Out of Pod Experience

Ive seen many films over the years that critics have slated as subpar etc


Oddly I enjoyed almost all of them immensly
Critics and thier opinions are over-rated.



I'll be going to see this in a few weeks, and I will probably enjoy it too.

Yeah that's why I'd go with animated, would seem easier to produce compared to live actor film. It would be rather lengthy, not just a single 2 hr movie. I really like the animated movies of the hobbit and lotr (decades old), more the style but maybe higher detail. In any case, in that form, the animation work would be a lot easier compared to the older animated movies, all the hand work to produce those compared to today's computer animation tools. Not sure why EEEEeeeverything needs to be 3D these days though (CG and live), ...hehe much like happened in the late 70's for a few years and then died. Old cel animations still look awesome, have artistic style.


Oh as for this movie, slow boat and all, not all adventures are jam packed full of action. Isn't that sort of how the hobbit was anyway? Less sword battles and more thinking I thought. I mean there were battles, but it didn't seem to engulf the plot as much like in lotr.

It has indeed a different effect in computer games in that the images are digitally created and already have a sense of unreality about them that acts as that 'cinematic fog'. Also, the videos and movies you watch are not filmed at 48 or 60 fps either, so a video card displaying at 60 will make no difference there.

Now, go watch a documentary film shot at that rate, and I'll buy you some aspirin for afterwords.

Sorry, but this is where I tell you your opinion is flawed.

You, perhaps, are confusing shutter speed and angle with frames per second. Since digital cameras have no rotating shutter it is simulated via software and/or embedded operating systems in the camera.

There (perhaps) is a reasoned argument to be had regarding poor cinematography or an incompetent DoP on set/location using incorrect shutter speed/angle when filming.

If you get this concept wrong, then maybe, just maybe, you may feel some discomfort when viewing scenes with a lot of motion in them - and this could theoretically be further complicated if there is CGI on screen which perhaps could be rendered at the wrong fps and shutter speed for motion blur.

BUT!

I would be utterly shocked if Peter Jackson and his company would make such a gross film reject error like that. I guess I'm gonna need more information.

As for a documentary, I would say the same thing - if a total n00b of a DoP was involved and the post production processes were not managed properly by intelligent people, AND the documentary had a lot of motion in it, then yes there could be an issue. But this would be the case for any film, regardless of the frame rate.

And then there is the topic of Depth of Field, which I could spend all day boring the crap out of you with, but it's totally related to resulting poor cinematography and shutter speed/angle adjustments. Oh, and lenses too...that's a pretty big consideration.

If you take a look at The Avengers from earlier this year, they had film cameras (ArriFlex 435) with in-camera speed ramps and Panavision lenses. They also had Canon 5D, 7D using Canon lenses and of course the Arri Alexa digital film camera also using Panavision lenses. I think the also used a few shots with Frazier lenses too, to get those hard to reach shots and also mind-blowing DoF. A very complex and lengthy post production for sure - but at no point did anyone mess up it up, probably due to Seamus McGarvey being the DoP.

Another point you could be confusing this with (in reference to CGI) is "The Uncanny Valley".

AK

Now back to reality. Here are more reviews with links.

The main issues are the 'Slow Boat Out of the Shire' first half, and the 48 fps shot in 3D. It looks too much like 50 fps TV Video apparently.

This one might get Blu-ray money from me, but I'm beginning to think a theatrical viewing of this is not worth the trouble. I need more reviews first from 'regular people' though.

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/hobbit-first-reactions

You cannot block anyone in this thread, sorry.

But if that highly selective link is genuine journalism and not something which happens to support your opinion, then I pity people with either low quality brains that cannot decode 48 frames per second footage, or I pity the DoP and post production team management - because they ain't gonna work ever again in their life.

As for me not knowing anything...since you do not know me, I think that comment falls into the filing cabinet known as arrogant presumption.

love and hugs,

AK

I beg to differ about the boringness or not of Jackson's "King Kong" . I hated it, and I was the target audience.

And a lot of the public must agree with me as it only has a Public rating of 52% favorable reviews : http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/king_kong/

Also, stores can sell bad movies because they are bad and fascinating. I collect MST3K DVD's. You think a film is 'great' just because it's available at a store. Go check out "Bucky Nelson".

......and we are entitled to our differing opinions about the animated LOTR nonsense. You are definitely on the short list for liking it. If you had read the books, how can you even begin to say they are good? The overly groveling Samwise was horribly performed. And the bikinis and disco outfits on the elves ? And the Rankin/Bass sequel's horrible musical numbers (including the unintentionally hilarious s&m oriented "Where There's a Whip, There's a Way"?

But then I've probably just wasted my time as I also feel you are right now considered borderline Troll, tbh.



EDIT: I think everyone really needs to see and hear the "oh my God really" Whip song from the Rankin/Bass fiasco which was actually on TV only: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdXQJS3Yv0Y

Television in the 70's was not so much something one watched. It was 'endured'.

People complaining it is "too good" quality wise, with nice crisp pictures and good FPS is just absurd. Get your head out of your nostalgia ass, or go back to watching black and white ****** quality.

What it really boils down to is that people is afraid of change.

As for the movie itself, I like long slow movies, far too few of them these days. I am really sick of the 1-2 hour bullshit that Hollywood spews out regulatory that is just action scene after action scene.

This is actually an excellent 13 minute feature with TONS of Hobbit footage: http://www.aintitcool.com/node/59907

This seems to tie in to this issue as well. Scorsese and his editor Thelma Schoonmaker talk digital drawbacks: http://www.indiewire.com/article/scorsese-editor-thelma-schoonmaker-explains-why-old-movies-may-never-look-or-sound-the-same-again