Slashdot Mirror
Hollywood Acts Warily At Comic-Con
gollum123 writes "Peter Jackson wowed the crowd with 13 minutes of highly anticipated footage from the first of his two ultra-expensive Hobbit movies. But he also played it safe — very safe — by not so much as mentioning, much less demonstrating, the filmmaking wizardry at the heart of the project. That left big questions about the movie industry's future unanswered and added to a theme of this year's Comic-Con: Hollywood has come to fear this place. Mr. Jackson is shooting his two Hobbit movies, the first of which is to arrive in theaters in December, at an unusually fast 48 frames a second, twice the standard rate. But an estimated 6,500 fans did not have that experience when they gathered in Comic-Con's cavernous Hall H moments earlier to see the new footage. Still, Mr. Jackson, one of Hollywood's boldest directors, made the unexpectedly timid decision to present The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey in a standard format here — it was not even in 3-D — because he feared an online outcry that could hurt box-office results."
Reading all press it sounds like too much generalisation - in fact, it *feels* like Peter Jackson was more angry about backslash and calling a "cheap TV movie" just because you are used to different frame rate. So he decided that discussion about "be or not to be 48 fps" could actually overcome discussion about movie itself. I think it was wise decision and not Hollywood fear about CC. Come on, they *love* CC - it's amplified publicity with fans all around the world. What a better way to get movie going buzz rolling?
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
did the place just lack the tech needed to show it to those 6500 fans in 3d at 48fps? The later seems more likely imho.
Just give me a great story with great acting in the old school format and I'm fine with that. No 3D, no 48 fps.
People will go back to theaters when the social experience is positive again. No cell phones, more comfy seats, etc. Maybe I'm getting old but the experience these days seems to have been taken over by thugs.
it was not even in 3-D
GOOD!
Everything is better with chainsaws.
Or perhaps more buck for bang.
-Dave
It's a convention hall, not a theater. Bad acoustics, no projection room, no good audio system, folding chairs. Here's what the screens look like. Look at the screen size and quality. They have to have auxiliary screens around the room so people in the back can see. Some of the auxiliary screens are dim around the edges. That's a setup for a marketing presentation. Of course you don't introduce a new movie technology there.
Movies with new technologies are typically previewed for critics in venues with ideal conditions, like the Technicolor Theater in Hollywood or the screening room at Dolby headquarters in San Francisco.
It's supposed to look real.
I thought it was supposed to look just real enough (and conversely, just unreal enough) for your brain to suspend disbelief.
from what I've read about 48fps, that's exactly the problem people ran into. people said things like "my brain was not processing what I was seeing as 'two hobbits walking up a hill' but rather 'two actors in hobbit costumes walking up a hill'". They were having difficulty suspending disbelief.
I'll have to wait until I see it in person, but native 48fps will have to be a whole other world better than what the 120hz tv's software intrapolation does to 24fps film, cause that's distracting as all hell.
Remember: If Hollywood makes one movie out of a book, they suck because they cut out all those important scenes. If they make two movies, they suck because they are just trying to cash in.
Or most people over 35 can spot when they are being sold gimmicks at ridiculous markup?
That sounds like a bunch of nonsense to me. Cinema has been evolving towards more and more realism from the start. Sound, color, higher resolution, higher frame rates, larger screens, better speakers.... None of the limitations of the cinema experience were there for artistic reasons, they are purely technical and when the technical limitation was removed the cinema experience changed. There are always people who complain about new technologies but the reality is that no one is forcing these changes on directors. If they have an artistic reason for using b/w, or no sound, or lower frame rate they can still do that.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
from what I've read about 48fps, that's exactly the problem people ran into. people said things like "my brain was not processing what I was seeing as 'two hobbits walking up a hill' but rather 'two actors in hobbit costumes walking up a hill'". They were having difficulty suspending disbelief.
They must have a REALLY hard time with live theatre.
