The Hobbit...

[ThunderPeel2001]

but as far as I read it was just neutral befuddlement.

I'm confused. So because you didn't read it as combative, I was wrong to? I'm not saying it was the rudest thing in the world. It wasn't. Not even slightly. But it was a teeny bit rude. So I made a half-jokey reply instead of answering the question. It was nothing. What's the problem here, exactly?

[Twig]

I insinuated it before, but now I'm gonna say it straight, 'cause what better time than now, when ev'rybody's all in a tizzy! The Hobbit is better than The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

My only metric on this is as follows: I was able (and, indeed, wanted) to finish The Hobbit. I was unable (and, indeed, did not want) to finish The Lord of the Rings trilogy.

[Luftmensch]

Hey, I think that's a good metric. Although, I had a lot of trouble getting through Dune the first few times I read it, but when I finally had the time to read the whole thing, I really liked it. So it does depend on when you read it.

Anyway, I figure this thread warranted another one of these:

[Ben X]

I SAID:

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?

That goes for everyone. TP unclearly stated his opinion that The Hobbit is a very simplistic book, Erkki used a potentially rude sweary acronym, an argument was avoided, the end. Let's all stop stirring up arguments or paying attention to people stirring up arguments, shall we?

Ahem, so: how far through did you get, Twig? Is this another thing like The Terminator that you need to retry?

Back to the movie, I've realised that I'm particularly set on seeing it in 48fps because I've become a tech junkie. Maybe it comes from being a (quasi) PC gamer, but I nearly wept at the beauty of the opening shots of sand in Inception when I moved from DVD and CRT to Blu-Ray and plasma. About a week later it seemed oh-so standard. I want to be wowed again!

[Luftmensch]

I SAID:

Don't care.

If I'm going to have a reputation for drawing bad cartoons of board members, I may as well live up to it.

[Twig]

Ahem, so: how far through did you get, Twig? Is this another thing like The Terminator that you need to retry?

I got partway through The Two Towers before BLEH BORED and gave up. I wouldn't equate it to The Terminator, because I gave it a much bigger chance before giving up.

Back to the movie, I've realised that I'm particularly set on seeing it in 48fps because I've become a tech junkie. Maybe it comes from being a (quasi) PC gamer, but I nearly wept at the beauty of the opening shots of sand in Inception when I moved from DVD and CRT to Blu-Ray and plasma. About a week later it seemed oh-so standard. I want to be wowed again!

I heard from SOMEWHERE that I can't remember that 48fps makes people feel sick? That seems weird to me.

[Ben X]

Hmmm, I've heard people complain that it looks like tv soap operas or something, but I'll file that along with the people who complained about widescreen when it was first introduced.

[TychoCelchuuu]

If TV soap operas had been widescreen for decades already then I think people would've been justified in complaining that introducing widescreen to movies ruins them because it triggers the "looks like a soap opera" reaction. I've seen movies interpolated to smoother frame rates on newer HDTVs that do this stuff and they look exactly like soap operas. I can't stand it.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Don't care.

If I'm going to have a reputation for drawing bad cartoons of board members, I may as well live up to it.

Stir up an argument and get all pissy when people call you on it. Hmm. What would your caricature look like, I wonder?

[Ben X]

Yeah, I just meant in the "knee-jerk reaction to new film tech that may turn out to become the awesome standard" way. 48fps may turn out to not be any good, but it sounds like the complaint from people who have seen it (only anonymous people who have seen exclusive sneak peeks of The Hobbit, and articles fluffing those quotes up as much as possible, as far as I've read so far) is that they're not used to it being so sharp and smooth.

It's not the same as (horrible) motion interpolation on HDTVs which extrapolates a load of non-existent frames and gives the whole thing a weird sped-up feel.

I have also seen the term "Soap Opera effect" be explained as due to the fact that soaps shoot on cheap tape with extra frames, so filming at 48fps gives a similar feel. This sounds unlikely to me for a variety of reasons, but perhaps as a British tv viewer (who gets PAL at 25fps to start with) I'm not grasping what people are referring to.

[ThunderPeel2001]

Hmmm, I've heard people complain that it looks like tv soap operas or something, but I'll file that along with the people who complained about widescreen when it was first introduced.

I remember people complaining about how PUBLIC ENEMIES looked "fake" (it was shot 30fps) -- I have a feeling it's going to be similar to that. So yes, more like TV soap operas in certain respects. It's likely going to be an unsettling experience, but Jackson seems to think that you get used to it after while. Got to give it a shot!

[TychoCelchuuu]

It's not just interpolation on HDTVs that makes movies look fake. When widescreen movies get chopped down to pan and scan, the "pan" is typically done at higher than 24 FPS, so every time the movie pan and scans it looks weird to me. I think. I haven't watched a pan and scan movie in years.

