Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 7

[Marvolo]

I've been very on the fence about 48 fps i've heard the good and the bad but upon more research it appears it may indeed be the future of film. There is nothing inherently natural about 24 fps.

It was chosen due to the fact it is the bare minimum of frames per second you need to match up with sound. Back in the late twenties when film stock was expensive that's the number they settled on. Thomas Edison actually thought 50fps was the minimum needed to accurately capture natural movement. Think of the flicker movement of old films shot in sub 24 fps.

24 fps has a distinct look for the very fact it does not represent what we see when we look out a window. That "cinema look" comes from the 24fps which is why live hd tv per se looks very different and more lifelike as well.

The arguments made by people saying you will be able to see the makeup or sets etc. reminds me of what people said when hd tv first came out and that things would look too fake and take you out of it. All that happened is that people in the biz adjusted. The same will happen if 48fps becomes more standard.

This is coming from someone who thinks 3D is a gimmick by the way but if this is an actual innovaton i'm quite interested.

I know the history of 24fps, and why it was chosen. Does it really matter why it was chosen as long as it works for film? Which it does. Everything has its place and purpose. 48fps seems like a format that is suited to specific types of films and genres. Personally I hope to see it used in a war film. But When it comes to fantasy it should be kept far away.

All this griping aside I think this whole 48 fps situation is like another situation from one of my favorite films.

[YT]qi5qlosJT8s[/YT]

We just aren't quite ready for it yet.

 

[Bruce Malone]

When people are used to something that's been around for 80 years yes of course they will think it works because they know no better.

Sometimes we need that shakeup to get us going along to the next step. The truth is most of the criticisms seem to be of the "we're just not used to it" variety. I think i'm going to have to see it for myself to get to the bottom of it.

Roger Ebert a noted critic of 3d films is apparently a big fan of 48 fps.

The idea that X has been around for ever and works and that we don't need to go to Y, is against the nature of innovation and progress.

 

[redhawk23]

Again, just because something is new doesn't mean its inherently better.

Just because something might even more closely match "reality" or what we see naturally that doesn't mean its an enhancement of the art form.

There's something to be said about the value of unreality, and it may be that the unreality of cinema is more suited for a genre film like the Hobbit.

As Jackson himself says, its a choice.

However that doesn't mean that people that disagree with his choice are just being technological luddites, they just might genuinely dislike use of the aesthetic.

Its just like it'd be stupid if these films were shot like The Artist or like a Michael Bay film. People probably wouldn't like JJ Abrahms lensflares either.

Also I think it has less to do with the century of 24 fps that came before, as the totality of films despite being shot at the same frame rate more often that not look completely different across time and genres and in between filmmakers, and cultures. Rather audiences are going into these films with a strong ideas about what a Peter Jackson film, set in middle earth, and film in New Zealand look like. Its the difference from the past films more than anything else that I think is putting people off.

That and Jackson himself made the technology such huge part of the conversation about these movies rather than anything with the story itself or the characters. People went into this film skeptical and good or bad latched onto the topic in their reviews.

 

[jmc]

I know the history of 24fps, and why it was chosen. Does it really matter why it was chosen as long as it works for film? Which it does. Everything has its place and purpose. 48fps seems like a format that is suited to specific types of films and genres. Personally I hope to see it used in a war film. But When it comes to fantasy it should be kept far away.

I question whether or not it's even useful for that. Think about it, one of two things could happen for a war film at 48fps, either the injuries/deaths that are sustained in that type of movie will look too fake taking people out of the movie, or they'll look too real putting people off the movie completely. If 48 or even 60 fps get things even closer to what the naked eye sees are people really going to respond well to seeing someone get shot? That's not to say people don't get put off by films with similar violence at 24 fps, but I can't help but think more people would be put off once that cinema 'barrier' of 24 fps is removed.

 

[Marvolo]

My main gripe towards 48fps is what it does to the look of the film. It gives it a live look, and imo takes something away from the magic of cinema. Cant really explain it or put my finger on it exactly. You would just have to be in my head to understand, but the closest I can get is 48fps doesnt look like art to me.

Back when 35mm was the main format not just anyone could do it it was reserved for films. It kept film at a distance. Made it something special. When you went to the theater you saw something you couldnt see anywhere else. Now anyone and everyone can literally use the same camera these directors are using and accomplish the same looks and I feel like it is removing that special quality films used to have. I dont want film to look like life, and move like the real world, and I dont want film to be like everything else. I want film to be unique and unlike anything else.

This recent trend to "remove the glass" and make it look like you are looking at life is to me missing the point of escaping into another world.

Film is very special and close to my heart and all this need and fire to change for the sake of change that I have seen in the last ten years horrifies me. The cinema and art I loved is being replaced with something sterile and it breaks my heart.

This isnt really 48fps fault. It has its place like any other tool, but I see so many new tools driving out the magic I grew up on that I cant help but feel disheartened about it.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I question whether or not it's even useful for that. Think about it, one of two things could happen for a war film at 48fps, either the injuries/deaths that are sustained in that type of movie will look too fake taking people out of the movie, or they'll look too real putting people off the movie completely. If 48 or even 60 fps get things even closer to what the naked eye sees are people really going to respond well to seeing someone get shot? That's not to say people don't get put off by films with similar violence at 24 fps, but I can't help but think more people would be put off once that cinema 'barrier' of 24 fps is removed.

People said the exact same thing when color first appeared. Hitchcock even chose to film psycho in black and white because he thought he couldn't get away with the violence in color.

