with older TV sets to replace them, as there was no longer any sort of analog broadcast. This is why we no longer see antennas on TVs.
- (2008-2011) The HD revolution. Once viewers had replaced their outdated analog CRTs with cheap 480p TVs, it was only a short amount of time before cable companies started offering huge amount of programming in HD format (720i through 1080p). Companies labeled anything they possibly could as HD, including those stupid yellow sunglasses and actually developing products using 720i, which looks horrid.
- The next big thing. Blu-Ray didn't inject enough money into the industry, because people have been buying 1080p TVs for years now. Sure, we had to buy players and disks for Blu-Ray, but it just wasn't better by enough to matter all that much. The industry had to ask "how can we drive new TV and hardware sales when the next resolution change is way, way off?". I mean honestly, it'll be a while before we're buying 55" OLEDs with 1920x1200 resolution for the living room. So, they came up with a half-assed solution for a new technology, that reduces resolution and gives people headaches, and signed huge deals with movie production studios. THREE DEE WAS BORN.
TLDR; 3d technology is just a hail-mary to drive TV and supporting hardware sales.
|
On December 11 2012 23:51 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2012 22:50 Tal wrote:On December 11 2012 19:18 lonelyPotato wrote:
I hate 3D movies, they make me nauseous. I always felt it was brought out just to get the movie theater a few extra bucks when you go. I think 3D has been pushed because it helps film companies stop piracy. Though I also wonder if the cost of 3D equipment can justify 50% higher costs for customers. On the other hand, I finally saw a film which made great use of 3D (Life of Pi), so it isn't completely pointless. Back on topic, I'm incredibly excited about the Hobbit. It sounds like it's going to be less action based and more about exploring Tolkien's world - which is just what I want. The two main reasons for forcing 3D down the public's throats are: 1. Increasing per-transaction cost at theaters, who now have more content than ever to compete with (Netflix/Hulu/Amazon/HBO/DVRs) 2. Consumer electronics retail market. This requires a bit of background. When technology changes, there's a huge influx of money into the consumer electronics market, which has been struggling lately. Circuit City went under, Best Buy is struggling. Because of very low-overhead online retailers like Amazon, margin on consumer electronics (media players, TVs) is razor-thin except on the highest end items. Over the last decade, there have been several major technology shifts that have injected money into the consumer electronics market, which increases media consumption (DVDs and Blu-Rays to go with your new TV, etc.). I'll detail a few here: - (2001-2009) The introduction of flat-screen technology (the plasma vs LCD). This drove high-end sales, and lower-end companies made those "flat-screen" CRTs for a while, where they were still CRTs, but the actual screen itself was flat. Monitor manufacturers did this as well, and money buyers were duped into buying flat-screen CRTs from magazine adds that simply said "flat screen monitor". - (2005-2009) The end of analog TV broadcast. This caused millions of people with older TV sets to replace them, as there was no longer any sort of analog broadcast. This is why we no longer see antennas on TVs. - (2008-2011) The HD revolution. Once viewers had replaced their outdated analog CRTs with cheap 480p TVs, it was only a short amount of time before cable companies started offering huge amount of programming in HD format (720i through 1080p). Companies labeled anything they possibly could as HD, including those stupid yellow sunglasses and actually developing products using 720i, which looks horrid. - The next big thing. Blu-Ray didn't inject enough money into the industry, because people have been buying 1080p TVs for years now. Sure, we had to buy players and disks for Blu-Ray, but it just wasn't better by enough to matter all that much. The industry had to ask "how can we drive new TV and hardware sales when the next resolution change is way, way off?". I mean honestly, it'll be a while before we're buying 55" OLEDs with 1920x1200 resolution for the living room. So, they came up with a half-assed solution for a new technology, that reduces resolution and gives people headaches, and signed huge deals with movie production studios. THREE DEE WAS BORN. TLDR; 3d technology is just a hail-mary to drive TV and supporting hardware sales.
That's pretty much what I assumed when I first started hearing about these 3D televisions. It's getting to the point where innovating is getting harder and harder since technologies are getting even more limited (It's also happening to the computer industry).
