Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Andrew Reid

Advance press screenings of 48fps The Hobbit 'disappoint'

Recommended Posts

yeah but most of these fantasy tales are geared to the children masses.  just like all that Harry Potter shit that kids die for.  doesn't matter what format it is in.  this 3D fantasy is surely going to impress kids than their frequent tv programs, and it's not like the parents of these kids are going to complain or know jack about the stuff talked about in this forum.  i mean its 'the hobbit' who cares.

however there are some dynamic styles that call for this new trend in 3D cinema.  scifi action works best imo.  I would love to have seen Black Hawk Down shot in 3D-4K-48fps to be honest!  the Video gaming industry is HUGE, and some gaming 3D rigs are insane with graphics.  60fps games are something special in the gaming world when you have a pimped out PC rig.  high resolution gaming graphics share a similar culture but in a more micro level. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs
[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4700#msg4700 date=1335382441]... this 3D fantasy is surely going to impress kids than their frequent tv programs, and it's not like the parents of these kids are going to complain or know jack about the stuff talked about in this forum.  i mean its 'the hobbit' who cares.
[/quote]

If the sets look cheap? There are even TV series these days that have big production value. Shot on film or at least with perfect lighting (sometimes daring) and grading. There are scripts that are much better than those of average cinema films (i.e. [i]Boardwalk Empire[/i], many HBO productions).

If there is no exciting content, there should at least be sophisticated looking adventure. If the sets look cheap ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
here what else i think about motion blur - this effect is natural not only for film, its natural eye effect too (try to shake by hand over your fixed eyes and you will see some kind motion blur) and i believe in theory that the magic 24 fps look is happen because this frame rate can produce near the same amount of motion blur as human eye in same light conditions.
and regarding sharpness there is some limit too i believe, but it is not so determined because various people have very different sharpness of their eyes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=Axel link=topic=637.msg4701#msg4701 date=1335384082]
[quote author=Leang link=topic=637.msg4700#msg4700 date=1335382441]... this 3D fantasy is surely going to impress kids than their frequent tv programs, and it's not like the parents of these kids are going to complain or know jack about the stuff talked about in this forum.  i mean its 'the hobbit' who cares.
[/quote]

If the sets look cheap? There are even TV series these days that have big production value. Shot on film or at least with perfect lighting (sometimes daring) and grading. There are scripts that are much better than those of average cinema films (i.e. [i]Boardwalk Empire[/i], many HBO productions).

If there is no exciting content, there should at least be sophisticated looking adventure. If the sets look cheap ...
[/quote]

as for me 99..9999% of films looks cheap and sh--ty in terms of art and human soul and mind evolution. they can be professional, cool graded, 3d, 480 fps with lot of expensive stuff, their scripts can be calculated by milliseconds, but they are filmed to make people dumb and happy. and of corse to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why would anyone be surprised?
The whole idea of abandoning 24fps cinema is silly, if you want to keep the cinematic magic of cinema. I believe the framerate is one of the key things that identify the art form of film. Changing to a higher frame rate for "smoothness" and "more lifelike" means leaving the art of cinema and doing something else.
We knew this even before this screening, didn't we?

As for cinemas offering something that's not available at home - how about a screen 40 feet wide, and an audience of hundreds laughing and screaming in unison...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=shijan link=topic=637.msg4703#msg4703 date=1335384550]
[quote ... as for me 99..9999% of films looks cheap and sh--ty in terms of art and human soul and mind evolution. they can be professional, cool graded, 3d, 480 fps with lot of expensive stuff, their scripts can be calculated by milliseconds, but they are filmed to make people dumb and happy. and of corse to make money.
[/quote]

If Hollywood is the dream factory, perhaps the dreams of mankind became too hollow. A new medium could be computer games, where you interact. But not with hyperealistic CGI, but with mind games. Dream lucid dreams. Jump into the games of real life back and forth. Find out that we live in a kind of Matrix, and that we can no longer interpret our dreams because they refer only to the film-industrial patterns. Leave the house, run, feel your body. Sigh, I saw too many films  8)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just a thought, did anybody come to the conclusion why they chose 48fps...?...  Why not 60 if we're going video frame rates.  It's a bold game changing move to tamper with the standard of Hollywood for so many years....  But so was digital.  Screenings at 48fps may fail, then it wouldn't look ridiculous or have been a total waste of time if they cut it in half at 24?  Who knows... I sure don't but it sounds better than pulling a professional big budget 24fps feature from 60fps had they gone that route... 

48fps sounds like they're testing the waters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=filmbjorn link=topic=637.msg4704#msg4704 date=1335385114]
The whole idea of abandoning 24fps cinema is silly, if you want to keep the cinematic magic of cinema. I believe the framerate is one of the key things that identify the art form of film. Changing to a higher frame rate for "smoothness" and "more lifelike" means leaving the art of cinema and doing something else.
[/quote]

Yea, exactly. Movies are not supposed to be "life-like". They're meant to REPRESENT reality... but not to directly imitate it. If movies are supposed to be life-like, then you'll have to remove soundtracks, scores, focal lengths besides 50mm, and the entire concept of editing. All those things do not happen in real-life. It's just stupid to say that life-like frame-rates are better... there is SUPPOSED to be that suspension of reality. Your brain is smarter than you even know... and it knows that it's impossible to be watching reality with editing, musical scores, and ect. It works for live events and sports... but not narrative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=Germy1979 link=topic=637.msg4706#msg4706 date=1335388973]
Just a thought, did anybody come to the conclusion why they chose 48fps...?...  Why not 60 if we're going video frame rates.  It's a bold game changing move to tamper with the standard of Hollywood for so many years....  But so was digital.  Screenings at 48fps may fail, then it wouldn't look ridiculous or have been a total waste of time if they cut it in half at 24?  Who knows... I sure don't but it sounds better than pulling a professional big budget 24fps feature from 60fps had they gone that route... 

48fps sounds like they're testing the waters.
[/quote]

Probably so it can easily go out as a 24fps print for film screenings, and for non-48fps theatres as you said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When I saw the headline of the story all I could say was: "Duh."

Douglas Trumbull's ShowScan didn't take over narrative film, in fact didn't even make the slightest dent in narrative film, a long time ago when 48fps and 60fps was sorta cutting edge technology.  The jury has been recessed on this issue for decades.  High speed film is a side show attraction, a theme park ride or appropriate for other such "special venue" applications.  Not narrative film.

Duh.

I won't waste my time seeing this at a 2D screening if it's 48fps.  Why not just stab a pencil in my eyeball and be done with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=Paul Watt link=topic=637.msg4683#msg4683 date=1335370859]
So much vitriol from many who have not seen the clips, or any 48fps 3D.  Why all the hate?  So Peter Jackson took a risk and tried something different.  No-one's forcing anyone to make any aesthetic choices for future films.  Do whatever you like.  I find it a bit hypocritical that people criticize new technology when it's someone else pushing the envelope, then bemoan the fact that they can't get their hands similar technology at an affordable price.
[/quote]

best response so far.  lots of hypocrisy.  I remember when Lucas said the future was digital and even some movie brat filmmakers protested against the format.  look where we are today with cinema cameras.  some purist filmmakers stick to film for their own creative reasons.  it all becomes ironic.  Lucas imo is a true innovator in filmmaking.  If I'm not mistaken by interview but Cameron went into motion picture because Star Wars blew his mind away and wanted a piece of the 'action' as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=AaronChicago link=topic=637.msg4664#msg4664 date=1335363197]
I think there will be a right movie for this 48fps look. The Hobbit is not that movie though. There are too many associations with the cinematic look of LOTR. The costumes will seem hoaky.
In my opinion, a movie like Tron Legacy would've been a good candidate.
[/quote]

