I think it looks worse. Part of "cinematic" experience is the traditional 24fps of films. Many TVs have a setting (motion interpolation - which seems to be ON by default nowadays) that creates a "soap opera effect", and I personally hate it. Some friends like it though, so everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Looks like several movies were released in high frame rate, but I remember The Hobbit (2012)'s 48fps actually caused some movie-goers to vomit.

Your video, Hobbit in USSR, intro(1991 not released), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 278 Badge!

Your video, Gandalf falls asleep on the Hobbit set, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

There's a whole specialty field called "display calibration" that goes deep, deep down this rabbit hole. And yes, they (Tom Cruise and the guy whose name you can't hear because Tom interrupts him) are correct. Motion smoothing is violating image fidelity. It should be turned off.

We are stuck with 24 frames per second in movies, forever. Peter Jackson tried 48 frames per second with The Hobbit. It failed because it felt like the "soap opera effect".

But in almost all other video contexts, more FPS is better. Obviously in gaming more is better. YouTube supports up to 60 FPS, as does most decent recording software these days.

The blue shift that almost every TV has when on display is also a result of funky default settings. The human eye perceives a blue light as slightly brighter than a full spectrum light with the same intensity. So it works to sell TVs. And when you switch it off the default color scheme, you're first impression will be that the picture looks muted or even yellowish. This is because you are accustomed to seeing way to much blue.

If you are a true video aficionado, you'll get yourself a color meter for a few hundred bucks and do an amateur display calibration on your set.

If you are a video psycho (of if you sell faithful video experiences to an audience like in a theater) you'll hire a professional to come out with a high end spectrophotometer and calibrate each display input properly using a standardized video source.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/224099/im-going-home
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/2efrjf/youre-not-a-hobbit-right
http://southpark.cc.com/clips/ohibcn/hobbit-trivia-bitch

Yes.... but at the same time clearly mocking her to anyone with half brain (so about 2% of his audience).

The same way that I can tell you that I think Trump is really, bigly smart and not at all a narcissistic, hobbit-handed, sexist, racist asshole and you can figure out that I'm not being 100% genuine.

The whole series is excellent, btw.

Not the Hobbit, that's awful, but Lindsay's critique of them.

The end of this video was genuinely depressing.

@kir_mokum, if there's one thing @ant loves more than downvotes... it's inappropriate channel assignments. Engineering?? SRSLY??

Hobbit-handed omnishambles..... bwwwahahahahahahhaha

This is a fucking *quality insult

I know it's almost the end of September 22nd, marking the end of Hobbit Day; but, we still have a couple more days of Hobbit Week to go. So break out those pipes and light up Tolkien style. Get all lazy and intellectual in a field without any shoes or socks on.

Oh no, really? I'm shattered...

Actually, the sad thing is that Frys opinion used to mean something, but this is just so fucking stupid.

Baseball caps?
Superhero movies?

Tell you what, Steve. I'll wear whatever the fuck I want and I'll take my movie going advice from someone who wasn't one of the worst parts of the awful Hobbit movies.

So if that means I (shock, horror) actually have sympathy for sexual abuse survivors, well, I guess I'll just have to learn to live with myself somehow.

In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.

What I get as the "point" of the One Ring is
A) backup / fallback plan in case Sauron is killed so he won't be completely destroyed (containing some of his soul / essence)
B) a trap to facilitate his control of the other races by tempting and corrupting them

And I think your take on the reason for the invisibility is correct according to the way Tolkien intended it. But it still doesn't sit real well with me. To me it feels better to imagine the whole ring story as a take on "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely".

The other rings of power are interesting. The three for the elves are largely free of the influence of the one, because Celebrimbor was already very suspicious of Sauron / Annatar when he made them. So the elves can and do continue to use them, though warily.

The seven for dwarves aren't discussed a lot, but hinted that they help corrupt the dwarves natural appreciation for gems and gold into a darker greed for those things. That dovetails into stuff in The Hobbit pretty well. So, while they don't corrupt dwarves in the same way they do men, they DO lead to isolation and and factionalization of the dwarves, which I suppose could have been Sauron's intent.

The nine for humans seem to work quite well as judged by Sauron's intent for them.


I guess that overall, I just feel like temptation and corruption of wearers of the one ring seems like a very elegant way to achieve Sauron's goals when he made it. A ring that grants the wearer the single ability that they most desire but also will be most tempted to abuse would be very difficult for people (and elves or dwarves or whoever) to resist. Gandalf and Galadriel are directly offered the ring but refuse only because they both *know* that they would be corrupted by it. I don't see invisibility as enough of a game-changing ability for either of them to be so confident that they couldn't handle it.

Yeah, that's a bit of a stretch... Funny, but a stretch.

The bit about "what does the ring DO?!" in the beginning was interesting to me because that is one thing that I also dislike about Tolkien's works (as a nerdy reader of the Silmarillion like Soren in the video). The three elven rings Narya, Nenya, and Vilya all grant enhanced "elemental" type powers (for example, Gandalf has Narya, which is why he's got the beefy fire magic). Invisibility seems like a pretty poor ultimate power for the *ONE* ring (yes, there are other features, but invisibility is the primary *active* power of the ring).

Personally, I think that it would be cooler if the mighty *one* ring granted the single ability that any individual user would be most tempted to use, and eventually ABuse -- to facilitate its corruption of the wearer. Smeagol/Gollum, Bilbo, and Frodo, being Hobbits, are already predisposed to stealthiness, so granting them invisibility on top of that makes sense and would tempt them to use the invisibility to do more morally ambiguous things and possibly eventually outright evil things. Isildur, being human, could/should have been granted a different power by the ring. Extreme combat prowess or something. Certainly overconfidence in that could just as easily have led to his death via the "betrayal" of the ring.

@mentality, is it ok now if I say this looks like a waste of Duncan Jones talents, or do I actually need to sit through this second rate hobbit/games workshop ripoff?

Did you read the rest of my comment?

I acknowledged that I could very well be wrong. But this shows me nothing that makes me want to see it, and frankly it looks like a fairly boring retread of the last hobbit movie.

Oh and let's not forget that Warcraft is not exactly known for its story.