Mahaloth,
Thanks for sharing this, my friend! Totally entertaining and informative and I cannot wait till 2013!
Pete looks like he’s gained back a little of that weight he’s lost, but if he has to walk up those scaffolds many more times and eats healthy from that mountain of food, he’ll lose it again!
Andy Serkis! Man, what an inspiration, isn’t he? Everything he does, he totally owns, and now he’s a 2nd unit director.
Thanks again!
Q
I just saw the 3D version of the trailer over the weekend. Looked very good. But did anyone notice the scene between Galadriel and Gandalf? Around 1:30 here. A romantic plot between the two of them seems a little disturbing.
I very much doubt it’s really a romantic subplot: that would be so contrary to the spirit of the books. They are old friends and allies, possibly going back to pre-Middle-Earth days, and they’re the only two of the White Council who are really taking Sauron’s threat seriously enough at present. It’s natural that there should be a bond between them deeper than how-do-you-do and in-re-the-minutes-of-our-last-meeting. But I don’t believe that the filmmakers are going to take it to smoochies or even to hints of past smoochies.
“Smootchies”?
Death to Smootchies!
One does not simply SMOOCH Galadriel…
You. Shall. Not. SMOOTCH!!!
Hey, they’re old friends who knew each other back in Valinor, during the Years of the Trees. Not many folks left running around in ME who actually spent time there (Glorfindel, Saruman, Radaghast, Alatar and Pallando are the only others who occur to me at the moment. Canonically Celeborn didn’t, but in later mss he did.)
So it’s like a chance for Galadriel to get all nostalgic with one of her old High School teachers…
Brief article from someone who saw 10 minutes of the footage…in the full 48 FPS.
Apparently, it takes some getting used to. I’ll be seeing it in 2D and 48 FPS if that is available. Otherwise, I’ll choose 2D and 24 FPS.
No 3D for me, most likely, no matter the frame rate.
Ooh! Looks very cool.
I am super curious about 48 FPS now, though. I’m wondering if 24…might be better? There is a “film look” to films that we are all used to. I wonder if the clarity of 48 FPS will ever become the preferred look.
This reminds me of the vinyl vs. CD argument that raged when digital audio first came out. Or the complaint that DBX/Dolby compression made music sound funny. The latter one was settled when engineers pointed out the stuff that made the older technology sound “realistic” was the noise, and that was no longer present.
48fps will be smoother, and more realistic, but that’s a bad thing? You’d rather be satisfied with a compromise that renders action as jerky? Personally, 24fps was always upsetting to me cause I was sensitive to the lack of smoothness; the use of video for much media has improved that quite a bit.
I haven’t seen the 48 sample, but I think I will like it. It’s a lot like going from 35mm in a neighborhood theater with a single speaker to 70mm IMAX with surround sound. Is this really something to complain about?
I also don’t see why 48fps should be controversial. If you’ve watched HD television, you’ve undoubtedly seen 720p 50 (PAL) or 720p 60 (NTSC) video which has a greater frame rate than this film, and that video format is widely accepted as being pleasant to watch and high quality.
Before reading the article I linked to, I felt the same. I am wondering more now, but I do plan to see it in 48 FPS(if they screen 2D at that frame rate).
48 FPS sounds awful.
Why? You’d prefer 49?
What? I don’t think that at all, just that there are some unknowns about it.
“…it has that soap opera look you get from badly calibrated TVs at Best Buy. The footage I saw looked terrible … completely non-cinematic. The sets looked like sets … sets don’t even look like sets when you’re on them live, but these looked like sets. The magical illusion of cinema is stripped away completely.”
I know that look. I don’t care for it.
I think you’re missing someone who spent some time in Valinor.