The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Pre-Release Discussion) - Page 35

quote ctrl

These articles would disagree. Though he has said that he will settle for 48fps.

Not one of the three articles you googled states that he is filming in 60fps, only that he wants to. Which is what I refuted since you acted like he is. All three reiterate and paraphrase each other about how he wants the industry to move to 60fps or beyond, but knows it depends on how audiences take to the 'new' advancements, or in other words, elaborate more what I already stated:

quote The Living Angelus

He never said he was filming them in 48 or 60fps, only that he weighed the option and wants to see the reaction The Hobbit gets first before committing.

quote The Living Angelus

ya goddamn moron.

But even if audiences absolutely despise the 48fps, and showings with the HFR bomb, I can still see Cameron going ahead and shooting with the HFR and do his 'spin' on the technology all because:

quote Fatherbrain30

James Cameron doesn't do what James Cameron do for James Cameron

Or something to that effect.

Something you're obviously unaware of.

Could I read the book in 10 days?

quote Oxygen

Could I read the book in 10 days?

Depends how quickly you read! But yeah, I think it's pretty achievable. The book is only something like 320 pages which is not a whole lot compared to most fantasy. And it's not a difficult read either. Tolkien doesn't quite bog you down in the details quite as much as he does in the Lord of the Rings books. But, as I say, it depends on how quickly you read.

Reviews are coming in, not so positive (some mild spoilers), posting a few that caught my eye:

boxoffice.com

What the 48 frame-per-second projection actually means is flat lighting, a plastic-y look, and, worst of all, a strange sped-up effect that makes perfectly normal actions—say, Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins placing a napkin on his lap—look like meth-head hallucinations. Jackson seems enamored of 48 fps, but I can't imagine why. To me, it turned the film into a 166-minute long projectionist's error. I wanted to ask the projectionist to double-check the equipment, but really, I should just ask Jackson why he wanted his $270 million blockbuster to look like a TV movie.

That's not the only challenge faced by The Hobbit, Jackson's adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's 1937 novel of fantasy and adventure. It's the problem of prequels. Like what George Lucas bore when he returned to Star Wars for The Phantom Menace, the audience, the expectations and filmmaking itself have matured but the storytelling is more juvenile.

And where the Rings trilogy had weight, The Hobbit is all wigs and slapstick and head-lopping violence unsuitable for children—who are the only audience who won't be bored to tears.

screencrush.com
- When people run, they look like they are on the ‘Benny Hill Show.’

- Fire looks weird. This doesn’t matter too much when it is just a burning hearth, but when it is dragonbreath or hurled, flaming weapons, it is a problem. As a result, a moment that should read as triumph ultimately comes across as goofy. It looks so strange and unusual (as do many of the special effects) that it looks somewhat. . .cheap.

- Anything shot in daylight looks like a BBC production from the 1970s. The movement is too smooth. And yet, when the camera movies, too, it looks somewhat jerky.

People interested in tech should see ‘An Unexpected Journey’ in 48fps (which is being marketing as HFR 3D). People just looking to see a great movie should just see it in 24. Of course, anyone looking for a great movie will be disappointed. ‘The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,’ despite its many gimmicks, is just an okay movie.

hitfix.com
- Throughout the entire film, there was a strange Benny Hill quality to sequences, with things that appeared to be sped up. It happened in both dialogue and action sequences, and the overall effect was like watching the most beautifully mastered Blu-ray ever played at 1.5x speed. It doesn't make any sense to me that this process, which is supposedly all about clarity and resolution, would create that hyper-speedy quality unless they were doing something wrong in the projection of it. Peter Jackson would see this immediately. The voices are off-pitch, and the pacing of scenes goes to hell when it's played this way.

- There are several returning artists on the film, like Ian McKellen and Howard Shore and Andrew Lesnie, whose work is every bit as good as it was before, and I think for the most part, "Lord Of The Rings" fans are going to feel like this is a welcome return to MIddle Earth. But there are enough uneven qualities this time around that i find myself astonished by the letter grade (B) I'm assigning the film. My hope is that the three films taken together will work better than this one does on its own, and that the pacing issues are not going to be ongoing as the series continues.

slashfilm.com
“Again and again” is also the film’s biggest issue. On a consistent basis, it’s almost as if Jackson forgets he has two more films to release and is forced to pump the brakes. Tangents pop out of nowhere, dialogue scenes are stretched into infinity, and a familiar structure of capture followed by rousing escape, is consistently repeated. Much of the film feels like it’s purposely attempting to stall the dwarves’ quest from progressing.

Overall The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a lot of fun. Fans of Jackson, Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings films will enjoy it. However, it’s long and uneven, which keeps it from reaching the heights of Jackson’s first three Middle-Earth films.

indiewire.com
- At almost three hours, Peter Jackson’s fourth foray into the world of J.R.R. Tolkien, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” is initially worrisome and typically self-indulgent. An extremely jarring 48 fps look -- which looks like an odd "Masterpiece Theater" in HD -- is unsettling and the opening is slow-going and tepidly genteel, taking its time with two prologues, one that includes an aged Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holmes) and Frodo Baggins (Elijah Wood). And while “The Lord Of The Rings” films always sported a jovial and light-hearted tone, 'The Hobbit' (set some 60 years before the events of ‘LOTR’) ratchets up the goofiness to a near unfortunate level (yes, the source material is more of a kids' book, but even this is a little much).

- While it will be too formulaic and familiar to some (and certainly non-fans won’t be won over), 'The Hobbit' is another grand achievement from director Peter Jackson. While this distended picture threatens to buckle under the weight of its own self-importantance, Peter Jackson clearly believes he’s earned the right to preamble and make nearly three hour long tent poles each time out of the gate. And the last two acts of 'The Hobbit' are simply a non-stop action-adventure rollercoaster that is just as engaging and winning as anything in the director’s previous trilogy.

General consensus: It's a good return for fans of the series to be back in middle earth, some fans might not be able to overlook the slap-stick humor the dwarves offer, almost everyone agrees 48fps looks like shit, those bored with LOTR Trilogy will be bored with Hobbit Trilogy. About sums it up. oh hai ctrl, you were saying what again about HFR? lol

and now its apparent why movies have been 24fps for so long.

quote Fatherbrain30

Looks like James Cameron is gonna have to keep doing what James Cameron does.

making EXTREMELY overrated movies that make billions of dollars for no reason?

Why would nerds rage over a romantic movie about a sinking ship?