The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Jeremy Blackman]

Can't there be a middleground between 24fps and 48fps? I know I've captured video at weird framerates in FCP just to experiment... it can't be that hard with video, right? What are the technical challenges?

[Ravi]

I think the higher framerate is meant to help 3D presentations look better. It probably isn't necessary or preferable for 2D screenings.

I'm not sure 10 minutes of footage with unfinished VFX and color correction is the best demo for this. I'll wait until I see this on the big screen to judge. But my instinct tells me that these higher framerates work better for 3D screenings and non-cinematic presentations like amusement park rides and simulations.

Can't there be a middleground between 24fps and 48fps? I know I've captured video at weird framerates in FCP just to experiment... it can't be that hard with video, right? What are the technical challenges?

Sure, there can be, but 48fps was chosen to make it easier to extract a 24fps version for theaters that can't handle 48fps. James Cameron and Douglas Trumbull are advocates of even higher framerates, as high as 120fps.

[MacGuffin]

Third 'Hobbit' Film Confirmed
An extra film, announced Monday, will create a second trilogy from director Peter Jackson.
Source: THR

After a three-film Lord of the Rings series, New Line, MGM and Warner Bros. will return to Middle Earth for another trilogy.

The three companies and series architect Peter Jackson announced Monday that The Hobbit, the prequel to the LOTR series that was initially planned to be broken into two parts, will instead be split into three. Sources tell The Hollywood Reporter that the third film will be released in summer 2014. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey hits theaters Dec. 14, and the second film, There and Back Again, is due Dec. 13, 2013.

"Upon recently viewing a cut of the first film, and a chunk of the second, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and I were very pleased with the way the story was coming together," Jackson said in a statement. "We recognized that the richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, gave rise to a simple question: Do we tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as filmmakers and fans was an unreserved 'yes.'

"We know the strength of our cast and of the characters they have brought to life," the Oscar-winning director continued. "We know creatively how compelling and engaging the story can be, and -- lastly, and most importantly -- we know how much of the tale of Bilbo Baggins, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur would remain untold if we did not fully realize this complex and wonderful adventure. I'm delighted that New Line, MGM and Warner Bros. are equally enthusiastic about bringing fans this expansive tale across three films."

Jackson ran footage of his first Hobbit film -- the first two were shot simultaneously in New Zealand -- at this month's Comic-Con in San Diego. The films star Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins and return from the LOTR series Ian McKellen as Gandalf, Andy Serkis as Smeagol and, in smaller roles, Elijah Wood as Frodo and Orlando Bloom as Legolas.

The director has said he filled in two films with information that the series author, J.R.R. Tolkien, wrote later and put in an appendix at the end of the third LOTR book, The Return of the King. (Jackson's Return of the King won a record-tying 11 Oscars, including best picture, in 2004.) He teased at Comic-Con that he had shot plenty of extra footage.

[polkablues]

UGH.

[Pubrick]

^ agreed.

Instead of letting go of this godforsaken franchise and trying to make a legitimate masterpiece, he's just becoming master p..

[MacGuffin]

New Trailer

[Ravi]

http://www.slashfilm.com/revolution-limited-48fps-version-the-hobbit-dramatically-downscaled-distribution/

The Revolution Will Be Limited: 48FPS Version of 'The Hobbit' Gets Dramatically Downscaled Distribution
Posted on Wednesday, August 8th, 2012 by Russ Fischer

Peter Jackson's adaptation of The Hobbit is a Big Deal for a few different reasons. It's his return to Middle-Earth, and to the stories that established him as one of the biggest directors working today. It is now the beginning of a trilogy, rather than a mere two-film cycle. And, for exhibitors, the most important aspect is that it is the first mainstream film shot with what we'll refer to as HFR (high frame rate).

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was shot at 48 frames per second, rather than the film industry standard 24fps. The first public presentation of footage, at CinemaCon this past spring, didn't go so well, with audiences finding that the increased detail seen in the HFR footage made the film look cheap, rather than more impressive.

Cinemacon is a particularly bad place for a showing like that to bomb, because it was Jackson and Warner Bros. best moment to convince exhibitors that they should upgrade to equipment that could project the HFR footage. We don't have data on precisely how many cinemas are ready to take the HFR plunge at this point, but we do now know that when The Hobbit opens on December 14 of this year, it will be seen in native HFR projection in only a handful of cities.

Variety reports that people who have seen HFR footage from The Hobbit recently say "the picture now looks vastly better than the test footage shown this April at CinemaCon, which had not yet undergone post-production polishing."

Even so, the HFR version will get a very limited release this December. In part, that's because no theaters are currently HFR-ready, though Variety says that some theaters will be able to work with the standard beginning with a simple software upgrade that goes live next month.

WB will do a very limited release, "perhaps nt even into all major cities," to start getting audiences used to seeing HFR. There may be a wider rollout after the initial opening, but that will no doubt be based on reception to the first release wave.

Go ahead and parse whether this is really a tech issue, or if WB is truly afraid of audience reception to a film that it needs to become a gigantic success. it's worth noting that showing the film in 24fps isn't as simple as making a menu selection, as the footage has to be down-converted to add motion blur and avoid a choppy appearance. That conversion was going to happen regardless of this release pattern, however, as even in a best-case scenario there was never a chance that all possible theaters would be HFR-ready in time for the film's opening.

[polkablues]

Here's my dilemma: I want to see the movie in 48fps out of curiosity, but I don't want them to use that ticket sale as an excuse to start making everything 48fps. Should I just buy a ticket for something else and sneak in?  Bear in mind I have no morals or ethics to speak of.

[Sleepless]

Yes.

[InTylerWeTrust]

Should I just buy a ticket for something else and sneak in?  Bear in mind I have no morals or ethics to speak of.

Ah, Brings back many childhood memories  .....

[MacGuffin]

You mean yesterday?

[Jeremy Blackman]

[InTylerWeTrust]

You mean yesterday?

Yes....

[Brando]

Well, not only was it shot at 48 fps it was also shot using the RED camera. The film is going to have an ultra realistic or digital look to it. I imagine even the prints that are converted down to 24 fps are going have a slight digital feel. RED cameras look closer/best to film than any other digital camera but it's still not film. While most of the films shot using the RED have come out looking great, I think for historical and fantasy films like the Hobbit need that "film look." Maybe some sort of ultra Fincher stylized look could work for the right historical drama but I couldn't get pass how out of place the digital look of Public Enemies was while I enjoyed it for Collateral.

[InTylerWeTrust]

shot using the RED camera.

You mean this camera?:

Looks fucking amazing. But yeah, not really a look that suits a movie like THE HOBBIT. I really wish Jackson had gone the PTA road and shot it on 65mm Film. I can only imagine...