The Hobbit

[MadMonk]

Between 24 and 30fps, depending on the format. Some people claim that it makes a movie "too real".
Here's a good overview - Why movies are moving from 24 to 48 fps | ExtremeTech

[NoOkie]

OK I have to ask... what difference does 48FPS make to a movie? What FPS are movies usually shot at?

Movies are typically 24 FPS, I believe.

As for the difference, everything was smoother. I have a hard time explaining it, but I guess it was almost like watching actors on a stage vs. actors in a movie. I'm tempted to go watch in 2D/24FPS to compare.

[Hawk405359]

OK I have to ask... what difference does 48FPS make to a movie? What FPS are movies usually shot at?

Normally they're in 24. Basically, think of it like switching from standard definition to high definition, you see fast scenes clear and smoother, but things like makeup and CGI also stand out a lot more.

[kelroy55]

Good article.... I would think movie makers would want their movies to be almost life like. I wonder if the Blu Ray release will be from the 48 or from 24.

[SoonerDave]

Think the idea actually is to push the trade of the industry away from the 24fps "standard" that was adopted decades ago, but has never really been updated to contemporary technology. I have read some articles, in which I'm only 95% out of my depth ( ), that suggest movies really shouldn't be shot at less than 60fps.

Actually, the frame rate and exposure aren't necessarily the same. That is, each frame of film may constitute 1/24th of a second of what's seen on screen, but the exposure is actually at least 1/48. Having played with still sports photography in a very limited way, I've learned the hard way how difficult it is to get "frozen" motion (eg during a play) if you're dealing with exposures much slower than, say, 1/125th. If the real exposure on film were only 1/24, any camera or actor motion would create a slurried, messy blur on screen. I think a great many movies are shot at a minimum of 1/48 exposure, with the cinematographer controlling depth of field via aperture to minimize motion blur between frames.

The reality is that the 48fps (and higher) rates are producing more realistic and authentic images, giving directors a great deal more latitude in composing scenes and imagery. There's a bit of a fight in Hollywood over this "more authentic" photography versus the "more traditional" photography born of a mulitple-decades-old mechanical standard. Sounds like Jackson et al are trying to leverage their reputations to drag the rest of their professional world into standards that were possible a long time ago, but no one had the "oomph" to push them.

[Stan Silliman]

Lots of Jewish symbolism and biblical inferences among the dwarfs... led by a Moses (Gandorf) with his staff and tricks, etc.

[BBatesokc]

Haven't seen it yet, but I hope the higher resolution isn't like what we've experienced with our BluRay player and our new very high resolution flat screen TV. Spent a few thousand dollars on a TV, only to have to fiddle with the menu and severally downgrade the resolution because everything we watched 'looked fake.' Wasn't just BluRay movies (which often looked like animation from a PS3 game), but also regular HD TV. Shows like CSI, etc. looked very much like they were on a sound stage somewhere. I could have saved alot of money and just bought a large but lower resolution TV. I'd hate to see movies go this direction.

[ShiroiHikari]

I hate high frame rates. Makes movies look like soap operas. I'd rather movies didn't move to 48fps as the new standard. I have enough trouble suspending my disbelief with CGI as it is. Higher frame rates just make it even more difficult. And I doubt they're gonna spend a kajillion dollars on every movie to make sure every single costume and prosthetic looks as real as possible. Movies will get even more expensive to make and then ticket prices will go up yet again, and then Hollywood will wonder why box office sales are down.

Anyway, enough rambling. I saw the movie in 2D at 24fps. I was pretty disappointed; this story did not need to be dragged out like this. As a result, it has the strange problem of being both boring and overwhelming. Also, for a movie called "The Hobbit", Bilbo isn't on screen nearly enough. I feel like Gandalf and Thorin Oakenshield had more screen time than Bilbo did. And Radagast the Brown on his bunny-driven sleigh made me cringe, partly because it's such a ridiculous idea and partly because the CGI on that part was fake-looking. Was adding him in there really necessary?

It also bugged me that they shoehorned in people like Galadriel and Saruman. As if they needed to do that to get people to see the movie. I was gonna see it anyway! Their scenes in Rivendell really didn't add anything to the film. This isn't LOTR; this is The Hobbit. The two books differ quite a bit in content, tone, and themes. These movies shouldn't be trying to copy LOTR.

But that's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people disagree with me. *shrug*

[MadMonk]

Lots of Jewish symbolism and biblical inferences among the dwarfs... led by a Moses (Gandorf) with his staff and tricks, etc.

