The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

maquiladora

Neill Finn of Crowded House, the end credit song from the film:

http://www1.rollingstone.com/hearitnow/player/neilfinn.html

david75

I hate griping before I've even seen it. But why have the dwarves all comedic and yet the orcs look all mean? Surely it should be goblins on this and they should look different I thought as they were a lesser breed than orcs?

Mellor

david75 wrote: »

I hate griping before I've even seen it. But why have the dwarves all comedic and yet the orcs look all mean? Surely it should be goblins on this and they should look different I thought as they were a lesser breed than orcs?

Orc verses Goblins causes confusion really. The usage varies over all the works. They were written over years, and as he researched more, he realised he made some mistakes with his wording, and also want to distance the middle earth creatures from fairy tales.
One way to look at it is;

“Goblins” is the generic phrase for the creatures. A catch-all phrase that covers all.

In LotR, Goblins wasn’t used much. The two types are called Orcs and Uruk-hai. But he does describe the Uruk-hai as being a bigger type of Goblin (the general race).

In the Hobbit, the general term Goblin was used for all. They are mostly the same as Orcs, but those from under the mountains may be a smaller sized tribe than those seen in LotR.
Hobgoblin meant a large Goblin – he later said this was an error as hob means small and corrected this to Uruk-hai for LotR.

So Bolg the goblin leader (above), was the larger hobgoblin type, similar to the Uruk-hai. Think of him as being a naturally large breed, as opposed to those created by Saurman.

Zubeneschamali

Mellor wrote: »

In the Hobbit, the general term Goblin was used for all.

I seem to remember that Tolkien also called them Orcs in the Hobbit: he said something about how the larger Orcs could move at great speed through their tunnels on all fours, somewhere in the bit under the Misty Mountains.

Mellor

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I seem to remember that Tolkien also called them Orcs in the Hobbit: he said something about how the larger Orcs could move at great speed through their tunnels on all fours, somewhere in the bit under the Misty Mountains.

Oh yeah definitely. Just as he briefly slipped in goblins in Lotr, he also used Orcs one or twice in the hobbit. Another example is the sword used by Thorin, "Orcist".

Greyjoy

maquiladora wrote: »

Neill Finn of Crowded House, the end credit song from the film:

http://www1.rollingstone.com/hearitnow/player/neilfinn.html

i think the version that the dwarves sing in the trailer is far better, more emotional. This just sounds sorta antiseptic and sterile like a cover version.

bullvine

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I seem to remember that Tolkien also called them Orcs in the Hobbit: he said something about how the larger Orcs could move at great speed through their tunnels on all fours, somewhere in the bit under the Misty Mountains.

I could be wrong as well but in the fellowship, just before the Balrog shows up, there are goblins on the roof and these have big wide eyes, the are different in appearance to the regular orcs and uruks who capture merry and pippin at the end. Anybody know why that is, I presumed it was because these are orcs from Moria, is that the case?

maquiladora

The complete soundtrack, streaming:

http://www.decca.com/hosting/hobbit/

doubledown

Cineworld have just tweeted that they will be showing The Hobbit in full 48fps in their new IMAX cinema in Dublin.

https://twitter.com/cineworld

Basq

doubledown wrote: »

Cineworld have just tweeted that they will be showing The Hobbit in full 48fps in their new IMAX cinema in Dublin.

https://twitter.com/cineworld

Suprising enough.. didn't expect anywhere here to show it.

Will wait to hear reactions before going near it however.

The divided opinion at the advanced screening left me a little cautious.

tok9

Basq wrote: »

Suprising enough.. didn't expect anywhere here to show it.

Will wait to hear reactions before going near it however.

The divided opinion at the advanced screening left me a little cautious.

Of the movie? Where are these opinions?

doubledown

Yeah, I heard about the mixed reports too but had already booked the IMAX before I even knew it would be 48fps. Gong to see it on opening night so I'll report back here with my verdict...

doubledown

tok9 wrote: »

Of the movie? Where are these opinions?

Not of the movie - of the quality of the 48fps image.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/23698/cinemacon-hobbit-48fps-reactions

Basq

doubledown wrote: »

Not of the movie - of the quality of the 48fps image.

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news/23698/cinemacon-hobbit-48fps-reactions

Yep, the scariest line in that piece is:

Unfortunately that much more lifelike appearance is a little too perfect in that it makes the fakeness of the sets, costumes, make-up etc. much more obvious and gives the film a look akin to video or that vaguely disturbing 'Smooth Motion' effect seen on LCDs in some TV department stores.

Any time I get a new TV, this is the first thing I switch off - This anti-judder / smooth motion look is horrific. And I've been in friends houses where they never switched it off and I can't watch their TV without noticing everything appearing slightly sped up and too smooth. It's horrible!

Zubeneschamali

Basq wrote: »

Any time I get a new TV, this is the first thing I switch off - This anti-judder / smooth motion look is horrific

The TV is interpolating, it is inventing frames to smooth things out. Jackson actually filmed every frame at 48 fps. Yes, it will look different, especially in panning shots, you won't get that traditional, familiar crap flickering.

In 20 years, 24 fps will be like vinyl: a few devotees who don't understand that what they are devoted to is distortion.

Basq

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In 20 years, 24 fps will be like vinyl: a few devotees who don't understand that what they are devoted to is distortion.

I think you're taking the general public's adjustment to change a little too kindly..

