Frenetic Pony

The Hobbit...

Recommended Posts

Sorry, man, your post began

Sadly, the BFI IMAX at Waterloo isn't getting HFR. It's the only cinema in London getting a 1570 IMAX print, but only in 24fps 3D.

So I thought it would be about technical stuff and skimmed it. I didn't notice that line. Thanks for the support!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever seen an American cinema advertise it's frame rate. Which is somewhat odd because my TV advertised a refresh rate of 60Hz in big letters on the box (the difference is striking when you first use it; makes everything look like a soap opera or a bad British sitcom). Then again I don't go to the movies that much these days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's because all movies have been 24 fps forever.

American Television runs at roughly 30fps, and before sound there wasn't a set standard, although I think it averaged out to about 18fps (animation is still sometimes measured by "feet" of film, which are 18 frames.)

But that's all technical trivialities. The current Hollywood blockbuster standard is 48fps, but I've never seen that advertised.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Huh? Aren't they displayed at 24fps, so isn't the blockbuster standard 24fps then, or what am I not understanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoops, I meant 24. I'll not edit because then the replies wouldn't make sense. Carry on.

Goddamn I'm just going to be the forum cartoonist then huh? Alright, but you brought this on yourself.

Good thing there's important Video game developers who browse these boards who can see me draw shitty cartoons and can think to themselves, "we could be paying him to do this"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just did a ten hour marathon of lotr

It was quite hard to watch all in one sitting, but I don't mind a bit challenging cinema from time to time. All in all my lasting impression was that it was pretty funky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the LoTR films, and it was nice seeing books from my childhood quite vividly realised, but:

For any subsequent viewings, they are pretty much an especially dramatic type of wallpaper.

The hour or so of endings in Return of the King made me fidgety.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never read the books, couldn't get through them. Loved the movies, but after having seen the theater release, the extended editions maybe twice, I really can't watch those movies anymore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In what sense is Hobbit a non-book?

I know what you meant, you were just pretty rude :-p

I just meant that there's hardly any story. It really is a kids book. Some of the content is almost one step above Spot the Dog (e.g. the Dwarves in the beginning). Ok, that's a bit harsh, but it's close.

No, I wasn't very clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree with it being mostly a children's book. Sorry for being rude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it rude, calling the hobbit a "non-book" is a completely nonsensical and baffling statement. WTF is a pretty fair response to total befuddlement. Calling it a children's book is entirely fair though, but as someone who really likes children's literature and think they get an unfair rap for being lame and trivial, it's a shame to see "for kids" equivalent to "not really a book"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call it rude

Well it's a good thing that TP and Erkki sorted it out already and we don't need to worry about it any more then, isn't it?

I remember The Hobbit being a great kids book, although very lightweight (especially now it has LOTR to stand next to). I haven't read it in years, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, it's not like it'd be a dickish thing to stir up an argument which had just peacefully resolved itself ¬¬

PS - Just because I said something confusing doesn't mean I deserve a response like "WTF does that even mean?". There's no harm in politely asking for clarification. (As an aside: I love this weird idea that if you make a mistake you deserve to be verbally abused. Care to explain that to me?)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that it's not something inherently contentious, and accusing members of being verbally abusive is kind of inappropriate. Text is tone-deaf, so it's not necessarily an invalid interpretation to assume someone asking "WTF does that even mean?" could be combative, but as far as I read it was just neutral befuddlement. It strikes me extremely unfair to accuse someone of being rude or abusive for asking you to explain yourself. Or to call me a dick for saying, no, he wasn't necessarily being rude.

Of course, that's contingent on acronyms being tone-neutral, which in my experience they are. Evil, as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

post-26526-0-13321600-1355000305.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can agree with it being mostly a children's book. Sorry for being rude.

So is Harry Potter, the first 3 anyway, still love them. Love The Hobbit too. Frankly you're probably... I'm going to be frank, if you think things are "for children" and thus not for you, then you're missing out on a huge amount of life and wonderful things.

I suppose if you think that's you're thing, well then that's you're thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
if you think things are "for children" and thus not for you, then you're missing out on a huge amount of life and wonderful things.

I can't find the interview or the specific quote, but I remember Maurice Sendak explained that he never specifically intended to write children's books, just that the sort of books he writes seem to fit into that niche. IMO describing Maurice Sendak books as "for kids" is a bit limiting. They do appeal on a level that children can appreciate, certainly.

On the thought of what's kids stuff, I feel like most musicians don't really have that prejudice. There's snobs, certainly, but most musicians I know, even if they've gone through conservatories and played in swanky concert halls, don't turn their noses up at four-chord pop songs. Whereas children's authors are asked at parties, "do you write any real books?" you'll almost never hear a bassist for a rock band asked, "do you play any real music?"

Just some thoughts fwiw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is Harry Potter, the first 3 anyway, still love them. Love The Hobbit too. Frankly you're probably... I'm going to be frank, if you think things are "for children" and thus not for you, then you're missing out on a huge amount of life and wonderful things.

I suppose if you think that's you're thing, well then that's you're thing.

I hope you don't include me in that. Talk about putting words into people's mouths: "You think The Hobbit is an extremely childish book, so you understand why they added more plot and characters to the movie, therefore you hate all books aimed at children." What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now