 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/01/2013 8:09 PM, nemesis wrote:
> Elves are cheerie and brat-like in the book, even Elrond! The dwarves are
> barely disguised stereotyped jews in their traits, including greed and
> cowardice. Their funny names are written with kids in mind. And a hobbit hole
> is teasing children about rabbits and then entirely introducing them to a new
> concept.
>
> It was written for kids.
I have read, many moons ago, that the story was originality told to his
children. He then formalised it into "The Hobbit..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._R._R._Tolkien#Publications
One sign of a good children's book is that it can be read by adults and
has several levels. Children hear/read the uppermost level while adults
can understand the inferences. Speaking of which I think that you are
wrong thinking that Dwarves are a metaphor for Jews. Dwarves in Nordic
and Germanic mythology are as he describes them. That comes from a time
before Christianity came to Northern Europe.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/01/2013 10:05 PM, Le_Forgeron wrote:
> My interpretation is different. the elves/human/dwarves/hobbit are a
> social stratification of the UK at the exit of first WW, a bit similar
> to the cast system of India... the revolution of first WW is in progress
> and perturbing the social consensus.
Astute, but then the class system in Britain is all pervasive. It is
never far from the surface. IMO The French had the right idea in the
18th Cent.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 06 Jan 2013 08:35:00 -0500, Kenneth wrote:
>> The original book is for children...
>
> Ooh, I disagree. I didn't read the book until I was an older adult, and
> it just seemed *spot on* as to style and characterization. I never felt
> like it was talking down to me, or that it was 'juvenile', so to speak.
> I also got a real kick out of its droll humor. And, (at odds with the
> movie), Bilbo comes across as a rather quiet and somewhat serious
> 'everyman'--if a bit eccentric--lacking the overly-comic traits that are
> way overused by his film counterpart. If anything, it seems to me that
> the film itself is more aimed at the kiddies than the book is. Yet it
> does have a playful atmosphere, certainly more so than the darker and
> more serious LOTR trilogy (which I've actually never read.)
It may have been mentioned by now, but the Hobbit films are not just
culled from The Hobbit, but are set in a much larger "historical" context
of middle earth. Tolkien had built about 1,000 years of history around
Middle Earth, and the films actually try to take that history into
account, which does give it a darker edge. As one review I read put it,
the difference between LOTR and The Hobbit (all three films) is that
Sauron was looking for the one ring in both, but in The Hobbit, he was
looking in the wrong place. His intention had been perceived to be to
recruit Smaug to his cause; Sauruman was becoming evil (he wanted the
ring for himself), etc.
It helps to be familiar with more than just The Hobbit to understand what
Jackson is doing with these films - he's getting into a lot more of the
overall history of Middle Earth and the goings-on while the Dwarves were
trying to take back Erebor (something that's not really part of The
Hobbit per se, but was a part of the "historical" reasons for them
wanting to return home).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mca### [at] aol com> wrote:
> Speaking of which I think that you are
> wrong thinking that Dwarves are a metaphor for Jews. Dwarves in Nordic
> and Germanic mythology are as he describes them. That comes from a time
> before Christianity came to Northern Europe.
For some reason dwarves tend to have Scottish accents in fiction.
I wonder where that comes from.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/6/2013 5:35 AM, Kenneth wrote:
>> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
>> something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
>> motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
>> sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
>> motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
>> brain.
>
> Yeah, I agree completely. It's interesting that in the article you mentioned (or
> in one of its links), the film's director/cinematographer/effects supervisor all
> have the opinion that motion-blur is a *bad* thing, to be eliminated.
Actually, its bad advice for a much more specific reason. Our own eyes
produce motion blur, and for a long time, its been "intentionally"
introduced into some video, so that it doesn't look wrong, when viewed.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 07/01/2013 1:02 AM, Warp wrote:
> For some reason dwarves tend to have Scottish accents in fiction.
> I wonder where that comes from.
It might come from the WW I nickname of a certain Scottish regiment,
from my area were under sized.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> After seeing the movie at 48 FPS, I cannot help but agree. It was
> distracting, and it made the movie look odd. The most prominent effect
> was that I got the really strong feeling that the movie was being played
> back too fast (even though all the movements were normal.) That might
> sound amusing, but it's true.
Almost undoubtedly because you are used to the 24fps framerate for
films. I bet if you watched at 48fps for a few years then went back to
24fps it would look horrible. This is an interesting effect though, I
wonder if you watched something at 100 or 200 fps how that would seem?
> I was curious to see if I would experience the same, and what do you know,
> that exact same thing happened here too! I had read this article before
> going to see the movie, and was trying to see how the audience reacted to
> the humor in the movie, and there indeed was signicantly more reaction in
> the 2D version than in the 3D HFR version.
There are several possible explanations for that effect, apart from the
framerate difference. You'd need to do a proper experiment to confirm that.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> frame rate. As all I learned the human brain is only capable to recogise a frame
> rate from 24 to 26 per second due to individual differences.
That's not really true, below about 24 fps it doesn't look like fluid
motion, rather a sequence of images changing quickly. IIRC up to about
100 fps (obviously it varies from person to person) your brain can still
get more information and make the motion look smoother and more
real-life-like. It's relatively easy to demonstrate the difference
between 30 fps and 60 fps on a normal PC, and if you have a new LCD or
old CRT capable of 120 Hz you can demonstrate that too.
But, above 100 fps does make a difference for fast moving parts when
your eye is tracking the motion. In real life if an object is moving
very fast your eye tracks the movement very accurately and you can see a
perfectly sharp image of the fast moving object. If you try the same on
a film/video/tv it looks blurred (even if you have infinite resolution
and zero response time) because the image is only being updated every X
metres (where X is the distance moved by the object within one frame).
Your eye is continuously moving but the object is moving in finite steps
- this is what makes it look blurred.
Film makers at 24 fps purposely have to avoid objects moving quickly
relative to the screen exactly because of this effect. It's the same
reason why you get LCDs running at 480 or 600 Hz to reduce motion blur.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I also think that it has something to do with motion blur. When you film
> something at 24 FPS, when there's rapid movement each frame gets more
> motion blur than if you film it at 48 FPS. Thus it makes the movie look
> sharper, but whether that's a *good* thing is another question. "Less
> motion blur" does not automatically mean "looks better" to the human
> brain.
At 24fps the director can use motion blur as a tool to force the
audience to concentrate on a certain part of fast moving scenes. At
higher frame rates this becomes harder, so really it's just about how
much control the director should over what the audience should be
looking at.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Am 05.01.2013 20:53, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>
>> PS. Where the hell uses 24 FPS? I thought everything was 25 FPS...
>
> Movies. All of them. Everywhere in the world (AFAIK).
>
> 25 fps was the effective framerate of the old European analog TV
> standard (50 fps interlaced), probably chosen due to the 50 Hz mains
> frequency. The US never had 25 fps anywhere - their analog TV standard
> had 60 fps interlaced (30 fps effective).
>
> Fun fact: On European analog TV, it was customary that movies had a
> slightly shorter play time than in theaters. Not because they left out
> anything, but because for practical reasons they played them back at 25
> fps instead of the original 24 fps. (In the US, the customary way to
> adapt the framerate was to show each original frame for 2 or 3 half
> frames, alternatingly, resulting in no change to the play time.)
>
Naah.. They just put more ads.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
