ITV Pays $30M For Controlling Stake In ‘Hatfields … 
Hot Trailer: ‘Anchorman 2′ 
2ND UPDATE: Charlie Sheen Fired Selma Blair From … 
Time Warner Cable Sued For Passing Lakers-Dodgers Costs On … 
Jonah Hill Signs For Management With LBI 
TOLDJA! ‘Dumb And Dumber To’ Proves No-Brainer … 
Salma Hayek’s Animated Passion Project ‘The … 
Relativity Moves Scott Cooper’s ‘Out Of The … 
Hot Trailer: ‘The Lego Movie’ 
Comedy ‘I Didn’t Do It’ Gets Series Order … 
Liv Tyler To Co-Star In Damon Lindelof’s HBO Pilot … 
DreamWorks Animation Launches Effort To Re-Position Itself … 
‘Pacific Rim’ Sequel In Planning Stages, … 
Legendary “Down To Handful” Of Studio Suitors: … 
UPDATE: Dan Harmon Apologizes For Comments Slamming … 
Deadline Expands: Hires Washington Post Journalist Lisa De … 
MGM & BermanBraun Sign TV Production Deal, First-Look … 
EMMYS: ‘Big Bang Theory’s Science 
‘Client List’ Season 3 Pickup In Limbo Over … 
Amazon Orders Cop Drama Pilot Based On Michael … 
Lionsgate Acquires Pulitzer Prize Winner ‘Devil In … 
After less than glowing audience reaction to clips of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey screened in ultra-high-resolution at CinemaCon in Las Vegas, director Peter Jackson says “Nobody is going to stop. This technology is going to keep evolving.” But he hopes moviegovers will wait and judge the finished movie when it comes out December 14. Some observers at the CinemaCon presention thought the imagery shot and projected at 48 frames per second was too sharply different visually from the longtime industry standard of 24 frames per second. A three-time Oscar winner echoed Jackson’s observation. “I think we should let him finish it and see what it’s like then, but it seems a little like the look of a soap opera”. Jackson said he noticed that some in the audience seemed to like it more as the show went on. “I just wonder if they were getting into the dialogue, the characters and the story. That’s what happens in the movie. You settle into it.”
Related: ‘Hobbit’ Footage In New Format Draws Lukewarm Response
Loading ...
Oh I’ll be seeing it, Pete, it’ll just be in one of the theaters that is showing the 24p version.
You can take your TruMotion telenovela BS and stick it right back in the gimmick drawer next to Smell-o-Vision. Ten minutes of that garbage was enough for me.
People, please, when will you stop and realize that the perfect image is NOT what we’re all looking for! Why do you think we all love using ‘hipstamatic’ on our iPhones? Because it reminds of film! This quest for the clinical, see-every-pore-in-the-face image is a futile battle. It would be like saying to Monet: “Hey, Monet, these water lilies, man, I mean what were you thinking?” And Monet would reply “Er, I wasn’t thinking, actually, I was feeling”. Pretentious, moi? Maybe but I hope I’m not alone. I honestly believe that film ‘dreams’ because our minds fill in the gaps between the frames. WE do the imagining and that is why we’re transported.
I like your comment about Monet. But there is nothing wrong with an experiment. Most experiments fail. But who knows. Maybe this one will work.
Yes, experiments are essential, but this one, the one for the perfect image, has been going on for a long time and films are not actually getting any better. I would rather see experiments for the perfect screenplay, because that is what really makes a film great. I feel like our priorities are off. 3D and 48 fps can NEVER make up for a poor screenplay.
you’re right, even if this is a disaster (which I don’t think it will be)there will be some pretty interesting and noteworthy results.
I want to find a revival house screening of “The Tingler.” Now THAT’s art. Yup. M Hm.
I LOVED that movie! Yeah, it was cheesy, but sometimes a good cheese is just what you need.
The contrarian whining about the Hobbit footage is silly for two reasons. 1. He hasn’t finished the movie. The Lord of the Rings movies didn’t look in the finished product like they did in dailies. And 2. Filmmakers like Peter Jackson are who they are because they don’t let their creative impulse get mired in what’s comfortable or expected or what everybody else is doing.
Absolutely spot on. I wouldn’t bet against him!