Really? Aside from the Moses reference, where else do you see this?

[venture]

Lots of Jewish symbolism and biblical inferences among the dwarfs... led by a Moses (Gandorf) with his staff and tricks, etc.

I could see some references, but I think this is mostly left to some people's interpretations. This isn't Narnia where it is a completely intended to invoke Christianity in the themes.

I hate high frame rates. Makes movies look like soap operas. I'd rather movies didn't move to 48fps as the new standard. I have enough trouble suspending my disbelief with CGI as it is. Higher frame rates just make it even more difficult. And I doubt they're gonna spend a kajillion dollars on every movie to make sure every single costume and prosthetic looks as real as possible. Movies will get even more expensive to make and then ticket prices will go up yet again, and then Hollywood will wonder why box office sales are down.

Anyway, enough rambling. I saw the movie in 2D at 24fps. I was pretty disappointed; this story did not need to be dragged out like this. As a result, it has the strange problem of being both boring and overwhelming. Also, for a movie called "The Hobbit", Bilbo isn't on screen nearly enough. I feel like Gandalf and Thorin Oakenshield had more screen time than Bilbo did. And Radagast the Brown on his bunny-driven sleigh made me cringe, partly because it's such a ridiculous idea and partly because the CGI on that part was fake-looking. Was adding him in there really necessary?

It also bugged me that they shoehorned in people like Galadriel and Saruman. As if they needed to do that to get people to see the movie. I was gonna see it anyway! Their scenes in Rivendell really didn't add anything to the film. This isn't LOTR; this is The Hobbit. The two books differ quite a bit in content, tone, and themes. These movies shouldn't be trying to copy LOTR.

But that's just my opinion, and I know a lot of people disagree with me. *shrug*

I can understand where you are coming from. I expected a lot of reactions like this from people who expected to see just "The Hobbit". However, it was made clear that they wanted to tie this in with the LOTR trilogy at some point. I can definitely appreciate the effort put in to expand this to a trilogy by utilizing the unpublished work, The Silmarillion, and such in the movie. Many of the added events are from those other books that otherwise would be left untouched when it comes to a movie.

From a total Tolkien geek, I found a few of the inserts odd but at the end I was happy they were there. It helped to expand the universe for those that haven't bothered to read the books and just go to watch the movies.

[Richard at Remax]

I have a motion enhancer on my Sony TV that I turn on only for sports, other than that when you have it on things look fake and the tv almost has a 3D looking effect that gives me a headache.

[Stan Silliman]

Really? Aside from the Moses reference, where else do you see this?

The Dwarfs (patterned after the Norse Dwarfs ... a lost tribe w/ bushy eyebrows & big noses)
Dwarfs being expert goldsmiths and jewelers
Returning to the Promised Land (the Lonely Mountain)
They spoke a Semitic language
Gandorf using his staff to slice off a piece of mountain to let the sun drown the trolls (parting the Red Sea)

I observed this, then checked to see if I were the only one. Turns out a guy named J.R. Tolkien did also:

The Hobbit

The representation of Dwarves as evil changed dramatically with The Hobbit. Here the Dwarves became occasionally comedic and bumbling, but largely seen as honourable, serious-minded, but still portraying some negative characteristics such as being gold-hungry, overly proud and occasionally officious. Tolkien was now influenced by his own selective reading of medieval texts regarding the Jewish people and their history.[5] The dwarves' characteristics of being dispossessed of their homeland (the Lonely Mountain, their ancestral home, is the goal the exiled Dwarves seek to reclaim), and living among other groups whilst retaining their own culture are all derived from the medieval image of Jews,[5][6] whilst their warlike nature stems from accounts in the Hebrew Bible.[5] Medieval views of Jews also saw them as having a propensity for making well-crafted and beautiful things,[5] a trait shared with Norse dwarves.[4] For The Hobbit almost all dwarf-names are taken from the Dvergatal or "Catalogue of the Dwarves", found in the Poetic Edda.[7][8] However, more than just supplying names, the "Catalogue of the Dwarves" appears to have inspired Tolkien to supply meaning and context to the list of names—that they travelled together, and this in turn became the quest told of in The Hobbit.[9] The Dwarves' written language is represented on maps and in illustrations by Anglo-Saxon Runes. The Dwarven calendar invented for The Hobbit reflects the Jewish calendar in beginning in late autumn.[5] The dwarves taking Bilbo out of his complacent existence has been seen as an eloquent metaphor for the "impoverishment of Western society without Jews."[6]

The Lord of the Rings

When writing The Lord of the Rings Tolkien continued many of the themes he had set up in The Hobbit. When giving Dwarves their own language (Khuzdul) Tolkien decided to create an analogue of a Semitic language influenced by Hebrew phonology. Like medieval Jewish groups, the Dwarves use their own language only amongst themselves, and adopted the languages of those they live amongst for the most part, for example taking public names from the cultures they lived within, whilst keeping their "true-names" and true language a secret.[10] Along with a few words in Khuzdul, Tolkien also developed runes of his own invention (the Cirth), said to have been invented by Elves and later adopted by the Dwarves. Tolkien further underlines the diaspora of the Dwarves with the lost stronghold of the Mines of Moria. In The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien uses the main dwarf character Gimli to finally reconcile the conflict between Elves and Dwarves through showing great courtesy to Galadriel and forming a deep friendship with Legolas. The Gimli-Legolas relationship has been seen as Tolkien's reply toward "Gentile anti-Semitism and Jewish exclusiveness".[6]

Tolkien also elaborated on Jewish influence on his Dwarves in a letter: "I do think of the 'Dwarves' like Jews: at once native and alien in their habitations, speaking the languages of the country, but with an accent due to their own private tongue..."[11]

The Silmarillion

After preparing The Lord of the Rings, Tolkien returned again to the matter of the Silmarillion, in which he gave the Dwarves a creation myth. The most Dwarf-centric story from The Book of Lost Tales, "The Nauglafring", was not redrafted to fit with the later positive portrayal of the dwarves from The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings, nor other events in the Silmarillion,[12] leading Christopher Tolkien significantly to rewrite it with input from Guy Gavriel Kay in preparation for publication.

The Later Silmarillion and last writings

Sometime before 1969 Tolkien wrote the essay Of Dwarves and Men, in which detailed consideration was given to the Dwarves' use of language, that the names given in the stories were of Northern Mannish origin, and Khuzdul being their own secret tongue and the naming of the Seven Houses of the Dwarves. The essay represents the last of Tolkien's writing regarding the Dwarves and was published in volume 12 of The History of Middle-earth in 1996.

In the last interview before his death, Tolkien, after discussing the nature of Elves, briefly says of his Dwarves: "The dwarves of course are quite obviously, wouldn't you say that in many ways they remind you of the Jews? Their words are Semitic, obviously, constructed to be Semitic."[13]

[MadMonk]

Interesting. I'd never really thought of the story in that way.
You made me want to do some more reading about it. Wikipedia has a nice page on the subject, in case anyone else is interested.
J. R. R. Tolkien's influences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, where did you find that information? Got a link?

[Stan Silliman]

Interesting. I'd never really thought of the story in that way.
You made me want to do some more reading about it. Wikipedia has a nice page on the subject, in case anyone else is interested.
J. R. R. Tolkien's influences - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

BTW, where did you find that information? Got a link?

It was a wikipedia link, also. Here: Dwarf Middle-earth

[Ginkasa]

Haven't seen it yet, but I hope the higher resolution isn't like what we've experienced with our BluRay player and our new very high resolution flat screen TV. Spent a few thousand dollars on a TV, only to have to fiddle with the menu and severally downgrade the resolution because everything we watched 'looked fake.' Wasn't just BluRay movies (which often looked like animation from a PS3 game), but also regular HD TV. Shows like CSI, etc. looked very much like they were on a sound stage somewhere. I could have saved alot of money and just bought a large but lower resolution TV. I'd hate to see movies go this direction.

It's a different. The higher frame rate has nothing to do with resolution, but with the amount of still images coming at you per second. Incidentally, the "fake" look is still a concern some people have had with HFR, so you may not like it anyway.

[Teo9969]

If I remember correctly, Tolkien was an ardent Catholic, was friends with C.S. Lewis for a period, and incorporated Christians themes heavily throughout the books.

[Hawk405359]

I'd say it was more subtle in the themes. Man's triumph over evil with the help of the innate spirituality (although it takes a much different form in the books), the nature of power to corrupt, the desolation of evil, the complete delineation of good and evil (as opposed to modern art which tends to humanize the evil forces), the presence of a higher power that the elves/wizards answer to. You could probably make a hundred other parallels, although many of them would be just as much literary devices as Christian themes.

