Re: News from the set

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:01 pm

Great! Whats great about it? that just confirms my fears the river they have chosen is completely wrong. It has falls and rapids for Illuvatars sake! What are the elves doing having a barrel smashing contest? It also looks too shallow.

[img] News from the set - Page 23 Nz20061140246600pelorus_river20066

News from the set - Page 23 Nz20061140246600pelorus_river20066

[/img]

[img] News from the set - Page 23 DSCF2506

[/img]

Unless the Men of Lake Town are running a match stick franchise the barrels wouldn't be much use to them by the time they'd got through there! I suspect some very bad heightened fake river rapid drama, that will make no sense whatsoever. But that would be consistent with PJ's inability to prevent spectacle ruining sense, thought or reason.

Tolkien's illustrations for comparison.

[img] News from the set - Page 23 Bk-TolkienHobbitEastonBarrels

News from the set - Page 23 Bk-TolkienHobbitEastonBarrels

[/img]

[img] News from the set - Page 23 Barrels

[/img]

by Mrs Figg Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:33 pm

I think they have chosen a shallow bit of river for ease of filming, so that no one gets drownded. They will have cameramen and actors getting swept away if they had a deep river. It will probably look deep on camera though.

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:00 pm

Wonder if it will also look less rapidy, less rocky, less of a stupid place to float barrels down.

by Mrs Figg Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:10 pm

How odd I detect the merest whiff of sarkitude, strange coming from you Petty, you being as laid back as a badgers bum an all.

Suspect

by Pettytyrant101 Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:13 pm

I've been told I have a face like a badgers bum does that count?

by Mrs Figg Tue Dec 06, 2011 4:46 pm

Indeed

by Lorient Avandi Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:19 am

Certainly Petty, that ALWAYS counts Very Happy

by Eldorion Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:25 am

Pettytyrant101 wrote:Great! Whats great about it? that just confirms my fears the river they have chosen is completely wrong.

I was referring to the author's write-up of his barrel misadventure when I said it was "great", Petty, although I enjoyed the photos and news as well. Smile

I do share you apprehension about overwrought rapids drama -- I have little doubt we will see that and even less doubt that it will be completely stupid. But really, did anyone expect anything different with PJ at the helm? Razz

by chris63 Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:02 am

Hobbit movie could be put back a year 2013 release Mad

http://screenrant.com/superman-man-of-steel-hobbit-release-dates-rob-142690/

by Eldorion Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:13 am

Interesting, but we've seen plenty of "scoops" that turned out to actually have scooped up nothing but journalistic crap. And according to the update in that link, Warner Bros. has already denied this. I maintain hope for the December 2012 release date. Very Happy

by **Orwell** Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:50 pm

2014 sounds good.

by Mrs Figg Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:26 pm

NO NO NO IT DOES NOT!!!!!!!!!!

Extremely Crabbit

by Pettytyrant101 Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:33 pm

Aha- the chanting and the magic circles are starting to work!! cheers

by Tinuviel Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:10 am

It's probably someone just trying to stir the pot because the Hobbit Stew is becoming flat. Not much juicy topics have come up, but once the trailer hits.... KA BOOOMM!!!!!!!!! bom

by chris63 Fri Dec 09, 2011 9:47 am

ORWELL you stirrer

by Mrs Figg Fri Dec 09, 2011 3:57 pm

Any ideas when the trailer and next video blog is coming out? also what about this, this new 48 frames thingy, sorry not sure the exact terms, but i read the effects are like video and super realistic, not very filmic, does that mean the hobbit will look like some docu/CNN type of thing where you see everyones nose hair?

scratch

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Dec 09, 2011 4:05 pm

I need to do some reading up on this Mrs Figg- I am really not sure, what they are getting at I think is that it presents the eye with the same sort of information the eye gets from real life, whereas before film and tv worked by tricking the eye into thinking it was getting all the information. So things should seem more natural and real rather than making it docu style.
But thats mere speculation on my part- I shall do some research on the matter study

when time allows and if no bright spark provides an exlanation before.

by Eldorion Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:24 pm

Traditionally, film was presented in 24 frames per second, meaning that for every image of action on screen there were 24 still frames strung together in the projector. However, the human eye perceives the world at a much higher equivalent frame rate (though I've seen a lot of conflicting numbers, from 60 to 100 to even 200 frames per second). While even slow frame rates are still perceived as fluid motion, the idea is that the higher a frame rate in film, the more natural the movement on screen appears.

As for the trailer, it should be in U.S. theatres on either December 16 (Sherlock Holmes) or December 21 (The Adventures of Tintin). I imagine it will hit the Internet in the hours or days following that. Very Happy

I don't know when the next video blog will be though; I don't think any of those have been announced in advance so far.

by Mrs Figg Fri Dec 09, 2011 5:36 pm

cant wait to see the trailer, only a week to go cool bounce

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:03 pm

I wonder do you need a special sort of projection thing to show films with that many frames per second? Or can any cinema show it- and more importantly will the trailer be at 48frames or 24?

by Mrs Figg Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:13 pm

exactamundo do normal cinemas have the right tec or will it all be a huge waste of cash?

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:21 pm

Sadly the switch to everythng digital has made most of my technical knowledge about film obselete- but certainly in the past projectors in cinemas could only deal with 24 frames, you'd need a different machine to show anything of a different size or frame number- hence the emrgence of IMAX. But I've no idea about this 48frames 3D digital stuff at all.

by Mrs Figg Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:28 pm

well my knowledge of these things was exhausted when they stopped making televisions out of wood. Embarassed

by Eldorion Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:34 pm

According to PJ it's easier to transition to 48 fps projectors in the digital era (somehow) and it's predicted that there will be enough screens to distribute The Hobbit at 48 fps, though I'd imagine that they'll have a 24 fps version available as a backup to send to theatres that need it.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/peter-jackson/48-frames-per-second/10150222861171558

PJ wrote:Now that the world's cinemas are moving towards digital projection, and many films are being shot with digital cameras, increasing the frame rate becomes much easier. Most of the new digital projectors are capable of projecting at 48 fps, with only the digital servers needing some firmware upgrades. We tested both 48 fps and 60 fps. The difference between those speeds is almost impossible to detect, but the increase in quality over 24 fps is significant.

...

Warner Bros. have been very supportive, and allowed us to start shooting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps, despite there never having been a wide release feature film filmed at this higher frame rate. We are hopeful that there will be enough theaters capable of projecting 48 fps by the time The Hobbit comes out where we can seriously explore that possibility with Warner Bros. However, while it's predicted that there may be over 10,000 screens capable of projecting THE HOBBIT at 48 fps by our release date in Dec, 2012, we don’t yet know what the reality will be. It is a situation we will all be monitoring carefully. I see it as a way of future-proofing THE HOBBIT. Take it from me--if we do release in 48 fps, those are the cinemas you should watch the movie in. It will look terrific!

by Pettytyrant101 Fri Dec 09, 2011 7:47 pm

So if there aren't enough cinemas ready they might not release it in 48fps at all?
Thats an expensive bit of future proofing- still should at least look good on my 2040 4D screen projected directly onto my retina from a chip embedded in my head!