Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Up was cool in 3D. So was Debbie Does Dallas.

You people are insane.

3D or 2D is less of the issue than peter jacksons reaction.

Some critics say the film is not as good as it should be. Jacksons reaction is along the lines of 'what do they know, I see the bigger picture'.
A better reaction would be: what don't they like and can something be done about it.

Laughing off critique is the harbinger of failure. Its the Hobbit, so it will still make lots of money, but it would be nice if they did as good a job as they could rather than just showcase new tech.

Just to repeat.
None of the critics care about 3D it's the 40fps filming that bugs them. No one has mentioned this and I'd enjoy hearing the opinion who know about film etc as I'm ignorant on the subject myself.
Or people could just rant about how rubbish 3D is (apparently 3D viewing is compulsary where all you guys are from).

Orlanth wrote:3D or 2D is less of the issue than peter jacksons reaction.

Some critics say the film is not as good as it should be. Jacksons reaction is along the lines of 'what do they know, I see the bigger picture'.
A better reaction would be: what don't they like and can something be done about it.

Laughing off critique is the harbinger of failure. Its the Hobbit, so it will still make lots of money, but it would be nice if they did as good a job as they could rather than just showcase new tech.

Have you actually read the "critique" that was linked here to IGN?

It's focused almost entirely on the difference in fps and how it "makes it look like live television or hi-def video". He lets out a number of statements of scenes, but doesn't actually talk in any depth about the way they were composed, etc.

So the movie is in 48fps, but he doesn't want to release a trailer in 48fps.

Seems a waste of an opportunity to show the world this grandiose technology he's been using.

My only problem with the movie thus far are these clowns



From right to left Bombur, Bofur, Bifur. Or more acurately A dude in a fat suit, dopey from snow white, and a dude with skunk tails for a wig.

Ma55ter_fett wrote:So the movie is in 48fps, but he doesn't want to release a trailer in 48fps.

Seems a waste of an opportunity to show the world this grandiose technology he's been using.

It does indeed, but I'll trust him on this. He didn't make me want to yell at him with Lord of the Rings, so he's earned that.

I refuse to ever watch anything in 3D.

I thought 3d increased the experience with John Carter but I think that was because the movie was so bright to begin with. I'm thinking it'll be cool with Avengers since I trust them to use it right. Overall i used to hate 3d due to headaches but that seems to have changed in the last 2 years or so. I still prefer 2d 99% of the time but once in a while 3d is cool if it works well with the movie and if I trust the director/franchise.

Kanluwen wrote:

Orlanth wrote:3D or 2D is less of the issue than peter jacksons reaction.

Some critics say the film is not as good as it should be. Jacksons reaction is along the lines of 'what do they know, I see the bigger picture'.
A better reaction would be: what don't they like and can something be done about it.

Laughing off critique is the harbinger of failure. Its the Hobbit, so it will still make lots of money, but it would be nice if they did as good a job as they could rather than just showcase new tech.

Have you actually read the "critique" that was linked here to IGN?

It's focused almost entirely on the difference in fps and how it "makes it look like live television or hi-def video". He lets out a number of statements of scenes, but doesn't actually talk in any depth about the way they were composed, etc.

To which Jackson replied that they didnt see the whole picture just a snippet. Wheras if the snippet was off in some peoples mind then perhaps that should be looked at.

Orlanth wrote:3D or 2D is less of the issue than peter jacksons reaction.

Some critics say the film is not as good as it should be. Jacksons reaction is along the lines of 'what do they know, I see the bigger picture'.
A better reaction would be: what don't they like and can something be done about it.

Laughing off critique is the harbinger of failure. Its the Hobbit, so it will still make lots of money, but it would be nice if they did as good a job as they could rather than just showcase new tech.

Well, the bigger picture with King Kong was that 30 to 40 minutes of the movie should have been cut and some scenes were laughably too long. There was a good-to-great film there if you could just cut it down.

It starts to make you wonder if Mr. Jackson's head is indeed inflated from LotR.

