Peter Jackson To ‘Hobbit’ Naysayers: Wait Until You See The Whole Movie
After less than glowing audience reaction to clips of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey screened in ultra-high-resolution at CinemaCon in Las Vegas, director Peter Jackson says “Nobody is going to stop. This technology is going to keep evolving.” But he hopes moviegovers will wait and judge the finished movie when it comes out December 14. Some observers at the CinemaCon presention thought the imagery shot and projected at 48 frames per second was too sharply different visually from the longtime industry standard of 24 frames per second. A three-time Oscar winner echoed Jackson’s observation. “I think we should let him finish it and see what it’s like then, but it seems a little like the look of a soap opera”. Jackson said he noticed that some in the audience seemed to like it more as the show went on. “I just wonder if they were getting into the dialogue, the characters and the story. That’s what happens in the movie. You settle into it.”
Related: ‘Hobbit’ Footage In New Format Draws Lukewarm Response
Oh I’ll be seeing it, Pete, it’ll just be in one of the theaters that is showing the 24p version.
You can take your TruMotion telenovela BS and stick it right back in the gimmick drawer next to Smell-o-Vision. Ten minutes of that garbage was enough for me.
People, please, when will you stop and realize that the perfect image is NOT what we’re all looking for! Why do you think we all love using ‘hipstamatic’ on our iPhones? Because it reminds of film! This quest for the clinical, see-every-pore-in-the-face image is a futile battle. It would be like saying to Monet: “Hey, Monet, these water lilies, man, I mean what were you thinking?” And Monet would reply “Er, I wasn’t thinking, actually, I was feeling”. Pretentious, moi? Maybe but I hope I’m not alone. I honestly believe that film ‘dreams’ because our minds fill in the gaps between the frames. WE do the imagining and that is why we’re transported.
I like your comment about Monet. But there is nothing wrong with an experiment. Most experiments fail. But who knows. Maybe this one will work.
Yes, experiments are essential, but this one, the one for the perfect image, has been going on for a long time and films are not actually getting any better. I would rather see experiments for the perfect screenplay, because that is what really makes a film great. I feel like our priorities are off. 3D and 48 fps can NEVER make up for a poor screenplay.
you’re right, even if this is a disaster (which I don’t think it will be)there will be some pretty interesting and noteworthy results.
I want to find a revival house screening of “The Tingler.” Now THAT’s art. Yup. M Hm.
I LOVED that movie! Yeah, it was cheesy, but sometimes a good cheese is just what you need.
The contrarian whining about the Hobbit footage is silly for two reasons. 1. He hasn’t finished the movie. The Lord of the Rings movies didn’t look in the finished product like they did in dailies. And 2. Filmmakers like Peter Jackson are who they are because they don’t let their creative impulse get mired in what’s comfortable or expected or what everybody else is doing.
Absolutely spot on. I wouldn’t bet against him!
We should be happy that someone is trying to make something new, an d he is not an unknown artis that will be seen by ten people, but a guy with a 550 milion budget, 20 years experience in tecnology and the possibility to have confrontation with the biggest maestro in the industry about what his doing.
You know who else was like that? George Lucas
I loved LOTR too, but this is not about Peter Jackson’s creative impulses, nor is it about the lack of comparability between dailies and finished product. Jackson has never said “I’m using 48fps because it will allow me to do things creatively in this movie I could not otherwise do.” No. He has made a film that can be shown on 24fps and non-3D if necessary, so clearly the framing of shots, the script, the sets, etc. are all very much influenced by his creative impulses irrespective of frame rate. Contrast LOTR and Avatar, where technology was essential to being able to tell the story. The fps issue is his inner geek having an orgasm about new technology, just like Cameron does. But the ten minutes shown at that screening were touted as the best possible use of the technology–it was designed specifically to convince exhibitors to spend money upgrading their projectors. And, it sucked. That extent of negative reaction from a room full of people who were probably super-excited about this new technology, and probably lovers of movies–well, that tells me it must have been pretty bad. Jackson’s response is simply a more dressed up version of his consistent line that the eye needs time to adjust. It strikes me as a rather alienating, defensive posture to take for the sake of a technology that is truly unnecessary, unlike sound, color, CG, some 3-D, etc.
to be fair, sound, color, CGI and 3-D were all called unnecessary and gimmicky at some point or another
No, they weren’t.
