Discussion in 'Community' started by -Courtney-, Nov 25, 2006.
He won't in the movies either
Most likely because LOTR wasn't filmed in high definition, so even in Blu-ray it has smaller size than the Hobbit.
Oh I see
Will be getting the EE since i love the EE of the LOTR's, can't wait
That's not how it works.
LotR is on 35mm film-- the standard before Lucas and others started changing it-- which is "high definition" in a sense and it was scanned digitally in 1080p for the Blu-ray.
Oh, and while some digital cameras can now match the "look" of film in my opinion (whatever was used for Game of Thrones and some movies, I don't remember the brand), the Red camera used for The Hobbit produces an ugly, flat, "fake"-looking picture. Blech. LotR is far superior.
Exactly. On a more competent note, was anyone honestly expecting a significantly lengthier runtime? Are there any complaints about something missing from the first ninety pages of Tolkien's book? There's been a significant outcry over this news across the web, and while I can get behind the hate for the box art (even as such materials become less significant by the year, given the supposed inevitable migration to digital downloads), I don't understand any argument for why these films need to be any longer in the first place. You're already getting a word-by-word adaptation of the book with meandering subplot after meandering subplot piled on to fill the running time.
p.s. I felt guilty for enjoying that snippet between Elrond and Bilbo.
I wanted more than thirteen minutes simply because I like spending time in Middle-earth.
This would only be valid if there were no CGI shots in the films. The film was already scanned once in order for all the digital stuff to be added in - the question is what resolution was the final product made.
Um, it was scanned digitally to add effects, yes, but it was still filmed using 35mm cameras and printed on 35mm. There were almost no digital projectors in 2001-2003, so 35mm prints were sent out to theaters and that is what you saw. Like I said, it was the industry standard. Almost everything produced before the 2000's and much of what was produced during that decade is on film. You said LotR is not "high definition." In the case of the VHS and DVD and some digital download releases, you are correct because that's in the nature of those formats. But with the Blu-ray release, you are wrong. It is in 1080p same as The Hobbit Blu-ray. With the theatrical release, you are technically correct since "HD" usually refers to digital formats-- but in reference to resolution and picture quality, you are wrong. If 35mm weren't "high definition," there'd be no point in Blu-ray re-releases of anything made before the 2000's because they wouldn't look much better than DVD, if at all.
Keanu Reeves made a pretty good documentary about the industry's transition from film to digital and the differences between the two called Side by Side, and the experts featured probably explain things better than I do.
Yes, but unlike the original film footage, the added CGI shots had lower resolution, because they're digital and not analogue. So logically the final combined product only has as good resolution as those CGI shots and elements. The Hobbit was filmed in HD (5k, I believe), and even all its CGI stuff was done in that resolution (this was even mentioned in one of the weblogs, I think, that they had to make all the models a lot more detailed than in LOTR, due to the higher resolution). So my point is that 35 mm being the highest resolution, due to its analogue nature, in the end it's irrelevant due to the high number of overlaying CGI shots that have limited resolution, and probably weren't done with Blu Ray in mind.
No, LotR's effects were done with giant movie screens in mind same as The Hobbit. Obviously they're less advanced (though I think only Gollum actually looked any better in TUJ), but that doesn't mean they did it in a tiny resolution.
And I finally bothered to look at the article. The movie is only on two discs. The 5-disc version contains the two-disc normal BD version and the two-disc 3D BD version. The fifth blu-ray is for special features.
I thought the trolls in The Hobbit looked just as bad as the cave troll in LotR.
So... the crux behind your argument that "LOTR wasn't filmed in high resolution so it wouldn't take up as much data as The Hobbit" is the belief that effect shots were rendered in resolutions sub-1080p/Blu-Ray? Am I reading this appropriately?
While I don't know the exact resolution of LOTR's effects work, I am aware that effects work for the Star Wars special editions, as well as that for The Phantom Menace, involved a digital negative of 2K resolution. We're talking about an industry in the mid-nineties operating with effects work in a resolution well above the standards of Blu-Ray and what we now refer to as high definition video. I can't imagine LOTR's standards being any lower. So while you're right that the effects work wasn't completed with home screen viewing in mind, it was designed for consumption in a room with a huge ass screen operating alongside footage shot on 35mm film.
In other recent movies, CGI has looked the same as 10 years ago (or worse) too. I wonder if technological progress in CGI has plateaued for now?
What weird about The Hobbit An Unexpected Journey was it had alot of special effects and cgi and yet still it was a good movie. Its like the good verison of The Phantom menace/Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars.
Don't get me wrong I still like the prequel trilogy of Star Wars, but Peter Jackson did a fine better job than george lucas did. Radagcast the brown was no way anywhere near similar to Jar Jar. Peter Jackson was faithful to the Wizards charceter from the middle earth appendix.
I just hope we will get the silmarillon movies. Despite the remote chances, I still think its going to happen. Just not anytime soon. They said that the Star Wars sequel trilogy was not going to happen, but look whats happening now!
Doubt that will happen
Maybe but I still think it might happen in like 10 or 20 years!
Yeah, when Chris Tolkien passes away
http://blogs.indiewire.com/theplayl...tended-edition-dvd-blu-ray-announced-20130731 I have good news and bad news about the hobbit extended edition.
The good news is its coming out on novmeber 3rd but the bad news is its going to have only 13 mins of extended minutes! I was hoping it would be 20 to 30 mins.
Why did they lie to us?
Because you wouldn't eat your vegetables.
More like I had butter scrapped over too much bread!
Edit, We could still see these new scenes that peter jackson was talking about.
Yet the wired thing is extended feels alot longer than what it says of how many minutes and hours it has.
Anyways here the extended scenes I hope will make it to the 13 minute cut.
Then cut the bread off and give it to your friends.
No problem!! I just hope those scenes will make it too the extended cut hence peter jackson promised us fans.
I think some of the scenes (like Gandalf and Radagast in the High Fells tombs) were moved to the Desolation of Smaug.
I was also expecting more than 13 minutes, but come to think about it, the theatrical cut is already a EE, because of the decision to make 3 films instead of 2 and because of that, many scenes that would probably end up in the EE went to theatrical cut.
if it had been 2 movies the EE would have 40, 50 mins longer. Now with 3 movies, this and the EE of the next films will be 15-20 mins longer, hope it will be longer than that thou