 | |  | | ![]() Now that the trailer http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0k3kHtyoqc is out, I figure it would be time to open a thread discussing the upcoming movie adaptation. Personally I liked how it is attempting to tie into the Lord of the Rings in ways Tolkien could not before he had written LotR (Narsil). But I also noticed the lack of instruments in the dwarfs' song, as opposed to the grand accompaniment of harps and other instruments described in the book, and felt it would be a richer song with such artifacts. Yet it had a different charm to it, so I liked it all the same | |  | |  |
|
| written by Buuks on Dec 28, 2011 14:52 |
 | |  | | ![]() It seems the original story will be heavily edited, just like they did with the trilogy. Like the addition of Frodo and other characters from the trilogy, who don't have a part in The Hobbit.
But I don't see this as a problem, as long the movie will be just as great as its predecessor. | |  | |  |
|
| a title is a curious thing... |
|
   | |  | | ![]() I suppose I'm very new to LoTR lore, I'm currently reading through the first book, but I enjoyed the movies(even though feel a little down after starting the book), so I'm quite excited about this film.
I'm curious as to what sorts of modifications will be made to the story... I haven't been able to find any information about this anywhere. | |  | |  |
|
| | | | ![]() I just finished rereading the book, so that may have an impact on my opinion of the movie. But he didn't screw up the LotR (except Tom Bombadil) so i doubt it will be bad. Can't wait for the adaptation of the Silmarilion, which I am currently reading. (If he makes it that is) | | | | |
|
| a title is a curious thing... |
|
| | | | ![]() I agree about Tom Bombadil, but from the trailer it looks like there's at least some importance placed upon song and poetry. This is something I felt sorely lacking from the film Trilogy, especially when it plays such a large part in the books.
I think it's smart to make it into a two-part movie though. All I can seem to gather is that the first movie will have a more playful, childish theme synonymous with most of the book, while the second will have a darker feel closer to the Lord of the Rings Trilogy or the rest of Peter Jackson's interpretations of it. | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() I concur, Tolkien's bad poetry deserves music. I always wished they had left it in the LotR. Now I'm worried though I checked the blog and they have 3D concept art. (I hope it wont be in 3D please, please, please  ) | | | | |
|
| a title is a curious thing... |
|
| | | | ![]() Well it seems it's being filmed in 3D, but I don't know if they'll immediately do a 3D release. I suppose this is one of those movies for which might actually enjoy 3D.
What's more interesting is that it's being filmed at 48 FPS. There's been talk about this for a while, but few movies have tried actually doing this yet. | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() 3D is how the government gets subliminal messages into your head. I wouldn't trust it if I were you.  I shouldnt mention that with 6 unknown online... They're probably all CIA or FBI or even KGB | | | | |
|
| written by Kristos on Jan 09, 2012 18:01 |
| | | | ![]() Yes! I thoroughly enjoyed the books (The Hobbit, The Lord of the Rings (which is actually 6 books)) as well as the three LOTR movies, even with the various divergences from the books. It'll probably be a great movie.
 | Granpire viking man said: | | What's more interesting is that it's being filmed at 48 FPS. There's been talk about this for a while, but few movies have tried actually doing this yet. |
What's the usual filming rate? | | | | |
|
| written by Malkom on Jan 09, 2012 18:10 |
 | |  | | ![]() 24 FPS? That's half of 48 FPS and (I think) fairly standard. Or at least I guess it used to be. | |  | |  |
|
| i haz title: speed-y-???-1 |
|
 | written by Speeder on Jan 09, 2012 20:00 |
| | | | ![]() Yes, the filming rate is 24 FPS, because that matches what we can see.
In games we see difference because in a game each frame is a perfect snapshop of a moment, a movie camera better copies our eyes, and thus each frame show a bigger moment.
(ie: a movie camera running at 24 FPS, usually captures almost all information available in a second. A game running at 24 FPS will give you something like 1/3 or 1/4 of information available on a second... Thus games you must run faster...)
The only reason I see to film something at 48 FPS is make special effects look better... Or have a slight increase in movement information (something like: going from 95% to 97%...) | | | | |
|
| i haz title: speed-y-???-1 |
|
| written by Speeder on Jan 09, 2012 20:02 |
| | | | ![]() Actually, even better explanation:
In a movie, you lose the information of when the shutter is closed (and that is very minimal), in a game you lose all information when the shutter is "not open" (something that is, most of the time...)
If you compare a single frame of a movie and of a 3D animation of the same place, you will see that the movie is all blurry, while the 3D animation has a very sharp image. That "blurryness" actually carries more information, and make the image more clear to our brain when everything is moving. | | | | |
|
| | | | ![]() Still, humans can see the frames. Humans eyes don't have a frame-rate as such, but if we did, it would be far higher than 500fps (although, it's different when we see a flash of dark in the light vs. a flash of light in the dark). Higher fps does make things smoother.
Plus, a lot of games are simulating that motion-blur, nowadays. Look at Portal (subtle) or Gears of War (in your face). | | | | |
|
| i haz title: speed-y-???-1 |
|
| written by Speeder on Jan 09, 2012 21:18 |
| | | | ![]() We DO have a frame rate.
And it is roughly 22fps
Or rather, our eyes function constantly, but the brain take roughly 22 snapshops of what we see every second.
We CAN see the frames of a videogame because they are sharp, generated from a single moment, even with motion-blur simulation (that does not have all the time information, only a estimative)
But in movies, if the camera is decent, it is rather hard to see the frames...
Of course, 3D generated movies is a exception, watch James Cameron Avatar on a HD TV for example, and you will feel a sort of uncanny valley with the movement... This is because even the most high quality 3D software cannot reach the same quality (yet?) of a good camera. | | | | |
|
| a title is a curious thing... |
|
| | | | ![]() I think this is a slightly different thing, but I did watch "Kingdom of Heaven" on someone's 120Hz TV and the increased refresh rate gave the camera movements a somewhat more amateurish feel.
On the other hand, the movements and action were much easier to see.
I know refresh rates aren't the same, but I did see a definite difference in watching that movie on a 120Hz TV vs. most movies on regular 60Hz TVs.
I'm guessing that increased Frames will have the same effect: Camera imperfections become more noticeable, and action and motion scenes are easier to follow. | | | | |
|
| 