Sound was protested by the Vaudevillian actors who had up till then dominated the film industry. Studios and audiences welcomed the change.
No one was against color, except the smaller studios who couldn’t afford the new equipment.
CGI is only bemoaned when the effect could have been done better with models or actors, such as the vampires in “I am Legend,” which looked so goofy that they ruined the movie.
3D, well, 3D is obviously not the draw studios and TV manufacturers wanted it to be, and is a bad example as it has been less than successful. 3D movies that have performed well would have arguably done just as well in 2D, as ticket sales for 2D vs 3D showings of the same film will testify. Hugo is a great example of this, as is Green Lantern, as is any film in which critics comment “save yourself some money and see it in 2D, as the 3D does nothing.”
48p, on the other hand, is going to be wildly polarizing simply because the effect is so distracting to the casual film-goer as to risk ruining the experience entirely. I saw the test footage, and I’m advising my friends to see Hobbit in one of the theaters that is showing it in 24p, as it’s going to be too good a film to allow a gimmick like 48p to ruin.
Your understanding of film history is flawed. Go read some Bazin and Arnheim.
Buddy, you are being so ridiculously petty here. Go back to your barn and split some more hairs. CGI caused quite a stir – don’t kid yourself Einstein.
Have the utmost faith In jackson and his work. Naysayers as usual in this internet age; with their quick stupidity — as in assuming and passing judgement for all the whole truth, as in a finished movie, before it is finished — are just as irresponsible as ever before. Like those who hated tv during the radio era, before tv settled in and evolved. As those who felt the same about digital while analog still ruled. Keep the faith Pete. You proved the whiners wrong when you took on LORD OF THE RINGS…you’ll do it again.
Actually, I lost faith in Peter Jackson starting with Return of the King, when he claimed to be as “faithful to the book” as possible, and then added ghosts in Pelinor Fields and Gandalf beating Denethor with a staff.
My only response would be: If we’re supposed to wait until the finished film to judge it then why did Peter Jackson show a piece of it? He obviously did it to get a good reaction then, when it didn’t come, pulled out the “it’s not finished yet” excuse.
If it had done well he never would have said “Wait until it’s finished.”
If you had a chance to see a movie the way your eye sees life, why would you settle for putting a soft focus motion blur over everything. Thats what light burning celluloid at twenty four frames per second does to reality. The technology isn’t there yet to capture and depict reality as the eye sees it but it will be someday, and 48 fps is one step closer. You are in the movie business so support the innovators — your kids will thank you someday
I agree. I watched a videoblog reaction from a movie critic who wasn’t enthused about the 48 fps technology and then he said it was like watching the action through a window and that’s when I said “Wow! Bring it on.” I hope my theaters here show a 48 fps version.
Just a quick observation…..why wouldn’t you present the best thing possible….especially when it comes to new technology or things that people aren’t used to seeing….as the old saying goes….put your best foot forward
He BLEW IT in Las Vegas. Nice try Warner Bros– Wonder if they can talk PJ into throwing away half his precious frames and releasing the film 24P… The footage looks terrible. Worse than re-runs of “Guiding Light” on You Tube. It is shockingly bad
You obviously didn’t sit through “the unlovely bones”.
Go back to the frighteners pete…
Yes, bebe, because filmmakers like Jackson are just too big to fail, right?
Audience: “Sir, it looks like there are icebergs ahead”
Jackson: “Nobody is changing course, mates! Full steam ahead”
Jackson should thank God that 48fps is easily convertible back into 24fps, so the movie will do well in traditional theatres, but it will tank in 48fps.
Hopefully, this will send a message to the industry.