I hear the film-makers say all the time that by the end of it there will be a set of 6 movies that you can watch all at once, but to me the hobbit films are nothing like the middle earth that we were introduced to in rings, its like a total re imagining, they don't even look like they were made by the same director
shareMaybe I'm watching different Hobbit movies than you, but the two I've seen so far blend in pretty well with the LotR movies.
Especially same places like Bag End, Rivendell, and Bree.
[deleted]
nope.
share"Pixar anime"
...oh my goodness...
[deleted]
have you read the books? The Hobbit is a book for kids, with silly situations and songs. TLOTR is obviously more mature. they made these films like the old ones but trying to be faithful to that childish book
shareI never found the book to be silly, corny, family friendly and childish like the movies made it out to be. Yes it is written on a level where children have the capacity to read and understand it, but I wouldn't consider it a "kids book." Even though The Hobbit is more of a "children's book" many adults find it very hard to get through. I personally read both The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings both at a young age. The Lord of the Rings is written on a higher level that requires more from the reader, but I think they both have the same tone (dark, serious, etc.) and overall feel unlike the movies.
sharethe classic "it was meant for children argument" when the fanboys have nothing actually to say.. classic
shareI agree. The fact that Jackson et al have managed to create a trilogy (assuming the third one maintains the standard) which fits into the same universe as the LotR trilogy, whilst injecting it with its own distinctive whimsy and slapstick, is an underrated feat as far as I'm concerned. I look forward to watching all six extended editions.
***************
Stanley Kubrick: fosk.weebly.com
Reviews: rocknreelreviews.com/reviewed_by/rupert
No it wasnt Rooe.. you are literally describing what Lucas did with the prequels hahahahahha
it fit in the same universe
he added his own distinctive whimsy and slapstick humor
to me the hobbit films are nothing like the middle earth that we were introduced to in rings, its like a total re imagining, they don't even look like they were made by the same director
Explain: "proper color timing" for me? What change do you want to see?
shareOn reflection, modified to:
SrEditor, I apologise if I misperceived what you were getting at.
I'm pretty tired of seeing trolls baiting, on this site and others, and I guess I don't give people the benefit of the doubt any more. If I was wrong in being wary, I sincerely apologise.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
"Color timing"
Actually, for us lay people, can you please elaborate?
Im so funny, when I grow up to be president, the WHOLE country will laugh at me-Lil Bush
Thanks spikee, for waking me up to the possibility that I misperceived what SrEditor was asking. I've changed my previous post.
In answer to your question:
Because movie film has traditionally used the interaction of light on chemicals on the film to produce the image, variations in that chemical mix can create variations in the strength and hue of the colours that are captured, and the brightness of the image as a whole. These can also be affected by other factors, like the way a scene is lit. So, when various cuts are being assembled to make the scene, variations in the colour and brightness can be quite noticeable; it's obviously a problem if you get a situation where colour and brightness can change between two sequential camera angles in a scene. And even though a character is wearing the same costume, because of this it can look like it's changed colour. You might have noticed this yourself in photos of your own, where from shot to shot someone looks like they've tinted their hair or their clothes have faded.
So, without getting too technical, the term "colour timing" or "colour grading" is used to describe what's done to the image to make the colours consistent. There might be zillions of colours in the image, but they're all basically made up of the basic primary colours (red, yellow, blue) mixed in different proportions. (Like you mix red and yellow to get orange, or blue and yellow to get green.) Then there is also a gamma measurement, which is basically the brightness, plus white (highlights) and black (shadow). If you change the amount of green in the image, for instance, then it's going to shift the colours in the image.
This process has only recently become really sophisticated with the development of digital tools. It used to be done with chemicals in developing the film, or as a special process in post-production, but obviously it couldn't be done with the same fine control as can be achieved now with digital tools. Nowadays, the colours of specific objects within an image can be altered, and digital colour grading is often used to create effects or moods much more easily than in the original photography.
If you're into Blu-rays, you'll maybe have noticed that a lot of films are released with a "teal push" in the colour grading -- meaning that colours in the image have been "pushed" in the colour palette in the direction of blueish-green. A lot of people (myself included) complain about this, but other people seem unable to see it, even when sometimes it's quite extreme. I've never seen anyone in the industry explain why this is done, but my guess is that on modern display screens the cooler blue-green colours appear sharper. If you've ever watched a videotape of a film with a lot of reds, oranges and yellows in the image, you'll probably have seen how these "hotter" colours seem to glow oddly (it's called "bloom") or sometimes spill outside the edges of an object (that's called "bleed"); so part of my guess is that the "push" in the colour palette to make everything seem slightly more green is a way of controlling this bloom and bleed in high-definition images.