.. it's a new technology that few have seen and you're already convinced it's the new best thing for both cinema and cinema goers.

Same thing could have been said about 3D and...

Mellor

Basq wrote: »

I think you're taking the general public's adjustment to change a little too kindly..

.. it's a new technology that few have seen and you're already convinced it's the new best thing for both cinema and cinema goers.

Same thing could have been said about 3D and...

But it's not really new technology, it's the same concept just with more detail.

In the early days frame rates were much lower, 12-16 GPS. Which is why old B&W films have that jerky look. 24 became a standard with sound. I'm not expecting it to be a major change. Some people will complain becausevthey genuinely notice the change and other people whether they notice it not, I'm even expecting some people who see it in 24 to complain about the 48 frame rate.

Zubeneschamali

Basq wrote: »

.. it's a new technology that few have seen and you're already convinced it's the new best thing for both cinema and cinema goers.

The human eye can detect 50Hz flicker, that's why modern TVs are all 100Hz or better. 24 Hz is a joke, no-one would deliberately choose a flickery slow frame rate like that except we inherited it from the days of horse-drawn trams.

Sad Professor

48fps and 60fps will be fantastic for certain kinds of content. Nature documentaries or anything with a lot of movement, like a lot of visual effect-driven Hollywood blockbusters. But like 3D, I don't think it will ever be suitable for low key dramas or period films. 24fps isn't how the human eye sees, but that's point. It adds to the unreality, the dream-like nature of the cinematic experience, which is why many people have compared 48fps to looking like a television soap opera. Perhaps in the future, as Douglas Trumbull has suggested, advances in digital projection will allow directors to choose the frame-rate depending on the scene.

jaykhunter

Has anyone here seen actual real 48fps film footage? Not the phoney 'smooth motion' effect TVs have these days that makes it look like people move at x1.2 speed. I really don't like the latter, but will the real thing be less jarring, or will it look like a high-budget daytime soap?

Zubeneschamali

jaykhunter wrote: »

will it look like a high-budget daytime soap?

Yes, more realistic than flickery old Pathé newsreels.

Right now, TV pictures are better than film, so snobs say film is that way because it is warmer, has more character, is more traditional. All the baloney the clueless unidirectional cable people say about vinyl.

Sad Professor

jaykhunter wrote: »

Has anyone here seen actual real 48fps film footage? Not the phoney 'smooth motion' effect TVs have these days that makes it look like people move at x1.2 speed. I really don't like the latter, but will the real thing be less jarring, or will it look like a high-budget daytime soap?

There are some comparison videos online. See the first two examples below. Notice the reduction in motion blur in the 48fps videos.

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?281621-48FPS-Footage-amp-24FPS-comparison-Shot-with-RED-Realtime-Not-slow-motion

And the soap opera effect has as much to do with lighting and format as framerate. Proper tv dramas have nearly always been shot on film. The combination of digital and 48fps is probably what made many people describe The Hobbit in those terms. Although the reduced (non-existant?) motion blur probably makes things look like they are moving very fast.

It should also be pointed out that most film and digitals projectors are 48fps anyway - they show each frame twice to reduce the flicker. I'm pretty sure the same is true of most televisions that support 24p, i.e. they are actually doing 48hz or 96hz rather than 24hz. So I really don't think flicker is a problem with 24fps as it stands, except perhaps with 3D films.

krudler

Basq wrote: »

Yep, the scariest line in that piece is:



Any time I get a new TV, this is the first thing I switch off - This anti-judder / smooth motion look is horrific. And I've been in friends houses where they never switched it off and I can't watch their TV without noticing everything appearing slightly sped up and too smooth. It's horrible!

It is horrible, makes everything look so unnatural, removes any filmic quality from a movie. tv on display on factory settings are crap, you'd wonder why places like Harvey Norman dont run optimisers on the tvs they have on display, they'll look infinitely better.

DesperateDan

Dunno if this has been brought up in the thread but where is the best place to see The Hobbit?

Are their any cinemas at all that will be showing in at 48fps, on a screen that you can actually appreciate the 4k cameras they are using in all its 3D glory? Cineworld talks a lot about digitally remastering it for the imax experience but I would like to see it the way Jackson intended really

maquiladora

Does anyone know if all the IMAX screenings in Cineworld will be 48fps or just some? I want to book tickets for the 48fps version and just want to make sure.

Sad Professor

Cineworld probably don't even know yet. They are at the mercy of the distributor and IMAX. However, I'd imagine all of the screenings in the IMAX screen will be 48fps - and 3D. Unless they decide to offer a non-3D version in IMAX in which case those showings will probably be 24fps. But I'd say the chances of that are slim.

DesperateDan

So Imax = 48fps? (as well as better resolution and sound) http://www.cineworld.ie/whatson/5758

Psychedelic

I have zero interest in seeing The Hobbit but I am interested in the whole 48fps thing. When will cinemas be capable of showing films in this frame rate? And are there many other films due out in future that will be in 48fps?

krudler

Psychedelic wrote: »

I have zero interest in seeing The Hobbit but I am interested in the whole 48fps thing. When will cinemas be capable of showing films in this frame rate? And are there many other films due out in future that will be in 48fps?

I hope not if it looks like blur free hyper realism, will wait and see.

qz

Booked my ticket for the LOTR marathon in December in the Lighthouse. Cannot. Wait.