Discussion in 'Community' started by -Courtney-, Nov 25, 2006.
... which is what exactly?
She can (and should) change the TV's settings so it doesn't look like that. Like I said, usually it involves the "true motion" setting (different brands call it different things).
Showing a 24 frames per second film at 48 frames is not at all the same thing as having a movie filmed in 48 frames shown in 48 frames. All it's doing is showing each picture twice.
First photos from TDOS and TABA. Bilbo's lost in a sea of gold, and Legolas meets his human counterpart.
Personal note: my initial impression that Luke Evans and Orlando Bloom could be brothers seems to be confirmed here. And that is without mentioning Rupert Friend, who could be the third one...
Bard looks less like a fantasy villager and more like an attendee at a Lynyrd Skynyrd concert. I keep expecting him to be holding a Budweiser.
I asked her about it and she said she bought the TV that way, and that it's the "TV of the future" or something. I haven't seen her since October but I'll ask her what it is when I see her next weekend.
From the same site linked by laurethiel1138, Pete has a few things to say about 48 fps:
"I'm tending to see that anyone under the age of 20 or so doesn't really care and thinks it looks cool, not that they understand it but they often just say that 3D looks really cool. I think 3D at 24 frames is interesting, but it's the 48 that actually allows 3D to almost achieve the potential that it can achieve because it's less eye strain and you have a sharper picture which creates more of the 3-dimensional world.
"The advent of digital projectors is what allowed all this development to happen. Warner Bros. were very supportive. They just wanted us to prove that the 24 frame version would look normal, which it does, but once they were happy with that, on first day, when we had to press that button that said '48 frames' even though on that first day we started shooting at 48 FPS, you could probably say there wasn't a single cinema in the world that would project the movie in that format. It was a big leap of faith.
"The big thing to realize is that it's not an attempt to change the film industry. It's another choice. The projectors that can run at 48 frames can run at 24 frames - it doesn't have to be one thing or another. You can shoot a movie at 24 frames and have sequences at 48 or 60 frames within the body of the film. You can still do all the shutter-angle and strobing effects. It doesn't necessarily change how films are going to be made. It's just another choice that filmmakers have got and for me, it gives that sense of reality that I love in cinema."
To prepare myself I am currently watching The Fellowship of the Ring at 2x speed.
Giving the 48 fps version a (very) limited release is a funny way of showing support...
I'm just posting here to get a like from Random Comments.
Nope. Doesn't work that way.
They have to actually say SOMETHING worthwhile. Either something I agree with or find amusing, usually.
I keep thinking it says that The Hobbit is filmed at 48 faps
Please help me.
the movie is likely fapworthy, but 48 per second is still a bit much
fap fap fap fap fap
I know its a peter jackson movie and thus absurdly long for no reason, but I still think you'll struggle to fit 48 into that run time.
I guess this is why 24 faps is the more sensible option.
I hate to see what a 60 fap movie is like.
We got our tix! 3D, 48 fps, XD: the best, biggest (non-IMAX), clearest projection possible. The wife and I, both huge Tolkien and fantasy fans, are thrilled beyond all reasonable expectation.
Did Merlin say something pages ago about each individual dwarf providing an individual role in the book?
PPOR, I just listened to the audiobook and heard nothing like that.
They mostly speak in groups and such, they aren't particularly distinct except for a few, like Thorin, Bombur, etc.
Thorin is the only out and out dwarf character in the book. I can tell you specifically that he has an emotional, plot-related story arc that is fulfilled in the end.
Otherwise, they're all just names to add to the word count. As Random Comments said, their speeches are mostly relegated to being paired off with each other, all taking turns saying one plot relevant thing, or a joke, a piece.
Not quite just to add to the word count, the number of dwarves is important, (and the story wouldn't work if it was Bilbo, Thorin, and occasionally Gandalf) but they aren't clearly distinct personalities. Which is one of the problems the movie has to try to overcome.
Actually, wouldn't the story moved much faster without the masses of dwarves wandering through? There's at least 3 or 4 roll call segments, and Bilbo and Thorin wouldn't have really been held up nearly as much if they weren't waiting for Bombur every time they did the count.
You could easily make it work with six characters in the party, not including Gandalf who comes and goes. There would've been much more time for character development for individual characters.
Seriously, other than providing a little bit of variety for variety's sake, I really don't see the point to having 13 dwarves. How is it important?
Just have the party be Thorin, Balin, Dwalin, Fili, Kili and Bilbo. Bam. You get all the loss, and the minor callback to LotR.
Umm....there's no way they could have succeeded in a battle or anything. Also, Bombur. Also, bilbo as the lucky number. Also, roll call is not bad. And you must have Gloin! Gimli's father, also appears in LotR. Slightly important.
Please point out to me where they succeed in a battle entirely on their own without being taken captive, or getting assistance from some external force.
Gloin can replace Dwalin. Good point there.