IMAX is also quite expensive, not to mention that there’s only a few IMAX cameras out there.
The point was that if you’re going to complain that innovation isn’t happening due to laziness, don’t use 48fps as an example. There are other, better technologies around.
Besides, if more directors pushed for it, IMAX cameras would get smaller, cheaper, and less cumbersome. Pretty much only Christopher Nolan/Pfister even bother trying.
“The Hobbit’ Officially Announced As A Trilogy”
Jul 30 2012 12 : 30 PM EDT[/SIZE]
https://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1690766/hobbit-trilogy-announced.jhtml
Director Peter Jackson confirms rumors that a third movie has been added to his upcoming adaptation of the beloved fantasy novel.
Peter Jackson has embarked on an unexpected journey indeed, as the filmmaker has revealed that his two-part adaptation of “The Hobbit” has now officially added a third movie.
By Josh WiglerIn a message posted on his Facebook account, Jackson confirmed the rumors that a third “Hobbit” movie is indeed in the offing, with Variety’s Josh Dickey asserting that the film will hit theaters in summer 2014 — a departure from the planned December 2013 and 2014 releases for the first two “Hobbit” adventures. A more specific release date is not currently known.
“It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made,” Jackson wrote of the decision to expand the “Hobbit” adaptation as a trilogy. "We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.’ "
“We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance,” he continued. “The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.”
The first portion of the “Hobbit” trilogy, titled “An Unexpected Journey,” hits theaters on December 14, 2012.
Yes!
Finally a chance to put things from the other books into the movie.
yeeessssssssss
You should have at least mentioned 3D.
Right now, 3D movies using an alternating-frame method have half the framerate for each eye. Doubling our FPS can fix that and at least modernize 3D to the beloved standard people are stuck to. Then we can explore the option of smoother 2D cinema without feeling like a bunch of babies in swimming pools.
Oh come on, I’m sure it’s an easy feat to fit some IMAX cameras between some porn-star’s thighs for some high-quality footage.
I didn’t mention 3d because I find it to be a worthless gimmick, and typically ignore it until it becomes a problem (I.E. I need to see a movie and avoid buying 3d tickets by mistake).
3d isn’t really that bad as long as it’s executed well.
The 3d in Avengers was shit, basicly because it was only made in post production while 3d in animations (e.g. Avatar, pixar movies) looks pretty good and isn’t very distracting. The 3d in The Hobbit together with 48/50fps will probably be top notch. After seeing those heavy equipment two orgasmic RED Epic cameras put together into one giant built I don’t think I will be disappointed.
Explain to me why exactly 3d is a gimmick? What about making visuals more realistic and lifelike is a gimmick? Is color a gimmick?
That’s just being pedant. 3D is a gimmick when you pay five more bucks to see a couple of effects added in post-prod. Think of Tron 2: They tell you right off the bat that half of it isn’t three dimensional (I can’t find a screenshot of it, but I remember it being written on the screen just before the movie started). And when the 3D kicks in, well it doesn’t really. A few things there and elsewhere but nothing really worthy. Yet they still charged you the full price for a movie you could’ve easily enjoyed without those glasses.
Of course it isn’t a gimmick when done properly, as said earlier, and I really hope that 48fps will remove the headache-inucing blur I’ve seen in a couple of movies.
Ok, yeah I always knew they’re some fake 3d, out there but that doesn’t mean 3d is a gimmick that means suckers need to realize they are getting the wool pulled over their eyes.
I’ve heard the “3D is a gimmick” argument before, from a hipster brasilian comrade. There’s really no justification to it, for reasons already described.
Avatar was a great example of 3D. When the main character was giving his video-logs, the webcam was actually a 3D two-lensed camera. And the CGI was in 3D, of course. And all of the filming was done in 3D.
And my favorite part is that the [flat] holographic monitors were also rendering 3D images.
Go see the Avatar 3D re-re-release if you haven’t seen Avatar 3D yet, TGP. And then ask yourself how any film could be hurt by actually filming/rendering it in 3D (apart from larger production costs).
I don’t know about you, but one of my favorite movie sequences is from Stalker (1979)… it’s a lengthy panning shot, peering down through some shallow water which is gently rocking… crossing over a few junk items ranging from art to weapons to a goldfish in a floating bowl. I think there’s some debris floating on the water’s surface.
