There are real reasons to use film, but he didn't mention any of them in that video.
Not for long.
Yes, very true, but the fact is, film can still have a higher "resolution" than digital cinemas are currently capable of - especially if we're talking about IMAX. If you've ever heard the term "LIEMAX" or "fake IMAX," that's what people are talking about. Real IMAX uses a significantly larger screen and 70mm film, rather than a retrofitted smaller screen and a digital projector.
I watched the first hour of Avatar before turning it over. How that film was nominated for anything but "it looks pretty" awards is beyond me, think the script was written by a 10 year old who had just had a western marathon. On the plus side I turned it over to watch Africa, David Attenborough's new wildlife programme and it reminded me why the BBC and the licence is awesome.
The transition to old man begins pretty young. I'm surprised if someone is not full blown old man by 30. The first sign is that they think they've finally figured shit out and understand the world. I too am victim to this.
I'd add a corollary that the person will not accept criticism of their perceived truth. Right now I think I've figured shit out, but Greg Circa One Year Ago thought that too, and his world got flipped on its head.
Expendables 2 - Expendables 1, with one more on the end. Interestingly enough, all the facts about Dolf Lungren's character throughout the movie are actually true facts about Dolf Lundgren. If the first one was a love letter to 80s and 90s action movies, this is the sexting afterward.
Dark Knight Rises - Watch all the Bane bits on youtube to laugh at silly voice, done and done.
Green Hornet - Not as bad as advertised. Doesn't make it good, though.
If the industry wants to make a big switch to 48fps, they have to change filmmaking practices to match. Filming something at 48fps with techniques that were meant for 24fps just makes things look jarring and unreal in a lot of cases.
For example, I personally thought a lot of the types of pans and camera movements in The Hobbit that would have looked smooth at 24fps due to motion blur looked jerky at 48 (no blur to hide little bumps in the movement of the frame). To hide something like that better, you need to use either more careful Stedicam work or different camera techniques altogether.
I will fully admit that points about movement at 48fps could only be perceptible to those who are very used to 24fps. The fact is, though, that a lot of people are used to 24fps, and to convince all those people to switch, you need to do something to make the change smoother for them.
Either way, the other point of contention is more universally perceived, and that's the issue of sets/props/costumes looking more fake at 48fps. You want your films to look crisper, clearer, and more true to life in all cases? Fine. But you'd better make sure your set dressing is up to snuff, or it's just going to look like someone filmed a very crisp, clear rendering of a stage play, complete with cheap wigs, plastic swords, and cardboard backdrops.
To quote one Mr. Film Crit Hulk:
IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK LIKE CINEMA. AND HULK'S NOT SOME PURIST. HULK PLAYS VIDEO GAMES. HULK USES HD TVS. HULK GETS THE CONCEPT AT PLAY HERE... BUT WITH CINEMA IT JUST DOESN'T LOOK RIGHT. "RESOLUTION" IS ACTUALLY MEANINGLESS WITH SOMETHING THAT OFTEN WANTS TO OBSCURE RESOLUTION IN PURSUIT OF SOFTNESS. AND NOW THE MOVEMENT LOOKS LIKE A SOAP OPERA, BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IS HOW IT GIVES THE SETS A PLASTICITY. THEY DON'T LOOK LIKE A WORLD, THEY LOOK LIKE SETS. THERE'S A RESULTING FALSENESS TO IT ALL AND THAT IS A HUGE PROBLEM. WHEN WE CHANGE THE WAY WE CAPTURE THE IMAGE SO MANY PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO AUGMENT WHAT IS BEING CAPTURED TOO. SO THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING 24 FPS WORLDS FOR 48 FPS VIEW AND IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.... SORRY FOR GOING ON LIKE THIS... HULK IS VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT IT.
I know, but I would still encourage people read FILM CRIT HULK in his native tongue. So long as it doesn't give them, like, legitimate headaches, anyway.
The transition to old man begins pretty young. I'm surprised if someone is not full blown old man by 30. The first sign is that they think they've finally figured shit out and understand the world. I too am victim to this.
I'm 36, and I hope I haven't quite become an old man yet. Admittedly, I'm sometimes skeptical about the "hot new thing," whatever that hot new thing may be, but I also can be convinced that it is an improvement over the "old thing" if given enough evidence.
Either way, the other point of contention is more universally perceived, and that's the issue of sets/props/costumes looking more fake at 48fps. You want your films to look crisper, clearer, and more true to life in all cases? Fine. But you'd better make sure your set dressing is up to snuff, or it's just going to look like someone filmed a very crisp, clear rendering of a stage play, complete with cheap wigs, plastic swords, and cardboard backdrops.