It went from Black and White Televisions, to Analogue Colored Televisions, to Digital Television, To Really Freakin Big Digital Televisions, then into.... well... what else can we go into? Once we have gotten the picture looking basically real their isn't really much motivation to do anything else? I KNOW! LETS GO 3D AND MILK THAT COW!
Sorry if I missed any technologies, but hopefully you get the point xD
|
Seeing it Friday, cannot wait
|
Hard to believe the midnight release isn't too far away now, the wait went by super fast. Just gotta get through exams and then late night celebration of the hobbit after my last exam this week.
|
On December 12 2012 01:06 Tennet wrote:
Hard to believe the midnight release isn't too far away now, the wait went by super fast. Just gotta get through exams and then late night celebration of the hobbit after my last exam this week.
I dunno about midnight release, I have work Friday  can't be staying up till 3am
|
I found out about midnigth release an hour ago. Managed to get 2 tickets for tonight 00:12!  Have to get out of bed @ 7 tomorrow, but what the hell. Cool date right? 
|
you realize that the whole 3D phenomenon is just like the whole pixar and animated movies.
James Cameron wanted to make a 3D movie. He does really well with it as in he made it his job to make it awesome. People saw how awesome the movie is. Industry thinks the movie avatar was a huge success because of the 3D and NOT because of the cgi.
Just like Pixar and Toy Story 1.
The movie was a huge hit. First animated movie. Industry think customers paid for the movie BECAUSE of the animation and, again, NOT because of the rich storyline/plot.
on topic:
Finished reading the book for the first time. And well...idk how this can be a series of movies...i mean shouldn't three hours be enough? Majority of the book was just talking, walking and description of the landscape (which isn't bad)...but i mean...
|
But really, is IMAX just a marketing ploy (as people here seem to be suggesting) and should I go watch regular old 2d for the best experience or would IMAX really give an enhanced experience (and hopefully not get severe headaches)?
|
On December 12 2012 01:53 Thorakh wrote:
But really, is IMAX just a marketing ploy (as people here seem to be suggesting) and should I go watch regular old 2d for the best experience or would IMAX really give an enhanced experience (and hopefully not get severe headaches)?
this is tricky. IMAX itself is a different experience all together. I can go watch a regular 3D movie and be fine. But the IMAX is immense and I feel very overwhelmed sometimes (for the first five minutes I have to clutch onto the armrest because i feel like I am going to fall over into an abyss)
However in the end, despite me sometimes feeling nauseous, for the pricing I would advise against it. It's just a bigger screen (in a dome shape somewhat) and better surround sound. Thats all you are paying for...which is alot.
tldr;
If you have never been to an IMAX, then go watch it there just to get an experience. But in the end don't bother wasting exorbitant amount of money for it
|
On December 12 2012 02:02 heroyi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 01:53 Thorakh wrote:
But really, is IMAX just a marketing ploy (as people here seem to be suggesting) and should I go watch regular old 2d for the best experience or would IMAX really give an enhanced experience (and hopefully not get severe headaches)? this is tricky. IMAX itself is a different experience all together. I can go watch a regular 3D movie and be fine. But the IMAX is immense and I feel very overwhelmed sometimes (for the first five minutes I have to clutch onto the armrest because i feel like I am going to fall over into an abyss) However in the end, despite me sometimes feeling nauseous, for the pricing I would advise against it. It's just a bigger screen (in a dome shape somewhat) and better surround sound. Thats all you are paying for...which is alot. tldr; If you have never been to an IMAX, then go watch it there just to get an experience. But in the end don't bother wasting exorbitant amount of money for it
I have to disagree. IMAX is more than worth it for the sound quality alone. You can literally feel the movie
|
On December 12 2012 01:49 heroyi wrote:
you realize that the whole 3D phenomenon is just like the whole pixar and animated movies.
James Cameron wanted to make a 3D movie. He does really well with it as in he made it his job to make it awesome. People saw how awesome the movie is. Industry thinks the movie avatar was a huge success because of the 3D and NOT because of the cgi.
Just like Pixar and Toy Story 1.
The movie was a huge hit. First animated movie. Industry think customers paid for the movie BECAUSE of the animation and, again, NOT because of the rich storyline/plot.
on topic:
Finished reading the book for the first time. And well...idk how this can be a series of movies...i mean shouldn't three hours be enough? Majority of the book was just talking, walking and description of the landscape (which isn't bad)...but i mean...
