News from the set [2]

we also see a brief shot of Radagast being pulled along the forest floor in a sled drawn by mighty grey jackrabbits!

A perfect color match for Shadowfax! Who says Peter Jackson doesn't draw his inspiration directly from Tolkien?

Although there's nothing unpredictable about what he says here, it's interesting to note that he offers the same theory about reactions to the 48fps that a few of us here have; that a 10-minute, quick-cut montage isn't the best way to get used to it and that, instead, once settled in the cinemas, the proper pacing and proper duration will give audiences the proper opportunity to adjust to the new feel.

http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/27/peter-jackson-responds-hobbit/

I remember it taking 10 or so minutes for my eyes to adjust to the phenomenal 3D in Avatar, even on multiple viewings, so I'm fully prepared to accept Jackson's suggestion here.

PS I note he didn't mention the bunnies, though

I think the telling line in that article is the this one:

“At end of the day, we have to do everything we can to widen that experience gap between what you see in the theater and what you see in the home,”

This is the truth behind 3D and 48fps its got bugger all to do with finding the best way to tell a story and is a gimmick to keep the ailing cinema busniess going. Gimmicks won't save it though people will go so see quality films if they make them, not novelty acts.

You know what I think PJ should have done? they should have done a test case before the main production lumbered into action, testing the waters with critics and selected members of the public to gain true reactions, now its too late. and do normal cinemas have the capacity to screen this new stuff or not? I still dont understand why the Hobbit of all films has to be made an experiment.

Pettytyrant101 wrote:This is the truth behind 3D and 48fps its got bugger all to do with finding the best way to tell a story and is a gimmick to keep the ailing cinema busniess going.

I wouldn't disagree (in most cases), but then I also think it's entirely justified, too. And you could level exactly the same criticism at the move to sound and the move to colour and the move to widescreen and the move to surround-sound. If the studios can't get the public into the cinemas (because they all feel "let's stay in; it's just as good at home"), then they're not going to invest the sorts of sums necessary these days to create the movies we love. Cinema should be a distinct experience and I, for one, am happy that there are directors out there that are trying to keep it so.

Yes, there's b*ll*cks 3D, much of it post-production, and in those circumstances it does amount to little more than a gimmick (one that, ironically, is harming the reputation of the technology). But now with Scorcese's "Hugo", Scott's "Prometheus" and Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby", we're seeing a higher calibre of director embrace the technology and, maybe, just possibly, we're witnessing the next stage in the evolution of the art-form...

EDIT: Mrs Figg! A test reel would indeed have been a good idea, especially if it actually exhibited finished footage!! I think this was another mistake Jackson made. And you're right, too, about the capability of the majority of cinemas to exhibit at 48fps: they're going to have to spend thousands on upgrading their hardware and/or software. Hmm. I suspect WB will be promoting another (damage-limitation) reel soon!!

I dont mind advances when the driving factor is to improve the ability to provide an expericience- but this smacks a little of pure commercial desperation, with artistry trying to play catch up. You may be right Kendalf it may be the start of a glorious new age of cinema, I don't think so. I think the technology is transient and will be superseded too quickly. And homogeny is the way things are going not seperatation- if film becomes so much an experience that it has to be seen in a cinema alone that impacts people doing what they want to in the modern world- which is to be able to also watch at home, on their pad or laptop or even phone.

I am all for artistic experiment, Its essential to drive forward our viewing experience, remember the first time you saw Matrix? it was a wow moment, so developing special effects and colour palettes, maybe even irridescent effects for example would be amazing, but the Hobbit should not be used to test these waters, people want to go back to Middle Earth, something recognizable we dont want it to be so different, thats the whole point, people are still in love with the way LOTR looks, with a few tweaks here and there people would be happy, but not this seemingly Saving Private Ryan gritty grainy hyper real wiggy weird shit.

I agree with the points raised about waiting to see the finished film in 48 fps and also allowing for an adjustment period to get used to the new effect. I know that watching HD TV and movies (aside from sports) used to really weird me out, but I can see and acknowledge the qualities of the HD format after getting accustomed to it. I've never seen anything in 48 fps aside from live sports (I'm pretty sure they're actually shot in even higher frame rates) and demo videos online, but it's fully possible the same thing will happen. In side-by-side comparisons it certainly does look much smoother. However, this part of the article really bugged me:

So what does he say to people who just decide they don’t like the glossy new look of the format he’s using?

“I can’t say anything,” Jackson acknowledges. “Just like I can’t say anything to someone who doesn’t like fish. You can’t explain why fish tastes great and why they should enjoy it.”