Even a classic scene like that would have been enhanced by it having been done in 3D, this being in a Tarkovsky film which was half black-and-white for stylistic reasons. If you can do 3D, suddenly 2D is another choice of style for the cinematographer.
3D is just another tool for filmmakers. Just because many use it in a gimmicky way doesn’t mean it’s gimmicky in and of itself. One of the best experiences I’ve had with 3D was actually in an animated movie, How to Train Your Dragon. There’s a scene right near the beginning where Hiccup gets his cannon-thing out and waits for a shot at the dragon. That one shot where it’s just him on the hillside framed against the night sky was just…incredibly immersive. It was fantastic. 3D can really be worth it in certain moments when its used to add depth to an interesting shot and not just used to make some things “come at you” like those awful Sea World movies.
Regarding 48fps…I suppose I can’t say too much one way or another how much proven benefit there is to using it, but the fact is 48fps gives the viewer twice as much visual information compared to 24fps. You seldom see gamers try to lock their framerate in a game for style, since they understand more frames = more info = better chance of surviving and looks better…but that’s in PC games, which have almost always tried to go as fast as they can and be as realistic as they can. 24fps may stick around for movies simply because it has that distinct visual style which we’ve been accustomed to for so long, and there’s no real need to go faster like there is in games. I am glad in any case to see filmmakers like Peter Jackson exploring new techniques in cinema.
The only thing that I fear with “having more information” is that is might break the illusion of the decor. If you can see more effects and action and stuff, it means you can also see more errors and inaccuracies. Therefore, sets might look like sets now and not “scenery”. Of course Peter Jackson is a very good producer and he’ll probably be able to prevent that from happening, but still.
It’s a possibility, but the “extra information” mostly applies to things in motion, since you are capturing more pieces of the action. It would also reduce motion blur, which might make some things look strange since we would normally expect things to blur and instead they stay sharp.
But stationary sets shouldn’t really be a problem, since there isn’t any extra information to be gained if you shoot, say, a rock, or a house, or a statue, in a 48fps. They look the same as in 24fps since they’re not in motion. In that case, a far greater consideration is the 3D. I believe in one of those blogs, Peter Jackson comments on how the 3D cameras substantially subdue color tones, so they had to brighten the colors on the sets so they would look right when captured.
In the end, it’ll likely still look strange to us, but that’ll just because we’ll be seeing smoother motions with less motion blur. I don’t think 48fps will break anything else just being used. I think it’ll be just like when you watch a 24fps movie for the first time on a 120hz TV - just looks weird at first, but then you get used to it after a little while.
The glasses. Let me know when they figure out how to remove them from the equation.
What’s wrong with glasses? People wear glasses all the time which would make a second pair of glasses a bit annoying.hmm.
It’s entirely possible for contact-lenses to filter circularly-polarized light for you.
The difficulty in finding another method is that your eyes are mostly identical. The biggest difference between them is where they are. That’s how you judge depth, by something being closer and thus offset between your views.
We can make no-glasses 3D if you keep your head in a certain place like the old-timey things or these slightly newer things. But an audience has a hundred different perspectives… and there’s no way to send each of their left and right eyes a different message (unless their eyes are pointed in different directions, as is the case with cross-eyed 3D). A friend of mine swears by cross-eye, but I refuse to tamper with the focus of my eyes.
With so many identical eyes in an audience, the only solution is to filter left- and right-eyes differently (using glasses) or actually create a 3D projection, which may never be well suited for film.
I have yet to see a movie in 3D where it wasn’t a gimmick. I did hear that Avatar was done really well in 3D so I’m kind of sad I didn’t get to see it. Avatar’s 3D has been described as “looking through a window” which is different to the gimmicky “it’s coming right at me!” 3D. I’m looking forward to watching the Hobbit in 3D because of the higher framerate which will make it look much better.
Peter Jackson deciding to have three movies makes me even less likely to ever watch this. He did a decent job of adapting LotR with one movie per volume, where The Hobbit is shorter than one volume of LotR, why the fuck did it need two movies to begin with? I know, cutting less out is better, but fuck, three movies based on a boring as fuck book by a boring as fuck director? No thanks.
Film is higher definition than anything, since it has no pixels, you only need to worry about the granularity of the film when the image is blown up large enough. When theaters started showing digital movies, if they were only 480 pixels tall, it would have been a huge step back from film.
Unless you’re talking about HD home releases. I didn’t pay attention to who started doing that first once BluRay and HD-DVD were released.