Supermallet

Saw the movie a second time, this time in digital IMAX (and thus 48 fps), and I can't imagine watching it in 24 fps again. The clarity and smoothness of 48 fps won me over, and by 1/4 of the way in, it didn't feel like video, but like something between video and film. There were a few shots at the beginning, such as when Bilbo looks for his notebook in the chest, that looked awful and sped-up. Not sure what was happening there, but such shots were few and far between. Action that looked chaotic and blurry in 24 fps was smooth and crystal clear in 48. I hope all 3D films are shot in HFR from now on. If we can get up to 60, that would be even better.

RocShemp

Isn't that the goal? I remember Jackson commenting about 60fps production when he first announced doing 48fps for The Hobbit.

islandclaws

Well, Cameron is exploring going 60fps for Avatar sequels, so we may see it implemented somewhat soon after all.

I might go catch an IMAX screening in 48fps (is that digital-only, or is 15/70 IMAX 48fps as well?) just to check it out again, but my thoughts are mirrored by Suprmallet - it looks like a cross between video and film, but without the terrible qualities people associate with video, motion flow, etc.

RocShemp

That's cool. I seem to recall Cameron wanted to shoot Avatar at 48fps but Fox shot him down because of the increased CGI expense. Of course, given how huge that film became it should come as no surprise that they'd agree to go all the way to 60fps.

RoboDad

I'm pretty sure it is digital-only. But don't assume that because it is IMAX that it will automatically be HFR. Mine wasn't.

Solid Snake

That's actually my main reason fro being excited for Avatar 2. To see wtf 60 FPS works at for a film.

Supermallet

15/70 IMAX is 24 fps only.

DJariya

Why is frame rates such a big deal in this thread? Is the average movie-goer who isn't tech savy on this stuff even going to give a crap?

Supermallet

Because this forum is filled with average movie goers?

movielib

You don't have to be tech savvy. 48fps and 24fps look different. Actually, very different. At least for this film.

redrum

Think our standards are so high for the world of Middle Earth set by the first trilogy that these movies won't seem as good, really really enjoyed this though and i think this trilogy will end up sitting nicely next to LoTR

Who knows the next two films might end up being a lot better than this one

Why So Blu?

I guarantee it will. Smaug and the rise of the Necromancer and the Battle of the Five Armies. It will be on like King Kong.

redrum

Never read the book so i don't know what cool shit happens but ya looking forward to Smaug

RoboDad

Just got back from finally being able to see the film in HFR, and it was spectacular, from the first frame of the prologue to the final fade in the bowels of Erebor. Was I "distracted" for the first few minutes? Sure, but not because it looked bad, but rather because it looked so good. There was no "soap opera" effect or "cheap stage play" look. What it looked like to me was breathtakingly captured reality.

Within a few minutes I completely forgot about the HFR (as a tech novelty), and just got caught up in the film again. However, one thing I did notice is that I was able to catch subtle details throughout the film that I'm sure I would have missed in a 24 fps presentation. It was like being there.

I hope all the naysayers fade quickly into the background, because I really want to see HFR (whether 48 or 60 fps doesn't matter to me) become the standard of filmmaking.

They do look very different to us, but that is because we are tech savvy. My wife, who is not tech savvy (by her own admission, not my assessment) saw no difference at all. She would probably have been just as happy with a 24 fps version, but she had zero problems with HFR.

Jackskeleton

Let's just not bring King Kong into this, kthx.

Xander

Hmm. I didn't get the impression that Bilbo saw the ring fall, I thought that was for the audience's benefit. I thought Bilbo still stumbled across the ring lying on the floor. Now I'll have to go watch the movie again.

arminius

Just saw this last night. You are correct, Bilbo just finds the ring on the ground. He does not see it fall from Gollums pouch. In the book that part is not written.

This movie flew by. I was surprised when it ended. It did not seem like almost 3 hours. Saw it in HFR 3D. I actually forgot about that for the first 15 minutes or so. I liked the look, but I agree with some here that there needs to be some changes in filming for HFR. I think some of the camera movements need to be slowed as I think that is why some scenes seemed like they were sped up. Just like HD, more attention to detail is needed for FX and props. Overall I think they did a good job on this, the first outing of HFR. I am up for more and agree that 60 fps should be tried. I thought the effect was more like a window than the soap opera look.

I thought the movie was great. I can see some that are not readers feeling the film was slowed at times and maybe this would have been better as a DC on the disc, but I liked all the time spent in ME. I was not a big fan of the white orc. I liked the council and how Saruman is already becoming a wanker.


I think I will be seeing this in IMAX3D next.

RoboDad

In the book, Gollum lost the Ring before Bilbo came along, while out hunting a "goblin-imp". But in the book, he also didn't keep the Ring with him all the time, as it was shown in the film. He kept it hidden on his island most of the time, and went to retrieve it after losing the riddle game.

Unfortunately, conveying all of that in the film, without the benefit of internal monologue, would have messed with the pacing. So Jackson changed it, to condense all of those events into a few seconds of screen time.

I agree with pretty much all of this. As with any new technology in filmmaking, there will be something of a learning and adapting curve, but the kinks can and will be worked out. But the overall effect was still stunning, and yes, I also felt that it was like looking through a window, or more accurately, like being "safe" in our seats, yet being right there in the action. I recall during the eagles scene, having my fear of heights kick in as the camera swept around the panoramic vista. I felt as if I were up in the sky with Bilbo and the dwarves.

Probably the only thing I disagree with is the idea that better props and FX are needed. HFR does not change the level of detail in any way. The resolution is exactly the same. Any flaws in props or FX would be just as visible at 24 fps as they would at 48 or 60. They would even be visible in a single frozen frame.

The pale orc is probably the only thing about the film that didn't really work for me. I kind of understand where Jackson is trying to take it, by providing a way to link many of the "random" events from the book together via that new story arc, but I don't think it was really necessary. Having the events (warg attacks, orcs out hunting victims, etc) be "unconnected" actually works better, since it conveys the powerful and far-reaching effects of Sauron's influence, even in his weakened state.

The only other thing that really bugs me is the morgul blade scene. The Witch-king was never killed or buried during the fall of Angmar. If he had been, then the whole point of his arrogance about "no mortal man may kill me" in ROTK would have been gone. Considering how much Jackson has been studying the appendices to glean material for these films, you would think such an obvious point would not have been botched so badly.

Why So Blu?

Again, Jackson isn't adapting it from the book, he's adapting it for his films and in his narrative the Witch King did die. The Witch King used to be a man that was killed then brought back by the Necromancer, so now his spirit form is what can't be killed by a man. I know what your saying, but it's all in the context of the film. Forget the books for a minute.

RoboDad

Sorry, but no. You can't say "he is adapting it for his films". The IT you use in that sentence is THE BOOK. You can say he is making up his own story, which is fine, but then it is disingenuous to call it "The Hobbit".

Either way, it doesn't really matter. It is only one small point of disagreement I have with Jackson in an otherwise fantastic film.

Why So Blu?

Well, you really can't call it anything else, though. It goes back to the stuff from the LOTR EE versions, as well. Saruman didn't die the way he died in the novel either. Artistic license was used big time in PJ's versions. It still remains an adaptation, but may not be a direct adaptation, which is fine. If I wanted it to be exactly like the book then I would read the book. I like the changes made for the films and they actually work in the film's context. I think people are to grounded into the source material that they sometimes can't let shit slide. I love the source material, too, but it's no big deal.

RoboDad

Yeah, I understand your point, and for the most part I agree. But I still question things that seem arbitrary to me.

Artistic license is important when you have source material that doesn't translate well from the printed page to the screen (such as the Ring sequence I mentioned in an earlier post), and I have no problem with that. The change serves a purpose in maintaining the narrative. The same applies, to a lesser degree, with the pale orc subplot. Many viewers who have never read the book would not get the correlation between the random events without some visible catalyst.

But if something comes across to me as a change that was made simply because it was "cool", or because a filmmaker wants to puff his ego by "putting his own stamp" on the story, or (worst of all) because the filmmaker thinks he can improve on the story, then I do have a problem, and no amount of "well, it is his adaptation, after all" rationalization will smooth my ruffled feathers.

whoopdido

Steven Spielberg took a very popular best selling book and butchered it...the end result was Jaws.

Let's just say everybody should be glad he made the changes he did because the book pales in comparison to the movie...one of the very few examples of that.

I haven't read The Lord of the Rings all the way through, but I know Jackson made many changes, but I can't imagine the movies being any better than they were had he stayed closer to the source material. I have read The Hobbit and so far the changes have been minimal and haven't affected the story in a negative way.

Movies are simply adaptations. Like you said, if you really want to stay 100% to the source material, you should just read the book.

RoboDad

That's just a weak straw man. No one said anything about about staying 100% faithful to the book being better. If you can't read what I wrote, please don't try to respond to it.

whoopdido

Calm down dude. You said right in your post that you have a problem when filmmakers make changes just for sake of making changes. It's their movie. They can do whatever they want whether you like it or not. And believe it or not, sometimes filmmakers make changes that actually do improve upon the source material. It's idiotic to think that it's impossible to improve upon something.

If you don't like how Jackson had Bilbo find the ring, tough shit. Read the book.