This is what really annoys me both about directors like PJ or James Cameron and also certain ordinary film fans. It seems like they are so convinced that their own tastes and preferences are correct that they can't acknowledge the legitimacy of any opposing viewpoints. To take the fish analogy: who the hell is PJ or anyone else to say that fish tastes great and everyone should enjoy it? You can love fish - it could be your favorite food in the world - but if someone else dislikes it then they just plain dislike. It doesn't make them wrong; get over it. (That's my crabbit rant for the day. )

The studio won’t have to bet its entire box office earnings on the foundation of 48 frames per second. The Hobbit: The Unexpected Journey will be available in six different ways: 3-D, 2-D, and IMAX 3-D, each one in both the traditional 24-frames style and the new 48-frames version.

On the other hand, this news is reassuring.

this is better news. if they have also filmed it in 28 alongside the 48 then at least we have the choice, I will first like to see it in 2D 28 frames and then 3D 48 frames and see which I like best, I prefer the traditional one first so I dont get distracted from looking at the bunnies.

Any idea how many fps they shoot with for Planet Earth or Life? Because THAT'S good quality, and I wouldn't mind if the landscapes in the Hobbit looked that beautiful!

Found this Tin-

'Panasonic Varicam
Panasonics top of the range camcorder shooting on the DVC Pro HD format and recording 720 lines of information. What sets this camera off from all the others is it's ability to shoot any frame rate from 4fps to 60fps. If your shooting wildlife or anything that requires slow motion then this camera is ideal, most of BBC' s "Planet Earth" series was shot using this camera.'

M guess would be most of Planet Earth was shot at the higher end of the camera frame rate scale. Which does look incredible for wildlife, but I can imagine it would make set based stuff a bit weird.

Petty!
Yes, there is a convergence in film-consumption happening at the minute; people do indeed want to watch it on the silver screen, their HDTV, their SDTV, their laptop and their phone. And the studios have recognised this fact. That's why, increasingly, we're seeing "Triple Play" blu-rays which include the blu-ray (for your living room HDTV), a DVD (for your bedroom / car DVD-player) and a download code (for your laptop and phone). They're my format of choice. But, the studios still need to get the punters into the cinema in the first place or there simply won't be any films to put onto the discs! Nobody makes films for iPhone; they make them for the big screen and if that mode of consumption flounders, the others will follow. That's why cinema needs to retain its unique appeal and strive to stay one step ahead of everyone's home-entertainment system even if, like you suggest, it's only for a short while before the next leap foward has to happen...

Mrs Figg!
I completely understand your concern. In truth, I'd probably rather such a "leap forward" / "gamble" wasn't being made on the back of this film, either...

Eldo!
I honestly don't think Jackson was implying that his opinions and tastes are superior to those of others; I just think he was conceding (slightly hamfistedly) that frequently, whenever someone decides they don't like something, it's very hard to change their minds. That's all.

Halfwise!
Yes, he is! And I'm looking forward to it immensely.

Tinuviel!
The latest, cutting-edge natural history documentaries are indeed the best current advert for higher resolutions and frame-rates. Here's hoping that the finished Hobbit images are half as enthralling...

I just want a soundly scripted, well acted, as-close-as-reasonably-possible adaptation of my favorite book.

The story is already there. PJ can't do better.

The 'visuals' are something PJ does have the capability of achieveing. Much of the Tolkien-inspired visuals as opposed to PJ-inspired visuals in the LotR films were more than acceptable to me, and his selection of actors good enough too - though their parts sometimes were horrendously wrongheaded (eg Denethor)!

It's story and characters that need to be improved on from the LotR novies. i.e. film Tolkien!

Who cares about the funny lights and other gizzmotic techno thingees ... they should not be noticeable, they are just aids to telling the Greatest Story Ever Told.

If PJ had made LottR's on a single stage and had the backdrops carried on and off behind the actors, but presented an accurate adaptation of Tolkien I would have been happy- so the look of TH I am worried about only in its wider implications for cinema viewing. I fundementally diasgree that more resoltion is necessarily better. Even from doig my own simple renderings I know a picture at 2000x2000 will not necessarily look better than the same picture rendered at 1000x1000, sharper yes, more detailed yes but in fact it will more often show up imperfections, flaws you can get away with at the lower resolution- seems just the same to me for film as for static images.
And then there is the cost of the specialised equipment to shoot it this will impose a further financial cost on the studios as sets, costumes, wigs etc all need to be brought up to a standard where they dont look like props. And at least in the short term whilst brightness and contrast issues persist there is either extra cost incurred correction the entire film digitally in post, or the extra time it takes on set to work out the new lightining. And of course there is the small problem of millions of cinemas worldwide needing expensive upgrades just to show these films at all.
Not sure if I had money I would be inevesting in this technology.
In other words, right now, this experiment in film seems all cost and little benefit and may possibly end up with films loooking more detailed but less convincing than before. (if you doubt it watch LotR's in lue ray- the body doubles, particuarly for the hobbits are painfully obvious if you look at them compared to in the dvd release).

