Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[The Hobbit] Rough cut is in the wild!

1121315171895

Posts

  • V1mV1m Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote:
    Guess who did an album on a chunk of The Silmarillion. It's their best album too.

    Yeah, Feanor's kind of a dick.

    Didn't listen to the video, but from what I recall Feanor was a bad-ass motherfucker. He wasn't after Morgoth because Morgoth was "evil" we was just fuckin' pissed that Morgoth stole his Silmarils and he wasn't about to stop at anything to get them back.

    He was indeed a bad-ass motherfucker, rivalled only in the bad-ass motherfucker leagues by the bad-ass sisterfucking Turin.

  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    edited January 2012
    That quote predates Paul Krugman. He's used it in a column before, but he didn't claim it as his own.

    I've seen it attributed to a screenwriter named John Rogers before, but I'm not sure whether he's the original source either.

    Hedgethorn on
  • DisruptedCapitalistDisruptedCapitalist Registered User regular
    edited January 2012
    Aha. So the rabbit hobbit hole goes deeper, eh?

    DisruptedCapitalist on
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    So, this will soon exist:

    75bb0dd8-4ad2-4245-ba5d-d89a73c01579-thumb-340x503.jpg

    lego-lord-of-the-rings-character-lineup-image-2.jpeg

    lego-lord-of-the-rings-character-lineup-image-1.jpeg

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • JyrenBJyrenB Registered User regular
    I need all of those. ALL OF THEM.

    osasbutton.png
    XBL: JyrenB ; Steam: Jyren ; Twitter
  • chamberlainchamberlain Registered User regular
    Now that's just

    ...
    ...
    ...

    precious.

  • JacobyJacoby Registered User regular
    Just noticed Pippin and Merry don't have trademarks. Now, I know why, but... man, they're the series butt-monkeys even in real life! :)

    GameCenter: ROldford
    Switch: nin.codes/roldford
  • Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    Wow. They brought back the old-school bow and arrow just for Legolas.

  • Vangu VegroVangu Vegro Registered User regular
    In my PC: Ryzom, Diablo III, Naruto Shippuden UNSR, The Old Republic
    In my 3DS: Super Smash Bros, AC New Leaf
    Last game completed: Steamworld Dig
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Hobbit production blog #6.


    Actual things actually happening on an actual Hobbit movie.

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Wow. They brought back the old-school bow and arrow just for Legolas.

    Nah, that's new. The old one didn't have the recurve thing going on.

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Aaaaannnd I finished reading the Hobbit. I started on paperback and ended it on a Kindle. I wonder how that happened. :P

    Before starting LotR, may I ask (I really don't know please don't hurt me) why the three majors stories are broken up into six books instead of the three famous titles? Or is that some cosmetic choice that Tolkien did? Like "Fellowship of the Ring" is two books and so is Two Towers and RotK.

    He did write them like that. Had to do with how he was thinking of the pacing of the story. Internally the end of each book is pretty signifigant to the overall plot.

    And it's a pretty common practice (eg: Dune has 2 "books" in the first volume).

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    lu tze wrote: »
    Cantido wrote:
    Aaaaannnd I finished reading the Hobbit. I started on paperback and ended it on a Kindle. I wonder how that happened. :P

    Before starting LotR, may I ask (I really don't know please don't hurt me) why the three majors stories are broken up into six books instead of the three famous titles? Or is that some cosmetic choice that Tolkien did? Like "Fellowship of the Ring" is two books and so is Two Towers and RotK.
    The publishers thought the books were too big, so they split them up.

    The Hobbit is a children's book by the way, don't go into LotR with the expectation that it'll be more of the same. The tone is very different, and you might find it a little hard going in comparison... it can be a downright tortuous read in parts.

    In fact I wouldn't blame you if you never finished the bloody thing.

    See I disagree completely about this. If you just read LOTR as action-pulp - like a spinoff novel from a game or Dragonlance style trash - then you will this this yes.

    But the books are real masterpieces of language. Read them like you would Moby Dick. Remember that unlike all the fantasy writers that tried to imitate him Tolkien was a real expert in English literature. He was the profressor (remember that "professor" in the UK is more like "head of department" in the US) of Anglo-Saxon at Oxford and then professor of all English Language and Literature (also at Oxford).

    Even when the "action" is just about walking through the wilderness (and there is a lot of that) there is so much nuance and depth to everything. It really is amazing.

    I've read them probably going on 15 times since the first (in the 3rd grade) and every time I see something new.

  • RiemannLivesRiemannLives Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Cantido wrote:
    Guess who did an album on a chunk of The Silmarillion. It's their best album too.

    Yeah, Feanor's kind of a dick.

    Didn't listen to the video, but from what I recall Feanor was a bad-ass motherfucker. He wasn't after Morgoth because Morgoth was "evil" we was just fuckin' pissed that Morgoth stole his Silmarils and he wasn't about to stop at anything to get them back.

    Against the will of The Valar. He left heaven on earth and dragged an entire race with him into death.

    I found that awesome quote. As always, Paul Krugman is awesome.
    There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

    Feanor also ordered a massacre at the docks when the shipwrights wouldn't let him use their ships to sail to middle earth. And when not all of his followers (including Galadriel) couldn't fit on the ships he just said "fuck em" and left.

  • KrathoonKrathoon Registered User regular
    Eh. It looks like Peter has gained some weight. Scale it back my good man.

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Never do what your enemy expects you to do! Registered User regular
    Krathoon wrote: »
    Eh. It looks like Peter has gained some weight. Scale it back my good man.

    I imagine between the stress and the catering it hasn't been convenient for him to watch his weight. He'll probably try and lose it again after the shoot.

  • Slacker1913Slacker1913 Registered User regular
    Krathoon wrote: »
    Eh. It looks like Peter has gained some weight. Scale it back my good man.

    I imagine between the stress and the catering it hasn't been convenient for him to watch his weight. He'll probably try and lose it again after the shoot.
    Big Jackson gave us Lord of the Rings. Skinny Jackson gave us King Kong and Lovely Bones.
    While I liked most of new Kong, I prefer the previous work.

    Eh, I'll get around to it.
  • KruiteKruite Registered User regular
    Read the story of Beren and Luthien; Feanor's sons were huge dickbags too.

  • Centipede DamascusCentipede Damascus Registered User regular
    It's kind of amazing how Tolkien's noble, beautiful elves were pretty much all gigantic dickbags back in the day.

    I mean, Galadriel was one of the leaders of the rebellion that led the elves out of paradise because she wanted a rule a kingdom for herself.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Hedgethorn wrote: »
    That quote predates Paul Krugman. He's used it in a column before, but he didn't claim it as his own.

    I've seen it attributed to a screenwriter named John Rogers before, but I'm not sure whether he's the original source either.

    Rogers' originally wrote it in his blog.

  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Some news for you guys:


    First some good-

    At CinemaCon, the world's premier convention for theater chains and distributors, the owners and select press were treated to a panel that not only featured new footage from The Dark Knight Rises, but 10 minutes of brand new stuff from The Hobbit. The response in the press has been almost unanimously and overwhelmingly positive, with much ballyhooing made about how it effortlessly recreates the feel of Jackson's LOTR work. Among the footage was the first look at Legolas in the film, as well as Bilbo with Gollum in the cave.



    Now, some terribly bad news-

    At the very same panel, Peter Jackson explained how the guests in the audience were to see the footage in the state-of-the-art 48fps projection rate that Jackson and James Cameron have been fighting to instill as the new industry standard, and the projection at the panel was to be of the highest possible quality.

    The reaction to the new framerate has been extremely negative, by both the media press and by the theater owners and distributors present. Let's let the press speak for themselves:
    I came to CinemaCon just to see the ten minutes of The Hobbit that Warner Bros showed today. I'm not exaggerating; I don't even have press creds, so I can't get into anything else. The good people at Warner Bros hooked me up with a ticket to the presentation, for which I am indebted to them... and which is making me feel bad for what I am about to write.

    With those caveats out of the way, here's what The Hobbit looked like to me: a hi-def version of the 1970s I, Claudius. It is drenched in a TV-like - specifically 70s era BBC - video look. People on Twitter have asked if it has that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy, and the answer is an emphatic YES.

    The 48fps footage I saw looked terrible. It looked completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets. I've been on sets of movies on the scale of The Hobbit, and sets don't even look like sets when you're on them live... but these looked like sets.
    The other comparison I kept coming to, as I was watching the footage, was that it all looked like behind the scenes video. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.

