The Hobbit at 48 Frames Per Second

This could apocryphal but I think PJ has dumbed down the final print quality for the very reason that it looked too good. 

As you probably know it caused a poor reaction when 10 minutes was shown at CinemaCon, but PJ stated that he thinks that it takes about that amount of time for peoples perception to adjust, and that 3D at 48fps will be seen as a huge step forward.

Interestingly IMAX cinemas all over the UK will be showing it ...but NOT London?????

Odeon were yet to publish if/where they would be showing in 48fps when I checked a couple of days ago.

I will definitely make a point of seeing it in the new format.

M

If it is only available at 48fps in 3D I'll be giving it a miss.  

3D is the biggest waste of time and money IMO. 2 eyes = 2D .

One eye or ear receives 2D info - verical, and horizontal. Two ears or eyes receive 3D info!

But I agree that 3D vision is rubbish, just like AD Blumlein's idea of 3D sound that he called binaural, and we know today as "stereo"!

ATB from George

Apparently the attention to detail goes to the extreme given the super hi-res.

The window latches for example are hand-made one offs.

And the costume material is made on Industrial Revolution era looms.

Oh dear!

It's just a set of films!

ATB from George

I dunno why you're all worrying, it's just another Jackson film about elves and whatnot. It'll be "spectacular" in a superficial way but it'll be shite and boring, like his other elf films.

Much more interesting for adults not interested in CGI and fairies, is the fact that Carl Theodor Dreyer's 1928 masterpiece "The Passion of Joan of Arc" is at last available on Blu-Ray and DVD in the UK.

What's more, you have a choice of watching it at 20fps without musical accompaniment - as Dreyer apparently intended - or 24fps.

The complete opposite of Jackson's overhyped hi-tech drivel, but as a film-maker, Jackson isn't fit to lick Dreyer's boots. No need for 3D and IMAX and 48fps fripperies for the austere Dane, because he could make films better than just about anyone else who's ever made a movie.

Might I suggest you give this elvish guff a miss and watch a proper film instead? You can get the DVD/BR at all good retailers - I still think it's the most powerful and moving film ever made.

And I think "Lawrence of Arabia" is coming back to cinema screens as well; not an entirely faultless film, but you're probably better off spending your hard-earned readies on Lean's often magnificent movie that the latest piece of Jackson juvenalia.

Dear Kevin,

I do agree with you [it is possible!] about the over-hyping of arguably pointless modern films.

You have piqued my interest over Joan Of Arc. Something to get for the Christmas hols, perhaps!

ATB from George

George

There are good modern films being made, it's just that they're not coming out of the big studios/Hollywood any more. Which is a pity.The other day I was watching a marvellous 1934 Howard Hawks comedy (starring the divine Carole Lombard and John Barrymore, having the time of his life hamming it up)  called "Twentieth Century" which made me rather melancholy. Why? They really don't make 'em like that any more.

Ever since "Star Wars" in 1977, Hollywood (and cinema audiences) has become increasingly enamoured with technology for its own sake, favouring it over writing, narrative, character and the grammar of cinema. They have been making films primarily for juveniles, and for some reason the audiences have bought into it.

One only has to look at the career of Stanley Kubrick. In the 1960s, he started becoming obsessed with technology, with special cameras and lenses and sets and effects. As a result, he made the initially impressive but absurdly overrated "2001", and never made anything as good as "The Killing", "Paths of Glory" or "Dr Strangelove" again. His films became bigger and emptier and colder, like Kane's palace.

That's why Dreyer is so wonderful. More than any other film-maker - even Ozu - he strips everything unnecessary out of his films. Bare sets, only pertinent action and everything, sometimes it seems the film stock itself even, bleached white. His films are often glacially slow, but more happens in them than any of the overlong "epics" being made today. Look at this beautiful shot from his 1955 masterpiece (all four of his sound films are unsurpassed in their brilliance and distinctiveness) "Ordet":

This hits the nail squarely on the head IMO, and is exactly why I have an intense dislike of most modern films.

Peter

Most enjoyable these new films Star Wars, Elves what have you, so much better than the slow and tedious B&W stuff.

It really depends wether you watch to suffer or to enjoy really.

I've enjoyed some of the animated movies in 3D, where I think it works best. But yes, I'll opt for the 2D version of most movies.

I agree.

And there are still a wide variety of movies being made. Still plenty of "grim" stuff out there it that's what floats your boat. Lots of stuff without special effets. Lots of interesting story lines. Big budget Hollywood might account for most of the money, but most films aren't of that style.

Doesn't it all depend on what you want get out of a trip to the cinema? It you want entertainment which doesn't stretch the grey matter too much, what's wrong with a Star Wars/Lord of the Rings/Die Hard/Bond romp?  

If you want to think, read a serious book. Last film I saw that made me think was 2001, which a very long time ago. 

And if, as BigH47 says, I want to 'watch to suffer' I go an watch my football team     

If you're being serious then this is inverted snobbery of the worst sort.

Nothing wrong with watching Bond or Carry On or whatever.The last thing I saw at the pictures was the new Bond, and on Sunday I watched "Carry on At Your Convenience" on DVD. However I do draw the line at elf and ewok crap (for adults, anyway)

However if you want to think, you don't have to read a "serious book". You can also watch "serious cinema". If the last film you saw that "made you think" was "2001" (a film nowhere near as good or profound as it or its advocates imagine it to be) then perhaps you need to go to the pictures more.

There are plenty of movies - by Renoir, Dreyer, Ozu, Powell & Pressberger, Hitch, Welles, Fellini, Bunuel, Ray etc etc - freely available on DVD. Why not give them a go?

....I do feel this thread has been somewhat hijacked!!

I agree.

Elvish drivel hijacked by high art.

Lovely.

Fair challenge, Kevin. Probably would have to be DVD though. Can't see my better-half being enticed to the cinema to watch any of this lot.  Mind you, she did get me to go and see The Black Swan with her.  I thought a bit of ballet might make the movie passable - oh, no. It was bad beyond belief. Even my better-half was somewhat embarrassed at how awful it was. 

I had exactly the same experience MDS - SWMBO made me go see it with her and she was mightily embarrassed...

Oh Dear:

'Speaking at a news conference in Wellington hours before the premiere of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, Jackson said the films were shot at 48 frames per second instead of the traditional 24 to give them greater clarity.

The director likened the technology to the leap from vinyl records to CDs.'

....hope not!

"While there is no denying the epic ambition behind the new trilogy, the jury is out on Jackson's innovation in shooting the movie at 48-frames-a-second – rather than the traditional 24 frames – in 3D.

The high-definition image is sharp, almost startlingly so initially, but the format seems to distance the characters from the landscape.

There are moments when it feels like An Unexpected Journey was shot on a giant soundstage with deliberately artificial backdrops, although other viewers at the same screening report settling in to the movie quickly and not being troubled by the format.

If it wins acceptance, James Cameron plans to shoot Avatar 2 and Avatar 3 in the same fashion, believing it resolves the technical problems that can blight 3D movies."

From the Sydney Morning Herald review. Mercifully, they go on to say that most cinemas won't be showing the movie in the high frame rate. I find high frame rates for fictional video unwatchable.

I've booked my ticket for the 48fps 3D for the 13th - although 3D is normally something I avoid with a passion.

I will the go and see it in glorious 2D with the family over Christmas.

M

"What the 48 frame-per-second projection actually means is flat lighting, a plastic-y look, and, worst of all, a strange sped-up effect that makes perfectly normal actions—say, Martin Freeman's Bilbo Baggins placing a napkin on his lap—look like meth-head hallucinations. I wanted to ask the projectionist to double-check the equipment, but really, I should just ask Jackson why he wanted his $270 million blockbuster to look like a TV movie ..."

Another review. This time from James Rocchi writing for "Box Office".

W,

I understand the reactions were mixed.

My other half disliked the look of the trailer, as did I in places.

The film itself has had interesting reviews, and The Hobbit was never a great favourite if mine.

....but, I would like to see the 'new deal' myself.

M