So, that's a pretty rough description of colour timing or colour grading and what it's for. The reason I mentioned it in the first place: "The Fellowship of the Ring".
When that film was first released, colour grading was still done with chemicals, and according to Warner Bros the colour grading was badly handled and the film didn't come out looking the way Peter Jackson and Andrew Lesnie (the director and cinematographer) wanted it to. The version of the film on the standard "theatrical" edition of the Blu-ray is how the film looked when it was in cinemas; when Jackson was preparing it for the release of the Blu-ray Extended Edition, he and Lesnie took the opportunity to re-grade the colours, but they did it basically with a pretty extreme teal push. There was a lot of controversy on the Internet between people complaining about it (it really is obvious and pretty awful) and people complaining about people complaining about it. The Internet being what it is, the disagreement resulted in a lot of people flinging a lot of insults.
Which is why I responded the way I did to SrEditor. I assumed -- maybe incorrectly -- that I was being baited, and I got a bit wary; I apologised when you made me realise it might have been a genuine question. I was too hasty, and basically I'd rather make a chump of myself than cause offence when it's not justified.
So. What I'm personally hoping is that once the last Hobbit film is released on Blu-ray, and Warner Bros releases the inevitable "Middle Earth" boxed set of all six films, we'll find that Fellowship has been rescanned and regraded to get rid of the ugly, OTT teal push and make the film look like the other two that followed it. (Those two didn't have the problem because they were originally colour graded digitally, not photochemically.)
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
As you seem to be reasonably well-versed in current movie technology, perhaps you can help with something relating to the photography in the Hobbit series. I read somewhere that a relatively new process was used in which the action was photographed at 48 frames per second as opposed to the usual 24 fps and then, of course, projected at 48 fps. This is supposed to account for increased quality (smoothness?)of the motion picture its color images. Is this true? If so, I wonder if the increased quality is worth the increased cost (double?) of the color film stock?
shareHeya vappour,
Yes, all three Hobbit films were shot at 48 fps, but they were shot and edited digitally -- no actual film involved. I never saw them in 48 fps myself -- there were only 24 fps showings anywhere near where I live -- but from what I read, the reception was very mixed to the effect of the frame rate; a frequent comment seemed to be that its look was very distracting, and though some people said they got accustomed to it reasonably quickly, most of them still didn't like it overall.
It seems the 48 fps wasn't as big a hit as the studio and Jackson were hoping for. I'm sure someone else will give it a try, though I haven't read about any major films jumping to follow suit so far.
It'll be interesting to see if the 48 fps version ever gets released for home theatres. Blu-ray can handle the framerate, though most recent players will require at least a firmware upgrade to handle it, and most will require hardware upgrades as well to handle the extra data transfer reuired. Butthe biggest problem wis the disc storage -- people complain now about the extended versions of the 24 fps versions taking two discs each, so imagine how they'd complain if it were four!  Anything more will probably have to wait until the newer disc formats come out with higher data storage capacity, or the studios abandon physical media altogether and work out a system of data streaming. (Yeah, good luck. A lot of people can't watch YouTube happily -- how are they going to handle 80 Mbps of data streaming?!)
Will that ever happen? It's interesting times. I don't know how it is where you live, but in shops around where I live, DVDs still get 5 to 10 times as much shelf space as Blu-rays do, so I really can't see yet another format requiring yet another upgrade of people's equipment having much success.
Anyway, I'm rambling. Enough to say: I'm expecting one or two cinemas will have a showing of the trilogy on the big screen once the EE comes out; and if they do run 48 fps sessions, I'll make a bigger effort this time round to get to see them, even if it's only for the curiosity. I'm always prepared to be wrong, but I suspect that's the only way I'll ever get to see it for myself.
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I watched an animated television series that was 8 fps. I could see where the frames were being changed. Then I watched Disney's Sleeping Beauty which is 24 fps. It flowed like silk.
Frankly, I question whether the human eye can process information fast enough to detect much difference between 24 fps and 48 fps. It seems like a vastly more expensive technology for little actual aesthetic gain. I won't ask you to write another book after all the information you so generously provided on color timing, but do you know if anyone in the industry has done much in the way of tests to determine whether human eyesight is capable of keeping up with 48 fps?