    The content seemed strong, it was the presentation that bummed me out. I'm honestly kind of depressed about how much I disliked the 48fps footage. In his taped intro, Peter Jackson said it would take a minute for us to get used to it, but I never did. It looked like shit the whole time.
    The footage opened up with wide expansive shots of people walking on mountains and over rich green landscapes — those awesome shots that became synonymous with the Lord of the Rings series when it began a decade ago. Thee shots looked incredible — almost like something you would see in an IMAX 3D nature documentary — so extremely vivid and breathtaking, and more real than we’ve ever seen these shots before.

    This is the future of Cinema… I thought…

    But my amazement quickly came to an end as the sizzle reel transitioned from the landscape footage to the character centric. Everything looked so… different. It was jarring.

    The change from 24 frames per second to 48 frames per second is HUGE. It completely changes what every image looks like, the movements, the tone, everything is different.

    It looked like a made for television BBC movie.

    It looked like when you turn your LCD television to the 120 hertz up-conversion setting.

    It looked uncompromisingly real — so much so that it looked fake
    Indeed, the footage shown did seem hyper-realistic. An opening aerial shot of dramatic rocky mountains appeared clearer than the images in most nature documentaries. But the effect was different when applied to scenes with actors dressed in period costume, whose every move -- and pore -- was crystal clear. Such realism put off some trade show attendees, who complained the footage didn't feel enough like a traditional film.

    "It looked like a made-for-TV movie," said one projectionist, who requested anonymity because of his affiliation with a competing studio. "It was too accurate -- too clear. The contrast ratio isn't there yet -- everything looked either too bright or black."


    What does this mean for the final product? It's anyone's guess at this point. The conversion to 48fps and 60fps is far cheaper than recent upgrades (the latter being the standard James Cameron claims he will only shoot in from now on), like digital projection and 3D conversion, as it's mostly just software upgrades. However, the word from the convention is that after The Hobbit presentation the jarring difference was so unsettling and so unpopular that theater owners wouldn't upgrade to the change even if it were free to do so.

    Whatever the case, it's probably not an understatement to say that Jackson and Warners are taking an unplanned (and unpleasant) meeting right about now. What this bodes for the final product(s) has not been commented upon by either camp as of yet, but speculation runs wild upon whether the film can simply be projected at the "normal" 24fps or would need to be digitally reformatted to have every other frame removed and then projected at the standard 1080p(ish) resolution instead of the new 4K standard.



    TL;DR - This ain't good.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Ouch. Talk about uncanny valley. The human brain knows the difference tremendously, and I can already feel how jarring it must seem.

    Cantido on
    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • NappuccinoNappuccino Registered User regular
    cue defenders saying "The footage wasn't finished" "You'll get used to it" "They're just stuck in their old ways"

    Frankly, if they weren't proud of the footage, they wouldn't have shown it.

    I feel like there probably is a time and place for 48fps... but it is going to take awhile for anyone to master it. And the benefits of it don't out weigh the costs, I feel. We'll see if directors actually embrace it in the next 5-10 years.

    Like to write? Want to get e-published? Give us a look-see at http://wednesdaynightwrites.com/
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    There's also the possibility you just can't really grow a bear like other guys.

    Not even BEAR vaginas can defeat me!
    cakemikz wrote: »
    And then I rub actual cake on myself.
    Loomdun wrote: »
    thats why you have chest helmets
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    cue defenders saying "The footage wasn't finished" "You'll get used to it" "They're just stuck in their old ways"

    - The footage, indeed, was not finished. Jackson said as much prior to the reel being shown.
    - He also said, "You'll get used to it."
    - James Cameron would definitely say that last bit, because he's a giant douchenozzle.

    I feel like there probably is a time and place for 48fps... but it is going to take awhile for anyone to master it. And the benefits of it don't out weigh the costs, I feel. We'll see if directors actually embrace it in the next 5-10 years.

    I'm a stickler for practical effects and celluloid, so I'm probably already biased anyway, but I think 48fps and 4K are huge examples of both people trying to fix things that aren't broken and directors losing themselves in the technological potential of a medium that they completely forget what the purpose of the medium is in the first place.


