Taking The Movies Out of The Movies
Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at 8:44AM The Hollywood Reporter, in an article called IBC Wrap: “We Would Be Fools if We Didn’t Learn From ‘The Hobbit’”:
Audience reaction to Hollywood’s first high frame rate movie, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was decidedly mixed, but frame rates—along with higher resolution, laser light, immersive sound and second screen experiences were very much on the minds of digital cinema leaders last week at the International Broadcasters Convention.
Audiences didn’t like it, so let’s keep talking about it, and other crap that isn’t movies.
“The audience response might have been mixed, but there were many examples of audience numbers increasing because of the technology, and we could charge a premium for the experience,” [Phil Clapp, president of the International Union of Cinemas] said.
So apparently, what we’d be “fools if we didn’t learn from The Hobbit” is that we can charge more money for stuff people don’t actually like.
Exhibitors, here’s how to take more of my money: build more theaters like the ArcLight, where they show movies—just regular movies—and show them well, and charge me whatever you want for tickets.
Reader Comments (9)
Sigh...I can't wait until someone releases a HFR version of film with tons of hand held shot e.g Hunger Games and realizes how many more people will get horrible motion sickness. That's another unsold benefit of 24fps on large screens especially IMAX sized is that the lower temporal resolution is provide a bit of stabilization that makes a real difference on big screens.
The audience response might have been mixed, but there were many examples of audience numbers increasing because of the technology, and we could charge a premium for the experience
Of course, all those premium-price tickets were purchased by people curious about the technology and unsure if they would like it. Now they know they don't like it and probably won't pay for it again. Derp!
In a few months we'll see what the HFR audience looks like for HOBBIT 2: THE DRAGON STUFF. I'm betting we see at least a 40% drop off from last year, and I'm being conservative.
You've never held back with your opinion about / aversion to stereo and hfr. I appreciate that, and understand that nothing I'm going to say will make a difference, anyway, but I do want to offer a slightly different perspective. :)
I enjoy watching a good film. And if it's in stereo-3d, then I don't enjoy it any less, provided it's done well. Admittedly, stereo won't make a poorly written movie any better. Avatar, in my opinion, is the best example for that, because it delivers in spectacular ways on the technical level, while being cheap, cheesy and boring when it comes to characters and story.
Still, I don't think that stereo movies are inherently bad, and I don't think that every director doing a stereo movie is simply after our hard-earned cash.
Which brings us to the Hobbit. I watched it three times - in 3D, 3DHFR and in 2D. In my opinion, pretty much everything about the movie is overdone. Too many CG chases with impossible CG camera fly-overs, CG protagonists, CG antagonists and CG sets, too many side-stories told in waaay too much time. I was underwhelmed by it. Yes, also visually. But I don't blame that on HFR. Depth of field was shallow enough for me, and at least in stereo I didn't miss the motion blur. No, I blame it on the colour grading and art direction, mostly. A set doesn't look like a set just because you shoot more frames. Just imagine what that would do to slow motion shots. Seen many of those, and none looked especially TVesque... Sharpness and clarity come with resolution, not frame rate. The absence of any noticeable grain doesn't help, either.
But, that being said, I didn't enjoy the movie any better in 'mono'. However, I did find the 3DHFR version much easier on the eye and a pleasure to watch, compared to the standard frame rate stereo version.
I should bring this to a close, I guess, so here goes. :)
If stereo does nothing for you, then yeah, HFR can only seem a terrible idiocy that should never have left the lab. But for me, who enjoys the odd good stereo movie, HFR isn't a bad idea. So to me, stating "People hate it" seems a bit further from the truth than "There were mixed reactions". Just saying. :) There are those of us who like it. Or are warming to it.
Sorry for the long post, I had this on my mind for quite some time. :) I'll go back to work.
Best,
jules
and like Alamo Drafthouse
I think good movies are maybe a bit like good cocktails - at their best they have relatively simple ingredients, but each is quality and mixed with care. Display technologies like stereoscopic 3D and HFR aren't part of that list of necessary good ingredients, in the way that storytelling, editing, acting and photography are.
Hollywood's move to pushing tentpole stereo 3D films is like watching someone mix you a bad cocktail... A bucket sized, rainbow mess made with industrial liquor, stuffed with floating fruit, curly straws and a massive umbrella in an attempt to hide poor quality of the basic booze.
Adding HFR is like watching the waiter stick a lit sparkler in that bad cocktail before delivering it to your table wearing a comedy sombrero.
At IBC in Amsterdam I spoke to the chairman of the display group at EBU (European Broadcast Union) R&D engineer with the BBC. EBU has not formulated an official standpoint on 4K (the shows Buzz). He told me they are testing High Ress screens for the last 5 years, monitors and TV screens. They have found out that even on a Full HD screen the immage looks better with HFR and HDR. But equally so for 4K screens. HFR needs to be 120 fps or more not less.
Furthermore he told me that a Full HD immage on a 4K screen looks better as well as a 4K immage looks better than Full HD on a Full HD screen. If yo use a fast motion subject or a fast moving camera or a hand held camera, motion sickness might occur. (I remeber that, sitting in the front rows of the cinema when I was a kid) For the time being it would be better to skip 4K and move to 8K in stead in 10-15 years time or so. People watching broadcast transmissions will not benefit if they buy a 4K screen and if they keep the viewing distance the same as with their old Fulll HD screen of the same size. There is NO significant improvement. The improvement will come as soon as your screen is as large as your livingroom wall. So that means you benefit if you sit much closer to your normal size screen since there are no screens of that size. But then we have motion sickness again. Shooting in 4K or larger has its benefits of course, he said. The worst the DoP, the higher the K's I read somewhere.
EBU will promote HR+HFR+HDR=UHDTV.
Broadcasters in Europe have not finished migrating to HD completely. Most TV spectators still watch Half HD screens. Some broadcasters still shoot in SD! The marketing departments of the likes of Sony LG, Samsung are making overtime to push a useless resolution for broadcast. Cinema as I understand is not happy either when it comes to projection.
Just an ironic observation, no booth at IBC showed a 1920x1080 screen next to a 4K screen. Nasty! Were they afraid that we would not see the difference?
Thank goodness the chairman of the display group is here to save us from the terrible, terrible way that movies have looked for decades.
Two points I'd like to bring up...
1) Peter Jackson, James Cameron, Douglas Trumbull... These guys want to make and screen movies in HFR. All three of them have produced films in whole or in part with their own personal finances. So why so much hate for a director having a creative vision and going for it? They're not asking for all movies to be made this way, nor are they forcing other directors to do this. All they want is for the the opportunity to screen their films they way they were shot. I don't think anyone here has earned the right to criticize them. Not because you aren't better filmmakers, but because in their own creative endeavors, you don't get a say in the matter.
2) So the chairman of the display group actually sat down and did extensive user studies on how HFR and HDR and 4K looks in various combinations? Shouldn't we ENCOURAGE such study and validation? Most of the people complaining about HFR and HDR and 4K have NEVER ACTUALLY SEEN THEM.
I'm working on a 3D 120fps 4K show now, and I have to say, I was skeptical of the amount of work involved, but the results are pretty fantanstic. The HFR and 4K aren't significantly more work, other than slower I/O. Most of the labor is in the stereoscopic effects. So I say if a director has a desire to make HDR, HFR, 4K, Smell-O-Vision, Atmos, or whatever, don't knock it just because you don't want your films to have these features.
As I've mentioned, I don't ever suggest that a filmmaker shouldn't have the freedom to experiment with new techniques.
I am, however, free to not like the results.
But the chairman of the display group is engaging in classic more is more thinking, and that is simply the opposite of cinema.