It'll definitely take time for the movie making world to fully get the techniques down pat for things to look good at 48fps. However, it's not like it's the first major technology shift in movie making and I'd argue it's probably not as drastic as some of the other ones. For example:
The "talkie": This is arguably the biggest technological shift -- the transition from silent movies to ones where the actors actually talk. This was a big deal back in the day as there were quite a few actors/actresses who looked good on film but had absolutely horrible speaking voices who therefore lost their jobs once talkies became the norm.
Color film: This is the next major shift, although it was blunted somewhat since black and white still stuck around for a while longer due to the early days of television. It's probably the closest analogue to the issues with 48fps as sets and such in the days of black and white just picked whatever color palette would give decent contrast on B&W film no matter how garish in color whereas they actually do need to be careful to make sure the colors look decent when doing a color shoot. Even then, in the early days they often picked bright garish colors for the sets and costumes anyway just to show off how awesome color movies were.
The shift from 4:3 to the current widescreen (I forget what the ratio is, other than it's somewhat wider than 16:9): Not as big a shift, but it did result in having to reframe things properly to look good at the wider aspect ratios.
Right now, we're probably still in the phase of 48fps that color films were in when Technicolor was invented. Some of the stuff looks stunning, but certain things are still somewhat jarring due to filmmakers not quite getting all the techniques that need to be improved upon to shoot at 48fps down pat yet. Give things a few years and filmmakers will figure everything out.
Also, just because 48fps will probably be the new normal in the next few years, it doesn't mean that the other techniques will go away. We still see the odd silent and black and white film every so often nowadays because the filmmaker had a legitimate artistic reason to shoot that way, despite the fact that we have had sound and color for ages. In the future, we'll probably still see the odd 24fps film with grain and all that, but only if the filmmaker has a legitimate artistic reason to go that route.
Liam Neeson Kills Dudes 2 is exactly what I wanted Liam Neeson Kills Dudes 2 to be. If you enjoyed Liam Neeson Kills Dudes 1 as much as I did, you will also enjoy Liam Neeson Kills Dudes 2.
Except for this one thing. An otherwise very satisfying scene in which Liam Neeson triangulates his own location was ruined by the fact that apparently nobody involved in the film understood the difference between circumference, radius, and diameter. This clip is edited down to be a bit more fast-paced and to-the-point than the scene in the film was, but you'll see the part that bothered me most:
He said diameter when radius would have been more useful once before in that scene, which I was willing to let go, but circumference? Ugh.
I'm willing to suspend my disbelief with regard to the laws of physics and biology, but the fact that the filmmakers don't know basic geometry is pretty frustrating.
Until the Light Takes Us is doc about Norwegian Black Metal, and specifically about the events surrounding Varg "Count Grishnackh" Vikernes and the band Burzum. Suicide, church burnings, racism, murder and cornflakes.
It basically lets these guys speak for themselves; no narrator, no ironic Lord Privy Seals, no long pauses to let something stupid they say sink in.
Which isn't to say these guys don't say stupid things. "Count Grishnackh", on his own, ends up resembling no one as much as Ed Norton's character from the black and white parts of American History X.
Recommended, especially if you enjoyed the Black Metal part of Metal: A Headbanger's Journey.
Until the Light Takes Us is doc about Norwegian Black Metal, and specifically about the events surrounding Varg "Count Grishnackh" Vikernes and the band Burzum. Suicide, church burnings, racism, murder and cornflakes.
It basically lets these guys speak for themselves; no narrator, no ironic Lord Privy Seals, no long pauses to let something stupid they say sink in.
Which isn't to say these guys don't say stupid things. "Count Grishnackh", on his own, ends up resembling no one as much as Ed Norton's character from the black and white parts of American History X.
Recommended, especially if you enjoyed the Black Metal part of Metal: A Headbanger's Journey.
There's actually an interesting bit that deals with Satanism basically getting Laughing Man'd into Black Metal, if Varg "Count Grishnackh" Vikernes is to be believed.
The Grey was pretty good. The ending was a bit surprising, but overall, I enjoyed the movie. I was a bit surprised that such a "mainstream" movie had such an athiest or anti-god message... or maybe it was just me reading too much into it.
Me and a few friends just spent all day watching the Lord of the Rings extended trilogy on blu ray. Those movies are fucking great and I also want to fucking die.
Hilariously awesome movie. Moon Nazis and President Palin were hilarious.
I can't bring myself to watch this because the teaser many years ago made me think it was going to be an awesome action movie. Watching the trailer and seeing how silly it turned out just doesn't feel right, and even if it's somehow good, it'll still rub me the wrong way.
Hilariously awesome movie. Moon Nazis and President Palin were hilarious.
I can't bring myself to watch this because the teaser many years ago made me think it was going to be an awesome action movie. Watching the trailer and seeing how silly it turned out just doesn't feel right, and even if it's somehow good, it'll still rub me the wrong way.
It were quite funny and enjoyable, for me at least. If you go into it expecting anything remotely serious then I don't know what to say. How can Moon Nazis be serious?
Note: I liked the new Dredd film, just to give you an idea of some of the kind of films I'll watch and like.
I watched ParaNorman this afternoon and holy crap, I loved just about everything in it. The movie looks absolutely amazing. It is definitely the best I have ever seen out of stop motion animation and the off-kilter look of everything really helps to sell the world. The voice performances are fantastic in that while they have some big name stars in it, they never over-power the role that they're in. They actually play the character rather than just playing themselves. The story was a touching story about a loner trying to find his place in the world and about how to not judge a book by it's cover (but with a number of wonderful throwbacks to old horror and grindhouse style films thrown in for good measure). The only drawback I had for the movie is that it didn't reach the same emotional level for me as Wreck-it Ralph, which had a similar story and message, but I definitely recommend that people check this movie out.
Also, there is some serious Silent Hill-esque shit in this movie and also one of the first openly gay characters in a movie aimed at families.
Just finished Frankenweenie and oh man, the feels. If you've ever lost a pet, you'll feel them.
The animation isn't as good as ParaNorman or the Pirates: in an Adventure with Scientists for the first half of the movie, but some of it I feel is probably intentional due to the fact that Tim Burton was trying to make it look like an old monster movie. This completely changes when the story goes way beyond what was shown in the trailers (which pretty much only includes the first 30 minutes of the movie) and it ends up being pretty fun and sometimes downright scary, with Victor's classmates trying to one-up his reanimation of Sparky by making their own creatures.
The music is typical Danny Elfman fare, but that's not really a bad thing. The voice acting (just like in ParaNorman) really surprised me, the big name stars were actually acting and I actually didn't even realise that Martin Short was in the movie until I looked up the cast. The child actors are also surprisingly good.
Also, the film definitely has a pro-science view point and blatantly calls people who don't believe in science ignorant and stupid.
I watched The Pixar Story today. Already in love with Pixar, this documentary did nothing more than make me respect them more. Leslie Iwerks (granddaughter of Disney co-founder Ub Iwerks) did a fantastic job with tracing Pixar's entire history from Cal Arts to the present.
To me, the great parts of this film were the never-before seen sneak peeks inside the offices of Pixar during regular workdays. You have people decorating their cubicles in all sorts of crazy ways (e.g. one lady had her office designed to look like a tribal tiki setting). Just watching the staff unleash their passion in story meetings and running amok throughout the hallways (e.g. two people rode clown bikes throughout the hallways and one shot the cameraman with Nerf guns) was a joy to see. Their unbridled creativity and emphasis on having fun during production of any of their films is very inspiring to behold.
It looks like one of the best places to work in the entire world and I truly envy anyone who is talented enough to get the opportunity to work there.
Comments
Expendables 2 - Expendables 1, with one more on the end. Interestingly enough, all the facts about Dolf Lungren's character throughout the movie are actually true facts about Dolf Lundgren. If the first one was a love letter to 80s and 90s action movies, this is the sexting afterward.
Dark Knight Rises - Watch all the Bane bits on youtube to laugh at silly voice, done and done.
Green Hornet - Not as bad as advertised. Doesn't make it good, though.
For example, I personally thought a lot of the types of pans and camera movements in The Hobbit that would have looked smooth at 24fps due to motion blur looked jerky at 48 (no blur to hide little bumps in the movement of the frame). To hide something like that better, you need to use either more careful Stedicam work or different camera techniques altogether.
I will fully admit that points about movement at 48fps could only be perceptible to those who are very used to 24fps. The fact is, though, that a lot of people are used to 24fps, and to convince all those people to switch, you need to do something to make the change smoother for them.