    The Lord of the Rings trilogy was nominated for 30 Oscars, and won 17 of them, including Best Picture. I think people are just fine with the way that was projected.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Don't Blu Ray and HDTVs mess with the frame rate anyway? Like I'll watch a blu ray on my little monitor and it will look like a typical blu ray movie, but if I go and play the same blu ray on a bigass 42'' HDTV, sometimes the movie will appear to have a faster framerate, and the movie will look "off."

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Don't Blu Ray and HDTVs mess with the frame rate anyway? Like I'll watch a blu ray on my little monitor and it will look like a typical blu ray movie, but if I go and play the same blu ray on a bigass 42'' HDTV, sometimes the movie will appear to have a faster framerate, and the movie will look "off."

    There's likely a setting on your HDTV causing that. Usually it's called "tru-vision" or some ridiculous shit. It's all about your refresh rate; if you can set it at 60 or 120ghz, you should be fine. It's usually at 240ghz where things start to look like a Mexican soap opera.

  • DeadfallDeadfall Registered User regular
    Oh man I loathe soap-opera-vision. So much so that when I was shopping for my lcd tv I specifically refused to buy anything over 60hz.

    BFzWh4r.png
    xbl - HowYouGetAnts
    steam - WeAreAllGeth
    www.hoptonogood.com - Beer/Adventure/Life
  • NappuccinoNappuccino Registered User regular
    Nappuccino wrote: »
    cue defenders saying "The footage wasn't finished" "You'll get used to it" "They're just stuck in their old ways"

    - The footage, indeed, was not finished. Jackson said as much prior to the reel being shown.
    - He also said, "You'll get used to it."
    - James Cameron would definitely say that last bit, because he's a giant douchenozzle.

    I feel like there probably is a time and place for 48fps... but it is going to take awhile for anyone to master it. And the benefits of it don't out weigh the costs, I feel. We'll see if directors actually embrace it in the next 5-10 years.

    I'm a stickler for practical effects and celluloid, so I'm probably already biased anyway, but I think 48fps and 4K are huge examples of both people trying to fix things that aren't broken and directors losing themselves in the technological potential of a medium that they completely forget what the purpose of the medium is in the first place.


    The Lord of the Rings trilogy was nominated for 30 Oscars, and won 17 of them, including Best Picture. I think people are just fine with the way that was projected.

    Will color timing and extra cg effects change the base experience of seeing a 48fps film? I mean, surely it is possible, but that doesn't seem likely.

    And in the slash.com review- the initial reaction was glowing... but it was as it went on and he saw more shots of the people talking and moving that he realized he wasn't liking the experience.

    I agree with you that what we have isn't broken. I guess getting rid of frame judder would be nice, but a good cinematographer can shoot around it pretty easily.

    Like to write? Want to get e-published? Give us a look-see at http://wednesdaynightwrites.com/
    Rorus Raz wrote: »
    There's also the possibility you just can't really grow a bear like other guys.

    Not even BEAR vaginas can defeat me!
    cakemikz wrote: »
    And then I rub actual cake on myself.
    Loomdun wrote: »
    thats why you have chest helmets
  • GreasyKidsStuffGreasyKidsStuff MOMMM! ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered User regular
    I remember finding that kind of odd 'made for TV' effect when I watched Dark City on my 52" HD set on blu-ray, and thinking I was crazy. This is pretty concerning about The Hobbit, no doubt. There is a point where the image is too smooth and pristine and things look less real.

    Very worrisome.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I don't like any of these new fangled HD systems. They make everything look like a made for TV series. Avatar, Inception, Game of Thrones, Doctor Who, they all look really shitty on my friend's blu ray and HDTV.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    Even when I was like 6 years old I could tell the BBC's stuff wasn't being shot right. Now, I happen to love I, Claudius-as should you all, really-but that's not a technical era of film that we should ever return to from a practical perspective.

  • CantidoCantido Registered User regular
    Cantido wrote: »
    Don't Blu Ray and HDTVs mess with the frame rate anyway? Like I'll watch a blu ray on my little monitor and it will look like a typical blu ray movie, but if I go and play the same blu ray on a bigass 42'' HDTV, sometimes the movie will appear to have a faster framerate, and the movie will look "off."