I for one am pleased by directors who don't act like the sky is falling when, surprise surprise, a bunch of people on the internet who, according to my exhaustive research, likely don't know what the hell they are talking about start popping off about a movie that they've only seen a fraction of.

Godspeed, Mr. Jackson.

Ya, I love LOTR, thought he did a really good job on it. Sooooo I think The Hobbit will be fine and dandy. Gotta love the internets

3D is just another one of those things that is fashionable to hate in nerd circles.

I loved Avatar, saw it in 3D twice. It kicked ass. If this movie is similarly shot specifically for 3D, I will gladly go see it in 3D.

rubiksnoob wrote:3D is just another one of those things that is fashionable to hate in nerd circles.

I loved Avatar, saw it in 3D twice. It kicked ass. If this movie is similarly shot specifically for 3D, I will gladly go see it in 3D.

Ah, so if people honestly dislike something, they're automatically on a hate bandwagon?

3D gives me headaches. I don't like headaches. If I could choose not to have them, I would. So I don't consider myself a bandwagoner.

Amaya wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:3D is just another one of those things that is fashionable to hate in nerd circles.

I loved Avatar, saw it in 3D twice. It kicked ass. If this movie is similarly shot specifically for 3D, I will gladly go see it in 3D.

Ah, so if people honestly dislike something, they're automatically on a hate bandwagon?

Only if you're in a nerd circle doing nerd cirlce things.

Otherwise



All aboard! WHOO WHOO!

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:White people problems.

Thats an amazingly inciteful post.

Go ahead, deny it. It's true of most threads on here, which is why I'm probably just going to stop coming here soon. I mean, what a pathetic thing to get worked up about.

Don't look now, but I think someone might be speaking ill of The Beatles.

This is a side-forum for trivial chat, pop-culture discussions and the occasional political debate or shouting match. Anyone getting worked up is missing the point or doing so because they find it an enjoyable pastime. If the place isn't fun for you, by all means, find something else you enjoy to spend your time on.

Amaya wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:3D is just another one of those things that is fashionable to hate in nerd circles.

I loved Avatar, saw it in 3D twice. It kicked ass. If this movie is similarly shot specifically for 3D, I will gladly go see it in 3D.

Ah, so if people honestly dislike something, they're automatically on a hate bandwagon?

And I am the driver! Yeee HAAAA!

3D makes me feel nauseous and gives me a headache - but I'm only doing that to be fashionable in nerd circles, and other oxymorons.

I don't really think the change in FPS is going to matter that much. It will have a different look/feel to it, compared to standard film shooting. But if Jackson thinks its right, it probably will be.

As for 3D, i'm fine with it. Some films don't really benefit from it, and you could be left feeling they put less effort into the film just because its 3D. I've seen a few 3D films, most recently Wrath of the Titans. I don't think that needed to be 3D, well it should work in 3D, but I just don't think they played to it enough, and it was kinda like a 2D film with a few 3D extras thrown in for fun... But Avatar, that was magnificent in 3D, never bothered to watch it in 2D or at home, I just think that film was all about the cinema experience and the 3D really was a big part of that for me.

But 3D does obviously cause problems for some people, doesn't mean they are trying to be cool and hate on 3D to get in some bandwagon...

mattyrm wrote:

Pacific wrote:Nice quote in your sig from Mr. Connery in 'The Rock' there Mattyrm

Was I the only one who had my mind blown by the 3D in Avatar? I came out of the cinema grinning like an idiot schoolboy

I added that quote after recalling it during a rant about work shy whiny people of my generation in another thread on Friday.

Yeah regards 3D, how old are you out of curiosity? I have a theory about it, cos it seems like younger people seem to handle the effects better. Are you the right side of 25?

No just turned 30 actually mate! I was OK with the smaller specs (like the ones you get for Avatar and ..erm.. Piranha 3DD), but the full headset that they give you at the Imax I found to be really uncomfortable - luckily I only saw a 30 min film with one, as I was feeling pretty nauseas by the end of it.

