|
Atheist Sunglasses posted:I found this linked in a Youtube comment: http://maximum-attack.com/basement_red_fps.zip that's the same link from reddit that we've been discussing for the last few pages :}
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 21:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:that's the same link from reddit that we've been discussing for the last few pages :} ....oh 
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Yeah, there are people out there whose only contribution to the conversation might be "I don't care what any of it means, I just know what I like and I want The Hobbit to look good." But those people aren't coming to this thread and participating in this conversation! There's room in the thread for all types, and for all topics of interest. On the contrary, I've been following this thread from Day One, but since I know nothing about film and I'd be told to just shut my trap and go away if I don't like it, I've been keeping quiet and scrolling past the endless fps discussion and hoping that someone will post new pictures or a fresh trailer or something of that order. Hell, even the discussions on how to pronounce Beorn and "wouldn't it be cool if the Silmarillion was a movie/miniseries?" were better than this. Anyone know if there will be a soundtrack for this and when potentially it'll be out? They release soundtracks before movies sometimes, right? (And I imagine that considering when the movie is going to be in theaters, the soundtrack will be a real stocking stuffer, so to speak.)
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
CantDecideOnAName posted:Anyone know if there will be a soundtrack for this and when potentially it'll be out? They release soundtracks before movies sometimes, right? (And I imagine that considering when the movie is going to be in theaters, the soundtrack will be a real stocking stuffer, so to speak.) I'd be shocked if there wasn't a soundtrack available. As for when, I have no idea.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 00:37
|
|
|
CantDecideOnAName posted:On the contrary, I've been following this thread from Day One, but since I know nothing about film and I'd be told to just shut my trap and go away if I don't like it, I've been keeping quiet and scrolling past the endless fps discussion and hoping that someone will post new pictures or a fresh trailer or something of that order. Hell, even the discussions on how to pronounce Beorn and "wouldn't it be cool if the Silmarillion was a movie/miniseries?" were better than this. Sorry!  I wouldn't tell you to shut your trap. Didn't realize the discussion about 24/48 was endless. I'm happy to bow out.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 03:26
|
|
|
Five Cent Deposit posted:Sorry! You guys can and will go on if you want to, and I'm essentially powerless to stop you if you do. Just letting you know that there are, in fact, people who read the thread and don't post, and I might not be the only one getting bored of it.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 03:58
|
|
|
Beardless posted:I'd be shocked if there wasn't a soundtrack available. As for when, I have no idea. I remember all the LotR soundtracks being released well before the film.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 04:21
|
|
|
I sometimes wonder if there are enough people interested in the technical details of camerawork to justify a standalone thread. A while back I got a request to throw up a thread about the history of film stocks and formats, but it was kind of a daunting task to do a useful write-up on those subjects and I had the impression that there were only two or three people who were really interested, so I never got around to it... but if there actually are enough people who want to get nerdy about formats, frame-rates, etc., then a similar thread might be worthwhile.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 05:07
|
|
|
I have no interest in the 24/48 discussion, but if people want to discuss it people are free to discuss it. If something new and interesting pops up about the movie I'm sure it will be discussed here. If -I- find something new and interesting about the movie I am free to post it here myself. As is anyone else.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 05:09
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:I sometimes wonder if there are enough people interested in the technical details of camerawork to justify a standalone thread. A while back I got a request to throw up a thread about the history of film stocks and formats, but it was kind of a daunting task to do a useful write-up on those subjects and I had the impression that there were only two or three people who were really interested, so I never got around to it... but if there actually are enough people who want to get nerdy about formats, frame-rates, etc., then a similar thread might be worthwhile. Yes, actually in this thread very early on I volunteered to make sort of an ASK ME thread in CineD to discuss 3D, framerates, etc. I don't think anyone noticed. :-/ Found it, right on page 2: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3455569&pagenumber=2&perpage=40#post398775256 Five Cent Deposit fucked around with this message at 07:00 on May 5, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 06:58
|
|
|
So hold on, are there any implications for Legolas's cameo?
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 13:28
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:I sometimes wonder if there are enough people interested in the technical details of camerawork to justify a standalone thread. A while back I got a request to throw up a thread about the history of film stocks and formats, but it was kind of a daunting task to do a useful write-up on those subjects and I had the impression that there were only two or three people who were really interested, so I never got around to it... but if there actually are enough people who want to get nerdy about formats, frame-rates, etc., then a similar thread might be worthwhile. I'd might be in the minority, but I'd love to see a thread on it!
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 15:02
|
|
|
Szmitten posted:So hold on, are there any implications for Legolas's cameo? Yes, (e- spoiled because some goons are crazy) Orlando Bloom continues to get high profile work.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2012 17:37
|
|
|
Thank you so much for posting this. It looks like it'll be an awesome movie... now to wait the 6 months untill its released...
