The Hobbit films, previously to be directed by Guillermo del Toro and now to be directed by Peter Jackson again.

And they eat salads, which explains why they eventually invented dressing.

xpost Ah! Of course.

Anyway, moot, because that is among the very least of this not quite a film's problems.

entmoot?

Re reading the book currently, not seen this film yet nor in any rush to, but forgotten just how 'jolly' a read it is

every dwarf looks human, the one just has a trimmed beard

and okay his nose is less pronounced, but he's also much younger than most of the others iirc

i did kind of appreciate that all the dwarfs looked different, in the book you can't keep them straight -- it's thorin and 12 guys with funny names.

er, 'dwarves,' i guess is the tolkienish word.

Every single one of them had a bulbous nose or some other facial prosthetic, except that one.

Also, I kept expecting someone's beard (or feet!) to go up in flames at any minute. If I lived in a world where fire was an everyday part of life - for cooking, fighting, light, heat - I'd keep that shit trimmed or otherwise out of the way.

idk, the heavy prosthetic work was given to the olds and fats. thorin, that one, and his brother had very light or no prosthetics afaict. it is peculiar tho that they were like 'no aragorn so we need a dwarf with DREAMY EYES'. anyway, the idiot one with the slingshot was the worst.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/louispeitzman/the-13-dwarves-in-the-hobbit-ranked-by-hotness

Kili is the only one without exotic facial hair, though, and clearly that dwarf could have managed. Maybe a rival dwarf clan went at him with some clippers?

A found review from a trusted source.

I just saw this movie in 3D at the IMAX. Don't think it was 48fps but the 3D was great and the movie was awesome and it never dragged and it didn't feel like stuff was just thrown in for no reason and both me and my dad were pretty much just WTF about all the bad criticism this movie has gotten. Gandalf was a slight letdown from the previous eps (he did seem older and a little lower on energy) but Bilbo and the Dwarves were great, Radagast was SO MUCH FUN to watch, the bad guys were a little less faceless videogame enemy this time around, Gollum did some good stuff, and the scenery, my god, the scenery was just GORGEOUS. Some of the shots of for instance Radagast's hut in the forest were just mindblowingly cool fantasy landscapes that sort of surpassed anything shown in the other films.

Anyways i had a great time and would def see again!

I hope Radagast is in the next two movies.

An expert weighs in:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WhLvwIUuLWg&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Ffeature%3Dplayer_embedded%26v%3DWhLvwIUuLWg

Between this and Life of Pi, I'm finding myself finally sold ont he whole CGI aesthetic, after so many years. It feels like computer images in movies have been warming up until now and that directors are only just hitting their stride and using things like CGI/3D to its best potential.

Ok apparently the theater i saw this at is listed as having 4fps movies. I did not really notice any difference, though during the trailers and Star Trek preview beforehand, the 3D effect during even slow camera pans was just nearly unwatchable, and during the Hobbit i don't think there was a single scene (aside from one rather quick rollercoaster-like sequence) where the image was blurry. Has anyone here for sure seen the 48fps and not really noticed the difference? I've heard so many bad things that frankly it feels like maybe I really just saw the 24fps one.

I just gotta say again how much i enjoyed the 3D. Some scenes it was barely noticeable, and some scenes it really added alot to the visuals. The bits where they discussing the necromancer in the elvish city of Rivendell were particularly breathtaking in scope.

I agree about the CGI. The effects in this are a step up from the original trilogy, they are really getting the hang of it.

you didn't see it in 48fps.

I generally don't mind 3D, but I have never seen a 3D movie in 2D in the theaters and wished it had been in 3D.

Funny you should mention the CGI, because I actually kept thinking as I watched this how disappointingly not far CGI has come since the other three movies. Maybe credit goes to Serkis, but I kept thinking how less convincing/engaging the trolls and goblin king were than Gollum (let alone King Kong).

the 48fps showings are only in regular 3d - not 2d, not IMAX 3D. if you saw the HFR showing you definitely would've noticed

i thought some of the CGI was really good looking, some of it was super duper shitty (the wargs)

Read that as 'wangs' and wondered which version you DID see.

That's Numberwarg!

maybe i will go see this today.
home sick from work, so really no better time right?

can u make other Hobbit fans sick?

This movie was so skippable. See something else twice instead.

you guys don't understand,
i love dwarves and elves and shit.

not to mention WIZARDS

There are dwarves and elves and shit in both Django Unchained and Skyfall.

i don't believe it.

