|
Is 48 fps going to look all hosed up when I buy the Blu-ray and play it on my TV? Can my PS3 accurately send the 48 fps signal and can my TV, which I believe flickers at 60hz, display it properly? Sorry if this is a dumb question, I sometimes don't remember exactly how these things work.
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
Trump posted:It's going to look like any other movie you have on blu-ray. ...except that it's 48fps instead of 24? My understanding is that there's already motion judder with 24fps sources on displays that don't natively flicker at a multiple of 24hz, so I was wondering if anybody knows whether that effect will be more or less pronounced with a 48fps source. Apologies if that was not clear initially.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2011 01:11
|
|
|
CantDecideOnAName posted:
This is ridiculous, it's going to be shown at 24fps in far more theaters than will be showing it at 48fps. Just don't see it in 48 if you're so worried.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 26, 2012 17:34
|
|
I've been looking forward to seeing this ever since I watched the trailer last December, and now I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't. I remember when the original trilogy came out, and I saw Two Towers in theater but was too young to really appreciate it and I want to remedy that this time around. Now I'm worried that it'll be one of those super hyped movies that ends up just being terrible--not even good terrible but one of those really bad terrible movies that are bad because there was so much potential to be great.
|
If 48fps is the intended viewing mode, why is it so rare (relatively)? I would have to drive 2 hours to see it in IMAX/3D/48fps even though I'm in a major-ish city with a fully featured state of the art IMAX theatre. Why bother going to the trouble of filming this high profile trilogy in this new format if the distribution effectively makes it just a 'limited edition' version of the film? It's never going to catch on this way and I imagine that only cinephiles are going to know or care about 48fps.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
I was under the impression most theaters were already equipped for it, as everything is digital now. Does it require a special digital projector or something?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2012 23:51
|
|
|
Well that explains it I guess. I just don't see this format taking off anytime soon without more widespread exposure, and it's unfortunate that most people won't see these films the way they were intended to be seen.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 8, 2012 00:11
|
|
|
thehandtruck posted:I didn't think people needed a detailed checklist of why bad movies are bad but if you cant figure it out on you're own: Really insightful stuff, do you do this for a living?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Watching the BTS docs on the blu rays (yeah I enjoyed the films enough to buy them) it seems they had a lot of trouble in the design department. For example, in addition to all the Azog problems, they couldn't decide on the design for Smaug until the eleventh hour. Not to mention the way they painted themselves into a corner with the DoS climax. There just wasn't a lot of clarity of vision for these films which resulted in last minute decisions, which resulted in a rushed process, which resulted in a less cohesive and fully formed product. I still like them but boy they could have been a lot better.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 22:30
|
|
|
Fatkraken posted:later than that, I'm pretty sure that in the flashback at the beginning of AUJ he's a classic dragon with four legs and separate wings, in DOS he's a wyvern with leg-membrane wings Yeah that's true, I guess I meant at the eleventh hour for his full appearance in DoS
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2014 22:39
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:Cutting between Riddles in the Dark and the sillybuggers action scene only served to interrupt the low key stuff with idiocy. They didn't, the Riddles scene was unbroken. They didn't cut away until Bilbo ran off with the ring.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2014 22:45
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Primarily an over reliance on CGI as a panacea, with the knock-on effects of harming the actor's performances. Just curious, which performances do you think suffered from the method of production? And how can you tell the cause?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 22:00
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:I think the compressed production schedule and action-heavy focus means that most of the dwarves don't even really have a character, so those actors (who're pretty much all ace in other stuff) are relegated to walking scenery. McKellan's Gandalf is also crippled by either being turned into an exposition machine or worse, being stuck in a dead end side story that's the cinematic equivalent of a DLC videogame mission. So your issues are with the script then, not the performances.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Semantics. You seriously think script and performance are the same thing? By the way your original comment stated that cgi environments hobbled the performances, which has nothing to do with the script. I'm just trying to figure out what you meant but it sounds like you don't really even know.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:Ian McKellan, Yeah I strongly disagree. Say all you want about overuse of cgi, I'm with you there, but the performances were uniformly solid (aside from maybe Bloom, but he just always sucks). I still think you're confusing performance with script and maybe editing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 03:31 |
|
|
I liked the Hobbit movies but then again the hairs on my neck don't raise up and cause me to fly into a diatribe when something I enjoyed as a kid is done differently than I imagined it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2015 18:13
|
|