Loc Nar

Interesting article here about the HFR filming process in The Hobbit. The author did not care for it, and explains why with interesting technical points.

http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2012/...inema-magical/

whoopdido

First of all, I guess I didn't read every comment in this thread but I don't recall anybody saying The Hobbit was the "best looking movie ever made".

It looked damn good though. You can't compare the visuals of a movie made in 1941 to a movie made in 2012. It's night and day different. By comparison, Citizen Kane looks like ass. It isn't even in color for pete's sake. Citizen Kane may have looked great in its day, but times change...things evolve. The special effects in Star Wars were crazy good. They would be considered laughably bad by today's standards.

Which movie looked better, King Kong (1933) or King Kong (2005)? If you say 1933 then you're just being argumentative. King Kong 1933 was groundbreaking, but things have evolved since then.

Just because something is old doesn't make it better. It's ok to appreciate the look of Citizen Kane and also appreciate the look of The Hobbit.

DaveyJoe

But it isn't in color!

Shannon Nutt

My biggest issue with this is that Bilbo's picking up the ring doesn't match with the way Bilbo picks up the ring in the flashback from the original trilogy. Of course, the actor's different too, but you'd think Peter Jackson would have had the shots look similar.

Supermallet

I had no issue with filming that scene differently. I always took the prologue from Fellowship to be the reader's digest version of the events prior.

Strevlac

It's really sad. I doubt whoopdeedoo has even seen Citizen Kane.

No matter, The Hobbit rawks!! It looks like my HDTV with motionplus, soooo realistic and awesome!!1!!

Pretty sure whoopdeedoo isn't in the minority. Cinema as I knew it is dying a quick death because of people like this....once Spielberg, Scorsese and the rest of the old guard are gone that's it. Game over.

Supermallet

Sign o'the times, my friend.

whoopdido

Be a little more patronizing gramps. I've seen Citizen Kane. It's not as good as people like to think it is. And I was being facetious about the black and white. Shouldn't have been that hard to figure out.

Citizen Kane is 70 years old. Its place is in the past. Must suck to complain about all this new fangled stuff everyday. If filmmakers themselves have been able to adapt and get into the 21st century, you should be able to as well.

B.A.

I've read a similar reaction from several people and each time my excitement to see the movie is lessened.

Why So Blu?

You know that the LOTR started shooting in 1999, right? They obviously had to use more traditional means for creating the various middle earth landscapes, characters, etc. It's more economical to shoot the way he did this time out.

The film IS supposed be lighthearted, but I have no doubt that younger kids would freak out with the stuff between the dwarves, orcs, and wargs.

Strevlac

You aren't good enough for Citizen Kane.

Spielberg has moved into the 21st century quite nicely. Still shooting on film (so far), Kahn mostly editing on a movieola (this might have changed), and his films still look classically beautiful.

Sitting int the theater watching Lincoln this past weekend, I couldn't help but notice the obnoxious rumbling coming from The Hobbit in the next auditorium. I thought, here I am watching this extraordinarily beautiful film by a true artist, with only 7 or 8 other people, and next door is packed with plebes who soon won't be able to sit through a movie if it isn't 20K digital 3D 150fps. It's maddening I tell ya.

whoopdido

You must be a lot of fun at parties.

RocShemp

Most folks are used to the judder present in 24fps and have even embraced it as an aesthetic (though it's simply the byproduct of a framerate that was chosen as a means to make film production cheaper).

This link has some good examples, although it focuses on 60fps (rather than 48fps) versus 24fps.

Strevlac

I am. But then I don't really talk about movies at parties.

I take film seriously as an art form, sorry.

And have seen a LOT of them, from all eras. And when it comes to Hollywood films, the kind that mainstream audiences see, the standards have fallen off a cliff in the last 10 years. Not just when it comes to visual aesthetics, either.

whoopdido

Spoken like a true curmudgeon. It's ok...most people are guilty of it. Things were SO much better back in MY day. It's a common way of thinking. People really need to take their rose colored glasses off and look at the present and past objectively.

As if no good movies have been made in the last decade.

MBoyd

Maybe I was looking at it too closely, but even in the 24fps IMAX I thought the weapons looked cheap and plasticky in places. Nowhere near as bad as some films I've seen. But it stuck out to me after watching all the extended edition docs years ago.

Strevlac

And I could say you sound like a kid who has no perspective. I am more than aware that a hell of a lot of things today are better than they used to be (a lot of television programming, lack of Jim Crow laws, lack of entanglement in WW2 or even Vietnam-scale conflict, low inflation, the internet). American cinema just isn't one of them.

whoopdido

Sure you could say that if you want to. Frankly, I don't think any of my top 10 movies have been made in the last 15 years but just because most of my favorite movies are fom the past doesn't mean that we're currently in the dark ages in terms of movies.

Having perspective doesn't mean that you can only like old things. Just as you might suggest to a teenager to give some older movies a chance, I suggest you venture out of your old movie bubble and try some modern movies without looking for things to hate about them simply because they were made in 2012 and not 1952 and tht movie making techniques and tastes of moviegoers have evolved. You never know...you might actually like this modern stuff if you gave it half a chance. Plus, there are all kinds of movies released every year that are polar opposites from The Hobbit and other CGI heavy movies.

Supermallet

Spielberg shot Tintin on digital.

Strevlac

Yeah. It's digitally animated. It's visually masterful in a lot of ways that don't have anything to do with animation. It's "lit" beautifully, there is rhythm in the editing, there is visual poetry in the mise-en-scene, shot construction and camera movement. It's a visual narrative, each action sequence is it's own little story. It's not just flash and crash and visual stimuli designed to pound you into submission. And it's 24fps

All that stuff goes a long way. And it's sure as hell a damn sight better than what Jackson delivered in this expensive, cluttered, chaotic and messy Fairy Tale theatre episode.

Why So Blu?

I enjoyed Tintin and all, but you make it seem like it was the second coming of film. Granted, you have a hard on for Spielberg and that's totally fine, but you're not speaking impartially.

The Hobbit is a much better film than Tintin, though. The way you describe what Jackson did comes off almost like a Michael Bay comparison and you couldn't be more wrong in that regard.

whoopdido

You aren't good enough for Tintin.

Why So Blu?

Well played.

JumpCutz

Not really. Far too obvious a comeback.

Burnt Thru

It's strange to see Spielberg held up now as a bastion of Cinematic greatness. For as long as I can remember he has been lambasted as the epitome of Hollywood schmaltz. I guess some of the newer followers of cinema have a short memory about the changes Spielberg and his imitators brought to American film in the late 70's and early 80's. Then, their blockbusters were the death of proper movies. Now apparently they are carrying the last torch for true film work. I suspect those holding these attitudes do not have a proper perspective on things.

As far as The Hobbit goes.. I thought it was like watching the extended version before seeing the theatrical release. There were plenty of scenes which could have done with being chopped out (Bilbo and Frodo being the most obvious) which would have helped both the length and pacing of the story. It did look beautiful though and overall was highly enjoyable. As to the more childlike tone (compared with LOTR), well, it's a children's book after all. The Hobbit simply is a more childish tale than LOTR so it's to be expected that the film would feel the same. Personally I was surprised at how violent (heads being chopped off) some of the action was, as it didn't really seem suitable for children.