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 12:19
|
|
|
I can't wait to see Goblin Town, I hope they make it something special and not just Cave Interior Set B. Maybe some cruel looking goblin architecture that stands apart from the LOTR "style" we know so well.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 13:20
|
|
|
The admirable thing about goblins is they use every part of the pony.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2012 14:23
|
|
|
Lizard Combatant posted:I remember all the LotR soundtracks being released well before the film. Ditto for the Star Wars soundtracks. I remember all the hullaballoo when people bought the soundtrack to the first prequel months before the film was out, and found that one track was called "Qui-Gon's Funeral". Talk about spoilers!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 04:55
|
|
|
Gianthogweed posted:I remember laughing out loud when he described Beorn's dogs as oddly walking on their hind legs and balancing trays of food on their outstretched forepaws. I don't think Tolkien had any disneyesque anthropomorphism in mind either. They were just plain old dogs walking on their hind legs and awkwardly balancing trays of food on paws that were obviously not designed to do such a task. When people said he was out to create English folklore they weren't messing around. Nearly everything I found utterly bizzare in that book apparently had well-known roots in (frequently batshit) eurolore.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 07:57
|
|
|
mind the walrus posted:Yes, (e- spoiled because some goons are crazy) Orlando Bloom continues to get high profile work. Typical movie Conservation of detail + the idea there's no logical reason he *couldn't* show up there (besides Bilbo not recognizing him and because LOTR hadnt been written yet). For better or worse non-essential elves in the movies are usually picked for lookin pretty, dudes included, so I don't much mind. Speaking of 'the absense of details is not a detail', have nerds complaint about the dwarves sporting pretty pathetic beards? I don't know if Huge Honking Beard is actually speficially a trait, and considering elves and hobbits don't usually grow em it would seem a nonissue.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
I think another thing with the beard problem is the fact that if you need to be able to easily distinguish the dwarves visually, and having like ten dudes who all look like big bushy beards makes it hard to tell who is who. It's alright for Gimli because he's the short guy with the beard. But when pretty much your entire cast is short guys with beards, you gotta at least mix up the beards.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2012 19:58
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:I think another thing with the beard problem is the fact that if you need to be able to easily distinguish the dwarves visually, and having like ten dudes who all look like big bushy beards makes it hard to tell who is who. It's alright for Gimli because he's the short guy with the beard. But when pretty much your entire cast is short guys with beards, you gotta at least mix up the beards. Oh this is smart and pretty logical, I just wonder if nerds were getting all unironically  about it, even if Tolkein fans seem to be a LITTLE more balanced in their fanrages than many other fandoms.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 00:36
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:I think another thing with the beard problem is the fact that if you need to be able to easily distinguish the dwarves visually, and having like ten dudes who all look like big bushy beards makes it hard to tell who is who. Narrowing down the few dwarves that actually matter to the plot should give you a less harrowing number of beards to comb into distinctive forms and color schemes to assign. The effort to shape Bifur and Bofur into distinguishable characters seems a waste -this isn't Fellowship material.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 19:50
|
|
|
Shifter posted:You're right, but it seems wrong to put so much emphasis on each and every dwarf. The majority of the thirteen dwarves were inconsequential to the story except for the whimsical scenes where their tally and name were comic relief. Emphasis? gently caress no. They're just making it so you can tell the actors apart. Otherwise why not just cast somebody for Thorin and make the rest of the dwarves CGI if you're going to make the guys we're spending an entire movie following around indistinguishable from one another? EDIT: Unless you're saying that they should've taken out some of the dwarves and meshed them together to make it less confusing, in which case I don't even want to imagine the nerd fallout on that. Crappy Jack fucked around with this message at 20:38 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 20:34
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Emphasis? gently caress no. They're just making it so you can tell the actors apart. Otherwise why not just cast somebody for Thorin and make the rest of the dwarves CGI if you're going to make the guys we're spending an entire movie following around indistinguishable from one another? Having some dwarves looking surly and identical would work -shining a light on each and every one of them would bore the hell of out regular moviegoers.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Shifter posted:I probably didn't come across as clear as I hoped, so here goes: Would you really need to tell each and every one of the dwarves apart? Honestly, (re-)read the book, you'll find that none save Thorin and Bombur are of significant purpose to the story. Any other role is interchangeable between them. The group is significant for tally and comedy in having rhythm in names. Again, it's not shining a light on each individual dwarf. Jackson's not giving them each a full backstory and making them major players in the story, he's just giving them defining physical characteristics so that when somebody says "Hey, Bifur", Grandma in the audience can think "Oh yeah, Bifur's the one with the weird eyebrows or whatever". I don't understand how that's shining a light and taking valuable time away from the narrative to give the dwarves their own haircuts and letting the actors put some personality into their roles.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 21:29
