Jump to content
Jay

An Unexpected Journey SPOILERS ALLOWED Discussion Thread

Recommended Posts

There is nothing better about 24 fps other than 80 years of psychological conditioning.

Some will call it psychological conditioning, some will call it more expensive for the special effects, make up, prosthetics, props and scenery construction departments. 48 fps, or even 60 fps, sounds theoretically like a wonderful idea, but it probably makes some things more difficult to do and that's a a challenge to be solved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Booked my tickets for The Hobbit screening this upcoming Saturday.

You know what: I'm gonna see it in good ol' fashioned 2D..!

Last 2 to 3 movies I saw in the theaters were in 3D and although I believe there is a future for 3D, the current techniques are not working for me.

I say screw 3D! Screw HFR! I want to see a MOVIE again; not some f*cking experiment!

So; that's out. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the sad contradiction where I'm concerned though - because I'm dying to see this "experiment" for myself, but I'm just not willing to chance it with a first time viewing of one the most anticipated movies ever made.

The upside of that being that I sincerely expect to be one of the more positive reactions to the movie here - as opposed to those here who are steadfast sticking with HFR, whom I fully expect to be the most uniformly disappointed. It's going to be fascinating to see what transpires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've emailed the cinema I've booked tickets for to ask about switching to a 2D showing. I'll go HFR 3D on my second viewing. I'm not risking having the film spoiled because I was distracted the first time I saw it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the negative reactions are mostly because many of the effects look like special effects? That's curious. The Hobbit isn't the first movie, nor will it be the last one, to have noticeable CGI.

Wrong..! The negative reactions are mostly because HFR makes the movie feel like a BBC TV show episode, or a soap. It constantly pulls you out of the film.

Although I've yet to see it for myself, I already know that this will negatively influence my experience. I'm very well aware of the differences in feel of framerate and there is (right now) only one framerate that I associate with movies.

Maybe in time, a new generation's prefered rate will be 48frs, but I refuse to see The Hobbit - such an important film to me - in a framerate that I already know will only pull me out of the movie.

No way I'm going to spoil The Hobbit by having to get used to the lack of one of film's key ingredients.

It will take much longer than The Hobbit's running time (possible years) so I pitty those going to see the HFR version and expecting the awkwardness will pass after a few minutes.

Believe me; it won't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing better about 24 fps other than 80 years of psychological conditioning.

Some will call it psychological conditioning, some will call it more expensive for the special effects, make up, prosthetics, props and scenery construction departments. 48 fps, or even 60 fps, sounds theoretically like a wonderful idea, but it probably makes some things more difficult to do and that's a a challenge to be solved.

That is bar none the dumbest argument against new technology I've heard in my life.

It's like saying "electricity theoretically sounds like a wonderful idea, but it creates challenges to be solved, so it sucks."

While we're at it, surround sound makes life complicated for audio mixers, so we should go back to stereo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It takes 10-15 minutes to adjust. And then you don't notice it.

I've seen HFR demos at SIGGRAPH this past summer, and it's really gorgeous. The level of detail and texture you can gather will be magical in a film set in Middle Earth, where the artists have put so many tiny details into their works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the negative reactions are mostly because many of the effects look like special effects? That's curious. The Hobbit isn't the first movie, nor will it be the last one, to have noticeable CGI.

Wrong..! The negative reactions are mostly because HFR makes the movie feel like a BBC TV show episode, or a soap. It constantly pulls you out of the film.

Although I've yet to see it for myself, I already know that this will negatively influence my experience. I'm very well aware of the differences in feel of framerate and there is (right now) only one framerate that I associate with movies.

Maybe in time, a new generation's prefered rate will be 48frs, but I refuse to see The Hobbit - such an important film to me - in a framerate that I already know will only pull me out of the movie.

No way I'm going to spoil The Hobbit by having to get used to the lack of one of film's key ingredients.

It will take much longer than The Hobbit's running time (possible years) so I pitty those going to see the HFR version and expecting the awkwardness will pass after a few minutes.

Believe me; it won't.

Another one who hasn't seen the film but is absolutely, not a shadow of a doubt sure that everyone watching in HFR will be completely pulled out of the film to the point of not being able to bear it anymore.

I'm sorry, but unless you've seen it, you're talking straight out of your ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, the perfection is so close. The reality.

How many years I have had to watch those blurry VHS and DVD pictures. Jeez.

The only bad thing is now they brought the HD to our living rooms, I cannot enjoy it because of the presbyopia. Jeez again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They won't stop until you can see the snot in Gandalf's nose in crisp clear quality.

And I'm dying to see that snot. The sight of crusty bogeys clogged up in his nose hair will be just like being there in Bag End with him. But I'll wait for my second viewing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well,the old frame rate is mostly to hide shoddy sets by blurring the background. If they really work on the set details than I guess this HFR COULD work

Still, I hate the anti-motion blur feature on my TV and I turn it off. Movie looks so weird with it. I'm guessing real HFR might be better but still it will look similar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing the moments that felt like Benny Hill that some people mentioned were shot in 96fps.

Taking more pictures of you doesn't make you do anything faster. You just look smoother to my camera.

And yes...I'm snapping photos of all of you right now. High frame rate!

