Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Mon Sep 01, 2014 10:07 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think? 
Author Message
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1691
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
If I had one wish that could be granted, I would wish for everyone to just love movies for what they are, and stop expecting them to be something that they're not and never have been. Movies are simply an avenue for actors to act, and storytellers to tell stories. That's all a movie is supposed to be. A movie is not supposed to be a presentation at The World's Fair. That's what movies were in the 19th century, and that's where people like Cameron and Jackson are stuck. Color wasn't patented by one person. It was something that the industry collectively adopted, and it was NOT based on any one exemplary film. People in 1940 didn't try to make every movie like Gone with the Wind, probably because they had professional ethics.

Cameron and Jackson both seem to think they're Thomas Edison. They're so blinded by this fantasy that they don't even seem to remember what a movie is. They're out of their minds.


Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:40 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 12:57 am
Posts: 259
Location: Melbourne, Australia.
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
MGamesCook wrote:
If I had one wish that could be granted, I would wish for everyone to just love movies for what they are, and stop expecting them to be something that they're not and never have been. Movies are simply an avenue for actors to act, and storytellers to tell stories. That's all a movie is supposed to be. A movie is not supposed to be a presentation at The World's Fair. That's what movies were in the 19th century, and that's where people like Cameron and Jackson are stuck. Color wasn't patented by one person. It was something that the industry collectively adopted, and it was NOT based on any one exemplary film. People in 1940 didn't try to make every movie like Gone with the Wind, probably because they had professional ethics.

Cameron and Jackson both seem to think they're Thomas Edison. They're so blinded by this fantasy that they don't even seem to remember what a movie is. They're out of their minds.


Is there any chance of bringing in a block chat function? I'm seriously sick of reading trollish bullshit like this.

_________________
I'm very sorry for your loss. Your mother was a terribly attractive woman - Royal Tenenbaum


Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:46 am
Profile
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
MGamesCook wrote:
Movies are simply an avenue for actors to act, and storytellers to tell stories. That's all a movie is supposed to be.


Tell that to Douglas Trumbull and people who manufacture cameras and projectors, production designers, set designers, costume designers, people who develope and use editing software, color timing/grading speialists, special FX specialists, sound designers, musicians and cinematographers.

Films at fairs and theme parks are not a thing of the 19th century only. I remember "cinema 360" with 11 (!) projectors creating a movie that completely surrounds you and "cinema 180" a 10-perf 70mm vertical film projected through a fisheye lens onto a quarter sphere (similar to today's IMAX Dome). Both systems were in use at fairs and theme parks around 1980. The immersive experience was so strong and new, that acting and stories were secondary or non-existent. As soon as immersive systems become more common (something I truly look forward to, I am sick and tired looking at a smallish rectangle in a Multiplex), the novelty will wear off and people can fully concentrate on story and acting.

Cinema has been developing constantly. It wasn't just color and sound. Cameras became lighter, film stock less grainy. The prohibitively expensive and cumbersome three strip technicolor system employing dyes and printing (hence the word theatrical "print") was the reason why only few movies were made in color during the 30s and 40s, not because few people wanted to make films like "Gone with the Wind" or "The Wizard of Oz". One strip chemical color movies, one of the first systems invented was kodachrome, a 16mm reversal film for amateurs, took long to develop and refine. Through out the 60s and most of the 70s color films looked often brownish and muddy. Only at the end of the 70s color movies started to gain natural and more saturated colors. The invention of the steadicam system revolutionized planning of shots, editing and shooting in small locations and confined spaces. Video assisted cameras allowed the director to see the footage directly when it is shot and continuity issues are kept to a minimum. It goes on and on.

The idea should be moving forward. Higher frame rates are being discussed ever since 24 frames per second had been established for the talkies. It always had been considered being too low. Jackson and Cameron manage to draw public attention, but they aren't the first nor the only people - by far - in the industry promoting higher frame rates. (around 2000 the IMAX HD system existed, it ran at 48 fps to keep the giant image clear even during action scenes). A clearer picture at all times is also highly beneficial for storytelling and acting, not a gimmick for a fair or a theme park.


Tue Dec 18, 2012 5:58 am
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:35 am
Posts: 423
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
MGamesCook wrote:
If I had one wish that could be granted, I would wish for everyone to just love movies for what they are, and stop expecting them to be something that they're not and never have been.


There will always be movies how you want them to be. In the Star Trek thread you listed a whole bunch of films from this year that lived up to what you expect from them. Jackson and Cameron are simply trying to innovate on a technical level, to find new ways to make film (as you say) more "true to life". It'll take years of experimentation and it won't always work. But hey the good news is you don't have to watch those films!

Without attempts at innovation, we'd still be stuck in the silent era running at less than 24fps. Why don't you just wait until Resident Evil 7 (or whatever number they're up to) comes out in 48fps before passing your judgement. P.W.S Anderson seems to make films that appeal to your sensibilities, and he's also not afraid to experiment with new technologies.