Good point - right tool for the job and all that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
and i remember when Cameron put out Avatar and was upset that movies that werent shot in 3D arent real 3D and are terrible to watch...now he makes Titanic 3D!
i also remember when we first got high end color grading with telecine houses, people from all walks of life were like why do all the music videos all of a sudden look so hyper real and amazing?
that being said, i also dont like the look of these new processes that give you so much detail, but im biased, im the one who has to deal with making it look good, the RED camera is not the talents friend, you can see every imperfection. as well, ive experienced the art department going crazy because they have to use real wood or real oak when walls used to be painted flats!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bullshit,money and politics.
some good nay at times great directors seem to do piss poor work in the new digital era.
soderbergh's che',michael mann..give me the earlier anamorphic 35mm films any day.
let us wait and see how  old fashioned,low tech and crummy the great lovely duo of christopher nolan and Wally Pfister's efforts look using the real film look on the next batman.

i remember george i got a free sony cine alta lucas saying 8 years ago digital has bested film r.i.p.
well film in the hands of nolan is lasting longer than lucas predicted because it looks good.
the shift is about big and little finance,politics and bullshit nothing more.
maybe golem should have smeared some of his sweat on the hobbit camera lens  to create a separation from the hideous reality or is it actuality.
let the battle commence nolan,ridley scott or peter jackson.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't you think Warner Brothers would make ABSOLUTELY certain, 500 million times, that this is a good decision.  You don't think they shot test footage and screened it to countless execs and people in the business?  The idea that this is a $500 million test video for Peter Jackson is laughable.  This WILL look amazing in the theaters, just like Bane's voice will be fine.  "I can't hear what Bane is saying!!".  Yeah, he's in an airplane that's been cut in half, I can't hear much either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In the Movie World NOTHING is certain. Remember the last flop, Disney's John Carter, $250M in production plus another $100M+ for marketing, and Sony is expecting a net loss of $200M.

If people dislike 48p (I personally raise hand) this might be another flop. Simple as that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, but this was a choice that was made before filming started, that had nothing to do with the script or the story in general, that is defying the past 50 years of cinema.  You don't think this was a large topic of discussion?  Everyone just signed off on it without being convinced that it was the right choice?  If it makes 3D better, what's the problem, you get the best 3D plus the 24p 2D version.  Win/win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote author=jindrich link=topic=637.msg4720#msg4720 date=1335412202]
In the Movie World NOTHING is certain. Remember the last flop, Disney's John Carter, $250M in production plus another $100M+ for marketing, and Sony is expecting a net loss of $200M.

If people dislike 48p (I personally raise hand) this might be another flop. Simple as that.
[/quote]

I don't agree - The Hobit will get $100 million from LOR fans even if the picture is crap and it will get another $100 million from people "curious" about it and ready to voice their opinions good or bad.  Tack on over sales in various countries and it will break even easily and push beyond with merchandising sales, DVD/BluRay etc.

It was a fact (ill try to post a source) that over $250 million dollars (1/4) of the over 1 billion made by Avatar was by consumers "only interested in seeing the 3D effects."  These movie goers didn't care about the movie, what genre, who was in it, they only wanted to see if the 3D was good.  And even if it wasn't, the movie sold a ticket, made some money, and then these people "social networked" about the film and helped Avatar generate more buzz (good or bad).

It has been mentioned earlier - and correctly - in this thread that little kids who go and see this movie (and yes like Avatar the Hobitt is so gay it isn't even funny - cheezy story written for kids, Harry Potter Fans, and world of warcraft players) won't give a rats ass about 48fps.  They just won't care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
^I went to see it solely for the 3d. I was impressed. The fact that the rest of the movie was laughably bad didn't prevent my enjoyment, indeed it may have enhanced it.

The movie does teach us all a valuable lesson: even though the white guys are evil, foreign cultures are powerless to stop them unless they adopt a white man as their savior.  :P ::)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Honestly, I don't think it's the 48fps. It's just the camera. I've never seen a cinematic movie on the RED before. Social Network, Dragon Tattoo, Contagion... Even the new Spider-Man looks horrible from the trailer. The Alexa is a little better, but still not that good. Hugo/Drive/In Time looked alright, but I've seen plenty of horrible looking movies shot on the Alexa. Mr Poppers Penguins looks pretty bad. Of course, there were tons of movies shot on film that looked pretty bad too, but I have yet to see a movie shot on digital that looks as good as my favorite movies shot on Panavision/Arri film cameras. That said, I think people (including me) should stop caring about how cinematic a movie looks and just enjoy the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...