"New 'Hobbit' film makes some moviegoers sick"

Barry_Green said:
And if the reverse happens and people stay away in droves from the HFR and/or 3-D and instead pay big to watch the conventional 2D screening, then that will also speak volumes about audience appetite for these new innovations.
Click to expand...

I'm actually curious what the casual moviegoer will think. Will they even notice something is different? Or will they notice in a way they can't really define. That's the real test of the format. So far, only filmmakers and film critics have commented, and they are a different type of moviegoer.
 
I know this sounds very cynical, but I think the average cinema goer will get into whatever is marketed for them correctly.
Video cell phones, iPads, Attack of the Clones, 3D cinema, HFR. Whatever is marketed right will sell.
 
Batutta said:
I'm actually curious what the casual moviegoer will think. Will they even notice something is different? Or will they notice in a way they can't really define. That's the real test of the format. So far, only filmmakers and film critics have commented, and they are a different type of moviegoer.
Click to expand...
And that is indeed the question. Truthfully, if they notice no difference, one would expect that they would not pay the higher ticket price, right? I mean, sure, on this first one, lots of folks will buy the ticket, some (like us here) will know there's a difference and will set out specifically to experience it. Others may have no idea, and they just buy the ticket for the next available screening, which may be 2D, may be 3D, may be HFR, who knows... (I ended up in 3D Despicable Me that way; didn't really want 3D and was annoyed when I found out I'd paid for it, but the ticket was already bought...)

Point being, this particular film's box office won't necessarily tell us that much, but -- on the next film, the audience will have been educated by their experience on the first film, right? So if we see ticket sales skyrocket for the HFR version, then the audience will have spoken -- they liked what they saw, enough to pay the higher ticket price. And if ticket sales for the HFR version of the next film plummet as compared to the current film, then they will also have spoken -- either they didn't like what they saw with HFR, or they didn't care enough to pay the higher ticket price to experience the HFR.

I haven't seen it yet (obviously). I'm not expecting to be overwhelmingly pleased by the HFR, based on my extensive experimentation with how frame rates affect the perception of the material shot. However, I can say that I don't care for the look of strobing panning at all, and do welcome that aspect of it. Perhaps a blend is in order, 48fps for action scenes and frame-doubled 24fps for narrative sections, I don't know... I plan on seeing it both ways. But probably I will go to the 24fps version first.
 
I think both 3D and HFR have their place, just like CGI finds it's useful place. Most character studies or gritty "photographic" films (No Country For Old Men) in my mind are best left at 2D and 24 frames a second, while Sci Fi/fantasy and fast over the top action probably gain a lot in some scenes from these new ways of shooting. The story and content should dictate the choice...which I believe won't ALWAYS happen, like the extreme over use of CGI when it first landed.
 
I have given up watching the 3d version of movies. I"m going to see the HFR 3d Hobbit because i'm really curious about this new frame rate. I think you can only experiences it in a theater projecting at 48 fps, and watching it on the internet isn't the same?

But I don't like the "picture window" 3d. If the action isn't coming out of the screen and into the audience, I just skip the 3d and see the 2d movie. I kept going to 3d thinking I might miss something, but about 20 minutes into it I feel like I'm watching a 2d movie, except I have to wear glasses that annoy me with glare. so I've been just going to the 2d versions lately and I don't feel like I"m missing anything until directors get brave enough to step outside the 3d picture window box.
 
I was talking to a friend about the new HFR, and the critics complaining that the picture is TO sharp, so sharp you can see Ian McKellan's (Gandalf's) contact lenses.

I said we want to be transported to another world that isn't so crystal sharp. What if Jackson had shot the Hobbit like Tarantino's Grindhouse movies? Now THAT would really transport you to another world!

I know not everyone is into the grindhouse movies or look, but personally I think that would have made for an awesome movie, the Hobbit shot to look like Planet Terror.

 
Somehow for me planet terror looked very digital and all color correction looked fake and overused, didnt looked like old film stock.You can always slap all the filters on some hobbit footage yourself just for fun, imo it wouldnt fit with the story.
 
bwwd said:
Somehow for me planet terror looked very digital and all color correction looked fake and overused, didnt looked like old film stock.You can always slap all the filters on some hobbit footage yourself just for fun, imo it wouldnt fit with the story.
Click to expand...

I think that's kind of funny. It's a story set in Middle Earth, a fictional place sometime in the magical past. I'm not sure why crystal clear HFR fits it any more than scratchy and dirty 70's style. Naturally everyone has a preference on what they'd like to see which is fine, but I don't see how one is particularly more suited than the other for the subject matter. It's set in a time of magic and the 70's look is a bit more magical IMO.
 
Friend of mine, who saw it said it looks like a renaissance fair shot on DV.
The whole sat looked totally like... a set.
 
Gillvane said:
I think that's kind of funny. It's a story set in Middle Earth, a fictional place sometime in the magical past. I'm not sure why crystal clear HFR fits it any more than scratchy and dirty 70's style. Naturally everyone has a preference on what they'd like to see which is fine, but I don't see how one is particularly more suited than the other for the subject matter. It's set in a time of magic and the 70's look is a bit more magical IMO.
Click to expand...
Planet Terror was a comment on 70's film though, so the scratchy vintage film stock look made sense, just like shooting Black Dynamite on 16mm made sense.
It's not like the LOTR movies weren't processed, graded and filled with CGI enhancements in literally every shot anyway. It's just the style Peter Jackson goes for as a filmmaker these days is more related to Spielberg and the Amblin age of the 80's than the Grindhouse style Rodriguez went for in Planet Terror.

If LOTR had been processed like Planet Terror, then the story and characters would also have needed to be written as a grindhouse film, otherwise the form hadn't fit the content.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top