|
On April 26 2012 01:47 Hairy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 01:15 Blackspell wrote:
Apparently 10 minutes of early footage was shown at CinemaCon, and a lot of journalists are saying that it's 48fps and 3D make the movie look really cheap, especially when live actors are portrayed fighting CGI monsters. I read the article and I still don't understand; why would filming a movie at 48fps instead of 24fps make a movie look bad? The best I could find were a bunch of critics complaining that it's "like looking at real life on a movie screen and not in a good way", which isn't exactly helpful. Furthermore, he/they was complaining that "the contrast ratio isn't there yet — everything looked either too bright or black", when the visual effects weren’t done and the lighting wasn’t finalized. Just seems like firelighting to me. Get a good news story and more publicity due to the DRAMA headlines produced, such as: First Reactions to 'The Hobbit' Are ... Not Good? WTF?!
It's like the difference between watching the movie and watching the "making of" feature. It's the same set, same costumes, same actors, etc. but it just looks amazingly different. The main issue is they're not shooting to film, but straight to digital. star wars episode II and III did this but still at 24 fps. Film just has this incredibly rich, organic look to it. It's a similar discussion with music where there are many analog and LP purists. Some people say, "why would 24 bit 92 khz digital not sound better!?" but there's no doubt that analog mediums have their own characteristics that many find pleasing.
Similar discussion is with 120 hz TVs and interpolating frames... some people just think it looks too... well normal. But to be fair I'm still skeptical of the media writers until I see it for myself.
|
On March 03 2012 11:08 Kaien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 03 2012 10:22 cLutZ wrote:On March 03 2012 10:17 madestro wrote:On March 03 2012 10:00 Green Sun s Zenith wrote:
I am sure this will be great. But the book goes so indepth into the story that Im not sure I will be pleased with a 2 - 3 hour movie, but we will see. Well the first LOTR book is so so much deeper than the actual movie. Imagine if they had included the whole story in the book for the movie, it would probably have been a 6 hour long maraton !!! Hell just Tom Bombadill could take up one or two hours alone. Jackson has already displayed awesome awareness as to what to leave out and what to include and still make a masterpiece, I doubt this would be any different; we'll see. Here's hoping The Silmarillion will be seen in IMAX 3D in 2013 !!!!!!! :D We can all dream right ? The Silmarillion is poorly written and lacks endearing characters, character development, and hobbits. So no. It is indeed impossible to make a (decent) movie based on the silmarillion, however its possible to make a movie based on the children of Hùrin =)
Oh man, i would love a movie about Narn i hîm Húrin. I even choosed this name because of the book.
The Hobbit looks great btw.
|
On April 26 2012 02:17 deo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 01:47 Hairy wrote:On April 26 2012 01:15 Blackspell wrote:
Apparently 10 minutes of early footage was shown at CinemaCon, and a lot of journalists are saying that it's 48fps and 3D make the movie look really cheap, especially when live actors are portrayed fighting CGI monsters. I read the article and I still don't understand; why would filming a movie at 48fps instead of 24fps make a movie look bad? The best I could find were a bunch of critics complaining that it's "like looking at real life on a movie screen and not in a good way", which isn't exactly helpful. Furthermore, he/they was complaining that "the contrast ratio isn't there yet — everything looked either too bright or black", when the visual effects weren’t done and the lighting wasn’t finalized. Just seems like firelighting to me. Get a good news story and more publicity due to the DRAMA headlines produced, such as: First Reactions to 'The Hobbit' Are ... Not Good? WTF?! It's like the difference between watching the movie and watching the "making of" feature. It's the same set, same costumes, same actors, etc. but it just looks amazingly different. The main issue is they're not shooting to film, but straight to digital. star wars episode II and III did this but still at 24 fps. Film just has this incredibly rich, organic look to it. It's a similar discussion with music where there are many analog and LP purists. Some people say, "why would 24 bit 92 khz digital not sound better!?" but there's no doubt that analog mediums have their own characteristics that many find pleasing. Similar discussion is with 120 hz TVs and interpolating frames... some people just think it looks too... well normal. But to be fair I'm still skeptical of the media writers until I see it for myself.