Compare that to C.S. Lewis, who flat out wrote Jesus into Narnia. Tolkein would have never gone that far.

[venture]

I'd say it was more subtle in the themes. Man's triumph over evil with the help of the innate spirituality (although it takes a much different form in the books), the nature of power to corrupt, the desolation of evil, the complete delineation of good and evil (as opposed to modern art which tends to humanize the evil forces), the presence of a higher power that the elves/wizards answer to. You could probably make a hundred other parallels, although many of them would be just as much literary devices as Christian themes.

Compare that to C.S. Lewis, who flat out wrote Jesus into Narnia. Tolkein would have never gone that far.

Yeah exactly. The themes are pretty classic morality themes that can be connected to everything. Vast majority of people would never draw the connection unless they were either looking for it or they just immediately connect themes that quickly. Narnia was very much in your face, here it is, and people that never touched the books knew the Christian theme was being pushed.

Whenever writing a fantasy story chances are we are always going to pull from person viewpoints, beliefs, and morals in how our characters act out in various situations. I don't doubt his Catholic background influenced the characters in the books, but it is much more subtle and not "here is a lion...i mean God...i mean a lion."

[MadMonk]

I saw The Hobbit this afternoon at the Warren IMAX. I liked it for the most part, but the pacing was a little slow at first. The sequence of events and the artistic license with the story didn't throw me off too badly. All in all, it was a great afternoon at the movies with the family and I'm looking forward to getting a better look at Smaug in the next one.

The Warren IMAX was impressive as always.

[Dustin]

The Warren IMAX was impressive as always.

It's the best!

[kelroy55]

I need to go see something there, I've heard a lot of good things about it.

[SoonerDave]

I need to go see something there, I've heard a lot of good things about it.

This. It's great.

And I can't tell you how stinking spoiled rotten I've become by the Warren. My daughter wanted to go see "Wreck it Ralph" for her birthday last night, and the only place I could find was the AMC at Quail Springs. While it was a nice, basic theater, the place wasn't vacuumed, the seats were hard and didn't rock, the row in front of you was knocking your knees, etc. etc., and I realized, "oh, wait, this isn't the Warren."

Mind you, I'm not at all knocking the AMC at QSM. It was perfectly fine and we enjoyed the movie very much. But it just wasn't the Warren. Those guys have returned movie watching into an experience again.

Like I said, spoiled rotten. I can hardly wait until the new Trek movie shows up at the Warren IMAX in 4.5 months.

[SoonerDave]

I hate high frame rates. Makes movies look like soap operas. I'd rather movies didn't move to 48fps as the new standard. I have enough trouble suspending my disbelief with CGI as it is. Higher frame rates just make it even more difficult.

Think the higher frame rates are on the way one way or the other. There seems to be quite a push from the directorial end to get away from the older standard.

[NoOkie]

This. It's great.

And I can't tell you how stinking spoiled rotten I've become by the Warren. My daughter wanted to go see "Wreck it Ralph" for her birthday last night, and the only place I could find was the AMC at Quail Springs. While it was a nice, basic theater, the place wasn't vacuumed, the seats were hard and didn't rock, the row in front of you was knocking your knees, etc. etc., and I realized, "oh, wait, this isn't the Warren."

Mind you, I'm not at all knocking the AMC at QSM. It was perfectly fine and we enjoyed the movie very much. But it just wasn't the Warren. Those guys have returned movie watching into an experience again.

Like I said, spoiled rotten. I can hardly wait until the new Trek movie shows up at the Warren IMAX in 4.5 months.

How does the IMAX compare with the balcony seats? We saw the Hobbit in the balcony and really enjoyed it. I'm pretty partial to beer at my seat, though.

[SoonerDave]

How does the IMAX compare with the balcony seats? We saw the Hobbit in the balcony and really enjoyed it. I'm pretty partial to beer at my seat, though.

The IMAX experience wants to be more immersive, while the balcony seats want to provide top-notch, at-your-seat service. I think they're two different beasts, frankly, depending on your preferences. For a date night, the balcony is super nice - the at-your-seat service is great, especially if you order a dinner. If you're wanting the maximum visual experience for the movie, IMAX is the way to go.

A co-worker has relayed that he and his wife splurged on a Director's Lounge experience recently and said it was awesome. While it obviously isn't IMAX, its probably as close to a balcony service+IMAX-kindred immersion as you can get.