Either way, the other point of contention is more universally perceived, and that's the issue of sets/props/costumes looking more fake at 48fps. You want your films to look crisper, clearer, and more true to life in all cases? Fine. But you'd better make sure your set dressing is up to snuff, or it's just going to look like someone filmed a very crisp, clear rendering of a stage play, complete with cheap wigs, plastic swords, and cardboard backdrops.
To quote one Mr. Film Crit Hulk:
- The "talkie": This is arguably the biggest technological shift -- the transition from silent movies to ones where the actors actually talk. This was a big deal back in the day as there were quite a few actors/actresses who looked good on film but had absolutely horrible speaking voices who therefore lost their jobs once talkies became the norm.
- Color film: This is the next major shift, although it was blunted somewhat since black and white still stuck around for a while longer due to the early days of television. It's probably the closest analogue to the issues with 48fps as sets and such in the days of black and white just picked whatever color palette would give decent contrast on B&W film no matter how garish in color whereas they actually do need to be careful to make sure the colors look decent when doing a color shoot. Even then, in the early days they often picked bright garish colors for the sets and costumes anyway just to show off how awesome color movies were.
- The shift from 4:3 to the current widescreen (I forget what the ratio is, other than it's somewhat wider than 16:9): Not as big a shift, but it did result in having to reframe things properly to look good at the wider aspect ratios.
Right now, we're probably still in the phase of 48fps that color films were in when Technicolor was invented. Some of the stuff looks stunning, but certain things are still somewhat jarring due to filmmakers not quite getting all the techniques that need to be improved upon to shoot at 48fps down pat yet. Give things a few years and filmmakers will figure everything out.Also, just because 48fps will probably be the new normal in the next few years, it doesn't mean that the other techniques will go away. We still see the odd silent and black and white film every so often nowadays because the filmmaker had a legitimate artistic reason to shoot that way, despite the fact that we have had sound and color for ages. In the future, we'll probably still see the odd 24fps film with grain and all that, but only if the filmmaker has a legitimate artistic reason to go that route.
Except for this one thing. An otherwise very satisfying scene in which Liam Neeson triangulates his own location was ruined by the fact that apparently nobody involved in the film understood the difference between circumference, radius, and diameter. This clip is edited down to be a bit more fast-paced and to-the-point than the scene in the film was, but you'll see the part that bothered me most:
He said diameter when radius would have been more useful once before in that scene, which I was willing to let go, but circumference? Ugh.
I'm willing to suspend my disbelief with regard to the laws of physics and biology, but the fact that the filmmakers don't know basic geometry is pretty frustrating.
It basically lets these guys speak for themselves; no narrator, no ironic Lord Privy Seals, no long pauses to let something stupid they say sink in.
Which isn't to say these guys don't say stupid things. "Count Grishnackh", on his own, ends up resembling no one as much as Ed Norton's character from the black and white parts of American History X.
Recommended, especially if you enjoyed the Black Metal part of Metal: A Headbanger's Journey.
She is kind of my Hollywood crush you guys!
One girl and a cup
Note: I liked the new Dredd film, just to give you an idea of some of the kind of films I'll watch and like.
Also, there is some serious Silent Hill-esque shit in this movie and also one of the first openly gay characters in a movie aimed at families.
The animation isn't as good as ParaNorman or the Pirates: in an Adventure with Scientists for the first half of the movie, but some of it I feel is probably intentional due to the fact that Tim Burton was trying to make it look like an old monster movie. This completely changes when the story goes way beyond what was shown in the trailers (which pretty much only includes the first 30 minutes of the movie) and it ends up being pretty fun and sometimes downright scary, with Victor's classmates trying to one-up his reanimation of Sparky by making their own creatures.
The music is typical Danny Elfman fare, but that's not really a bad thing. The voice acting (just like in ParaNorman) really surprised me, the big name stars were actually acting and I actually didn't even realise that Martin Short was in the movie until I looked up the cast. The child actors are also surprisingly good.
Also, the film definitely has a pro-science view point and blatantly calls people who don't believe in science ignorant and stupid.
To me, the great parts of this film were the never-before seen sneak peeks inside the offices of Pixar during regular workdays. You have people decorating their cubicles in all sorts of crazy ways (e.g. one lady had her office designed to look like a tribal tiki setting). Just watching the staff unleash their passion in story meetings and running amok throughout the hallways (e.g. two people rode clown bikes throughout the hallways and one shot the cameraman with Nerf guns) was a joy to see. Their unbridled creativity and emphasis on having fun during production of any of their films is very inspiring to behold.
It looks like one of the best places to work in the entire world and I truly envy anyone who is talented enough to get the opportunity to work there.