DELETED_74993

Sean_UK said:
So now all reviews are out it seems 48fps was a woefully bad choice and is causing very negative reaction towards the film, regardless of the 24fps offering most will see; which is said to be fine viewing.

When reviewers overlook the 48fps issue, the film seems to scoring solid 7 to 8/10, good but far from great...
Click to expand...

Absolute nonsense.

There are a few negative reviews for 48FPS,and those criticisms are mainly due to some unfinished FX shots showing up badly,which they would do due to the much higher clarity and less judder whilst panning.
Most reviews say the film looks fantastic,and even more so at 48FPS. HFR looks fantastic.
 
Last edited:
Hikari Kisugi said:
What is so wrong with the 48fps in reviewers eyes?
Click to expand...

Nothing,except for a few FX shots that weren't finished in time and show up a bit.HFR looks great and improves 3D no end. Make up your own mind and give it a try.:)

It never ceases to amaze how people love to be negative about something just for the sake of it.
 
All that worries me is Martin Freeman.

Just can't see him being right for this sort of film, he looks ridiculous in the trailers.
 
Will21st said:
Absolute nonsense.
Click to expand...

It's not nonsense at all. :rolleyes:

For whats it's worth I really like the original Trilogy, and hope most of the reviews been compiled at rottentomatoes have it wrong, with regards to 48fps.

Hikari Kisugi said:
What is so wrong with the 48fps in reviewers eyes?
Click to expand...

"Cons: Definite “motion sickness” potential during scenes of chaotic action or fast-movement; the increased clarity often feels as if you’re standing on set with the actors/characters, so when they take a crazy tumble down a rabbit hole, for example, you feel just as disoriented…which might not be too pleasant for some. There is a bit of an adjustment period for 48fps; I was jarred by it at the start but warmed up to 95% of its usage over time. 48fps means you cannot hide mistakes…period; there were some poorly-rendered VFX sequences that were unintentionally comical and resembled the old-school tactic of filming a stationary actor in front of a moving background. These effects were bad, bad, bad; there’s no way around it."

The above^ comes from a huge LOTR fan and that was kindest cons i could find... :(
 
Last edited:
Sean_UK said:
It's not nonsense at all. :rolleyes:

For whats it's worth I really like the original Trilogy, and hope most of the reviews been compiled at rottentomatoes have it wrong.



"Cons: Definite “motion sickness” potential during scenes of chaotic action or fast-movement; the increased clarity often feels as if you’re standing on set with the actors/characters, so when they take a crazy tumble down a rabbit hole, for example, you feel just as disoriented…which might not be too pleasant for some. There is a bit of an adjustment period for 48fps; I was jarred by it at the start but warmed up to 95% of its usage over time. 48fps means you cannot hide mistakes…period; there were some poorly-rendered VFX sequences that were unintentionally comical and resembled the old-school tactic of filming a stationary actor in front of a moving background. These effects were bad, bad, bad; there’s no way around it."

The above^ comes from a huge Peter Jackson & LOTR fan and was kindest cons i could find... :(
Click to expand...

:rolleyes: Pray tell what a 'huge PJ& LOTR fan' knows about HFR? Nothing,exactly.
Also I wonder why feeling like you're standing right next the actors is a negative? That's what cinema is about,tearing down the barrier between audience and what's on screen.
There were some unfinished VFX shots which speaks against HFR how exactly?

Yes,you cannot hide mistakes which is good cause that means the films will actually have to be finished before being released...

The remainder aren't great massive cons that are deal-breakers.They're minor niggles that you get with a new format. Motion-sickness only happens to a few.
Like I said most of the reviews are favourable re 48FPS.Why you choose to only look at the negatives I don't know.
 
I think I know what they mean when they say it looks fake or like a made for TV movie. A few years ago in Harrods I saw a massive Panasonic TV which had like 200Hz image and loads of image processing going on, and on it they were playing one of the Star Wars prequels. I was shocked how awful it looked at 200Hz, it looked like some old BBC production and it was blatantly obvious the actors were on sets. It never looked that fake when I'd previously seen it at 24fps.
 
Sean_UK said:
So most reviewers are just making up the issues been noted with 48fps in 'this' film for the hell of it? :p
Click to expand...

So the points I raised are a 'rant' ..... interesting.

The only one ranting here is you,or should I rather say parroting. All you do is copy and paste opinions you perceive as negative without knowing what they actually mean or what implications they have. :D

By the way,the format is so rubbish that the new X-men film will be shot in the same way,as will the next Avatar and Star Wars films.
Obviously you know something Hollywood doesn't. :p
 
Will21st said:
Obviously you know something Hollywood doesn't. :p
Click to expand...

Well hooray for me, although quite where I stated my superior knowledge on the matter...

Anyhow… as said previous I hope the reviews have it wrong, especially since I'm going to an evening screening on Thursday. :)
 
Sean_UK said:
Well hooray for me, although quite where I stated my superior knowledge on the matter...
Click to expand...
So why then solely refer to the reviews rather than answering my valid points?
Sean_UK said:
Anyhow… as said previous I hope the reviews have it wrong, especially since I'm going to an evening screening on Thursday. :)
Click to expand...

I'm going to an afternoon screening on Thursday,so then we can exchange our thoughts on the format. ;)
 
The Telegraph have given it 2 out of 5 stars and say things like:

Jackson has also chosen to shoot the film at 48 frames per second rather than the industry standard of 24. The intention is to make the digital special effects and swoopy landscape shots look smoother, which they do. The unintended side effect is that the extra visual detail gives the entire film a sickly sheen of fakeness: the props look embarrassingly proppy and the rubber noses look a great deal more rubbery than nosey. I was reminded of the BBC’s 1988 production of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, and not in a good way.
Click to expand...

As a lover of cinema, Jackson’s film bored me rigid; as a lover of Tolkien, it broke my heart.
Click to expand...

From what I've read so far, Jackson, by making a trilogy, is more interested in raking in the cash than making a decent film.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey barely leaves the driveway. The film lasts for 11 minutes short of three hours, and takes us to the end of chapter six in Tolkien’s original novel, which falls on page 130 of the official movie tie-in edition. That’s half an hour per chapter, or one minute and 20 seconds per page. The work of the sombre Hungarian auteur Béla Tarr, whose grinding tale of apocalyptic poverty The Turin Horse ran to a mere 155 minutes, feels nippy by comparison.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it'll be a bit of a drag.

I was planning on going to the first screening on Thursday. I think I'll wait now.

:(

edit//

Just noticing The Times has given it 4 out of 5 stars so maybe not all is bad. I should really have learnt my lesson after reading the Skyfall reviews.

The Guardian give it 3 out of 5 stars.

Also, Martin Freeman gets some good reviews for his role as Bilbo.

edit2//

Empire Online give it 4 out of 5 stars as well.

I think I'm back on for Thursday! :)
 
Last edited:
Stupid question but does anyone know if this will still be in the cinema on the weekend in-between Christmas and new year’s?

I don't think I am going to be able to get to see it until then!!! :(
 
I'd imagine so yeah, Avatar was on for AGES at the Cinema. They will have a contract with the cinema it's being shown at but then if it's pulling in the punters still it will be shown for as long as possible.
 
Last edited:
fozzybear said:
The Telegraph have given it 2 out of 5 stars and say things like:





From what I've read so far, Jackson, by making a trilogy, is more interested in raking in the cash than making a decent film.



Sounds like it'll be a bit of a drag.

I was planning on going to the first screening on Thursday. I think I'll wait now.

:(

edit//

Just noticing The Times has given it 4 out of 5 stars so maybe not all is bad. I should really have learnt my lesson after reading the Skyfall reviews.

The Guardian give it 3 out of 5 stars.

Also, Martin Freeman gets some good reviews for his role as Bilbo.

edit2//

Empire Online give it 4 out of 5 stars as well.

I think I'm back on for Thursday! :)
Click to expand...

If I've learnt anything from gaming it's to never read reviews of something you want to see/play before seeing it yourself. Just go watch and make your own mind up is my advice :).
 
ZG002 said:
I'd imagine so yeah, Avatar was on for AGES at the Cinema. They will have a contract with the cinema it's being shown at but then if it's pulling in the punters still it will be shown for as long as possible.
Click to expand...

Cheers. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom