If there was an award committee for just technical aspects of movie making, this would completely clean up. I can see why these two films cost $500 million to make.
Holy crap ... I had an "omg" moment when Peter Jackson was talking about Andy Serkis jumping in the creek to chase the fish TWELVE years ago ... wow man. Time flies and I feel old.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterJoji
Johnny eats garbage and isn’t 100% committed.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to nik- For This Useful Post:
Holy crap ... I had an "omg" moment when Peter Jackson was talking about Andy Serkis jumping in the creek to chase the fish TWELVE years ago ... wow man. Time flies and I feel old.
That's what keeps flooring me. The Fellowship of the Ring was in theaters a decade ago. A decade!
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke
Thats why Flames fans make ideal Star Trek fans. We've really been taught to embrace the self-loathing and extreme criticism.
Holy crap ... I had an "omg" moment when Peter Jackson was talking about Andy Serkis jumping in the creek to chase the fish TWELVE years ago ... wow man. Time flies and I feel old.
What's cool for me is I remember that like it was yesterday.
So, rumblings out of movie critic land is that the format P. Jackson chose to film the Hobbit in (48fps vs the older 24fps) makes the movie look like a cheap television show. This can't be good news, can it?
So, rumblings out of movie critic land is that the format P. Jackson chose to film the Hobbit in (48fps vs the older 24fps) makes the movie look like a cheap television show. This can't be good news, can it?
I can understand what they mean and it does make sense. When I bought my new LED TV and watched it in HD for the first time, most shows it seemed like I was watching the actors act, as in a play of some sort, as opposed to the normal aesthetic of a TV show. I did get used to it after a while, and don't notice it as much any more, but I did slow down the refresh rate on the TV as well so that helped. I still think that this movie is going to be absolutely spectacular though.
I have faith that Jackson and Co. knew what they were doing with the choice of going to 48fps. I will reserve judgement until I am in the theatre watching it.
So, rumblings out of movie critic land is that the format P. Jackson chose to film the Hobbit in (48fps vs the older 24fps) makes the movie look like a cheap television show. This can't be good news, can it?
On the plus side, I'd guess that only 3d theatres will have the technological support to show the 48fps. So we should have some options in what version of the film we can see. I'm still pretty excited about seeing the 48fps for the first time and he still has plenty of time to fine tune these kinds of details.
I can understand what they mean and it does make sense. When I bought my new LED TV and watched it in HD for the first time, most shows it seemed like I was watching the actors act, as in a play of some sort, as opposed to the normal aesthetic of a TV show. I did get used to it after a while, and don't notice it as much any more, but I did slow down the refresh rate on the TV as well so that helped. I still think that this movie is going to be absolutely spectacular though.
This really bugged me when I purchased my LED TV, but after getting used to it, I actually prefer it.
__________________
Dealing with Everything from Dead Sea Scrolls to Red C Trolls
Quote:
Originally Posted by woob
"...harem warfare? like all your wives dressup and go paintballing?"
