TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 76 to 82 of 82

Thread: The Hobbit

  1. #76
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2002
    Location: 1, Rotation: 0
    From Wikipedia:

    "In naming his character, Tolkien used beorn, an Old English word for bear, which later came to mean man and warrior (with implications of freeman and nobleman in Anglo-Saxon society). It is related to the Scandinavian names Björn (Icelandic and Swedish) and Bjørn (Norwegian and Danish), meaning bear. The word baron is indirectly related to beorn."

    This confirms what I've already learned from other sources.

  2. #77
    Member
    Registered: Mar 2004
    Location: south wales
    Quote Originally Posted by Subjective Effect View Post
    And of course all Orcs are really Elves, and if you didn't know that already it's my pleasure to bring you that shocker.
    Tolkien never completely settled the question of the origin of the orcs.

  3. #78
    Orcs come from another planet. Elves are an offshoot of Trolls, I believe.

  4. #79
    Member
    Registered: Mar 1999
    Location: Michigan--gotta live somewhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Chimpy Chompy View Post
    Orcs come from another planet. Elves are an offshoot of Trolls, I believe.
    Exactly, and Dwarves are dragon turds that took root.

  5. #80
    Member
    Registered: Jun 1999
    Location: Procrastination, Australia
    So what do you hobos make of the whole 48 frames per second business?

    They need to do higher frame rates for 3D, so it looks less shit. That's the just the physics of the thing. But I've always been broadly supportive of higher framerates, thinking it'd be a better new development than 3d actually. The juddering of 24 on a big screen is quite apparent to me and gets annoying on a nice panning shot of a landscape or something. I saw a Tru-motion TV just the other week though and marvelled at its ability to magically turn a normal looking film into a fake looking video on a cheap set. If 48fps does that (as people are saying) it's a bit of a problem.
    I always thought it was the interlacing of video that gave that effect (it causing different motion blur horizontally than vertically). Apparently not, according to reports. Scary to think a bit of shutter blur might be the difference between something seeming "proper" and not, in any case.
    It's hard to say, not having seen it in person, of course. Advocates say you just have to get used to it and ultimately it's better. I hold out some hope that there's some tweak in post or way of shooting that gives the best of both worlds.
    Charlie Brooker pointed out the other day that we're entering a weird place if this is adopted on a large scale. With digital video having striven for a couple of decades now to get "the film look" and recently achieving it, if movies move to 48fps across the board we'll be in a period where the movies look fake and TV looks real.

  6. #81
    Member
    Registered: Mar 1999
    Location: Michigan--gotta live somewhere
    Quote Originally Posted by Muzman View Post
    So what do you hobos make of the whole 48 frames per second business?
    If it gives the film the look and feel of a telenovela, then I'm totally against it.

  7. #82
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Ran across this page (okay, so it's only Yahoo, but so what) and was entranced by the preview at the end of the article.

    I am SO looking forward to this.

    http://movies.yahoo.com/blogs/movie-...053300988.html

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •