With the holiday season in full force it's time for the final push of Hollywood blockbuster releases before the new year. For many people this means that the movie they've been waiting years for is finally about to hit theaters; The Hobbit is almost here folks. Fans have eagerly been awaiting the prequel films to Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy, based on the books of the same name from J.R.R. Tolkien. These films were slow to get going, even losing Guillermo Del Toro as a director because of roadblocks on the way to production. For better or for worse, Jackson took the director's chair once again and the product is about to begin rolling nationwide. However, this film means more than just more money in Jackson's bank account and more time spent in dark rooms for fanboys everywhere. This film marks a potential shift in how movies are filmed, which is a topic of debate among viewers.
Traditionally movies have been filmed at a rate of 24 fps, but Jackson's Hobbit was framed at double that. This translates into greater clarity on film, and, according to Jackson, should help prevent people from getting sick from 3D movies. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be the case. When a sneak preview was shown at CinemaCon attendees complained that it looked like HD video, and at the premieres people have been complaining of feeling motion sick and getting migraines. Jackson has shrugged off these complaints, and other Hollywoodites, including star Ian McKellen and director Bryan Singer are praising the technology and the realism it brings to the viewing experience. It should be noted that this technology is far from new, and you can read up on the history of high frame rates here. While cost seemed to be the major roadblock to using this new technology, I have to ask: why do we need it?
Since Blu-Ray hit the scene in 2006 we've seen a similar shift to when DVDs took over from VHS: people are buying more of the new technology and replacing the old with the new. I remember throwing out VHS tapes and buying the same titles on DVD as a kid, and I've done the same thing with some of my DVDs since Blu-Ray came out (try Blade Runner on Blu-Ray, you won't be sorry). Unlike with the advent of DVDs, however, I've had to decide whether I want to see certain titles in high def. Television series like Firefly and Alphas would be awesome on Blu-Ray, but do I really want to see Battlestar Gallactica in that sort of realism? I decided no, because it would change the feeling of the show; the graininess adds to the quality of the viewing experience, rather than detracting. Do I need to see How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days in Blu-Ray? Hell no! But would Joss Whedon's Avengers be better on Blu-Ray? Damn skippy!
Unfortunately, when it comes to movie-going we may not have choices like this for much longer. Currently theaters are selecting what frame rate they'll show the movies at, and we as movie-goers can decide between 2D and 3D showings, but I fear that directors who think they know best will start stripping us of our ability to choose. James Cameron is on board the high-fps train, opting for a similar film rate for his Avatar sequel, and I have no doubt that others will follow. It would be better if this experimental film technique were being used for a less popular movie release, because then people would be less biased to think it's spectacular. One of the premiere attendees was quoted as saying he "left loving the movie but feeling sick." What's likely to stick with him and other fans is the fact that they loved the movie, which means they'll likely see other movies at 48 fps or higher. This may cause some movie-goers to feel ostracized from attending movies because they feel sick, like some do now with 3D.
Directors are praising the technology, saying it adds more realism to the film, but I ask this: do you go to the movies because you want them to feel real? The Hurt Locker would have been unbearably realistic if it was filmed like that, and that was an Oscar-winning film. Some directors, like TRON: Legacy's Joseph Kosinski understand that there is a place for this technology, but there are also times to hold back, opting to use standard frame rates in his upcoming film Oblivion. But how many directors will do that, and for how long? I'm an avid theater patron, and love the whole experience, but I don't want to leave movies feeling sick. I remember leaving The Bourne Ultimatum nauseous because of the hand-held work. I can imagine not being visibly sick if that had been filmed in a more realistic way; it would have been like an oddly uncomfortable vacation movie (of the worst vacation EVER, mind you).
One benefit to this new film technique: they can stop using these fancy cameras and just give all their actors GoPro cameras which have 48 fps and 1080p video capabilities, and it's all digital. Plus you can get a 3D set-up. Maybe that's their plan. . .
Regardless, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (the first in The Hobbit film trilogy) hit theaters December 14th. Find out if any theaters near you are showing it at 48 fps and decide for yourself.
No comments:
Post a Comment