This. Im shooting a documentary and we intentionally filmed at 24 fps to get a more movie "feel" to it. High FPS just looks alot like reality, if you watch them right after one another, same clip it's pretty obvious. But it can also be a form of thing you have to get used to, since we've been used to 24 fps for so many years.
|
On April 26 2012 02:17 deo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 01:47 Hairy wrote:On April 26 2012 01:15 Blackspell wrote:
Apparently 10 minutes of early footage was shown at CinemaCon, and a lot of journalists are saying that it's 48fps and 3D make the movie look really cheap, especially when live actors are portrayed fighting CGI monsters. I read the article and I still don't understand; why would filming a movie at 48fps instead of 24fps make a movie look bad? The best I could find were a bunch of critics complaining that it's "like looking at real life on a movie screen and not in a good way", which isn't exactly helpful. Furthermore, he/they was complaining that "the contrast ratio isn't there yet — everything looked either too bright or black", when the visual effects weren’t done and the lighting wasn’t finalized. Just seems like firelighting to me. Get a good news story and more publicity due to the DRAMA headlines produced, such as: First Reactions to 'The Hobbit' Are ... Not Good? WTF?! It's like the difference between watching the movie and watching the "making of" feature. It's the same set, same costumes, same actors, etc. but it just looks amazingly different. The main issue is they're not shooting to film, but straight to digital. star wars episode II and III did this but still at 24 fps. Film just has this incredibly rich, organic look to it. It's a similar discussion with music where there are many analog and LP purists. Some people say, "why would 24 bit 92 khz digital not sound better!?" but there's no doubt that analog mediums have their own characteristics that many find pleasing. Similar discussion is with 120 hz TVs and interpolating frames... some people just think it looks too... well normal. But to be fair I'm still skeptical of the media writers until I see it for myself.
Huh. I was genuinely confused by the talk about this stuff, this is a great explanation, thanks!
|
On April 26 2012 02:09 Zorkmid wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2012 03:36 Felnarion wrote:
If I were going to make a movie of any of the stories, it would be Hurin's. For me it would be Feanor's. Beren and Luthien also. And that one dark elf guy that lives in the forest....what's his name? Or am I just thinking of Luthien's father?
Possibly Eöl?
|
The story of Tuor and the siege of Gondolin would be awesome as well.
Plenty of good stories in the Silmarillion to make movies from really. 
|
On April 26 2012 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 02:09 Zorkmid wrote:On April 14 2012 03:36 Felnarion wrote:
If I were going to make a movie of any of the stories, it would be Hurin's. For me it would be Feanor's. Beren and Luthien also. And that one dark elf guy that lives in the forest....what's his name? Or am I just thinking of Luthien's father? Possibly Eöl?
You are talking about Eol, but his story is a minor one in the grander story of the Fall of Gondolin, as his son Maeglin is the betrayer of Gondolin. This could very well be woven into the story of Tuor. I think putting Turin/Tuor in the same movie would be a good idea, as the one story is tragic, but the other ends with the birth of Earendil, the hope of salvation for Middle Earth.
edit: Mini-series probably better than movie.
|
On April 26 2012 03:29 LaughingTulkas wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:On April 26 2012 02:09 Zorkmid wrote:On April 14 2012 03:36 Felnarion wrote:
If I were going to make a movie of any of the stories, it would be Hurin's. For me it would be Feanor's. Beren and Luthien also. And that one dark elf guy that lives in the forest....what's his name? Or am I just thinking of Luthien's father? Possibly Eöl? You are talking about Eol, but his story is a minor one in the grander story of the Fall of Gondolin, as his son Maeglin is the betrayer of Gondolin. This could very well be woven into the story of Tuor. I think putting Turin/Tuor in the same movie would be a good idea, as the one story is tragic, but the other ends with the birth of Earendil, the hope of salvation for Middle Earth. edit: Mini-series probably better than movie.