Don't get upset because EVERY SINGLE MOVIE isn't made the way you want them to. That's a selfish attitude to have. Embrace the Skyfalls, Resident Evils, Moonrise Kingdoms and just let Jackson and Cameron do what they do.


Tue Dec 18, 2012 6:44 am
Profile
Second Unit Director
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:49 am
Posts: 406
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Threeperf35 wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:
Movies are simply an avenue for actors to act, and storytellers to tell stories. That's all a movie is supposed to be.


Tell that to Douglas Trumbull and people who manufacture cameras and projectors, production designers, set designers, costume designers, people who develope and use editing software, color timing/grading speialists, special FX specialists, sound designers, musicians and cinematographers.


I actually might agree a little bit with MGames on this part, presuming that he (and all of us) can agree that production & set designers, costumers, make-up artists, etc... are all storytellers. No one in the the world goes to a movie simply to admire set design, but every movie is made better with good set design that serves the story. All of those artforms may or may not call attention to themselves in certain films, but they are there to service the story, and their practitioners are indeed storytellers. If MGames will stipulate to that, I'm in agreement with him.

For the rest, though... to question the "professional ethics" of Cameron and Jackson is beyond absurd. I suppose it's normal to wish that everyone would make movies the way you want them to be made (which is the real argument being presented), but to begrudge other people their taste seems a little silly. There's absolutely nothing anti-ethical (in terms of storytelling or art or anything else) about what Cameron and Jackson are doing.


Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:20 pm
Profile
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Shade2 wrote:
Threeperf35 wrote:
MGamesCook wrote:
Movies are simply an avenue for actors to act, and storytellers to tell stories. That's all a movie is supposed to be.


Tell that to Douglas Trumbull and people who manufacture cameras and projectors, production designers, set designers, costume designers, people who develope and use editing software, color timing/grading speialists, special FX specialists, sound designers, musicians and cinematographers.


I actually might agree a little bit with MGames on this part, presuming that he (and all of us) can agree that production & set designers, costumers, make-up artists, etc... are all storytellers. No one in the the world goes to a movie simply to admire set design, but every movie is made better with good set design that serves the story. All of those artforms may or may not call attention to themselves in certain films, but they are there to service the story, and their practitioners are indeed storytellers. If MGames will stipulate to that, I'm in agreement with him.


Absolutely: set designers and, say, special FX wizards don't serve much puprose if they don't contribute to telling a story. But there are movies or sequences where just the language of images tell the story. So all the artists and craftsmen involved should work hand in hand and give their best.

The movies are not just a combination of story and acting. That would be filmed stageplay with minimum setpieces and costumes. You can do that with an I-Phone and upload it to YouTube or Vimeo.

I often say: it doesn't hurt if you do something better than necessary - as long as it doesn't get in the way of anything. Making things "just good enough" isn't a philosophy I subscribe to. What a dull world this would be...

This famous quote by George Bernard Shaw should be known to all forum members (no points for guessing that it has been used in "Litte Man Tate"):

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."


Tue Dec 18, 2012 4:01 pm
Director

Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:44 pm
Posts: 1691
Post Re: The Hobbit in 48fps, what does everyone think?
Quote:
Making things "just good enough" isn't a philosophy I subscribe to. What a dull world this would be...


Me too. Which is why scripts, acting, and anything else that has a direct emotional effect on the audience should never be just good enough. Artistic advancement is what I'm looking for, not technological. 48 fps might be a nice bonus, or it might not be. But when will it have anything to do with how regular people actually perceive the quality of a film? Are Tolkien fans really focusing on the frame rate? I don't think so, I think they just want to see the story and characters realized in the best way possible. If you lose sight of the essential appeal that the movie has to your audience, no amount of technology can save your film.

I agree with the below statement. Technology is good if it serves the story, or on a more general level, if it serves the overall artistic vision of the film. Anderson embraces 3D because the franchise makes more money that way. RE 4 and 5 made more than twice as much money as any of the first three. But they are the same films in 2D. The 3D is not the main focus of his artistic conceit.

Robert Altman was innovative in using multi-track stereo sound, but that by itself has nothing to do with the quality of his films or with his status among critics. He tapped into universal qualities which can be found in all good movies, whether they include technological breakthroughs or not. And I do have the right to take issue with a technological breakthrough that doesn't aspire to be anything more than that.

Jackson and Cameron do seem unethical to me because they're trying to change the way movies are made instead of just focusing on how to make their own movie really good, which is the only thing that the majority of filmmakers are trying to be. And since we're throwing quotes around, here's one from Citizen Kane: "people expect something as their right, not as your gift."

Quote:
No one in the world goes to a movie simply to admire set design, but every movie is made better with good set design that serves the story.


Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:14 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 47 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ilovemovies and 6 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr