Extended Hobbit trailer bombs
 

http://i1253.photobucket.com/albums/...1z/hobbits.jpg



Expectations for The Hobbit just got smaller. :dead:

For that director Peter Jackson can blame the reaction from crowds at CinemaCon, where 10 minutes of footage of December's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was screened this week. The film is the first of a two-part prequel to Jackson's Oscar-winning Lord of the Rings trilogy. At issue? The idea - pushed by both Jackson and James Cameron - that higher frame rates is the next evolution in filmmaking.

In a taped segment, Jackson, who is in New Zealand editing the prequel, told assembled theatre owners that raising the rate at which film is projected from 24 to 48 frames per second will enhance the 3D experience. To do that, the owners will have to purchase a software upgrade for digital projectors. "The movement feels more real, it feels smoother," Jackson said.
He also argued that by speeding things up, the 3D would be "more gentle on the eyes." But after the screening, both the owners - who Jackson obviously wanted to convince - and movie bloggers seemed divided about what they had seen. It should be said that much of the footage Jackson screened still needed effects work - some of it had green screens in the background - but the impact was more Spanish telenovela than Avatar. There will be plenty for fans to savour. However, the richness of Jackson's imagery, while beautiful, was marred because the 48 frames made each scene too crisp, if that's possible. It looked more real, in fact - too real. Instead of an immersive cinematic experience, Middle Earth looked like it was captured as part of a filmed stage play.

One blogger was overheard saying that it reminded him of I, Claudius, a PBS series from the 1970s that is not renowned for its visual aesthetic.

Full

http://www.stuff.co.nz/entertainment...-trailer-bombs

Are you trying to be funny?

Seems to me the director is just using some HALF-baked idea...
Effects were missing - what happened - were they a little SHORT on time?
I bet the software to play it at a higher frame rate has a cost that is not very DIMINUTIVE!

What is funniest of all - the director thinks that this change will be:

THE NEXT BIG THING!

Its a copy and paste straight from that link, me never wrote dat me wud never do a thing like dat. :)

The sooner that whole gimmick of 3D dies out the better.
imo it adds nothing to the movie...nothing.

HunterICX

+1 3D may be good for games immersion but for movies all it does is give me a headache.

+2

Plus it does damage. Becasue screenplay writers and directors alike easily can fall in the trap to arrange the story told so that it focusses around the 3D effects, leading from one 3D gimmick scene to the next, but lacking in what should combine various stages of a movie and actually combines into a narrative, an actual story told. Straining after 3D effects. This kiund of visual sensationalism is what already Star Wars got accused of since the 80s, and there is some truth in it - Lucas is no great narrator or story teller, is he, his movies live by special effects in overkill dose. With 3D, it all just get pushed to the next level. That's why I think 3D movies should not be shown in cinemas, but on fairgrounds, just beside the big monster swing or the rollercoaster.

We may end up where the pop music is today: it gets composed for the most so that it can easily be transformed into a cellphone jungle, and the prinmciples of cellphone jingles feed back on composing pop music. The result is a noisy, infantile sequence of sounds and tones, and plenty of untalented baby faces at casting shows hectically acting out hysterical, artifical plastic-emotions.

3D is crap, but raising the frame rate is good. It should be at least 60 fps though. They should've tripled it to 72 fps.

+3

:)

http://images5.fanpop.com/image/phot...57-640-501.jpg


...

I'm not even certain the human eye can see the difference between 60 and 72FPS.:hmmm:

Indeed...wasn't 24fps selected back when film was..you know...film? It was picked as the point at which the eye/brain combination smeared movement together into a seamless fluid continuity...so I don't understand what 48fps will get you. Gaming I can get...the extra few hundredths of a second give you a chance to see and respond a little faster...but for a sit-back-and-enjoy-the-ride experience...who cares?!?:ping:

Oh and add my +1 to the "3D?!? KILL IT KILL IT!!! KILL IT DEAD!!!" crowd.

The funny thing about "gimmicks" like 3D, faster FPS, SuperHD, etc., is the pursuit of "realism" often turns out to be off-putting. The more "real" a visual presentation gets, the more ordinary it becomes; remember all the TV shows shot on videotape rather than film in the late 60s thru the 90s? If you look at them now, they seem quite more like home movies instead of network TV shows. The same can be said for all those "realist" films shot on handheld cameras after the success of "Easy Rider". Most audiences rather prefer the careful lighting and atmospheric film effects to films that make you feel like you're watching an expensive home movie. It's kind of like the difference between a photograph of a beautiful or dramatic scene and a well-executed painting of the same scene: one is documentary, the other is art...

...

It will fool your brain better than 24fps, but to gain best results fps should be at least 60.

3D was so 1980's for crying out loud.

WE WANT 4D.

Call The Doctor