You know this whole 48frames thing reminds me of greek statues. For a long period of statue making they strived harder and harder for ultra realism in their statues, with the famous David probably being the peak of this trend. But why aren't there loads more, even better after David? Simple answer is that once they had achieved it they abandoned it and went back to statues which exaggereated certain aspects. Turns out when you are making art its not about accuretly reproducing reality, its about exaggerating and drawing attention to small parts of a thing to highlight a fundemental truth about a subject. To get the emotional impact and the desered effect ultra realism will not do, it works against it in fact.
Maybe we will get cinema thats so real it is like you are standing there- but is that what speaks to us emotionally?

Petty - I think i made a statement over at Bree that summed that up, but relating tro guitar players. There is some ridiculously technical players out there that could copy anything you asked them to copy and do things you would think are impossible. But, once you get over that first bit of 'wow, they are amazing' it gets a little boring... there isn't much feeling or emotion involved and so it fails to make the sort of connection with the listener that really makes them great.

Think the same could happen here. I could see the life and soul of the film being sucked out for the sake of technical achievement. I may be wrong though.... it may give it a sense of realism that does completely the opposite.

Lancebloke wrote:Petty - I think i made a statement over at Bree that summed that up, but relating tro guitar players. There is some ridiculously technical players out there that could copy anything you asked them to copy and do things you would think are impossible. But, once you get over that first bit of 'wow, they are amazing' it gets a little boring... there isn't much feeling or emotion involved and so it fails to make the sort of connection with the listener that really makes them great.

Think the same could happen here. I could see the life and soul of the film being sucked out for the sake of technical achievement. I may be wrong though.... it may give it a sense of realism that does completely the opposite.

I have a similar view of Celine Dion. Great voice (instrument) --- but soooooo boring.

I dont why but whenever I see her singing I get a overwhelming urge so smack her in the gob with a wet haddock. Dont know why but there you go (suppose a trout would do at a push though). Its probably Freudian (or is that Fjordian?- ah amounts to the same thing).

Baby, you've been going so crazy,
Lately nothing seems to be going right.
So low, why do you have to get so low?
You're so...
You've been waiting in the sun too long.


(Chorus)
But if you sing, sing, sing, sing, sing, sing,
For the love you bring won't mean a thing,
Unless you sing, sing, sing, sing.


Colder, crying over your shoulder,
Hold her, tell her everything's gonna be fine.
Surely, you've been going too hurley,
Hurley 'cos no-one's gonna be stopped.
Na na na na...

(Chorus)
But if you sing, sing, sing, sing sing, sing.
For the love you bring won't mean a thing.
Unless you sing, sing, sing, sing, sing, sing,


Uhhh...Ahh ahh..uhhh...


Baby, there's something going on today,
But I say nothing, nothing, nothing,
Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing...(fades out)


(Chorus)
But if you sing, sing, sing, sing, sing, sing,
For the love you bring won't mean a thing,
Unless you sing, sing, sing, sing.


Ohh baby sing, sing, sing, sing, sing, sing,
For the love you bring won't mean a thing,
Unless you sing, sing, sing, sing.

Celine Dion you say?

1.20 (And to be on the safe side: Spoilers for the South Park: Bigger, longer and uncut movie, I guess. And contains bad words and such, obviously, since it's South Park.)

To create the sounds of Middle-earth for his Hobbit films, director Peter Jackson is considering the new Dolby Atmos audio format, which has been developed to create “lifelike” sound via speakers placed all around an auditorium and across its ceiling. This new system is able to transmit up to 128 simultaneous audio channels.

Jackson, who is already experimenting with advanced technologies – shooting The Hobbit films in 3D and at 48 frames per second – recently told Hollywood Reporter that, “Dolby are coming down to New Zealand to give us a demonstration. Our particular postproduction schedule is reasonably tight (but) three dimensional sound would be fantastic. If we can do it I would be pretty keen.”

Disney/Pixar’s Brave will be the first film tested in the Atmos format, with Dolby installing the new sound system in 10-15 theatres worldwide. After a cinema launch, the company’s long-term goal is to introduce the Atmos sound experience into the home – via tablets, PCs, and mobile devices.

Middle earth news.

I was exited until I read 10-15 theatres worldwide..