We should be happy that someone is trying to make something new, an d he is not an unknown artis that will be seen by ten people, but a guy with a 550 milion budget, 20 years experience in tecnology and the possibility to have confrontation with the biggest maestro in the industry about what his doing.
You know who else was like that? George Lucas
I loved LOTR too, but this is not about Peter Jackson’s creative impulses, nor is it about the lack of comparability between dailies and finished product. Jackson has never said “I’m using 48fps because it will allow me to do things creatively in this movie I could not otherwise do.” No. He has made a film that can be shown on 24fps and non-3D if necessary, so clearly the framing of shots, the script, the sets, etc. are all very much influenced by his creative impulses irrespective of frame rate. Contrast LOTR and Avatar, where technology was essential to being able to tell the story. The fps issue is his inner geek having an orgasm about new technology, just like Cameron does. But the ten minutes shown at that screening were touted as the best possible use of the technology–it was designed specifically to convince exhibitors to spend money upgrading their projectors. And, it sucked. That extent of negative reaction from a room full of people who were probably super-excited about this new technology, and probably lovers of movies–well, that tells me it must have been pretty bad. Jackson’s response is simply a more dressed up version of his consistent line that the eye needs time to adjust. It strikes me as a rather alienating, defensive posture to take for the sake of a technology that is truly unnecessary, unlike sound, color, CG, some 3-D, etc.
to be fair, sound, color, CGI and 3-D were all called unnecessary and gimmicky at some point or another
No, they weren’t.
Sound was protested by the Vaudevillian actors who had up till then dominated the film industry. Studios and audiences welcomed the change.
No one was against color, except the smaller studios who couldn’t afford the new equipment.
CGI is only bemoaned when the effect could have been done better with models or actors, such as the vampires in “I am Legend,” which looked so goofy that they ruined the movie.
3D, well, 3D is obviously not the draw studios and TV manufacturers wanted it to be, and is a bad example as it has been less than successful. 3D movies that have performed well would have arguably done just as well in 2D, as ticket sales for 2D vs 3D showings of the same film will testify. Hugo is a great example of this, as is Green Lantern, as is any film in which critics comment “save yourself some money and see it in 2D, as the 3D does nothing.”
48p, on the other hand, is going to be wildly polarizing simply because the effect is so distracting to the casual film-goer as to risk ruining the experience entirely. I saw the test footage, and I’m advising my friends to see Hobbit in one of the theaters that is showing it in 24p, as it’s going to be too good a film to allow a gimmick like 48p to ruin.
Your understanding of film history is flawed. Go read some Bazin and Arnheim.
Buddy, you are being so ridiculously petty here. Go back to your barn and split some more hairs. CGI caused quite a stir – don’t kid yourself Einstein.
Have the utmost faith In jackson and his work. Naysayers as usual in this internet age; with their quick stupidity — as in assuming and passing judgement for all the whole truth, as in a finished movie, before it is finished — are just as irresponsible as ever before. Like those who hated tv during the radio era, before tv settled in and evolved. As those who felt the same about digital while analog still ruled. Keep the faith Pete. You proved the whiners wrong when you took on LORD OF THE RINGS…you’ll do it again.
Actually, I lost faith in Peter Jackson starting with Return of the King, when he claimed to be as “faithful to the book” as possible, and then added ghosts in Pelinor Fields and Gandalf beating Denethor with a staff.
My only response would be: If we’re supposed to wait until the finished film to judge it then why did Peter Jackson show a piece of it? He obviously did it to get a good reaction then, when it didn’t come, pulled out the “it’s not finished yet” excuse.
If it had done well he never would have said “Wait until it’s finished.”
If you had a chance to see a movie the way your eye sees life, why would you settle for putting a soft focus motion blur over everything. Thats what light burning celluloid at twenty four frames per second does to reality. The technology isn’t there yet to capture and depict reality as the eye sees it but it will be someday, and 48 fps is one step closer. You are in the movie business so support the innovators — your kids will thank you someday
I agree. I watched a videoblog reaction from a movie critic who wasn’t enthused about the 48 fps technology and then he said it was like watching the action through a window and that’s when I said “Wow! Bring it on.” I hope my theaters here show a 48 fps version.
Just a quick observation…..why wouldn’t you present the best thing possible….especially when it comes to new technology or things that people aren’t used to seeing….as the old saying goes….put your best foot forward
He BLEW IT in Las Vegas. Nice try Warner Bros– Wonder if they can talk PJ into throwing away half his precious frames and releasing the film 24P… The footage looks terrible. Worse than re-runs of “Guiding Light” on You Tube. It is shockingly bad
You obviously didn’t sit through “the unlovely bones”.
Go back to the frighteners pete…
Yes, bebe, because filmmakers like Jackson are just too big to fail, right?
Audience: “Sir, it looks like there are icebergs ahead”
Jackson: “Nobody is changing course, mates! Full steam ahead”
Jackson should thank God that 48fps is easily convertible back into 24fps, so the movie will do well in traditional theatres, but it will tank in 48fps.
Hopefully, this will send a message to the industry.
That’s it! Monet’s Water Lillies in 48p! …then they would be so touchy feely…
I love the clarity of HD images, but I don’t love motion interpolation.
That right there is why people will rebel against the 48fps look: the similarity to the soap opera effect that motion interpolation does on HDTVs. My girlfriend’s parents got a kick-ass HDTV a couple of years ago. Unfortunately, they didn’t realize that there is a motion interpolation setting that the TV defaults to. Even on TV shows such as Two and a Half Men, I noticed a stunning change towards the soap opera effect. It REALLY repulsed me, as I was a big fan of that show (at that time) and it made the show nearly unwatchable to me. Of course, not everyone notices this (i.e., my girlfriends parents, who I don’t have the heart to tell them something that might be perceived as criticizing their nice TV) but MANY film fans will pick up on this if suddenly movies have this annoying look.
And what exactly is the benefit of 48fps anyway? What purpose does it serve and why now? Does it make 3D look better? Well, 3D isn’t exactly that great (unless done by Cameron). This is not a needed improvement. At least 3D served a purpose. 48fps does nothing positive.
Well, 48fps can solve longtime industry issues like strobe and more clarity CAN be a good thing. It may just be a case of fitting the technology to the right movie. I think Mann was crazy to shoot “Public Enemies” digital because the look of the film contrasted with the time period trying to be created. Yet “The Social Network” looked great shot digital.
Maybe this is the case with 48fps. It’s just another tool to help the right kinds of films where its shortcomings aren’t relevant (e.g. too modern looking).
The Hobbit will be another King Kong for Jackson. It’ll do respectable numbers but nothing extraordinary. The Peter Jackson who made Heavenly Creatures has been replaced by a clone only interested in gimmicks and spectacles. And there will be added confusion about the formats which will turn people off going to see it – 3D in 48fps, 3D in 24fps or 2D in 24fps? A lot of people will just think “Fuck it” and wait for the DVD/blu ray.
I’m glad Jackson got a bit of a wake-up call. Wouldn’t it be funny and ironic if he eventually has to run the footage through a ‘cinema’ filter in his editing software to get the film look? Chuckle, chuckle.
I’m sure the finished product will look amazing. But let’s face it, there are a lot of people who hate Peter Jackson for the same reason they hate James Cameron, because they are enormously successful, and they make other people’s movies look like shit.
Whether the technology succeeds or not, the film itself will most likely still be A+.
Some people DO NOT appreciate how Cameron insults “ME, the movie going public” insults our intelligence. And substitutes original and exciting stories and story telling with gimmicks and the cutting edge technology.
Go back and watch the original Star Wars, the ORIGINAL. Sure the acting was bad in some places you could even SEE where the actors got better, the the technology was at it’s infancy but the STORY and the story telling resonated, and resonated with the public and still does.
And Peter Jackson’s name at the helm of ANY movie will not be a driving force to get people in the seats. A dynamic, fun, escape for a few hours wonderful movie is what WE want. And I have to tell you I love IMAX but it can be too much, AND 3-D is TOO dark.
Technology HELPS tell a story better, it will NEVER make up for a poor story, and/or poor moviemaking.
Once again, moronic comments all over the place, congrats morons.
Congrats to you too Rue, for the king of all moronic comments.
It can’t possibly be as bad as the The Lovely Bones.
Peter Jackson jumped the shark with King Kong, and he ain’t coming back. King Kong was bloated, indulgent, pretentious, and ultimately laughable. Everyone fell in love with Jackson when he delivered Fellowship of the Ring, and it seemed as if he was actually serving the story instead of himself. By the time the series wrapped up, it was clear Jackson was no longer in the Tolkien business, but in the bloat and manipulation business. How could anyone screw up scenes so iconic as Dernhelm’s reveal as Eowyn, or jettison the most moving passages of ROTK (the tower of Cirith Ungol) so we could have a 15 minute spider fight, or Legolas surfing down the trunk of an elephant, or Denethor running for a mile while on fire. Nonsense. Jabba the Boyens said the farther they strayed from Tolkien, the more trouble they found themselves in. Gee, ya think? Put down the candy bar and go back and serve the story, stop trying to manipulate your audience with fake scares and fake suspense. Frodo sending Sam home? WTF? Cheap manipulation on the order of Cecil B. DeMille.
A wheelbarrow full of Oscars later, the genius returned with King Kong, the most laughably padded, pretentious, and ineffectual work of fantasy filmmaking in a long time. Then the critical and box-office flop The Lovely Bones. I’m not so sure Guillermo del Toro left The Hobbit on his own accord. I think Jackson might have needed The Hobbit to help save WETA and his own flagging career.
So what happens when Jackson, Jabba, and Walsh get their hands on the Hobbit? Do they tell this simple, straight-forward children’s book in a single movie? Oh, no, fool. They bloat the hell out of it into a 5 hour movie, with incidents barely mentioned in the novel now taking up huge swaths of running time. And a 7-8 hour “extended” version probably awaits.
All the good will generated by Fellowship of the Ring has dissolved, film by film, moment by moment, because I think Jackson has forgotten what it means to serve a story, instead of milking it and padding and manipulating his audience. No one is falling for it anymore. 24fps, 48fps…who cares? The biggest problem is the bloat and the fake theatrics.
Interesting theory about canning Del Toro to save WETA. This would explain the movie being in two parts and 48fps…because WETA would have to do DOUBLE the VFX work for 48 fps, thus double the budget…
I think Del Toro would’ve tried to stay away from digital effects as much as possible, and gone for truly creepy and original production design and special effects instead. I would’ve loved to see that, especially Del Toro’s version of the dragon…the Hobbit was always my favorite book.
I don’t remember the shark in King Kong – but he definitely jumped a herd of dinosaurs!
Back when he was making LOTR, PJ and the guys at Weta were unknowns in the middle of nowhere with something to prove. All three movies were made in one grand creative swoop, now it looks like his “difficult second album” is heading for a third outing.
I think there are three observations getting conflated talking about the viewing reaction; the merits of 48fps-stereo over regular stereo, the merits of 48fps-non-stereo against 24fps-non-stereo and the merits of PJ as a director. All three are related but not dependent. I think 48fps-stereo is not enough of a gimmick to catch on or become the norm, hasn’t IMAX been doing stereo like this for decades? It’s not as big a leap as having to suddenly wear grubby plastic shades in a cinema was. I think PJ will make a film that is innocuous enough for everyone who is wowed by the technology to enjoy thoroughly but not quite good enough to herald a new dawn of film-making. However I also felt that way about stereo.
Further, just as post-conversion to stereo is now standard and sourcing in stereo less there is no reason why post-converting to 48fps can’t be done very effectively — the reason your TV does such a bad job is not that the problem is hard but that it is hard to do with no humans overseeing the results and all in real-time. In fact movies that have already been made in a format suitable for post-conversion to stereo are also easier to post-convert to 48fps. If the Hobbit is a success expect Avengers 48fps version by the New Year!
For the people calling for reality, do you realize that movies do everything they can to get away from reality?
They tell larger than life stories, hire the over the top actors possible, build elaborate sets, rig up special lighting.
Going to a soap opera type look because certain filmmakers have a hard on for new technology is a step in the wrong direction.
And that’s ignoring the theater operators who are only going forward with this because they are looking for anything to differentiate themselves from the home theater. Not because people are interested.
This is a portion of a really old essay by Steven Poster, ASC. substitute 48 fps for “tape” and 24p for film.
“As I perceive it, there are productions that are best done on tape and there are productions best done on film.
News and sports, special events like variety shows and concerts, news-based and contemporary documentaries, industrials and educational programs are best done on tape. Anything that needs immediate presentation is obviously best done on tape. Soap operas, believe it or not, are best done on tape. I’ll get into why I think that is true a little later.
Film, however, is best for any storytelling or narrative production. Historical documentaries, I think, are best done on film. Commercials are best done on film. Anything that is “”fantasy-based”" is best done on film. Why do I say this? Marshall McLuhan, the great media visionary, defined the difference between the hot medium and the cool medium as the audience’s use of the imagination as opposed to the direct visual implant. I have a theory about this . . .
Film is shot at 24 frames per second. At that speed, there is a certain amount of blur in the images. There is also a brief time between the frames when there is no image at all and there is a little perception of flicker. Though this film process may sound technically flawed, in fact, these “”imperfections”" cause the audience to use their imagination to fill in the blanks of the missing information.
Tape, as we know, is 30 frames per second or two interlaced fields resulting in 60 images a second. There is a technique called Showscan, invented by a genius named Douglas Trumbull, which involves filming at 60 frames per second and projecting at 60 frames per second. This number was not arbitrarily chosen. Trumbull did psychological and physiological tests on all kinds of audiences and determined that 60 images a second is the maximum visual information that can be transmitted through the optic nerve to the brain. Watching Showscan resulted in a direct visual implant without any perceivable blank spaces. If the rate is raised to more than 60 images a second, the audience won’t get any improvement in image transference. So 60 frames is the cut-off. I believe a format like Showscan negates the use of the audience’s imagination. This refresh rate of 60 images exactly relates to what is seen on a video screen. Therefore, when we see video images we’re getting a direct implant of images; we are not having to use our imagination to fill in the blanks. This is little like the difference between radio drama and television. In radio drama, the audience has to completely imagine the setting and completely imagine what the people look like. Listeners must engage the imagination in the storytelling process. For this reason, I feel any fantasy-based or story-based information is best viewed on film. The 24 frame per second film imaging system does not give the audience all of the visual information. Audience members are engaged in the storytelling process because of the need to fill in the blanks with imagination.
Now, what about soap operas? Why do they work on video? Soap operas are made so that the audience can feel an immediate connection to the characters and feel that those characters are part of their daily lives. This is the reason that soap operas are best done on tape. It’s best to visually implant that information directly so it feels like it’s live and happening now.
There have been continuing attempts to make tape look like film. I think this is the wrong approach. Each medium should be used for what it does best.
Dr. Edwin Land, the inventor of instant photography, had the idea he was giving a new medium to the world. He wasn’t just doing something old in a new way. I think that is the approach we should take with the video technology of today and with high definition video in the future.
As I just re-read this I realized that it is a simplified version of a speech that I gave for the High Vision Society in Japan in 1991 (about 300 people involved in the development of Hi Def). It of course raised a lot of eyebrows there. Many of the (Non- Sony) engineers and scientists and designers really got it.”
I’m looking forward to checking out 48fps (and I’d even love to see 60fps). I don’t really appreciate watching Blu Rays on ultra high-def TVs – they look too crisp and un-cinematic. But I have to think that a large (maybe curved) theatre screen, 3D, strongly-lit projection, great sound… all together, it will be an amazingly immersive experience. I believe it’s already been put to use on thrill rides like Star Tours and Back to the Future (but I haven’t bothered to try to Google-verify this, so maybe I’m wrong).
In art, there is room for photorealism and impressionism. Pushing the envelope sparks innovation. Even if The Hobbit proves to be less than ideal, someone else will use the technology in an unexpected way and blow everyone out of the water. I’m sure there’s already someone out there, licking his chops over the opportunity to make 48fps porn.
To go a step further, how about converting 24fps films to 48fps? Not cheapo TV tricks. I mean, use CGI to painstakingly create the missing frames and help fill in detail, and let’s see what happens. Call it a step beyond film restoration. On the heresy scale, it’s probably somewhere between the endless Star Wars reissues, 3D conversions, and colorized B&W films. But I’d see it.
And to the person who said Hugo was an inartful use of 3D. Huh? Watching actual Melies footage in 3D, watching actual images of WW1 soldiers marching home from war in 3D… this was absolutely transformative. So I guess there’s no pleasing some people.
You know what technology is needed to get moviegoers back in the seats? It ain’t 48p. It ain’t 3-D. I’ts cellular signal jamming! And it’s available today. If you can give me IMAX 3D with CellJam technology, I’d pay $20 a seat.