The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

I am not talking about colorizing one scene in a movie to hyper stylized effect. Otherwise I could turn that same scenario right around back at you. You think 48 fps sucks? John Woo has been shooting action sequences at that speed (and higher) for over 20 years to AWESOME effect.

But that's not what we're talking about. I'm talking regular run of the mill color vs. black and white for a full length feature. It doesn't improve the story. It just makes it one step closer to being like the world we live in. And that can experience can allow for greater immersion.

It doesn't mean that right out of the gate it was perfect or that the color timing is always used to optimum effect. Gone with the Wind with its hyper primary technicolors doesn't really look "real" to me but it was a stepping stone to what we have today and I actually think it has a very fitting, if transitionary, look for that particular picture.

Films of that era have a certain visual charm to them that is cool to have preserved. Who knows how HFR will evolve but The Hobbit: AUJ will always be the pioneer and that's cool enough even if it does fizzle out as quickly as it begins.

Are you talking about John Woo shooting slow motion? Yes, he shoots slow motion to add emphasis to certain scenes. Because he's ADDING to the film. He's creating a visual image which is telling you a story, or showing you an action.

Castor Troy walks into the room in slow motion, you know he's someone you shouldn't mess with. There's an artistic reason for him to shoot a scene like that.

Please tel me the artistic reason for someone to make middle earth look real. I'd like to know.

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

If AH were alive today he wouldn't be coloring a dudes eyes red or green to illustrate greed or rage. The very notion is laughable.. indeed anyone who would do it would probably just be trying to get a laugh out of the audience.

Poor Hitchcock, everyone is laughing at his horrible horrible filmmaking.

[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tesqTwX7cpc[/ame]

Surely that green was put into the scene to be "Kewl" and "awesome". Hitchcock was the Michael Bay of his time, right?

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

Since when did you care about Middle-earth?

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

Since The Hobbit was a good movie.

But it doesn't matter if I cared or not. I care about films. I care about what people use to make them.

 

[Khev]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

Are you talking about John Woo shooting slow motion?

No. I'm talking about him shooting at 48 frames per second. The playback on a normal projector gives the illusion of slow motion, which is a stylized use of HFR. You know, like your stylized "color red" scenario.

But once again: That is not the point.

Please tel me the artistic reason for someone to make middle earth look real. I'd like to know.

Why isn't every movie just black and white hand drawn cartoons? You figure that out and you'll have your answer about Middle Earth.

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

Since The Hobbit was a good movie.

But it doesn't matter if I cared or not. I care about films. I care about what people use to make them.

Just curious. You'd think you were actually a fan of the topic.

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

John Woo does not shoot his slow motion at 48 FPS. No one has ever really shot at 48FPS. So I don't know where you're getting that. John Woo shoot's his slow motion closer to 200 fps.

Anyway, your last sentence doesn't make any sense. I understand Jackson wanted to play with new technology, but like George Lucas, he didn't use it in a way that helped the story. He just used it because he could. In the prequels, the CGI clones and CGI backdrops actually hurt the story, overall, because he made those films visually uninteresting, and the actors suffered because of it. You could've done at least 60% of those shots in hallways in sets. It made the action, and drama incredibly unexciting, because the actors had very little places to move. They had to sit on a couch, or walk to a window lol)

However, a film like Sin City, used that technology well. It serviced the story it was telling. You couldn't do those shots in a set, because the source is too stylized. But it added to the film. It helped the story.
I would even make a case for Avatar, but only to a point. The 3D WAS used to transport you into this new world, just like our main character was. Despite the film being really shallow, there was a honest reason for the technology being used here.

So my question was, what does this new HFR technology have to do with the story of The Hobbit? The answer is nothing. Peter Jackson just wanted to do something new. Some people like it. But overall, it's a big mistake, and he should've waited until he was working on something smaller to try it out.

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

Just curious. You'd think you were actually a fan of the topic.

I'm a fan of films. This is a new technology. It's very important to cinema as nothing has ever been done before it.

The fact that people are confused why the film looks the way it does, even in 24fps, is really interesting. Because they noticed it. They saw it. Some don't. Those those people couldn't care less about that stuff. And that's fine. But there are people who do.

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

It's a new tech and we won't know its importance for a long while. I know you fret over these things but I wouldn't yet.

I guess it's interesting. If you're into the tech of it all. I'm curious but that's about it. All, I know is the film looked beautiful and was a pretty damn good version of The Hobbit. As a fan of Middle-earth those are the two things that really matter to me.

 

[Khev]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

John Woo does not shoot his slow motion at 48 FPS. No one has ever really shot at 48FPS. So I don't know where you're getting that. John Woo shoot's his slow motion closer to 200 fps.

High Frame Rate photography is what I'm getting at. *Shooting* at a high rate of speed has been an artistic convention for decades. And technically Woo typically stayed in the 60-120 range.

Anyway, your last sentence doesn't make any sense.

And that's why I'm sure you don't understand why filmmakers use live-action or color (or sound) at all.

