3 ms·
"otherworldly" is just a nice word for "1920s technology". Getting closer to reality is a common thread in the arts. As soon as man had a way to move from one-
by Gring 14y ago
"otherworldly" is just a nice word for "1920s technology".
Getting closer to reality is a common thread in the arts. As soon as man had a way to move from one-color cave paintings to using colors, he started to use them.
This is the artistic expression that Peter Jackson is going for.
In one of the video blogs he said: "The result looks like where the screen was, there is now a hole in the wall, and beyond that is reality".
Imagine, instead of looking a film of Bilbo, you're transported right there into Middle-earth and it looks absolutely real. Wouldn't that be great? I'm very much looking forward to that experience.
- shock-value 14y agoYes you are right in a way that it looks more "real". But real in the sense that you are acutely aware that it is a staged production when viewing it. The author of this article directly addresses this when he says just that, and also notes that it looks like a behind the scenes featurette. I have not seen footage from The Hobbit but I have worked with other dramatic content at high frame rates and I know exactly what the author is describing. It's really gonna bug people if they really do release at 48fps.
- Gring 14y agoI've seen several Showscan films, and I loved them. I think the biggest problem is acting. 24fps lays a veneer of "movie look" over all performances. With higher framerates, actors can no longer count on that. They have to sell it much more, like in a theatre, but with large screen closeups projected on a 20 meter screen. In a way, it's a new challenge actors never had before. It will be interesting to see whether there are indeed performance differences among the Hobbit actors.