You have to put on your special glasses to see them. I will be happy to sell you the glasses at a discount.

>the 48fps showings are only in regular 3d - not 2d, not IMAX 3D

Don't know about regular 2D, but the IMAX 3D showing I saw was def 48fps and visibly so (UK). Recognise this might vary from "territory to territory" though, and dependent on the whims of the cinema chain.

you guys don't understand,
i love dwarves and elves and shit.

otmx100000000

http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2013/01/16/a-hobbit-is-chubby-but-is-he-off-balance/

Between this and Life of Pi, I'm finding myself finally sold ont he whole CGI aesthetic, after so many years. It feels like computer images in movies have been warming up until now and that directors are only just hitting their stride and using things like CGI/3D to its best potential.

― besides Sunny Real Estate (dog latin), Tuesday, January 15, 2013 4:19 AM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm of the complete opposite view - think I talked about this upthread, but the improvements in digital tech (from dvd 480p to bluray 1080p to, what, 4k?) has made it so that it's easier than ever to see the CGI sheen on the CGI sequences, it's awful, bring back miniature models and trick photography, return of the jedi had better efx than the hobbit

(saw this in HFR though)

otoh I really do admire films like this for being so balls-in-your-face fake, not apologetic at all about it, watch this amerrrrrica you're gonna give me your money anyway

I do want to see this in HFR cos it does sound like a very different experience. Not sure i want to spend another $18 on a movie ticket though. No wonder i have little problem w pirating movies.

I just realized that bumping up the resolution and framerate probably also severely increases render time on CGI sequences. Maybe the endless search for higher-def entertainment will at some point make CGI too expensive to use liberally and people will go back to camera tricks.

youre not gonna see hfr in a pirated copy dude

balls-in-your-face fake

http://www.indiewire.com/static/dims4/INDIEWIRE/7814202/4102462740/thumbnail/325x227%3E/http://d1oi7t5trwfj5d.cloudfront.net/f7/098930485a11e2a90122000a1d0930/file/hobbit-goblin-king.jpg

http://www.expo21xx.com/sensor/18990_st3_high_speed_cameras/default.htm

Here's a digital camera that records 60fps and it's less than $100

http://www.dhgate.com/p-ff808081365d15450136761e60460de8.html?utm_source=GMC&utm_medium=Adwords&utm_campaign=shinystore88&utm_term=135461819&f=bm|135461819||GMC|Adwords||shinystore88|QL||&gclid=COqPw_jN7bQCFQsGnQod_xYANQ

I just realized that bumping up the resolution and framerate probably also severely increases render time on CGI sequences. Maybe the endless search for higher-def entertainment will at some point make CGI too expensive to use liberally and people will go back to camera tricks.

― Emperor Cos Dashit (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:10 AM (10 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

processor time is cheap

and, sadly, so are VFX artists

I saw the movie first in regular IMAX 3D, and I remember thinking that the effects looked surprisingly shoddy. There was an immediate difference with the 48fps version. The CGI looked a lot better--not real, but definitely smoother and more integrated into the action.

The problem with the HFR, though, is that it makes the human actorslook goofy, sped-up and out of sync with the computer-animated characters. So you're just reversing the usual situation where the CGI stands out against the live action.

It's not the processor so much as the extra detail that needs to be added, but then stupid humans with their veins and pores aren't faring much better.

Yeah but even if you just render a sphere in space there is a huge difference in processing time between doing it 480p and doing it 4k or whatever master resolution they render it to.

Surely most of the detail is just in using higher and higher resolution textures, and normal mapping or whatever.

when you compare a frame in 1080p to a frame in 480p I think the 1080p is 4x the area of the 480p frame? like, it's not insignificant. and when you go from 1080p to 4k or w/e, the growth is not linear.

processor time is cheap

― (panda) (gun) (wrapped gift) (silby), Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:59 AM (12 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

and, sadly, so are VFX artists

Do you have links or articles on this? I'm genuinely curious about the economics of CGI work in modern films. I'm under the (possibly misguided) impression that it's a big part of the film's budget. Maybe processing power is getting cheaper but you have modelers, texture people, animators, lighting specialists, camera operators, etc. working solely in the 3D realm, basically it's like having a whole secondary film crew. Plus you have programmers coming up with proprietary render software or whatever.

It's sort of a shame that all 'making of the VFX' documentaries you see are basically a shot of a guy modelling/animating/texturing a character and that's pretty much it.

http://youtu.be/MnQLjZSX7xM