I think if this film is being specifically shot for 3D then hopefully, like Avatar, it should come out well. Hopefully the chap from 'The Office' will turn out well as Bilbo, thought he was perfectly cast in that new Sherlock Holmes series.

Monster Rain wrote:I for one am pleased by directors who don't act like the sky is falling when, surprise surprise, a bunch of people on the internet who, according to my exhaustive research, likely don't know what the hell they are talking about start popping off about a movie that they've only seen a fraction of.

Godspeed, Mr. Jackson.

Indeed, the internet is awash with rage from clueless fethers, just look at a "GW hate thread".

PJ did a fething great job with LOTR, so lets just leave the bloke alone to do his job until we see the fether eh?

A film is good or bad, it doesn't matter if it's 3D or not. The sooner the film makers realise this the better.

Still, filming it in 3D will mean that one day when 3D works properly then at least the source material will actually be right.

3D/2D I'm not terribly fussed about either although I prefer 2D if only for the fact that wearing glasses on my glasses is a pain in the arse.

I'd rather watch a 3D movie from Jackson, Cameron etc. as they have put the effort in to make it good, rather than tacked on 3D that happens quite a lot now. I enjoyed Avatar in 3D fwiw and wished I had seen Star Trek in 3D too. (Assuming it had a 3D run?)

I've changed my mind about the 48fps thing. I think it will be fine as it's something that Cameron has called for in the past, so it's good in my book. Trust in James, people!

LoneLictor wrote:3D gives me headaches. I don't like headaches. If I could choose not to have them, I would. So I don't consider myself a bandwagoner.

You and me both mate. I can stand 3D for all of about 10 minutes, then my brain starts to explode. Im the same way with airconditioning. It fething SUCKS on hot summer days, I either melt, or enjoy my brain splitting

Mannahnin wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Albatross wrote:White people problems.

Thats an amazingly inciteful post.

Go ahead, deny it. It's true of most threads on here, which is why I'm probably just going to stop coming here soon. I mean, what a pathetic thing to get worked up about.

Don't look now, but I think someone might be speaking ill of The Beatles.

This is a side-forum for trivial chat, pop-culture discussions and the occasional political debate or shouting match. Anyone getting worked up is missing the point or doing so because they find it an enjoyable pastime. If the place isn't fun for you, by all means, find something else you enjoy to spend your time on.

I think he's just jealous because some people's lives are actually good enough for this to register as a problem.

Ha Ha! I'm an upper middle class white American male who has a lot of sex and plays with toys when not at a job I enjoy. I dont' know who you are, but odds are your life sucks compared to mine!

Alby's a rock star though. He's really cool.

I'm neither of those things. I just find it ludicrous that people would get worked up about FPS or the fact that a film will be shown in 3D. It's symptomatic of everything that's wrong with western culture. We're paralysed by ennui.

Albatross wrote:I'm neither of those things. I just find it ludicrous that people would get worked up about FPS or the fact that a film will be shown in 3D. It's symptomatic of everything that's wrong with western culture. We're paralysed by ennui.

Albatross, normally I find your posts interesting and incisive, but this just comes across petty and pretentious. If you really don't care whether a film is in 3D or 2D, then fair play, that's not a bad thing, but lambasting people for talking about it because they should be dealing with more weighty issues just strikes me as kind of off. If you start a thread that discusses something more important that cosmetic stuff like this, I'm sure people will flock to it. Sure, this stuff is trivial, but people can't be fighting the good fight at all times. Sometimes it's nice to let off a little steam on the easy targets - the things that don't really matter.

htj wrote:

Albatross wrote:I'm neither of those things. I just find it ludicrous that people would get worked up about FPS or the fact that a film will be shown in 3D. It's symptomatic of everything that's wrong with western culture. We're paralysed by ennui.

Albatross, normally I find your posts interesting and incisive...

You're doing it wrong.