This idea that things are "becoming too real" in film is all about perspective. What is too real? Someone from the 1960's watching any film now might say the same.

It's not about what is "too real" but how the filmakers adapt to the new technology. There is nothing about motion blur that inherently makes it a superior film. It's just the idea that over the last 80 years we have been accustomed to believe that is the only way to see film.

Any and all these arguments and fears about the changing technology has been had numerous times over the years whenever any tech has changed. In the end the "magic" is all created by the filmmaker not the film stock used.

 

[lime]

20% of RT Top Critics. I know it's only 5 votes, but this is not a good start.

 

[redhawk23]

People said the exact same thing when color first appeared. Hitchcock even chose to film psycho in black and white because he thought he couldn't get away with the violence in color.

This idea that things are "becoming too real" in film is all about perspective. What is too real? Someone from the 1960's watching any film now might say the same.

It's not about what is "too real" but how the filmakers adapt to the new technology. There is nothing about motion blur that inherently makes it a superior film. It's just the idea that over the last 80 years we have been accustomed to believe that is the only way to see film.

Any and all these arguments and fears about the changing technology has been had numerous times over the years whenever any tech has changed. In the end the "magic" is all created by the filmmaker not the film stock used.

Sections of Kill Bill vol 1 are Black and White in the U.S. version for ratings reasons.

But regardless of the "realness" it is again an AESTHETIC difference, which may or may not be appropriate or welcome in different situations.

If it doesn't jive with the material, its not improving anything.

 

[Marvolo]

People said the exact same thing when color first appeared. Hitchcock even chose to film psycho in black and white because he thought he couldn't get away with the violence in color.

This idea that things are "becoming too real" in film is all about perspective. What is too real? Someone from the 1960's watching any film now might say the same.

It's not about what is "too real" but how the filmakers adapt to the new technology. There is nothing about motion blur that inherently makes it a superior film. It's just the idea that over the last 80 years we have been accustomed to believe that is the only way to see film.

Any and all these arguments and fears about the changing technology has been had numerous times over the years whenever any tech has changed. In the end the "magic" is all created by the filmmaker not the film stock used.

The filmmaker uses many tools to create the magic. Film stock is one of those tools so yes film stock can effect the magic. Its the same as a painting: canvas, brush, and paint type will effect the final product and some people prefer the look of a painting that has been created using certain tools. Also certain tools are only appropriate for certain paintings

 

[dustbros]

Might have been already mentioned,
but is there any comment on the IMAX aspect ratio for this? Like larger aspect than 2.35:1 or something?

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Bilbo in The Desolation of Smaug.

 

[Kane52630]

Bilbo in The Desolation of Smaug.

t:

 

[DarthSkywalker]

WTH is Bilbo wearing? He looks like he got caught in Scrooge McDuck's vault wearing Scrooge's bathrobe.

Still, very exciting.

 

[lime]

Anyone got this image in HQ?

 

[WickedMcKey]

Bilbo in The Desolation of Smaug.

He looks a bit like a pirate with those clothes. t:

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

WTH is Bilbo wearing? He looks like he got caught in Scrooge McDuck's vault wearing Scrooge's bathrobe.

Still, very exciting.

He looks a bit like a pirate with those clothes. t:

 

[HowardStark]

You just gave him credit for District 9, seriously?

Peter Jackson just doesn't sit back and collect a check. I garantee you Jackson likely Produces like Cameron or Lucas would which means he helps likely with ideas and what not and yes some people found District 9 interesting.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Peter Jackson just doesn't sit back and collect a check. I garantee you Jackson likely Produces like Cameron or Lucas would which means he helps likely with ideas and what not and yes some people found District 9 interesting.

I love District 9. District 9 is a great, great film. District 9 is down to Neill Blomkamp. He wrote and directed the original short film, and wrote and directed the film. That is his, the actors and the crew's work. Seriously...

Also considering how tight and well-structured of a film it is, it goes against Jackson's style.

 

[Kane52630]

You just gave him credit for District 9, seriously?

Jackson and Blomkamp were already working together on that now canceled Halo project before both deciding to make District 9. He was very much involved with the making of that movie.

 

[HowardStark]

Thank You its what I was trying to say.

 

[HowardStark]

I am hoping that Jackson will one day do that other Dragon Movie based off of some books that had this English Guy finds an Egg and the Dragon is helping some french and english war. I might have the concept wrong.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Jackson and Blomkamp were already working together on that now canceled Halo project before both deciding to make District 9. He was very much involved with the making of that movie.

Does the film in any way feel like Jackson, or at least the Jackson of the last decade? When Spielberg does his shepherding you can see his influence in the work.

 

[HowardStark]

Jackson is also suppose to direct sequel in the Tin Tin series so I wonder what that will look like compared to Speilbergs attempt.

 

[craigdbfan]

Creativity wise that was 100% Blomkamp. After the Halo project fell through Jackson very much helped him financially but in terms of all the creative aspects of the film they all came from Blomkamp and his filming/vfx crew.

Blomkamp was the creative force pushing that film and it was easy to tell as it was so distinctively different from Jackson and any director in the past 20 something years.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Jackson is also suppose to direct sequel in the Tin Tin series so I wonder what that will look like compared to Speilbergs attempt.

It will be 3 hours and not nearly as fun.

I love Tin-Tin. So much fun. Real labor of love from everyone involved. Like a really good young Indy story.