No, they suck because they cut the important scenes, and add some bullshit drama scenes that the writer bitch decided were more important. See the female writing lead on the LOTR movies for example. She wanted to add the warrior arwen bullshit.
from what I've read about 48fps, that's exactly the problem people ran into. people said things like "my brain was not processing what I was seeing as 'two hobbits walking up a hill' but rather 'two actors in hobbit costumes walking up a hill'". They were having difficulty suspending disbelief.
They must have a REALLY hard time with live theatre.
Actually yes!
I love human storytelling; I love reading plays; love the art of Theatre; love the techniques and methods of Theatre; love acting and creating and characterization and directing. But I. Hate. Live. Theatre.
Why? Because "it's one actor dressed up like Macbeth pretending to see another actor dressed up like Banquo's ghost, amidst a bunch of other actors dressed up like courtiers who cannot see the actor dressed up like Banquo's ghost".
But I love to watch movies. Can get caught up in movies and so carried away that it's jarring to walk out of the theatre and find myself in a cookie-cutter suburban strip mall.
I am one example of a person who needs the implied cinematic distance to immerse myself in the story. Because that's what it's about for me -- the story. Doesn't matter how crisp the textures or tangible the spray of alien blood looks. It's about that weird mental space when you can be temporarily deceived that what is being shown on the screen in front of you is what's being shown on the screen of your retina. It is the very realism and true 3-D of live theatre which pushes it inevitably out of this space. The stage is only so big, the proscenium and the band and the luxury boxes, or in small venues the proximity to the actors and the rest of the audience..... these are the very things which do not allow me to see a play as anything other than a play. It cannot ever be pure Story for me. And I have been to performances where I was assured by folks who would know, that these were top-notch productions that critics and theatre-lovers rave about.
When it comes to hyperrealism in theatre, I live in the uncanny valley.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
You are correct that many present day movie actors make terrible stage actors, but not all. Also, it's not that stage actors "overact" it's that the stage requires one to be "bigger". There is a huge difference between overacting (bad) and being "bigger" (good). Overacting, regardless of medium is bad. Modulating your tone for the medium is good.
Camera captures everything so all you really need to do is capture the emotional tone for a given moment and the eyes take care of everything for you (assuming you're one of them expressive types). Stage requires you to bring more of yourself to the character in order to reach the entire audience thus the requirement to be bigger.
TLDR: bigger...not overacting
Spot on. I find it very amusing, all the people bitching about "supsension of disbelief". As if frame-rate/clarity was the hardest obstacle to overcome. Gimme a break. If you can get past the following, you can deal with a different filming technique, CGI, or frame-rate:
A) They're fucking HOBBITS.
B) That big giant screen/TV you're watching? It is definitely not a window into the Shire, I promise. Do NOT attempt to go through it; you will quickly be disappointed.
C) You know that sound you hear, coming from the speakers? Try REAL hard and you can train your ears to see the millisecond discrepancy. It's always there, I promise.
D) Remember buying the ticket? Popcorn? That drink you're holding? Remember choosing a seat without the sticky floor? Now, realize you've set all those annoyances aside after the movie started.
E) They're still HOBBITS. These do not exist. This story is not a documentary; it is fiction. I know, I know, it's fun to pretend it really happened, or even that we are a part of it, but it did not.
Part of the fun of the experience is guiding your thinking, accepting the fantasy as a whole new world that is real for you. It's really not that difficult to do this, regardless of the visual or audio quality. It's even possible to ignore super shitty acting (though this is probably the toughest thing to ignore). This is why people can go to see a live performance and not lose their shit about how ZOMG FAAAAKE it looks.
I liken it to the printing industry, for I am a printer. I could whip out my trusty loupe when I'm looking at a fine-art print, examining the ink droplets to tell which pass count was used, on which printer, using dye or pigment inks, on which general substrate, and whether proper color management was used. I have the expertise and experience to determine all that very easily, but it's a shit-ton more satisfying to step back and enjoy the fuckin painting.
I am one example of a person who needs the implied cinematic distance to immerse myself in the story. Because that's what it's about for me -- the story.
Actually it sounds like the story is NOT what it is about for you. If it was about the story, you wouldn't have a problem with live theatre.