    There's likely a setting on your HDTV causing that. Usually it's called "tru-vision" or some ridiculous shit. It's all about your refresh rate; if you can set it at 60 or 120ghz, you should be fine. It's usually at 240ghz where things start to look like a Mexican soap opera.

    I'll have to mess around with this today...with my LotR Extended Edition on Blu Ray.

    3DS Friendcode 5413-1311-3767
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I really don't understand why a few directors, such as Cameron, are so focused on higher frame rates. He's putting a ton of effort into making films look worse. It's not like higher frame rates are something new. Heck, at the dawn of cinema, some things were shot at more than 70fps. There's a reason 24 is the number people keep coming back to.

    TubularLuggage on
  • NODeNODe Registered User regular
    Cameron is probably naturally drawn to causes that make him look like a dickbag.

  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    I really don't understand why a few directors, such as Cameron, are so focused on higher frame rates. He's putting a ton of effort into making films look worse. It's not like higher frame rates are something new. Heck, at the dawn of cinema, some things were shot at more than 70fps. There's a reason 24 is the number people keep coming back to.

    I just happen to think that anyone who could look at, say, the warmth and texture of celluloid projected at 24fps in a film like Lawrence of Arabia or E.T. and say, "Bleagh, that sucks," is a quite literal monster.



    And probably should be shot in the heart with wooden bullets, just to be sure.

  • Unco-ordinatedUnco-ordinated Registered User regular
    Hedgethorn wrote: »
    That quote predates Paul Krugman. He's used it in a column before, but he didn't claim it as his own.

    I've seen it attributed to a screenwriter named John Rogers before, but I'm not sure whether he's the original source either.

    Rogers' originally wrote it in his blog.
    Yeah, here's where he posted it and I'm pretty sure that's the first occurrence of it anywhere. I've been a fan of John Rogers for a while, since he created Jaime Reyes (Blue Beetle III) and I liked the first couple of seasons of Leverage but I had no idea he came up with that quote. That's awesome.
    Krathoon wrote: »
    Eh. It looks like Peter has gained some weight. Scale it back my good man.

    I imagine between the stress and the catering it hasn't been convenient for him to watch his weight. He'll probably try and lose it again after the shoot.
    Big Jackson gave us Lord of the Rings. Skinny Jackson gave us King Kong and Lovely Bones.
    While I liked most of new Kong, I prefer the previous work.
    Skinny Jackson gaves us Bad Taste and Braindead though.

    As for the framerate news, it's a bit concerning and I can imagine how weird it looks but I've got faith they'll have everything looking great by the end of the year.

    Steam ID - LiquidSolid170 | PSN ID - LiquidSolid
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    Eep. Now EW is on the hatewagon, and they're OWNED by Warners (the studio financing the movies).


    I would not want to be Peter Jackson this week.

  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    Well, EW has never been shy about slamming a movie they think sucks, even if it was made by WB.

    Still, Jackson is asking people to readjust what they perceive as a true movie experience. And by "people," I mean "pretty much everyone alive," since 24fps has been around so damn long.

    I do wonder if it'll be hard for anyone too give 48fps a fair shake, since they're so used to 24fps. Are we griping just because we equate the smoothness with the BBC and bad Mexican soap operas? Of course I say that and I was a little weirded out by seeing a demo of A Bug's Life that kept going back and forth between 24 and 48fps.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
  • AtomikaAtomika not a robot. does not eat bugs!Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    I do wonder if it'll be hard for anyone too give 48fps a fair shake, since they're so used to 24fps. Are we griping just because we equate the smoothness with the BBC and bad Mexican soap operas? Of course I say that and I was a little weirded out by seeing a demo of A Bug's Life that kept going back and forth between 24 and 48fps.

    It's hard to say.

    On one hand, it's just a framerate change. It doesn't change the narrative.

    On the other, we (collectively) have a silent agreement on what certain forms of media should look like, and if we're paying to see "feature film" and end up seeing "television documentary," you can't hardly blame people for being hesitant to give in.



    Basically with this, guys like Jackson and Cameron are saying 300 million movie-goers are doing it wrong.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    I think it comes down to directors feeling like they MUST recreate a "real" experience and make it as "real" as possible and the fact that the consumer doesn't give six shits about it so long as it doesn't look like a guy in a rubber suit or a potato covered in tin foil (and even then).

    Lh96QHG.png
Sign In or Register to comment.