I guess there is no need to guess where your name is from =)
|
I love when they start singing in the trailer :D
|
Some new news about the movie:
http://screenrant.com/hobbit-cinemacon-footage-frame-rate-sandy-167216/
While the early consensus on whether or not The Hobbit actually benefits from being viewed at 48 f.p.s. is somewhat mixed (more on that later), the visuals and scenery glimpsed in the film’s CinemaCon sizzle reel has prompted nothing but rave reviews so far – as evidenced by the following recap, written up by Coming Soon‘s Edward Douglas:
It opened with lots of sweeping shots of the mountains and landscapes of Middle Earth set to Howard Shore’s distinctive score leading into an introduction by the older Bilbo, played by Ian Holm, telling the story of his journey to Frodo, and we see a brief glimpse of Elijah Wood as his “Lord of the Rings” character. This then leads into the opening from the trailer of Gandalf approaching Bilbo to go on a journey with the dwarves.
There’s also a significant scene where Gandalf is presenting “the Immortal Blade” to a council made up of Christopher Lee’s Saruman, Cate Blanchett’s Galadriel, and Hugo Weaving’s Elrond as they discuss the sword’s origins and how Gandalf was able to get it from the crypt of the Witch King where he was buried in a tomb covered with spells preventing it from being opened.
The scenes of the group walking across the green fields and icy mountains of Middle Earth (i.e. New Zealand) were definitely reminiscent of “Fellowship of the Rings” and we even saw a little bit of Gandalf on his steed and a scene where the dwarves first encounter Orlando Bloom’s Legolas.
The highlight though was an extended conversation between Bilbo and Smeagol/Gollum where Bilbo is trying to get directions from the strange creature who seems to be more interested in playing a game of riddles. Andy Serkis’ ability to switch Smeagol’s schizophrenic personalities still seems to be intact, and from what we saw, Martin Freeman seems absolutely perfect as Bilbo and we think audiences will like him as much as they did the Hobbits in the “Lord of the Rings” movies.
|
|
|
As long as the movie is great in 2D I will be okay.
|
You could probably turn the Children of Hurin into a series a la Game of Thrones, though I don't know if the depth is enough.
|
Don't worry man, critics are usually bottom feeders, ready to pounce at any moment.
|
I would love to see an adaption of the Faenor story to cinema if it is done right!
|
|
|
So, it comes out on the day of my 30-th birthday? Cool.
|
On April 26 2012 03:32 Fwmeh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2012 03:29 LaughingTulkas wrote:On April 26 2012 03:16 Fwmeh wrote:On April 26 2012 02:09 Zorkmid wrote:On April 14 2012 03:36 Felnarion wrote:
If I were going to make a movie of any of the stories, it would be Hurin's. For me it would be Feanor's. Beren and Luthien also. And that one dark elf guy that lives in the forest....what's his name? Or am I just thinking of Luthien's father? Possibly Eöl? You are talking about Eol, but his story is a minor one in the grander story of the Fall of Gondolin, as his son Maeglin is the betrayer of Gondolin. This could very well be woven into the story of Tuor. I think putting Turin/Tuor in the same movie would be a good idea, as the one story is tragic, but the other ends with the birth of Earendil, the hope of salvation for Middle Earth. edit: Mini-series probably better than movie. I guess there is no need to guess where your name is from =)
Not gonna lie, that made me laugh a lot (:
|
That was a really nice article, thanks for linking it!! Gets me really excited for the movie later on this year. Whenever i read a book i love hearing about the backstory behind what's going on, and authors rarely give me enough to satisfy, so glad that the writers/director is adding some of their own stuff since Tolkien can't.
|
if it looks like crap at 48, they can always convert back to 24 in post before release.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
