awepittance Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 the only evidence i have to claim that the 24fps version won't look 'weird' or abnormal is that all the trailers and clips released look perfectly fine as far as a standard 24fps movie is concerned. If they did add fake motion blur or whatever, they've done a good job of making it appear as if they haven't. But i'll probably see it both ways to make a final judgement. I'm excited to see the film for many reasons, among them i still feel like WETA does more convincing cgi and compositing work than any other company working today, especially on Peter Jackson films. They raised the bar with Fellowship of the Ring, and while some of the cgi looked dodgey in King Kong and in the Hobbit trailer i think the whole will be greater than the sum of it's parts. I don't really have the same faith in directors like James Cameron or George Lucas to raise the bar technically speaking like PJ has repeatedly. Although what saddens me about 2 more Hobbit films is its probably very unlikely PJ will ever make another movie as modest as Heavenly Creatures or Forgotten Silver again. I'm actually pretty excited by people saying this causes nausea and feels too much like a Disney ride, since at least for 3d movies the first person extreme camera sweeps seems to really make new style 3d effective. Most of the time i feel like 3d is a waste and that includes Hugo, Prometheus, Avengers and practically every 3d movie i've seen since Polar Express (which was a shit film but acted like a first person point of view ride during the train sequences). I guess i'm one of those gimmick lovers that enjoys when things pop out at you or you feel virtual tactile sensations of flying or falling. For me almost without fail the intro graphics to 3d movies where they dazzle you with particle animated logos exploding always have more impressive 3d than the movie itself. It's a huge waste of the format imo, and i could understand why so many people complain about the trend, because the execution is very impotent compared to the potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I recently re-watched the LOTR trilogy and its amazing how much worse some of the CGI has gotten since I remember it being. Still enjoyed the series, I think the Two Towers is my favorite of the three. The whole thing is corny and heavy handed, but after a few smokes and some good candy or something its a fun film to watch with a few friends. Tolkien laid out a pretty interesting universe that reflects a lot of things going on in the world today, so its also interesting to watch them and pick up on symbolism and themes, add your own sub-text to the scenes. Lucas failed at CGI, but Cameron still has it completely imo. Avatar was very introductory and definitely lacked interesting characters or plot. But please go back and just watch the final battle sequence in Avatar and tell me its not entirely surreal how the CGI takes on a physicality that almost looks like an elaborate claymation. I hope Avatar 2 will be 60fps and will be very different aesthetically , like some kind of continuation of plot where the main characters gain new Avatars of other alien creatures on different planets. Because I think in terms of technical , Camera is the best, he just has been lacking with art direction/writing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 There is a lot to be understood about 3D filmmaking I think too. in terms of composition of shots and editing... I expect Aflonso's Gravity to be the best 3D film despite it being added on in post (not as big of a deal because a lot of it will be CG)... but I expect his style of shooting will compliment 3D perspective better than the traditional formula of shooting/sequencing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Even though Avatar utilized WETA's mocap studio for most of the main character work, i still think it pales in comparison to most of the visual effects work in Lord of the Rings relatively speaking . I fucking love those movies, i can't deny it. From the bigatures to the amount of insane detail into CGI creatures like Shelob in ROTK. Avatar doesnt look like claymation to me, only a year after it came out the cg looks severely dated to me. Say what you want about LOTR's cgi, but some of the visual effects shots in it, especially of the bigatures look superior to most stuff out today, and especially when it came out it was undeniably groundbreaking on multiple visual effects levels. Even the way PJ cleverly used doubles of all the characters, forced perspective with a combination of green screening for the size perspectives was ground beaking in and of itself. Avatar is a more tricky one. I'd say they succeeded in 2 areas for raising the bar of visual effects -truly emotive and relatable cgi characters, but imo only about equal to Golem who is more of a weirdo personality wise so the emotion doesnt have the same impact as it does in Avatar<br /> -beautiful fully cgi flora that looks photorealistic everything else, even the 3d in Avatar didn't impress me as much as i hoped it would. I still give Cameron props for trying to break ground, but i really don't think anyone has come close to Peter Jackson since the original LOTR trilogy in terms of vfx work. When the Ents break the dam at the end of Two Towers, i still have no fucking clue how he did some of what happens in that scene. Some of the trees are obvious cg, but watch closely as the orc wood platforms get flooded and fall off the cliffs. Are those cg doubles running around like ants falling off the platforms or real actors? It's really hard to distinguish what's real and what's not, and i don't think any filmmaker has been able to do that as consistently as Peter Jackson. what pains me is that like most other filmmakers Cameron talks about 'pop out' 3d being gimmicky, but i think by refusing to add more depth to the CGI 3d the movie suffers. The live action 3d shots at the beginning of Avatar to me feel more spectacular than the rest of the film. It's a bummer that Cameron, who really was on the cutting edge of 3d live action photography hasn't made a scifi