Printable View
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Parts looked video, but more like a high end soap opera than home video. My film geek friend kept using the phrase "it had the immediacy of video."
Since I had heard about this debate I was kind of looking for this, but I think I would have noticed it any way. A lot of people would not.[/QUOTE]
I see, thanks, would you have liked if LOTR was done this way? Or do you think it would not work for an epic?
[QUOTE=kentatm]i personally hate 48 FPS
[B]the claims that it makes shit look fake are true.
you can blatantly tell its a movie set.
you can friggin see the damn make up caked on actors faces its so bad.
its basically the same as how some of the newer TVs are so good you have to go into their settings and downgrade the ****ers b/c they make it easy to see how the lighting and sets are obviously fake.
[/B]
48 FPS essentially makes a movie look like an expensive stage play.
i get that it will eventually be the standard but until people relearn how to do lighting, sets, makeup, etc, its going to look like ass.[/QUOTE]
I remember a few months back a poster created a thread titled "Marvel Avengers is the greatest movie ever" or something like that. Anyway, a few weeks after the Blue Ray/ DVD was released, Walmart had the BR version running on multiple hdtvs, one of which had a feature called "motion plus", which basically doubles the frame rate of a movie's animation, and adds vivid clarity to film.
The problem I saw with this feature is that it allows you to instantly see a clear divide with whatever was done using computers, versus whatever was shot on a film set. While the CG stuff looked great, any "on-set" part of the film, would show with a clarity that would instantly take you out of the film, looking somewhat like a "behind the scenes" segment on Entertainment Tonight or something, where you can hear the director yell "Action" b4 an action scene starts.
The film viewed this way destroys the uniform "look" of a film viewed with fewer frames and that "gritty" somewhat grainy look that we're all used to when we normally watch movies.
I would warn anyone to NEVER watch this movie with Motion Plus turned on. It cheapens the hell out of the film when watched this way. I'm just glad I only caught like 3-5 minutes of the film like this (still gotta watch the whole thing).
[QUOTE=embersyc]Undoubtedly Gollum looks 1000% times better than in the LotR in both versions of the Hobbit, and Gollum looked fine in HFR. The scenes I had trouble with with the Goblin King and his minions, they did not look good in HFR imo, especially in the action scenes, although I thought those scenes were weak in both versions.[/QUOTE]
Peter Jackson did an interview with Stephen Colbert and he said the effects they had for Gollum were more advanced this time around. They had more muscles active in his face for better reactions.
I think if LOTR were done this way, I would say the same things.
48fps might just be something we will get used to.
[QUOTE=KevinNYC]Did you see the high frame rate version?[/QUOTE]
Yes. The CGI portions were excellent. When they were inside the mountain with all those orcs....wow simply amazing. And that one orc that's on the zip line :lol
The scene where they are stuck on the mountain looks kinda hokey due to the increased frame rate.
[QUOTE=Patrick Chewing]When they were inside the mountain with all those orcs....wow simply amazing. [/QUOTE]
I thought those scenes were terrible. It looked like a video game.