Double checked and it is meant to be the 48fps version. Ho hum... who knows what is going on with my eyes!
Movie Reviews 2.0
- Thread starter Dresden
- Start date
...And the only reason you have to bend over backwards is because the HDMI spec was written by a bunch of village idiots with shit for brains.
Hardcoding EVERY god damn resolution in the spec just causes issues, like with 3D modes that aren't individual frames, but two frames baked into one single, twice as wide frame and so on.It's crap. I wish I could just reach out and kill the damn thing. I'd replace all HDMI crap with displayport in the blink of an eye if I only could. DP cables are thinner and more flexible as well, and mDP connectors are just hugely smaller on top...
You apparently know a lot more about it, so what do you think, will we get 48fps 3D support eventually?
I just bought a 50" panasonic plasma with 3D support, and I reallydon't want to replace it for at least 5 years
My previous 32" samsung LCD has served me for nearly 7 years I think, I got it around the time the Xbox was released. Talk about teaching an old dog new tricks, the 360 looks pretty damn good on the plasma
I just bought a 50" panasonic plasma with 3D support, and I reallydon't want to replace it for at least 5 years
My previous 32" samsung LCD has served me for nearly 7 years I think, I got it around the time the Xbox was released. Talk about teaching an old dog new tricks, the 360 looks pretty damn good on the plasma
I hear ya. My TV is just a couple months old, but would be "obsolete" tomorrow if a 48fps spec for BR/HDMI came out then. If HDMI had been more flexible like the DVI spec it is based on this wouldn't happen. Is the framerate/rez within the bandwidth limits of the sender/receiver? Ok, then GO, dammit.I just bought a 50" panasonic plasma with 3D support, and I reallydon't want to replace it for at least 5 years
...But noooo. Can't be like that. It's almost so you suspect they do stuff like this on purpose to give people incentive to run out and buy new junk. Kinda like when whatever flavor of Dolby/DTS bluray audio some years back suddenly couldn't be transported over HDMI without HDMI equipment with the required logo stamped on the front bezel. Like those bits were so fricken special they simply couldn't survive in existing equipment.
I hear ya. My TV is just a couple months old, but would be "obsolete" tomorrow if a 48fps spec for BR/HDMI came out then. If HDMI had been more flexible like the DVI spec it is based on this wouldn't happen. Is the framerate/rez within the bandwidth limits of the sender/receiver? Ok, then GO, dammit.
...But noooo. Can't be like that. It's almost so you suspect they do stuff like this on purpose to give people incentive to run out and buy new junk. Kinda like when whatever flavor of Dolby/DTS bluray audio some years back suddenly couldn't be transported over HDMI without HDMI equipment with the required logo stamped on the front bezel. Like those bits were so fricken special they simply couldn't survive in existing equipment.
A firmware update could solve that.
Anyway, it would be cool if there were a 1080p/50p sbs 3d version of The Hobbit on BD. The PS3 at least should be able to handle that.
I liked the Hobbit (2D). I am not a hardcore fan but I really liked the LotR series (so much I recently rebought all 3 extended versions in widescreen) and I would say if you liked Fellowship of the Ring then the Hobbit is not far off. I had very low expectations going in, expecting to be bored and the movie not well done, but I thought it was a fun movie with some nice messages and I was not bored in the least. It stood on its own but also ties nicely into the LotR. I also thought the actor for Bilbo was a good choice. I can see where some people would not like the movie (it is long; it follows the LotR flow of more about the journey than the destination; fantasy driven; doesn't follow the books verbatim; quite different in tone and delivery than most movies; etc) so I am not sure a rating really reflects how good the movie is. For me I liked it enough I will buy the DVD which is saying a lot since I only own maybe 2 dozen movies.
Nice messages ?
Probably the things Gandalf says, such as "it's all the small and good deeds that keeps evil at bay" or something of the like.
I've just watched The Hobbit, in 2D only so can't comment on the 48fps stuff.
Unfortunately, for me the film contained too much of the usual Peter Jackson CGI-led claptrap with endless unsurvivable action sequences clumped together with some cheesy lines delivered portentously. Pretty much unrecognisable at times to the original book. I don't remember the dwarves as being indestructable ninjas in the book and, seriously, WTF was going on with the rabbit-sled? The mind boggles.
I'll give the film 4/10. If 30 minutes of pap was trimmed off, I'd probably bump this up to 5/10.
Unfortunately, for me the film contained too much of the usual Peter Jackson CGI-led claptrap with endless unsurvivable action sequences clumped together with some cheesy lines delivered portentously. Pretty much unrecognisable at times to the original book. I don't remember the dwarves as being indestructable ninjas in the book and, seriously, WTF was going on with the rabbit-sled? The mind boggles.
I'll give the film 4/10. If 30 minutes of pap was trimmed off, I'd probably bump this up to 5/10.
Yes. There is 3d in 24 and 48, but 2d only in 24. I suppose the thinking being they want to milk the extra cash from 3d when and where they can.
I gave the hobbit 5/10 on imdb, I was feeling overly generous in hindsight.
The ridiculously unsurvivable action sequences irritate me in most modern action movies, to tell the truth (superhero films aside), but Jackson always takes it to a new level. He just ignores the laws of physics and his characters tend to be pretty much indestructable as they tumble thousands of feet down a precipice again and again whilst being thrown around by gigantic creatures...
As for this being fantasy which gives more leeway, I'd have to point out that it is based on a well-loved book so I'm not quite sure why there should be leeway to completely change the tone of the book and turn it into an overlong CGI-laden stunt-fest!
While I'm at it, I'm not quite sure why nobody in Middle Earth ever invented a handrail. Moria, Erebor, Isengard, Rivendell, Minas Tirith, any other subterranean orc kingdom - all have bridges, balconies, roads on the edge of vertiginous drops with nary a handrail to be seen! The orcs, especially, must have extremely good balance - have you ever tried to walk across a rickety rope bridge without something to hold on to? Instant plummeting death for most but orcs (and dwarves) can run across them en masse without even a wobble!
Answer: why don't the chairs on the bridge of the starship Enterprise have seatbelts?
It's for effect, my friend. Don't over-analyze a movie. It just gives you grey hair (and a sour stomach) if you do it too much.
It's for effect, my friend. Don't over-analyze a movie. It just gives you grey hair (and a sour stomach) if you do it too much.
The grey hair is coming of it's own volition.
Unfortunately, I don't have it within me to ignore pointlessly stupid shit in movies, something of which a lot can be found in recent Jackson movies (or the recent Star Trek movie, for that matter). I just find it sad that directors prefer to spend vast amounts of money on whizz-bang special effects rather than coming up with sensible plotlines/scenes/dialogue. Perhaps I should simply feel sad that the general public lap up the special effects and ignore the ridiculously dumb shit to be found in movies these days!
As for Star Trek, in general (i.e. pre-Abrams), their movies generally held together pretty well without too many blatant flaws in the plotlines. Heck, if you look back to recent SF movies, most of them are much inferior in a storytelling sense to the better ones from the 1980s/1990s! My biggest problem with the Federation (Next Generation and onwards) is that they were all fricking Californian hippies! No standing military when surrounded by and in conflict with the warlike Klingons/Cardassians/Romulans/Dominion etc etc? Gee, what a great idea!
Oh well, that's my last rant of the year. Happy New Year to all and let's hope for better from the 2013 movie releases!
Babel-17
Veteran
For any SF movie with FTL starships actively navigated by unaugmented humans, a massive suspension of disbelief is required.
In his latest Culture novel, Iain M. Banks mentions a nice workaround, one advanced society uses virtual crews, rather than "Minds", to operate their ships.
In his latest Culture novel, Iain M. Banks mentions a nice workaround, one advanced society uses virtual crews, rather than "Minds", to operate their ships.
Similar threads