Someone posted this making-of video in this thread where it was stated that they include a lot of the appendix from the lord of the rings series. Everytime Gandalf has to attend other businesses which arent described in the book things happen that build up for the ultimate clash in lord of the rings. All those things are going to be included in the movie, so its so much more than just "The Hobbit"
I think together with lotr the hobbit films are going to be a masterpiece of movie history. Thats what im expecting from the previews :D
and i actually like 3D! some movies just use it to get more money and barely use any 3D scenes, thats true. but in action movies its totally awesome and its one of the main reasons i go to the cinema at all. I can watch 2D at home np.. even recent cine films if i really want to. and the timeframe between premiere and bluray/amazon/itunes release is getting shorter and shorter. I dont want to leave my house to watch a stupid 2D film. Whats the point? I rather watch it at home.
if no one would go to 3d movies this whole thing would vanish pretty quickly. We had 3D 10 years ago too. but back then it couldnt be established and it was gone until Avatar.
and im so looking forward to see the hobbit in 48 fps and get motion sickness from it! its gonna be awesome!!
|
It's not that innovation is getting harder, its that the current generations don't want to risk their money to push it forward. You can practically taste the stagnation everywhere.
|
On December 12 2012 02:18 Avs wrote:
It's not that innovation is getting harder, its that the current generations don't want to risk their money to push it forward. You can practically taste the stagnation everywhere.
I dont feel that way at all. Maybe thats the impression in north korea?
|
On December 12 2012 02:08 SpikeStarcraft wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 01:49 heroyi wrote:
you realize that the whole 3D phenomenon is just like the whole pixar and animated movies.
James Cameron wanted to make a 3D movie. He does really well with it as in he made it his job to make it awesome. People saw how awesome the movie is. Industry thinks the movie avatar was a huge success because of the 3D and NOT because of the cgi.
Just like Pixar and Toy Story 1.
The movie was a huge hit. First animated movie. Industry think customers paid for the movie BECAUSE of the animation and, again, NOT because of the rich storyline/plot.
on topic:
Finished reading the book for the first time. And well...idk how this can be a series of movies...i mean shouldn't three hours be enough? Majority of the book was just talking, walking and description of the landscape (which isn't bad)...but i mean... Someone posted this making-of video in this thread where it was stated that they include a lot of the appendix from the lord of the rings series. Everytime Gandalf has to attend other businesses which arent described in the book things happen that build up for the ultimate clash in lord of the rings. All those things are going to be included the movie, so its so much more than just "The Hobbit" I think together with lotr the hobbit films are going to be a masterpiece of movie history. Thats what im expecting from the previews :D and i actually like 3D! some movies just use it to get more money and barely use any 3D scenes, thats true. but in action movies its totally awesome and its one of the main reasons i go to the cinema at all. I can watch 2D at home np.. even recent cine films if i really want to. and the timeframe between premiere and bluray/amazon/itunes release is getting shorter and shorter. I dont want to leave my house to watch a stupid 2D film. Whats the point? I rather watch it at home. if no one would go to 3d movies this whole thing would vanish pretty quickly. We had 3D 10 years ago too. but back then it couldnt be established and it was gone until Avatar. and im so looking forward to see the hobbit in 48 fps and get motion sickness from it! its gonna be awesome!!
oh shit you are right...totally forgot about that...Ok I retake back my accusations xD
3D is nice for the action part, you are right. But like you said, it is pointless during large duration of movies (unless the movie is nothing but action and war) when it is just conversations between the two.
on book:
Ok so can someone please tell me if goblins and orcs are the same term? You guys keep mentioning a + Show Spoiler +battle between the orcs even though the book does not mention of orcs. It mentions GOBLINS in the 5 army war.
to my understanding i thought orcs were an evolution of elves that were tortured or something like that. While goblins are completely different species/race much like dwarves, hobbits, and humans
|
In which part of the story does the movie end?
|
If someone goes and sees it in 3D 48fps I'd like to know how it is. I'm going to see it in 2D at midnight but I am planning on going again with friends to see it in 3D in January. This would be my first 3D movie which I think is a pretty good choice other than Avatar. (as long as the 3D was done well..)
|
Canada11369 Posts
I don't think there is an actual difference in meaning between goblin and orc as far as Tolkien was concerned. The two are more or less used for the same creatures. However because The Hobbit is exclusively about the northern breed which are smaller and The Hobbit really only uses the term 'goblins', then people have rather assumed goblins are small orcs. Where the larger breeds are orcs. I wonder if later stories played into this distinction such as Warhammer and Warcraft?
But I don't think there is any pattern beyond The Hobbit tends to use 'goblin' and LotR's tends to use 'orc' and the larger variants are the Uruks with the half-men versions the Uruk-hai.
If there was a difference, I suspect it was more to do with perspective. Frodo having a far wider perspective from the outset than Bilbo ever was when he left his adventure was more likely to use 'orc' whereas perhaps 'goblin' was more often used in hobbit circles.
There is also the growing seriousness of the stories. Goblins -->> Orcs might be a part of that. I rather wonder if any element of the 'tra ala ala lee, down in the valley' elves will survive in Jackson's version. Jackson's elves seem altogether too serious to suddenly break out into a nonsense song as they do in The Hobbit.
|
On December 12 2012 03:00 heroyi wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 02:08 SpikeStarcraft wrote:On December 12 2012 01:49 heroyi wrote:
you realize that the whole 3D phenomenon is just like the whole pixar and animated movies.
James Cameron wanted to make a 3D movie. He does really well with it as in he made it his job to make it awesome. People saw how awesome the movie is. Industry thinks the movie avatar was a huge success because of the 3D and NOT because of the cgi.
Just like Pixar and Toy Story 1.
The movie was a huge hit. First animated movie. Industry think customers paid for the movie BECAUSE of the animation and, again, NOT because of the rich storyline/plot.
on topic:
Finished reading the book for the first time. And well...idk how this can be a series of movies...i mean shouldn't three hours be enough? Majority of the book was just talking, walking and description of the landscape (which isn't bad)...but i mean... Someone posted this making-of video in this thread where it was stated that they include a lot of the appendix from the lord of the rings series. Everytime Gandalf has to attend other businesses which arent described in the book things happen that build up for the ultimate clash in lord of the rings. All those things are going to be included the movie, so its so much more than just "The Hobbit" I think together with lotr the hobbit films are going to be a masterpiece of movie history. Thats what im expecting from the previews :D and i actually like 3D! some movies just use it to get more money and barely use any 3D scenes, thats true. but in action movies its totally awesome and its one of the main reasons i go to the cinema at all. I can watch 2D at home np.. even recent cine films if i really want to. and the timeframe between premiere and bluray/amazon/itunes release is getting shorter and shorter. I dont want to leave my house to watch a stupid 2D film. Whats the point? I rather watch it at home. if no one would go to 3d movies this whole thing would vanish pretty quickly. We had 3D 10 years ago too. but back then it couldnt be established and it was gone until Avatar. and im so looking forward to see the hobbit in 48 fps and get motion sickness from it! its gonna be awesome!! oh shit you are right...totally forgot about that...Ok I retake back my accusations xD 3D is nice for the action part, you are right. But like you said, it is pointless during large duration of movies (unless the movie is nothing but action and war) when it is just conversations between the two. on book: Ok so can someone please tell me if goblins and orcs are the same term? You guys keep mentioning a + Show Spoiler +battle between the orcs even though the book does not mention of orcs. It mentions GOBLINS in the 5 army war. . to my understanding i thought orcs were an evolution of elves that were tortured or something like that. While goblins are completely different species/race much like dwarves, hobbits, and humans
Youre in luck that im rereading the hobbit at the moment and my memory is still fresh. ^^ I remember reading this extract from the authors note:
Orc is not an English word. It occurs in one or two places but is usually translated goblin (or hobgoblin for the larger kinds). Orc is the hobbits' form of the name given at that time to these creatures, and its not connected at all with our orc, ork, applied to sea-animals of dolphin kind.
(i love that i can use CTRL+F on my e-books, everytime i read something on paper i want to push CTRL+F so bad!)
|
sry for double post.. missed the edit button and hit quote
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
