Unpopular Geek Media Opinions

[Ryujin]

I don't like to judge decisions like this too harshly. There's many reasons why a specific technical decision is made. And yes, sometimes it's stupid reasons. Believe me, I have been on the receiving end of stupid technical decisions more times than I can count. But I can't say definitively so I'm gonna err on the side of "Making a movie is tough, all sorts of compromises need to be made."

Oh, I'm the guy who got seconded to a committee to choose an email client for the university. It took 2 years to choose the wrong client by which point the requirements had changed, and another committee needed to work on the issue. I understand dumb decisions.

 

[trappedslider]

I thought all three of The Hobbit movies were good Hobbit movies.

A new challenger for "is it a Christmas movie or not" has entered: https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/forget-die-hard-1980s-action-150036590.html

 

[Riley]

I thought all three of The Hobbit movies were good Hobbit movies.

There are four Hobbit movies.

(Or was that four lights?)

 

[DrunkonDuty]

Oh, I'm the guy who got seconded to a committee to choose an email client for the university. It took 2 years to choose the wrong client by which point the requirements had changed, and another committee needed to work on the issue. I understand dumb decisions.

Oh man, this story is so relatable.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't like to judge decisions like this too harshly. There's many reasons why a specific technical decision is made. And yes, sometimes it's stupid reasons. Believe me, I have been on the receiving end of stupid technical decisions more times than I can count. But I can't say definitively so I'm gonna err on the side of "Making a movie is tough, all sorts of compromises need to be made."

I get it re: judging decisions, but what made it a bit weird re: the Hobbit movies is that there was a lot of active messing around with fancy technology going on with them, like the 48 FPS thing, and then they cheap out on the cameras for that bit? Weird man. Especially as Jackson apparently was pretty micromanage-y about that sort of thing. And that is one of the worst-looking scenes in fantasy history, which is saying something! Even my wife, who is incredibly tolerant and kind to bad FX and the like was like "Why did that look like a Road Runner cartoon?".

As an aside, talking of unpopular opinions, I really like 48 FPS stuff, and I wish it and/or higher rates like 60 FPS were used more, so that we could get used to them, and film-makers could learn how to use them better. Particularly how to light and shoot things so they looked good in those, rather than looking strangely video-esque. I think there are a lot of reasons they don't, not least the fact that it would significantly increase the amount of bandwidth needed for when the movies went to streaming - something that's already shockingly compromised with godawful compression algorithms and the like, but I do like it.

I will say The Hobbit was a terrible candidate for early 48 FPS though, particularly because of the heavy use of practical prosthetics and props, a lot of which looked like absolute crap in 48 FPS, because you see detail and appreciate texture much better at true 48 FPS (not like, frame-doubling or the like). They just didn't up the production quality to match the frame rate, and you kind of have to.

I note Avatar 2 did use 48 FPS for all the action and underwater scenes, and that looked great, especially in combination with the use of true 3D (rather than the ghastly "stuck on" 3D most "3D" movies use), and whilst you could sense something had changed, it doesn't at all have that "video" or "soap opera" look that higher-than-30 framerates often do (especially with frame multiplying). So it can be done, at least if you're as profoundly competent as Cameron and his crew are.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

There are a lot of things one can say about Cameron, but when it comes to cutting edge tech in film, he's the one to count on.

 

[Ryujin]

I get it re: judging decisions, but what made it a bit weird re: the Hobbit movies is that there was a lot of active messing around with fancy technology going on with them, like the 48 FPS thing, and then they cheap out on the cameras for that bit? Weird man. Especially as Jackson apparently was pretty micromanage-y about that sort of thing. And that is one of the worst-looking scenes in fantasy history, which is saying something! Even my wife, who is incredibly tolerant and kind to bad FX and the like was like "Why did that look like a Road Runner cartoon?".

As an aside, talking of unpopular opinions, I really like 48 FPS stuff, and I wish it and/or higher rates like 60 FPS were used more, so that we could get used to them, and film-makers could learn how to use them better. Particularly how to light and shoot things so they looked good in those, rather than looking strangely video-esque. I think there are a lot of reasons they don't, not least the fact that it would significantly increase the amount of bandwidth needed for when the movies went to streaming - something that's already shockingly compromised with godawful compression algorithms and the like, but I do like it.

I will say The Hobbit was a terrible candidate for early 48 FPS though, particularly because of the heavy use of practical prosthetics and props, a lot of which looked like absolute crap in 48 FPS, because you see detail and appreciate texture much better at true 48 FPS (not like, frame-doubling or the like). They just didn't up the production quality to match the frame rate, and you kind of have to.

I note Avatar 2 did use 48 FPS for all the action and underwater scenes, and that looked great, especially in combination with the use of true 3D (rather than the ghastly "stuck on" 3D most "3D" movies use), and whilst you could sense something had changed, it doesn't at all have that "video" or "soap opera" look that higher-than-30 framerates often do (especially with frame multiplying). So it can be done, at least if you're as profoundly competent as Cameron and his crew are.

When you can see the loose edges of the prosthetic makeup, it's time to up your practical game.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

When you can see the loose edges of the prosthetic makeup, it's time to up your practical game.

Absolutely 100%. 48 FPS makes the easier to see, but even at 24 FPS there are some shots in the Hobbit movies which it certainly looked like you could see that.

 

[Ryujin]

And, for the record, I saw the first Hobbit movie in a theatre. The second on streaming. I haven't made it even an hour into the third yet, despite several attempts. Very similar to my viewing of the Star Wars prequel series.

 

[Ryujin]

Absolutely 100%. 48 FPS makes the easier to see, but even at 24 FPS there are some shots in the Hobbit movies which it certainly looked like you could see that.

You get to a certain resolution and all the antialiasing in the world won't save you.