The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

[Ravi]

It was shot with the Red Epic. Not every movie shot with the same camera looks the same, since they are lit, set designed, and graded differently.

[InTylerWeTrust]

It was shot with the Red Epic. Not every movie shot with the same camera looks the same, since they are lit, set designed, and graded differently.

CAPTAIN OBVIOUS STRIKES AGAIN!

No, but all kidding aside. Very few people can make Digital look as good as Film (Fincher and Soderbergh for example).  I just wish Jackson had shot this on film. I share Brando's opinion:

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.

But whatever, I'm watching the movie either way.

[matt35mm]

Ravi was also pointing out that The Hobbit was shot with the Red Epic, not the Red One, as the screen-test that you posted was. It's a newer model that shoots at a higher resolution. Not that that means that it will look better, but what Ravi said was still worth noting. It's hard to compare digitally-shot movies because the grading alone makes all the difference, and that's something that you can expect to be tweaked in the next few months, creating a more pleasing image than what we've seen in the trailers and what the people at Cinemacon saw. We don't really know what The Hobbit will look like yet.

I have to say, though, I've got so many doubts about Skinny Peter Jackson. For the past decade he's seemed to be have been more focused on technology than on holding onto the weird sensibilities and humor that made him a different kind of filmmaker in the first place. I don't really think what he shot this on will make a difference to the quality of the film, which I have low expectations for, and my main interest in watching it now is just to see what the fuck this 48fps 3D shit is all about. I've always had tremendous goodwill toward Peter Jackson, but The Lovely Bones was actually THE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN, and I'm not convinced his heart is even really in this (just taking over the reigns from Guillermo Del Toro to keep the project alive...). I can't bring myself to seriously anticipate the follow-up to The Lovely Fucking Bones. He's gonna have to make an extraordinarily good movie to win me over again. But I don't think that The Hobbit(s) will be it. They'll be aiight, but aiight's just aiight.

[polkablues]

He's contracted James Cameron Syndrome: he's so obsessed with being on the cutting edge of the new technology that he cares more about what you can do than about why you should do it.

[matt35mm]

Yes, but James Cameron wears it better. I'm still a big fan of WETA and I remain excited by what they do, and I realize that Jackson is absolutely central to that. Gollum in The Two Towers was a game changer. I still value Peter Jackson as force in the industry and will always go see what he comes up with. I just don't really believe in him as a director right now. I hope he proves me wrong. All that technology pushing would be totally fine with me if it weren't for the fact that he directed THE WORST MOVIE I HAVE EVER SEEN.

[polkablues]

I'll take the Worst Movie You've Ever Seen over the slice of Wonderbread that was Avatar. At least a terrible movie can still inspire a reaction; Avatar was just... there.  It was a dead fly on a windowsill.

[InTylerWeTrust]

I'll take the Worst Movie You've Ever Seen over the slice of Wonderbread that was Avatar. At least a terrible movie can still inspire a reaction; Avatar was just... there.  It was a dead fly on a windowsill.

Yeah... I still cannot believe Michael mann called it one of his favorites movies... 

Matt, Lovely Bones is the WORST MOVIE YOU EVER SEEN?... Just wait until you watch some Late 70's - 80's Godard movies, you will want to put forks into your eyeballs.

P.S: I still don't understand why Jackson decided to tell the story from a little dead girl's POV and not from the killer's POV. Makes no fucking sense.

[matt35mm]

P.S: I still don't understand why Jackson decided to tell the story from a little dead girl's POV and not from the killer's POV. Makes no fucking sense.

That's how it was in the book. I read the book when I thought Lynne Ramsay was gonna do it.

Hmm, I remember Avatar getting lots of strong reactions from people. I can recognize that the story was vanilla, though. I admit that I watched it once, enjoyed it enough, and forgot about it. I guess that's flipped with The Lovely Bones, where everyone else seems to have forgotten about it but I'm still hung up on it.

[RegularKarate]

I've got so many doubts about Skinny Peter Jackson.

He's not skinny anymore.
I think it was P that pointed out how much happier he looks being fat and working on hobbits instead of being skinny and working on dead girls.

[InTylerWeTrust]

His weight is drastically different everytime I see him...... He's the New Oprah.

[matt35mm]

I've got so many doubts about Skinny Peter Jackson.

He's not skinny anymore.

Well in that case, maybe The Hobbit will be great after all!

[InTylerWeTrust]

"Xixax: Judging Directors talents by how Fat they are...."

[Sleepless]

"Xixax: Judging Directors talents by how Fat they are...."

Invalidated:

[InTylerWeTrust]

POINT TAKEN.

[Ravi]

http://www.slashfilm.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-tickets-will-cost-the-same-for-48-fps-and-24-fps/

'The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey' Tickets Will Cost The Same For 48 FPS And 24 FPS
Posted on Wednesday, August 22nd, 2012 by Germain Lussier

When it comes to premium services, moviegoers are used to paying a little more. Almost all theaters charge more for films that are in IMAX, 3D or feature assigned seating and a lack of commercials. So when Peter Jackson announced that The Hobbit would be shot and distributed in 48 frames per second, the first films ever to do so, most assumed the higher frame rate would result in an increased ticket price. Variety now reports that won't be the case. When The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey hits theaters this December 14, a 3D ticket to see it in 48 frames per second will cost the same as a 3D ticket to see it in 24 frames per second. There's more after the jump.

According to Variety's report, the original thought was for theaters to charge more for the enhanced, 48 frame per second experience of Peter Jackson's latest film. However, since The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey will already be in 3D and that commands a premium rate, Warner Bros. convinced the exhibitors to not charge even more to see the film in 48 frames per second.

Initially, it won't be that big a deal anyway. When the film is released, the majority of screenings will be in the traditional 24 frames per second format and the 48 frame per second screenings will be much more limited. That decision was made after the format was met with controversy when it debuted at CinemaCon earlier this year. However, the feeling is if this enhancement does take off and more filmmakers and films employ the higher frame rate (including the second two films of Jackson's trilogy, James Cameron has pledged to shoot his Avatar sequels in at least 48 frames per second, if not more) there could, eventually, be an additional charge.

Are you surprised the studio and exhibitors voted in favor of the film patron in this decision? How long till you expect to pay more for 48 frames and will you seek out the format come December 14?