The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey - Grading & Discussion (Spoilers)

[Sindatur]

Prancer the Sith wrote:

---

It's like you haven't even read any of the arguments against 48fps

I've read them, and the impression I get that is being said is that it no longer looks filmed, it looks too realistic with the lack of blurring, and that that also causes some folks headaches and vertigo. I can certainly understand a complaint about headaches and vertigo, but, I never thought I'd see a complaint in Film's never ending quest to look more lifelike to end up causing a complaint of too lifelike

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

The motion blur is what gives a film its cinematic quality. High frame rate makes it appear that you are standing on a set next to the director

What bugs me is that this is "innovation" for the sake of it and Jackson and Cameron are doing it because they can. But Jackson, Cameron, and Lucas used to make innovations to make their films better and their stories work back in their respective heydays.

[RoJoHen]

Sindatur wrote:

---

but, I never thought I'd see a complaint in Film's never ending quest to look more lifelike to end up causing a complaint of too lifelike

Well, it takes some of the fantasy away. I no longer feel like I'm watching Gandalf walk around Middle Earth. I feel like I'm watching Ian McKellan walk around in a Gandalf costume. It's like somebody went to a LOTR play and filmed it with their HD phone.

Now, I haven't seen the finished product, so I don't know how it will really look. I am basing this off of a preview I saw several months ago.

[JarodRussell]

Sindatur wrote:

---

I've read them, and the impression I get that is being said is that it no longer looks filmed, it looks too realistic with the lack of blurring, and that that also causes some folks headaches and vertigo. I can certainly understand a complaint about headaches and vertigo, but, I never thought I'd see a complaint in Film's never ending quest to look more lifelike to end up causing a complaint of too lifelike

Headaches and vertigo caused by higher frame rate than 24fps makes no fucking sense whatsoever.

Flying Spaghetti Monster wrote:

---

The motion blur is what gives a film its cinematic quality. High frame rate makes it appear that you are standing on a set next to the director

Motion blur should still be there, because the usual shutter speed is well below 1/48 seconds.

[Mach5]

Sindatur wrote:

---

Film's never ending quest to look more lifelike

I wasn't aware of such quest.

[Samuel Walters]

RoJoHen wrote:

---

Well, it takes some of the fantasy away. I no longer feel like I'm watching Gandalf walk around Middle Earth. I feel like I'm watching Ian McKellan walk around in a Gandalf costume. It's like somebody went to a LOTR play and filmed it with their HD phone.

That "movie magic" has always meant, to me, the ability to convey that what's happening on-screen could really happen - in whatever reality the film is set in. Advancing film to the point where it looks like we're watching a live stage presentation challenges that preconception I've always had. And raises the question: should there be a distinction - an illusion - associated with film? Without having seen 48fps, I can't say whether the challenge is justified. My only hope is that makes the suspension of disbelief easier so that I can just simply enjoy the story.

[JarodRussell]

Are you really feeling like watching a live stage presentation when there's giant 8 meter tall heads of actors floating above you?

[Samuel Walters]

As I said, not having seen 48fps, I cannot answer that question. *If* the reactions of others are taken at face value - and *if* 48fps makes me "no longer feel like I'm watching Gandalf walk around Middle Earth. [Instead] I feel like I'm watching Ian McKellan walk around in a Gandalf costume," then that seems to be the equivalent of watching a stage production (and, of course, stage productions themselves can be powerful and immersive). But because of the limitations of film, there has always been that distinction between cinema and the stage. So what happens when film reaches the point where it has no such limitations? Is that really a good thing?

Like I said, without having seen what 48fps actually looks like, I've no way of even answering the question - let alone determining whether or not the question itself is appropriate. But that seems to be the larger question we face: how "real" should cinema look?

[Sindatur]

Prancer the Sith wrote:

---

I wasn't aware of such quest.

Color, HD, 3D, CGI that doesn't look cartoonish... Does this not show a goal towards film/TV becoming more and more realistic?

[JD]

I always assumed that films were pretty much trying to work their way up to Trek's Holodecks. I really have no problem with a movie looking like it was filmed live, in the last couple months I watched the filmed productions of the Phantom of the Opera and Memphis plays, and I didn't have any more trouble getting into them than I would a regular movie.

[Professor Zoom]

For me, the argument that 24 fps is "more cinematic" is silly. Its just something we've HAD for a 100 years. That's all. It's something that we are used to. We've been trained to accept as HOW films should look.

But WHY, why does motion blue equal more cinematic?

As far as it being "to realistic," I think as the technology improves, along with the cinematography, costumes and etc, I don't think that will be a problem.

And to be honest, I would LOVE it if it felt like a stage play. Stage plays, for me, are a more intimate experience, a more immediate experience.. For me, a stage play is watching something happen right in front of me, where as a movie at 24 fps is up there on a screen. And to be blunt, I've never lost track that Ian McKellan is playing Gandalf at 24 fps. I'm along for the story, but he doesn't magically literally become Gandalf.

[JarodRussell]

Movies don't look "cinematic" anymore anyways. Digital cameras and digital color grading, all that stuff ruined that long time ago.

[Professor Zoom]

JarodRussell wrote:

---

Movies don't look "cinematic" anymore anyways. Digital cameras and digital color grading, all that stuff ruined that long time ago.

While I don't agree, you do bring up a good question:

Are digital cameras LESS cinematic than film? There's no grain, which is something we are used to... Is Avatar LESS cinematic than Flight of the Navigator?

Is film stock MORE cinematic?

[Samuel Walters]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

For me, the argument that 24 fps is "more cinematic" is silly. Its just something we've HAD for a 100 years. That's all. It's something that we are used to. We've been trained to accept as HOW films should look.

But WHY, why does motion blue equal more cinematic?

As far as it being "to realistic," I think as the technology improves, along with the cinematography, costumes and etc, I don't think that will be a problem.

One is not necessarily better than the other, in the absolute sense, but as you indicate, there is a cinematic look, or style if you prefer, that people are used to seeing in 24fps (which, admittedly has always changed and evolved), that is in many ways very different than a stage production. Some people like that style - not just because they are used to it, but because it appeals to them. This isn't new. People are often drawn to a specific artistic style - even when a more "realistic" presentation is available. Else, why black and white photography (or even instagram) when far more realistic captures are available? Why color grading?

I don't think there's an inherent criticism in going to 48fps (aside, perhaps, from the fact that, specifically for The Hobbit, it changes the aesthetic from LOTR to which The Hobbit is supposed to be explicitly connected) or striving for the most realistic presentation possible. But the question remains, will audiences (will I) want the stage presentation or the "cinematic" (for lack of a better word) presentation? I happen to think it's a fascinating question, and I'm looking forward to seeing 48fps myself to see what my own reaction will be to it.

[JarodRussell]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

While I don't agree, you do bring up a good question:

Are digital cameras LESS cinematic than film? There's no grain, which is something we are used to... Is Avatar LESS cinematic than Flight of the Navigator?

Is film stock MORE cinematic?

The problem is that "cinematic" has no definition. It's a feeling people have. When people say Best of Both Worlds feels like a movie, I don't get it, because for me it absolutely doesn't.