or other movie besides Aliens of the Deep with the same technology the whole time (without going into 70% cgi territory). Aliens of the Deep is probably the most impressive real-life filmed 3d i've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoon Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I recently re-watched the LOTR trilogy and its amazing how much worse some of the CGI has gotten since I remember it being. Still enjoyed the series, I think the Two Towers is my favorite of the three. The whole thing is corny and heavy handed, but after a few smokes and some good candy or something its a fun film to watch with a few friends. Tolkien laid out a pretty interesting universe that reflects a lot of things going on in the world today, so its also interesting to watch them and pick up on symbolism and themes, add your own sub-text to the scenes. That's exactly what gaarg and I did last weekend with the second half of TT and it was actually a good experience. The thing is... it could be done so much better with so much less. It's so dumbed down it's really insulting. When I retire, I'll take some time and make PJ's LOTR right: Reedit everything, throw out all the scenes where characters try their best to appear retarded by overstating all the obvious stuff (say 25% of the whole). Replace those scenes with nice nature shots and add some subtle narrations over that instead. Color grade everything so it looks less disneyland and replace the soundtrack with something more appropriate. Not sure what can be done about Elijah Wood's grimaces though. Maybe just censor them altogether, black rectangle style. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Even though Avatar utilized WETA's mocap studio for most of the main character work, i still think it pales in comparison to most of the visual effects work in Lord of the Rings. I fucking love those movies, i can't deny it. From the bigatures to the amount of insane detail into CGI creatures like Shelob in ROTK. Avatar doesnt look like claymation to me, only a year after it came out the cg looks severely dated to me. Say what you want about LOTR's cgi, but some of the visual effects shots in it, especially of the bigatures look superior to most stuff out today. I was only criticizing LOTR's CG, as it has dated a good amount, understandably as its 10 years old now. I also love the bigatures, the dam breaking in two towers, the explosion at helms deep, gondors city, the volcano stuff, mordor tower falling and exploding with shockwave. I will agree all that stuff is cooler than stuff in Avatar, but Avatar still is the most impressive "CG" of any film I have seen and Cameron is very close to pulling off something beyond what bigatures offer. I think 3D + HFR will be the key to giving CG its physicality that its been missing, which is another reason why Avatar 2 should be extremely consistent visually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I recently re-watched the LOTR trilogy and its amazing how much worse some of the CGI has gotten since I remember it being. Still enjoyed the series, I think the Two Towers is my favorite of the three. The whole thing is corny and heavy handed, but after a few smokes and some good candy or something its a fun film to watch with a few friends. Tolkien laid out a pretty interesting universe that reflects a lot of things going on in the world today, so its also interesting to watch them and pick up on symbolism and themes, add your own sub-text to the scenes. That's exactly what gaarg and I did last weekend with the second half of TT and it was actually a good experience. The thing is... it could be done so much better with so much less. It's so dumbed down it's really insulting. When I retire, I'll take some time and make PJ's LOTR right: Reedit everything, throw out all the scenes where characters try their best to appear retarded by overstating all the obvious stuff (say 25% of the whole). Replace those scenes with nice nature shots and add some subtle narrations over that instead. Color grade everything so it looks less disneyland and replace the soundtrack with something more appropriate. Not sure what can be done about Elijah Wood's grimaces though. Maybe just censor them altogether, black rectangle style. Yeah theres definitely some glaring inconsistencies with the flow of dialogue and action, PJ is or does have a pretty weak editor / doesn't know how to build up action without gimmick cues/formulas. Cameron is king in terms of action sequences, he just needs better source material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 we're just going to have to agree to disagree. Avatar does have a consistent quality through out, ill agree with you that most films don't come even close to that. However King Kong as a cg character alone i think is superior looking and more realistic than anything in Avatar. I don't think most people would agree with me on this, but when i watch the movie 5+ years later some of the effects in it look better than anything i've seen to date. Some of it looks like absolute shit too, that's part of the problem when talking about how impressive PJ's vfx stuff is. If it wasn't for a handful of the CG creature work in Kong it would be a visual masterpiece. edit: Pirates 2 deserves some 'ground breaking' credit as well, Davey Jones still stands up as a very impressive use of digital makeup. Shit looks very convincing. I also just watched District 9 again, and the main prawn character is really great as well. At points i feel like i am watching some sort of impossibly constructed Jim Henson puppet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 I haven't seen King Kong in awhile. Will give it another look. Avatar just has a very unnaturally lush color palette and aesthetic that hurts the hyper-realism that you can find in LOTR/King Kong stuff as that stuff is more grounded in real life objects. So I definitely think your perspective is valid, I still think Avatar has more impressive CGI simply based on the vast amount of it and its consistency ... the biggest peeve is that stylistically you know it has to be CG. So ape textures or bugs is something relatable but Blue smooth skinned people with huge eyes and weird bodies is like some kind of bizarro humanoid. Its almost like Cameron wanted to challenge himself and design the aliens just weird enough that from a wide perspective they clearly are CG but skin surface and muscle animations make us think of prosthetics. Human CG characters like in Polar Express etc are still the hardest to pull off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Adding fake motion blur by hand sounds like such a pain in the ass! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cult fiction Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Although what saddens me about 2 more Hobbit films is its probably very unlikely PJ will ever make another movie as modest as Heavenly Creatures or Forgotten Silver again The Lovely Bones was relatively low key, especially following a movie where Adrian Brody literally punched a raptor in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cult fiction Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 When I retire, I'll take some time and make PJ's LOTR right: Reedit everything, throw out all the scenes where characters try their best to appear retarded by overstating all the obvious stuff (say 25% of the whole). Replace those scenes with nice nature shots and add some subtle narrations over that instead. Color grade everything so it looks less disneyland and replace the soundtrack with something more appropriate. I can't wait to see LOTR look more like Gears of War. Desaturated green and brown are the only colors I feel comfortable looking at. That's how you know it's serious. While you're at it, throw in some JJ Abrams lens flares. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kokoon Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 Adding fake motion blur by hand sounds like such a pain in the ass! I'd say it can be automated, using MCFI (motion-compensated frame interpolation) algorithms. You know, like those ghastly "smooth motion" features that you turn off on your TV-set when you set it up for the first time. Use that to create a lot of made-up frames between the real 48p frames, then mash them together and you have something that resembles real camera motion blur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mirezzi Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 First reviews in, from a collection of lightweight rag magazines, and they're not good. When you get mediocre reviews from The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, and Box Office Magazine, you are in trouble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 The Hobbit is still going to make a ridiculous amount of money, no matter what the reviews say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
encey Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 As long as I can bring dice to roll during the movie, I'll be happy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BCM Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geosmina Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0903624/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 6, 2012 Share Posted December 6, 2012 i've read almost all the reviews including the ones from Hollywood reporter and Variety. Most of them say they don't like the 48fps, spend a lot of time talking about it (who probably havent seen the film in 24fps) then complain that it's not as good as lord of the rings and has too light of a tone. I don't really know what they expected since the Hobbit book isn't as good as lotr nor is it as serious. They also say it has pacing problems. Plus Peter Jackson already has 2 strikes against him from Lovely Bones and King Kong. Critics were very luke warm on King Kong and very hard on Lovely Bones. While both aren't great or problem free films i feel like there is somewhat of a backlash from the heights he reached in sweeping the academy awards. The only way the reviews are 'not good' is for people who would be on the fence about seeing it or not. For box office earnings they aren't going to have much of an effect, these movies will make billions and there is no chance the studio is going to pull out of the sequels (unlike M Night's airbender or Finchers Dragon Tattoo). The only effect it might have is more careful editing on the following 2 and a possible improvement with the pacing issues. Fellowship of the Ring i see almost as a beta version of the other 2 LOTR movies, they only improved with time. I'm pretty confident the same thing is going to happen after An Unexpected Journey. edit: not to make any excuses for the movie simply because i haven't seen it, but if PJ is really this strong on 48fps it makes sense why he would make the first part of the movie slow going and leisurely pacing wise. Most reviewers agree on one thing, that it takes about an hour or more to finally get immersed into the 48fps experience due to it's initial jarring nature. If this is correct then the first hour of the film could be designed to just soften your eyes up to some extent for whats to come. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 lush http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hvwX_ng28Q8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
azatoth Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GORDO Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 holy shit so much promotion. they're really desperate to hype this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awepittance Posted December 7, 2012 Share Posted December 7, 2012 i dont know about you guys but the footage looks pretty phenomenal, all my misgivings about it looking too cgi or whatever the fuck i was complaining about are gone now. Haven't been this excited to see a movie in years. ps: shane carruth's (primer) new film has a trailer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syd syside Posted December 8, 2012 Share Posted December 8, 2012 which footage? gonna ignore that 15 minute sneak peak but I thought that clip on bottom of last page was quite impressive and aesthetically nice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.