[Twig]

Worth nothing that I also heard that the 48fps is exclusive to 3D. Don't know if that's true, either, but I thought I'd throw it out there. U:

[Luftmensch]

Worth nothing that I also heard that the 48fps is exclusive to 3D.

Seems odd, but it sort of makes sense since 3D projectors are specially equipped to project extremely high frame rates (at least four times as high as regular projectors).

THAT TICKLES

[melmer]

Worth nothing that I also heard that the 48fps is exclusive to 3D. Don't know if that's true, either, but I thought I'd throw it out there. U:

I'm guessing the way it works now is you get a single frame shown twice, once for the left eye and once for the right eye. So a 3d film is only actually showing you 12fps (doubled up).

And so the point of the 48fps is to get 24 actual frames into a 3d movie

Or am I full of shit

[brkl]

Probably. Too lazy to check it, but I think 3D generally shoots both frames at the same time. You still get 24fps. The film's frame rate shouldn't be tied to how it's projected.

[Ben X]

Yeah, that's crazy talk, Mington.

I did hear that UK cinemas will only be showing the 3D 48fps version, but as far as I can tell (though I can't immediately find anything that outright states this) there's no reason there couldn't be a 2D 48fps version.

I found this quote from Jackson, which is pretty cool:

The big thing to realize is that it’s not an attempt to change the film industry. It’s another choice. The projectors that can run at 48 frames can run at 24 frames – it doesn’t have to be one thing or another. You can shoot a movie at 24 frames and have sequences at 48 or 60 frames within the body of the film.”

“You can still do all the shutter-angle and strobing effects. It doesn’t necessarily change how films are going to be made. It’s just another choice that filmmakers have got and for me, it gives that sense of reality that I love in cinema.

[melmer]

Yeah, that's crazy talk, Mington.

by the time I finished writing it I was already doubting myself

I remember reading that jacksons point with 48 fps was to create a sharper crisper 3d image.

[Ben X]

Yeah, it's that (it apparently eliminates a lot of the judder, strobing etc that can make 3D a headache for some people) and just a more immersive feel, even in 2D.

God, I hope I don't absolutely hate 48fps now!

[Argobot]

Well, the Slate reviewer was not a big fan of the 48fps or the movie in general:

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/movies/2012/12/the_hobbit_reviewed_peter_jackson_s_new_tolkien_movie_is_too_long_and_looks.html

(That article has spoilers, in that it says exactly where the first movie ends, so beware)

[ThunderPeel2001]

Yeah, it's that (it apparently eliminates a lot of the judder, strobing etc that can make 3D a headache for some people) and just a more immersive feel, even in 2D.

God, I hope I don't absolutely hate 48fps now!

I honestly predict that you will hate it. Sorry! I'm not sure if I'm going to like it, either. But it's definitely going to be (at best) a shock. I just hope the cinema isn't filled with people who vocally complain about it looking weird.

Apparently the vistas look spectacular, but as soon as you see the actors, it feels like you're watching... actors! I'm already bracing myself.

Of course, the flipside is that film is just what we're used to. 24 fps was a pretty arbitrary standard. If we'd grown up on 48fps films, then 24fps would look weird to us (just like kids today who reportedly prefer the sound of MP3 compressed music to vinyl). So even if I don't like it, I definitely want to see it how Peter Jackson wants it to be seen.

[melmer]

The reality is that 99% of people won't even know about it or notice

[Erkki]

Just for the record, I admitted to being rude by apologizing for being rude. At the moment of uttering the rudeness it seemed appropriate, because it really was totally baffling to have a book I happened to like a lot at some point in my life suddenly called a non-book -- that seemed provocative/rude in itself at the time. Later I saw I was wrong and apologised. All that was hopefully cleared up by now.

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 don't know how you read all that into "I can agree it's mainly a childrens book". I've read The Hobbit at least 4 times, but don't remember having re-read it as an adult. I'd probably still like it. I'd say it's a childrens book that adults can enjoy, but still written mainly for children or young adults.

[Twig]

from le wiki

Tolkien intended The Hobbit as a fairy story and wrote it in a tone suited to addressing children^[54] although he said later that the book was not specifically written for children but had rather been created out of his interest in mythologies and epic legends.^[55]

Sounds to me more like it's a book written for everyone' date=' not a book written for children (aka "not a children's book").

I find it odd that people would classify it as a children's book. Always have. But I don't really care, either.[/size']

[ThunderPeel2001]

The reality is that 99% of people won't even know about it or notice

I hope you're right, but I think you're wrong Given the number of complete non-cinephiles who have mentioned to me how "fake" they thought PUBLIC ENEMIES looked, without any prompting, I think there could be quite a backlash. That's why I'm really hoping there isn't going to be vocal complainers in the crowd when Ben and I see it on Thursday.