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Again, it's not shining a light on each individual dwarf. Jackson's not giving them each a full backstory and making them major players in the story, he's just giving them defining physical characteristics so that when somebody says "Hey, Bifur", Grandma in the audience can think "Oh yeah, Bifur's the one with the weird eyebrows or whatever". I don't understand how that's shining a light and taking valuable time away from the narrative to give the dwarves their own haircuts and letting the actors put some personality into their roles. My iterations of "Grandma in the audience" had trouble with four hobbits in a group of nine characters -every one of the nine I considered distinctive both in book and movie adaptation. Waving the book around means little to these people. Imagine thirteen of the same short folks to deal with. I'd love for a rich backstory to be draped on every character in the book, but we can't have it all. I'm not hot on the idea that Nazgul are apparently being lamely introduced as entombed mummies of olden years at the expense of worrying whether Bofur's braids are distinctively quirky enough when in the same scene with Bifur. It doesn't feel like a good tradeoff.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 22:35
|
|
|
You're surprised by a fastidious level of detail in a Peter Jackson LotR film?  And to hell with 'Grandma in the audience'. If people are completely confused during the first film as to which minor dwarf is which, then that's just further establishing it as being Bilbo's POV... But they won't, because as the poster above said; they're really distinctive looking so if someone says Bilfur, the audience has a better shot of knowing who they mean. Lizard Combatant fucked around with this message at 23:15 on May 10, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Even then it's not like you'll need to know who EVERY character is, just the important ones. Even in LoTR you can get by just fine not knowing if you're looking at Merry or Pippin, as long as you know that it's not Frodo or Sam.
|
|
#
?
May 10, 2012 23:40
|
|
|
TO be honest I couldn't remember half the loving dwarfs in the book. If the movie can do better than more power to it.
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 01:22
|
|
|
penguinmambo posted:elves a don't usually grow em (beards) it would seem a nonissue. Speaking of elven beards, has anything been heard of Círdan and whetever he will be portrayed accurately this time around?
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 12:52
|
|
|
the producers of the hobbit have something new in mind btw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlvr4Rj2lQo
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 02:27
|
|
|
That link with the zip of the 24 and 48 fps clips is dead, does someone have a backup
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:15
|
|
|
JaundiceDave posted:That link with the zip of the 24 and 48 fps clips is dead, does someone have a backup It wasn't the best example anyway. There are more variables in play than the frame-rate itself. 48fps with a 180 shutter won't be much better an indication of how PJ & Lesnie's 48 at 270 approach looks than the openings of Saving Private Ryan or Gladiator are for normal 24fps motion. The camera also should have been pointed at a human face, because that's when the weird feel of high frame-rates really shows. (Anyway, I'd upload it if I still had it, but I appear to have thrown it away. )
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
What prompted the  emote? Have they released a trailer with the dragon?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
Jackard posted:Have they released a trailer with the dragon? No. They're (justifiably) keeping Smaug under lock and key right now. I wouldn't be surprised if we only see glimpses of him until the actual film's release.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 18:14
|
|
|
Aren't there two films? Then wouldn't it make sense that we won't see him until the second film? I mean, maybe we'll see him in the prologue explaining everything but I doubt we'll see him at all until film 2.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 18:31
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:Aren't there two films? Then wouldn't it make sense that we won't see him until the second film? I mean, maybe we'll see him in the prologue explaining everything but I doubt we'll see him at all until film 2. Yeah, I imagine they have mock ups and everything for Smaug, but honestly they may not even get to actually rendering that bad boy for another year or so (unless he has a shot or two in the first film). Kind of like Gollum....he has a very small part in Fellowship, and they didn't really show much. The final product didn't look exactly like the shots in Fellowship either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 18:43
|
|
|
Jackard posted:What prompted the
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Some part of me hopes that we'll get an extremely inaccurate version of Smaug in the previews, similar to the way Gollum appeared in Fellowship, then the kickass version when we get to part 2. This would work partially for my weird sense of consistency, but it could also line up well with what an unreliable storyteller Bilbo is. If the dwarves are telling their story and parts of it are really incorrect or poorly remembered, that could add some nice texture to the movie. Also: Nerds would lose their minds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 20:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 11:33 |
|
|
Is there a screencap somewhere of Gollum's appearence in FOTR? I don't have the movie on hand and haven't seen it in a long time and so I can't really remember how different it looked there. Generally speaking, I really hope they don't turn the end war/part 2 of the movie into a big war epic like the LOTR movies. The constant unending epic battle scenes bore the hell out of me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2012 21:36
|
|