_____
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.
Youtube allows videos up to 60 frames per second and has for some time. There are videos comparing 30 vs 60 fps. See for your self.
shareI guess I don't give people the benefit of the doubt any more.
I thought that the locations looked pretty much the same, but the orcs and goblins looked completely different, and the dwarves looked completely different. Here's a YouTube review that highlights the differences in dwarf design.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PapM9xN_qU
_____
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.
I see a lot of inconsistencies between the Hobbit series and the Rings series. the orcs look different. the goblins look different, the wargs look different. In Rings Galdalf knew nothing of the goblins capturing the Mine of Moria but in Hobbits he heard the story told.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
Without question the Hobbit films look different to Rings.
For one the Hobbit changes from CGI orcs to human orcs, infact you can tell Hobbit is much more CGI friendly than Rings ever was. Yes as someone mentioned due to advanced technology etc. but personally I prefer when it was actors in makeup rather than the fake looking CGI.
Plus these Hobbit films so far haven't matched up to Rings when given the chance, such as Bilbo finding the ring, they filmed the material for rRings and could of so easily reshot that in Hobbit but with Martin Freeman picking the ring up like Ian Holm did in Rings.
Also as someone mentioned regarding Gandalf, there are a number of things he seemed to be shocked at in Rings but he has already come across them in Hobbit films. I can't see why Jackson would not just tie them up if he really did want them all to be connected.
I still do believe they are connected, they just do not the same totally, with a few continuity issues, I think what it comes down to is that it is a shame they didn't put the same amount of passion and hard work went into them as they did with Rings.
even the dwarves seem different. In Rings they were short, squat and stocky. in Hobbit, they seamed simply small humans.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
In Rings there were more men, which might have made the hobbits look shorter, whereas in Hobbit there are more elves and dwarves, perhaps making them seem taller in comparison. Possible explanation.
shareit wasn't height that was the problem but build. in Rings the dwarves were all stocky and broad shouldered. in Hobbit, their shoulders and bodies are the same proportions as humans.
Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain (Isaac Asimov)
It wasn't just build, but facial features and hair. In The Lord of the Rings trilogy, the dwarves looked like dwarves and doughty warriors; in The Hobbit trilogy, Thorin and his nephews were far too pretty, and the rest of the dwarves looked cartoonishly goofy.
_____
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.
Watch this YouTube review to see the difference in dwarf design between the two trilogies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5PapM9xN_qU
_____
Strip away the phony tinsel of Hollywood and you find the real tinsel underneath.
I agree with you; the Lord of the Rings trilogy was fantastic and re- watchable for ever. In the Hobbit the singing and doing the dishes in the first one was terrible already but the river scene in the second was just pathetic and ugly. Much more boring and uninteresting than LOTR.
That was real? I saw that movie, I thought it was bullsh*t
I think you're looking too hard at it.The Lord Of The Rings is the novel , The Hobbit is only a novella.It's nice that Peter Jackson is directing because it gives the prequels some continuity with the original movies.
shareNovel vs Novella? No, and completely irrelevant. One thing I hate about the Hobbit movies is that PJ is always trying to create a connection and a flowing continuity between his LOTR movies and these. It is completely unnecessary to make that a goal. They are already related enough as they need to be. It is almost like a push to sell his old movies.
shareI think that's the main thing. The Hobbit stories were boring because it seemed like the filmmakers and writers felt they had to be long stories and a lot of the dialogue and events seemed stretched out. With less filler scenes and tighter editing, they would've been less boring and they would've had time to spend on the look of the creatures and making better fights scenes with better and cleaner choreography.
How many times do we need to see them traveling, getting lost, and climbing things only to need to travel across the lands all over again? I really liked the dragon and thought it looked really good, but it talked to damn much. Plus you knew no one was going to get hurt and the dragon wasn't going to kill any of them. In the LOTR even though it's obvious who survives they always felt completely vulnerable and in danger.
The LOTR movies were long but didn't feel that way because the chatterers had more interesting things to say to each other and everything that happened had a purpose. I can remember action scenes, quiet scenes, funny scenes, and sad scenes from the LOTR trilogy. I can't remember any scenes from The Hobbit movies except the dragon scenes and the spiders.
^ Very well said.
shareright on
share