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

Ok. But John Woo used them to highlight a scene. There was a reason for John Woo to undercrank the camera, or use whatever Phantom camera thing to shoot his scene. He wanted to put emphasis on something specific. What did Peter Jackson emphasis? That his film looks like a cheap stage play? Or that it's supposed to be real? I'm not seeing films to see reality. That's the whole point of film.

If we're going to the play "U dun get it" game, I don't you understand what you're talking about. Filmmakers use sound, color, lighting, shot composition, and framing to tell a story. That's it. If your story requires your visuals to be in black and white, or a ****ty flash cartoon, then by all means, do it. IF the story demands you do it. (Or, god forbid, your poor like me, and you don't have much to work with. )

Not because you can, or it looks cool. (Although, I'm more forgiving for the "looks cool" excuse if your film is a dumb blockbuster like Thor or something. )

 

[Khev]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

What did Peter Jackson emphasis? Filmmakers use sound, color, lighting, shot composition, and framing to tell a story.

There's not one single story that requires color or live-action to be told. But real footage of real people shot with great clarity brings you INTO the story. That's what Jackson accomplished. HEY. I'M HERE AT THE LOCATIONS, I'M HERE WITH THE ACTORS. Now, is there a flip side? Sure, at least for now. We notice things aren't as "movie like" when they are "real." We notice things you'd notice on set like seams in makeup and whatnot. But with that immersion can come greater emotional investment. That is, if you're not sitting back with your arms folded like a Lucas-technowhore shouting "where's my 24 frames per second!" Imagine if films had always been in HFR and then someone came along and made them 24 so they'd be fuzzier and more artistic. Then THAT would just be a new technology some people would ***** about.

It's all art and technology, being a SLAVE to just one approach is George Lucasism at its finest.

Don't be a Lucas. He likes his locations to be phony 2D hand painted monstrosities. Allow for different techniques and for each to have its time and place.

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

No. George Lucas want's to go AGAINST the norm, and ruined his movies by not understanding what he was doing. He added nothing to cinema, and actually downgraded the art form. Because he's a knob.

Anyway. It's not just about tradition, it's about your brain looking at the separation between fiction and reality. If you want to be with the actors or some **** like that, then why in gods name are you watching a film about elves and dwarfs? Go outside and you can have all the realistic visuals you can stomach.


Another factor....would you like to see this level of visuals on the big screen? This is 60FPS....Avatar 2 stuff. (I'm not judging the film itself, just the quality of the visuals.)

[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW1IRCnK18w[/ame]

 

[Khev]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

If you want to be with the actors or some **** like that, then why in gods name are you watching a film about elves and dwarfs? Go outside and you can have all the realistic visuals you can stomach.

Goes outside, looks around, sees no elves or dwarves, goes back inside and watches The Hobbit again.

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

If you keep smashing your face against the TV, you might end up being RIGHT THERE WITH THE ACTORS.

 

[rushmore223]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

Actually, to characterize Lucas like that it is kind of unfair.

In Lucas' early career he revolutionized the industry with technology he needed to pioneer to better tell a story in a more believable way.

In his later career, his technological innovaton was about making the filmmaking process easier for him, as a Director. It had little to do with telling the story.

So, early career was about breaking through barriers, later career was about being lazy.

 

[Sachiel]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

Another factor....would you like to see this level of visuals on the big screen? This is 60FPS....Avatar 2 stuff. (I'm not judging the film itself, just the quality of the visuals.)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZW1IRCnK18w

I'm sure Avatar 2 will have better lighting and shot composition.

 

[vodoun]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

No. George Lucas want's to go AGAINST the norm, and ruined his movies by not understanding what he was doing. He added nothing to cinema, and actually downgraded the art form. Because he's a knob.

The difference between him and you is, he's a billionaire, has certified studios and is a very successful man. What are you except somebody hammering on the keyboard from the other end? you can get all riled up and it wont make squat what anyone does in the movies. You have no influence on what Hollywood does. Are they going to come to CelticPredator's house and ask your approval?

They're making tons of money. What are you doing except calling somebody thats successful a knob?

You sound like some of the bitter people on IMDb and lots of the film critics that do nothing except mouth off on the web.

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

I don't give a **** if they listen to me or not. I'll still call George Lucas a knob. I'm glad he got sad and quit filmmaking. He deserved it for being so dumb, and not having a thick enough skin to take the well deserved heat his monstrosities on cinema revived.

 

[Adolfo]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

The masses say your wrong. He made Billions. Plus gave us a couple of the most beloved franchises/characters in movie history. You bash him because he didn't make SW1,2,3 and IJATKOTCS your way. Again tough. I know just from reading your posts it really bothered you a lot. Do I think the films coulda been better, Sure you bet. According to you he's a coward but you are a brave tough guy on the net forum telling him and the world how it should be. And you do give a **** otherwise you wouldn't be here ranting. If he got a little dumb so what. It's his money and life. You don't like what he did with it,oh well. You don't like the product don't buy it. That's how it goes. I won't ever tell a guy how to spend his money unless they ask me. This Lucas bash goes beyond normal rationale and borders possibly on the obsessive.