RIGHT NOW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

why did I bought tickets for the Wednesday noon performance...?

Because you're

[n]ot interested in the night showing previous night, [you] can wait half a day.

:P

I'm really looking for ward to this, though! I can't wait to see the HFR. It's too abstract for me to talk about, not having seen it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still, I hate the anti-motion blur feature on my TV and I turn it off. Movie looks so weird with it. I'm guessing real HFR might be better but still it will look similar

I actually needed professional help...for the tv set, that is. A friend had to identify several anti-blur as well as eco saving features on my new 3-D chrome Samsung tv that made me regret that i spent so much money on what essentially looked like a bad inkjet print. And the best thing is that you have to correct this stuff for every one of those 4 HDMI inputs, as they helpfully made it a preset.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, the negative reactions are mostly because many of the effects look like special effects? That's curious. The Hobbit isn't the first movie, nor will it be the last one, to have noticeable CGI.

Wrong..! The negative reactions are mostly because HFR makes the movie feel like a BBC TV show episode, or a soap. It constantly pulls you out of the film.

Although I've yet to see it for myself, I already know that this will negatively influence my experience. I'm very well aware of the differences in feel of framerate and there is (right now) only one framerate that I associate with movies.

Maybe in time, a new generation's prefered rate will be 48frs, but I refuse to see The Hobbit - such an important film to me - in a framerate that I already know will only pull me out of the movie.

No way I'm going to spoil The Hobbit by having to get used to the lack of one of film's key ingredients.

It will take much longer than The Hobbit's running time (possible years) so I pitty those going to see the HFR version and expecting the awkwardness will pass after a few minutes.

Believe me; it won't.

Another one who hasn't seen the film but is absolutely, not a shadow of a doubt sure that everyone watching in HFR will be completely pulled out of the film to the point of not being able to bear it anymore.

I'm sorry, but unless you've seen it, you're talking straight out of your ass.

You're gonna owe me an apology dude. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I just saw the film at a press screening -- in 3D and 48 fps.

Wow. Just wow. It's one of the most stunning visual experiences I've had since AVATAR. There are some elements that don't work so well (esp. Radagast the Brown), but by God -- the crystal clarity!

I'll need to digest it a bit before I get back to details re: film and music.

I assume most of you are seeing it tonight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would you assume most of us are seeing it tonight? It doesn't open until Friday

Ah....it has an early premiere tonight here in Oslo -- 12/12 at 12:12 am. I thought it was a worldwide thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is nothing better about 24 fps other than 80 years of psychological conditioning.

Some will call it psychological conditioning, some will call it more expensive for the special effects, make up, prosthetics, props and scenery construction departments. 48 fps, or even 60 fps, sounds theoretically like a wonderful idea, but it probably makes some things more difficult to do and that's a a challenge to be solved.

That is bar none the dumbest argument against new technology I've heard in my life.

It's like saying "electricity theoretically sounds like a wonderful idea, but it creates challenges to be solved, so it sucks."

While we're at it, surround sound makes life complicated for audio mixers, so we should go back to stereo.

No, you're the one being really dumb. I'm not against 48 fps, I think it makes a lot of sense, and I'm against the stuff put in front of it not living up to the task. I want to see higher frame rates, and consequently I want the special effects guys to amp their game. Saying it sucks? When I haven't even seen a film in 48 fps? Don't be silly!

I'm the latest person on this board you'll find against trying new technology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I just saw the film at a press screening -- in 3D and 48 fps.

Wow. Just wow. It's one of the most stunning visual experiences I've had since AVATAR. There are some elements that don't work so well (esp. Radagast the Brown), but by God -- the crystal clarity!

I'll need to digest it a bit before I get back to details re: film and music.

I assume most of you are seeing it tonight.

I'm seeing it tonight but I haven't been excited today at all... mostly nervous and kind of like a "lets just get it over with" attitude, but your post made me a whole lot more excited! So thank you :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly is Rotten Tomatoes?

it is a website that lists all the available reviews of a film. It makes no judgement on any film just provides a list of reviews.

It also provides a snap shot of the reviews overall tone. Say two films both get 8 positve reviews and 2 negative reviews then boat films are a 80% fresh (anything under 60% is considered rotten). However the film A's 8 good reviews were 4 stars out of 4 but film B's 8 good reviews are all 3 out of 4 stars they compile that as their average rating. It's better to look at the average rating than the percentage of fresh reviews. there is another site I think it's metacritics but it's a pile of shit. Lotr The Hobbit has a 7 of 10 average rating.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's tomorrow.

Sad news, Ian McKellen revealed that he's fighting prostate cancer for six years now:

http://www.thesun.co...r-prostate.html

My best wishes!

Wow, that's a real shocker! My best wishes as well. :(

Oh that is sad news. Best wishes to Sir Ian Mckellen!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

see I disagree, I think it's so poorly put together. RT is much better, and often has far more reviews. MC is just trying to be hip and fails. No surprise there. Just using the word Meta destroys it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me RT is a much better site for movie reviews than MC, there is no contest. As an example MC used 43 reviews for their score for the years biggest film the Avengers, RT used 290 reviews. I have no other need for MC other uses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...